If there were one word I could expunge from Fundamentalism’s vocabulary, it would be the word “association.”  Actually, that might not be at the head of the list, but it would definitely make the top ten. “Association” frequently serves as a smoke screen to cover unnecessary and unbiblical separation.  For the sake of “guarding associations,” Scripturally mandated unity finds itself discarded as the body of Christ suffers great mutilation.  If we are going to demonstrate God’s glory through the Church, we need to make admissions and change our thinking about associations.

Before I say any more, let me clarify something.  I’m writing because I’m concerned about people throwing babies out with bathwater by abusing or overusing.  I don’t want to do the same thing with the topic I’m writing about today.  Paul speaks to the value of associations in his discussion of eating idol meat (I Cor. 8-10).  I’m not out to bash every single decision or opinion that involves associations; I’d just like to bring up some points that will (ideally) help us safeguard against an abuse of association arguments.

First, let’s just admit that even though everyone talks about association, no one knows exactly what it means.  Sure, everyone has a fuzzy idea about about they mean when they use the word “association.”  But give me a uniform, broadly acceptable definition, please.  Some of you just thought about a definition for association for the very first time.  What is association?  Does it necessarily involve face-to-face time with a person?  Is it cooperative or unilateral?  Is it merely reading or listening to resources?  Does it apply to organizations, individuals or both?  How do you handle ignorance of associations?  Those are all good questions and there are good answers (feel free to kick some thoughts around in the comments), but the variety in opinion on those answers demonstrates something essential: when we talk about association, we’re all talking about our own idea of what association means, not about a clearly defined and broadly agreed-upon definition.  To complicate matters further, how do we decide what issues make an association (whatever that may be!) an issue?  And further how big of an issue is an undesirable association – is it sinful, problematic or just confusing?  I’m not arguing that there’s no such thing as a valid associational concern (there are some); I’m just trying to show how far into the realm of individualism, preferences and subjectivity we end up when we try to make association-driven choices.

A second problem with association-driven choices is its implicit negativity.  No one uses “association” as a reason to cooperate in Gospel-centered ministry; it only functions as a reason for rejection or separation.   When dozens of good books, songs, sermons and Christians are denigrated or prohibited because of “their associations,” negative triviality abounds.  An atmosphere of nit-picking, hyper-sensitivity and judgmentalism develops.  The overuse of “association” arguments hinders grace-based relationships: resources, ministries and people are viewed through the lens of “What bad associations do they have?” not “What good is God doing in and through them?”  When “association” is the issue in nearly every choice, the situations where it actually matters end up devalued because of an overused argument.  It’s bad enough using an implicitly negative argument; must we overuse it as well?

Perhaps the worst offense of “associationism” is that it obscures the real issues.  Consider the following scenarios.  (A) A choir director uses a choir song by a theologically liberal or openly homosexual author/composer.  That’s not usually a problem.  The same choir director uses a choir song by a well-known Christian musician whose primary style is something akin to pop or rock.  That’s bad association. (B) A pastor uses commentaries and reference works that are written by unconverted men who treat Scripture as a thing to be dissected and graded according to human reason.  That’s not usually a problem.  That same pastor tries quoting a godly man whose ministry is characterized by careful exposition of Scripture but whose church has “lower standards” for conduct or dress.  That’s bad association.  Do you see what’s happening here?  Trying to run a ministry according to “association” is like trying to cut a straight line with pinking shears.  The subjectivity we saw growing from the undefined nature of associations is the subjectivity that makes it impossible to make objective decisions solely on association factors.

Of course, we don’t want to leave this topic with an entirely negative understanding of the problem.  Let’s think about some practical ways to cut a better path forward.

