You are not charitable with the CE’s IMHO.  You do hold them to a higher standard than our fellow Fundamentalists.

My correspondent cites some situations where fundamentalists shared platforms with dubious characters and one where a fundamentalist made a judgement in a church discipline situation that appears to have been at least unwise, if current available information is accurate. I have advocated a ‘wait and see’ position in the latter case. In the platform fellowship cases, I have not had a lot to say, although I have said some things.

My correspondent concludes:

Taking a wait and see is fine, but not when you are so hard on the CE’s.  You are not consistent in this area in my opinion.

Until we take out the beams in our eyes, we will not honor and glorify God!

I promised my correspondent a response here at oxgoad, so this is it.

The fact is that I am hard on Conservative Evangelicals. They aren’t conservative enough for me and they still have most of the errors of New Evangelicalism as part of their philosophy and modus operandi. They are very little different from the original New Evangelicals (although some differences can be discerned).

And the fact is that I tend to take a wait and see approach to the errors (real or alleged) of fundamentalists because on the important questions, fundamentalists get the answers right. I might add that I take a wait and see attitude toward fundamentalists of various sorts, including those I criticize most. Some of my other correspondents are ready to virtually tar and feather some of the more leftish fundamentalists. I am not ready to do that yet. These correspondents might think I am too soft.

Why the difference and what does it reveal?

First, I think it reveals that I am a fundamentalist. I think that the willingness to “wait and see” and give room for errors is common to men and it reveals what they really are in their philosophy and ministry orientation. I am willing to work with, tolerate, or even excuse fundamentalists to a certain extent in spite of their errors because we share common values in the things that are most important to me theologically and philosophically. A number of people are willing to work with, tolerate, or excuse conservative evangelicals in spite of their errors. What does that say about their values theologically and philosophically? What does it say when these people also want to wear the label fundamentalist?

So I think it is quite natural for anyone to make distinctions harder and faster against those outside his group and be more tolerant of those inside his group.

Well, I can hear the protests now… You are willing to tolerate errors? And you call yourself a fundamentalist!

I think that fundamentalism has been too guilty of devouring one another… of eating its own young, so to speak. We have had occasions where divisions are made over issues that really shouldn’t matter. They are matters of soul liberty, in my opinion, and shouldn’t divide the body of Christ (other than perhaps give a focus or flavour of emphasis in a local body).¹

I also think that a single error does not a pattern make. And I suppose even two errors does not a pattern make. Some of my friends have done things recently that I wouldn’t have done. I actually corresponded with them about it because I thought their decisions were unwise at best. They had their reasons, I don’t entirely agree with their reasons, but they don’t answer to me, do they? But should I now decide that these errors now preclude all fellowship between us forevermore, amen? I don’t think that is necessary, at least not yet. If they continued to make such errors, if they were consistently making the same mistakes, if they were becoming a bad influence on my own ministry by my association with them, well… then I would probably have to take steps to disentangle myself from such fellowship.²

And finally, here is where I think the biggest factor in my treatment of the two parties lies:

The conservative evangelicals have repudiated fundamentalism as a ministry philosophy. That doesn’t make them my enemies, as such, but it certainly doesn’t make them my opinion leaders. They aren’t the guys I am going to teach my people to pay attention to. I am not going to try to get my people to read their books, go to their conferences, employ their methods or enter any other kind of ‘guru-like’ relationship with them. I think the fundamental error of the conservative evangelicals is that they continue to insist that the new evangelicals were right when the new evangelicals left fundamentalism.

For this reason alone, their writings and leadership can’t be trusted. They shouldn’t be followed. They shouldn’t be made much of.

My criticism of the conservative evangelicals is because the errors they make are consistent with their stated philosophies. They aren’t anywhere close to being or becoming fundamentalists, so they don’t act like fundamentalists. I think it is important to point that out to the naive.

On the other hand, fundamentalists, in spite of their errors, do get fundamentalism right. They understand that there is a difference between the church and the world and they try to maintain it (however imperfectly). They understand that you can’t support every popular Bible teacher that shows up on television, radio, or in your local Christian bookstore. They know that many of these popular teachers will lead you into serious compromises with the world or with false teachers if you follow their teachings to the letter.

So fundamentalists act like fundamentalists and I appreciate it. I may not like everything my fundamentalist brothers do and I may find that I need to question them about some things they have done. But my fundamentalist brothers are fundamentalists. They have the right philosophy… and as long as they stick to it, they will get less criticism from me than the conservative evangelicals will.

I hope that makes some sense. More probably needs to be said, but we can get to that in the comments if anyone cares to engage what I have said.

I would like to add a few more words that relate more to the recent unpleasantness of the latest SI back and forth that I referenced earlier.

