Chris Anderson's The Scandal of Schism Reviewed by George Zeller
What follows are select excerpts from George Zeller's comprehensive review of Chris Anderson's, The Scandal of Schism.
In light of the helpful contributions Anderson has made with his hymn compositions, etc., I was saddened to learn that he had published this book which is an attack against fundamentalists. He accuses them of causing schisms and sinful divisions in the churches. In this review I will cite page numbers of Anderson’s book so that his statements can be easily found and checked.
Anderson’s new attack against fundamentalists reminds me of a very similar attack by Jack Van Impe as set forth in his book, Heart Disease in Christ’s Body (written 1984). In this book Van Impe expressed his concern over the divisiveness within the church and he makes a strong plea for broader fellowship among brethren based on love and doctrinal toleration. The book was a virulent attack against what he labeled as“neo-fundamentalists” or “extreme separatists.” I reviewed that book over 40 years ago.See https://middletownbiblechurch.org/separate/heartdis.pdf
Anderson’s position reminds me of a book Chuck Swindoll wrote back in 1990 called, The Grace Awakening. He attacked believers with high standards as “legalists” and pushed his “freegrace” ideas way beyond their boundaries.
Let me comment briefly on some of these “divisive issues” mentioned by Anderson:
Contemporary music- Anderson has no problem with the music of the Gettys, Sovereign Grace, CityAlight or Steve Green (pages 62,132,125 ).
Concerning degrees of Calvinism- Anderson wants believers to be united around the gospel, but how can we join together with men who deny that “God so loved the world,” teaching instead that He loved and died only for the “world of the elect.” Limited atonement is a denial of the true gospel which is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Also many Calvinists teach that regeneration precedes faith. That is, you do not believe to be born again but you are born again so that you can believe. But according to Anderson we should all seek unity under one big tent and not be concerned about such doctrines.
Opinions of a well-known author. Anderson seems to be referring to men such as John MacArthur, Al Mohler, John Piper, etc. Are we to embrace such men even if they hold some very unbiblical positions?
Excessively modest dress- He criticizes women for “excessively modest dress” (p. 53) but has nothing to say about women, even professing believers, who are excessively immodest.
Second degree separation- Anderson is opposed to secondary separation and believes that fundamentalists are guilty of “excessive separation” (p. 58).
The Use of Alcohol- There is a trend today towards a position where believers may partake of alcohol in moderation but avoid getting drunk. The IFCA in recent years changed their policy on alcohol, basically allowing for social drinking and the consumption of alcohol but condemning drunkenness. Anderson takes the same position.
Other positions Anderson takes, reviewed by Zeller, include:
Ernest Pickering in his excellent book, Biblical Separation, wrote, “Church history yields no example of a group or denomination that, having been captured by apostates, has been rescued and restored to a Biblical witness.” Anderson takes issue with this statement and believes that the Southern Baptist Convention has been rescued and restored to a Biblical witness, due to a conservative resurgence around 1979 (p. 72 footnote). He accuses David Beale of maligning SBC brethren instead of encouraging them (p. 73). He cites Beale’s book, SBC: House on the Sand? and claims that the SBC experienced a successful conservative resurgence and a great victory (p. 73 footnote). This “conservative resurgence” in the SBC is highly questionable.
How do we handle the various teachings and positions that are held among Bible-believing Christians? Anderson believes that if a person holds to the fundamentals of the faith and preaches the true gospel then he should be welcomed into “one big gospel tent” and we should not fight over any of these secondary issues. Anderson loves the slogan, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity” (p. 151). The problem here is this: Who decides what is non-essential?
How can we summarize the position of Chris Anderson?
The following quotation is taken from WorldwideImpact, a Campus Crusade for Christ publication, May 1972. Even though this was written a number of years ago, it seems to accurately reflect Anderson’s position,
Today as I think of that song [You are Always Good] and the several other Chris Anderson songs that have meant so much to me and to our congregation, I am saddened. I am saddened because the man who had the potential to be one of the finest song writers of our day has decided to go on the attack against fundamentalists and join the ranks of a much wider and broader evangelicalism. It brings to mind the title of Dr. Pickering’s book, The Tragedy of Compromise.
Concerning degrees of Calvinism- Anderson wants believers to be united around the gospel, but how can we join together with men who deny that “God so loved the world,” teaching instead that He loved and died only for the “world of the elect.” Limited atonement is a denial of the true gospel which is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Also many Calvinists teach that regeneration precedes faith. That is, you do not believe to be born again but you are born again so that you can believe. But according to Anderson we should all seek unity under one big tent and not be concerned about such doctrines.
Opinions of a well-known author. Anderson seems to be referring to men such as John MacArthur, Al Mohler, John Piper, etc. Are we to embrace such men even if they hold some very unbiblical positions?
- MacArthur’s denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ (teaching that Christ did not become the Son of God until His incarnation);
- MacArthur’s teaching that a believer does not have an old nature, but only a new nature in Christ;
- MacArthur’s teaching on “Lordship Salvation,” that the requirements for salvation include obedience, surrender and fulfilling the demands of discipleship;
- MacArthur’s denial of unlimited atonement.
- MacArthur’s weak positions on dispensationalism; etc.
