See earlier notes here.

Perhaps the most interesting question on our minds for this discussion is just what Pastor Minnick thinks can be done in cooperation with conservative evangelicals. The question was raised by Mark Dever in his recently published interview of Pastor Minnick this way:

“What would we have to do to change for you to be free to preach here?”

The same question has been discussed here and here with the majority of commenters seemingly unsatisfied with the specificity of Pastor Minnick’s answer at that time. You will see a commenter raising the question again in my last post on the subject and the question was raised both in the public discussion in Calgary and in personal conversation. The question is being framed in different ways, but essentially it is the same question. Dever’s articulation of it is as good as any.

Apparently, some are of the mind that very little prevents someone like Pastor Minnick from being free to preach at a Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Some have said that it is merely the connections with fundamentalist institutions that prevent such cooperation.

If you pause to consider what Pastor Minnick said in his careful answer to Dever in the interview, you will find that there is much more that would prevent any such cooperation at this time. Note especially the way Pastor Minnick gave his answer to the final version of Dever’s question in the interview:

Well, when you were in Greenville I think you told us that there is no liberalism left in the Convention. I don’t know enough about the Convention to know whether that’s the case or not. But what I do know is that the convention for all of these decades, um, has been conditioned by a philosophy, an approach on these things that is different than what I see the Scripture teaching so I, I would think there’s an awfully lot that would have to be done throughout the Convention to bring the leadership, the pastors, the Christian leaders, you know, up to the point where they were consistently showing that they understand the sep… the need for separatism, and, and until such time … uh, you know you would have cause I think for concern about getting too affiliated with, uh, the Convention. [my emphasis]

Note especially here these parts of the answer [as I paraphrase them]:

• Dever claims there is no liberalism left in the Convention.
• Our understanding of the Convention is that it has been conditioned by a philosophy of tolerance towards liberalism for many decades.
• For cooperation to exist with any Southern Baptist and a fundamentalist today, there would have to be a great deal of reformation throughout the Convention.

And my paraphrase of the concluding statement: without those kinds of changes, cooperation would really be hard.

In our discussion session, Pastor Minnick was able to expand on these thoughts. He reported again Dever’s assertion that there are no liberals left in the Convention. But while Dever made that assertion, he has also admitted that a large number of the membership in the Convention are unconverted, perhaps even a majority of its members (especially given the wide disparity between claimed membership and actual attendance at SBC churches). Considering those statistics, it is hard to imagine that there are no liberals in the SBC.

One area of SBC life that is especially problematic is the Cooperative Program that funds SBC missions, among other things. Given the pool from which SBC missionaries are drawn (and some recent resolutions aimed at SBC missions) it is hard to imagine that there is still not some taint of liberalism in the Convention. The Cooperative Program is a first class example of ‘cooperative’ effort fundamentalists are not comfortable to be associated with.

Another example Pastor Minnick raised as a barrier for fundamentalist cooperation with men like Dever involves relationships with a prominent evangelical who signed the ECT. Dever acknowledges that this individual’s actions are a concern, but can’t see breaking off cooperation with this individual because of all the good this fellow has done in his ministry. As fundamentalists, we acknowledge the good, but can’t cooperate because of the serious nature of the error. This is an area where there is still significant difference between Dever and fundamentalists.

In conclusion was a statement like this (my paraphrase):

We can’t give away the store just because conservative evangelicals are starting to see what the problem is.

In my own conversation with Pastor Minnick, he assured me that there remain many differences that make cooperation impossible at this time, but that he is hopeful conversations between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals may yield some positive fruit. The differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are NOT as simple as saying that Minnick is a BJU professor, but were it not for BJU he would be free to cooperate. If there were no BJU (or Mount Calvary Baptist Church, for that matter), the significant differences still would preclude cooperation at this time.

