By Steve Davis on
Separatism
Church Planting
Fundamentalism

In 1982 my wife and I planted our first church in Philadelphia – Faith Independent Baptist Church. The long church name seemed awkward back then but I wanted to be sure people knew up front where I stood. Fresh from eight years of ministry training at fundamentalist schools, I was a committed independent, fundamental Baptist. As extra insurance to validate my IFB credentials, I often added “militant and separatist” as well. The church’s doctrinal statement enshrined a dispensational hermeneutic essential for correct interpretation, the pre-tribulational rapture as the next event on the prophetic calendar, and the King James Version as the official translation. As a church we were known more for what we were against than for who we were.

Fast forward to 2011 where in the same city I am now working with a team of elders to plant another church in a spiritual wasteland where we parachuted in with a few families but without a significant core group. After thirty years of church planting I claim no special expertise, offer no guarantees of success, and sense an even greater dependency upon the Lord to build His church. Similar struggles, resistance to the gospel remain.

This one-year-old church is elder led, non-denominational, non-dispensational, and uses the English Standard Version. Much has changed. Most remains the same. I would venture to add that what is essential has not changed. In areas where change has occurred, thirty years of ministry, of study, of relationships, and of experiences have conspired to bring me to the place I am today. For many years IFB was all I knew or cared to know. Now I find myself rarely at home in this fragmented movement of competing networks. I find myself increasingly on the outside looking in. This is my journey, but I’m glad I was not alone.

After planting a church in Philadelphia from 1982-1987 my family and I went to France and then Romania in church planting and pastoral training ministry. Those years spent overseas provided opportunities for fellowship with believers from different horizons and spared me the need to engage in many of the needless conflicts being fought in the States. There was less need to conform to others’ expectations of what it meant to be safely within the fundamentalist orbit.

During that time overseas I pursued further studies with Reformed Theological Seminary’s extension in Budapest and in time completed a degree in theological studies. For the first time I was challenged from a different theological perspective by men with whom I had strong disagreements. Yet I was persuaded of their evangelical commitment, their love for God, and their commitment to God’s authoritative Word. I began to see that we could differ interpretatively and still enjoy fellowship in the gospel. I was moving away from former positions for which I could still argue but could no longer support biblically with integrity.

In late 1998 we returned to the States where I began a short residency in Deerfield, IL at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and where in 2004 I completed a DMin in Missiology. Once again I was struck by the combination of scholarship and godliness among the professors. There were differences in some areas but the centrality of the gospel transcended those differences.

From 1999-2008, I was missions pastor and director of church planting at a well-known suburban church. I travelled frequently and taught overseas in Russia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Peru, China, and several other countries. There were opportunities to teach in the area of missions and church planting at several schools and seminaries and invitations to preach at various conferences. My visits to China were especially revealing as we looked for house church leaders with whom we could partner for training purposes. I found myself looking for “significant compatibility” and agreement with the historic Christian faith rather than agreement with my convictions. My time in Lebanon among Arab believers caused me to look at Scripture afresh and contributed to modifications in my views on eschatology.

Some might find it surprising that personal experiences have influenced my theology to such a degree. In reality our experiences or lack of them have a great part to play in how we read Scripture. We read it with the eyes of those around us, those who trained us or those we look to for guidance. Our experiences should not determine our theology yet how we read and understand Scripture cannot be separated from our outside influences and experiences. Some may consider it a badge of honor to hold the same beliefs and convictions they held thirty years ago. While I can say that for the fundamentals of the faith, I must confess that second and third-tier commitments and interpretations are held loosely and are no longer a cause for separation or hindrance in partnership in the Lord’s work. Perhaps it’s partly due to the fact that I recognize it is His work not mine and that I labor in His vineyard not one of my creation.

On one hand, I have no argument with fellow believers who affirm their identity as independent, fundamental Baptists. I have no difficulty in seeing them as legitimate representatives of the diverse body of Christ. I have no reason to demean them or to expect them to cease being what they are. I have no desire to avoid fellowship and friendship with IFB men of integrity who are sound theologically and choose to remain within an IFB framework. On the other hand I find after all these years in ministry, with experiences and exposure to global Christianity, that IFB fails to describe how I see myself in my relation to the Lord, in relation to other believers, and in relation to the mission of the church.

The last few years have been especially decisive in the direction I have taken. When I returned from Romania in 1998 I knew that both I and the spiritual landscape that I knew had changed. Then in 2008, while temporarily living in France and helping to plant a new non-Baptist church, I wrote an opinion article on Fundamentalism. It was my way of signaling at that time that although I was on a journey out of Fundamentalism as I had known it, I wanted to remain friends with Fundamentalists. I began to write, to challenge conventions and traditions. I have not always been irenic and have not avoided controversy.

When I described myself as a “soft cessationsist,” questioned elements of dispensationalism, took issue with unbiblical separation, did not clearly espouse literal six-day, twenty-hour creation days, expressed my dismay at the paucity of resources committed to church planting, or challenged traditional thinking in the church’s engagement with culture, I found more criticism than interaction with the ideas. The criticism wasn’t about the gospel. It was mostly about culture, tradition and even personalities who thought I was out of line and should keep a lower profile.

Whether or not I should’ve written some of those articles for publication is another story although I have few regrets. I know there are some who are so much surer in many areas where I have questions. I know others who do not want to rock the boat and, to mix metaphors, prefer to fly under the radar. I suppose that would’ve been a safer route for me but that bridge has already been crossed. I must confess that I have found somewhat amusing the wide range of men who have disagreed with me, attacked me, or separated from me. There has been something for many to dislike although certainly not the same things.

I have no one to blame but myself although these experiences reinforced in my mind how important agreement is to Fundamentalists in areas where I believe we have scriptural latitude to disagree charitably. The agreement demanded by many IFB gatekeeper leaders, churches, and institutions in order to play in their yard far exceeds biblical teaching. The loyalty required by many in order to be safe requires submitting to traditional rather than biblical standards. It is not a virtue to have an inquiring mind in much of Fundamentalism. I had to decide whether I would shut up or speak out knowing that speaking out might marginalize me.

There are a few glimmers of hope as some IFB brethren have begun to break out of their isolation. I think particularly of Northland University which has invited professors from outside IFB circles and of Calvary Baptist Seminary with Mark Dever at their ATC Conference. Of course these moves have triggered substantial criticism from within IFBdom which comes as no surprise. Many IFB factions, which contribute little to theological reflection, brook nothing which deviates from their long-held conventions. I encourage those who choose to stay within the movement to continue their pursuit of God-honoring unity with those outside the IFB pale.

As for me, the time has come to seek to identify with men and movements which demonstrate greater generosity with dissent and challenge than I have found in my IFB experience, to identify with those interested in productive gospel-centered, church-planting partnerships, and God willing, to seek teaching opportunities to train men for next generation church planting. I have no illusions that moving on will bring greater resources or guarantee success in church planting. I’m not looking for greener grass. At this point any grass will do. I still welcome friendship and even partnership with my IFB brothers who have not drawn unreasonable lines in the sand. But I’m too old to jump through all the hoops, too ornery to kowtow and prefer relative obscurity and a few warm relationships to playing ingratiating politics and pleasing men.

Much has changed over the years but God has not. He is faithful and He remains the Lord of the harvest in these challenging and needy times, the ultimate Judge who knows the hearts, and the Accomplisher of His divine purposes. Before Him only I lift my hands, bend my knees, and bow my head.

Discussion

Fri, 08/05/11
Steve et al.,

My husband and I are very much in the same place - willing to fellowship with and embrace those who embrace the Gospel, whether that is in IFB circles or not. But we are finding that it is harder and harder to find ministry placement (we are currently between ministries) because the IFB churches aren’t entirely comfortable with our perspectives and other groups are wary because we were educated and ministered outside of their networks.

So here’s my question: is church planting the only option left to folks in our position? We have really wrestled with this over the last year as we have gone through the excruciating process of resumes, committees, etc. and have less and less hope that he’ll be easily placed in an established church. Church planting keeps coming up, not necessarily because we sense a specific call, but because we see the needs of people and have a passion to minister the Gospel.

How much of your experience and choice to pursue church planting was due to “not fitting” the mold? Do these things often go hand in hand?

Fri, 08/05/11
[handerson] Steve et al.,

My husband and I are very much in the same place - willing to fellowship with and embrace those who embrace the Gospel, whether that is in IFB circles or not. But we are finding that it is harder and harder to find ministry placement (we are currently between ministries) because the IFB churches aren’t entirely comfortable with our perspectives and other groups are wary because we were educated and ministered outside of their networks.

So here’s my question: is church planting the only option left to folks in our position? We have really wrestled with this over the last year as we have gone through the excruciating process of resumes, committees, etc. and have less and less hope that he’ll be easily placed in an established church. Church planting keeps coming up, not necessarily because we sense a specific call, but because we see the needs of people and have a passion to minister the Gospel.

How much of your experience and choice to pursue church planting was due to “not fitting” the mold? Do these things often go hand in hand?
I’d be glad to discuss this further with you by email where I could say some things that might sound critical on a forum (not that anyone would think that :-) I do not think I could pastor an IFB church. If I did it would have to be one that didn’t fit the mold. Church planting was not the only option for me at this time but a great desire. I looked at different networks of churches (SGM, Acts 29) and although they have much to commend them there were reasons for which they weren’t a good fit.

Our church is looking at affiliating with EFCA (Evangelical Free church) partly because we want accountability and fellowship, partly because we are looking to the future when we are off the scene and want the church to be connected with a body of believers for partnership in God’s global work.

God bless you on your journey. Please feel free to visit with us in Philadelphia.

