Chris Anderson's The Scandal of Schism: An Overview by Dr. David Beale

Introduction: Basic Facts to Know Before Reading this Book

      

Dr. David Beale

    Mainline Fundamentalism originated in the northern states. The editor of the Baptist periodical Watchman-Examiner coined the term Fundamentalist in 1920 to describe a group of concerned Baptists who had just met at the Delaware Avenue Baptist Church in Buffalo, New York, to discuss the problem of Modernism in the Northern Baptist Convention.

    New Evangelicalism is the religious mood or attitude that repudiates Fundamentalism’s doctrine of separation from false teachers and advocates theological dialogue with Modernism and greater social involvement. Harold J. Ockenga coined the term New Evangelical in 1948 when he described the movement as a “new breed.”

    By the late 1940s and early 1950s, Fundamentalists began to see the broad umbrella of Evangelicalism emerging distinctly into a New Evangelical movement. Evangelicalism committed to regaining respectability in the eyes of the religious world, even if that meant joining liberals in ecumenical campaigns. By the late 1950s Billy Graham had clearly emerged as the evangelist of New Evangelical. Fundamentalism was now growing and changing in emphasis. They were compelled to practice purity by separating not only from liberal churches and schools, but also from disobedient brethren who preferred to identify with false teachers under broad umbrellas. Many Fundamentalists came to the conviction that with the enemy in the camp, they must separate from evangelical ministries. To separate from the broad Evangelical movement was to renounce “Early Fundamentalism” and embrace “Separatist Fundamentalism.” Fundamentalism had fully changed! But separation is not “secondary.” Sin is sin! Practicing disobedience is sin, whatever or whoever commits it.

    At the 1938 General Association of Regular Baptist Churches meeting at Waterloo, Iowa, the GARBC abolished dual membership and set forth biblical separation. From that time on, separation from all Northern Baptist Convention churches would be the official practice in the GARBC. That was Separatist Fundamentalism.

    By 1967, The New Testament Association of Baptist Churches (NTA) and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) had become completely Separatist Fundamentalists. See: “Shift from Early Fundamentalism to Separatist Fundamentalism,” in David Beale, Baptist History in England and America: Personalities, Positions, and Practices (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press, 2018), 434-47.

    The explicit teaching of passages such as Matthew 18:15–18; 1 Corinthians 5:1–13; and 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14–15 compelled separatist Fundamentalists to withdraw from New Evangelical ministries. Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy, with conservative sounding rhetoric, lured New Evangelicals directly into cooperation with unbelief. By the mid-1960s, the “Broad” Evangelical movement had almost completely gained control of the Bible colleges and seminaries.

Separatist Fundamentalism: The Standard of Charles H. Spurgeon

    On October 28, 1887, Charles H. Spurgeon registered the official withdrawal of the Metropolitan Tabernacle from the Baptist Union, which was filled with unbelief. Some Union churches, belief in doctrine, refused to separate from Union churches. They remained and identified themselves under the same umbrella as unbelief. Today, there are SBC churches who are belief in doctrine, but under the same umbrella with unbelief. Their identity is unbelief. Chris Anderson would urge any godly Christian to join anything in the Southern Baptist Convention. He says there is nothing to worry about it.

    On the Lord’s-Day morning of October 7, 1888, at Metropolitan Tabernacle pulpit, Charles H. Spurgeon preached his Sermon No. 2047, titled “No Compromise.” Spurgeon, clearly seeking to remain his calling and conscience, explained to his large congregation the biblical meaning of separation—in view of the Judgment Seat of Christ: “When I go back to my Master, if I have faithfully told out His message of free grace and dying love, I shall be clear. I have often prayed that I might be able to ... say: ‘I am clear, I am clear!’ that I might not stultify [invalidate] my testimony, I have cut myself clear of those who err from the faith, and even from those who associate with them. What more can I do to be honest with you?” Spurgeon pleads to his flock: “Clear me in that day of all complicity with the novel inventions [schemes] of deluded men. As for my Lord, I pray of Him grace to be faithful to the end, both to His truth, and to your souls. Amen.” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (1889; repr., London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), 34:564 (34:553–64). “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 1:10-11). Spurgeon was a biblical, Separatist Fundamentalist.