Some people are mightily impressed with statements that conservative evangelicals have made ‘distancing’ themselves from some other evangelicals and their excesses. You know, statements are just statements. Anybody can make a statement. What matters is deeds.

Recently, my online friends³, the Bayly bros made a very interesting blog about goings on at the recent PCA convention. I cite the blog for this quote:

Except for an excruciatingly close vote on the training and certification of women for ministry roles, the Strategic Plan was adopted en masse—and the Strategic Plan consists of actionable items. Votes on Friday authorizing statements about homosexuality and abortion are toothless institutionally. Statements are statements; action items are action items.

Exactly. “Statements are statements; action items are action items.” The conservative evangelicals are good at statements. Let’s see them take some action against some of the egregious errors I keep talking about. Let’s see the Together for Calvin guys kick Piper out for cosying up to Rick Warren. Or at least publicly rebuke him for it, but I’d like to see some action rather than more words.

Well, that is enough for now. I do welcome comments, but let’s remember my rules about them:

1. They must be ON TOPIC
2. They must be actually willing to advance a conversation – if you keep saying the same thing over and over, you’ll find you don’t get ‘air time’.
3. No insults or demeaning tone.
4. I am the sole judge of the above three, if you don’t rise to their level in my opinion alone, well… thanks for the comment anyway, but it will just be between you and me.

1. For example, I can cooperate to some extent with other fundamentalist brothers who disagree with me about versions, dress issues [to some extent], some church polity issues, etc. They wouldn’t join my church, I wouldn’t join theirs, but we can work together in some ways.
2. For my correspondent whose criticisms prompted this post, yes, I mean the two people in your first examples of my inconsistency.
3. but not fellow fundamentalists

At least, their purports to be a discussion, but after four weeks nothing of substance has really been discussed.

In some discussions of the topic over the last few years at various online locations, some have alleged that my opposition to closer ties with conservative evangelicals is theological. In other words, since many prominent conservative evangelicals are Together for Calvinism, my opposition is rooted in my non-Calvinistic theology.

Well…

I ran across something this week that puts the lie to that theory. I thought it would enlighten some for me to share it with you.

The thing I ran across was a series of chapel messages by Paige Patterson at Southwestern Seminary, preached through the 2008-2009 school year. You can find the series on iTunes, at the “iTunes U” section. Navigate to Southwestern Seminary and look at the audio offerings. The series is called: “Questions You Cannot Avoid”.¹

I don’t think anyone can deny that Paige Patterson is a conservative evangelical. He was president of the SBC in 1999-2000, acting as part of the renowned “Conservative Resurgence” in the SBC. However, he isn’t “Together for Calvinism”, his theological persuasions appear to be much closer to mine than the popular T4C men.

As examples of his conservative views, here is an article he wrote “Concerning Alcoholic Beverages, Fermented Juices and the Believer”. His views here are very close to mine. Here is another article where I find a good deal of practical wisdom as Patterson critiques the apparent weakness of SBC churches in 2007: “FIRST PERSON: Of Grinches, Goblins, Gremlins and Ghosts”. And here is one of those messages I listened to, a truly dynamic chapel message on the holiness and sanctity of sexual purity:

Feb25Chapel

[Update: This is the Feb 25, 2009 chapel message if you want to find it via the Southwestern chapel site linked above.]

There is a lot to like here. I recommend you listen to the whole series of chapel messages. They are really good. At least… most of them are really good and two of them expose areas of difference with fundamentalism that mean the distinction must be maintained. Even in these two messages I am thinking about, there is still a lot of practical and Biblical wisdom that we can glean from.

Now, what are those two points of difference?

Topic One

In one of the earlier messages, Dr. Patterson reads a column by Richard John Neuhaus, the late founding editor of First Things. The column was perhaps the last thing Neuhaus ever wrote. From a human standpoint, it had some aspects of human wisdom. Patterson read it favorably and spoke of Neuhaus admiringly. Neuhaus was raised Lutheran, the son of a Canadian Lutheran minister who himself became a Lutheran clergyman. However, at the age of 54 he converted to Catholicism and became a Roman Catholic priest. The doctrines of Roman Catholicism are problematic enough, but, according to Wikipedia, Neuhaus even hoped in universalism:

Neuhaus expressed a strong hope in universal salvation, but stopped short of teaching it as a doctrine, emphasizing it as a hope, not a belief. “In sum: we do not know; only God knows; but we may hope.”

Now, it is undeniable that Neuhaus was an intelligent and gifted man. I am sure he said some good things. But why wouldn’t Patterson identify his errors when speaking to his Seminary chapel? If you felt you must cite him, why wouldn’t you make it clear that the man had huge spiritual problems?

As a fundamentalist, it is this kind of easy familiarity with questionable religious characters that makes me want to keep my distance. It is the willingness to be connected with something like the Manhattan Declaration or the connections with Warren and Driscoll and others. As I read 2 John in particular, I find that we are all going to answer for our associations. If these conservative brothers are going to maintain these kinds of connections, then I have to keep my distance.