Grace & Peace,

Steve

Stephen M. Davis, PhD

https://www.gracechurchphilly.org/ www.stephenmdavis.com

Fri, 08/05/11
Specific to the literal six-day, 24-hour creation days, since God has plainly stated such, to “not clearly espouse” that Biblical truth is to open the door to undermining the authority of God’s Word. Secular science should not be leaned upon in order to make friends with secularists, yet they, too, need to be reached, and observational science can be used to do so, in pure and true love for the lost, indeed. It’s not about being right, but rather about using truth to accompany our burden for souls. The Gospel is indeed central, and a literal understanding of Genesis 1-11 is foundational to that, so when we insert millions/billions of years into Genesis, then others will (and have) allegorize Adam and Eve, and then we have no Gospel, if Paul under inspiration is accurate in Romans, and we know he is. We have let the culture invade the church, as opposed to using the church to impact the culture, not change it, but impact it.

Culture, no matter where or what, should have no say in the foundational aspects of God’s Word, the fundamentals, if you will. So while I can see where some polite disagreement occurs in the “soft cessationist” or “dispensational” positions, I can also understand and agree with the proper criticism (I would hope it was direct, polite, and Biblically accurate) received on espousing other views of the Creation week. God has spoken plainly, and the Gospel is only strengthened by believing what He said. “In the beginning…evening and morning…” would apply to any culture and in any language, though I confess, I know only my native English for now. I can only assume that the original languages have to be understood and interpreted according to the same rules, whether people are English, Arabic, French, etc.

We now largely live in an Acts 17 world, no longer primarily an Acts 2 world. People need to be introduced to God as compared to their gods, and that certainly begins in Genesis. Can they get saved without adhering to some literal belief? Sure, and yet subsequent generations will then potentially continue to undermine even the basic tenets of the Gospel, as we have allowed them to do with Genesis. If we say “It’s all about the Gospel”, I assume we are still meaning the entire council of God, and we start at the beginning, at least I hope we do, or people get only a partial story of who He is and what He has done and will continue to do.

Dr. Davis, I will be praying for your ministry.

Holding fast to the name of our Creator, for His glory.

Fri, 08/05/11
Hannah and Nathan,

Our offer for your family to join us in Romania still stands, and I don’t see it sitting down anytime soon. We are continually praying for serious disciplers who are more passionate about God and His Word than about tradition or about pleasing people.

; ) Laurel

Fri, 08/05/11
Found Steve’s essay interesting on many levels.

One thing that struck me is how often it’s the guys who are really fervent “IFB” flag wavers who later become the most enthusiastic IFB departers. Then you have guys like me who would never have considered naming a church “independent fundamental…” in the first place. And a couple decades later, I’m not far from the same place I started. (I’ve actually mostly gotten more conservative and traditional over the last decade… and visits to a couple of other countries—as well as increased interactions with other perspectives from Anglicans to charismatics, Catholics, cultists and Muslims—only hastened that)

I’m not sure that means a whole lot but maybe it’s a reflection of the fact that if young people approach movements and trends with their critical thinking in high gear to begin with, they are less likely to embrace these things with wild abandon—whether it’s “their own” group or, later, some other.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Fri, 08/05/11
So we might just say, “I’m no longer separatist, Baptist, dispensationalist, six day creationist, or culturally conservative. I now think Reformed people have a point, and I like words like ‘missional’ now. It’s better that way, I’m happy, I think God likes it that way, and some other famous fundie people that I can name are moving the same direction, so I must be right. I’ll still be your friend if I don’t think you are too wacky.”

I could have written this for you and saved you a lot of words…. ;)

Not that I agree with most of it (though you certainly have some fair points), or that I saw any Scripture supporting it. But that’s ok, because I’m probably too wacky for you to care overly much what I say about it. :D I’ll rave on for a minute, anyway, in my normally wacky way, because I’m enough of an egotist to think my ravings might possibly have some benefit to someone who reads.

Opting out of IFB “networks”? Yeah, I’m not big on networks, either. Too much politics, etc. But you haven’t just opted out of networks, you’ve changed doctrine, too.

You’re going EFCA? EFCA is evangelical, always has been. They don’t call themselves fundie, and didn’t much care for fundies 30 years ago when I was at Biola. I doubt that has changed. So you are an evangelical now, but maybe you stick around as a missionary to fundamentalists, to try to convert us to a better way? I’ve already fallen away from the path of soft evangelicalism, it would be impossible to renew me to repentance on it. Too much error, too much accommodation with unbelief, too much worldliness.

When you see fellowship among evangelicals with the Robert Schullers of this world, you have to get out. I just couldn’t stomach it any more. When you hear a single guy say he goes down to the beach in LA to check out the girls in bikinis and gives God praise for the beauty He’s made in the world, and everyone chimes in and says, “Cool,” you know you don’t belong there anymore. When you see the politics that evangelicals play, it will turn your stomach just as much as IFB politics, or more. I’ll not be going back.

You’ll say the evangelicals you are going to fellowship with aren’t like that. I hope they aren’t — but I said the same thing, too, and it didn’t last.

After a while in evangelicalism, you’re going to look around and see a lot of compromises, a lot of problems. Hopefully, you can have a positive impact in the face of that. Your fundie background will stand you in good stead, if you don’t go overboard to prove to your evangelical friends that you aren’t a fundie anymore. That’s always a danger with fundies who go your route. It will be harder for you to stand (the way guys like Mohler stand) because they’ll all just think you are backsliding into fundyism. I hope and pray you’ll do better, and be a positive influence in a movement that has a lot of problems.

If you were truly a fundie by conviction, you’ve abandoned your conviction, and you’ll slide a long way. If you were a fundie by convention, then there’s no point in staying and pretending. That won’t do you or fundies any good at all. So I’m not particularly upset by your article. I’ve got good friends in evangelicalism, and some of them show wonderful commitment to our Lord. I’m presuming you’ll remain the same. But I’m too “wacky” to just let your article go by without a response. Escaping from soft evangelicalism does that to a person.

http://mindrenewers.com/

Fri, 08/05/11
Laurel - Believe me, overseas church planting is definitely on the table, but unless we change our view on tongues, it’s going to be in an English speaking country :-)

To Aaron’s point: I do find that as we broaden our circles of fellowship, we discover that people are pretty much the same. The weaknesses of separatist fundamentalism that lead some young people to move on are only replaced by weaknesses of other kinds in the new circle. We’re currently attending a church that most people would classify as conservative evangelical and while it has been a blessing, it has also made me realize that there were several emphases that my separatist background did better.

Fri, 08/05/11
My brother … well, this is all you promised it would be but nothing new to me. We have known each other for what, 37 yrs. now since those early days at Greenville in the weight room! Who would have thought that our journeys would last this long or be filled with the pathways that the Lord has taken us. Perhaps Aaron’s above comment is apropos at some levels, but at others, when one brand of IFB is all one knows, at least initially, then it is little one if one embraces a wrong form. When I went to that school where I met Steve, I had no idea what a fundamentalist was and soon learned a party line … complete with protests outside a World Council meeting. Too much IP I guess! (You have to be an insider to know who IP is). Anyway, Steve, we have shared so much of this journey together and ended up in similar places. To be sure, I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to dispensationalism. Nor have I the sympathy for Waltke’s misguided view of Genesis, but I have come to appreciate a whole coterie of men outside IFB circles who are good and godly men if “misguided.” ;). I once called one of these men godly and another friend from within the IFB world balked … how could a non-separatist be godly? Well, what the dear brother was saying was that if one didn’t hold his views … then one couldn’t be godly. Boy, have we come to that in the IFB world?

You and I will remain good friends, I think because we share a common burden—a burden to reach a lost and dying world. I am grateful to you for that first trip to Fetesti now nearly 15 years ago. It put a burden in my heart to help train nationals which I am happy to say has most recently been realized in a two-week teaching junket in India! Thanks for the encouragement and friendship along the way. I do miss those late night conversations we enjoyed in Ukraine and Moscow on the ordo salutis! I think you are moving the right direction in that regard! :bigsmile:

Don’t forget your old friends!

La revederie! Frate smecher! Drum bun!

JS

Jeff Straub

www.jeffstraub.net

Fri, 08/05/11
Steve Davis is a personal friend of mine and has been so for over thirty years. I first knew Steve and his brother John shortly after their conversions. Both brothers left Philadelphia and relocated to my home church, Oak Forest Baptist Temple (Pastor Bill Schroeder), and then attended and graduated from BJU. I have had both these men preach at our church (FBC Troy) for various events and retreats. Both, I assure you, are outstanding preachers and effective communicators. John left fundamentalism many years ago and has pastored several evangelical churches since. John married my pastor’s daughter, Dawn Schroeder, and Steve married a wonderful young lady from Inter-City Baptist Church.

It was John Davis who encouraged me to continue my seminary work at DBTS. At that time I had an undergrad degree in Bible and Minor in Greek as well as an MA in theology from BJU. With the encouragement of John Davis as well as Dave Doran I finished my M.Div. and Th.M. at DBTS. I supported Steve Davis as a church planter and missionary for several decades. I started my journey as a cessationist, young-earth creationist, dispensationalist, separatist, etc. Thirty years later I am still a cessationist, young-earth creationist, dispensationalist, separatist, etc. Yes, some things have changed. I am more Calvinistic now (four point) than I was thirty years ago. I am a much stronger advocate of the Lordship of Christ when I present the gospel than I was before. Though I am a separatist, I have always appreciated the preaching of John MacArthur and I don’t think Mark Dever is the “Devil” despite the potential etymological linkage.

Without question we are influenced by the people we meet, the schools we attend, and the ministers with whom we fellowship. Rolland McCune perhaps more than any other professor had the greatest influence on my theology. Having read of Steve’s experiences, I certainly understand why he positions himself as he does. It does not change my love for him as a Christian friend nor my appreciation of his valiant efforts to advance the gospel. I wish Steve and John well in their pioneer efforts both at home and abroad. However, I do sense a sadness within my own spirit when I read these things. In the fundamental circles with which I am most familiar (BJU, DBTS, MBBC, CBTS, etc.), I have seen a great deal of good that I thank God for in my heart. I have chosen deliberately to stay within those circles and use what little influence I have to improve ourselves spiritually, theologically, evangelistically, and intellectually. The grass is certainly greener on the other side mind you. Perhaps as Steve says things are that much better over there. Yet, I suspect that there may be patches of astro turf and plenty of fertilizer as well.