    Unlike Spurgeon in his day, Chris Anderson teaches to separate (breakaway) from biblical Fundamentalism and go into Broad Evangelicalism. Note Anderson’s title: The Scandal of Schism: A Journey from Sinful Division to Biblical Fidelity. His title would mean that Spurgeon’s separation (schism) was a journey on sinful division (scandal). Anderson has written a shallow book with serious mistakes to pull Christians away from biblical Fundamentalism and into Broad Evangelicalism.

    In March 1891, Spurgeon wrote these words to a friend regarding the Downgrade Controversy, “Good-by, you will never see me again; this fight is killing me.” During April 1891, the “fatal illness commenced,” (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography 1856–1878, vol. 3 (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1899, 152). Soon, at the Pastor’s College Conference, Spurgeon delivered his “final manifesto,” a powerful message titled “The Greatest Fight in the World.” His text was 1 Timothy 6:12, “Fight the good fight of faith,” published in The Sword and the Trowel 27 (August 1891). The sermon also appeared the following year as Charles H. Spurgeon, The Greatest Fight in the World (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1892). Fundamentalists fight because they love their people and biblical truth.

The 1985 SBC Dallas Convention Center in Texas

  

On June 10, 1985, I [David Beale] went to Dallas with boxes of my book, S.B.C. House on the Sand (1985). W. A. Criswell, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, had arranged for Judge Paul Pressler and me to a one-hour debate on the topic, “Believers staying or leaving liberal SBC churches, or believers cutting off fellowship from those believers remaining in SBC churches, etc.”

    The next few days, June 11-13, 1985, marked the largest annual SBC Convention in Baptist history, which occurred at the Dallas Convention Center in Texas. They drew over 45,000 messengers. Nearby, Brothers and Nobles placed boxes of S.B.C. House on the Sand on their sidewalk tables. Chris Anderson claims that those who remained in their SBC churches were “maligned” by S.B.C. House on the Sand, with Beale “an example.” Anderson adds, “Our SBC brothers fighting error from within should have been prayed for and encouraged.” My prayers and encouragement were for Bible believing Fundamentalist churches. Anderson said that the “call for conservatives to leave the SBC would have precluded the successful conservative resurgence which began in 1979 and purged SBC seminaries of liberalism.” (pages 72-73 and footnote 70). Anderson is totally wrong. The SBC has never seen a “successful conservative resurgence.” Even Judge Pressler in his book, A Hill on Which to Die, placed a chapter on “How the Liberals Fought the Battle.” Moreover, New Calvinism (Reformed Theology) has been as poisonous as the liberals.

The Fall of the Conservative Resurgence

    Dr. J. Gerald Harris, over more than forty years, has served as SBC pastors in North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia. He has served as editor of The Christian Index, and he has served as president of the Georgia Baptist Convention. Dr. Harris has recently authored the book, The Rise and Fall of the Conservative Resurgence (2021). On page 64, Harris writes, “When Southern Baptists became secure in their glorious victory in the Conservative Resurgence, the god of this world began to explore ways to once again cripple the greatest evangelistic and missionary force in the world. Remember, the devil never contends for anything that is without value; and I am sure he has crafted a myriad of conspiracies for the dismemberment and destruction of the Southern Baptist Convention.”

    One of the conspiracies is that the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis rejected a proposed ban on churches with female pastors. It was reported that there are about 1,800 women pastors working in the denomination. See Associated Press, 12:24 PM EDT, Wed. June 12, 2024. A perennial joke that SBC pastors tell at meetings is: “If the Convention splits, I'm going with the Annuity Board!”