Topic Two

Later in this series, near the end of it, there is a message about the “Worship Wars”. Patterson joked in the message the week before that they had scheduled an “after chapel meeting” out in the parking lot to settle the question once and for all.

Now, I have to say that even in this message, Patterson has a lot of wisdom that I like. But there is a problem, a divide that holds fundamentalists back from close association with conservative evangelicals. For Patterson, the decisions one makes about ‘worship’ isn’t a question of ‘style’. There are other matters that are critical (and some of his points here are good). But style is largely irrelevant, a praise band is fine, contemporary style is good, and ‘What a Friend We Have in Jesus’ is awful.

Essentially, I think it comes down to this: the conservative evangelical sees music itself (not lyrics) as amoral. They see style as amoral. The fundamentalist in reply says, “No, music and musical style have meaning. You can’t have music or style that contradicts biblical truth.”

It is ironic that in some of Patterson’s comments and articles he complains about the church too closely imitating the culture and losing its power. Yet apparently he doesn’t see musical style as an issue in that category, except perhaps in the current fad of turning church services into long ‘musical concerts’ with little preaching and no Bible reading.

Fundamentalists approach culture differently than conservative evangelicals do. That is not to say fundamentalists are monolithic and are all exactly the same with respect to the music they use. But the fundamentalist approach is to keep a distance from culture. As a fundamentalist, I think we have good reasons for that. And as a fundamentalist, this difference is one distinction that demands we keep our distance from the conservative evangelicals. This is a philosophical difference, but it determines the whole approach we take to ministry.

~~~

There may be more differences than these two, but they are perhaps the primary distinctions between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. It isn’t hard to see these differences. I think that we can show that these two differences are directly connected to the two defining eras of fundamentalist history (the 20s and the fight with modernism and the 50s and the fight with new evangelical compromise). I think we can also show that these differences are significant and must be maintained.

But I have to say I like Paige Patterson. I just wish he was a little more conservative than he is.

1. You can also find the messages on the Southwestern chapel site, although the messages are not identified by series.

He is describing a general phenomenon, and he might be describing what is going on in Fundamentalism, but regardless of that, his description certainly applies.

Another complicating factor in making these comparisons is that the ‘competing’ ministries are represented by ministries strongly identified with a popular individual on the conservative evangelical side as opposed to more institutional or group oriented ministries/organizations on the fundamentalist side.

Others have noticed this difference also. The Conservative Evangelical brand is largely led by ministries centered around prominent individuals. The Fundamentalist brand, these days, really has no star power in its leaders and it tends to find whatever leadership it has in collective efforts, rather than in individual ministries.

That is a generalization, of course. There are, I suppose, some exceptions to the rule, but I think the generalization holds.

For example, when you think Conservative Evangelical, you think of a list of names: Dever, Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, MacArthur, etc. Some of these men represent institutions and work closely with a number of other men, but there is a sense that they are the focal point of the brand.

On the other hand, when you think Fundamentalism, what comes to mind? Bob Jones University, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, Maranatha, Detroit, Central, the Wilds, etc. Of course, individuals lead these ministries and fill up their staffs, but I would suggest that even fairly well informed observers would have to think a bit to get the individual leaders of ALL of these ministries. On the CE side, if we simply named 9Marks, Desiring God, Sovereign Grace, Southern Seminary, Grace to You… most observers – regular readers of this blog – would be able to put the names to those ministries without any effort.

Isn’t that a curious difference? It wasn’t always so in Fundamentalism. And that involves both an irony and a sign of generational change.

The irony is this: One of the big complaints against fundamentalism is that fundamentalism is personality driven, led by larger than life dictators, and ‘that’s gotta stop!’

Ironically, which brand is led by personalities these days?

Isn’t it interesting that so many of those who complain about a ‘personality driven movement’ are moving towards a real personality driven movement? Just who is ‘man-centered’ here, anyway?

The generational change is this: When I was going through university and seminary, fundamentalism was dominated by big names. Hyles, Jones, Rice, and others like them were very prominent. As these men passed off the scene, who really took up the same kind of prominence in leadership?((Before you jump all over the Hyles reference, please be aware there was a time when he was relatively mainstream in fundamentalism – a time before he took some infamously extreme positions.))

The FBF, for example, is led by a collective group of men on the board, some fairly well known, others less well known. Dr. Bob III is still a prominent name, but his style is different from his fathers. He is more of a transitional figure between the older generation and men my age (the leadership age – or the mid-life crisis age, take your pick). No one from the next generation of men have really emerged as any kind of dynamic leader as yet.

So there has been a change in fundamentalism. Is this the natural process of things? Is the current state of affairs better or worse? It could be considered better, if the idea of dynamic and dominant personal leadership is actually as bad as it is made out to be. On the other hand, it could be that the lack of dynamic leadership is contributing to the restlessness of the natives. Having no chief to follow, the Indians are straying to other reservations where there are heap big chiefs aplenty.