Pastor Mike Harding

Fri, 08/05/11
I’m thankful for the good friendships with guys like Jeff and Mike. Hard to believe we go back to BJ days and were in the same graduation class. These are the kind of friendships that I believe will endure. As Jeff said “we have ended up in similar places.” I have no desire to burn these bridges. My not wanting to be identified with a movement does not entail departure from my friends and I would hope co-laborers in the gospel.

As for some of the differences I have great appreciation for the contribution of dispensationalism and still struggle with texts and interpretation. I probably lean toward historic pre-mill but eschatology is one area where I believe we can differ and enjoy fellowship and even partnership at some level. I do not agree with views of Genesis that relegate the events of Genesis and Adam and Eve to myth. I affirm divine creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve as the Apostle Paul clearly did. I remain agnostic about whether the days must be six literal 24-hour days in which creation took place. I think there are other views which although I may not hold them they are legitimate and I am not convinced by many YEC arguments on the age of the earth. To say that calls me into question in the minds of some. Jeff is right that I am moving in the right direction in the ordo salutis or hope I am. Maybe not his direction although that is another area where we can differ. We do share a burden to reach people with the gospel and that transcends our differences which are not of a fundamental nature. I loudly and clearly affirm the fundamentals of the faith, contend for them, and separate from unbelief. For some brethren that is not enough. And I can’t dot all their “i”s.

Mike’s church was one of the most enjoyable churches that I have preached in over the years. I would preach there again if he had me and would have the courtesy to not preach on areas where we differ. Same goes for Jeff and Central where I’ve had the opportunity to speak and would again. Actually Kevin Bauder articulates ideas that greatly resonate with me and if that was IFBdom I would be glad. In saying that I recognize that there are slices of IFB with which I have great affinity and would like to enjoy fellowship with them in Christ and in the gospel while we continue to discuss and debate second and third tier beliefs.

No, I don’t think the grass is greener elsewhere and I not looking at what side I’m on. Actually moving where I am today has cost me in some ways far more than if I had stayed put in a ministry position and operated under the radar. But any cost is being rewared in other ways. Not for a moment will I denigrate or deny the good that has been accomplished in fundamental circles. And I respect those like Mike who stay where they are and in the areas he mentioned has remained firm. They love the same Trinitarian Creator God and Lord of the universe, contend for the same faith, preach the same gospel, affirm the authority of the same Word, look forward to our Lord’s eternal reign, and share the same burden for the lost. On this and most things we agree and that’s enough for me.

Stephen M. Davis, PhD

https://www.gracechurchphilly.org/ www.stephenmdavis.com

Fri, 08/05/11
We have seen your journey from certainty to increasing doubt in articles you have written and were posted here on SI. Such a journey has been taken by thousands since the 1930s and 1940s. In 1947 the journey was given a name by those who were taking it. They called themselves NEW EVANGELICALS. At least SI was able to give you a forum for your journey confessions. Your biography and destiny has already been written about in a book titled “Promise Unfulfilled, The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism,” by Rolland McCune. As it is often said; “those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” We will, and occasionally do, remember you and others like you in prayer. I have been on that other grass where it looks greener. It is full of yellow spots and dead spots with those getting more numerous and larger all the time. Better watch where you step. :cry:

But as they say in Philadelphia; “don’t let the door hit you in the back on your way out.” ;)

Fri, 08/05/11
Like Steve and many other Pastors, I have my disappointments, struggles, and I wrestle with decisions about direction. I wonder sometimes if we are too fixated on movements and not fixated enough on the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
[Chris Anderson

] We have looked in faith to Christ,

Beholding God’s atoning Lamb.

He for our sins was sacrificed,

Thus we, though dead, have been born again.

Refrain:

Jesus, Your beauty fills our eyes—

First looking, we were justified;

Now gazing deeper sanctifies,

Till face to face, we are glorified.

We still look each day to Christ

And by the unveiled view are changed.

The Spirit wields the Truth with might,

Conforming us to the Son unstained.

We will look one day on Christ

When He appears, triumphantly.

That blessed hope now purifies,

Till seeing Him, we like Him will be.

Fri, 08/05/11
I was struggling with this myself. This whole need to “come out” (pardon my phrase, it’s the only one that seemed to fit) is very disconcerting to me. As is the response. Have we really reached this point that our identity rests primarily in who we associate with? Perhaps I’m just young and naive, but it feels so one dimensional and I hate that good men are forced to it.

Fri, 08/05/11
[Aaron Blumer] Found Steve’s essay interesting on many levels.

One thing that struck me is how often it’s the guys who are really fervent “IFB” flag wavers who later become the most enthusiastic IFB departers. Then you have guys like me who would never have considered naming a church “independent fundamental…” in the first place. And a couple decades later, I’m not far from the same place I started. (I’ve actually mostly gotten more conservative and traditional over the last decade… and visits to a couple of other countries—as well as increased interactions with other perspectives from Anglicans to charismatics, Catholics, cultists and Muslims—only hastened that)

I’m not sure that means a whole lot but maybe it’s a reflection of the fact that if young people approach movements and trends with their critical thinking in high gear to begin with, they are less likely to embrace these things with wild abandon—whether it’s “their own” group or, later, some other.
Aaron, exactly my thoughts. I’ve always been confused by the people who announce they are leaving fundamentalism (with the exception of this present example). I grew up at Bob Jones University (I gained my ID number at age 6 weeks) and have been in mostly Bible churches unaffiliated with anything. It seems like the closer churches are in fellowship based on separatism (like the IFB) the more one has to decide if your’re in or out. Those of us in fundamentalist loose land have less of a need to break with anything (or not). What movement am I in? I couldn’t tell you. I just know that various people and groups have influenced me for good: both evangelicals and fundamentalists. Why must I choose affiliation? I don’t think I do.

Fri, 08/05/11
[Bob T.] We have seen your journey from certainty to increasing doubt in articles you have written and were posted here on SI. Such a journey has been taken by thousands since the 1930s and 1940s. In 1947 the journey was given a name by those who were taking it. They called themselves NEW EVANGELICALS. At least SI was able to give you a forum for your journey confessions. Your biography and destiny has already been written about in a book titled “Promise Unfulfilled, The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism,” by Rolland McCune. As it is often said; “those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” We will, and occasionally do, remember you and others like you in prayer. I have been on that other grass where it looks greener. It is full of yellow spots and dead spots with those getting more numerous and larger all the time. Better watch where you step. :cry:

But as they say in Philadelphia; “don’t let the door hit you in the back on your way out.” ;)
Thanks Bob. I knew I could count on you for remarkable insight in true Bob-fundie fashion. However, for the record, my journey has been anything but one from certainty to doubt unless you mean my doubt as an individual to get it right on all the interpretative issues that you and others seem to grasp so clearly.

As for “New Evangelical” you toss that term around so often and flippantly as derision it’s practically meaningless. You fall into what Kevin Bauder described in an article last year: “These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.”

Stephen M. Davis, PhD

https://www.gracechurchphilly.org/ www.stephenmdavis.com

Fri, 08/05/11
[Bob T.] We have seen your journey from certainty to increasing doubt in articles you have written and were posted here on SI. Such a journey has been taken by thousands since the 1930s and 1940s. In 1947 the journey was given a name by those who were taking it. They called themselves NEW EVANGELICALS. At least SI was able to give you a forum for your journey confessions. Your biography and destiny has already been written about in a book titled “Promise Unfulfilled, The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism,” by Rolland McCune. As it is often said; “those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” We will, and occasionally do, remember you and others like you in prayer. I have been on that other grass where it looks greener. It is full of yellow spots and dead spots with those getting more numerous and larger all the time. Better watch where you step. :cry:

But as they say in Philadelphia; “don’t let the door hit you in the back on your way out.” ;)
Can’t tell if this is a joke. Hopefully it is.

Fri, 08/05/11
Dr. Davis wrote,
As a church we were known more for what we were against than for who we were.
And this article demonstrates that now he is known more for who he is than for than what he is against?

Ironically, he started his ministry with a position against what he believed to be unbiblical separation in that he claimed to be a militant separatist and even had “independent” on his sign, but since these former convictions created a perception that he was defined in terms of what he opposed, now, he continues to oppose what he perceives to be unbiblical separation (albeit a different position) and is thinking of encouraging his local church to partner with the EFCA, and we are to believe that he is no longer defined in terms of what he opposes?

No matter how hard he tries to escape all the “dogmatism” and perceived negativity, he cannot escape being defined by what he opposes, except now he is simply in opposition to his former positions.

I am still struggling to see the publishable value of this article. From my perspective the author basically communicates, “I have left this ‘fundamental’ world because fundamentalists are prideful, smelling of dogmatism in their positions. I continue to affirm the gospel, but I will not quibble over such minor matters as the continuation of spiritual gifts, the kingdom of God, or even whether or not the evening and the morning were really the first day, etc. If anyone still gets bent out of shape over these minor matters, I don’t have time for them anymore. Oh and by the way, while I still have the podium, if some of the finest churches in fundamentalism will still invite me to come and preach and influence the next generation, I’d love to. In fact, sign me up! I promise not to be controversial or touch on areas where there may be disagreement.”

My advice to the author, albeit unsolicited: You claim to desire to be under the radar (“relative obscurity” is I think how you termed it) and content with just a few ministry friends, but yet you took the time to write a polemic against the fundamentalism of which you have been a part, thus showing up on the radar? If you are going to leave the ‘IFB’ orbit, just go ahead and do it. But do it quickly. Do whatever it is that you think God has called you to do. However, leaving in this manner makes you look a bit ugly and even desirous to take as many people with you as possible. Go do the missiological work that you have done and for which you have trained, but please stop writing to us, if you are no longer among us.

