I was surprised to open an email from Christianity Today’s Daily Newsletter and discover a book review by John Makujina, the associate professor of OT at Central. The review is basically a dismantling of a blasphemous book by John Shelby Spong entitled The Sins of Scripture.
The article is excellent. The platform? Surprising, to say the least. He’s certainly engaging the book before an audience that needs to hear his good perspective. But does that make it okay? I’m not sure what I think. Interesting.
Filed under: Contemporary Issues, Fundamentalism |
My Two Cents 
I find this very interesting indeed, and, like you, I’m not quite sure what to make of it. I honestly haven’t give a great deal of thought to where “getting a book review published” ranks in the scale of associations.
If I’m reading with an overly skeptical spirit, I’m slightly troubled by this paragraph:
“That is, Spong leapfrogs from the fundamentalist orientation of his youth to 21st century evangelicalism, without considering the interim. He caricatures evangelicalism, for example, as an intellectual ghetto, thriving on ignorance and unwilling to embrace the advances of biblical criticism.”
I’m assuming that by the phrase “21st century evangelicalism,” Makujina is refering to the apostate position of Spong and his ilk. The tone of this exerpt, at least in my reading of it, is that Makujina faults Spong for jumping from fundamentalism to liberalism, while not taking better notice of the virtues of evangelicalism. There is certainly a sense in which I would agree with this: the best of evangelical scholarship, typified by men like Carson and Bruce, is not an “intellectual ghetto.” Thus, while Spong should be faulted for leaving his fundamentalist upbringing, he should also be faulted for failing to interact responsibly with the scholarship of broader evangelicalism.
However, given the context of the statement (in CT), it could easily be read as a straight endorsement of evangelicalism, as over against both liberalism AND fundamentalism. The “interim” position could be understood to avoid the errors of both of the extremes. I sincerely doubt that this is Dr. Makujina’s intent, but I also doubt that most readers of CT will read it any other way.
Could any of the Central guys who read this blog get some comments from Dr. Makujina on this? Not on my comments, as such, but on the idea of getting published in CT? By no means am I ready to say that it is a terrible idea or a error in separatism, but it is an interesting situation, and I’d be interested to know his thought processes on the topic.
My thoughts are more conservative about these issues. When separation is necessary, I believe that the only profitable communication toward an unrepentant brother is “Repent!” If the sin is not addressed the effect of that separation and the heinousness of his error are played down.
While his writing does explain the problems with Spong’s book, he doesn’t use his platform to promote fundamentalism or denounce the compromise of evangelicalism—the very problems about which most of CT’s readers need to be warned.
What is the motivation behind having such articles published in a compromising magazine? Is it to gain credibility with disobedient brothers? Is it to prove that fundamentalists are more intellectual? Or was the article published as a warning? If it is the latter, the article should have been tailored more towards the CT crowd.
Not much time, but I was invented to comment, so here goes a quickie. Writing for publication is not an ecclesiastical relationship, so it does not contsitute compromise with regard to the biblical instructions about ecclesiastical separation.
While there are legitimate questions that could be tossed around about the wisdom of being published in something like CT, I don’t see this as a matter of obedience to what the Scriptures teach about ecclesiaastical separation.
I don’t think that what Dr. Makujina has done here is really any different than what Dr. Bauder did in speaking at the Beeson seminar and writing his chapter for the book that grew out of that. Both were critiques of errant positions set a context where those critiques were needed. I have tended to shy away from those contexts, but I have not concluded that others are in violation of any biblical principles to participate at that level for those purposes.
I don’t see, however, a true parallel between this and speaking at Pastors School in Hammond. The men who have done so recently have not been invited to bring the opposing viewpoint. They have been brought in to assist ministries which are defective on essential doctrines. That is a big difference. And they are doing so in a pastoral context, not an academic one.
I guess that wasn’t terribly quick, but if you only knew what I might have said…
I’ll have to think through the section you quoted, Michael.
Frankly, I’m still sorting through the location/affiliation question. CT is grossly liberal, as indicated by their articles (here and here, for example, though this hardly needs to be proven) and by a discussion I’ve been having with one of their authors here. Talk about leap-frogging over evangelicalism!
So, is Makujina to be applauded for engaging unbelief on its own turf? Is that even what he did? Or, rather, did he associate with compromise and unbelief of a lesser degree (which may be debatable) at CT in order to attack a more extreme error? And did he muddy the waters in the process? In other words, did he rebuke CT-type Christianity, or just join hands with it to rebuke what is clearly anti-Christianity? Was it a good decision to dialogue under the CT banner? I’ll say this: reading the typical fare offered by CT would make me extremely uncomfortable about my name associated with them in any way other than oppposition.
I think Andy has a great point. Most involved in CT’s compromise are probably agreeing with Makujina on this extreme error; but they are probably also left with the impression that (a) CT is more conservative than it really is, and (b) they have much in common with Central Baptist Theological Seminary and fundamentalism than they really do.
FWIW, I have had the same question regarding Dr. Binney speaking at FBC Hammond’s Pastor’s School (originally discussed here and now reported on here), just as I did regarding Janz’s participation at the God-Blog-Con. All of these situations raise a number of tremendously important questions:
* Are fundamentalists moving away from applying principles of separation to areas of “platform fellowship”?
* How does writing for a liberal publication differ from speaking for a liberal meeting?
* How do these situations compare to Graham’s increasing his hearing by his affiliation with liberals in the 50’s (when his problem was affiliation more so than a compromised message)?
* Is MacArthur (for example) right when he challenges people to judge him on the basis of what he speaks rather than where?
Andy said:
——–
What is the motivation behind having such articles published in a compromising magazine? Is it to gain credibility with disobedient brothers? Is it to prove that fundamentalists are more intellectual? Or was the article published as a warning?
——–
1. Read Bauder’s notes. He does avoid the use of the “disobedient brethren” term. Perhaps that is part of the equation governing the decision (though I am certainly no insider with Central).
2. Isn’t one of the primary purposes of publishing any article to have it read? There is a readership at CT that needs to read what Makujina writes in the review.
I would see this being little different than Bauder’s appearance at Beeson for “Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail,” or Bob Jones III appearing on a panel with a Jewish rabbi and Muslim cleric on Larry King Live…
..or Jim Binney speaking at Pastor’s School in Hammond. :D
Dr. Doran,
Thanks for posting. You posted while I was writing.
Regarding your paragraph concering the differences between speaking at the Preacher’s School and writing for CT: I’m not sure I see the difference. I’m not sure that Dr. Makujina was actually “brining an opposing viewpoint” to that of CT. He addressed an obvious theological error, but he didn’t really oppose the problems of CT. And I’m not sure but what his participation actually could assist CT (at least theoretically), and CT is obviously “defective on essential doctrines.” The differences are not clear to me.
Finally, how effective is it to critique grave error while cooperating with lesser error? It sounds like co-belligerence. Are we okay with that?
To those of you who see this as possible compromise on Dr. Makujina’s part:
If you conclude he has compromised, are you bound to separate from him (and Central)?
Why or why not?
Chris,
My point was not that Makujina was confronting CT; he was critiquing Spong. Bauder did not go to Beeson to confront Beeson, but to address Mouw’s faulty view of fundamentalism. Since my basic point is that the context is not an ecclesiastical relationship (in these two cases), it does not fit that category. The difference I pointed out with the Pastors’ School issue is evident by its name and location (1st Baptist of Hammond).
To pick on up something you mentioned, I am not sure that there ever was a legitimate application of so-called “platform fellowship” to things like articles, papers, etc. The very label (platform fellowship) came initially from the context of ecumenical meetings and was always tightly defined (when defined properly). It has been standard practice to not consider participation in the Evangelical Theological Society as a matter of ecclesiastical compromise (even when presenting a paper). It is an academic, professional organization. Writing a book review or article for CT or Bib Sac or The Master’s Seminary Journal does not involve one in an ecclesiastical relationship (at least not if ecclesiastical has any real meaning).
Dr. Doran,
I have noticed you mentioning the term ecclesiastical separation several time. The way you are using it seems to limit the extent of separation to ecclesiastical relationships. Do you believe that once outside of a church relationship, you are free to fellowship with disobedient brothers?
I recognize that participating with ETS and writing journal articles has come to be considered okay, but I am not convinced as of yet that one can leave his concern for an errant believer outside the door for such activities.
Greg,
Separation from someone like this would happen only after more investigation and direct confrontation. At the moment, we are discussing the apparent inconsistency and wondering out loud whether it is wise. As with all men and schools, I plan to keep an eye on the direction and then, if necessary, take steps as I feel would be wise.
Andy
Greg,
No one is calling for separation from Makujina or Central, friend. We’re tying to learn how and when to apply biblical principles of separation…a question that is crucial, albeit more subjective than we may admit. Throwing a “should we separate from Makujina and Central and…” grenade into the discussion is distracting, IMO. That’s exactly what happened at SI when Andy Efting legitimately questioned whether it was wise for Dr. Binney to speak at FBC Hammond. Rather than focusing on why it was or was not a good decision, the thread became a “we’re-all-contaminated” laugher.
We’re asking legitimate questions…to learn, not to pigeonhole someone as either obedient or disobedient. No tar is being warmed.
Dr. Doran,
I appreciate your input, and I understand that publishing has been treated differently than, say, preaching. However, I’m not sure why. (Chalk it up to my ignorance.)
Since you brought it up, what does “involve one in an ecclesiastical relationship?” You’re not limiting it to local churches, are you? Sorry for my dullness; can you please explain?
Greg,
FWIW, I notified Dr. Makujina that we were discussing this and invited his input. He called me a few minutes later and we had a profitable conversation. He may post what he was and was not trying to accomplish.
Anyway, the discussion is not a “whodunnit.” I may not (read: probably won’t) end up agreeing that publishing via CT is wise, but I’m not out to get anyone.
Chris and Andy,
What ivites the questions like I asked could be because of the way the initial questions are asked. The appearance seems to be that you are already inclined and predisposed to think he is wrong, and leaving it to others to convince you otherwise.