~~~

I don’t think someone should now set out to become the fundamentalist guru to rally the troops around his dynamic version of fundamentalism. But I do wish that some of our more prominent leaders would talk up the idea of a Bible-believing, soul-winning, orthodoxy-loving Fundamentalism once again. It seems to me that we need a bit more outspoken leadership in the Fundamentalist direction than we are getting.

He suggests that it is easy to summarize in a few short words or a phrases the essential vision of various evangelical ministries, but questions whether that is true of fundamentalist ministries or institutions. I don’t happen to think that he is right, but he seems to think that the ‘visions’ of the evangelicals are more compelling than the lack of vision of fundamentalists.

Another complicating factor in making these comparisons is that the ‘competing’ ministries are represented by ministries strongly identified with a popular individual on the conservative evangelical side as opposed to more institutional or group oriented ministries/organizations on the fundamentalist side. In some ways we aren’t really comparing apples to apples here.

Having said that, the idea of ‘vision’ (or ‘mission statements’) leaves me cold. Too much corporate psycho-babble for me.

I wonder, however, if a few readers would like to chime in on the subject by giving us their brief ‘vision statements’ for the various ministries mentioned. Here is the list:

• 9Marks
• Ligonier
• Grace To You
• Desiring God
• BJU
• FBFI
• Sword of the Lord

I am going to post the complete post I am reacting to after the jump, so I would suggest that it would be best if you write out your vision/mission statements first, without looking at the post or other comments. Then click through to my comments section and post your reaction.

We can discuss various other aspects of this post as well, but let’s start with how well we can define these ministries without looking up their mission statements on their web-sites or doing any research about them. If you aren’t that familiar with a ministry, ‘I don’t know’ is an acceptable response.

More below…

Here is the post I am reacting to in it’s entirety:

Will Dudding says:

February 12, 2010 at 9:20 pm

Don, Piper makes Calvinism understandable and makes us see the connection between the head and the heart. All he does is parrot Jonathan Edwards.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I’ve said before on a discussion on SI a while ago that another reason people are flocking to these ministries is about leadership, not the music.

• When I look at 9Marks Ministry, without going to their website, I can tell you what they’re all about – they are trying to strengthen the local church by bringing people back to a Biblical model.
• Ligonier Ministries – They want to awaken people to the glory and holiness of God.
• Grace To You – They want the Word of God to powerfully change people through expository preaching,
• Desiring God – they want to awaken people to the pleasure of knowing God as their supreme pleasure.

On the other hand, name me any Fundamentalist institution and ask someone what they exist to accomplish…would anyone beside their faculty be able to answer that with clarity?:

• BJU – To preserve fundamentalism??
• FBFI – to make resolutions every year??
• Sword of the Lord – to preserve revivalism?

I know that my own alma mater has sent letters encouraging support of their college to keep the “old time religion” around.

To tell you the truth, I like the visions of the CE’s better!
So, fundamentalists have a choice – they can keep dumping on these guys and drive more of their best people to them, or they can acknowledge what they’re doing right and figure out what they’re not doing right, have the guts to admit it, change it and keep some of the young generation to carry on.

I’ll offer my own articulation of the vision of each ministry in the comments after we have collected a few from others. I am afraid my summaries may not be quite as ‘fresh’ as yours might be, I am already influenced by Will’s and will have read any that come in before I post mine. I have already written out most of mine, but let’s see what someone else might say before I put them out there. (That is, assuming I have any readers interested enough to post.)

Let’s try Dictionary.com

con?serv?a?tive ¹

/k?n?s?rv?t?v/  [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] 

–adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.

When it comes to religious movements that can be described as ‘conservative’, I think we can dispense with definitions 2, 3, 5, and 7. We can likely dispense with 6 as well. That leaves us with 1 and 4.

Definition 4 is a political definition:

(often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

I think the adjective is used this way when we talk of “Conservative Evangelicals.” We are describing a political grouping or ‘party’ in Christendom.

Definition 1 is the descriptive definition we are after:

disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

In Canadian politics, you can be a ‘big C’ Conservative and/or a ‘little c’ conservative. The first means you are a member of a specific political party (as I have been, but am not currently). The second means you are disposed to a conservative political philosophy that attempts to preserve existing institutions or to restore traditional ones.

In ecclesiastical politics, what kind of ‘c’ is a ‘Conservative Evangelical’? Is it the same thing as the kind of ‘c’ that a Fundamentalist might be?