One last thing… Pastor Minnick pointed out during our discussion session the fact that Mark Dever himself acknowledges the significant differences that still remain. A point everyone is overlooking comes early on in the Dever-Minnick interview:

Dever: I had a great visit with Mark when I first met him a few months ago. I was down in Greenville, had lunch with Mark and some other pastor friends there and I would say Mark was obviously kind, charitable, articulate, … uh, and we disagree on some things so I thought there’s a good basis for conversation [laughter] … um … we were at a table with a bunch of other ministers where we would have a lot in agreement, so your basic Christian doctrines we’re agreeing, but where we came up with differences again and again was on the matter of how we associate with other Christians, how we decide to do that. So that’s the kind of thing we want to be talking about in this interview to try to gain a better understanding of fundamentalism and especially the doctrine of separation. So for our listeners who aren’t familiar with sort of current fundamentalism, Mark, uh, I often describe myself as a fundamentalist, you’ve heard me tell a couple of stories where I do that, but I’m not a fundamentalist in the way you mean that, am I? [emphasis mine]

You see, Dever himself knows there is still a divide. Whether he ever comes to the place where he will move to the fundamentalist side of the divide remains to be seen. There are a host of changes that would have to be made.

~~~

I really appreciate Pastor Minnick’s willingness to be grilled by local church pastors. There is wide interest in the Dever-Minnick interview, especially on the fundamentalist side. The wide commentary on the internet testifies to this. The intense interest of those listening in and participating in our discussion session likewise speaks to how critical this is to our movement. In fact, our moderator made an announcement to the crowd that the session might seem boring to the children and ladies and allowed them to be excused if they wished (men had to stay, bored or not). I don’t think many moved. I didn’t notice any boredom. I thought all were very attentive. This is a critical issue for our day.

I am not as optimistic about our fundamentalist future as some are. And by that, I mean the fundamentalist movement as we know it. There are many challenges facing us. How it will all turn out is uncertain.

The fundamentalist movement rests on certain theological ideals, especially our understanding of true Christian fellowship and separation. We are seeing a constant barrage against these ideals. There seems to be a curious quiet at the top of the heap of fundamentalist leaders. I hope for more forthright declarations (reasonable, rational, charitable, but forthright and clear) so that men on all sides will know exactly where we stand and who we stand with.

Publication note: This post was written about ten days ago, but I delayed publication in order to give Pastor Minnick an opportunity to review my comments. Having done that, the only alterations I have made to my original comments were to correct spelling errors and attempt to make one or two obtuse sentences a little less so (not sure on the success of that, but an attempt was made nonetheless).

In spite of recent interest in the fundamentalist question by Mark Dever and his ministries, doesn’t it seem that the interest is more of an amused curiosity rather than genuine interest?

As evidence, where is there ongoing discussion of the Dever-Minnick interview? Fundamentalist sites or evangelical sites?

Dever himself made a follow up post to the interview on the 9Marks blog. Who participated? Mostly fundamentalists and ex-fundamentalists.

Is there any serious follow up? Not so as you can see.

And then there is this from the latest 9Marks ejournal, under ‘Events’:

CCCC 2008 Annual Meeting
Buffalo, NY
July 21 to 24, 2008
Mark Dever

Worship God 08
Gaithersburg, MD
July 30 to August 2, 2008
Mark Dever

The CCCC professes to be a theologically conservative organization, but they allow for the ordination of women (pdf) if individual churches want to do it. And they don’t think much of charismatic gifts, but if you think it’s ok, just don’t bring it to our annual meeting…

And the Worship God 08 conference? Well, just go over to their site and check out some of the music.

So who is interested in separation?

Should we be optimistic of any real change coming from the conservative evangelical side?

I’m not holding my breath.

Here is my initial answer to Dever’s questions as posted in the comment section of the 9marks blog (I add a bit more below my quoted answer):

Bro. Dever,

I don’t have time for a full response, I’ll try to put one on my own blog a bit later.

I am a BJU graduate (a former student of Mark Minnick’s in Pulpit Speech, lo, these many years ago … about 30 to be exact). I am a committed fundamentalist.

In my view, it is a mistake to call church discipline separation. Church discipline is difficult and necessary, but it isn’t what the fundamentalists and the evangelicals divided over in the 1950s. You confuse the issue by adding church discipline to the mix.

A key concept is the meaning of the term “fellowship”. In our current usage, fellowship has been watered down in English to mostly mean ‘friendly social interaction’. Koinonia, I believe, is much closer to our English term ‘partnership’ than ‘fellowship’ [in current usage]. In a business partnership, each partner is completely liable for the commitments of the other partner. One must be sure of one’s partner.

When it comes to ecclesiastical partnership, i.e., sharing pulpits, joining together in conferences, boards, evangelistic efforts, etc., I must be sure of my partners lest I become entangled in their liabilities. See 2 Jn and not bidding godspeed.

So for example, your association with Mark Driscoll’s organization, with the emergent fellows at the Whiteboard Sessions, and even the ongoing connection with the SBC are things that make ecclesiastical partnership with you very problematic for me. I don’t want to be in partnership with those fellows.

