There are two different errors Scott Buchanan highlights in his article Indifferentism vs. Everythingism: Stay in the Middle of the Road, but that’s not what makes his article interesting.
First, let’s get some definitions out of the way:
- Indifferentism is the error of accepting the gospel but refusing to acknowledge the doctrines of the gospel as “unbreachable boundaries for Christian faith and fellowship.”
- Everythingism is the error of holding all doctrines on the same level as the gospel, making every belief a boundary for faith and fellowship.
The problem here is that both are wrong Scripturally. The one is wrong because there are doctrines that go along with salvation that must be maintained. The other is wrong because not every doctrine is of the same weight as salvation or necessary for salvation.
Fundamentalists have the problem of allowing for the second, Evangelicals have the problem with being permissive about the first. But both are wrong, as illustrated by the end of his article:
One time when discussing separation with a friend, I mentioned that I considered strong KJV-only-ism as serious an error as new-evangelicalism. The friend, who came from conservative circles, looked at me with a shocked expression: surely I was crazy to imply that somebody with an ostensibly “higher standard” of practice was as wrong as a “compromising” new-evangelical.
Interesting stuff, is it not? How often do we allow someone to slide by because of a higher standard that they’ve linked to salvation (there’s nothing wrong with a high standard when you are not judging another, especially with an extra biblical issue) and take to task the evangelical?