My take on this is why not give the man the benefit of the doubt? He’s clearly established the direction he’s traveling in. He certainly hasn’t directly affirmed any error or compromise in the content of his article. OK, so it might not be a place you or I would feel comfortable publishing an article. It might even limit you from bringing him in to be a member of the faculty of CAU (Chris Anderson University, of course!). But the immediate impression of a “pounce” is perhaps what invites the lobbing of such grenades…
…which, as it seems I am guilty of lobbing one and derailing the discussion, I sincerely apologize for.
CAU? Mercy, the thought of having an elementary school gives me a rash. No thanks. However, the idea of starting a university to keep my 4 beauties at home and away from predators (aka “young men”) has indeed crossed my mind.
Anyways, no apology is necessary, friend. Just know that disagreeing with Makujina and making him walk the plank are two different things, and the latter hasn’t entered my mind. I really think it is profitable to discuss these things in a “more light, less heat” way. I’ve got much to learn.
Andy,
Ecclesiastical separation is the extension of church discipline beyond the borders of an individual local church, i.e., it is how one local assembly carries out its responsibility to guard the deposit and contend for the faith as the pillar and support of the truth. The center of this is the gospel–a true church cannot give Christian recognition to false churches or false teachers. Because of the importance of this biblical responsibility, violation of it leads to separation from those churches and teachers that compromise the gospel.
The center of this battle should be on the church level. It is the bane of fundamentalism and evangelicalism that it is so weak on the local church–both are really more a cluster of parachurch ministries than they are associations of NT churches. This, in my mind, is part of what has created the confusion regarding separation in our day. It is more about people, schools, magazines, etc. than about churches. I don’t know if there is much we can do at this stage of the game to correct this, but one way of responding is the manner that I have. Namely, it is to recognize levels of fellowship ranging from church to individual. Camps, conferences, magaizines, schools, websites, etc., all fall somewhere between them and have different obligations. Two Christian schools/colleges competing in athletics is not an ecclesiastical relationship and does not call for separation from disobedient brothers to the degree that they can’t play each other. Purchasing an education is not an ecclesiastical relatiionship. Going to a conference is not. Blogging is not. Planting churches is. Having a joint ministry or worship time is.
Andy, I think you need to define disobedient very carefully if you are not going to speak in the terms that I am. By my understanding of Scripture, I believe that a non-immersed believer is a disobedient beliwever. It sounds as if you would be calling for total separation from any believer in that condition, e.g., a Free Pres pastor. I would argue for separation at some levels from such a pastor (i.e., the church level), but would not rule out speaking at a Bible Conference with him.
And I would like to reiterate my point, made above, that the central issue at stake is the gospel. If we keep that clearly in mind, then I don’t think we start off the chain reaction implied in an earlier question.
Well said, Dr. D.
Chris,
My answer on the distinction between an article and preaching is implied in what I wrote to Andy. Further, I would make the same distinction when it comes to recommending a book by an author that I would not have preach in our congregation. And I would apply it to taking a class from a professor that I wouldn’t invite to preach.
I readily grant that others don’t get or accept this distinction, but I personally think it is because they are trying to hard to acheive a level of consistency that is not required. There is an old saying that goes something like “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds.” I have no idea what the last part of that means, but I do think that I have seen the first part too often. I’ve seen parents do it with their children; teachers with their students; pastors with their churches; and (some) fundamentalists with their separation. Two things have provoked me over the years: (1) people who seize any inconsistency of application in an attempt to invalidate a legitimate principle, and (2) people who are slaves to consistency in application at the expense of a legitimate principle.
Dr. Doran,
I appreciate your removing non-religious activities like sports from the conversation. I agree. I also appreciate your focus on the gospel and on the local church. But separation lines obviously have to be drawn elsewhere. How do we determine that writing a religious article for CT is really different than speaking for a religious conference, say Promise Keepers. (I know…I’m behind the times.) I’m trying to understand the difference. Both groups are/were para-church. Both groups are/were less than careful with the gospel…and that’s being generous. Both scenarios involve communicating truth to those who need to hear it and otherwise might not.
To use an example you cited and that is probably more germane, why is writing for The Master’s Seminary Journal different from speaking in their chapel? Why is one “ecclesiastical” and the other is not? (Unless I’m mistaken in your use of the term.) Frankly, it’s confusing, even for those of us who believe in separation and want to apply it carefully. I think there are biblical reasons for avoiding both. What am I missing?
I’d also be interested in your take on this question posed earlier:
Finally, how effective is it to critique grave error while cooperating with lesser error? It sounds like co-belligerence. Are we okay with that?
Thanks again for taking the time to participate in the discussion.
Dr. Doran,
I admit that separation is subjective and that absolute consistency is impossible. And I know that I participate in the same type of inconsistency: the article I last published commends some good things which Mark Dever has said, yet I wouldn’t have him preach in my church. It makes sense to me. Explaining it? Well…
However, it also makes sense to me that reading a compromising magazine is different than writing for it, that attending a conference or school is different than speaking at a conference or school, etc.
Perhaps you can explain why writing for the Masters Journal is different than speaking for the Masters Seminary…if it is. To be perfectly frank, it could seem like writing for journals is different than speaking for churches or conferences because the Great Oz says so…whoever he is or was. “Ignore the man behind the curtain.” I’d love to hear a better reason. I still don’t get it, which may very well be my fault.
If it’s any encouragement to you, with each post I’m feeling more like a “hobgoblin” or “simple mind” or whatever it is that you said.
I am thinking along the same lines as Chris. This whole idea of levels of fellowship works for me to a point (baptism, church government, denomination, etc.). But when it comes to joining with a new evangelical or liberal in a biblical endeavor (magazine/journal articles, conferences, education, etc.) I think a line should be drawn. The absence of the line takes away from the purpose of separation: protection for believers and shame and restoration for the one in error.
Andy,
FWIW, I may draw the line in a different place than you do when it comes to conferences. I would differentiate between participating in a conference (say, by speaking) and attending it, just as I would differentiate between reading a man’s book and hosting him in the church I pastor. Also, you mentioned education. I think we need to be careful here, especially as it relates to advanced degrees. Dr. McCune’s point about being more cautious regarding entry-level educational institutions and allowing a broader spectrum for post-graduate institutions makes sense, I think. In fact, it is probably essential.
Chris and Andy,
Have you read Bauder’s notes yet? I’m curious if they have done anything to challenge your perspective, at least in making you rethink some things.
Hey, Greg.
Yes, I read Bauder’s notes. Plenty there to digest. I’m not certain exactly how they apply to this situation, but I’ll give it a go:
* Were I Makujina, I’d see the differences with CT as a “catastrophic error or heresy” (Bauder’s point III, B, 5), so I wouldn’t fellowship or cooperate there. (Of course, I’m not Makujina.)
* Do I see Makujina’s error (in my judgment) in the same way? Of course not. I would hope that it is an “isolated error” (Bauder’s point III, B, 3) as opposed to a “systematic error” (Bauder’s III, B, 4). Which of those two it is would determine “in which direction my brother is moving” (Bauder’s III, C, 4).
Of course, many will take exception with my calling his writing for CT an error of any kind. They will maintain that it was perfectly appropriate. I understand that. At this point, based on my first asterisk, I would disagree. In the confused theological milieu in which we minister, I think greater caution is in order, especially with a publication with CT’s history, direction and philosophy. To use Bauder’s terms, I’d say writing for such a publication would be analogous to his “itenerant teaching” (III, A, 3). Again, many will disagree. But that’s my take on it, which is what you asked for.
I think what Bauder has done is helpful in many ways. However, I have some concerns and questions…perhaps just misunderstandings. I will probably start a post to discuss it here sometime. I know there is an open thread at SI on the issue, but I may express my thoughts here nonetheless. Of course, they won’t be required reading for anyone. :)
Hi Chris
The angst you feel over the Makujina article and that expressed on SI over Binney at the Pastor’s School are similar. As behaviour, they seem to be aberrations from the general Fundamentalist rule, at least as I have understood it. (I am not saying they are equal aberrations.) JJ at the GodBlog is another.
I think that they are the kind of thing that you look at and say… interesting… then you wait and see. I think BJU had John Ankerberg speak there a few years ago. Again … interesting… but it appears to be something that will not be repeated.
Once these aberrations starts becoming a pattern, then our attitude changes and Fundamentalists do start speaking up.
I do think that to speak of disobedience and separation at this point is a little premature. The incident itself raises questions, and they should be asked, but the knee-jerk “I’m agin’ it” reaction is, I think, the stereotypical fundy response that has gotten us a bad name. Maybe we will be agin’ it at some point, but now is just the time for questions. That’s my take anyway.
Having said all that, I do wonder about this business of publishing ETS papers etc. I suppose it is that I am not an academic and not interested in that sort of world. To me, it seems to be more about “look at me” than about anything that really furthers the kingdom. Is that too strident?
I just fail to see how the cause is helped by pursuing recognition by these organizations.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I don’t subscribe to CT or make it to the library often enough to read it regularly. So, I’ve lost track of them to some degree. Thus, I don’t want to make my comments too specific to this instance.
I would suggest that we would do well to consider the nature and mission of a given magazine, journal, conference, association, etc. Let me use publishing houses as an example.
Some publishers, such as BJU Press, P&R, or Ambassador-Emerald are bounded (to borrow terminology from Bock). They have a relatively tight definition of the type of material they will publish. Other houses, such as Zondervan or Crossway, tend to be less bounded, public-square institutions. They act as a place for the exchange of differing views within evangelicalism. Done right, both approaches can be helpful. The different relationships between BJU Press and an author or Zondervan and an author reflect their different purposes.
(Of course there are also narrowly defined publications that have errant beliefs and cannot be cooperated with at all.)
Thus, in questions of this sort we must consider whether the organization/publication has a theological platform or whether it permits a plurality of opinions (or at least dissent from prevailing opinions).
I don’t know where CT falls in this grid (perhaps that is the crux of the issue), but perhaps these thoughts will be some help.