There are others with whom you would partner who have aberrations in theology that are significant enough for me to refuse partnership. And still others whose worship seems so worldly that I would not want to be in partnership with that, either.

I am only speaking for myself, but this is a small sample of fundamentalist philosophy as I understand it. There are a number of folks who appear to be disgruntled with fundamentalism who are ready to ignore the ramifications of these partnerships, but I just can’t go there.

I hope that might bring a little light to the issue.

Now I’ve got to beat it… It’s 8:30 am here, and I’ll be in the pulpit in an hour and a half.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I’d like to add a bit more to the above.

First, I’d like to address several of Dever’s points more specifically:

“OK,” my fundamentalist critic may respond, “but only in your local church.” Well, that is certainly my primary responsibility. And the Lord’s teaching through Matt. 18 and I Cor. 5 is certainly given with the local church primarily in view.

I would say that Mt 18 and 1Co 5 have only the local church in view. They have nothing whatever to do with ecclesiastical separation. They have everything to do with the purity of the local church.

Can principles be derived from these passages to apply to a broader circle? Perhaps, but exegetically, the focus is only on the local church.

In my initial reply to Dever above, I said that it is a mistake to confuse church discipline with separation. While a separation of sorts does take place, it is not historically what was meant when the New Evangelicals of the 1950s repudiated Fundamentalist separation. The issue then and now is what to do about cooperative Christian endeavours when some involved have compromising associations.

When the Jones’ et al separated from Graham in 1957 it was because of his cooperation [partnership] with liberals in his crusades. The separation did not mean personal animosity (according to Bob Jones III in a personal conversation recently) but it meant the Fundamentalists decided they could no longer conscientiously support the Graham evangelistic effort. The decision was made with the knowledge that it could seriously impact the Jones’ own ministry at the University, but it was made because it was believed it was the right thing to do.

The matter wasn’t a matter of discipline. It wasn’t a matter of expulsion. It was a decision to no longer endorse, support, join or otherwise promote the ministry of another believer. It was a refusal of partnership. This is quite another thing from church discipline.

Dever says:

Having said that, I have tried to have a wider ministry of encouraging godly cooperation and discouraging ungodly associations. This is one of the sources of my being unpopular and even unwelcome in some circles. So we declined an invitation to give leadership in DC to a Graham-like crusade. Furthermore, we worked to get the Southern Baptist Convention to de-fund the local DC Baptist Convention, because (among other reasons) the convention’s organ, the Capital Baptist, had mocked those who believed that faith in Jesus was the only way to be forgiven for our sins, or who believed that Mormons need to be evangelized.

I applaud these decisions. These are separatistic decisions and are exactly consistent with what fundamentalists have always advocated.

Dever asks:

1. Is ______ a sin?
2. Is this sin (mentioned in #1) a sin we should separate over?
3. If so, what should this separation consist of? What should it include and what should it allow?

Here we are getting to some important questions, especially number 3. Let’s try plugging in a few possibilities:

1. Is partnership with Open Theists by joint membership in a denomination a sin?
2. Is partnership with men who deny the accuracy of Acts 21.11 a sin? [Some say Agabus was wrong when he says that the Holy Spirit told him to say certain things. That isn't what the Bible says!]
3. Is partnership with a man who criticizes the Graham compromise at some points but willingly partners with the Graham organization by speaking at the Cove and writing in Decision Magazine a sin?
4. Is partnership with Mark Driscoll or Emergent/Emerging types in a joint conference a sin?

The crux of the matter here is first of all whether you consider it a sin to be in partnership in any of these ways. Of course we could add more, but these will suffice.

If affirmative agreement is found on these questions, then the answer to the next question should be obvious. If these partnerships are themselves sins, then they demand separation. That is, they demand a refusal of partnership in gospel work.

What should such separation consist of? Well, for starters, that would pretty well end the ‘Together 4 the Gospel’ endeavour. It might end other associations as well.

For example, what about affiliation with the SBC? Historically, some fundamentalists remained in denominations longer than others. From my understanding of their strategy, they remained in these groups militantly attempting to reform the organizations. If someone was to remain in the SBC but be publicly and consistently agitating for reform in the direction of orthodoxy, it is possible that such an association would not in itself constitute a compromised position. The same could be said of someone in other denominations, as long as they were agitating for change.

Agitating for change is a key factor here. Some stay in while “agreeing to disagree” – there is no militancy about it. I would have a hard time finding common cause with someone taking that approach.

One last question from Dever’s post:

is there liberty between Christians of good will and basic orthodoxy on the Gospel to disagree over any or all of these three questions? I have not yet perceived how in a fallen world there can always be complete consistency of practice on these matters between churches. I think some allowance must be made for differences with our brothers on such issues.

Yes, I agree. There should be some liberty where individuals apply these things differently. But the amount of liberty depends on the overall consistency of the position, not on absolute consistency and absolute agreement on every question.

