I keep hearing calls for a ‘generous orthodoxy’—one that is kind and open-minded towards those who differ, and that doesn’t come down hard on every mistake or variation in doctrine. This is a useful and attractive idea, as well as a dangerous one, of course (Carl Trueman has commented insightfully on the issues over at Reformation21).
But the phrase has set me thinking. It’s surely right that we be loving, kind, gentle and gracious with those who really are orthodox and who share the important basics with us. We may still disagree and have debates together—even vigorous ones—but these discussions should proceed in an atmosphere of brotherliness, forbearance and affection, because at a deep level, we know that we are dealing with brothers in the Lord who, on the vital issues, believe and live the same faith we do. Rather than nitpicking over every minor variation or despising people because, by culture or tradition or theological nuance, they do things a bit differently, we should remember and express the deep fellowship we have in Jesus.
It is on this basis that I think we need a new campaign to be ‘generous to fundamentalism’. Let us cease from finding fault with brothers who differ from us culturally and who differ with us over secondaries, but who are one with us in being repentant, blood-bought believers in Jesus.
Now, I need to confess at this point that I write as a Sydney Anglican Evangelical (SAE) for there are many ways, large and small, in which we SAEs would differ from (say) a conservative, fundamentalist Christian from American’s South. For example, some fundamentalists would not be as ‘culturally engaged’ as we might prefer to be; they might be prone to using illustrations of the substitutionary atonement that we find crude; they may read their (King James) Bibles without the nuances of biblical theology; they may be more hardline on young earth creationism than we are; they may miss out on all the stimulation of reading Moltmann, Pannenberg and Williams because they regard them as heretics, and they tend not to read heretics; they may hardly ever start a sermon or an article by talking at length about the foundational importance of the trinity; they may be more politically conservative than we are, and have views about the nature of prophecy that we find simplistic and needlessly alarmist; they may have different millennial views than us (and each other!); they may be more individualistic in their expression of Christian faith than we think they ought to be; and they may be dispensational. In short, they may be or think or do all sorts of things that we find strange, unattractive or even distasteful.
But—and this is a monumental conjunction—they are orthodox believers and brothers in the gospel of Jesus. They really do believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures, in the justifying efficacy of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ as the only way in which people can be saved, in the life-giving gift of his Spirit, and so on. In other words, they believe in the Reformation ‘solas’ without hesitation, qualification or apology, and they show their beliefs by their actions.
I for one have a new-found determination to bend over backwards in order to be kind, generous and forbearing with any brother of a more fundamentalist cast of mind. I will not nitpick and be censorious. I will give them many free passes. And where I do have to express disagreement (even over issues that are significant and have serious implications), I will do so in the spirit of gentleness and brotherhood because I am dealing with brothers.
However, I don’t think I should retain the same sort of generosity for those who have given up on the fundamentals and who seek to teach others likewise—people, for example, who no longer believe in the supreme authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures, or who deny penal substitutionary atonement or justification by faith alone. The New Testament urges me to fight with people like this, even if they are the kind of people I naturally warm to because of cultural preferences, affiliation, shared history, intelligence, sophistication of mind, personal charm, political views, and so on.
So let us be inclusive, open, generous and friendly to all who really are orthodox evangelicals, despite our various foibles and differences. And as for those who claim to be brothers, but who deny classic evangelical truth and teach others to do the same, let us sup with a very long spoon.
Nice post.
I must, however, confess to chuckling over the suggestion that you, as a Sydney Anglican, are less conservative than many. It might be true, but I daresay you’re a lot more conservative than many others who share the same fundamentals
Tony, thanks for the distinction between fraternal generosity to brother and sisters who are solid on the fundamentals of the Bible and gospel and Jesus and keeping our distance and even fighting (with spiritual weapons) those who have given up the fundamentals.
There are still issues of being loving towards our theological enemies, for example, not misrepresenting them, nor simply being rude (as opposed to clear and blunt about their false teaching). But we must call the falsehoods!
Your article also reminded me of Tim Challies’ recent post highlighting the way J.C. Ryle warned against jellyfish Christianity who dislike dogma altogether
Ah brother, you have said it. And it warms my heart that you have.
I am teaching through Genesis at the moment over at Cumberland campus of Sydney Uni, and I would dearly love to get to the end of the series without offending any of my brothers and sisters who are six day creationists. I’m not one myself. But in the context of giving these talks, I feel no need whatsoever to preach in a way that would cause offence to people who think this way. And I’ve said as much from the front.