Don, my thoughts are really similar to yours: “Interesting.” However, I don’t think that coming to a conclusion that a particular action (like writing for CT) is a mistake–at least something I would not do–is the same as writing off a man. I suggest that coming to a conclusion about a particular one-time event might be done with relative speed. Coming to a conclusion about a particular man or institution? That requires more than one action (as you suggest, as Bauder suggests, and as fundamentalists have typically believed, I think), and requires much more time. As Greg has suggested, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt, especially when there has been a track record of faithfulness. The discussion should focus on the event, not the person.
Per your post, I haven’t brought up questions of separation or disobedience with regard to Makujina. I’ve wondered if it was a wise thing to do. I’m inclined to think that it was not. That’s it. I’m not making any sort of knee-jerk response to Makujina. Not at all. If I conclude that “I’m agin it,” I’m not also bound to say “I’m agin him.”
And for the record, when I spoke with Makujina on the phone yesterday, he was very clear that this was not a change of direction. He has no sympathy with CT’s philosophy or theological position (whatever that may be), but was only seeking a broad hearing for what he believes to be an important issue. He was very concerned that his own position not be misunderstood. So while I may disagree with the practice, I don’t think it is indicative of a directional change for the man.
I think Michael’s comment regarding the “boundedness” of the magazine or journal is particularly relevant. In some ways, publishing in these “marketplace of ideas” type journals is similar to blogging, but with peer-review and standards of academic excellence. It is interesting to note, however, that Norm Geisler (a former ETS president) resigned from the Evangelical Theological Society after it failed to remove Clark Pinnock and John Sanders for their views on Open Theism. Here is an evangelical that is practicing separation in a way that some fundamentalists do not.
I admit that I need to think through things like ETS. I’m not sure what to think…and they haven’t asked me to submit an article yet. :D
However, I think comparing CT to a theological journal is a bit like comparing People magazine to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Am I mistaken?
RE: applying Dr. Bauder’s thoughts on separation to Makujina.
Chris,
Dr. Bauder’s notes are preliminary thoughts on separation, so for one who hasn’t heard his whole teaching on it, they are not very clear.
I believe that Makujina writing for CT is addressed by Bauder’s point III.A.3, rather than by III.b.
“3. Itinerant preaching and teaching: the occasion may permit a significant number of differences as long as those differences don’t enter into the occasion of instruction. For example, a Presbyterian might have a Baptist in his pulpit, but not to preach on church order.”
The question has more to do with what kind of fellowship is taking place (i.e., not ecclesiastical, but more on the personal side).
Makujina, by his own statement, is an apologist. He writes to defend the truth.
Thanks, NC. It sounds as though you are much more familiar with both Bauder’s teaching and with Makujina than I am. Even an itinerant link with CT would be troubling, I would think, but then we’re back to the difference between writing and preaching.
As for defending the truth, I wonder if Spong poses as big a threat to Christianity as CT does.
Anyway, thank you for the clarifications.
FWIW, I would think of CT being more akin to Time than People.
I do have one other question related to a statement Andy made:
——–
The absence of the line takes away from the purpose of separation: protection for believers and shame and restoration for the one in error. (emphasis mine)
——–
Is this is ALWAYS true in EVERY instance of separation?
Don,
I think you have judged the issue of presenting papers at an ETS meeting quite wrongly (and i might add harshly). There is a much more simple answer: these men are scholars by profession who love to research and write in order to make a contribution to their field of scholarship. And that means that others come to hear these papers for the contribution and thought-provocation they provide. ETS provides a venue for that which is unique. To assume that it would be motivated by vanity is wrong. Do we assume that pastors who go to conferences in order to preach do so for vain reasons? Or pastors who write for magazines like Frontline do so to get people’s attention? Should we conclude that people who post in multiple comment sections across the web are just crying out “look at me”? Why is it that academic pursuit alone is so often perceived as a prideful exercise? Generally, I don’t buy the anti-intellectualism argument, but comments like yours are what provoke.
Andy,
I think you need to reserve judgment on the Geisler decision a little. It may be as you have described it, but it also could be a matter of institutional integrity. In other words, his decision may have been predicated on the fact that ETS was actiing inconsistently with their own doctrinal statements, not that he was practicing ecclesiastical separation. Our church pulled out of a fundamentalist association for this kind of reason. We were not separating from them in the historic sense; we were saying something like, “If you won’t take your own documents seriously, then we don’t feel comfortable being part of it.”
Further, and I don’t mean to provoke a side discussion, even if Geisler did pull out because he wanted to separate from theological error, should we conclude that all others must make the same decision at this point? Isn’t it true that biblical separatism is predicated on the belief that either the error must be driven out or we must pull out? Are those who are seeking to drive it out (like our fundamentalist forebears) not “separatists”? In reality, those who oppose Open Theism are arguing and moving to eliminate this error and those who hold it. And many of them are standing ready to leave if they see that it can’t be done.
For my own clarification:
Isn’t Bauder suggesting that all 3 points apply in every setting: III A, B and C? It’s not one or the other, is it? Don’t they deal with three different questions (level of fellowship, manner of difference, and attitude)?
Dr. Geisler explains why he pulled out of the ETS at http://www.normgeisler.com. Click on the Articles tab and look for “Why I Resigned from The Evangelical Theological Society.”
BTW, when I said it was “interesting” I meant just that. I was not suggesting that fundamentalists should pull out of the ETS just because Geisler did. I’m with Chris in that I am still formulating my opinion on the situation. Does the appropriateness of writing for JETS change if ETS is not strictly evangelical in nature?
Hi Dave
I thought my comment re ETS might provoke a reaction. You asked if we can assume preachers preach at fellowship meetings or publish in Frontline ‘to be seen’?
My answer would be that while probably not the case for every instance, I would not deny that it is a motivation. We all like attention.
One other thought on the CT issue… Christianity Today is the flagship of New Evangelicalism. It is not just any religious magazine. The discomfort we have in observing this event is because of that history. The magazine was created to marginalize Fundamentalism and to further New Evangelicalism.
As I said earlier, that makes the decision to publish an article there interesting. I don’t think I would do it, but I am not likely to have the opportunity, either. (I did get a letter to the editor published once!)
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
I don’t want to go back and forth repeatedly about this, but twice seems needed. You dodged the point of my statement. I don’t think anyone doubts that some people do things for the wrong motives–pastors, professors, conference speakers, blog commenters. That wasn’t my point. My point was that it is wrong to make statements that imply wrong motives for all who do these things. That is what you did, and attempting to deflect away from that by your follow up doesn’t change that. There was no reason to introduce speculations about motives into the discussion in the first place, and to only cite a negative motivation as a possible explanation is plain wrong.
Hi Dave
I am not overly impressed with scholarship. You may think that anti-intellectual and you are welcome to the opinion.
My opinion is that the ETS is not a proper venue for fundamentalists, scholars or not. I don’t think it serves the cause of Christ. I can’t imagine wanting to be associated in any way with this crowd. The presence of fundamentalists in these venues is very disturbing to me. I am fearful of what it suggests about the direction of fundamentalist institutions.
Can I be any plainer?
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Let’s leave motives alone. Per my conversation with Makujina, his motive was to deal with an error in as public a way as possible and in an arena where it would matter to the readership (more so, say, than in Frontline). Whether we agree or not, we have absolutely no grounds to impugn his or anyone else’s motives.
The thread has many loose ends and unanswered questions. I’m still not certain that I see a significant difference between (a) writing or speaking academically on religious issues and (b) preaching. But I don’t expect anyone to lose sleep over what I think. Life goes on.
I am interested in this, however. Assuming that Makujina wrote the article to debunk an error (Spong), is doing so through a publication with the philosophy and history of CT ignoring an even more dangerous error (CT)? Are we comfortable with a sort of co-belligerence? Is that what this is? Or would those who are okay with using something like CT view it as a “neutral” platform?
What is the purpose for working with ETS?
What is the purpose for separating from new evangelicals?
Is it possible to separate from them but work with them at the same time?
Don,
I prefer the plainness of your last statement over the speculations of the initial post. I disagree with your assessment that involvement in things like ETS constitutes any problem in terms of one’s separatist views or position. I am content to leave it there.
Last post for today…
Andy R.,
Your first question–
You don’t really “work with” ETS; one is a member of an academic, professional society of scholars. (For the record, I am not a member and have never attended a meeting–doesn’t fit the schedule.) The purpose of this society is the promotion of biblical scholarship among those who are committed to inerrancy. That was its singular doctrinal guideline originally, although it has been supplemented. Its current doctrinal statement is “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” That’s it.
Its purpose is likewise pretty simple and straightforward: “To foster conservative Biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.” It is a society of scholars committed to research, writing, and interaction regarding biblical and theological issues. No Great Commission mandate, church work, etc.
Your second question–
It is the defense of the gospel/faith. NE advocated supplying Chirstian recognition to those who denied the faith by cooperating with unbelief in ecumencial evangelistic efforts and within apostate denominations/churches.
Your third question–
Yes.
Oh, you want an explanation. I would begin by suggesting that your question isn’t the proper question because it leaves too much undefined. As I mentioned above, a Baptist and a Presbyterian who are both fundamentalists will have points of fellowship and points of separation from each other. One most basic point, from the Baptist side, would be that a non-immersed believer would not be allowed to join the church (pre-emptive church discipline, definitely a form of separation from a disobedient brother). Another, probably embraced by both, would be an inability to plant churches together. Yet, if there would be points at which they could fellowship. I recently preached in Brazil at an International Congress of Fundamentalists in response to the World Council of Churches meeting in that same town. That group included (I assume) more than just Baptists (probably some “Bible” guys and maybe even some Presbyterians). We fellowshipped around the defense of the gospel, but we wouldn’t start planting churches together, educating pastors, etc.
Since a group like ETS does not exist to plant churches, preach the gospel, fulfill the Great Commission, it allows for fellowship around its singular doctrinal position in the defense of inerrancy and the pursuit of conservative scholarship. So, I think the answer is yes, it is possible to separate from folks on one level while working with them on another.