~~~

Well, if you have read to the end you deserve an award for endurance. I hope there is at least some clarity in my thinking. As I said in my original post on Dever’s blog, I speak for myself. This is an expression of my philosophy as I understand it. There may be errors and inconsistencies. I welcome corrections of viewpoint on those. I hope that my application in specific areas can be discerned from this.

Here is the transcript, beginning at about 1:01:35 of the interview:

1:01:35 Dever: “What would we have to do to change for you to be free to preach here?”

Minnick: “Well, I want to say, one, and I’m glad there’s, you know, you asked that question so that I’d have the opportunity to say this, how very very deeply I respect you and what you’re doing here. I mean, you wouldn’t have come to Greenville and I wouldn’t be here today, I don’t think if there wasn’t, certainly on my part, a great deal of respect for you and a great deal of appreciation for what you’ve done and for what the conservative side of evangelicalism is doing. And if I could just make any appeal to anybody in that it would be one, to really resolve that controversy … [overtalk] … and which I think you have, Ok, as far as I can understand…”

Dever: “Well, it’s a, it’s a continuing matter, brother, I mean, I recently spoke at a conference…”

Minnick: “The applications are, right?”

Dever: “Yes”

Minnick: “But in principle…”

Dever: “That’s right”

Minnick: “All right, and so I guess my, when you ask, what would people have to do so that we were in common cause, it would be to see any brother who is consistently applying that to his associations, its clear that he’s not muddying the water by putting his hand outside the box now and again, because that confuses the people who look to any of us for leadership. So when, when it’s an unambiguous message that’s being given you’re saying Ok, you know, we’re … there … there’s no longer the divide between us.”

Dever: Ok, so what do we have to do to change in order for you in good conscience to be able to preach in a church like this?