Fri, 08/05/11
[DaveMarriott] If you are going to leave the ‘IFB’ orbit, just go ahead and do it. But do it quickly. Do whatever it is that you think God has called you to do. However, leaving in this manner makes you look a bit ugly and even desirous to take as many people with you as possible. Go do the missiological work that you have done and for which you have trained, but please stop writing to us, if you are no longer among us.
The difference between you and Steve is that he can leave the IBF orbit [your words] yet still love those in that orbit and welcome their fellowship, even yours. The universe of gospel-centered Chrisitianity is large enough to contain your orbit and others. Unfortunately, some mistake their orbit for the universe and end up living in a very small world.

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

Fri, 08/05/11
[DaveMarriott] Dr. Davis wrote,
As a church we were known more for what we were against than for who we were.
And this article demonstrates that now he is known more for who he is than for than what he is against?

Ironically, he started his ministry with a position against what he believed to be unbiblical separation in that he claimed to be a militant separatist and even had “independent” on his sign, but since these former convictions created a perception that he was defined in terms of what he opposed, now, he continues to oppose what he perceives to be unbiblical separation (albeit a different position) and is thinking of encouraging his local church to partner with the EFCA, and we are to believe that he is no longer defined in terms of what he opposes?

No matter how hard he tries to escape all the “dogmatism” and perceived negativity, he cannot escape being defined by what he opposes, except now he is simply in opposition to his former positions.

I am still struggling to see the publishable value of this article. From my perspective the author basically communicates, “I have left this ‘fundamental’ world because fundamentalists are prideful, smelling of dogmatism in their positions. I continue to affirm the gospel, but I will not quibble over such minor matters as the continuation of spiritual gifts, the kingdom of God, or even whether or not the evening and the morning were really the first day, etc. If anyone still gets bent out of shape over these minor matters, I don’t have time for them anymore. Oh and by the way, while I still have the podium, if some of the finest churches in fundamentalism will still invite me to come and preach and influence the next generation, I’d love to. In fact, sign me up! I promise not to be controversial or touch on areas where there may be disagreement.”

My advice to the author, albeit unsolicited: You claim to desire to be under the radar (“relative obscurity” is I think how you termed it) and content with just a few ministry friends, but yet you took the time to write a polemic against the fundamentalism of which you have been a part, thus showing up on the radar? If you are going to leave the ‘IFB’ orbit, just go ahead and do it. But do it quickly. Do whatever it is that you think God has called you to do. However, leaving in this manner makes you look a bit ugly and even desirous to take as many people with you as possible. Go do the missiological work that you have done and for which you have trained, but please stop writing to us, if you are no longer among us.
If there was no publishable value why waste your time writing a diatribe against it? BTW, I haven’t left the “fundamental world” and hold unashamedly to every fundamental doctrine of the historic Christian faith. There are fundamentalists who represent fundamentalism well. You do not and I would suspect that most would disavow your tone and caricature of what I wrote. You put words in my mouth about “fundamentalists [who] are prideful, smelling of dogmatism in their positions.” I may’ve just met one like that but I don’t think you represent anyone but yourself. And yes I will happily fellowship with IFB men who so desire. Sue me.

Stephen M. Davis, PhD

https://www.gracechurchphilly.org/ www.stephenmdavis.com

Fri, 08/05/11
[Shaynus]
[Bob T.] We have seen your journey from certainty to increasing doubt in articles you have written and were posted here on SI. Such a journey has been taken by thousands since the 1930s and 1940s. In 1947 the journey was given a name by those who were taking it. They called themselves NEW EVANGELICALS. At least SI was able to give you a forum for your journey confessions. Your biography and destiny has already been written about in a book titled “Promise Unfulfilled, The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism,” by Rolland McCune. As it is often said; “those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” We will, and occasionally do, remember you and others like you in prayer. I have been on that other grass where it looks greener. It is full of yellow spots and dead spots with those getting more numerous and larger all the time. Better watch where you step. :cry:

But as they say in Philadelphia; “don’t let the door hit you in the back on your way out.” ;)
Can’t tell if this is a joke. Hopefully it is.
No, it is not a joke. It is said without any hate or animosity but with a realization that all that Steve Davis has written has been with an apparent desire to drag other younger Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals into his world of increasing doctrinal doubt.

I have been in and among the world of NEW EVANGELICALS. There is little excuse for some of their acceptance except they view love as being that which is above truth. In so doing they not only diminish truth but redefine biblical love in a non biblical worldly manner.

As for Steve Davis accusation of throwing around the term NEW EVANGELICAL loosely? The very doctrines that he asserts that he has changed on are the very doctrines used by the NEW EVANGELICALS to describe their new mentality and openness. It is a sad scenario to see some in ministry change to more openness that embraces the exact definition of NEW EVANGELICALISM but then attempt to separate themselves from that historic term. Usually this occurs when they have friends or contacts who are still Fundamentalist or Conservative Evangelicals and they want to keep an open door to them. Instead, they should not let the door hit them in the back on their way out. Steve Davis has written numerous articles published here on SI in which he has been very vocal about his new found viewpoints. He has done so with an attempt to persuade others as one still in or sympathetic to historic Fundamentalism.

The term IFB has been used as an example of what must be left for this greater truth enlightenment. However, there are a wide variety within what some call IFB. Also, Fundamentalism is more than IFB. It does include independent Bible churches, other independents, and some Presyterians, that due not endorse those broader viewpoints on Charismatics, creationism, etc.

Due to time at Biola and Fuller, and some friendships since, I have more than a few very close friends and acquaintances who are other than Fundamentalist in outlook. Many meet the primary definition of NEW EVANGELICAL. We have, and occasionally do, have friendly contact and personal fellowship. However, I keep a distance in ministry cooperation and endorsement and insure that they do the same when appropriate. A Biblical standard Christian has a duty to protect the flock as admonished by Paul at Acts 20:17-35. This is the heart of Fundamentalism. It is a primary difference in ministry outlook between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.

It is sad when those who were brought up with a more Fundamentalist background, or whose first days of the Christian journey were under such influence, start rejecting doctrines that are clearly part of holding to a literal biblical standard. Christian Life Magazine published an article friendly to the New Evangelicalism in 1956 titled “Is Evangelical Theology Changing.” They described the views of the “New Evangelicals.” These included the views as espoused by Steve Davis as that which now describes his changed views. So Steve, if you cannot be described as New Evangelical than no one can and such a self labeled movement must have never existed. By your own confessions you are NEW EVANGELICAL. Why do you find it an offense to be called such?

You have expressed a desire to still be accepted by institutions and churches for preaching. You have promised to avoid any subject of controversy. However, has it occurred to you that your previous published articles have made you yourself controversial. Some on here have indicated they are your longtime close friends. I have a couple very close longtime friends that have gone on a similar journey as yourself. A few years ago I preached in the church of one. Since then he has changed even more. He now is open to Charismatics and present day prophets. Now I would never have him in my church pulpit and I would graciously as possible refuse an invitation to his church pulpit. I may attend his church as a visitor if in the area. I would seek fellowship and friendship with him and his family. But ministry ties are not any longer possible. I would hope you would respect the position of churches and institutions whose doctrines and views you no longer endorse and not accept ministry involvement with them.

So it is not necessarily unkind to ask persons such as yourself to not let door hit them in the back on their way out. It is probably the ethical thing for you to do. Also, do remember to watch where you step in that new green grass on the other side.

Fri, 08/05/11
Now I get it.

1. I hold to the fundamentals of the faith but refuse to take a position on issues deemed important enough to separate over by some. I AM A NEW EVANGELICALL!

2. I hold to divine creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve but do not take position on the age of the earth and believe there are other legitimate viewpoints on the 6 days of creation. I AM A NEW EVANGELICALL!

3. I hold that God can work in ways analogous to what we find in the New Testament in pioneer situations in working miracles although I have no sympathy for the Charismatic movement. I AM A NEW EVANGELICALL!

4. I hold to the imminent return of Christ and to the establishment of His eternal kingdom and hold some future details loosely. I AM A NEW EVANGELICALL!

5. I hold to the unity of God’s people and although I don’t want to be identified with a movement I still seek fellowship in the gospel with individuals who remain in that movement. I AM A NEW EVANGELICALL!

Thanks Bob for bringing clarity to this and the 1956 Life article was a big help. BTW, to clarify an equally important point the door hits you in another place – not the back!

Stephen M. Davis, PhD

https://www.gracechurchphilly.org/ www.stephenmdavis.com

Fri, 08/05/11
I have scanned the multi-verse, and in all possible universes that contain SI, this thread goes the same direction. Just thought you should know.

Steve, I hope, I really hope, that you do find meaningful association with a church, not a movement, where you can find support, accountability, and ministry partners. A non-affiliated individual is, in some ways, even more separatist than a separatist movement.

As I am moving to Philly, you may see me some Sunday soon at Grace Church, if that’s where you’re worshiping.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Fri, 08/05/11
[Mike Harding] I have chosen deliberately to stay within those circles and use what little influence I have to improve ourselves spiritually, theologically, evangelistically, and intellectually. The grass is certainly greener on the other side mind you. Perhaps as Steve says things are that much better over there. Yet, I suspect that there may be patches of astro turf and plenty of fertilizer as well.
Hi Mike:

I only have fond memories of preaching for you at Men’s Retreats and Bible Conferences. You will always be loved and admired by me. I do appreciate those, like you, who can stay within the IBF movement and exert a corrective and progressive infuence and remain true to the gospel. Though I wish that staying it wasn’t at the cost of denyig Christian fellowship to others. We disagree on a many things though I think we could have healthy and friendly face to face discussions on them. But, I am sure we agree with so much more that would unite as brothers in Christ. You are a bright (I was going to say and ‘young’) guy. I would like to see you pursue fleshing out the relationship between between the doctrine of union with Christ as it relates to Christian fellowship. I love you, brother.

