Having thought I was totally done writing anything more on the whole Alistair Begg furore – on which you can read this, this and this and listen to this if you want to know what I have said up to now – Jake Meador has written an interesting post for Mere Orthodoxy perhaps warranting a bit more comment still. I only really have two observations to make about Meador’s post and then, perhaps, a couple of thoughts thereafter.

First, I broadly agree with Meador’s concerns regarding the local church and evangelicalism as a movement. Meador’s article, for the most part, is concerned with process. He contrasts the clear processes of various denominational church structures and the total lack of process when it comes to evangelicalism as a movement. His overriding concern here I agree with. There is no process in the movement called evangelicalism to address – regardless of the rights or wrongs of the matter at hand – the issues surrounding Alistair Begg and his recent comments.

Second, I note that Meador argues the following:

What is the standard we are using to make these decisions? What is the process for how this works? What is the desired outcome? How can that outcome be achieved?

I know the answer to those questions for Presbyterians, or at least I know what the answer should be. I know what they are for Anglicans, even if the Anglican answer usually involves what is to my eyes a rather extreme dependence on the wisdom of bishops. I know the answers if you’re Catholic, Lutheran, or Orthodox. Or, at least in all those cases, I know what the answers ought to be based on the theological standards of those churches and the stated rules of their respective forms of church governance.

I have no earthly idea what the answers are for “evangelicalism.”

What is the equivalent for a non-denominational evangelical celebrity pastor with a huge radio audience and speaking gigs at conferences? Begg, of course, brought the UK evangelicalism question up in his own discussion of this, but with all due respect to Begg I actually think the issue here has less to do with Begg being formed in British evangelicalism and far more to do with Begg existing within the hopelessly vague and under-determined structures of American evangelicalism.

Once again, I broadly agree with Meador’s concern here. If I am reading him rightly, he is concerned with the evident difference between the processes available to a Presbyteran, Anglican or Lutheran Church and what, if anything, is available to wider evangelicalism in addressing accusations of doctrinal error or moral failure.

Where I want to push back slightly – and maybe I am reading something into these comments that he didn’t intend (I appreciate this is an inference from silence on my part) – but Meador appears to imply that there are processes for all manner of denominations, but none for the Independents. That is, the non-denominational church Begg is in as well as the Baptist Associations and those who simply called themselves Independents. Whilst the Independents have no formal rule book (apart from the Bible) because to have one from outside imposed upon you would necessarily make you something other than an Independent Church, they do have a typically shared practice. But they do typically have constitutions and church handbooks that fulfil the same function. The Congregational Independents have mechanisms to remove from office or insist there is no cause for action among church members just as Meador suggests the Presbyterians would have the presbytery do. Non-congregational Independents usually vest that authority in the church elders. I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but the suggestion appeared to be that the connexional churches had mechanisms but Begg’s non-denominational church did not. If that has been intentionally implied, I think that is simply wrong.

So, my two observations on Meador’s post itself then, in sum, are these. He is right about the lack of process available in wider evangelicalism as a movement and that such things can only credibly be dealt with at a local church level. He is wrong (if he did intend to imply this) that Independent Churches have no local church mechanisms for dealing with these issues. So, with those two observations stated, let me offer a couple of further thoughts.

My working assumption – on the basis that this is true for the majority of Independent Churches – have their own mechanisms for dealing with sin and removing from office those who have disqualified themselves. If that assumption is true, then the process for dealing with Alistair Begg’s comments, in the first instance, lie with his church. They either think he has said ministry disqualifying things that should see him removed from office or they do not. Evidence at the moment suggests – despite, by his own admission, not everyone who he works with agrees with his advice – he has said nothing that warrants removal from office or disqualifies him from ministry. We may agree of disagree with the position his church has taken, but it would be altogether untrue to suggest there is no mechanism for dealing with the matter at a local church level.

The wider issues for evangelicalism are hardly new. So, whilst there is no agreed process for the soft-power of conference invites and platforms, Baptists and Independents have long since understood the importance of Association. They have several hundred years behind them – long predating the rise of American “Big Eva” – of figuring out what to do when those in your association, over whom you have no denominational authority, affirm heresy, false doctrine or succumb to the prevailing cultural zeitgeist and deny biblical ethics. The handwringing ‘what do we do?’ only comes from those who have no history or understanding of how association of any sort works.

Specifically, gospel associations function without denominational authority in two simple ways. First, they associate as a bounded set. Associations usually have a doctrinal basis within which members operate. Deviation from the boundaries of doctrinal agreement and ethical positions of the association present the need for some action. The second principle is that, even though an association of Independents cannot reach into any given local church and impose anything, they can choose with whom they will associate. If a church deviates from the set boundaries of the association, the association can in turn withdraw fellowship. Though the church may have a heretical elder in post whom they see no problem in keeping in office, the association has the soft-power to withdraw its fellowship. Though it can’t stop the elder continuing to lead the church, it can refuse fellowship with a church that will not address the matter using the mechanisms available to Independent local churches as outlined above.

The difficulty with the broader evangelical movement is that it is not a bounded set. It is a centred-set that, by its nature, centres on certain shared characteristics rather than necessarily being bounded by an agreed set of doctrines. What you then have is a group of people who would draw their doctrinal boundaries in somewhat different places. Inevitably we all have lines that we draw, but when those things are not constituted, we inevitably draw them in different places.

Nevertheless, the principles required for Independent Associationism inevitably end up at work in the evangelical movement. We all end up asking the question: who can we have fellowship with across denominational lines? Though there may be no explicit rule book, we all implicitly know where our lines typically fall. We Independently associate with whomever we want to associate with and we withdraw fellowship from those we deem to offend gospel doctrines and ethics, just as Independent associations have done since their inception.