Minnick: Well, I think we talked a little about this when you were in Greenville

Dever: Yup

Minnick: As I remember too and I, you know, we were agreed on this that there are … um … you go as far on the right road with any brother as you can … um … so there’s that if, if, if you’re going in the same direction, then there’s certainly biblical room for trying to go together in that direction. There’s also the issue however of the people who are looking to you for leadership and with whom you have credibility and the fact is that you don’t always have a chance to explain to everybody that you have a good name with as to why you are doing a certain thing and why you were with certain people. And a good name is rather to be chosen, you know, than a lot of things, certainly than great riches and a lot of other things as well. A speaking uh…, a good name is rather to be chosen than a speaking opportunity I would say … all right … so, when that other brother is giving the same clear signal you are and he’s public about it … um … then there’s little likelihood that you’re going to confuse the people looking to you for leadership and it frees you, that other brother free you. But until he does, until he’s really public about that, he’s kinda got you over a barrel.

Dever: Yuh, and what does being public about that consist of?

Minnick: I think just, I think one, that that is his consistent preaching and teaching, that he’s known for having settled these issues and that he’s … it’s apparent that he’s trying to consistently apply that.

Dever: And can anyone at Bob Jones that you know of on the religion faculty, let’s say on the religion side, see that being done consistently in any church that would cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention?

Minnick: Well, when you were in Greenville I think you told us that there is no liberalism left in the Convention. I don’t know enough about the Convention to know whether that’s the case or not. But what I do know is that the convention for all of these decades, um, has been conditioned by a philosophy, an approach on these things that is different than what I see the Scripture teaching so I, I would think there’s an awfully lot that would have to be done throughout the Convention to bring the leadership, the pastors, the Christian leaders, you know, up to the point where they were consistently showing that they understand the sep… the need for separatism, and, and until such time … uh, you know you would have cause I think for concern about getting too affiliated with, uh, the Convention.

Dever: Right. Mark, our time is up…

What do you think? Towards the end, a glimmer of an answer might be emerging, in my opinion, but it seems to me that the question: What do we [conservative evangelicals] have to DO to change the division that continues to exist between us? in the main was left unanswered.

So… did he answer or didn’t he?

Frank heard about it from Andy Naselli and I see that Greg Linscott is linking to it as well over at his site. I expect this to immediately be the topic du jour in the fundamentalist blogosphere.

Why would that be? Because as Minnick points out very well in the interview: “Associations matter.”

This interview matters because associations matter. I think I understand what Pastor Minnick is trying to do in having communication with Pastor Dever, but even this low-level public association matters (though it is certainly not the same thing as sitting on a platform in a cooperative effort or appearing on the platform of Capital Hill BC, for example).

This interview, I predict will be the buzz this next week because associations matter.

But, oh, how I wish a little more had been said!

I believe Pastor Minnick did a credible job explaining the rationale of Biblical separation. I think he did a good job providing Biblical illustration of the concept from the life of Jehoshaphat and the issue between Peter and Paul recorded in Gal 2. Where he fell short was in making clear specific real world application in a way that could be readily seen and understood.

Dever gave Minnick every opportunity to do so. In fact, he pressed him to do so, asking several times, “What do we have to do for you as fundamentalists to feel free to accept an invitation to preach in our pulpit here at CHBC?” Pastor Minnick only answered this question in vague generalities, reiterating the essential theory of separation.

In fact, at one point where Dever was pressing Minnick, he started to say something like, “I was just at this conference…” Minnick was in the midst of his answer and may not have heard that reference. I think it was very significant. The interview with Minnick was done, I believe, on Feb 27. Right about at that same time Dever had been at the Acts 29 Conference in Chicago and had made his seriously flawed endorsement of that effort, as I reported elsewhere.

I think I know why Pastor Minnick was vague at this point, and that is he genuinely hopes to influence Dever and others like him to seriously look at the doctrine of separation for themselves. He didn’t want to get too close to Dever’s own associations specifically when pressed for fear of upsetting that effort. At least, that is what I think lay behind the vagueness. (I have been in correspondence with Pastor Minnick on this point and will be sending him the link to this post. I also hope to see him later on next month and will ask him personally about it if I can get a chance.)