The answer to these questions becomes clear in defining what each political grouping is conserving. That is, what existing conditions, institutions, etc., is a Conservative Evangelical attempting to preserve? Or which institutions, etc., is a Fundamentalist attempting to preserve? Or what traditional institutions, etc., is either group attempting to restore?

I think it is clear that both groups want to limit change in some way, but is the disposition to limit change sufficient to regard both groups as the same? If you consider my questions in the previous paragraph, you should come to the conclusion that both groups are quite clearly not the same.

Fundamentalists are disposed to conserve separatistic ministries. Fundamentalists are disposed to restoring churches and ministries opposed to heterodoxy (liberalism and other significant deviations from orthodoxy – emergent churches, Open Theists, and others) and unflinchingly refusing to acknowledge heterodoxy in any way, especially by withholding fellowship from Christians who cooperate or acknowledge such.

Conservative Evangelicals now, what are they conserving? Not separatistic, militant, uncompromising Christianity! It seems that the Conservative Evangelicals are very concerned about limiting change being done to Christianity by deviant evangelicals. Some of them are quite outspoken about the errors of emergent churches for example. (Unless they are [ahem] reformed and evangelical as well…) It seems that Conservative Evangelicals want to go back to a happier time in evangelicalism. They don’t appear to want to go back to, say, 1940. But they do appear to want to go back to, say, 1957.

In other words, Conservative Evangelicals are conservative in this way: they want to restore the traditions of evangelicalism as it existed and as it was exhibited in the better of the New Evangelicals of the late 50s and 60s. They want to restore the traditions of Carl Henry, of J. I. Packer, of the Young Billy Graham. They want to turn back the clock and put a lid on Pandora’s box. But they don’t really want to do away with New Evangelicalisms root concept: Fundamentalism was too harsh, too narrow, and was and is no longer needed.

When we see the movements in this light, it is quite clear that right now in Fundamentalism, we have some who really aren’t conservative at all. (Note the small ‘c’.) They aren’t conservative because they have no disposition to preserve existing Fundamentalist conditions, institutions, etc. Some of them say they want to restore ‘Historic Fundamentalism’ (i.e., the 1920s version), but they misunderstand Historic Fundamentalism. The Fundamentalism of the 1920s, the 1940s, the 1960s and since is essentially one and the same movement (or philosophy, if  you think there is no more movement).

No there are some in Fundamentalism who want to change Fundamentalism into something else. They want to change it to Conservative Evangelicalism. Essentially, at the root, these people believe that the New Evangelicals were right. They think some people took evangelicalism too far, but in the essential argument with Fundamentalism, the New Evangelical position was the right one.

These are the conditions facing us today. We have a wavering Fundamentalism because many of the most vocal are not conservatives. They want change. They aren’t willing to leave Fundamentalism, they want to change it.

The question we are left with is this: are there enough conservative Fundamentalists left to resist the change and preserve the Fundamentalist position? To preserve both ideas and institutions, if possible, but certainly the ideas at least?

What kind of ‘c’ are you?

1. conservative. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative (accessed: January 12, 2010).

The fundamentalist reaction, all over the place, is to note that the declaration is a serious compromise of the gospel by its declaration that all signers are Christians. I’ll not repeat all of the analysis on this point, you can find that elsewhere.

The evangelical reaction is mixed. Some fairly conservative names have signed the document while others have notably and publicly made their opposition clear. Al Mohler is a prominent conservative signatory while John MacArthur is a prominent non-signatory.

Dave Doran comments in one of his blogs on the subject:

Thankfully, to this point Dr. Mohler has kept a theological edge that has prevented him from fully embracing the ecumenical path of men like Timothy George and Chuck Colson. I hope he never loses that edge. Well, truth be told, I really hope he slides closer to John MacArthur’s position.

This quotation contains all the elements of the one point I’d like to highlight and poses a serious question for the rising neo-fundamentalists who seem to want closer ties to the conservative camp.

The point is this:

• Many neo-fundamentalists (or ‘young fundamentalists’ or what have you…) have applauded MacArthur’s analysis and opposition to the MD. And as far as it goes, I would have to say MacArthur is spot on in his comments.
• The assumption of many is something like this… “See, MacArthur is too a fundamentalist.”

Well. Is he?

Dave Doran has been making a lot of good points in his discussion of fundamentalism lately. I agree with a good deal of it. I have noted some of my disagreements. One of the things I agree with is one of his statements concerning the essential stance of fundamentalists:

For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15).

All right, I agree with that. This view is consistent with the stance fundamentalists have taken for about sixty years.

Now let’s apply it to this situation.

Is Al Mohler granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith by signing the Manhattan Declaration?

When the MD says:

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty. [Emphasis mine.]

Now Mohler protests that he hasn’t changed his views on Catholicism, etc. He claims there remain sharp divides between him and these other faiths. But he signed a document that includes the words highlighted above.