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

Fri, 08/05/11
[Bob T It is said without any hate or animosity but with a realization that all that Steve Davis has written has been with an apparent desire to drag other younger Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals into his world of increasing doctrinal doubt
And now Bob has the privelged insight in being able to judge one’s motives, but at least he does it without any hate or animosity. Really, Bob?

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

Fri, 08/05/11
[Bob T.]

No, it is not a joke. It is said without any hate or animosity but with a realization that all that Steve Davis has written has been with an apparent desire to drag other younger Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals into his world of increasing doctrinal doubt.

I have been in and among the world of NEW EVANGELICALS. There is little excuse for some of their acceptance except they view love as being that which is above truth. In so doing they not only diminish truth but redefine biblical love in a non biblical worldly manner.

As for Steve Davis accusation of throwing around the term NEW EVANGELICAL loosely? The very doctrines that he asserts that he has changed on are the very doctrines used by the NEW EVANGELICALS to describe their new mentality and openness. It is a sad scenario to see some in ministry change to more openness that embraces the exact definition of NEW EVANGELICALISM but then attempt to separate themselves from that historic term. Usually this occurs when they have friends or contacts who are still Fundamentalist or Conservative Evangelicals and they want to keep an open door to them. Instead, they should not let the door hit them in the back on their way out. Steve Davis has written numerous articles published here on SI in which he has been very vocal about his new found viewpoints. He has done so with an attempt to persuade others as one still in or sympathetic to historic Fundamentalism.

The term IFB has been used as an example of what must be left for this greater truth enlightenment. However, there are a wide variety within what some call IFB. Also, Fundamentalism is more than IFB. It does include independent Bible churches, other independents, and some Presyterians, that due not endorse those broader viewpoints on Charismatics, creationism, etc.

Due to time at Biola and Fuller, and some friendships since, I have more than a few very close friends and acquaintances who are other than Fundamentalist in outlook. Many meet the primary definition of NEW EVANGELICAL. We have, and occasionally do, have friendly contact and personal fellowship. However, I keep a distance in ministry cooperation and endorsement and insure that they do the same when appropriate. A Biblical standard Christian has a duty to protect the flock as admonished by Paul at Acts 20:17-35. This is the heart of Fundamentalism. It is a primary difference in ministry outlook between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.

It is sad when those who were brought up with a more Fundamentalist background, or whose first days of the Christian journey were under such influence, start rejecting doctrines that are clearly part of holding to a literal biblical standard. Christian Life Magazine published an article friendly to the New Evangelicalism in 1956 titled “Is Evangelical Theology Changing.” They described the views of the “New Evangelicals.” These included the views as espoused by Steve Davis as that which now describes his changed views. So Steve, if you cannot be described as New Evangelical than no one can and such a self labeled movement must have never existed. By your own confessions you are NEW EVANGELICAL. Why do you find it an offense to be called such?

You have expressed a desire to still be accepted by institutions and churches for preaching. You have promised to avoid any subject of controversy. However, has it occurred to you that your previous published articles have made you yourself controversial. Some on here have indicated they are your longtime close friends. I have a couple very close longtime friends that have gone on a similar journey as yourself. A few years ago I preached in the church of one. Since then he has changed even more. He now is open to Charismatics and present day prophets. Now I would never have him in my church pulpit and I would graciously as possible refuse an invitation to his church pulpit. I may attend his church as a visitor if in the area. I would seek fellowship and friendship with him and his family. But ministry ties are not any longer possible. I would hope you would respect the position of churches and institutions whose doctrines and views you no longer endorse and not accept ministry involvement with them.

So it is not necessarily unkind to ask persons such as yourself to not let door hit them in the back on their way out. It is probably the ethical thing for you to do. Also, do remember to watch where you step in that new green grass on the other side.
Bob T., I can’t respect your diatribe. If you were all I knew of fundamentalism, I’d catch the door about to hit Steve, then walk through it behind him. No offense, but that’s the effect of what you’re telling younger fundamentalists: it’s always your way or the highway. Therefore, it’s the highway. You’re probably doing more harm to your position than good in this forum by this kind of rhetoric.

Fri, 08/05/11
Dr. Davis writes,
As for me, the time has come to seek to identify with men and movements which demonstrate greater generosity with dissent and challenge than I have found in my IFB experience, to identify with those interested in productive gospel-centered, church-planting partnerships, and God willing, to seek teaching opportunities to train men for next generation church planting.
[Emphasis mine]

But this church planter, half his age, challenges his article with a dissenting voice, and I get the following reply:
There are fundamentalists who represent fundamentalism well. You do not and I would suspect that most would disavow your tone and caricature of what I wrote. You put words in my mouth about “fundamentalists [who] are prideful, smelling of dogmatism in their positions.” I may’ve just met one like that but I don’t think you represent anyone but yourself. And yes I will happily fellowship with IFB men who so desire. Sue me.
Can anyone else see how this new m.o. defeats itself? Or perhaps it’s nothing more than smoke and mirrors, deflecting the attention from the real separation issues at hand.

Dr. Davis writes,
BTW, I haven’t left the “fundamental world” and hold unashamedly to every fundamental doctrine of the historic Christian faith.
Follow-up question for Dr. Davis: Do neo-evangelicals hold to” every fundamental doctrine of the historic Christian faith?”

I think we both know that what you’ve written is reductionistic at best. From my understanding, fundamentalism concerns itself with not only the belief of those doctrines essential to the gospel (fundamentals) but also with separation over those doctrines that extends even to those who refuse to separate.

I am saddened that you do not believe that I represent fundamentalism well. I can honestly say that I rejoice that the gospel is going forth through your efforts in Philadelphia, even if I have significant disagreement with you and the article(s) you have written, and even if I’d not be able to pursue a ministry partnership with you.

On the flip-side, I think your writing me off because of my disagreement (and perhaps the tone of my disagreement) to be rather absurd in light of your cutting comments towards others.

Fri, 08/05/11
[Andrew K.] I’m a bit confused here.

I don’t see anything in Steve’s article that could be taken as a rejection of historic fundamentalism or even a willingness to work with those who reject the fundamentals of the faith. And yet some here seem to be dropping unsubtle hints toward slippery slopes and ready to commence a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning] shunning .

Way to prove his point.

This is why the younger (and sometimes older) generation leaves you in name, Fundamentalism. Sometimes we really don’t understand who you are and what you’re talking about.
Well Andrew it is all rather clear historically. If you need to rely on Wickepedia then I would recommend further study of the issues from reliable sources. Fundamentalism is a label that has been defined by multiple historians and books as more than just adhering to the Fundamentals of the faith. It is Evangelicalism plus separation. That separation is to involve all that would be a threat to the flock of God (Acts 20: 17-35) To some is a false issue to speak of so called first degree and second degree separation. Today it also involves a movement that has come to represent those who believe in the inerrancy of scripture and a literal interpretation of key parts such as creation. Such conservative Evangelicals as John MacArthur openly and clearly reject the label of Fundamentalism for themselves yet take a much stronger stand on the issues as just outlined by Steve Davis. So surely there should be no confusion here as to the present application of the label of Fundamentalist. As for holding onto the so called younger generation, that is in the hands of God. Our first task is to glorify God through obedience to his word. To the Fundamentalist that obedience to scripture involves issues that are minimized by the Evangelical who is moderate or open. These meet the definition of the historic NEW EVANGELICAL as they described themselves in 1947 and after.

If you have not done so please read Rolland McCune’s book, “Promise Unfulfilled.”

Fri, 08/05/11
[jpdsr51]
[Bob T It is said without any hate or animosity but with a realization that all that Steve Davis has written has been with an apparent desire to drag other younger Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals into his world of increasing doctrinal doubt
And now Bob has the privelged insight in being able to judge one’s motives, but at least he does it without any hate or animosity. Really, Bob?
Since the purpose of Steve’s prior articles were all questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists, such as 6 day creation and cessationism, along with arguments to persuade others to his new more open position; and since such articles were written and posted on SI, a professing Fundamentalist internet site, then the only obvious conclusion was that Steve Davis (your brother) had a purpose of seeking to reach Fundamentalists and challenge many of their doctrines. It is also well known that many who post on here are younger than 40. I have not judged any motives that are not made self evident by Steve Davis himself.

The accusation of judging motives as being wrong is a false concept. Motives often are an issue in scripture and may be an issue where the evidence reveals the motives. Motives are often revealed at law by the circumstances.

Fri, 08/05/11
[Andrew K.]
Well Andrew it is all rather clear historically.
Yes, but you haven’t made it clear.

I wanted an explanation of where Steve diverges from historic fundamentalism,
I’ll try.

I think it was three years ago that Steve Davis was published in the Lausanne World Pulse (I didn’t find the article to nail down the date, but it’s out there). Unless there are no new evangelicals anywhere anymore, that is a new evangelical publication. From their http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/about.php] About page :
The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (Lausanne) is an international movement that seeks to energize churches, mission agencies, networks and individuals to respond with vigor and courage to the cause of global evangelization. Lausanne grew out of the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization called by a committee headed by the Reverend Billy Graham. For more than three decades, through the work of Lausanne, global Christian leaders have participated in regional, national and international consultations and conferences to develop biblical and strategic approaches to evangelism.
The very least that can be said is that our brother (and I do consider him a brother) is and has been moving in new evangelical circles.

Most definitions of new evangelicalism or neoevangelicalism would include accommodation/dialogue with liberals. Those definitions would also include a markedly different approach from fundamentalists to separation. I don’t see Steve adopting the first of those right now, and hopefully never. He certainly has adopted the second. Is he a new evangelical then? It depends on how you define it. Having lived on both sides of that line, I see him as more on the new evangelical side than the fundie side, and moving that direction.

New evangelicalism was a label the new evangelicals chose themselves, to distinguish themselves from fundamentalism, and to describe a direction they themselves were taking. In large part, Steve Davis is describing that he is moving away from something, and his description of his direction bears many similarites to the neos.