John Piper: A Neo-Calvinist Spokesman

    Chris Anderson, in pages 29, 47, 68, 85, 101, 164, and 192, tells his readers that John Piper’s books are among the best for God’s people to read. Let us look at Piper’s book, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God's Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (Crossway, 2000), 40-74. Piper thinks he has found, “The Liberating Power of Holy Pleasure in the Life and Thought of St. Augustine.” Piper insists that “Signs and wonders” and all the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 are valid for today and should be “earnestly desired.” He says, “Prophecy and tongues will continue until Jesus comes.” He declares, Christians must be “seeking this greater fullness of God’s power today,” even “extraordinary signs and wonders.” In Piper’s article, Signs and Wonders: Then and Now, he writes as the Third Wave. See:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/signs-and-wonders-then-and-now

    To millions of Christians, John Piper has insisted that they could find sovereign joy and God’s triumphant grace in the life of Augustine (354-430). Let us look at a few of Augustine’s doctrines and practices:

        *He wanted the apocrypha to be in the Bible. See: City of God, Book 18, Chapter 42 and On Christian Doctrine 2:8.12-13.

        *He confused justification with sanctification, “being made righteous.” Source: Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 23-34.

        *He taught that an Old Testament circumcisional regeneration transferred its efficacy into a New Testament baptismal regeneration. See: City of God, 6.26–27; Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope, and Love 43; cf. 93; Sermon 294; and On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism 1.27.

        *He taught baptismal regeneration (John 3:5) and damnation of all unbaptized children. See: Epistle 98—To Boniface; Treatise against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5; Sermon 98 section 2; On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and On the Baptism of Infants 1:24, 34, 39.

        *He taught that conversion is a lifetime process, with no possibility of assurance of salvation. See: On Rebuke and Grace 5. 10, 17, 18,22; and On the Gift of Perseverance 5.1.

        *He taught signs and wonders – dreams, miracles, relics, and prayers to martyrs. See: City of God, book 22, chapter 8.

Chris Anderson attempts, Timothy Keller's book, How to Attain Humility

    Donald Arthur (D. A.) Carson (b. 1946) and Timothy J. Keller (1950–2023) were founders of The Gospel Coalition. Carson is Emeritus Professor of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago. Keller was senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Manhattan, New York, NY. At a Gospel Coalition Conference in 2017, Timothy Keller stated that he had now added two new positions to his ministry: The ordination of women and the ordination of the LGBT. Seven years later, Chris Anderson. on page 59, attempts, with Timothy Keller’s book, how to attain humility See The Christian Post, Wednesday, April 12, 2017, Michael Gryboski, church editor.

Free Masonry and the SBC: Overview of the Issue

    At the June 1992 Southern Baptist annual conference, an unsuccessful attempt was made by a minority of representatives to root Freemasonry out of the Convention. The Home Mission Board was assigned the task of preparing a report, but the chairman of the Board, Ron Phillips, displayed his prejudice when he stated that he did not agree with the conclusion that Masonry is incompatible with Christianity and that he knew many “dedicated Christian men” who are Masons (Christian News, March 15, 1993). 

    It quickly became obvious that the Southern Baptist Convention was more concerned about retaining members and with maintaining harmony than with dealing with false gospels. The editor of an official state paper, The Indiana Baptist for March 16, 1993, reported “fearing the loss of three million members.” The SBC Home Mission Board reported that it would be to each individual Southern Baptists whether to join the secret society. The report documented Freemasonry’s anti-Christian doctrine that many Grand Lodges do not declare Jesus as the unique Son of God; the offensive rituals and “bloody oaths”; “implications that salvation may be obtained by one’s good works”; the heresy of universalism; pagan religions are studied in higher degrees. Despite all this, the study recommended leaving the decision to the individual member.

    At the June 1993 convention in Houston, Texas, the Southern Baptist representatives decided to accept the Mission Board report’s recommendation and leave the matter of Masonic membership to the consciences of individuals.