(Chris, I am not ignoring your question[s]. I have worked on replies a couple of times, but haven’t felt like I stated it as clearly and charitably as I would like.)
Please take as long as you’d like…especially if waiting increases your charity toward me. No need to rush, friend. Get a cup of coffee. Put yourself in a good mood.
——–
Bauder, “Separation from Professing Brethren- Notes toward an Understanding,” III.C.2:
“How closely identified is my brother with that error, and to what extent is he able to separate himself from it in ministry?”
——–
This is a crucial question to consider in the case of Dr. M. All things considered, I seriously doubt anyone will now immediately connect CT with Makujina, nor Makujina with CT. I would also make that assessment with some of the other example mentioned in this discussion and elsewhere (Binney, Janz, Positive Action, ETS..)
________________________
Andy,
Does separation=shunning as far as you are concerned? I’m curious. Does this mean we cannot shop at the same stores, breathe the same air…?
Of course I’m being ridiculous.
But let’s be reasonable- separation from NEs has taken place ecclesiastically and organizationally, and remains that way for Dr. M. How has what he has done personally and professionally changed that for anyone?
ADMITTEDLY DISTRACTING SIDE QUESTION: Would we have the same concerns if a piece by Dr. M had been published in The Sword of The Lord? Revival Fires? Crosswalk.com (which has republished articles from Today’s Christian Preacher by some respected names in Fundamentalism, BTW)?
The plot thickens. Greg Linscott just pointed me to this.
Is this a parody blog entry? You guys can’t be serious.
Hi all
I would like to note that my slur regarding motives was limited to ETS participation, not to publication in CT.
I have been thinking about this all day as I got ready for tonight’s service. These developments are all justified by various rationale’s, but I wonder what “historic” fundamentalists would have thought? I can’t imagine those who were fighting the battles of the 50s and 60s agreeing with these moves. On the other hand, perhaps those who fought in the 20s and 30s could.
I have noticed a few of the Crosswalk.com articles. That bothers me too. There are other things going on that bother me as well… I guess I need to get my own blog to soapbox about them, eh??
Another question: would something like ETS that requires membership be different from something like CT or Crosswalk that merely is accepting articles for publication?
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Ashley
We inhabit an alternate universe from Gordon-Conwell. You have stumbled into a world you cannot imagine….
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
My thoughts-
I think that we should be more concerned with how the churches under our care are being consistent in these areas. In the end, these things get blown out of proportion. Quite frankly, no one in my congregation even knows who John Makujina, Jason Janz, or Jim Binney even is. They certainly aren’t reading CT or these other publications on any regular kind of basis at all. So while the question is perhaps worthy of pondering, in the end, how does it change what you do where the Lord has placed you?
A common lament one hears is that Fundamentalism is dominated by institutions rather than churches. Perhaps it is discussions like we are having that fuel that little fire.
Okay, Greg. I’ll buy that…or some of it. But using prominent examples (I mean broadly known issues, not necessarily prominent men) to discuss what we believe and why–especially regarding difficult issues–is both reasonable and profitable, IMO. Frankly, though Makujina didn’t ask for the discussion, he did submit the article. When fundamentalists open a liberal magazine and see a professor from a prominent fundamental institution–one which we may very well recommend to our people–it is at least worthy of discussing. (“What do you think about that? What do I think about that?”) Do we want a witchhunt? Of course not. But a thoughtful discussion (as this has generally been, I think)? Why not?
Do the people at TCBC know of Janz or Binney? No. But they are part of a larger identity than our own church. I’m a local church guy through and through. But the people here are sending their kids to fundamental schools. They are purchasing curriculum and books and music from fundamental institutions. Our teens are taking a trip to a fundmental college this weekend. We attend a fundamental camp and support fundamental missionaries. Lord willing, our kids will be in churches pastored by young fundmanentalists in the future. So in a sense, they do have an interest in the movement (there’s the dreaded “M” word), though our focus is on local church ministry.
One more thought: although these kinds of discussions mustn’t be our focus or delight, I don’t see the benefit of shrugging them off when they arise, either. And though I’m not interested in building mountains of molehills, maybe having pastors aware and thoughtful about what institutions are doing is one way to dousing the fire you have mentioned.
Food for thought, anyway.
__________
(Segue to advertisement: Reading and discussing Ryle will do more for your church than this thread.)
nice plug.
I’ve been working on it… have about twelve books going at the moment… :) But I have it out.
That is my concern as well, Greg. We have to contemplate the future ramifications of decisions notable people are making. If separation is not important in the areas we are discussing, will it become unimportant in other areas in the future. Are the seminaries plotting a different course for the next generation. Why be involved with new evangelicals? Why not work with those who are fundamentalists? I’m not sure I have those answers yet.
Somebody said, “As the schools go so go the churches.” That’s why I am interested in what the colleges and seminaries are doing. The next generation will be following their lead, and some times (too often) that happens despite what the local church is teaching.
YES: you will support camps, schools, music, missionaries, etc… But I would think you would not take just anyone simply based on the fact that they graduated from a particular seminary or attended a particular camp or included in a particular catalog… would you?
Somebody has said that, true, Andy. But show me chapter and verse… :) Some of that perhaps is based on how we as pastors train our people to think. My personal experience at Bible college exposed me to some minor points of doctrine, philosophy and lines of thought that I did not accept going in… and still did not going out. Some of that was because I had good teaching before I left for school in my local church. Some of my perspective did change in school, too- and I think that has been good as well.
We want this issue of “who satnds where” to be cut and dry- but it NEVER will be. We will always need to discern. I am not saying “shrug them off,” but I am also saying that we should not allow them to put a “doom and gloom” attitude on us, like a decision like this by one man is betraying all our forbears fought and died for. It is a single article. No one in “evangelicalism” will likely be aware of this in one month (if they are aware of it now, even). Let’s not overstate the significance of one decision.
That’s all I’m trying to do, Greg…trying to learn how we discern whether things like this are a good or bad idea. I’m just thinking through it. No doom and gloom here, despite the fact that it is cold and gray in Ohio this morning.
Studying on the Transfiguration for Sunday morning should take care of even that, though.
Greg,
The verses I think about in relation to colleges/seminaries is 1 Corinthians 15:33 and 10:12. The amount of influence a teacher’s actions have on a student canbe debated. But they are there. My hope is that the local church would have the most influence. But that has not always been the case. Alongside your good experience at college can be placed several bad ones. History records the bad influence of schools in the major denominations. So, I feel the need to prayerfully keep an eye out and occasionally speak out when things like this occur.
We may not agree, but I see a problem when fundamentalists publish in other new evangelical magazines and journals. To me that blurs the line between fundamentalism and new evangelicalism. Those with more experience may be able to keep the distance safely, but students with less discernment are watching. Will they stop in the same place?
I’ve appreciated this discussion, but I’m still wrestling with what some seem to have already assumed, is it even wrong to post a review in a non-fundamental publication?
Is the concern a book review in a less than fundamental magazine, or the association of a seminary with CT? I personally don’t assume that because someone has an article in a magazine they agree with every other contributor to the publication. For instance, I never attributed the positions of the former president of the FBF to other writers for Frontline.
Are we moving well beyond the ecclesiastical context of separation and fellowship into the area of isolation? Is there legitimate latitude in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ for such discussions or is that overstepping the boundaries of separation? I’m just asking.
Andy,
The point is you seem to be trusting in “the line.”
My observation is that “the line” is not a static thing- the labels we are using are not what they once were. That may be good, that may be bad- but it is happening, and happening perhaps more quickly than we may like to acknowledge. Look in “our camp.” You have revivalists and those who stand strongly against such excesses. You have strong Christian Education proponents and those who say that all godly parents will home school. You have those who embrace the psalms and reject the Majesty Hymnal… and it goes on.
As for me and my house, I TRUST NO ONE! :)
Seriously, though- all I am trying to say is I don’t trust in any system (including our “Fundamentalistic” ones) to take care of my need to exercise prudence, discernment, and grace, and pass it along to the people God has placed under my care. I also recognize that I can give it my best effort in my local church, and some may still reject it- like parenting, there are no absolute guarantees.
So, if you see a problem with publishing on a broader platform- don’t publish on that broader platform. Avoid it for the glory of God. But if another brother has determined that he will declare the truth in such a venue (and doesn’t weaken or compromise it in what he says), “whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. ” (Phil. 1:18) Grace and charity toward brethren are necessary components of our obedience to Christ.
Agreed. But (hypothetically) if Andy thinks something like this is indicative of a wrong direction on the part of Central (for example)–or even outright disobedience–and if he were to decide on that basis not to fellowship with them, but instead to send his kids to another institution, we can’t fault him for that. Right? Grace and charity toward brethren with stricter standards of fellowship are also necessary components of our obedience to Christ. Even if we disagree with them. Right?
Disclaimer: I’m speaking theoretically. I’m not speaking for Andy, nor am I drawing any conclusions about Central or Makujina or Greg or CT…well, maybe CT. :-)
I thought about posting this last night, but the comments this morning prompt me to add my 2c to the discussion (again!I must be up to at least a dime by now!).
The arrival of modernism in the institutions of the Northern Baptist Convention etc did not happen overnight. It happened, as brother Sheffey is made to say at the end of the film “bit by bit”. One disadvantage the churches had in those days was slow communication. By the time modernism had set in, it was too late for the news of publication in the JETS of the day.
I am by no means suggesting that publication in JETS or in CT is the equivalent of modernism, or even the first baby steps in that direction. But if no one sounds an alarm at a possible error, or questions decisions and moves by those in our fundamentalist institutions, then where will we be. This public questioning is good, and it is healthy. It is the only means that those of us on the local church level have to hold the leadership of fundamentalist institutions accountable.