But arch-heretics like Rowan Williams…well, let’s not get started. One wouldn’t want to waste valuable phlegm on them, would one.
Thanks Tony.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should strive very hard for orthodox unity.The harder we have to work at it, the more it glorifies our Lord. There’s an intrinsic reward in this kind of effort – but there is also much to be gained as we commend the faith to our society.
By way of illustration – I was having a chat to a leading Reformed-Evangelical pastor/scholar/author from the UK a week ago and asked him what he thought the major differences were between responsiveness to the gospel in the UK, Australia and the USA.
His view was that one of the main reasons for such a large degree of unresponsiveness in the UK and Australia is because we as Christian leaders haven’t formed a united front to commend Biblical truth as we see it in the USA amongst leaders across denominations.
Anecdotally he mentioned that unlike the UK and Oz, the presence of words like ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ aren’t a turn-off in literature for younger generations of US Christians because the substance tends to take priority over the form. These are lessons constantly reinforced by such key leaders as Piper, MacArthur, Dever and Sproul – just to name a few.
So, I’m very keen to promote orthodox unity in our country. Having worked for AFES I enjoyed seeing orthodox unity in two universities. I now also have the privilege of putting it into practice (not that it’s hard!) as a Moore/PTC graduate working with Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian colleagues in serving all kinds of brothers and sisters across denominations!
Individually we’re just drops in the ocean – and the Lord will use the drops (and the drips!) – but let’s strive and pray that He might mobilize all of us to cause such a downpour that the current changes.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Luke, what you say is interesting (about us SAE types being very conservative). I don’t actually think that we are—not only in the ways that I mentioned in the post, but in our radicalism about secondary matters (e.g. not wearing special clergy gear, running church on Fridays or Wednesdays, etc.)
I might be wrong about this, but the fact that SAEs are seen as conservative may be more an indication of how others have moved away from classic evangelicalism while still wishing to retain the name.
I’d be interested in your perceptions, however. In what areas or ways do you think SAEs would be “a lot more conservative than many others who share the same fundamentals?”
TP
Thanks for responding, Tony.
I won’t pretend that my thoughts on this are fully formed. They’re not. I am, however, very interested in non-conventional thinking on how to “do church” in the 21st century, and crave sufficient time to dig more deeply into what people are saying and doing.
From what I’ve seen so far, however, I would hardly uphold SAE’s as a bastion of forward thinking. Certainly you’ve discarded some unfortunate relics from the distant past, but they’re pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. I’m interested in something more proactive and revolutionary.
Your point that there’s a difference between generosity and compromise is a good one. I just wonder if we perceive important differences where there are none, especially when it comes to our less scholarly brethren.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I associate what I call “nerdy Christianity” with evangelical conservativism. And if the Briefing, SAE’s flagship publication, is anything to go off, then SAE’s are both nerdy and conservative
I want to know how to do church with Bible-believing labourers, not just University-educated professionals. Maybe this has nothing to do with being conservative or otherwise. Maybe it does. I’m still figuring out what to think.
Tony,
can you give me the references for where the New Testament tells you to ‘fight’ those you perceive to be false teachers.
I can find language about mourning, about avoiding, about rebuking, about not treating as an enemy but as a brother to be warned.
I can find “Fight the good fight of faith” in the context of false teachers, but this seems to be referring more to fleeing their foolishness and pursuing righteousness than fighting the false teacher.
How do you reconcile the language of fighting with loving your enemy? With the Christ who died for his enemies? Who remained silent? I can only remember one incident of Paul going on a seek and destroy mission with false teaching, and that was against the Lord.
Now you know your Bible a whole lot better than a young punk like me, so I’d love to know, where in the New Testament is it from?
Tony,
Further to the Mike Wells post, can you advise if we ‘sup with a very long spoon’ among those with difference is Regulative or Normative?
I’ve checked my concordance and I can’t find any biblical reference to long handled spoon use in such circumstances by Jesus or Paul.
Cheers.
Hmm,
I sense a little sarcasm in Stephen’s post. But this is quite important. If we claim a New Testament mandate for something, we should be able to back it up.
The way you respond to and treat your enemies (even enemies of the gospel) seemed to be a fairly regular thing Jesus talked about.
Hi Mike
Yes, you may be right about Stephen’s question—I wasn’t quite sure what he was asking for, or whether was just joking.