• Let’s set the word “association” aside for now.  Really, if we can’t define the “problem” in detail without resorting to “association,” we might not even have a real problem in the first place.  Deliberately avoiding the word might appear pedantic, but it will help by forcing us to think about the actual situation.
• Let’s keep the important issues in focus.  What does God really want from His people – separation or holiness?  (And no, those are not the same!)  Instead of starting with questions of separation, let’s start with Christlikeness.  Picture a book from a pastor of a church that’s not like your church.  Now, ask yourself some questions.  “Will this book promote Christlikeness in my life?”  “Will this book help me understand the Scripture better?”  “Will this book increase the fervency, love and passion with which I relate to God?”  If the answer is “yes,” read the book!
• Let’s get move from disclaimer-ism to discernment.  Are we interacting with one another as with growing Christians or are we all treating each other like infants?  Accuracy and discernment are super, but qualifying every recommendation with is a disclaimer is silly.  First, treat the person you’re talking to as a Christian who is capable of biblically discerning right and wrong.  Second, discern others’ recommendations without judging them.  It really isn’t as complicated as we make it out to be!

Any other suggestions on how to move past petty association-ism and teach holy discernment?

Dr. Kevin Bauder posted a very timely and insightful Nick of Time article today.  I’ll give a few selections here to whet your appetite, but I highly recommend that you visit the Central Seminary website and read the post yourself.

American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.

…

The apostle Paul insisted that he was “set for the defense of the gospel.” Fifty years ago, that phrase appeared on nearly every Fundamentalist ordination certificate. Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

…

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today.

…

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

The entire article is here.

In Numbers 32, a bit of a controversy arises between the tribes of Reuben & Gad and Moses.  Reuben and Gad present a reasonable request: since Gilead is good for our flocks, please let us settle here.

Moses, however, doesn’t care much for that idea.  His problem?  Gilead is on the “wrong side” of the Jordan River.  Remember, Moses was at Kadesh-Barnea when the Israelites refused to enter the Promised Land almost forty years earlier.  Moses had decades of experience with the rather grumbly and unfaithful nation of Israel.  Also, keep in mind that Moses is one of a tiny handful of people who actually experienced the Exodus and saw God’s power displayed then.  Moses hears the request of Reuben and Gad – and a mental trigger goes off.  I can almost see him shake his head and say, “Oh no! Not more unwillingness to enter the Promised Land!”  I can hear him begin to berate the leaders of Reuben and Gad, reminding them of Kadesh-Barnea and threatening God’s wrath.  In fact, he pretty much does just that: Num. 32.6-15.

This passage reminds me of one of those times when two parties are both right, but because they’re talking past each other, they feel like they’re arguing.  The Reubenites & Gadites were right – they had a reasonable request and they had no intention of disobeying God or forsaking Israel.  Moses was right – if the people of Israel shied away from the land of promise again, God would deal with them severely.  Perhaps those two tribes could have made their request clearer the first time, but (as the story is recorded in the chapter) it looks like Moses is the one who jumps past the actual and gives warning based on the possible.

Pause the Biblical story for a moment.  Think about the last time you saw this happen.  Perhaps you’ve seen it happen in a church or a movement of Christianity.  Older leaders are firm on the lines they’ve drawn because of the battles they’ve fought; younger members are reasoning through the whys and wherefores with good intention.  But there are times when the youngsters ask questions or probe philosophies or practices – and then the older generation responds with warnings and scolding (but no answer to the question!).  What happens next?  I’d submit to you that what happened in Numbers 32 is rather different from what often happens today.

The Reubenites and Gadites didn’t run off to their forums, blogs, Facebook pages or Twitter feeds.*  Ok, they didn’t have those.  They didn’t run back to their families in the camps and spread the news about how unfair and grouchy and anti-intellectual and wrong Moses was.  They responded humbly.  First, they moved closer to Moses and spoke to him directly (Num. 32.16) to reword their request (speculation: without a big brouhaha!).  Second, they allayed Moses’ fears.  They didn’t take affront at his “accusation.”  They (in the text) calmly explained their willingness to follow God’s plan and promised to give up their Gilead possession if they shrank back from the conquest..  Third, they put action behind their words of clarification.  They took up their swords and went to battle, keeping their end of the bargain.

Moses didn’t get up on a soapbox and denounce these two tribes to the rest of the nation.  He didn’t call them out publicly for cowardice, unbelief or any other sin.  Moses responded humbly.  When they demonstrated sincerity and obedience to God’s command, he agreed to their request and treated them kindly.

Why do things seem to fall out differently today than in Moses’ day?  Sadly, humility is often lacking.  Young Christians take offense at well-intentioned warning; older Christians assume the worst of well-intentioned questions.  What all of us need is Christ – we need his humility in us as we minister together (Phil. 2.5-8; I Pet. 5.1-6).