Greg, you said “It is a single article”. That’s right. But it is a public action that should be able to stand the test of public scrutiny. The powers that be in fundamentalist institutions want the support of local church pastors as their constituency. It is our job as pastors to be informed of what is going on in the world, to ask appropriate questions, and to lead our people into informed choices concerning their own decisions of support or not support for said institutions. There are fundamentalist schools which I formerly would have encouraged our young people to go to. Because of other actions they have taken, I will no longer support them. I hope that we don’t end up with a situation where we will have to start all over again if we want to send our kids to good quality fundamentalist schools. So far, we are ok. But only so far as we are willing to hold the feet of the leaders of our institutions to the fire, so to speak.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
A couple of passing comments since I am only in front of my computer here for a few more minutes:
Andy R–I think you may need to expand your understanding of what has been done over the course of the last several decades. ETS membership is not new at all–we have faculty who have been members for decades. Very strong, separatist men. And, quite frankly, your argument is built on the presupposition that you are correct, but that is really the point of the discussion. For you, the line is blurred, but for most of the men that I know and have interacted with about the biblical and historical lines of separation, there is no blurring happening. Further, to harken back to my consistency comment from a couple of days ago, one must really question if past practice is really the standard for determining what’s right. In other words, do we do what we do simply to be consistent with what we have always done? I don’t think so. That path leads to many troubles and is being walked by too many people with which I have serious disagreements (e.g., KJVO, “cultural” fundamentalists).
Chris–perhaps it would help me if you clarified the difference between “fault him” and “disagree with them.” It seems to me that if I disagree with someone it is because I believe they are wrong (or to be faulted) on a point. This seems especially so with regard to the subject we are addressing–the person who believes that a line has been crossed and changes his relationship because of it is faulting someone isn’t he? Those who now know that they are perceived to be across the line will inevitably, it seems, be hesitant about their relationship with that person–why feed the hand that bites you? Maybe I am being simplisitic, but when the issue turns to lines it always has ramifications for relationships. No?
Okay one more quickly before I leave (I am probably already going to be late)…
Concern for obedience is always commendable, but it is clear that some in Judaism took that concern to the point of man-made traditions which imposed a super-structure on God’s Word. “Do not boil a calf in its mother’s milk” grew into extensive regulations about meat and dairy products so as to not violate the command. I believe it is genuinely necessary for us to considerly seriously whether we have pressed the separaton issue in similar ways when we moved away from the local church and the gospel. I have spent my whole ministry arguing for strong positions on separatism. I do think, however, that in some cases we have been guilty of building a fense so far in front of the cliff that we are similar to the case above. And, we can easily defend our position by saying things like, “Well, you can’t get far enough away from sin,/error.”
That a correlation would be drawn between writing a critique of a liberal book and having it published in CT and the insidious inroads of modernism seems illustrative of my concern.
Chris,
Right. As long as he doesn’t call me a “neo” and I don’t call him a “legalist”… :)
Greg, it’s always you Neo’s who want to agree not to call each other names. :-D
______
Dr. Doran, I wasn’t thinking as hard as you are. If we say “Give Makujina space to write where he wants,” it makes sense to also say “Give Andy space to step away from Makujina if he wants…even if we don’t.” I’m sure there is a time when that kind of thinking becomes extreme, however.
______
Perhaps we’re winding down here, so I’ll summarize…or start to summarize. I don’t see CT as a neutral bulletin board. Nor do I see the benefit of cooperating with a lesser theological evil to combat a greater theological evil. In the pluralistic, ecumenical culture in which we live (and which CT celebrates), I believe that we should be more careful about our associations, not less. Whatever our views may be on ETS, we must agree that CT does not equal JETS; not by a long shot. I wouldn’t have done it.
And I do agree with Andy on this point: perhaps prominent older men–be it professors or pastors–who are teaching younger, impressionable men should be careful with these matters.
(I’m still interested in whatever “takes” you were trying to be kinder and gentler with, Dr. Doran…I think.)
Dave, I want to go back to something you said on 3/21:
and also this one:
I agree with this in principle (I am sure you are relieved to know!), but the discussion we are having is over where we disagree in application. Or, perhaps better, where we might disagree in application.
The implication I have taken from this discussion is that you would not equate publication in the ETS (or membership in the ETS) with an ecclesiastical relationship. You seem to imply that publication in CT is not an ecclesiastical relationship as well (please correct me if I am incorrectly stating your view).
Are you making this distinction on the basis of an emphasis more on the “sovereign” local church as opposed to the “church universal”?
In some of your examples, at first glance I agree, but I still have questions. You say ‘purchasing an education’ is not an ecclesiastical relationship. Maybe not. Would you hire a grad of, say, the U of Chicago Divinity School on your staff? Or Union Seminary? Yale Divinity School? I wonder about that.
At ETS, the society recently took a vote to expel heretics from its midst, but failed. Is this not an ecclesiastical exercise? Did your faculty members participate in this vote?
I don’t know how ETS meetings are conducted. I assume there is some joint prayer in the course of events. If so, would this not be an ecclesiastical relationship?
Must a church-to-church relationship exist for a relationship to be ecclesiastical?
I personally don’t see a lot of difference between the ETS and my local ministerial association. The local one here is comprised of the local evangelical guys. I think they all preach the gospel (although watered down pablum, in my opinion). The local liberals aren’t part of the group, and the Catholics aren’t either. So if I wanted to meet with those guys for “the contribution and thought-provocation they provide”, would you or any other fundamentalists object? Would such objections be right or wrong?
Today (3/23) you said:
Are our (or maybe just ‘my’) questions really going to the level of extensive regulations about meat and dairy products? To me the questions seem to be fairly basic. The Scripture warns against fellowship/cooperation with disobedient brethren. Obviously, we don’t just go around with a microscope looking for the first hint of disobedience so we can put up our wall of separation. [well, ok, maybe some do!!] But I don’t think that is what we are asking here. We are asking if these actions we are observing (publishing in CT or like locations) is possible evidence of the beginning of a trend towards a point at which some level of separation might be required?
So far, I think that we still have misgivings. I am not coming to a conclusion about these actions, but I am not entirely comfortable with them. FWIW.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
In my mind, publishing in JETS is much less of an issue than publishing in CT. It is hard, at least for me, to get away from its history of actively opposing the truth of Biblical ecclesiastical separation. It has always stood against fundamentalism and for a fundamentalist to publish for them seems odd to me. It would be interesting, though, to hear how the dynamics of the situation may have changed to justify such an endeavor. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming that fundamentalists publishing in CT is a relatively new development (other than say a guest piece that defended the fundamentalist position).
I don’t know the history of the ETS but my guess is that it is a totally different animal. If I’m on an airplane and happen to sit next to a Walter Kaiser, a Bill Mounce, an Andreas Kostenberger, or a Gordon Fee, I’m going to pepper them with questions. What a great opportunity to talk with Biblical scholars about my favorite subject. If I was a published fundamentalist scholar (ok, stop laughing), they might even be interested in picking my brain or talking about my work. We might even pray together before we leave the plane. I don’t see a substantial difference between doing that on an airplane and doing that at a hotel convention center with lots more participants. I wouldn’t want any of these guys speaking at my church but if I can read their books, why can’t I talk with them in person about what they wrote? That’s how I view ETS meetings. The only thing that complicates matters in my mind is the issue of membership.
As for publishing in JETS, would it be any different than say publishing a book or commentary for Eerdmans or Baker Academic? Would anyone feel betrayed if Mark Minnick had a commentary show up in a Pillar, NICNT, or BECNT series?
Where do I begin (or should I even begin?)?
Don,
I am making my distinction on the basis of local church beliefs. I don’t think you can discipline someone out of the invisible church. All we can deal with is the visible church, so the primary focus in on each local church and then, secondarily, on how local churches relate to each other.
I do not believe removing (or attempting to do so) someone from membership in a society makes it an ecclesiastical relationship. Even pagan societies have rules and standards for membership, and most (if not all) have guidelines for removing people from membership. That ETS tried to remove men who are advocating things inconsistent with the doctrinal statement does not mean it was ecclesiastical separation.
While it may shock you, I would not automatically exclude anyone from the schools you mentioned based solely on where they went to school. Are you familair with where R. V. Clearwaters went to school? Bob Jones Jr? I would certainly examine any candidate very carefully, especially so if I thought there was potential for contamination, but never once have I thought that going to any particular school ipso facto eliminates someone from fundamentalism or from the prospect of ministry here. BTW, this, in my mind, would be an illustration of building fences way before the cliff.
Don, I have had lunch with non-separatist pastor in our area because we needed to talk about a family problem that spanned both churches (the joys of divorce). Was I violating a separatist principle? Is Andy Efting’s desire to ask questions of these biblical scholars wrong–Andy Rupert said earlier that the only profitable communication is “Repent!”–and it sounds like Andy E. wants answers first. :)
Actually, I do believe this whole line of questioning and discussion is representative of the tendency, at this stage, for us to establish standards that are well short of sin in this area. It took separatist fundamentalists almost two decades to fully land the plane on New Evangelicalism, and in reality we had help by the determination of the NE’s to rid themselves of the fundies. From our perspective, all of these decisions look like they were easy, but they were not. The core principles are solid, but the applications differed considerably. Debates about who can write where, who can publish what, etc., have been around for a long time. My contention is that there has been a stream (a significant one) of separatist fundamentalism that has maintained its separatism without concluding that educational, research, professional societies, publication issues, etc. all are tests of separatism.
Dave, your point about secular societies disciplinary processes is good. I also agree that I wouldn’t necessarily exclude someone on the basis of where they went to school but it would surely be an issue of concern as you concede (I think). Such an individual would be examined carefully before being put in a responsible position in a fundamentalist church or school. Or they would have to have some kind of principled track record of standing for the truth. The late Mr. Mulfinger who was denied his PhD for his creationist beliefs would be a case in point, I think.
I think where we differ in this is in thinking that separation is church discipline. Church discipline is only local. Separation is the other side of the fellowship/cooperation coin. There is a sliding scale.
I have no problem having lunch with evangelical pastors in the context you mentioned or really in any other context as well. I have had lunch with liberal pastors. But I don’t cooperate with them on things like the ministerial association or any other cooperative effort. My goal is not their restoration, but my integrity and our church’s purity. So I don’t see separation as a matter of discipline at all.