If you pressed him for a name for it, he’d probably say he’s moving to conservative evangelicalism. He’s going to find himself surrounded by what might be called soft evangelicalism. It doesn’t matter what label you put on it, though. What matters is the new positions he is taking. In many regards they are not biblical, but he presumably thinks they are.

I did ask if he’s now being a missionary to the fundies to show us a better way. I agree with those above who suggested that this article gives that impression, though whether he thought of it in that way is another question. I also wonder why it was published on a fundamentalist site, at least with that title. It’s really, “How and Why I’ve Left the Fundamentalism I Knew”. At least then we’d know what we’re getting. This article isn’t about church planting at all, and everyone knows it.

If you think there is no difference between conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism, then Steve probably hasn’t left fundamentalism, at least not yet. But there is a difference.

http://mindrenewers.com/

Fri, 08/05/11
“separation from all that would be a threat to the flock of God.”
It’s what some consider “threats” to the flock of God that concerns me. Take your pick:

Music

Calvinism

Movies

Helping the needy

Bible versions

Non-Baptists

Dress standards

Etc.

I’ve seen fundamentalists separate from these “threats” and then separate form those who didn’t.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Fri, 08/05/11
[JG] I think it was three years ago that Steve Davis was published in the Lausanne World Pulse (I didn’t find the article to nail down the date, but it’s out there). Unless there are no new evangelicals anywhere anymore, that is a new evangelical publication.

The very least that can be said is that our brother (and I do consider him a brother) is and has been moving in new evangelical circles.

Most definitions of new evangelicalism or neoevangelicalism would include accommodation/dialogue with liberals. Those definitions would also include a markedly different approach from fundamentalists to separation. I don’t see Steve adopting the first of those right now, and hopefully never. He certainly has adopted the second. Is he a new evangelical then? It depends on how you define it. Having lived on both sides of that line, I see him as more on the new evangelical side than the fundie side, and moving that direction.
Is this the best you can do? I think this will come as a surprise to many Fundamentalists that if you write in a publication you are moving in NE circles. BTW, I also had at least one maybe two articles in the FBF magazine AFTER THAT.

Stephen M. Davis, PhD

https://www.gracechurchphilly.org/ www.stephenmdavis.com

Fri, 08/05/11
If you have not done so please read Rolland McCune’s book, “Promise Unfulfilled.”
Many of us have, and even though I find it quite valuable when it comes to research and information, one of its glaring weaknesses seems to be the same as yours, Bob…..that it generalizes, stereotypes, and broad-brushes evangelicals as all the same, when there is some serious differences among them on the issues that Steve has brought up (Dispensationalism, age of the earth, cessationism, and separation). For instance, there is a world of difference between the beliefs of separation of self proclaimed evangelicals D.A. Carson and Tony Campolo, yet there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgement of nuance when we end up lumping them all together as the same.

McCune seems to do the same even with fundamentalists as well, as if his particular stripe of fundamentalism when it comes to separation issues is the correct and long-standing one, when there is quite long history of the different views among self-identifying fundamentalists when it comes to how the doctrine of separation is applied. For instance, McCune’s view is different than how Bob Ketcham (one of the founders of the GARBC) applied separation…….Ketcham preached at founders week at Moody, preached in the pulpit of Moody Church when Warren Wiersbe was its pastor and kept a very close friendship with the Wiersbe’s until the day he died. Wiersbe was yesterday’s equivalent to today’s conservative evangelical with long historical ties to neo-evangelical groups. McCune attacks this type of lack of separation using John MacArthur as an example for not using discernment because MacArthur regularly speaks at Moody’s founders week which often features new evangelicals. Yet at the same time, Dr. Ketcham was known for his strong stances on separation, being one of the first to warn of and then separate from Billy Graham because of Graham’s regular practice of including liberal churches as part of his crusades.

Also, McCune bemoans the fact that the Evangelical Baptist Missions, a fundamentalist Baptist missions agency would have John Piper speak at one of their conferences, especially since Piper belongs to the BGC (now converge), since open theism Greg Boyd’s church is still part of this denomination. The open theists in Converge comprise a very, very small minority and have been publicly denounced by the conference. However, Dr. Ketcham had no problem speaking at Dr. Riley’s church that was part of the Northern Baptist Convention and at conferences with Dr. Riley despite the fact that Northern Baptist Convention’s apostasy was much, much more serious at that time than the toleration of Open Theists by Converge. So was Dr. Ketcham one of the “disobedient bretheren” because he applied separation differently than McCune has deemed the right way? Or maybe there is room for some disagreement because independent baptists have always embraced the baptist distinctive of individual soul liberty………..

By the way, even though I have some serious disagreements with McCune and even you Bob, when it comes to applying the doctrine of separation and your view of new evangelicalism, I respect why came to your conclusions and your historical context (Fuller, Biola, GARBC, IFCA), and etc…..

Fri, 08/05/11
[Bob T.]
[jpdsr51]
[Bob T It is said without any hate or animosity but with a realization that all that Steve Davis has written has been with an apparent desire to drag other younger Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals into his world of increasing doctrinal doubt
And now Bob has the privelged insight in being able to judge one’s motives, but at least he does it without any hate or animosity. Really, Bob?
Since the purpose of Steve’s prior articles were all questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists, such as 6 day creation and cessationism, along with arguments to persuade others to his new more open position; and since such articles were written and posted on SI, a professing Fundamentalist internet site, then the only obvious conclusion was that Steve Davis (your brother) had a purpose of seeking to reach Fundamentalists and challenge many of their doctrines. It is also well known that many who post on here are younger than 40. I have not judged any motives that are not made self evident by Steve Davis himself.

The accusation of judging motives as being wrong is a false concept. Motives often are an issue in scripture and may be an issue where the evidence reveals the motives. Motives are often revealed at law by the circumstances.
Bob: I don’t need to speak for Steve but I think he would stand with Paul on this:

4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

Fri, 08/05/11
[Bob T.] Since the purpose of Steve’s prior articles were all questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists, such as 6 day creation and cessationism, along with arguments to persuade others to his new more open position;
The only reason I reply at this point is to show how you misrepresent my positions. I don’t think you do it intentionally but do it constitutionally.

1. Concerning 6 day creation. If you read my article I simply wanted to show that there were other interpretations that were faithful to the authority of Scripture and held by men with impeccable evangelical convictions. I was criticized by some that I didn’t make clear my position but there was no new position except maybe not taking the position others thought I should. As I understand the text now, if I were to teach the traditional 6 day 24 hour creation interpretation I would present it as a valid interpretation but not as the only legitimate way of understanding the text and remaining faithful to Scripture. Personally I find much to commend the view that the 6 days were revelatory days but it’s only a view. If I have to say clearly and loudly that I am convinced beyond all doubt that one position is the only acceptable position along with YEC and make it a test of orthodoxy, that I can’t do that and am guilty of whatever. Here’s how I ended the article because if people read what you write about what I wrote (and my motives) and what I wrote they will have a better picture.

“Though the Bible does not claim to be a scientific textbook, when and where it speaks, it speaks with God’s authority. That authority extends to the veracity of the Genesis account of divine creation whether in the recent or distant past. That authority does not extend to all interpretations of the creation event and to the methodology used for determining the age of the earth. On the one hand we must refuse to capitulate to the changing waves of scientific theory and conflicting viewpoints within the scientific community. On the other hand we must not go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6). The Bible clearly teaches that creation is the work of God’s hands and offers no refuge to those who seek a compromise with biological evolution. According to Hebrews 11:3, we affirm that “we understand that the universe was created by the word of God.” There can be no question as to what God did. There may be no resolution among Christians about the “how” and “when.”

2. Concerning cessationism: There was a search for balance while I do not claim that I found it.

“A word of caution is in order. According to Schnabel, ‘The assertion that the miracle promotes faith and should thus be an integral part of the mission and evangelism of the church is neither confirmed by Paul, by Luke’s narrative of the apostles’ missionary work in the book of Acts, or by the history of the church.’ Many have erred in building whole movements on the expectation of the miraculous. The aberrations of the signs and wonders movement and the spiritual warfare movement reinforce opposition to any whiff of the spectacular. The condemnable extremes of experience-driven movements often lead to affirming a rigid cessationism and to relegating the miraculous to another age, no longer needed after a period of transition and the completion of Scriptures.”

“Can we find middle ground between extreme positions? Personally, if I have to categorize my view on the possibility of God’s supernatural interventions in the progress of the gospel, I would prefer to characterize myself as a “soft” cessationist—that is, open to the possibility that God may in fact use dreams and visions today. I must admit my reticence for many years, both dispositionally and dispensationally, to espouse this position. My theology—or better, my “theological environment”—did not allow for what seemed to be incontrovertible evidence that God freely chose at times to reveal Himself in Cornelius fashion to those who have no access to the gospel. Furthermore, I see no biblical warrant to not remain open to the possibility of God’s using dreams and visions if He so decides. As in the book of Acts, this act might be expected in unique pioneer situations or where there is no access to the gospel or no Scriptures in the vernacular. This does not lead to seeking visions and dreams as integral and common occurrences in mission. After all parsimony was the rule for dreams and visions in that God used them sparingly. Yet neither should the possibility of present-day dreams and visions be categorically and dogmatically denied because we don’t experience them. We should remain cautious and affirm the primacy of the cross and preaching while recognizing that God can break the rules, our rules, that He is not limited to our theological precisions, and that He cannot be manipulated.”

This is what you call “questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists.”

Stephen M. Davis, PhD

https://www.gracechurchphilly.org/ www.stephenmdavis.com

Fri, 08/05/11
[Steve Davis] Is this the best you can do? I think this will come as a surprise to many Fundamentalists that if you write in a publication you are moving in NE circles. BTW, I also had at least one maybe two articles in the FBF magazine AFTER THAT.
I’m not shooting at you, friend. You’re doing what you think you should do.