However… if only he had felt at liberty to say something like this:

“If Open Theism is tolerated within a man’s denomination, that would be an issue demanding a public rebuke and ongoing battle, wouldn’t you agree? And if that battle was not clearly being fought, what would you say about a pastor remaining in that conference? And would you invite him to your pulpit? And would you invite him to your Together for the Gospel conference?”

For Dever, the answer to that question is “Yes” at the moment. (And I think it unlikely to change.)

Or, for example, if only something like this would have been said:

“If someone publicly opposes Billy Graham’s foolish statement on Robert Shuler’s program that basically says ‘if you’re sincere, you’ll go to heaven, even if you never heard of Christ’, and that same someone makes some noises about how he wouldn’t cooperate with the Billy Graham Crusade when it came to town [and didn't], but then goes to the Cove [Billy Graham's training institution] for a week as a special speaker and writes an article in Billy Graham’s Decision magazine… Would you invite that same someone to speak to your people and participate in your Together for the Gospel conference?”

You see, there are some real world examples that Dever needs to be confronted with.

I hope Mark Minnick will do some of this kind of personal confrontation on a one on one level with Dever. I hope that there will be a resolution of this situation soon because if there is not, the ranks of those of us who look up to Pastor Minnick as a leader will be seriously confused. Is Dever someone we should look to for leadership? Is he someone whom we will not confront about his associations with: Piper, MacArthur, Mahaney, Acts 29 and the Whiteboard Sessions, etc.? Are we simply going to let these things slide by and let our young men wonder where we stand on them?

UPDATE: Perhaps my examples above are a little too personal, a little too direct, especially in the host’s house. For another example, couldn’t Falwell’s Moral Majority have sufficed? It would fit very well with the Jehoshaphat illustration as well.

Yesterday, an event was held in Reston, VA called ‘the Whiteboard Sessions‘. Here is the description of the event:

The Whiteboard Sessions is about the power of an idea in its raw, most conceptual form. One simple idea could forever change your life and ministry.  We’ve invited 8 of the most inspiring leaders in ministry to share one compelling idea in just 30 minutes each. They come from different ministry circles and use a variety of methods, but they all have one thing in common: a love for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a desire to see lost people reached. You will be stretched by their thinking and challenged by their insights. The very idea you resist could be the key to God’s future for you. Who knows, you might even find confirmation for the dream God’s already revealed to you. But whatever the reaction, one thing is certain: you will never be the same.

The speakers were described by some of those involved as coming from the Reformed tradition, the Contemporary Church world, or from the Emerging Church – the ‘right wing’ of the Emerging church, that is (i.e., the allegedly ‘good’ side).

Here are the speakers, most of whom I do not know:

• John Burke, Gateway Community Church, Austin, TX
• Darrin Patrick, the Journey, St Lous, MO (Vice President of Acts 29 Church Planting Network – Mark Driscoll’s group)
• Vince Antonucci, Forefront Church, Virginia Beach, VA
• Mark Batterson, National Community Church, Washington, DC
• Tim Stevens, Granger Community Church
• Perry Noble, NewSpring Church, Anderson, SC
• Ed Stetzer, Director of Lifeway Research and Lifeway’s Missiologist in Residence.
• Mark Dever, Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC

The group is very … eclectic … shall we say?

But what are we to make of this??? What does it mean when a conservative joins in with others of quite a different sort? Well, you can get a little insight from the remarks of the participants themselves.

There are a whole host of videos here, I will concentrate for this blog on two that feature an interview with Mark Dever.

On this video, you really need to pay attention to the question that begins about two minutes in and the answer that follows. The essence of the question is about ecclesiology (the ‘doctrine of the church’ for normal folks). Ed Stetzer asks Dever to explain how he doesn’t mind ‘ecclesiology’ being expressed in different ways. Dever’s church is ‘very tradtional’, but he is comfortable with others applying things in different ways.