That’s why these associations do remain problematic for me. I wouldn’t do it myself. I am wary of those who do, while recognizing their soul liberty to make those decisions. They do not preclude my cooperation with them, but I worry about where those types of decisions will lead.
I hope that makes sense.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
67!
Boy, Joel. Interest seems to be waning. Someone is going to have to stay something really outlandish to get us to 100 now. Be my guest. (And where are my coasters?)
I understand that there is room to work with people who have differences of opinion on polity, baptism, hymn books, etc. Believe it or not, there are several Baptist pastors in the Ohio Bible Fellowship! :) Dr. Barrett (a Presbyterian) will be the speaker for our Spring OBF Conference.
Within our fellowship we have differences of opinion, but what binds us together is our common belief about the fundamental doctrines and the need for militant, biblical separation. This is the essence of fundamentalism in my opinion.
Our discussion here began with Chris wondering why a fundamentalist would publish an article in Christianity Today. This is clearly not a fundamentalist magazine and has contained problematic articles from a variety of writers. Makujina’s article spoke out against the error in Spong’s book, but failed to address the needs of the magazine in which it was published. It may be that the article was originally written for a different audience and was published unchanged in CT. We won’t know without asking the author.
My concern is that this and other similar projects seem to disregard the principles of 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15.
1. “Do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.”
Are not the fundamentals and the doctrine of separation ideas that the Scriptures teach and command? Is it not sin to deny them or not to practice separation? I think these are more important than whether someone is a Baptist, Presbyterian, and in my opinion, this would preclude sitting under the teaching of men who are not fundamental. (Please understand that fundamentalism is not the only test of fellowship, but it is the first.)
I realize that there are differences of opinion about this. Some feel that a man should be strong enough at the Masters/Doctorate level to handle any subtle differences that might be presented. I understand the reasonin behind this—especially as it is difficult to get an advance degree for certain specialties at a fundamental institution. (Note that I have previously talked with Dr. McCune and emailed Dr. Doran about this.)
All that being said . . . does not this verse command us to keep from a continued relationship with them? Does that apply to working relationships with ETS members? Or articles in CT? I think so.
2. “Do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
Here is my text for “Repent.” A brother who does not repent of his sin is not my enemy. He is my brother. But his disobedience calls for admonishing. While I might sit down with him for a moment of casual conversation, should I not eventually get to the point of concern?
Why cooperate with a new evangelical scholar (or the liberals whom the others failed to expel) in ETS without first addressing his disobedience? Is that being done? Have those fundamentalists involved with ETS taken the opportunity to talk with their compatriots about this need for separation? Or is it just something that must be laid aside for the sake of the immediate cooperation?
If someone was hoping to purify a denomination, we would look kindly at him as long as there was hope for it to be accomplished. We would be patient with such a man. But when that denomination was clearly overrun by sin, we would encourage that individual to come out from among them and be separate.
CT is worse in my opinion than ETS. But is not the principle still there? Apparently, some do not think so. But I am still convinced that fundamentalists should address the needs of these new evangelicals instead of holding their hands.
What say you?
I say…
70.
Still a long way from 100. Let’s face it — we’re never going to make it to 100 unless Chris offers some nice prize for the 100th post.
A free subscription to CT’s on-line magazine??
FWIW, Andy R’s last post should count for 3, I think. :-D
I think Chris should actually give the winner two cents.
74.
(Is Aniol eating?)
In response to Andy R.’s post…
The point, Andy, is that the passages you mention best apply to situations in which fellowship is/has been enjoyed. In the end, being up here in Maine, how exactly do I “have no fellowship” with Makujina (assuming, for the moment, that he is in SIN by publishing an article in CT). How would I restore him to this same fellowship once again?
I am also intrigued by the question asked about publishing houses. And what about catalogs? No one seems to mind that some of Dr. Berg’s books, for example, appear in the CBD catalog alongside “neo” and “liberal” authors. What about the church of our blog host Chris cleaning up a song arrangement introduced by a non-Cessationist, CCM-using church?
Where does the madness stop?
Hey, leave me & my church out of it.
I understand that the application of separation principles is difficult, Greg. It’s subjective. Many times, it needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. Your lumping all of those examples together doesn’t promote the kind of discerning and careful application that is needed. Instead, it ends up encouraging people to throw up their hands, call separation “madness” and quit trying.
Look at this one case. Focus. :-D Was it wise for a prominent fundamental teacher to publish in a prominent liberal religious magazine?
I think publishing in a very liberal magazine which has been the publication promoting neo evanelicalism/evangelicalism and opposing fundamentalism was unwise. Makujina’s positive direction has been established, so I certainly wouldn’t advocate separating from him simply on the basis of this decision, though I disagree with it. Not at all. But CT’s negative direction is even more established. Indeed, it’s not even debatable. And it should have caused him to separate from CT, IMO.
________
Question to readers to help wrap this discussion up: Give a quick “I have no problem with publishing in CT because _____” or “I disagree with publishing in CT because _____”. I’m genuinely interested in your take on this particular issue, aside from all the other angles and examples and comparisons. What about this one?
Andy,
FWIW, I do differ with you regarding the application of separation in some particularly challenging arenas (e.g. education). I think you’re painting with too broad a brush, as we’ve discussed in private. I don’t think it’s as black and white as you’re wanting it to be, friend.
I’d also suggest that there is more uniting our fellowship with the OBF (as an example, since you mentioned it) than fundamental doctrine and militancy. There are a lot of people with whom I don’t have this close of fellowship despite their orthodoxy and separatism.
There are plenty of orthodox, militant fundamentalists from whom I would separate on the basis of other criteria.
Sorry if I went too far, Chris. If it makes you feel any better, we’ll be singing the same song next month, too. :)
I bring up the various and sundry examples, though, to point out that Andy’s application of the texts in question leads to that conclusion- madness- because, I believe, he is applying the texts to a context they are not best suited to.
I’m not arguing against separation- not at all. I am calling for it to be practiced within its biblical framework, though.
So- I have no problem with (Makujina) publishing in CT (strike) because (add) if he is allowed to communicate his views without compromise or alteration. The magazine purports to be a reflection of Christianity Today… perhaps, just perhaps, they have begun to see that what Fundamentalism represents is something closer resembling true Biblical Christianity for today than their usual fare.
Who knows? If Andy R. IS right, maybe this is a step towards potential restoration for some of “them.”
Greg, do you really think CT is making any changes towards a more favorable view of fundamentalism? Take off the rose coloured glasses!
I would state it this way:
I would not publish anything other than a critical letter to the editor in Christianity Today myself.
I do not condemn anyone else who does publish an article in CT, but I do wonder about them and the direction they may or may not be heading.
So I will watch and wait.
Quite frankly, I don’t think it is CT that is changing.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Realistically, I don’t either, Don. But Don’t we need to be willing to make steps of restoration, even when we’re convinced in our mind that they are futile?
I’m with Andy on this one. Our message to CT? “REPENT!!!”
And might not our separation from CT be along the lines of separation from false teachers as opposed to disobedient brothers? (Not across the board, I realize.) Honestly, it deserves some thought, especially when they publish gems like this.
FWIW, I’ve given my two cents (sorry) on the magazine here. The positions espoused by one of CT’s writers in the discussion that follows that post are eye-opening, as well. I’m needing to get back there with a response, but feel free to chime in.
I just saw something on Mark Perry’s blog that I think is relevant to this discussion. Mark gives an exposition of Romans 14. (Actually coherent and understandable, unlike some I have seen!!!) Here is the link:
http://mkperry.blogspot.com/2006/03/romans-14-christian-conduct-in.html
Greg, if restoration of CT is the goal, in my view one would not take a ‘co-belligerent’ position by writing an article on areas of agreement. Rather, one would write an article pointing out past errors of CT and urging change. Admittedly, such an article would be unlikely to be published in the current situation.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So Greg, in your estimation, the platform or publication has no implicit effect on the message? You buy the “judge me by what I say, not where I say it” argument? Or just in this case?
But what you seem to see is CT as one monolithic entity. Exactly what individual, church or institution represents the breadth reported on in CT?
You are thinking in terms of “it.” I am thinking in terms of, as I mentioned earlier, “some of ‘them.'”
Chris,
I appreciate your desire to focus on this one case, but I don’t believe that it is possible to make this kind of decision in a vacuum like this. Let me be clear, what I mean is that I don’t think anybody in this discussion is truly limited their decision to this specific case. My proof for this is that any substantiation for one’s decision immediately explains it in terms of implications for other things.
The one has come closest to avoiding this is Andy R because he is arguing that the action taken by Makiujina is a violation of 2 Ths 3:14-15. In essence, he is not talking about this as a question of wisdom; he is talking about it as a question of obedience. Andy, please correct me if I have misunderstood you on this.
Now, here’s the problem for me in how he has handled it. Can we truly say that Paul would put writing an article in a magazine inside the definition of sunanamignumi? It seems obvious that Paul’s specific intent is actually personal association with them, which I believe is confirmed by its use in 1 Cor 5 alongs side of “not even to eat.” So, we have a specific injunction with definite application that must be principlized–how far do we extend this beyond the local church context?
Chris, you mentioned (somewhere above) one way of limiting it–tie it to religious association. My question is, on what grounds do you limit it in that way? Does 2 Ths 3 limit it in this way? My sense of Andy’s position is that it has no limits, i.e., any and all association with a disobedient brother (actually, only a disobedient brother in the area of separation–being unbaptized doesn’t count) is out of bounds. Now, I may be wrong on this, but it would seem that a separatist would then be excluded from doing business, family gatherings, or whatever based on this understanding of how it is to be applied. Hence, I think, Greg’s use of the word madness.
So, Chris, I would answer your question, “I do not believe it is wrong for Makujina to have an article published in CT because it is not the kind of association which is demanded by the Scriptures.”