    

    The Southern Baptist Convention has long been tied in closely with Freemasonry despite its clear pagan beliefs and false gospel. The Scottish Rite Journal in February 1993 stated that “Masons believe in the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man...” In the 1990s, 14 percent of SBC pastors and 18 percent of deacons were Masons (Calvary Contender, June 1, 1993). We don’t know the statistics today, but Freemasonry remains well entrenched. In 1992, an attempt to root Freemasonry out of the Convention failed decidedly. The chairman of the Home Mission Board, Ron Phillips, stated that he did not agree with the conclusion that Masonry is incompatible with Christianity and that

he knew many “dedicated Christian men” who are Masons (Christian News, March 15, 1993). It quickly became obvious that the Southern Baptist Convention was more concerned with retaining members and maintaining harmony than in dealing with false gospels and spiritual compromise. Southern Baptist physician Dr. James Holly, who led the attempt to root out Freemasonry, said, “Southern Baptists have become the first Christian denomination that essentially blesses the Masonic Lodge” (Christian News, Dec. 20, 1993).

    The author of the Home Mission Board report, Gary Leazer, joined the Masons a couple of years later. See Gary H. Leazer, Fundamentalism & Freemasonry: The Southern Baptist Investigation of the Fraternal Order (New York: A & B Publishers Group, 2000).

James L. Holly, The Southern Baptist Convention and Freemasonry, 3 vols. Beaumont, TX: Mission and Ministry to Men, 1994. See- https://pulpitandpen.org/series/freemasonry/

Singing Popular LGBTQ Anthems

    Church by the Glades, in Coral Springs, Florida, is a Southern Baptist Convention church and in their directory. The Dissenter, April 15, 2024, “SBC Megachurch Starts New Sermon Series on ‘Family’ by Worshiping to Popular LGBTQ Anthem by Sister Sledge.”

David Hughes, the president and CEO of Church by the Glades in Coral Springs, Florida, has successfully turned the organization into a highly profitable carnival act. Rather than providing spiritual sustenance through the gospel, Hughes is preoccupied with putting on a spectacle. Week after week, we have reported that this church, which remains in fellowship with the Southern Baptist Convention and the powers that be, blasphemes God with its worldly performances and secular music. This past weekend, Church by the Glades opens a new sermon series on ‘Family’ by worshiping to a popular anthem that is used to open the vast majority of ‘pride’ festivals around the nation. According to one article in Rhino, the band Sister Sledge openly embraced the fact that their song had become such a popular LGBTQ anthem. ‘When Joni Sledge died in 2017, the website TheOutFront.com opened their obit of the singer by saying, ‘Every gay man who’s ever been on a dance floor or attended a Pride Parade knows the words to ‘We Are Family’. In fact, it’s practically required for getting one’s official Gay Card.

Conclusion:

Chris Anderson has written a shallow book with serious mistakes to pull Christians away from biblical Fundamentalism and into Broad Evangelicalism.

    Some preach the gospel and say that identification is non-essential. They say, “Associations are non-essential.” That is a path that God forbids. Indifference is dangerous! “Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares” (Jude 3-4a). We are defined by those with whom we are affiliated. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.... After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28-31).

    We must never entangle the message of the gospel with man-made organizations and institutions that harbor false gospels. This seriously applies to our personal condition when we stand before Christ. Identification within Broad Evangelicalism lends constant credibility to false teachers who preach another gospel. “For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 1:10-11). Our view of Christ or His gospel will determine our associations: “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward” (2 John 8).

It is better to be divided in truth, than united in unbelief!

Related Reading by Dr. Beale:

FACTS: An Enlarged Discussion

Chris Anderson's Book Reviewed by George Zeller

“Another Look at the New Evangelicalism,” by Dr. George Houghton

 At Brother George Zeller’s site I perused his series on Understanding New (neo) Evangelicalism with multiple submissions under that heading. Among the submissions is an article Brother Zeller includes written by Dr. George G. Houghton, Th.D. (Senior Professor, Faith Baptist Bible College), which appears under the sub-heading, 4) New Evangelicalism in the Twenty-First Century. I will reproduce Dr. Houghton’s 2002 article without editing.