* I’m not condemning these technologies; all they do is facilitate good or evil.  We are accountable for how we use them.

But mostly the Calvinism.

I’m speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek here.  Yes, it’s true that Calvinism* is finding a warmer reception among younger Fundamentalists than it finds with older generations.  (I say that broadly; there are always exceptions.)  Yes, it’s true that many young Fundamentalists bristle when older Fundamentalists caricature and wrongly attack Calvinism.  But will “the growing Calvinist influence” that evangelicals are observing today “help heal their decades-long dispute with fundamentalists”?  Collin Hansen speculated that it might.

But Dave Doran respectfully (and insightfully) disagreed.  Here’s the paragraph (from Hansen) that Doran specifically took issue with:

After years of tension, Billy Graham delivered the decisive break between evangelicals and fundamentalists in 1957. Graham turned down invitations to preach in New York City under the sponsorship of fundamentalist churches before accepting one from the liberal Protestant Council. Fundamentalists have never let Graham or his evangelical sympathizers forget the snub.

That allegation is simply not correct.  Fundamentalism’s separation from the “new evangelicalism” of the 50′s was not about snubs; it was primarily about separation from apostasy for the sake of gospel ministry.

Further, Hansen’s logic doesn’t click for me.  Those Fundamentalists went off to pout because Graham picked the liberals above them.  Now that Fundamentalists are reading Piper, Calvinism will bring us all back together. Huh?  If the divide between “evangelicals” and “fundamentalists” started over hurt feelings after the ’57 NY crusade, why will election and predestination bring us back together as though nothing happened?  It seems to me that patching the relationship should have something to do with the original issue.

Please don’t misunderstand this: I’m not looking at Christianity today with a pair of 1957 glasses.  None of us should do that!  There have been significant changes to the Christian landscape in the last 15 years (for instance, look at Mark Dever and John MacArthur and try to force them into either Fundamentalism or “new evangelicalism” – doesn’t really work, does it?), and we need to remember that and nuance our discussion and practice appropriately.

All the same, the “decades-long dispute” will not be resolved by Calvinism, even if every Fundamentalist embraced it heartily, which is somewhat unlikely.  Calvinism isn’t the issue; in fact, it’s a topic that Christians can disagree about and live with (read: Calvinism is not something to separate over!).  It can be healed when both sides come to view separation from a biblical perspective and agree on which issues matter at which levels.  (And quietly, I suspect that all of us have some learning and moving to do in that area.)

* The Calvinism referred to in this post is the biblically sound, evangelistically active Calvinism, not anything hyper or caricatured.  And just because I’m talking about it here doesn’t mean I embrace every detail or nuance of the system.  I’m not aware of any systems that are worthy of embracing whole-heartedly.

Please permit me to share my heart on behalf of young Fundamentalists. What really matters to us?

Many of us aren’t nearly as concerned about what a preacher is for or against as we are concerned about how he uses the Word of God to reach his conclusion. If we hear someone argue a logical, biblical case against something that we believe, we’ll let the Word of God re-shape our conclusion. And if we find a logical or exegetical error in that message, we’ll disagree, but we’ll keep respecting the preacher who demonstrates faithfulness to the Word of God but differs graciously on a peripheral stand or position.

What young Fundamentalists are sorely disappointed by is poor handling of the Scripture. If a preacher or speaker argues for the exact same conclusion that we hold, but argues fallaciously or by misreading God’s Word, we’ll note and remember that. Proof-texting, allegorizing and spiritualizing are techniques that irk us, no matter how holy and godly the application may be.

A passion of mine (and of many young Fundamentalists I know) is exegetical precision. Our reasoning goes like this: God promises that his Word will accomplish his purpose (Isa. 55.11); therefore, bending Scripture to any other purpose besides the one revealed in the specific text at hand is twisting God’s Word and breaking his purpose. I think our insistence on context-controlled, Spirit-filled exposition of Scripture is entirely justified (even necessary)!