On Separation in the Trenches
Sometimes, in trying to make sure we are diligent in “the anise and cummin” of the separation issue, we Fundamentalists can forget the bigger picture. I was reminded of this as I read my local newspaper today.
Leaders to collaborate for Hol…
Huh?
It’s a trackback to my blog. I didn’t think it would show up as a comment.
Sorry.
Greg,
You need to post in either parables or French for Bob’s sake.
90!
Inflamatory comment to get it up to 100?
Makujina is the only one actually contending for the faith.
What fundamentalist publication would actually reach Spong? I don’t think something published in the Visitor would do it.
He could post it at Remonstans.
Ouch!
92!
Dave,
Merci, mon frère, pour avoir compris la nécessité d’une bonne communication. Je pense que le fondamentalisme va profiter de ton vouloir d’exprimer les doctrines de notre foi fondamentaliste en blog pour l’édification des saints francophones. J’ai beaucoup apprécié les remarques de chacun sur ce site du frère Anderson, mais je me trouve plus en accord avec toi qu’avec mon ami Anderson cette fois-ci. Alors, nous arrivons à 93!
Bob
Dr. Doran, you said the following: Chris, you mentioned (somewhere above) one way of limiting it–tie it to religious association. My question is, on what grounds do you limit it in that way? Does 2 Ths 3 limit it in this way? Then this: So, Chris, I would answer your question, “I do not believe it is wrong for Makujina to have an article published in CT because it is not the kind of association which is demanded by the Scriptures.”
I’m not following you…perhaps because I’m returning from another church work day and I’m beat. Can you explain again, especially regarding the limitations you’re speaking of? And what kind of association is addressed in Scripture, if not one like this?
To break my own “focus” rule, we’d/you’d separate from MacArthur but not CT? I’m really confused on this. Is it the fact that the link is literary? If so, on what basis is preaching with someone different than writing with them?
Out of 93 posts, the one I most relate to is Bob’s: “Huh?
I see the problem with taking separation to an unwise extreme. But aren’t we gutting it?
_______
Joel, who said anything about reaching Spong? If that’s what it’s about, send him a letter. Go to his house. Give him a call.
Per Babelfish:
Thank you, my brother, to have included/understood the necessite of a good communication. I think that fundamentalism will profit your to want to express the doctrines of our fundamentalist faith in blog for the edification of the French-speaking saints. I have much apprecie the remarks of each one on this site of the Anderson brother, but I am more in agreement with you than with my friend Anderson this time. Then, we arrive has 93!
So people are more persuaded by Doran than by me? Wow. Who’d a thought?
Bob,
I like French salad dressing… does that count?
96
Andy,
There was a reason why I said that I disagreed with Anderson in French while I was on his site…. Hello!
Word has it that Anderson doesn’t know French. . .
Thank you very much. sheesh!
:-)
btw, Babelfish.org doesn’t speak English very well.
We’ve got issues. That’s all I’m saying.
Makujina has more fundamentalism in his pinky than most of the guys posting here. You should hear him talk about AWANA and other fundyentertainment. You ought to be glad he fellowships with fundamentalists.
Bob,
You must have missed his “It’s Busy Being Me” blog post. He forgot to mention it, but in addition to everything else he does, Chris is a Ph.D French professor:
http://www.umt.edu/mcll/faculty.htm
Andy
Oh, did I accidently hit 100?
Dude!!
While I was thinking up a response about how the great dissidens would never allow some body so compromised as Makujina to post on his blog, somebody goes and gets the prize.
Are the complete works of Charles Finney an option for the reward?
On to 200…
Chris,
My reference was to your comment about sports between two schools being okay because it wasn’t a religious association (that’s a paraphrase and you were making the statement in agreement with something I had said). I was trying, perhaps ineffectively, to demonstrate that all of us make some kind of qualification on the command not to associate with a disobedient brother precisely because we know the original point of the command was given to govern life in the local church and when we move it outside of that context it becomes more complicated to apply.
My “position” statement was simply expressing the conclusion that I do not believe that writing for publication qualifies as an association in the sense which 2 Ths 3:14 uses it. Having someone in to preach or going to preach for them actually involves personal association, i.e., two people in the same place interacting with one another. That seems to be a pretty simple and straightforward way to distinguish the two.
Ryan Martin’s powerful reasoning: Makujina doesn’t like Awana (and you probably do). Therefore, you have no right to criticize his article in CT.
Ryan said:
We’ve got issues. That’s all I’m saying.
Makujina has more fundamentalism in his pinky than most of the guys posting here. You should hear him talk about AWANA and other fundyentertainment. You ought to be glad he fellowships with fundamentalists.
An analysis:
“We’ve got issues.” [No kidding. First time I’ve seen this admission from that corner in a long time. Things are looking up.]
“That’s all I’m saying.” [Not true. He’s got more to say.]
“Makujina has more fundamentalism in his pinky than most of the guys posting here.” [Assuming this is true, who cares? Because his pinky contains more fundamentalism than my entire body, does that mean I cannot question him? One might rightly assume that such a declaration from an intelligent seminarian will be followed up with proof. Martin doesn’t disappoint. Hang on.]
“You should hear him talk about AWANA and other fundyentertainment.” [Most of you probably think this is a joke. But I have read enough from Martin’s corner to know that he’s serious here. You might think the issue with Awana is its ecumenicalism. I doubt it. The key is “and other fundyentertainment.” To Martin, evidence of Makujina’s fundamentalism is his attitude toward “fundyentertainment.” He’s boiled it down to the core element for us ignoramuses. Another circle would say, “My guy is more fundamentalist that your guy. You ought to hear him rant against other versions of the Bible.” And this, by the way, is the same old same old that plagues fundamentalism: a litmus test, slam-dunk proof of authentic fundamentalism based on one’s stance on one’s hobby horse.]
”You ought to be glad he fellowships with other fundamentalists.” [Phew! We are fortunate that separatistic churches that use Awana will be granted the same open-mindedness granted to the liberal Christianity Today. What largess of spirit. Awana, after all, is fundyentertainment. Christianity Today is only an organ for liberal views.]
Thanks for putting things into perspective, Ryan.
The sad thing is that Makujina has not been disrespected one time in this entire thread. He is highly admired by all of us (Chris Anderson included). I hope that he wouldn’t spew out the same disparaging condescension toward any dissenting fundamentalists that some of his students do. They risk giving him the black eye with “most of the guys posting here” more than his decision to publish an article with CT could ever do.
Bob, that should propel us toward at least 105!
Bob,
That was a bit harsh on Ryan, I think. He has strong convictions on some things, but no more than any of the “rest of us who post here” do.
I don’t mean this to sound overly condescending, but I do think one’s perspective becomes more tempered when you assume a “lead” pastor role (not my preferred term, but I am trying to distinguish from assistants and such). Some of what we’re seeing in conversation in the blogosphere like this one comes from being isolated in the theoretical- conversations on ideas that have not fully left the drawing board.
Perhaps we also need to be patient with him as he does us.
(I do also realize that there may be some irony in the fact that I have only been a “lead” pastor for less than 3 years- so take your shot! :) )
I do realize that did appear a little bit harsh… My fingers just took off and I had a real Romans 7 crisis. (O wretched man that I am, for I delight after the law of God in the inner man, but I see in my finger-members another law raging.). I really don’t have any emotion whatsoever. It was just a rebuttal.
I think we all love Makijuna. We don’t need him stuffed in our faces by loyalists.
Thanks for your patience we me too, Greg!
Wow. A quick nap, a little dinner, and not only do I miss the first “century mark” in MTC history, but I also miss the site’s first fight. “My Two Fists” anyone? Nah. Ironically, I get along with the two combatants just fine. Were this SI, Greg would jump in, send you both to your rooms and threaten banishment, as only Greg can. :-D Easy, fellas. You’re sounding like the supposedly grouchy old fundamentalists whom YF’s criticize.
Take a break and play with your daughter and her dolls, Bob. :-)
_________
Ryan,
I don’t understand why questioning Makujina’s decision indicates that “we have issues.” Those posting on this thread are not ignorant extremists. (Yeah, I know: “Denial.”) They are pastors trying to talk through an issue in a civil way. You believe that what Makujina did is commendable, which means that you agree with most who have posted here, I think. But is he beyond being questioned? Even if he’s right and I’m wrong, is the fact that I question his decision treasonous, or even disrespectful…especially when I went out of my way to notify him and get his perspective? I don’t think so, especially when the discussion has (until lately) been carried out with a graciuos spirit. I would have valued your input throughout, since you know him better than we. I think that would have been more profitable than an uppercut thrown at the end of the conversation, friend.
_________
And Joel,
Is it accurate to say that Makujina is the only one contending for the faith? Or is it helpful to take a shot at the OBF Visitor? I’m no champion of the faith, but I have been in contact with Randy Alcorn over what I perceive to be a significant error. I’ve addressed (gasp) Christianity Today over what I belive to be even more significant errors…in posts here, in a discussion with one of their writers, via email with an editor. And that’s small stuff compared to the defense of truth and correction of error (both inside and outside of fundamentalism) by others participating here, especially Dr. Doran. Does that make us peers of Jude? Hardly. But to suggest that only Makujina is engaging error isn’t accurate.
________
Now, can’t we all just get along? (snif, snif)
Andy E,
As promised, here is your prize: a lifetime subscription to the Christianity Today Daily Newsletter. This will undoubtedly provide you with hours of frustration, in addition to giving you the scoop when fundamentalists are published there. Congratulations!!
Note: Though all can subscribe, I suggest that it would be less than honorable to do so since you did not win. I’ll leave that to your consciences, however.
Thanks, Chris, just what I always wanted!
Dr. Doran,
Thanks for the clarification. I understand that fundamentalists (myself included) have treated literature very differently than personal cooperation. I’m still uneasy because CT is such an extreme example, both historically and philosophically. But I do understand your point. Thank you.
Hey, at least I delivered, Andy. My desk is still lacking the coasters I was promised at Unkowing (rest in peace).
Ah, precious memories.