In the answer, Dever mentions Bob Kauflin of the Sovereign Grace churches, very charismatic and contemporary in style. Dever says “I can’t say their style is wrong” and that in the “kind sovereignty of God”, the Lord uses all sorts of styles. So as long as you have some kind of preaching, prayer, singing, baptism, Lord’s supper, membership, your style doesn’t matter. What are we to make of this?

Also on this video, see the discussion on ‘contextualization’ starting about 6:30, in which Dever makes appreciative comments of Mark Driscoll and Rick Warren, about 7:15 in. What are we to make of this?

Now… Dever also says some very good things in this interview, as he does elsewhere. But what are we to make of some of these things? Isn’t there some kind of disconnect? Doesn’t Dever’s conservativism (alleged) seem rather out of place compared to others in this place? Watch a few of the other videos to find out what kind of men I am talking about, what kind of ideas.

In the second Dever interview, Ed Stetzer, the interviewer, asks my very question, right at the beginning. Basically, he says, “what are you doing here? what are you doing giving legitimacy to this group” (BTW, Stetzer mentions another well known Reformed fellow, Tim Keller, who apparently is at a meeting with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church as he asks this question.)

Dever says “if I am going to speak somewhere where I think it will confuse someone over the gospel, then I don’t want to do that”… man! But his presence here sure confuses me! What are we to make of this?

And even more…

What are we to make of fundamentalists who are trying to cosy up to Dever and give him legitimacy in fundamentalist eyes? Where is this going to lead us? What are we to make of that?

for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

Something for you to ponder: do associations matter?

They matter in the political political world, do they not? Consider an analysis from Peter Wehner regarding the association of Barrack Obama and his pastor Jeremiah Wright.

But many seem to think that associations don’t matter at all in the religious political world.

Or do they?

Think again about my previous posts:

why are we surprised?

and

outrage is easy … or is it?

Do associations matter?

I think they do.

In another post, I mentioned a well known Seattle church and pastor. In a recent sermon about worldliness, I commented on an announcement concerning the New Years Eve party held at their church:

Our second annual New Year’s extravaganza! Ring in 2008 in Red Hot Style. This New Year’s Eve party features internationally known artist, Bobby Medina & his Red Hot Band. This 12 piece big band does it all, from Swing, to Latin to Motown and beyond and are widely considering one of the top dance bands in the Northwest.

We’ll be transforming our auditorium into a Red Hot Spot, bringing in an enormous dance floor – TWICE as big as last years, refreshments, dessert, champagne, professional photography in an awesome backdrop designed for the event and all the noise-making party favors you could want. Not to mention a dance contest with cash prizes! At midnight, countdown with close to 1000 other revelers with fireworks live from Seattle’s Space Needle on the big screens. This is going to be an unforgettable party, with great improvements from last year. Get ready to sizzle!

This might be old news to you. I suppose I am way behind in my outrage. I really don’t have time for all the outrage needed these days.

The church, of course, is Mars Hill in Seattle. The pastor is Mark Driscoll. You can watch videos of his messages in various places. I don’t have time to sit and listen to many of them, but even a fairly brief review reveals a man who is quite willing to use profane language to make his points. The earthiness of his communication is well known and is perhaps the area in which he is most criticized.

He is quite antagonistic to fundamentalism. You can see that from remarks he made on the last page of this Christianity Today article. [I think the link will take you to the right page.] If you peruse his church site at all, you will find many things that would make a fundamentalist uncomfortable – the music, the statement from the “what we believe” page that I posted earlier, the attitude and probably more.

Outrage is easy for a fundamentalist in this case . . . or is it?

Driscoll and Piper

John Piper is another well known preacher. I am no fan, as readers of my blog will know. Yet many fundamentalists at least admire his writings and say kind things about him. On Sept 29-Oct 1, 2006, John Piper held his annual Desiring God Conference. Driscoll was an invited speaker. This raised eyebrows among some at the time.