World Pulse IS neo-evangelical. They aren’t conservative evangelicals, Joel T’s Type C. They are well to the “left” of that. You chose to write for them. It’s not a capital offense. They and the people they work with are, for the most part anyway, believers. It shows a comfort with, but not necessarily a joining of, neo-evangelicalism circles. You are willing to look past some of their most dubious associations and say, “I’ll write for them anyway.” That’s fine, it’s your choice.

I don’t think you’ll find many fundamentalists writing in that publication, though. If you waste your time researching it and find I’m wrong, I’ll readily admit it, but I would be surprised. I do think you’ll find lots of soft evangelicals writing there. You might even find some that are barely evangelical at all. Certainly you’ll find them willing to work with people who aren’t evangelical at all. There’s no question on that point.

Is this the best I can do? Of course not. On this thread you’ve told us where you are going. The Evangelical Frees are not fundamentalist, never have been, never claimed to be. But asking if it’s the best I can do is entirely the wrong emphasis. You don’t answer to me anyway. I’m just one of the wackos you disagree with. :) And I certainly am not going to take the time to try to chase down any other articles or associations or whatever of yours that might look neo. Perhaps I could “do better”, but what’s the point or profit?

It’s ok. The labels don’t really matter that much. I don’t really care what you call yourself, and I don’t see any great need to label you myself. In the 50s, the neo-evangelicals created a divide between themselves and fundamentalists. In some ways, you’ve moved in their direction. As I said previously, in other ways you undoubtedly haven’t, and I’m glad for that. I don’t have to peg you in the neo camp. I wouldn’t be camping with you, anyway (every time I go camping it rains), so who cares? You’re doing some things that, since the 50s, fundies wouldn’t have felt comfortable with and evangelicals of all stripes would. Maybe we could call it neo-conservative evangelicalism, or neocongelism for short. :D (I’m lousy at inventing new labels). Maybe trying too hard to find broad labels isn’t such a good idea.

I wonder if the FBF knew you had written for World Pulse when they had you write for them. I suspect they may not have, but it doesn’t matter, unless we think the FBF is God’s anointed and inerrant judge of where lines should be drawn. Since neither you nor I think that, we could probably leave them out of it.

I don’t know if you remember, but I’m convinced your “soft cessationism” article had some valid Biblical points. I appreciated it. Perhaps you might go back and look at that thread before deciding I’m your “enemy”, or out to do my “best” to label you with the bad guys. You’re like everyone else, I’m convinced you are right when you agree with me and wrong when you disagree with me. For some reason, nobody seems to understand that. ;)

http://mindrenewers.com/

Fri, 08/05/11
[Andrew K.] I’m a bit confused here.

I don’t see anything in Steve’s article that could be taken as a rejection of historic fundamentalism or even a willingness to work with those who reject the fundamentals of the faith. And yet some here seem to be dropping unsubtle hints toward slippery slopes and ready to commence a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning] shunning .

Way to prove his point.

This is why the younger (and sometimes older) generation leaves you in name, Fundamentalism. Sometimes we really don’t understand who you are and what you’re talking about.
I totally agree. And now you know why I come away from this site so discouraged instead of encouraged in my walk with the Lord. To see and *hear* pastors dissing each other, using oh-so-lofty phrases is sad. I’ve refrained from saying anything in response to this pattern in several other threads, but this one finally nails it. Pastor Davis, if we ever are in the Philly area, I would love to visit your church! I guess I’m a new evangelical also. Oh well. I don’t much care how you label me. The only one who truly matters is God, and I already know that I’m accepted by Him, warts and all.

Fri, 08/05/11
I don’t think you’ll find many fundamentalists writing in that publication, though. If you waste your time researching it and find I’m wrong, I’ll readily admit it, but I would be surprised. I do think you’ll find lots of soft evangelicals writing there. You might even find some that are barely evangelical at all. Certainly you’ll find them willing to work with people who aren’t evangelical at all. There’s no question on that point.
Wow! I guess I better put away the article that I am working on and was going to submit to Lausanne World Pulse in a month on Evangelism and Mission in the early church because most fundamentalists aren’t writing in this publication. What was I thinking! I might be labeled a new evangelical just like Steve has! By the way, can you give me examples of soft evangelicals and those who aren’t evangelicals at all that are connected to Lausanne? I am not necessarily doubting you, I just get the impression that alot of fundamentalists have written off Lausanne as some neo-evangelical organization that is fastly going down the tubes of liberal compromise (you know, that slippery slope fallacy that many of us seem to employ at times). They may be neo-evangelical, but I don’t necessarily see them getting more liberal as time goes by…. You would consider the late John Stott as an evangelical, wouldn’t you? How about Christopher Wright? What about Dr. Ralph Winters? These 3 have probably had the most influence on Lausanne thinking when it comes to theology, mission, and unreached people groups. Are they considered soft or barely evangelical? You are right that it may not be filled with mostly conservative evangelicals, but in Wright and Stott, you will find some of the staunchest defenders of substitutionary atonement………

Fri, 08/05/11
[Joel Shaffer] Wow! I guess I better put away the article that I am working on and was going to submit to Lausanne World Pulse in a month on Evangelism and Mission in the early church because most fundamentalists aren’t writing in this publication. What was I thinking! I might be labeled a new evangelical just like Steve has! By the way, can you give me examples of soft evangelicals and those who aren’t evangelicals at all that are connected to Lausanne? I am not necessarily doubting you, I just get the impression that alot of fundamentalists have written off Lausanne as some neo-evangelical organization that is fastly going down the tubes of liberal compromise (you know, that slippery slope fallacy that many of us seem to employ at times). They may be neo-evangelical, but I don’t necessarily see them getting more liberal as time goes by…. You would consider the late John Stott as an evangelical, wouldn’t you? How about Christopher Wright? What about Dr. Ralph Winters? These 3 have probably had the most influence on Lausanne thinking when it comes to theology, mission, and unreached people groups. Are they considered soft or barely evangelical? You are right that it may not be filled with mostly conservative evangelicals, but in Wright and Stott, you will find some of the staunchest defenders of substitutionary atonement………
Indeed, I might ask what you were thinking (when you wrote this). ;) I didn’t really label him at all, I said maybe he’s a newcongelical. I admit my label isn’t catching on. :(

Thank you for mentioning John Stott. He was a classic case of a neo-evangelical. Certainly evangelical in theology, and much to be appreciated. Yet, he was willing to remain in direct fellowship with unbelievers. You do know what the Church of England is like these days? As far back as the 70s, he spoke at the World Council of Churches. You do think that includes non-evangelicals, don’t you? Furthermore, he encouraged others to join in ministry with unbelievers. I have a personal letter from an evangelical leader, in defending his joining with the apostate Church of Scotland, in which he cites John Stott as saying that the thing that mattered is the “formal and official doctrines” of the Church, even if “senior leadership” denies “Christian faith, morality, and convictions.” “Yes, sir (or ma’am), I know you and everyone else running your denomination are apostate, but since you haven’t bothered to change your denominational documents, I can still give credibility to you by coming along to your conferences or making joint statements with you.”

That is a complete denial of any kind of Biblical separation. I suspect it would turn the stomach of conservative evangelicals like Mohler, Dever, etc. It is a far cry from what those men believe, I think. Call it what you want, “soft” or “new”, I don’t care. It’s a mar on evangelicalism, whichever prefix you label it with.

What did I say? They are willing to work with non-evangelicals. That is fact. Stott always was. Graham, who was a founder of Lausanne, was willing to do so as well.

I did not say they were fast going down the tubes, nor getting more liberal, nor anything about them being on a slippery slope. I hope your exegesis of Scripture is better than your reading of my words. :)

They are neo-evangelical. Perhaps you missed what came after the first three letters, that “evangelical” part. It doesn’t mean “going down the tubes” or “slippery slope” or “apostate”. It means true doctrine on the Gospel. The “neo” means they are also compromising in some important ways that fundies have never compromised. That’s Lausanne. If Lausanne isn’t neo-evangelical, there is no such thing. If you think it isn’t, please tell me who that is left on God’s green earth is neo-evangelical.

Neo-evangelicalism is unfortunate, but it is not apostasy. For some, it has led to apostasy, but it isn’t liberalism and apostasy. It is accommodation and fellowship with apostasy.

It would be good if you found a better place to publish your article. Most fundies would think that Lausanne’s organizations and publications should be given a wide berth, and for good reason. It doesn’t mean we hate them or think they aren’t doing some good things. They are evangelicals, after all. They are together for the Gospel, for crying out loud.:) Let them serve the Lord as they see fit, and pray that He’ll use them for His glory and the salvation of souls. But don’t join in, because the errors matter too much and dishonour the Lord. Their ministry will go forward just fine without us, and ours can go forward just fine without them. There is no Biblical warrant for joining with that kind of compromise, but it doesn’t mean they are our enemies. Nor does it mean someone hates them if he mentions the problem.

http://mindrenewers.com/

Fri, 08/05/11
There is really nothing new here, is there? Haven’t we pretty much had all of this before from Steve, just in different terminology?

To be frank, there are no Biblical insights here. Nothing that makes iron sharpen iron, in my opinion.
[Aaron Blumer] One thing that struck me is how often it’s the guys who are really fervent “IFB” flag wavers who later become the most enthusiastic IFB departers. Then you have guys like me who would never have considered naming a church “independent fundamental…” in the first place. And a couple decades later, I’m not far from the same place I started.
Amen! Twenty years ago I would have been to the left of Steve, as I was to most of my friends at college. Now I am on the right of almost every one of them. Funny thing is I haven’t changed much since leaving Lutheranism about 25 years ago. One college friend is now an Episcopal priest. Many are in the church growth/seeker sensitive/emergent movements. One former campus leader who made school rules virtually synonymous with sanctification now cheers for Willow Creek with that same enthusiasm.