Anyway, to your question. The verse that was in my mind when I talked about ‘fighting’ with false teachers was Jude 3, where Jude appeals to his readers to “contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints”. ‘Contend’ is a more noble sort of English word than ‘fight’ but it’s the same idea. The Greek verb in Jude 3 has the same root (‘agonizomai’) as the word translated fight in 1 Tim 6:12 (“fight the good fight”).
2 Cor 10:1-6 also comes to mind, where Paul talks about ‘waging war’, so as to destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God.
Hope that helps.
TP
Tony & Mike,
Yes admittedly there was some tongue in some of my cheek in my above post (I got distracted by Pythonesque images of very long spoons), but the underlying issue of how we relate to those with difference remains.
Perhaps one way to think about it is to ask ‘who were Jesus’ enemies and how did he love them ?’. For me, Jesus is always the starting point on these matters rather than secondary attributal materials such as Jude.
Put another way, how do the day-to-day actions of Jesus stack up against his statements of how to conduct oneself to build up the Commonwealth of God through the loving of enemies.
Whole books could be written on this. Suffice for me to say that my sense is one of short-handled spoon use. I think there is a sense of engagement with the different-other rather than a disengagement.
Just reflecting on this further, are we falling into a trap where those who are different to us are framed as enemies? Is this unfortunate dualistic thinking? Since when should a christian brother who may have some nuanced or different theology become an enemy? Methinks this is a nasty hangover from the divides created in the 16thC Reformation and then liberal/evangelical divide of the 19thC, when difference certainly put you into the enemy camp. Surely we can move on from this?
Cheers
Thankyou Tony and Steve,
I guess I feel closer to Steves thoughts.
In Jude 3, after railing against the false teachers, here is the advice of what to do, I assume this is the content of contending
But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.
There is a certain repulsion to false teaching, yet it seems to be more out of fear of contamination than desire to take down. The movement seems to be consistently redemptive, show mercy, save, show mercy.
My worry is that those who see their role as fighters come close to denying some of the core parts of the christian faith. Not least is a giving up on God’s sovereign power to bring a church leader to repentance. Or sometimes I wonder whether the fighters believe in the resurrection. Yes, if we say the truth quietly, with grace, without power plays, we may well lose. We may well die out. Thats ok. We trust the God who raises apparent losers from the dead. To say that a person (especially a person who expresses faith in Jesus Christ) is not worth the phlegm of your throat might make you feel good inside about your fight for the faith, yet it seems to fly in the face of Jesus come to save sinners (Of which Rowan may or may not be the worst).
So I guess the overall question I have is which faith fights others? Which Jesus? What gospel?
Dear Mike and Steve
So would you guys be happy to follow the example of Jesus in his ‘engagement’ with the Pharisees and scribes? I’m thinking of the occasions on which he criticised them so personally and pointedly that they (literally) wanted to kill him. (John 8, for example, when he calls them children of the devil, and the exchange ends with them picking up stones.)
Don’t mishear me. I’m not suggesting that we all retreat into bunkers, with an approved list of black hats and white hats, that we become obsessed with fighting and labelling people as enemies, and that we refuse to read and discuss and debate in good faith. Censoriousness, nit-picking, and being too quick to quarrel and divide—these are all sins the NT warns us to avoid.
However, the NT also warns us about tolerating false teaching, being easy with the truth, putting up with different gospels, and being naive about the wolves that will arise in our midst.
We can’t ignore this, or pretend it has no application for us today (as if it’s something we’ve thankfully ‘moved on from’).
If we don’t obey the contending/criticising stream of the NT’s teaching, and see it (with Jesus) as being entirely consistent with loving our enemies, then we have allowed our worldview to overwhelm the Bible. We’ve become nicer than Jesus.
TP
Isn’t the issue really about what counts as a secondary?
I believe that the gospel is the only primary, but there are just so many subtleties. If we disagree on an issue, I may think that it is just important enough to be of primary importance, and that denying it will lead to denying the gospel, while you may think it’s very of secondary importance.
Even if we all follow these principles for generous unity, we will still have disagreements over what actually is of primary importance. What do we do?
Dannii,
Sorry, just noticed your insightful comment. Can I suggest you try reading an essay that I wrote earlier this year in The Briefing. It addresses exactly the issue you raise. It’s in two parts, part II being the most relevant to your question. It’s here: http://thebriefing.com.au/library/5179/
TP
I think what is being missed here is that what is important is not what is doctrinally adhered to, but what is believed. Of course, those could be the same things, but what I mean is that it is quite possible to believe the right things but not actually produce any fruit.