As you read, however, see how many of the trends Dr. Houghton notes you can identify as evident and in some cases more pervasive today among the so-called “conservative” evangelicals than they were in the years since this article’s original publication (2002). Trends such as: CCM, ecumenism, challenges to a young earth creationism and Charismatic theology. See if you can, furthermore, recognize how many of these disturbing trends, identified by Dr. Houghton, or the openness to and tolerance of these trends have made their way into Fundamentalist circles particularly among the so-called “Young” Fundamentalists, aka., the “Emerging Middle.” See if you can recognize what Dr. Ernest Pickering warned of in The Tragedy of Compromise,* which is the “new” wave New Evangelicalism making inroads into Fundamentalist circles. This trend is due in large part due to an unchecked affinity, among certain men in fundamental circles, for the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism, and their aversion to the biblical mandates for separation. Those trends crept into Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, Tennessee Temple, Clearwater Christian College and Northland International University, which contributed to the closure of them all. Those trends (and more) that contributed to those schools closing are strongly in evidence at Bob Jones University, especially having escalated during Steve Pettit's tenure at president.


The following is excerpted from Dr. George Houghton's article entitled, “Another Look at the New Evangelicalism” (Faith Pulpit, May/June 2002, a Faith Baptist Theological Seminary publication)

Today, as we are now in the twenty-first century, and a few generations separate us from the beginnings of the new evangelicalism, there are some from within fundamentalist circles who are saying, “New evangelicalism was at one time a reality, but today it is non-existent (or at least, not a formidable foe any longer).” Is this really accurate? The answer to that is an emphatic, “No!” The issue is not the term “new evangelicalism.” Terms come and go. The question is, “Are the issues and attitudes raised by the new evangelicalism gone?” And, again, the answer is an emphatic “No!”

This is seen today in several areas.

(1) The rapid rise of the church marketing movement from the early 1990s to the present with its emphasis upon relationships and experience, drama and contemporary music, to reach and hold people. The Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, has a Willow Creek Association of many other churches (into the hundreds) which are following the Willow Creek model.

(2) The positive response of evangelicals to the programs and ministry of Robert Schuller and his Crystal Cathedral.

(3) The broad acceptance (or at least toleration) of the Contemporary Christian Music movement and rejection of fundamentalism’s personal separation standards, so that Charisma magazine (April 1997, 26ff.) could write that “British Christians Use Techno-Dance to Reach Youth.” Their article talked about alternative worship services, evangelistic night clubs and “a revolutionary Christian dance movement.” In describing this, the article said “strobe lighting, smoke effects, DJs, dancers, Celtic music and tribal rhythms were served up for this worship feast. The trend can be found everywhere.”

(4) The influence of the apologetic writings and lecturing of Dr. Hugh Ross, who teaches that the earth is billions of years old, and began with a “big bang,” that death and degeneration existed in the beginning and have continued for billions of years, and that neither the fall to sin nor the flood resulted in significant physical changes in nature.

(5) The positive attitude of many evangelicals toward the charismatic movement, especially as it is seen in the signs-and-wonders movement.

(6) The acceptance of religious teachers and institutions which have not held the line on belief in eternal punishment. Fuller Seminary modified its doctrinal statement in this area, and individuals like Clark Pinnock have opened the door to people hearing the gospel after death and having a chance to respond positively, or hell being viewed as annihilation.

(7) The hearing being given in evangelical circles to “the openness of God” concept which rejects His absolute foreknowledge, among other things.

(8) The toleration by some evangelicals—especially in academic settings—of deviant sexual lifestyles, particularly homosexuality.

(9) The willingness of evangelical publishers to publish works which allow for aspects of higher critical views of the Bible, including redaction criticism, in interpreting the life of Christ in the Gospel accounts.

(10) The broad acceptance of the Promise-Keepers movement, even though it tolerates working with Roman Catholics and has strong charismatic overtones.

(11) The willingness of major evangelical leaders to sign their names to the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document, and still others to sign the later statement entitled “The Gift of Salvation.” While recognizing traditional differences (including sacramentalism), there is the willingness to call each other “brothers in Christ.”

(12) The belief by some evangelicals that the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, is an evangelical.

If those attitudes and issues do not seem to be of such concern today, it is only because the new evangelical position has become mainstreamed into many Bible-believing circles to the extent that speaking against them puts one in a rather small minority. Issues such as ecumenical evangelism are still very significant today, but we hear little about them because many whose voices might at one time have spoken out in opposition have been quieted by a changed or at least a relaxed position. The new evangelical attitude has become so prevalent that one may be tempted to tolerate it as inevitable and normal.

