Scope and Turn: Imperatives of Fundamentalism
Applying principles of separation is a tricky task. Hashing that out for my generation must be done, but it is beyond my purpose—or my word count. I would like to bring to light just one Scripture and apply it in such a way as to show how I believe the historic fundamentalist position lends itself to the safest spot for me as a pastor. That is the essential question, Where are the safest parts of God’s pasture for me as a broken under-shepherd to feed and lead the flock of God?
Consider Romans 16:14ff. As Paul ends this glorious gospel treatise, he takes space to warmly and pastorally commend nearly thirty people by name. These are the people that Paul spent time day and night praying for, often with tears. And these servants are forever commemorated in this revered book of holy Scripture. No doubt remembering these people brought pastoral warnings to the forefront of the heart and soul of the inspired apostle. Then, as now, not everyone in the circles of the church is to be commended; some must be exposed.
I beseech you, brethren, mark [keep your eye on] them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid [turn away from] them. (Rom. 16:17).
Notice the first command—keep an eye on. Scoping (skopeo) out the horizon is essential for any shepherd. The present tense keeps our eyes constantly looking for anyone or anything suspicious, marking what is considered dangerous.
Whom must we scope out? Those who are causing dissensions and hindrances. We must watch for those who are causing dissension, who are building improper fences in the pasture. What else do they do? They cause hindrances, or perhaps better, obstacles and stumbling stones that cause people to fall. Scope out those who are dividing the flock and digging up the pasture in such a way that people trip up in their faith or in the practice of the faith.
Is everyone who causes divisions wrong? No, Paul further clarifies what type of divider and hinderer must be marked out: “Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.” That is an essential clarification. The issue is not dividing (in fact, that is Paul’s second command). But the issue is dividing contrary to Christian teaching. Those who have drifted to the point that we would say they are teaching against God’s truth are then causing divisions contrary to that teaching. As a pastor, as I scope drift or I see a pitfall near the flock, I must point it out. People do fall into harmful teaching and therefore into an unhealthy view of our glorious God. My love for God and others must motivate me to act, to follow these commands.
Many fundamental and evangelical institutions scope well; they keep an eye on danger. But we must go beyond marking. What is the second command we are responsible to fulfill toward those who cause divisions and hindrances? We must mark “and avoid them.” It is not enough to mark out and keep an eye on those who are digging up holes in the pasture. We must move away. We must move them away from our flock. We must create space and turn aside. It is an extremely clear application of inspired Scripture (often repeated in other places).
As I consider broader evangelicalism, I can enumerate many places in this pasture that are filled with people and even whole institutions and movements that make pitfalls and cause dissensions contrary to healthy Christian teaching. I don’t have space here to describe every danger. However, the following are self-identified problems within broader evangelicalism, and yet these fences and ditches are growing and being promoted by major trend-setters. They are the models, not the aberrations.
Sensationalism
Sensationalism is dangerous for a flock.1 The stage show is a powerful allure. The hunger for excellence in production can easily turn into a stage production. A powerful personality can become a stage celebrity. This is not the fringe; it is the norm in a megachurch culture. And the bigger the celebrity, the bigger the church. “Worship” consumerism dominates the broader evangelical market. Yet worship must not be a market. Worship must be driven by what pleases Divinity, whether it pleases humanity or not.
Charismatism
Charismatism is another thriving part of the broader evangelical pasture.2 There is no way to deny this. Evangelical teachers must decide whether or not this is a danger. I believe its extremes are a great danger, and these extremes are what are thriving in broader evangelical pastures. The few doctrinally solid organizations that do not embrace extremes are exceptions to the rule. The city in which I minister has been dominated by ministries that embrace Charismatic theology since the 1970s.
