Separation is Not Always the Answer
Separation is not always the answer. I know that statement seems contradictory to the fundamentalist ideal, but it is really not. Remaining in fellowship with people with whom we disagree and knowing how to engage in a good controversial debate has been essential to our faith and will be in the future. If our habit is to avoid controversy at all costs, we will commit one of two grievous errors. Either we will leave important fellowship at the first sign of trouble, or we will remain and ignore essential issues for the sake of the peace. This is not how New Testament Christianity has operated and prospered through the centuries.
The early church fathers wrangled through controversy. Their debate was over the nature of God, the Trinity and the deity of Christ. We are indebted them for being willing to search he scriptures to articulate the nuances of the biblical teaching on the nature of God. They clarified the biblical teaching and set doctrinal boundaries that are still essential to New Testament Christianity today.
The leaders of the Reformation wrestled with the authority of the scripture and the Church. In so doing they rescued the doctrine of salvation by grace alone from the dusty shelves of tradition and theological compromise. We are indebted to them for their willingness to fight that battle.
William Carey plunged English Baptists into controversy as he challenged fellow pastors regarding the importance of active obedience to the Great Commission. Because of persecution English Baptists had been more focused on survival than outreach. But through the challenge and initiative of William Carey the modern missionary movement was born and millions have been swept into the Kingdom.
The biblical account of creation is the key doctrine the spawned the fundamentalist/evangelical movement of the 20th century. As theologians surrendered the first six chapters of Genesis, they set in motion a domino effect that eventually compromised New Testament Christianity altogether. Surrendering Genesis 1-6 meant denying the inspiration of scripture. Denying inspiration allowed for a rationalism that gave up miracles, the virgin birth, the blood atonement, the resurrection, and eventually gutted the faith completely. Early fundamentalists entered the controversy. They debated, they wrangled. They were forced to articulate a response that identified the essentials, or fundamentals of New Testament Christianity. That is what controversies do. They do not produce uniformity. There were many differences among the early fundamentalists. They do build fences. They identify the boundaries of the faith.
It is hard for us to see ourselves in the same light as our forebears who articulated the faith so clearly. But we must understand that each generation faces new controversies. Some of these will involve practical applications of truth like William Carey and the Great Commission. Others will demand the clear declaration of theological issues never before really considered. We are the generation that must defend as essential issues such as the definition of marriage, a biblical view of sexuality, and gender identity. We still have work to do in clearly understanding what true New Testament Christianity should look like in an affluent, entertainment-based culture.
Let me appeal to the young, theologically trained, biblically committed leaders in Baptist fundamentalism across America. Join us. You need us and we need you. Future generations need you. Yes, you must lead your own congregations, and we need to help and challenge one another in that. But you also have responsibilities beyond your own individual congregations. You have to move out of the eclectic seminary student role and into historic leadership roles. We must communicate effectively as brothers between generations so that we can clarify doctrine, challenge one another, and build theological fences. As we move forward, we must move forward together as much as possible, debating, wrangling, sharpening one another, clarifying, and declaring so that we can pass a pure faith to the generations that follow.
Amen!
Did you really SAY that OUT LOUD?!
:)
Almost thou hast persuaded me to join the FBFI …! Honestly, though, I plan to tiptoe towards some level of involvement with the FBFI fellowship in the Pacific Northwest. We’ll see. I appreciate the article, because I’m one of the younger guys you’re appealing to.
I about left the Fundamentalists Baptist movement due to the extremism, misinterpretation,attitudes towards younger fundamentalist and subjects such as studying original languages. This leadership is a breath of fresh air, the kind that attracted the original Fundamentalist to the Fundamentalist movement.
Thank you Kevin Schaal.
I applaud this post. My prayer is that it takes root with broad sweeping effectiveness.
I see this as a sign of positive change in the FBFI. It is change and I sense that this editorial is an admission that it’s a change that is needed.
Ron. I hope it’s a correction of perception. But I cannot imagine any of previous generations that would disagree with the post. Separation is sometimes necessary, but it is not the answer for everything.
I was introduced to this brand of fundamentalism (and fundamentalism itself) by Kevin Schaal, and seeing his ministry is why I remain a fundamentalist today.
This is an encouraging read from you brothers in the FBFI
At least two implications –
1) It would mean not every issue is an issue that requires fundamentalists to separate from other fundamentalists.
2) It would also mean not every issue is an issue that requires fundamentalists to separate from conservative evangelicals.
Agreement with this doesn’t make you “convergent” …. merely “conversant” … with Jesus himself (Luke 9:49-50).
Straight Ahead!
jt
Well Joel. We do not, and have never believed that every issue is cause for separation. Working and talking through issues has been what we have been doing for years. I do not think I would try to read more into it than what it says.
Kevin:
I don’t envy you. You’re trying to reach out to younger fundamentalists but yet, in the comments, you’re desperately disavowing any course change at all for the sake of your core constituency, who are reading this even now. Like Stevie Ray Vaughn said, you are indeed walkin’ the tightrope … Take care!
Tyler. I appreciate your concern. I will endeavor to sound less “desperate” in my clarifications :). I preached this exact concept in FBFI national meetings in the past and got near universal agreement. I have been in the leadership of the FBFI for nearly two decades and this has always been my position and that of most in leadership. I never felt I was swimming against the current. If it is perceived as a change in direction, that is just fine, as long as we are perceived accurately.