The Indifferentists

Typically, religious indifferentism espouses the idea that all religions and religious positions are equally valid. There is a modified version of this that affirms the truth but is willing to accept those who oppose the truth as equal partners in ministry.

Many today do not really understand what the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the 1920s was really about. It is often characterized as a power struggle within numerous denominations between biblical fundamentalists and theological liberals. For the most part, it was not. If that were the case, the modernists would have lost the battle quickly and handily.

The real debate was about what to do with the theological liberals that populated colleges and seminaries. The debate was whether they should be expelled from their positions or be allowed to remain and be treated as equal partners.

Enter the Indifferentists.

The fundamentalists were characterized by an undeterred commitment to the fundamentals of the faith and were willing to fight for them. Separation was not an incidental discussion, it was the discussion. For the fundamentalists, there were only two options. The modernists must be put out or the fundamentalists must get out.

The Indifferentists[i] claimed allegiance to the fundamentals of the faith but were willing to share their denomination equally with the modernists. The coalition of modernists and indifferentists won the day and maintained control of most of the institutions.

There was an early form of secondary separation.

Because the coalition of modernists and indifferentists remained inside the denominational structures—I usually am thinking of the Northern Baptist Convention in the FBFI context—the line of separation was drawn was between fundamentalists and the modernists/Indifferentist coalition when the fundamentalists left. They were not thinking of separation from disobedient brethren or secondary separation as we know it today. That is just how the lines fell.

The indifferentists were an interesting group. They did not agree theologically with the false teaching of theological liberals, but they wanted to be kind and open-minded. For academic reasons, they did not want to narrow the academic freedom of their institutions. They also, well, just did not like the combativeness of the fundamentalists. They wanted a nice religion over a contentious one.

There were varying degrees of coming out. The early GARBC said that you could not hold dual membership in the Northern Baptist Convention and in the GARBC. Others allowed dual affiliation.

What do you do when someone wants to go back?

The New Evangelicalism[ii] that arose in the late 1950s with Ockenga, Carnell, Carl Henry, Graham, and Kantzer, was not really new. It was a move from fundamentalism back toward a modified indifferentism. The motivations included a correction for a lack of social engagement by the fundamentalists, and an evangelistic strategy regarding the modernists—the New Evangelicals wanted to reconnect in order to win them over to the truth.

That left the fundamentalists of the 1950s and 60s with a perplexing question. What do you do with an indifferentist? What do you do with someone who does not believe like the enemies of the faith, but makes friends with and helps the enemies of the faith?

The answer to this question cannot come from history, it must come from the Word. The commands to separate from false teachers are so pervasive in scripture it is impossible to address them thoroughly here in this limited space.

Come out from among them and be separate (2 Corinthians 6:17).

Mark and avoid those which cause divisions contrary to the gospel (Romans 16:17).

Reject the heretic after the first and second admonition (Titus 3:10-11).

Let the preacher of the false gospel be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

Fight for the faith (Jude 3).

Do not receive the false teacher and do not pronounce a blessing upon him (2 John 7-11).

What is fascinating is that there are very few passages commanding the false teachers to repent. By far the most important response to false teaching commanded by scripture is to separate from it.

What does the Bible say about those who do enable the false teachers?

John says that they become partakers of their evil deeds (2 John 11). John says that the indifferentist becomes a partaker of the sin of the false teachers. Indifferentism is sin.

Let’s plug it into a first-century narrative.

Titus is preaching happily to the various churches he oversees in Crete when a new, itinerant teacher arrives. He claims to be a disciple of Peter and asks for the opportunity to preach in one of the local congregations. As was often the case in the 1^st Century Titus grants his request. However, things turn sideways quickly. This new teacher, let’s just call him Gaius, begins teaching that Jesus did not come in the flesh. This was a doctrine that Titus had heard some were proclaiming. The Apostle John was also contending with people who taught this in his ministry.

Titus quickly takes the matter in hand and declares Gaius a false teacher and schismatic before the entire congregation. He also forbids the congregation to help or aid in any way with this false gospel. After several days, Titus hears that a prominent church family has become enamored with Gaius. They like him as a person and think that Titus is being too harsh. They have provided housing for Gaius and they are allowing him to use their house to receive groups of church members for Gaius to teach.

Titus has no choice but to treat this family as having joined the enemy of the gospel. Even though they profess to believe the gospel, their actions are undermining it. Eternal souls hang in the balance—literally.

The indifferentist gives the false teacher ministerial safe harbor. He gives him a platform to teach. He lends him legitimacy through joint ministry. He extends to him his denominational tag. He calls him a member in good standing. He financially enables the false teacher and often receives finances from him. He calls him brother.

Since I was in seminary I have heard some leaders long to return to a less contentious historic fundamentalism. There are two problems with that thinking. The first is that biblical fundamentalism was never less contentious. The second is that it is not necessarily a biblical longing. We have to fight for truth, we are commanded to do so. If by that they mean that they want a biblical fundamentalism that does not fight over trivial things, that is a noble idea, but we will then have an energetic conversation about what is trivial and what is not.

However, one thing we cannot do is ignore the indifferentist. That group that claims orthodoxy while enabling false teaching has declared a side. In spite of their professed affinity for the gospel, their actions oppose the cause of Christ and they must be rejected as brothers in disobedience. [iii]

_______________________________________________________________

[i] Credit to Kevin Bauder for re-introducing this term and concept to our present vocabulary. It is a helpful characterization.

[ii] New Evangelicalism is a term that they coined for themselves. It encompassed a very specific set of ecclesiastical values and strategies in contrast to the prevailing fundamentalism that was around them. The term does not mean exactly the same thing as the word evangelicalism does today.

[iii] I would like to insert one caveat.  We are not making political statements here. We firmly believe in freedom of religion.  We recognize that even those that we would categorize as false teachers must have the civic right to worship according to their consciences. We understand that if they can lose their religious rights, we can too. We also reserve the right to disagree with them (and they with us) and to compete for hearts and minds in the public square. There is no place in Baptist doctrine for religious persecution.