Responding to Controversy: Stay and Fight or Separate

 

 

On March 12, 2018, Al Mohler posted a blog article on the Ligonier site that any fundamentalist could have written. The title of the article was, “Why Controversy is Sometimes Necessary”. His point was that controversy is not always bad even when it divides believers. Biblical discernment is necessary to know when controversy is necessary. It is a helpful article. But it does bring up the subject about how churches and denominations deal with core doctrinal error when it arises. Historically there has been a significant difference between the biblical fundamentalists and groups like Mohler’s.

When faced with the rise of theological liberalism within the Northern Baptist Convention in the early 1920’s, the first response of the faithful was to fight for control of the Convention. They even coined a new term for themselves (fundamentalists). The battle raged for several years. Eventually the fundamentalists divided into two groups: those who would separate and leave, and those who would stay and fight.

Those who left in 1927 formed an association that would later become known as the General Association of Regular Baptists. Those who remained continued to call themselves the Fundamentalist Fellowship and fought within the convention “over the furniture” (as R.V. Clearwaters described it) for 27 years. The Fundamentalist Fellowship finally gave up in 1947 when the NBC refused to approve the formation of the Conservative Baptist Foreign Missionary Society. They could no longer carry out the Great Commission within the NBC’s corrupt missionary structures. They left the Convention and formed the Conservative Baptist Association. Later that group divided over New Evangelicalism and two groups were formed: The New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches (a church association) and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (a fellowship of individuals). In the end, decades of energy, effort, money, and goodwill had been lost.

The FBF came to agree with the GARB that after initial purging efforts fail, staying and fighting becomes disobedience to scripture.

The Southern Baptist Convention followed a similar path but delayed by a couple decades. The rise of theological liberalism within the SBC was not as steep, and churches tended to operate more independently. But when Ralph Elliot published his commentary on Genesis in 1961 allegorizing the creation account and suggesting that Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, the tipping point had been reached. Many left the SBC at the same time the FBF and NTA were leaving the CBA over New Evangelicalism. New alliances were formed among various separatist groups.

However, a large group chose to remain in the SBC and fight. They began what was called the Conservative Resurgence (by the conservatives) and the Fundamentalist Takeover (by the moderates). The plan was to retake the SBC by electing conservative presidents for ten years straight, and using the power of the president to retake all the committees and boards. They were able to elect conservative Adrian Rogers as president in 1979.

The plan seems to have worked at least on the national level, but it took 50 years. Through fighting, political wrangling, and lots of persistent effort the SBC now requires a declaration of inerrancy for national level leadership and seminary positions.

So which choice was better–stay and fight (FBF of 1920-47 and the SBC of 1961-2009), or separate and leave (GARB in 1927, FBF in 1947, or the many that came out of the SBC in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s)? It’s an age old question—purge out or come out—and a decision that most believers will have to make at some point in their Christian experience. Should we be Puritans or Separatists? Historically, Baptists have been Separatists.

Baptist Fundamentalists today will assert that to separate and leave is the appropriate biblical response when faced with a long-term denominational battle.

There are clear biblical commands to separate immediately from false teachers.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 says that true believers must not yoke themselves together with unbelievers. The passage uses unmistakable commands such as “come out” and “do not touch the unclean thing.” Remaining institutionally connected to theological liberals on boards and seminary faculties is a common yoke. Romans 16:17 says that true believers must identify those that would divide through false doctrine and avoid (turn aside or separate) from them. Galatians 1 says they should be considered accursed. Based upon these principles, the early FBF should have gotten out of the NBC much sooner than it did.

Staying and fighting unavoidably creates compromise on some level.

To operate within the same denominational structure with false teachers means that you will sit together on the same boards, share the same retirement program, and pay one another’s salaries. 2 John 10-11 indicates that those that aid false teachers or publicly affirm them become complicit in their activities. It is the theological equivalent of aiding and abetting criminals. There can be no clearer application of this error than paying the salaries of false teachers for forty years and giving them a platform in colleges and seminaries to influence young people.

Some within the SBC made the case that their conservative congregations got more financially out of the Convention than they put in. But this co-mingling of funds is still being yoked together.

The public persona of constant in-fighting is a poor testimony to the world-at-large.

The 1970 SBC meeting in Denver made national news for its hooting and hollering, cat-calling and booing. While huge efforts were underway to “save the furniture” (the denominational structure and possessions), the cost was the loss of Christian testimony before the world. 1 Corinthians 6:7 instructs believers to be willing to suffer financial loss rather than drag such controversies before the eyes of the world. Certainly the primary application of this passage is within the local church between brothers. But there is a biblical principle that still applies. 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 says that God will be a Father to those who obey Him by coming out. He will provide for their needs. “The furniture” is not worth it.

This constant fighting will often make those who stay and fight seem more militant and greater advocates for the gospel than those who separate and leave, but that is only because the fighters have to fight every day within their own fellowship. It might also make the separatists seem petty because their internal disputes and discussions are not usually over core issues. They have already settled the big issues.

The fact that the strategy seems to have worked in the SBC (at least for now) does not justify the process. The move toward biblical obedience led by Al Mohler, Paige Patterson and others over the years is cause to rejoice and we admire their tenacity for the scripture and the gospel. They are certainly not our enemies. In fairness to Mohler, he indicates clearly that had the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC not been successful (and he admits that reformations sometimes fail) he and those like him would have left (10-lessons-from-reformation-in-sbc/).  But how long do you battle before you come out? The battle has been won at great cost–maybe much greater than anyone is willing to admit. It certainly cost the early FBF a lot.

If initial correction and purification efforts fail, the biblical solution to the necessary conflict about which Mohler speaks is for God’s people to get out.