Is he granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith? Yes or no?

• If the answer is no, then Mohler is just in an ‘uncomfortable alliance’ to promote a socio-political agenda.
• If the answer is no, then Mohler is still not embracing the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham, which of course means that it doesn’t matter that he chaired the Graham crusade in Louisville or that he presides over the Graham center for evangelism at Southern Seminary.
• If the answer is no, then Mohler is in fact keeping the ‘theological edge’ that has kept him from ‘fully embracing the ecumenical path’.

But is the answer ‘no’? What if the answer is ‘yes’?

Consider, for example, some of MacArthur’s comments about the MD:

[The Manhattan Declaration] assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

Or…

The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

Read the whole thing at MacArthur’s site.

What do you think? Is Mohler granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith?

If the answer is ‘yes’, then what MacArthur does now will go a long way to show the difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

If the answer is ‘yes’, then fundamentalists should say something like this:

“I think bro. Mohler has grievously erred in granting Christian recognition to people who are not true Christians. Until he repudiates that recognition, we must mark him as a disobedient brother and dissuade others from sitting under his influence.”

Isn’t that what the fundamentalist response should be? Isn’t that what separation looks like?

In some of the argumentation about separation, men have said, “Oh, well, how can I practically separate from someone like Mohler? Should I send him a letter? Should I put an ad in the paper?”

This is disingenuous. Of course someone like me, and most fundamentalists, have no direct connection with a Mohler or others like him. But should we then do nothing?

• Shouldn’t we mark him?
• Shouldn’t we, by marking him, make that mark clear to others who are following us so that they aren’t influenced by the error?
• Isn’t that what Dave means when he says:

For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15).

And then, what should be done about MacArthur? Well, it is clear that in this case for certain, bro. MacArthur hasn’t granted Christian recognition to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith. Does that, then, make him a fundamentalist?

Well, has he separated from bro. Mohler?

Has he marked him in any way as someone whose errors are so grievous that MacArthur cannot participate in partnership in Gospel ministry any longer until this compromise is repudiated? Or is it likely that you will see bro. Mohler taking the platform at the next Shepherd’s Conference as he has done several times in the last few years? Which will it be?

I think you know the answers to that one.

And the answer distinguishes neatly the difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. The conservative evangelical will say, “tut, tut” and carry on. The fundamentalist will not continue in fellowship when the gospel is compromised.

And I think, more than merely hope that Mohler “slides closer to John MacArthur’s position”, I would like to see him repudiate his own errors and go further than MacArthur and repudiate his conservative evangelical errors as well. (How exactly can you ‘slide closer’ to MacArthur’s position anyway?)

If this statement is true (and it is):

When a genuine Christian brother welcomes into Christian fellowship someone who teaches false doctrine, that genuine Christian brother, according to John, has become a partner in the false teaching. Standing against the false teaching means standing against this partnership with it. The truth and seriousness of the issue at stake necessarily demands this additional application.

Then the fundamentalist has something hard to say to the Mohlers of this world and something almost as hard to say to those who will not make the same compromise but will still maintain ongoing ministry partnerships.

The style of service and many doctrinal issues make this a church I could no longer have close fellowship with, even if the Lord had brought me back to my home province for my ministry. I rarely attend here, not usually visiting my parents over a Sunday. In the last 27 years, I have probably been in the church for one of its services less than 5 times.

The pastor is a bit older than I, but not much. We were acquainted when I was a teen and he was in college. Our church was affiliated with a college where many of the students worked in summer camps and denomination-wide youth activities. The pastor was one of those who was involved in ministry to me as a teen.

Today a guest speaker was in town, another man whom I knew from my teen years. He, too, was a part of those college kids who were involved in that province-wide youth ministry. Back in those days, this fellow was a leader among us, one of the spiritual young men whom I quite admired in our group. Today he is a missionary in the Pacific Isles, having spend many years in Guam, now heading to Yap. He preached a fine expository message on the Rich Man and Lazarus. He called it “A Prayer from Hell”. It really was a good message.

The preliminaries involved the usual, the offering and announcements and the singing. The singing was of the more contemporary style – it wasn’t absolutely horrible, but certainly not my style of church music. The songs were projected on an overhead (nothing wrong with that) and we moved from one song to another, most of which I didn’t know. I didn’t sing along – I am not a great singer and without any music, I am totally lost. The music helps a bit (some would say that it makes no difference if they could hear me sing!). At least I know that some notes are meant to be sung longer than others and I am supposed to go up here and down there. Anyway, the music wasn’t overly offensive, but it just wasn’t my style.

During the announcements, a young lady got up to give them. There wasn’t a lot wrong with that, I guess, until she mentioned going off to the college for a week in January for her “preaching course.” My old church has been for women preachers since it’s beginning. Not a thing I can agree with, but not a thing to make waves over as a visitor.