Although addressing doctrinal and positional issues is not all that Christian leaders should be doing, it is one such important thing (note Paul's admonition to the Christian leaders in Ephesus [Acts 20:25 -31] and Jude's comments in his brief letter [Jude 3-5, 7-21]). Specific terms and titles may change, but there are always those from without and from within about whom the warning alarm needs to be sounded. This is biblical militancy. The issues and attitudes expressed by leaders within the new evangelicalism over the last 50 years are still important enough for biblical fundamentalists to address today. God's people must be informed and educated; they need to know where we as contemporary Christian leaders stand on these very significant topics. (bold added)

(Originally appeared March, 2010 & June 2014)

Editor’s Note:
The final two paragraphs by Dr. Houghton predates and likewise warns against what we have read from Dr. Peter Masters in his June 2009 article The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness. “The ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked” in regard to the disturbing trends of the conservative evangelicals. Today we are witnessing among some elder self-described separatists in Fundamentalist circles the loss of biblical militancy to the harm of the cause of Christ.

*See, Are We Recognizing the "New" New Evangelicalism? For example,

The basic problem is this: Many fundamentalists, when speaking of the New Evangelicalism, are referring to the original positions and writings of the early founders of New Evangelicalism such as Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga. They repudiate heartily the thoughts of these earlier leaders, but either in ignorance or willingly they fail to recognize the updated version, the “new” New Evangelicalism. It is always safer to berate the teachings of those historically farther removed than of those who are currently afflicting the church. (Dr. Ernest Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise, p. 159)

Archival Series- Transitional Fundamentalism

 There are many non-negotiables for New Testament believers. Most certainly the fundamentals of the faith are never open for dialogue or debate. Even those who are currently in transition away from the Fundamentalism of the past admit that there are some issues upon which there can be no compromise without departing from the Word of God. The emphasis of Scripture for believers is not upon change but upon stability.

Dr. Milton Jones

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.  

1 Peter 5:8, 9 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. 

Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  

Colossians 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.

We are continuously warned to be aware of the temptation to compromise and accommodate the ever present pressure to change.

2 Peter 3:11-18 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. 

Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

This is not to suggest that Biblical faith is static. Quite the contrary, it is very dynamic! This dynamic however does not lie in finding ways to be flexible with truth in order to fit a changing culture. The dynamic of Biblical faith lies in its unchangeableness and eternal power to confront the culture demanding a submissive response. In other words, Biblical Christianity is not about making the Bible fit the culture; it is about calling upon people in the culture to submit to the authority of Scripture.

The Winds of Change

There is a sense in which people have always been in motion away from Biblical faith. It is the result of the strong vacuum pull of unbelief. In the 1970’s and early 1980’s Fundamentalism saw a significant defection centered in Lynchburg, Virginia and spreading through the sphere of influence dominated by Jerry Falwell. At that time those who were in motion were called “Pseudo-Fundamentalists” and then “embryonic New Evangelicals.” Those who shifted during that time frame have now arrived as full-fledged New Evangelicals. Then as now, decisions were made, sides were chosen, and separations in fellowship followed.

Rather than trying to coin a phrase to describe what has been going on in Fundamentalism over the last number of years, we would serve a better purpose by simply referring to those who are in motion as Transitional Fundamentalists. The very word “transition” indicates movement. Motion is not inherently evil. Walking with God (Genesis 5:22, 24) implies motion. The real question has to do with direction. In what direction are the feet of Transitional Fundamentalists pointed?

One of the spokesmen for those in transition has called for a “radical center” in which conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists in transition can find a home.1 The vision articulated indicates that Conservative Evangelicals are moving to the right and certain fundamentalists which the author characterizes as “mainstream” are moving to the left to meet in the “radical center.”

The problem with that model is the reality that Conservative Evangelicals are not moving at all. While they have become more vocal in decrying the radical shift to the left within the evangelical world, conservatives within that world stand exactly where the movement has stood since its inception. The only people who are actually moving are the Transitional Fundamentalists. There really is no “radical center.”