Edmund Clowney, and now Tim Keller, have tried to get people to see that Jesus’ ministry was as much to the religious as it was to the irreligious. In truth, as Tony has already said, Jesus saved his harshest rhetoric for the Pharisees. Now the difference between today’s fundamentalists and the Pharisees, one would argue, is that Pharisees didn’t believe in the “fundamentals of the faith.” Tony says: “(Fundamentalists) are orthodox believers and brothers in the gospel of Jesus.” Yes, of course, many fall into this category. However, many do not. Jesus’ point, when chastising the Pharisees, was that the they knew the truth, but failed to let it reach their hearts. Had they actually believe in God and not the works they did to gain his favor, they would have believed in the Son.
And so I would argue that fundamentalism can be quite close to Phariseeism. That is, the truth they wield is self-serving, not God-glorifying. Fundamentalists ultimately reject engagement with the world because they are “elder brothers” trying to gain favor with God. In some sense they have rejected the Gospel as much as anyone.
Now of course one could argue that there is a difference between elder brothers and false teachers. But isn’t it the case that, so much of the time, the false teachers are elder brothers? Wherein the fundamentalists really do understand the scriptures differently, yes, let us be generous. But insofar as they have disbelieved the Gospel, may we be generous in admonishment.
Please excuse my intrusion into your forum, but your discussion greatly intrigues me. I am an american fundamental baptist missionary with a Ph.D. in NT Interpretation from one of our fundamental seminaries. Until now, I had never heard of the SAE (please forgive my ignorance). My current ministry has to do with providing theological and ministerial training to pastors in a restricted access nation, which is why I now reside on an island that is not too far from “Oz”.
As a middle-aged fundamentalist from a very liberal part of the US (Orange County, California), I want to assure you that pharisaical legalism is neither rampant within, nor characteristic of, our movement, as Brother Phelps above seems to imply. Admittedly, there was this kind of leaven in the past, but it has largely been rooted out by the present generation who are now in leadership positions in our churches and institutions of higher learning for the sake of returning to a genuinely, biblically based Christianity.
However, in spite of whatever warts the leaders of American fundamentalism may have allowed in the past, I give them a huge bow of appreciation in this respect: because of their consistent conviction of separating from false teaching and false teachers, we have enjoyed, in essence, a theologically liberal-less movement for the past 8 decades! No liberal (i.e., one who denies the fundamentals of the faith) preacher or teacher would, or successfully ever has, darkened the doors of our churches or schools—or if one did, he would have been summarily dismissed. Yes, there were times when the movement may have been in danger from unbiblical emphases. However, the “sola-scriptura” attitude and emphasis that has been the flag of our movement since its inception (the fundamentalist-modernist debates of the 1920s) has pulled us back into a healthy self-correction momentum. Over the last couple of years, I had the privilege of speaking in over 100 of our fundamental churches and many of our fundamental seminaries, bible colleges and universities. In my humble opinion, American fundamentalism in general is experiencing a very healthy, biblical direction that makes me grateful to the Lord that I did not abandon it in my youth during its era of warts. I assure you, I am not an exception within our movement, nor what I am saying is exceptional. It is now the norm.
All this being said, I would like to state that it spiritually refreshes my soul to stumble upon a conversation of a fellowship of brothers, whom I had no idea of before, who are serious about the “five solas” and desiring to understand genuinely how the bible instructs us to “fight” false teaching.
Also, thank you, Brother Payne, for your fraternally gracious remarks.
I enjoyed this post and was hopeful about Bro. Fox’s response. Having been educated at the same seminary he was, and then intentionally forsaking that movement, my first response to your post was to think, “That is all well and good, but do not be so naive as to expect reciprocity.” Perhaps the changes that Bro. Fox alludes to occurred gradually during the 20 years since I first went there. If they have, then I am very happy about that. However, I did not see those changes during the eight years of my Fundamentalist education. When I finally left, I was keenly aware because of my education and experience that my choice was very much a bridge-burning choice. I had been taught very clearly that leaving Fundamentalism and entering “New Evangelicalism” (as it had been defined for me) was wrong. I officially became, according to their instruction, a compromiser of God’s revealed will. If it is no longer true among them that being a pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America is turning one’s back on better, more Biblical Christianity, then I am relieved. But I am suspicious, even while being hopeful.