So what issues matter? We talk a lot about Calvinism and Arminianism, music philosophy, millennial positions, entertainment standards, covenant / dispensationalism, alcohol positions and separationism. Occasionally, we still talk about translations. But those issues are not our hills to die on. We have, however, no intention of compromising our commitment to precise, careful exposition of God’s entire Word and clear, realistic application of it to daily life. Passionate, accurate exegesis and consistent, Spirit-filled embodiment of the Word: that is our desire, our goal and our heart.

Today Kevin Bauder posted a Nick of Time article in which he reprinted letters and emails that he received in response to his previous two articles about Fundamentalism’s recent controversy over Calvinism. Dr. Bauder printed responses that disagreed with him as well as ones that supported him. The whole list is quite a read.

One recurring theme in the letters/emails caught my attention and raised a question in my mind. Here are several quotes that highlight that theme:

• I’ve often wrestled with some of the very issues you have brought up in your article, and am trying to think through them a little.
• I was beginning to think that I stood all alone.
• Thanks for saying so clearly, what everyone else is thinking!
• Thanks for representing CBTS, men like me who are tempted to shed the label at times, and the cause of Christ in general, with such grace and clarity.
• I just got off the phone with my dad who is a Bob Jones Institute guy and he, 65 years old, is fed up. Another pastor who is 62 years old just wrote me and said thanks to me for highlighting Sweatt’s egregious message. He’s been quiet for 40 years, like my dad, and I personally believe that they too are going to see this statement as a failure on the part of the FBFI leadership (and in their minds, the leadership of fundamentalism because that is the microcosm they are a part of.) … It’s guys like my dad who told me that Sweatt’s message was no different than what he heard thousands of times and never dared to critique who started secretly reading Piper because their sons turned them on to it.
• May you have continued courage to speak the truth that needs to be spoken. … We are in desperate need of this slight upheaval to our comfort zone; I would not be surprised if you are feeling pressure to soften your words.
• As a 28 yr. old conservative, fundamental Baptist pastor I want to thank you for voicing what I have felt over the last several years since I entered seminary (FBTS) until today.
• Thank you so much for addressing issues within Fundamentalism which have been close to my heart ever since 1982…
• You see, Dr. Bauder, the problem that we “young-ones” see is that the message from Pastor Sweatt was not a “new phenomenon” for the FBFI or for fundamentalism in general. I highly doubt that the message truly “caught the leadership of the FBFI by surprise.” (I know it did not catch me by surprise – it has been preached from the pulpit of my alma matter for the last two years.)

The connecting thread, I hope, is obvious now. There is a definite vein of “Thank you for stepping up to say what’s right even though I haven’t done that” running through some of the letters written to Dr. Bauder.

These words show that leaders in Fundamentalism have known about the problem that started this snowball (a trend of exegetically void, factually weak preaching that was carried more by the preacher than by Scripture or accuracy) for years – and many of them have simply kept quiet. These letters were written by several pastors, a retired pastor and a college president!

What caused this awkward silence? Why have these leaders stood quietly while other Fundamentalist “leaders” were allowed to misuse Scripture to fight non-essential doctrinal wars against brothers in Christ? I could suggest that fear of the wrong, yet vocal, minority was a factor, but it would probably be more effective if I let the people who wrote letters to Dr. Bauder tell you that:

• In standing up to these giants recently, who happen to be some of the only believers we can fellowship with [on a foreign mission field], we have risked being “savaged by them.”
• I will not be surprised if you take much flak for writing this…
• I cannot thank you enough for going to bat against the big talkers who are spoiling fundamentalism.
• I wish more than ever that I would be available to attend the FBFI meeting in June. I will be eager to hear what, if anything, is done to address this problem.
• I was going to ask, have the FBF men canceled your membership after that Sweatt reply?
• My background is the very camp of fundamentalist bullying that you address. I knew most of the men you list (Hyles, Rice, Roloff, et al). I aspired to be like them until I began to see the cracks in their armor in the light of Scripture.
• I found that the loud, aggressive “leaders” wanted you to park your brain at the door and let them do all your thinking and values setting for you. That may produce followers, but it does not produce mature disciples.
• I know my dad is writing Dan Sweatt a personal letter, but Dad knows that he’ll be rebuffed by the arrogance that has so long typified big-shots in fundamentalism.
• I would not be surprised if you are feeling pressure to soften your words.
• The FBFI is a strange organizational animal and it is difficult to expect much more in the time constraints given them. I do, however, expect MORE at the annual meeting. I am pessimistic that such will happen.
• Your criticism may well have provoked a gracious response from Fundamentalist leaders, but can anyone seriously hope that such a careful path would have been chosen if the critic (however gracious) was a lesser-known pastor, teacher, or layman?
• I believe that the greater issue at stake is how long will this “duplicitous and abusive leadership…pulpit tirades, doctrinal tomfoolery, and political gamesmanship” be allowed and tolerated in mainstream fundamentalism?