And one announcement in particular made it crystal clear why all these little differences mentioned so far define an entirely different kind of ministry from my own and one I could no longer have any fellowship (i.e., partnership and monetary involvement). The announcement was about an upcoming multi-church Christmas service to be held one of the evenings in December. It will be held at the local Roman Catholic church.

This is my problem with evangelicalism in general. This is where its ecumenism and cooperation tend to always lead. They get to the point where they are willing to name false professors as fellow Christians.

• Is it the preaching that is the problem? Not always. Today’s preaching was fine.
• Is it the music that is the problem? Not completely. Today’s music, though not my style, wasn’t totally unacceptable.
• Is it the egalitarian errors? No, but that is a serious error. My home church does allow women to preach. That isn’t acceptable, and not just to me, but to the Lord as well (1 Tim 2.12).

What it comes down to is this: a general weakness in doctrine and practice leads to some kind of acceptance of non Christians as if they are Christians. This is the great evangelical error and it is the direction their many weaknesses still lead.

It is true that some of the more conservative evangelicals don’t go quite so far as to hold joint services with Roman Catholics, but they are not far removed from taking that step. The only way we can see any rapprochement between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals is if one or the other changes in their attitude towards the compromising evangelicals.

I ran across an article about the Reformed Church in America at the Christian news site, Christian Post. Entitled “Reformed Church in America Is Imploding, Professor Says”, the article describes turmoil in a denomination I don’t know a lot about.

Several things struck me about the way the conflict was described however. Note these key paragraphs:

Amid years of contention between liberals and conservatives over issues such as the civil-rights movement, women’s ordination and evangelism with regard to social witness, Luidens says "loyalists" emerged to keep the denomination together. They were more dedicated to denominational survival than to ideological purity, he notes.

Though the two extremes were held together then, today many liberals have left the RCA in significant numbers and conservatives have shifted their target to the loyalists and continue to "rail against ‘liberalism,’" he says.

Now before anyone shrieks, ‘none of these people are fundamentalists’, let me say I am quite aware of that. But the conflict illustrates exactly what fundamentalism is all about, how it came into existence, and why a need for it still exists.

First, let’s note the nature of the participants and the focus of the struggle. There are three groups mentioned here:

1. Liberals
2. Conservatives
3. Loyalists

Note in particular what the issues are: civil-rights, women ordination, social action (social gospel?). These are all left-right issues. They are perhaps not ‘gospel issues’, but they are probably at least tangentially related to the gospel and are promoted by the liberals on the basis of a more or less gospel-denying philosophy (I am assuming here).

Initially the conflict is between liberals and conservatives, presumably brought on when some conservatives decided to raise a stink about liberal teaching or programs. A period of conflict ensued, but a third force arose, the loyalists, who want denominational peace at any cost. These would be akin to the famous ‘moderates’ whose traitorous compromises did the fundamentalists in during the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.

Isn’t this the way the fundamentalist phenomenon started?

In this particular case, the end game may be less dramatic than the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Note this paragraph from the article:

The glue that once held the RCA together may have eroded, but Lewis suggests that new glue is already forming. Lewis sees hope in some of the new developments including: the new array of options for training ministers in Word and sacrament, coached clergy networks that offer support and encourage accountability, general synods that have given greater voice to delegates, greater dialogue between conservatives and liberals on what they’ve learned from visiting Christians in other countries, and foreign churches seeking partnerships with the RCA.

In this case, it appears the conservatives are being co-opted and are staying in.

What would have happened to fundamentalism if all the fundamentalists in the thirties had decided that unity was more important and had decided to just shut up, stay in, and work for ‘renewal’ from within?

1. Would there have been a fundamentalism at all?
2. Would there have been an evangelicalism at all?

We know how the story ended – the fundamentalists came out of the mainline and started over. Thirty years later, they received a broadside, seemingly from within, when the evangelicals decided they had enough of the contention and withdrew to form closer ties with the modernists from whom their forefathers had withdrawn a generation before.

If the fundamentalists hadn’t been separatists, would there even have been an evangelicalism today?

I don’t think so.

So today, on many levels, we are being told to rethink fundamentalism. We are being told that fundamentalism is the problem.

Is it really?

Of the three groups in the RCA, mentioned above, which ones are the biggest problem, the liberals, conservatives, or loyalists?

For a good understanding of the analogy, though, one must have some understanding of how maps and compasses work. A much more full description can be found from a chapter of a book, The Backpacker’s Field Manual, excerpted here on the Princeton University site, but I’ll attempt a bit in this post.

I suppose when we think of ‘mapping’ the locations on the ecclesiastical landscape, we probably envision a political map, with nation-states and their boundaries. Such maps seem fairly objective and definite in allocating the bounds of various domains, but they are of limited value for navigation.