Excessively modest dress- He criticizes women for “excessively modest dress” (p. 53) but has nothing to say about women, even professing believers, who are excessively immodest.
Second degree separation- Anderson is opposed to secondary separation and believes that fundamentalists are guilty of “excessive separation” (p. 58).
The Use of Alcohol- There is a trend today towards a position where believers may partake of alcohol in moderation but avoid getting drunk. The IFCA in recent years changed their policy on alcohol, basically allowing for social drinking and the consumption of alcohol but condemning drunkenness. Anderson takes the same position.
Other positions Anderson takes, reviewed by Zeller, include:
- The timing of the rapture
- How people should dress for worship
- Worship Styles
- Short hair on men
Ernest Pickering in his excellent book, Biblical Separation, wrote, “Church history yields no example of a group or denomination that, having been captured by apostates, has been rescued and restored to a Biblical witness.” Anderson takes issue with this statement and believes that the Southern Baptist Convention has been rescued and restored to a Biblical witness, due to a conservative resurgence around 1979 (p. 72 footnote). He accuses David Beale of maligning SBC brethren instead of encouraging them (p. 73). He cites Beale’s book, SBC: House on the Sand? and claims that the SBC experienced a successful conservative resurgence and a great victory (p. 73 footnote). This “conservative resurgence” in the SBC is highly questionable.
How do we handle the various teachings and positions that are held among Bible-believing Christians? Anderson believes that if a person holds to the fundamentals of the faith and preaches the true gospel then he should be welcomed into “one big gospel tent” and we should not fight over any of these secondary issues. Anderson loves the slogan, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity” (p. 151). The problem here is this: Who decides what is non-essential?
How can we summarize the position of Chris Anderson?
The following quotation is taken from WorldwideImpact, a Campus Crusade for Christ publication, May 1972. Even though this was written a number of years ago, it seems to accurately reflect Anderson’s position,
We are to put aside the peripheral issues (that is, doctrinal issues) that divide us .... Men are reminded that the real issue is Jesus Christ, and that we are to love one another even if we do not agree theologically or philosophically [or doctrinally]. I encourage you to apply this principle of love and acceptance with all of your Christian friends, and help make Christ the real issue.This philosophy could perhaps be restated as follows: “It is sinful to divide the body of Christ on earth by separating ourselves from any Christian over any doctrinal or ecclesiastical issue. The mark of true orthodoxy is love, not doctrine.
Today as I think of that song [You are Always Good] and the several other Chris Anderson songs that have meant so much to me and to our congregation, I am saddened. I am saddened because the man who had the potential to be one of the finest song writers of our day has decided to go on the attack against fundamentalists and join the ranks of a much wider and broader evangelicalism. It brings to mind the title of Dr. Pickering’s book, The Tragedy of Compromise.
See Brother Zeller's Full Review. It is the sixth article down.
Site Publisher's Closure:
Chris Anderson is squarely among the non-separatist evangelicals who will allow for, tolerate, ignore and excuse a wide range of doctrinal aberrations for the sake of unity. Anderson is doing all he can to influence the next generation to join him in compromise of the Scriptures for the sake of unity with his mentors and friends in T4G and The Gospel Coalition.
LM
Related Reading
It is sad to see such a nitpick by Anderson on the upstroke, only to be followed by broad brushing on the downstroke. He has no credibility with such an approach. I appreciate Zeller's critique of the book and find we are of the same thought concerning the book and Anderson. Yet another man succumbs to an undiscerning mindset.
ReplyDeleteIf only the "big things" matter
ReplyDeletethen
how foolish of God to put all this other "nonessential" stuff in the Bible when He -- being omniscient -- knew all the division that would result from this "superfluous" stuff.
What arrogance.
Superfluous?
--- "Every word of God is pure ..."
--- "... all things which pertain unto life and godliness"
--- "... every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"
It's both fascinating and disheartening to observe the drastic shift in judgment over the past 50 years. For millennia, legalists have scrutinized every action of Christians, labeling them as sinful. However, as culture evolves, the judgment persists, but for opposite reasons: those striving to live a God-honoring life are now often branded as "self-righteous," accused of "undermining Grace" and "trying to save themselves." How sad, specially now when a lot of people are finally starting to realize how sinful and damaging this woke-ridden world culture is and are trying to get back to God.
ReplyDeleteToday, many self-proclaimed "Christians" are comfortable with believers creating content for OnlyFans while condemning people for “excessively modest dress”. In other words, a humble and fruitful walk with Christ is mocked, while rebellion and sin are celebrated in the name of "grace." Don't get me wrong...Grace is infinite, abundant, and free. But mocking or condemning genuine desires to honor God, out of fear that it leads to the "bogeyman" of legalism, is a low blow and a direct insult to real Grace, implying that the Holy Spirit does not inherently regenerate the heart.
To some degree, this issue boils down to the Free Grace vs. Lordship Salvation debate. Anderson criticizes MacArthur's teaching that "a believer has only a new nature in Christ", (which I agree with the criticism). However, it seems to me that some Free Grace circles often teach that the old nature dominates the majority of a person's life, with the new nature being "kind of" present but largely ineffective. Atrocious.
Thank you for this insightful evaluation of the current trend. I appreciate it.
DeleteLM