I do know that there were many of us who questioned some of the extremes of Fundamentalist separatism during the course of our education. Most of those I was close to have taken paths similar to my own. During my time there, and in the 12 years since I left, the movement has bemoaned the loss of many young Fundamentalists to the compromise of New Evangelicalism and have strategized how to keep this from happening in the future. This is at best a mixed signal.
My observation was (and is) that, back in the 1980s when we were receiving our training, some like Bro. Bills, eventually chose to “intentionally forsake” the movement for seemingly greener pastures, while others of us recognized the solid biblical foundation of it, but knew it needed reform (although, in all transparency, I must admit that I was tempted to bolt from the movement myself when I was younger). Only the Bema Seat will tell, but my opinion (and hope) is that those of us who waited until we were in positions of leadership of the movement and intended to swing it back toward it’s biblical moorings are now beginning to see a very sweet dividend. The combination of an historically liberal-less movement that I mentioned in a previous post, with the current sola-scriptura mentality that has largely dismantled the former legalistic elements, is providing a sweet, healthy, and genuine momentum at the present. This is honestly how I view the movement at the moment. Only the Lord knows the future.
A couple of friends of mine thought I could have been more charitable in my post. I am sorry to appear otherwise Bro. Fox. I was immersed for eight years within institutional fundamentalism. No doubt that leads me to unnecessarily generalize my criticisms.
There is much to respect about Fundamentalism: As a Fundamentalist, I was taught the Gospel unequivocally. I learned my Calvinism from Calvinistic professors and my best friends were Reformed and we were all allowed to be as Reformed as we wanted. The Fundamentalists taught me that the Bible stands like a rock undaunted midst the raging storms of time. They taught me how to do exegesis so well that they shot themselves in the foot.
They showed me how to evangelize and gave me opportunities to do so. They modeled integrity and excellence in the operation of the institution. In spite of rules and regulations, they demonstrated authentic Christian love. The best friends that I have to this day either were fundamentalists or still are.
So while I have some very real criticisms, and believe it is valid to point them out, I would be wrong to encourage people to think that Fundamentalists are not a vital, valuable segment of the body of Christ.
No offense taken, Bro. Bills and thank you for your gracious spirit. I think I can say that I have some understanding of where you’re coming from, knowing the atmosphere back in the 1980s.
Once again, although we fundamentalists have a long way to go to “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect”, the current biblical momentum and direction of the movement greatly encourages me.
Dear Anthony and Dennis,
Thank you so much for your interaction. It has been helpful, enlightening and encouraging all at once—and can I say, an example of exactly what my post was driving at.
TP
I greatly appreciate this post by Tony – and the response by Dr. Fox. As one of Dr. Fox’s former students (and currently a ThD student in Old Testament studies in a fundamental seminary), I too greatly appreciate the direction in which some fundamentalisms are heading. Unfortunately, some fundamentalists are still rampant concerning the KJO position, as well as some who hold anti-calvinist (not necessarily arminianism)positions.
However, some fundamentalist leaders such as Mark Minnick, Dave Doran, and Kevin Bauder are engaging men such as Mark Dever concerning issues of ecclesiastical separatism. Kevin Bauder has written extensively in his Nick of Time series on fundamentalism, separatism, culture, scholarship, etc. (you can read the entire series in the archives here: http://www.centralseminary.edu/index.asp?m=701 – see also his address “a fundamentalism worth saving”).
Fundamentalism has made its fair share of mistakes in the past, and will make its fair share of mistakes in the future. Why? Because the leaders of fundamentalism are sinful men – but they are sinful men who have been redeemed and who are trying to bring glory to God in their actions.
Hi Bro. Tony,
Just saw your post on 26/3/09, sorry to have kinda missed the momentum of the discussion. Here’s a few thoughts anyway.
In relation to your question about following Jesus’ example of engaging with Pharasee’s, my answer is a very definite yes. This is very much the call to live the Kingdom of God here and now. Jesus supped with a very short spoon, ie he engaged deeply. So deeply in fact that he willingly went to the heart of their institutionalism, and was arrested near the Temple. He paid the greatest price for this engagement. In the Garden he wrestled internally about the wisdom of this, but ultimately he generously gave himself to the unfolding circumstances of the different-other. I think we should too.
Cheers,
Bro. Stephen