What political maps can’t show are the alliances between nations (who can be at some distance from one another). They also cannot show disputed territories that may lie between any two nations – boundaries are not always as clearly defined as they appear on a map. In addition, political maps usually give very little idea of the topographical features of any given territory – the slopes, slippery or otherwise, the heights and the lowlands, very little sense of the direction of the watershed, and so on. Thus, there are things political maps cannot tell us.

For navigation purposes, topographical maps are much more useful. They tell us the relative steepness of slopes and the prominence of various geological features, giving an idea of the easiest way to traverse a particular area of land.

Mapping, both political and topographical, are one thing. Reading maps and compasses are another. One might think getting a compass reading is a simple matter. Look where the needle is pointing, find North on a map, orient it correctly, identify some prominent landmarks, and you’re off.

It isn’t quite that simple. There is north and there is north. That is, there is true north (pointing directly to the north pole) and there is magnetic north (pointing to the north magnetic pole). These two points on the planet are two different things and one of them is constantly changing (albeit relatively slowly). Your compass points directly to the magnetic north pole, but parallel with the lines of magnetic force at your starting point. In order to get your compass set right (and your map oriented properly), you need to know something about where you are starting from and calculate the deviation from true north in that area.

A diagram from the Princeton site might help describe the way the magnetic field lines distort compasses in the United States:

Your compass needle will deviate from true north according to these angles.¹ According to the Princeton site,

You can see that location makes a great deal of difference in where the compass points. The angular difference between true north and magnetic north is known as the declination and is marked in degrees on your map as shown … Depending on where you are, the angle between true north and magnetic north is different. In the U.S., the angle of declination varies from about 20 degrees west in Maine to about 21 degrees east in Washington.

In order to navigate, you have to make allowances for the angle of declination, set your compass accordingly, and then orient and read your map to ascertain position and the next direction you will set out on.

Maps and guidebooks are the fundamental tools both for trip planning … and while you are out on the trail. [emphasis mine]

If you really want to know more about real maps and compasses, you can read all about it at the Princeton site and other places.

Very good, Mr. Badger, now what does this have to do with navigating the ecclesiastical wilderness?

What does this have to do with ecclesiastics and separation? That is a most vital question.

In this discussion, an emphasis is being made in getting biblical principles of separation down so that we can navigate. We could call this ‘orienting our compass’. In discussion elsewhere, we have been told that we also need to get our fixed points – but isn’t ‘fixed points’ the language of maps?²

Having oriented our compass, gotten our fixed points, what should we do next? The next step is to set one’s course through the wilderness. We will need a map to identify the best route along the way. The compass is useful to help us see where we are on the map and determine the direction of travel, but that is all. A compass can do nothing else.

As we traverse the hills and valleys of the ecclesiastical wilderness, no doubt we will make some missteps along the way. We may experience some slips and falls. We may not always see our way clearly – our line of sight may be obscured by overhanging vegetation and obstructions along the way. We might even lose our way. If we don’t have good maps, our compass will be of no use to us on the mishaps of the way.

In my previous post, I was advocating that we need men in the map-making business. You can see that navigating the wilderness is much more involved than you might think. I am sure if I was out in the real wilderness with the best maps and the best compasses, I would soon be lost.

In the ecclesiastical wilderness, I would suggest that we all vary in our skills and wisdom in using the tools the Lord has given us. We need good solid principles to guide us, to be sure. If you will, we need the compass that was given us in recent weeks. But are all of us ever going to be equally proficient with these principles? It is hardly likely.

Do we not need men who will take the time to adjust their compass accurately, who will labour to understand the declinations from true north that there be, who will explain those declinations and their seriousness to the less skilled? There are some men who seem to point north, but they are actually pointing very wide of the mark. The declination of some may not seem so great at first glance, but the declination is serious, and if you attempt to navigate this wilderness without adjusting for their declination, you will miss the mark and land far wide of true north.

We are not talking about men who point south – these men we are observing do point northish.³ But the influence of the southern magnetic field is real. Many of these men are much influenced by their interaction with the southward pull. Accepting their direction without allowing for their declination will lead you astray.

One last quote from the Princeton site:

Navigation in the wilderness means knowing your starting point, your destination, and your route to get there.

Given the unwillingness of some Fundamentalist leaders to make maps for us, how well do you think we are going to keep people pointing to the True North?

1. I was going to boast that in Canada, we tend to be more generally in line with true north, but then I noticed that red line in the middle… it appears that anyone along a line running through eastern Ontario, Wisconsin, Illinois, eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, and even the Florida panhandle (Pensacola??) have no deviation from true north with their compasses. Does that mean these areas are the most clear seeing?
2. Perhaps we have discovered a mixed metaphor?
3. Who points northish? Those who believe the true gospel.