Ecumenicity with Clear False Teaching
The most dangerous trend is an increasing openness to theological error that is much more accessible in evangelical circles.3 This is evidenced in the growth of Roman Catholic and evangelical convergence that started in the theoretical and educational setting but is now clearly seen in Christian bookstores across the country. Open theism is another manifestation. The spirit of ecumenicity that birthed the fundamentalist-modernist controversy fuels these desires to place pitfalls in the pasture. The spirit of ecumenism, which may be healthy when considering mere denominational differences, often grows beyond that to a spirit of ecumenicity with doctrinal error, and increasingly in areas of secular societies’ morality.
I find that many in conservative evangelical institutions do a great job of marking the errors of broader evangelicalism. And I’d like to see fundamentalist institutions improve in this area. We must not say, “Denial of inerrancy is not our problem, so we don’t need to address it.” We must love the whole church, the whole pasture. And even if we are avoiding unhealthy institutions by turning away from them, we are still responsible to use excellent scholarship and charitable dialogue to engage and instruct those who may inadvertently cause divisions contrary to healthy Christian teaching. They may repent (and many have). I praise God for our conservative evangelical brothers and sisters who do a great job marking errors.
However, turning aside is also commanded, and there is a clear absence of turning aside in many of those same individuals and institutions. They continue to associate and promote institutions, conferences, and fellowships that include the very people who cause divisions and obstacles contrary to the doctrine they have received. I also find that in our fundamentalist institutions a much more consistent obedience to the command to turn away. God commands His pastors to mark and avoid all fences and holes contrary to healthy doctrine.
Hyper-Fencing
One caution is necessary. Christian fundamentalist groups can become “hyper-insular.” In a proper zeal to scope and turn, they can create an unhealthy view of the whole pasture of God’s church as monolithic. It would be unhealthy to turn aside from other excellent, Godfearing pastors who are doing their best to scope and turn in their part of the pasture. We should be careful not to create offense where there should be no fence. I have a pastor friend who has never attended one fundamentalist institution, and yet he consistently scopes and turns. When I tell him he is more of a fundamentalist than I am, he smiles. Just because he may not take that title himself, I won’t scope and turn away from him based on his past institution. We should not ask someone what seminary he graduated from to determine where he is now. We should instead see whether he is maintaining a faithful stand for the gospel and scoping/turning from those who do not. Creating factions and fences over denominational differences (Calvinism/liturgy/Bible versions) is an unhealthy component of the fundamentalism of the past fifty years.
A healthy group of churches committed to disciplemaking; personal and corporate evangelism; expository preaching; healthy interdependence of local flocks; serious, God-honoring worship services; and consistent scoping and turning is what I’m beginning to experience and enjoy more and more in fundamentalism. I believe that is a healthy future. Perhaps the slice of the pasture I enjoy is small in comparison to the whole. But the more I learn of the whole pasture of God, the more I realize that conservative evangelical circles are also small compared with the whole of broader evangelical circles that are not committed to scoping and turning.
Tim Richmond is a church planter/lead pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Queens, NYC, where he serves with his wife, Sarah, and five children.
(Originally published in FrontLine • March/April 2017. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)
Photo by Vladislav Babienko on Unsplash
- Grace to You has recently published a post acknowledging the dangers of worship services common to Hillsong worship services. (See “Hillsong and Worship” by Buettel and Johnson at gty.org/blog/B161128/hillsong–worship. Out of the articles, “Hillsong and Man” is the most cogent [gty.org/blog/B161201/ hillsong–man]). I would have to agree with their assessment. Consider also that these services are flagship models that others in evangelical churches see as a pattern to follow. This is not an aberration; this is a factory. [↩]
- Others may misinterpret this emphasis as the social gospel. I don’t believe this is technically a proper definition. Pastors such as Keller clearly teach against the social gospel. It is not primarily in doctrine but in practice—therefore, a matter of emphasis. [↩]
- In a recent interview at the 2016 Shepherds’ Conference, MacArthur, Mohler, and Duncan decried the lack of traditional evangelical morals being manifested in the political candidates in the recent election. One conclusion that they came to was that “we have lost another word,” the word “evangelical.” They acknowledged that “we have known we have lost it for a long time, but we still haven’t replaced it.” [↩]