This statement sounds like you would agree that publishing in JETS is OK but presenting a paper at the annual ETS meeting might not be? But I think earlier you also distinguished between an ecclesiastic association and an academic one, right? There is a sense in which restricting the scope of separation to the ecclesiastical realm rings true to me but there are difficulties with that limitation that I would like to explore.
What is the difference between association with NE scholars at an ETS meeting and associating with them at a fundamentalist seminary? They are both academic rather than ecclesiastic environments. I could be wrong but I very much doubt that a fundamentalist seminary would bring in a NE scholar as a special seminar speaker. So, even if you are in an academic environment, there is something else at play that could require separation. Perhaps it is the “boundedness” (to use that term again) of the institution to fundamentalism. That “boundedness” requires the separation. ETS, on the other hand, is not bound to a particular movement, and so participation there does not compromise the gospel or promote either fundamentalism or New Evangelicalism. (At the moment I am ignoring any issues with their failure to deal with Open Theism in their ranks.)
If I am on target with the “boundedness” idea, then why would it be OK to publish for CT since they are obviously bound to New Evangelicalism? Is the answer, from your perspective, that the lack of a personal association negates the need to separate even if a “boundedness” issue exists?
All,
Forgive me for the whiney and self-congratulatory “I contend for the faith” post directed to Joel. Good grief.
Ridiculous. :-(
Probably the last foray before I run for some sun on the coast of Florida. Andy E., the specific incident to which I was referring was Chris’s mention of a preaching engagement. I would, as you have assumed, see ETS as an academic/professional issue, not an ecclesisatical one. Different context, so different standards.
You mentioned fundamentalist schools having NEs in for an academic seminars. I think the story on that has been somewhere mixed through the years–you might be surprised at what has been done. My sense of things is that it isn’t done more simply because of the kind of debate it keeps up more than a principled belief that it represents ecclesiastical compromise. In other words, it is a practical decision in order to avoid charges of inconsistency. For the most part I believe this is a wise and defensible course of action–have taken it myself more often than not.
Frankly, that’s why I said miles upstream that I probably wouldn’t publish something in CT myself. Not because I think it is wrong; it isn’t. But I have tried to avoid situations where someone might suggest I am being inconsistent–my usual response has been to limit myself rather than have people have any doubts. I am becoming more convinced, however, that this path is mistaken. There is a fine line between a God-centered quest for obedience and a man-centered concern for appearances. The line is fine because it is difficult to assess our own motives (Jer 17:9; 1 Cor 4:4-5). At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter what anybody thinks except the Master, so whether anyone thinks I am completely consistent or not is not the goal. The goal is to faithfully apply the Scriptures with the Spirit’s enablement and enlightenment.
I do want to be consistent, but I have come to see that the measure of consistency is its relation to the principle, not the application. In other words, I must consistently honor the principle and have the applicational flexibility that is required to do so. It’s late and I fear I am becomin incoherent. I trust you all enjoy the Lord’s rich blessings as you worship Him tomorrow!
Wish I could be that incoherent! :)
Dave, FWIW, I especially appreciate your remarks in this last post regarding personal integrity with Biblical principles as opposed to concern for appearances. I agree that there is some tendency to be too concerned with what other fundies think in our ranks.
I think that I disagree still with the notion that you can compartmentalize relationships as academic/secular or publishing or ecclesiastical. Someone once said, “For the Christian there is no difference between the secular and the sacred, all ground is holy ground, every bush a burning bush.” (Or words to that effect…)
Thus I still have misgivings about CT or ETS. But those are MY misgivings. Who am I to judge another man’s servant?
I will say that as patterns are established, there may come a point where we will find we are walking on somewhat different paths, and even eventually widely divergent paths. (I am just speaking hypothetically, I am not making any predictions!!) We have all seen former colleagues who step by step established themselves in camps that differed from us, some of them quite significantly. I have seen that happen in my own family. Our close family ties are strained because of the direction they have gone. We all started out in the same place, but over time wide differences emerged.
So I think this conversation is profitable, and I think it is safe for fundamentalism. We should have open discussion of these kinds of questions. How else will we get any iron sharpened?
****
Last, to Bob Bixby…
Man, just when I was applying a litmus test to you, you blow it out of the water!!! I was following that bit on alcohol on your blog and said to myself, “Self, ol’ Bob is passing a litmus test. He must really be a fundamentalist after all.” Now I see I can’t use that as a test… What am I gonna do now??
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thanks, all, for the profitable discussion. If this was edifying or entertaining to you, I suggest that you return to MTC next week for a follow-up article:
Is It Right for the President of a Fundamental Seminary to Hit the Beach in Florida?
That thread will follow the basic premise of this one: We can’t stop him from doing it, but he can’t stop us from talking about it.
Enjoy, Doc. Thanks for the discussion. Blessed Lord’s Day, all.
You know what you’re problem is, Bob? You take me too seriously.
That’s because you’re from stupidville (for the untempered reader, this is Bob’s own admission, and usually his first and best argument against us smart seminarians).
But I’m still standing by my analysis of the movement as “having issues.”
And thanks, Greg, for taking my back.
You know, Greg can say anything he wants, and nobody ever gets ticked off. Wish I had that gift.
Chris,
lol. Next time I make an inflamatory suggestion I’ll try also to make sure it is accurate.
Chris…..
This has been a fascinating thread. I have been keeping up with it all along. Thanks for hosting the conversation and posing the tough question. Even though I did not enter until post 93 with my insightful “Huh?”, I have been so intriqued be this thread that I copied it and put it in a Word doc. for perusal.
Okay, I am willing to be the resident sinner and to bear the shame for being a wee bit harsh on poor Ryan, but come on, friend! Banishment to playing dolls with my daughter? I know you take a strong stand against sin, but that seems a little rigid. Good grief! Next time I err, I’m going to write something for CT instead of waxing eloquent on your blog. At least then all you’ll do is question my judgment.
Dave,
Thank you. I’m a secret admirerer of yours. (I don’t tell anyone because I don’t want your reputation to be marred.) Even my wife has been reading this thread, and we both are appreciating your articulation of your views. These matters are complicated, require a lot of thought, prayer, and willingness to change when necessary. I’m certainly working through these things and I like hearing other people hash it out.
I love everybody… and with that I am out of this thread for good.
(Must go play dolls with my daughter, as Chris prescribed, in what is probably going to prove a futile attempt to get invited to speak at next year’s OBF meeting)
Ryan,
There are three reasons why I will not allow myself to get in a verbal war with you, and I give them hear to you in random order:
1. I am dumb.
2. I am dumb.
3. I am dumb.
There.
Have a good one. ;-)
Bob, I love you too.
I even listened to one of your sermons on Friday. Now you’ll love me for sure.
I can’t even spell ‘here’
Good grief.
Chris said, “You know, Greg can say anything he wants, and nobody ever gets ticked off. Wish I had that gift.”
One more reason why Greg Linscott has my vote for “King of Fundamentalism.”
Bob,
Are you officially “out of this thread for good” at 11:02 or 11:07?
And preceding your three “I am dumb” confessions with a misspelling of “here” was a brilliant idea. What a shrewd–and no doubt, intentional–use of irony. Well done.
Try 11:08?
I doubt it. :-D
I did say “probably” didn’t I? (And I definitely said “coast” not “beach”!)
Anyway, I was thinking about how to explain my concern on the application issue and thought maybe this would help a little. I am going to trim this down because it is Sunday a.m. and other things really are more important. Let’s say the conclusiion of our biblical interpretation leads us to THAT which the text requires. Application, then, runs the gamut between THIS is THAT (exact replication) to THIS is NOT like THAT (non-applicable).
So, when we understand what the relevant biblical texts teach about separation (THAT), then we look at real life situations and ask whether THIS
Sorry, I wasn’t done…
and ask whether: (1) THIS is THAT; (2) THIS is close to THAT; (3) THIS is similar in some ways to THAT; (4) THIS is pretty removed from THAT; (5) THIS and THAT are unrelated to each other.
What we have been discussing, it seems, is how close THIS (publishing in CT) is to THAT (the kind of association forbidden in 2 Ths 3:14). It seems like we have had answers that represent each of these five options (at least the first four). For what is worth: (1) my hunch is that if it were #1, we wouldn’t be having this conversaiton; (2) one of the real challenges for us separatists is to wrestle through whether #2 is sufficient grounds to withdraw or strain fellowship–how much latitude do we give for differing appl;ications?
That might be something for you all to talk/write about for the next couple of weeks while I meditate on it in the beauty of the Gulf Coast playing hoops with my boys, enjoying the sun, and generally relaxing (DV).
Yeah, sure…”coast.” We all know that “coast” is fundamentalese for beach. However, let the record show that Dr. Doran admitted only to going to the…er…”coast.” :-)
BTW, don’t think your jab about playing hoops “with [your] boys” went unnoticed. Nice. Rub it in.
I read your post quickly & need more time to reflect on it. And alas, it’s Sunday morning in Ohio, too. First things first.
I honestly did not intend any jab about with the boys comment, but you will never know how thankful that I don’t have to mess with any of the American Girl nonsense!
I know you didn’t. You don’t know what you’re missing.
‘Fess up Chris- you’re a collector, aren’t you?
Daughters. I collect daughters.
Did you sign the agreement yet? Jefferson is in first grade. It’s not too late.
Oh… so you call them your “daughters.”
How sweet! :)
(Ahem.)
As the official babysitter of SI, I must insist that all those who desire to post on this thread stay on topic. Any other infractions will result in swift and decisive action. You have been duly warned. Don't mess with me.
Signed,
Greg "The Enforcer" Linscott
Andy,
My reply to Pat on another thread should suffice.
I wasn’t eating (well, I suppose I was at some point). But does preparing for grad comps count as an excuse for once again missing the 100th post?
I just read through this whole thread and benefited greatly. Thanks!
Chris,
This reminds me of another thread long ago on SI in which we pondered the implications of writing for NE publications.
Thanks for hosting this conversation. I may be unpacking my Ryle in a couple of weeks and try to catch up over there.
Frank