Perhaps it was because I was not raised in the IFB that I never considered looking to The Movement as The Source of all things Good (except during a few weak, peer-pressured moments in college). Only God deserves that kind of allegiance. Thus, I am not disenchanted to find that it is not so.

And yet, unlike Steve, I am still a fundamentalist — at least in essence, though I would not use the word in very many contexts.

To me, the problem with the article — it is sad really — is the sense of restlessness and frustration that it gives. I also find a condescending tone in the very post-modern, self-contradictory idea that there has to be some etherial middle ground that contains the real truth on issues like age of the earth, charismatic gifts, etc.

The bottom line is that if Steve would be happier in the EFCA or some other movement, he should go there as we bid him God’s blessings. But the problem is that when he arrives he may still be bothered by the same sense of uncertainty that drives this article.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Fri, 08/05/11
Steve Davis:

In your effort to show that I misrepresent you stated regarding creation:
if I were to teach the traditional 6 day 24 hour creation interpretation I would present it as a valid interpretation but not as the only legitimate way of understanding the text and remaining faithful to Scripture. Personally I find much to commend the view that the 6 days were revelatory days but it’s only a view.
Concerning cessationism you stated:
I would prefer to characterize myself as a “soft” cessationist—that is, open to the possibility that God may in fact use dreams and visions today.
You then stated:
“This is what you call “questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists.”
Yes, this is part of questioning the widely held doctrines of Fundamentalists. It is also the method of the classic New Evangelical as now used at most all New Evangelical schools. It does not set forth a definite interpretation but merely sets forth several and requests that one take a pick between valid options. Such openness is usually presented in a context of superior scholarship and an alleged more objective approach. Some even claim that such lack of dogmatism is a result of greater spirituality.

By your own admissions I have not misrepresented you.

On creation, In the 1960s Biola taught 6 Day creation in both the Bible department and the science department. Dr. Davidheiser, PHD, Johns Hopkins was the department head. He was author of an extensive book on the Christian and evolution and was a convert from Evolution to 6 day creationism. In 1966 and 1967 a new professor in the science Department was teaching that other theories of creation were valid. A meeting was held with Richard Chase, then VP of academics. Chase refused to let the new teacher go. Davidheiser and another professor, Micah Leo, PHD Rutgers in Physics, both resigned. The new teacher, Urton, MA, Denver University, was retained. Thus two fine creationists with superior credentials and scholarship were allowed to resign and a new teacher with mediocre credentials was retained. This is the historic march of New Evangelicalism with its alleged scholarship and openness. Today, in light of all that has transpired academically, many now feel that if one does not embrace 6 24 Hr day creation they open the door to all sorts of non literal interpretation.

You may disagree with those who are dogmatic about literal 6 day creation. However, please be consistent and understand that you are taking the position of the classic New Evangelical on this subject. You are not a present day defined Fundamentalist on this subject. Many find your open to conjecture approach not acceptable.

Fri, 08/05/11
Steve,

It’s always been fun when we’ve bumped into each other. It’s been a thrill to read you from time to time. God bless you my man as you follow the dictates of Scripture and conscience. You’ll be blessed to minister with different sections of the body of Christ. The good news for you is that you are not the only guy that will reach out to the IFB world while at the same time will reach out and be willing to work with different sub-groups of the body of Christ. We don’t need it to be the case but more good news is that the approach you are openly taking here is quickly becoming the approach by a “silent majority” within the non-KJV only orb of fundamentalism. This is really good news indeed! It is really the only way to go if one wants to embrace the spirit and I’d even say the teachings of the NT. You’re not going to be able to reason or work with a few who have placed their ecclesiastical grid over that of the spirit of Jesus or the teachings of Scripture. However, if you and I and others will be patient for those who are teachable and considering this approach, others…..many others will follow. Of course all of that is in God’s hands.

Straight Ahead and God Speed!

Joel

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Fri, 08/05/11
Indeed, I might ask what you were thinking (when you wrote this). Wink I didn’t really label him at all, I said maybe he’s a newcongelical. I admit my label isn’t catching on. Sad
Yes I quoted you but I was also including those who are picking at Steve as well. Maybe not you, but a few others have labeled Steve as a neo-evangelical.
I have a personal letter from an evangelical leader, in defending his joining with the apostate Church of Scotland, in which he cites John Stott as saying that the thing that mattered is the “formal and official doctrines” of the Church, even if “senior leadership” denies “Christian faith, morality, and convictions.” “Yes, sir (or ma’am), I know you and everyone else running your denomination are apostate, but since you haven’t bothered to change your denominational documents, I can still give credibility to you by coming along to your conferences or making joint statements with you.”
Love to see a primary source, rather than a secondary source in this situation. I have seen too many fundamentalists quote other people quoting other people in order to separate from certain evangelicals when it didn’t turn out to be true……..Not saying you are not telling the truth about Stott, by the way…….


I did not say they were fast going down the tubes, nor getting more liberal, nor anything about them being on a slippery slope. I hope your exegesis of Scripture is better than your reading of my words. Smile
was not referring to you…..probably got on a soapbox that I didn’t need to get on. Sorry about that…….
It would be good if you found a better place to publish your article. Most fundies would think that Lausanne’s organizations and publications should be given a wide berth, and for good reason. It doesn’t mean we hate them or think they aren’t doing some good things. They are evangelicals, after all. They are together for the Gospel, for crying out loud.Smile Let them serve the Lord as they see fit, and pray that He’ll use them for His glory and the salvation of souls. But don’t join in, because the errors matter too much and dishonour the Lord. Their ministry will go forward just fine without us, and ours can go forward just fine without them. There is no Biblical warrant for joining with that kind of compromise, but it doesn’t mean they are our enemies. Nor does it mean someone hates them if he mentions the problem.
When it comes to publishing articles about missions there aren’t a whole lot of choices that are much different than World Pulse. Lets see…. you have Evangelical Missions Quarterly……they are connected to the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton. I guess that eliminates them. Missions Frontiers…..they are the magazine for the U.S. Center for World Mission started by Dr. Ralph Winters, which eliminates them because Dr. Winters taught for many years at Fuller Seminary, the neo-evangelical flagship seminary. How about Global Missiology? too neo-evangelical because they have Chuck Van Engen from Fuller on their advisory board……. There are many more missiological journals and missions magazines around in evangelical land, but not in fundy land. What about fundamentalist magazines such as the Baptist Bulletin (GARBC), The Voice (IFCA), Frontline (FBFI)? Well, I am not apposed to it. I actually wrote a magazine article for the Baptist Bulletin that was published in the May/June. I especially enjoyed connecting with the editors from the GARBC and found them incredibly supportive and helpful. However, the the missions articles that I am writing don’t necessarily fit the topics that they want for their magazines. I understand this because they aren’t set up as a missiological journal. That brings us back to World Pulse, EMQ, Missions Frontiers and the plethora of missionary journals that are led by neo-evangelicals.

I don’t necessarily see it as a problem interacting with neo-evangelicals by writing a journal article published by them. I guess I reflect my mentor’s attitude, Dr. Paul Beals. Dr. Beals was comfortable as the chairman of Evangelical Missions Society, writing for EMQ and other neo-evangelical publications, yet held fast to the fundamentals of the faith while serving Christ…first as a Baptist-Mid Missions missionary in the Central African Republic, then as the missions professor at Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary as well as in his GARBC church of Northland Baptist Church in Grand Rapids.

Fri, 08/05/11
[Joel Shaffer] Love to see a primary source, rather than a secondary source in this situation.
I could look for a primary source, but does it matter? He appeared to be referring to either a personal conversation or something Stott had said during speaking. We can see, by Stott speaking for the WCC and staying in the Church of England, that the quote was consistent with his practice. And I have no reason to question the honesty of the man who wrote me. He certainly wasn’t trying to say something bad about Stott, he was using Stott to support his own accommodation practices. The sense was, “Stott says this is ok, so I’m sure it’s fine.” Even if Stott never said it, his actions did say that practice was “fine”. I didn’t question his assertion, because if he was looking to Stott for approval, he was going to find it in Stott’s actions.

Here’s a source mentioning his evangelical/liberal dialogue (that’s the original neo- manifesto), his dialogue with Roman Catholicism (that’s an additional step for many neo’s), his drift towards social gospel (they don’t call it that, this is a hagiography ;)), etc. http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=645 “He was loyal as an Anglican and against any separatist movements.” That fits with the quote I was given.

http://mindrenewers.com/

Fri, 08/05/11
Gives new meaning to “death by fishing.”
There was an old meaning?

Enjoyed that.

I was a bit busy and couldn’t keep up with the thread but a quick scan suggests that while there is a good bit reacting going on, there is some reflecting also.

For those who are fond of intimating that SI has “gone neo” and the like, just a reminder that the aim here is to give you stuff to think about.

And there’s nothing to think about if all you ever read or here is what you already know and agree with.

I know most of you already get that.

For me, all of IFB’s problems were old news by the time I was 14. So there was not much that could disillusion me later! But at the same time, always in the mix, were these ideas that were being well articulated, well defended, well lived. These are very likely to go with me to my grave.

Edit: I mean not “die with me” but “still be with me with I die” :)

Gotta toss this in: for me, attending BJU broadened my horizons. I met a fair number of non-Baptists there as well as students who did not have the kind of upbringing I did. Several of these were miles further than me down the road of what a Christian ought to be.

(And of course, if one reads even a little bit, one discovers that not everything of worth God is doing is happening among fundamentalists!)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Fri, 08/05/11
I am a pastor at a non-fundamentalist church, but count me in with those who struggle to find the value of this article. Steve, brother, I think by now most of us know you are no longer a fundamentalist, and you seem to enjoy letting us know that. Your articles on here seem to be mostly about stirring the pot (although the pot does need stirred sometimes).

But I join those who wish God’s blessing upon your church planting work, and would love to visit it should I visit Philly. (My dad grew up in Coatesville, so we are HUGE Phillies fans. Now that they have another bat in the lineup they just might go all the way again this year.)

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University