These are not the concerns of wild-eyed, headstrong, young and foolish college students. They are the words of several pastors, a missionary, a seminary graduate, an FBFI representative, a college board member, a college professor and a college president!

Could it be that the bullying response they fear has begun already? Let’s look at the words of those who disagree with Dr. Bauder and see how they voiced that disagreement to him:

• Is there really a need for this level of saber rattling?
• After reading your essay and seeing  that you attended Denver Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary, and Dallas Theological Seminary, I understand that you are espousing the new evangelicalism you were taught. Hopefully, you will see the error of your way and repent. Of course, most men who graduate from new evangelical institutions look upon faithful fundamentalists (Bob Jones, Jr.) with an air of contempt and superiority.
• I have suggested to Drs. Vaughn and Smith that they need to cancel you as a speaker at the National [FBFI] Meeting. … I am not saying you are not a fundamentalist, but I do have questions as to whether you are the militant type fundamentalist as those were with whom I had fellowship in the founding days of the FBF.

These comments come from a pastor, and writer without credentials and an FBFI board member emeritus. Their gist is clear: “don’t make such a fuss about this,” “you’re a new evangelical,” and “we’ll get you demoted from your position to speak at the coming FBFI meeting!”

Do you see the logic of their argument? Dr. Bauder said that Pastor Sweatt’s message made a great deal out of a non-essential debate, that it did not represent genuine Fundamentalism and that such messages are not appropriate for FBFI meetings. His opponents have chosen the “I know you are, but what am I?” response: “Oh yeah? Well, you’re making a big deal out of nothing, you’re not mainstream Fundamentalism, and you shouldn’t be allowed to speak at FBFI meetings either. So there!”

So what’s my point? “Bauder is right and the anti-Calvinists are wrong”? No, the issue is much bigger than that. My point is this: if poorly argued anti-Calvinism is fringe and everyone who knows better is quietly waiting for someone bigger to take a hit for the team, then Fundamentalism needs both strong, godly leaders and faithful, biblical team players.

I’m writing as a young man within Fundamentalism who is training to serve God in a position of Christian leadership. I really don’t care about loyalty to a group of human leaders, to a movement or even to a set of good ideas or ideals. I really don’t think that the rest of the young Fundamentalists are real keen on that kind of loyalty either. What we regard as non-negotiable is loyalty to Jesus Christ and to the Scriptures.

I speak now to the men who expressed their gratitude to Dr. Bauder for saying what they did not say. I implore you as a son to his father, please, stand up! In respect and love, I ask you Paul’s question: “Are you seeking the approval of men, or of God?” (Gal. 1.10). Your fears of being bullied and labeled “new evangelical” or “trouble-maker” may be justified – but they do not matter. If the stand taken by Kevin Bauder (and many others) is right and godly, then you must take it, too. Please stand up for the sake of young Fundamentalists (we don’t have the history with the movement that you do – some young men may respond to the pressure by stepping away from Fundamentalism). More importantly, please stand up for Jesus Christ and the truth of his Word!

To other young Fundamentalists, I’d recommend holding tight. We don’t like it when someone else is reactionary against our position; let’s not be reactionary in our response to this issue. Fundamentalism is working through this and the final resolution isn’t clear yet. Let’s see what happens at the upcoming June FBFI meeting. Let’s keep our pastors and teachers and leaders in prayer. Let’s not let every blogo-wind blow us around to leave one movement or join another. Let’s be fervent in personal devotion and compassionate evangelism. Let’s be faithful to God’s Word in both our theology and our conduct. If there were ever a time for us to take I Tim. 4.12 seriously, this is it.