The New Direction

The evidence of movement toward New Evangelicalism is found in the very spirit of accommodation that has long characterized that movement. There is little question that many from the fundamentalist camp have embraced various forms of Contemporary Christian Music. Some have attempted to alter the scores from Sovereign Grace Music in order to utilize the lyrics. Others have succumbed to the sirenic allurement of new sounds. Others are responding to consumer demand for music that emulates that which the world produces. As controversial as music issues often are, the direction in which the musical feet are pointed have historically been telling of where the theological feet will soon follow.

Another characteristic of this movement is the increasingly casual atmosphere created in previously fundamental ministries. No real fundamentalist insists upon a dead somber approach to the worship of God; but neither is he looking to soften edges by dressing casually for church or opting for entertaining environments. A tuxedo is hardly required for the pulpit but a reasonable suit and tie would be nice. The attire is not the issue; the attitude is the issue.

In no area is the fact of transition more apparent than the willingness to closely associate with the Scripturally disobedient.

Increasingly there is “pulpit swap” between Conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalist ministries. In that process the evangelical is promoted and the resolute Fundamentalist is vilified. Every pastor of an autonomous church is free to bring whomever he will to his pulpit but he must realize that in the choices he makes he is also authenticating the position of every guest speaker. A willingness to become participants in the Together for the Gospel and Gospel Coalition movements are clear indications of a change in method as well as direction.

Fundamentalists do not have anything theologically that New Evangelicals want or think that they need. They want access to our people, institutions, and finances to be utilized for purposes other than those for which they were established.

Why are They Moving?

It must also be recognized that the nuclear glue for the new coalition that is forming is undoubtedly Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology with its covenant perspectives, open church membership, and increasingly radical Calvinism is the new impetus for a new brand of ecumenism. As surely as the foundation of New Evangelicalism found its roots in men from the Reformed Tradition, so is the appeal to Transitional Fundamentalists. The show of intellect and evident scholarship has captured a generation of younger preachers. There have always been Calvinists in the Fundamentalist Movement but their Calvinism has never been the cause. The greatest case in point was C. H. Spurgeon. In the last great battle of his life, the Downgrade Controversy, he demonstrated that fidelity to truth superseded his personal understanding of the mechanics of soteriology. It is not accidental that concurrent with the approachment of evangelicalism by those in transition from Fundamentalism there has been an acceptance of the Reformation Bible (ESV) on a broad scale.

Whatever your position on textual issues, it is a plain fact that this reworking of the old liberal Revised Standard Version has been designed to be the Bible of a renewal of Reformed Theology.

It is incredibly sad that we learn so very little from history. There has never been a more stridently Calvinistic pastor than John Gill in the eighteenth century. It is most revealing that charges of antinomianism were levied against those who were associated with him. Antinomianism refers to a rejection of rules of conduct. It is strange that a theology that purports to honor the majesty and holiness of God should be guilty of worldliness to excess.

It is very much a part of the Transitional Fundamentalist mindset to raise debate about issues that have been long settled in the hearts of godly people.

Fundamentalists have long believed in personal separation as well as ecclesiastical separation. This translates to a rejection of the use of alcohol as a beverage as well as other overtly worldly practices. Standards of modesty and conduct are as Biblical as the major doctrines. Increasingly Transitional Fundamentalists dismiss such discussions as irrelevant and characterized them as the restrictions of a past tense Fundamentalism. It should be noted that failures in ecclesiastical separation usually precede the erasure of standards of personal separation. The “spiritual pride” that would countenance worldliness as insignificant appears to parallel the pride of intellect too often found in Reformed circles.

The Danger

Fundamentalists cannot “live and let live” in this matter. Disastrous effects are already accruing. Several institutions, agencies, and many churches have already been delivered into the hands of compromise. It is to be feared that there will be no return for these because their leaders seem to think that they are doing God service (John 16:2) by “reclaiming authentic fundamentalism.”2

Sadly the “authentic fundamentalism” claimed is bereft of accurate history and intellectual integrity.