All of which is to say, I think there are legitimate questions to ask about the soft-power structures of evangelicalism. Who are the gatekeepers? Who appointed them? Do any of us have to listen to or agree with them? These are all valid questions to ask of what amounts to an extra-biblical but nevertheless potentially legitimate grouping of churches. At the same time, I don’t see any Independents or Baptists getting overly troubled about the Begg furore inasmuch as none of them view it as their role or biblical function to reach into his church and do anything about the matter. Indeed, assuming the best, I imagine his church have mechanisms to deal with what he said and it is for them to determine whether they think anything warrants being done at all. The sole question for the rest of us is: are we happy to continue to have fellowship with Begg and his church who do not seem to view this as any sort of disciplinary matter? You can read my earlier posts on this whole debacle to see what I think about that question.

But my point here is a simple one. Evangelicalism has the same ability to address this in whatever direction it will as Independent Churches do. Evangelicalism can’t demand Begg resign. It isn’t a bounded set, there is no evangelical vote and there is no bounded set of evangelicals to know who to canvass even if it somehow decided that would be appropriate. What Evangelicalism can do is decide if the issue is significant enough to withdraw fellowship or it is such that they are happy to continue in fellowship. What you will probably find – just as with almost every issue that ever happens within Independency – is some will consider this a watershed moment that means they withdraw fellowship whilst others consider it considerably less significant and continue in fellowship. There probably won’t be an agreed Evangelical line because evangelicalism, by its nature, is not a uniform movement. It is tantamount to a sociological category to describe people who centre on some shared characteristics rather than a bounded group that holds to an agreed set of doctrines on everything.

Will that mean the splintering of evangelicalism? Well, two things are worth saying. On the particular issue at hand, I find it hard to believe Alistair Begg will be the man to break evangelicalism. I find it hard to believe these comments will be the the breaking of evangelicalism. Indeed, if Alistair Begg and these particular comment are the breaking of evangelicalism that only proves evangelicalism was never a movement with any value. There have been far greater threats to evangelicals in the past and I find it very difficult to see this being the one that tanked it.

The second thing to say is that evangelicalism, by its nature, has always been splintered. Ever since the split with Rome, the Protestant Reformed churches split. Zwingli and Luther had a big bust up concerning the elements in communion. Calvin and Luther disagreed over church polity and a bunch of doctrines. The Church of England was different again. In the UK, it didn’t take very long for Independents, Congregationalists and Particular Baptists to spring up all taking a different view on polity and certain ecclesiological matters but largely sharing a set of theological beliefs. Thereafter, there was further splintering. If we want to avoid a splintered church, Rome is where it’s at (which, even that, isn’t as united as some would have you believe). But the point is, evangelicalism sprung out of a Protestant Church that has always has shared beliefs and yet differences that made being in the same church was all but impossible. Different views on baptism, for example, were once regarded as grounds for execution and sitting in different churches as grounds to be locked out of public office and education. These days most are happy to work across denominational lines for the gospel – even if not sit in the same church – with those who differ on those sorts of issue. Protestants, and evangelicals after that, have always had to ask this question: who will we have fellowship with?

Given all that, it seems highly unlikely that Begg and his comments will break anything. Nor do we need to worry about evangelical processes in that sense. The radio station on which Begg’s regular teaching slot aired has decided to withdraw its platform. Meador recognises they have every right to do so. Evangelicals across the board will ask the same question and make their own calls. Can we, in light of this, continue in fellowship? To some degree, that is the only mechanism evangelicalism has got. But, when it boils down to it, it isn’t such a bad one.

Meador is concerned that Evangelicalism’s approach to controversy mirrors the approach we see in the world. Whilst I agree that much of the time it does, I don’t think any of that is due to lack of process. It is due to evangelicals not employing the very mechanism available to them. The sole mechanism we have is the right to withdraw fellowship. Either withdraw or don’t. But ultimately, the decision concerning whom you have fellowship with is down to you and your church.

The reason why evangelicalism apes the world is because it has determined that this mechanism is not enough. Ironically, Meador seems to be arguing that the big problem is that Evangelicalism doesn’t have better processes and more mechanisms available to it. There is no rule book. I would venture the problem for evangelicalism, contrary to Meador, is it wants more than it legitimately or biblically ought to have. Evangelicalism can withdraw or remain in fellowship. That should be adequate enough. Quietly withdraw or happily remain in fellowship. What makes evangelicalism act like the world is going beyond any biblical ground and wanting to seek to either punish or make an example or loudly crow about whatever our position is. The issue that makes evangelicalism like the world isn’t the lack of mechanism, but the desire to have greater mechanisms than scripture will give us, wanting everyone to follow suit and even to seek – as far as it may be able – to impose a singular will on their people. In other words, it is the desire for evangelicalism to act like a denomination – and particularly those who want it to function that way – who end up sinning by demanding everyone follows their lead (without biblical warrant) and who get angry their will is not imposed upon all like it would be by a presbytery or bishop.

All that would melt away if we were just happy to operate with the single mechanism every believer has: do we want to (quietly) continue in fellowship or (quietly) withdraw? It is only when we think our will, our view, our position must imposed on all – much like in a denomination – that the trouble ensues. Evangelicalism typically runs into trouble when it forgets it is neither a denomination nor a bounded set, but insists – by the crowing of some unappointed and unofficial leaders – that we all must do was they do and woe betide any who demur. The lack of process is a product of not being a denomination. The consequence of not being a denomination necessarily means we can only approach whatever the latest cause of handwringing is the way any Independent church or individual believer can approach any such question: can I have fellowship anymore or not and allowing others to do the same knowing it is before their own master they stand or fall.