Worse, a whole new generation of believers will be influenced to embrace compromise as normative Christianity. This is especially true since the centers of learning that were previously well within the Fundamentalist Movement, are training a new generation of leaders to imbibe the transition to Evangelicalism as wholesome and desirable. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this tragic transition is its drafting effect. Everyone who has experienced the rapid passage of a large vehicle has felt the motion effect in the direction the vehicle was travelling. The larger the vehicle and the greater the speed, the greater will be the effective draft. It is to be feared that more and more institutions, agencies, and churches will be drawn toward Conservative Evangelicalism. At the moment at least it has the appearance of some resurgent success in articulating conservative values and gaining the public ear. Beware of pragmatism that would ride the coattails of this compromise. Disobedience cannot bring about revival. Only God-sent Biblical renewal can stem the tide of political liberalism and religious apostasy. A major component in revival is repentance and restoration to obedience to the authority of Scripture.

We must also recognize the minimalism inherent in this movement. The core of the Bible is not the gospel! The core of the Bible is Christ! Much is being said about the gospel, its definition, and the need for its promulgation. Fundamentalists embrace the necessity of the gospel but do not reduce Biblical Christianity to a general agreement about the gospel. It is the old paradigm battle that has reappeared many times in the past. Will we be soteriological in approach or doxological? Preaching the gospel glorifies God but so does obedience. A gospel preached at the behest of disobedience will eventually become a compromised gospel. It has in the past and will be again.

As Transitional Fundamentalists crusade for change we must be aware that the change envisioned is not a return to orthodoxy and orthopraxy; it is a compromise of the truth. It is informative to note that mainstream evangelicals have gone on record as stating that there is no appreciable difference between Conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalists who are in transition.3

How Shall We Respond?

We must be found in the same heart and mind evidenced by our Lord in the first letter to the churches of Asia Minor.

Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

This is the ever present ministry of reproof and challenge to people who are genuinely saved, but sadly disobedient.

Further we must refuse to surrender resources to those institutions, agencies, and churches who are moving. 

It is not wise to continue to send our children to colleges, give our money to agencies, or support churches that are in transition while we wait to see where they will land. By then it is too late! Look at where their feet are pointing! At some point there must be separation from this disobedience. It is the only tool which God has given to us to police ourselves and to maintain the priority and purity of our position.

In doing these things, we need not expect to be applauded. Regardless of how lovingly we reprove and how carefully we withdraw fellowship we will be labeled as unloving and judgmental. We do not judge in order to condemn; that is God’s business. We judge righteous judgment to the end that we may maintain obedience and fidelity to the truth.

We will one day (short of the Rapture) become part of a new remnant. Every age has its remnants. We exist today as Fundamentalists because of previous remnants. We must not fear being marginalized, vilified, or even persecuted. We must fear to compromise. We must endeavor with all that is within us to honor God above men, truth above movements, and faithfulness above success. We must be sensitive to the Holy Spirit so that we can take our stand without a censorious spirit, without pride, and with compassing desire to see our brethren recovered from the error of their decisions.

Dr. Milton Jones

Originally published May 2013

Related Reading:
BJU: The Driving Force Behind the Departure From Its Historic Legacy

Northland Int'l University Closes: Continuation of the Pattern of Demise

Clearwater Christian College to Shut Down

Calvary Baptist Seminary: "They Are Accountable for Failure and Won't Own Up to It"

What Do NIU, Pillsbury & TTU Have in Common?

Dr. Chuck Phelps, It's Not About "Cultural Fundamentalism," It's About Personal Separation

Dr. Rolland McCune, "Militancy Has Always Characterized Fundamentalism"

Dr. Rick Flanders, The Basis of Fundamentalism

Dr. Rick Arrowood, Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism

Footnotes: 

1) Douglas R. McLachlan, “Moving Toward Authenticity: Musings on Fundamentalism” posted on the website of Northland International University

2) Ibid.

3) See, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.)

Reprinted with Permission:
Indiana Fundamental Baptist Fellowship

News & Views

March 2013 ~ Issue 31

Pastor Rick Arrowood, President