Driscoll’s message at the conference apparently included some of his trademark presentation. It seems that some were perhaps a bit taken aback by it? I haven’t listened to it and don’t know. I read some blog comments at the time that seemed to indicate so. I recalled reading that Piper later made some remarks (after Driscoll had departed the conference) that were construed as something of an acknowledgement that there were aspects of Driscoll’s style he disagreed with. I was under the impression that Piper was attempting to distance himself somewhat from his controversial guest.

Well, maybe not. For a first hand account from an observer, you can see this blog from Josh Harris. [I know who Harris is. I have no time to deal with differences with him in this post!] Scroll down to the section headed “Moment I Was Most Glad Not to Be Mark Driscoll” In this blog, Josh Harris quotes Piper’s explanation of who he invites to speak:

“I have a litmus paper and its called theology,” he said. He referenced a point Driscoll had made in his talk about the importance of holding certain unchanging truths in our left hand that are the non-negotiables of the faith, while being willing to contextualize and differ on secondary issues and stylistically (these are “right hand” issues). Driscoll had listed nine issues we need to contend for, including the authority of God’s word, the sovereignty of God, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the exclusivity of Christ, and gender roles, to name a few.

So Piper said, “If he [Driscoll] has those nine things in his left hand, I’m not even going to look at his right hand.”

All of this sounds like no distancing to me. Read the whole blog to get the context.

From there, I found a post by Driscoll where he describes his reaction to Piper’s comments and subsequent e-mail exchanges between Piper and Driscoll are posted as further background. In these exchanges, Piper says this:

I would not have .001 seconds hesitation in having Mark Driscoll come back tomorrow to our church or our conference. I LOVE being on the same team and consider my self a learner in your presence more than a counselor.

The mutually supportive relationship continues. In a few days, Driscoll is going to be hosting his National Resurgence Conference 2008: Text & Context / Acts 29 Bootcamp. One of the featured speakers? John Piper.

I ask my fundamentalist friends, those who are generally complimentary of Piper’s writings … is outrage easy?

Do you agree with some fundamentalists [professed] who say that Piper is taking stands we can appreciate and perhaps join with him? Do you think that joining with a Piper will result in joining with Driscoll? Are you comfortable with that?

Outrage is easy . . . or is it?

Dever and Driscoll

As I was thinking about this post, a few blogs from another site flashed across my screen. That would be the Church Matters blog, home to Mark Dever and his cohorts. It seems that Dever spoke recently at the Acts 29 Bootcamp held in Chicago recently. Acts 29 is a Driscoll church planting organization. The first note of this came on Jan 30, Blogging from Acts 29 Bootcamp. Dever’s topic was “Church Planting Evangelism”.

Later that same day came this post: More from Chicago. Here are the relevant comments:

Sitting in on Mark Driscoll and Mark Dever chatting for two hours late last night. Man, I wish I had a tape recorder for that one. It was like mega-church Godzilla and church reform Moth-ra chatting amicably and plotting to flatten Tokyo together.

and

Met some awesome Acts 29 church planters. These guys are getting great training at the Boot Camp and it’s exciting to see Reformed guys with a heart for planting churches. Did you know that Acts 29 churches earmark at least 10% of their budgets to church planting? I love the mission mindedness.

Please note, these comments are not coming from Mark Dever, but from Michael McKinley, the author of the blog posts and self-designated “swag monkey” for Dever. (Whatever that is!)

And last there was this post: Mark Dever on Cooperating With Acts 29. In it, McKinley shares a direct quote from Dever’s remarks at the conference:

Our differences are enough to separate some of my friends—your brothers and sisters in Christ—from you. And perhaps to separate them from me, now that I’m publicly speaking to you. And I don’t want to minimize either the sincerity or the seriousness of some of their concerns (things like: humor, worldliness, pragmatism, authority).

But I perceive some things in common which outweigh our differences—which the Lord Jesus shall soon enough compose between us, either by our maturing, or by His bringing us home. I long to work with those, and count it a privilege to work with those whom My Savior has purchased with His blood, and with whom I share the gospel of Jesus Christ. I perceive that we have in common the knowledge that God is glorified in sinners being reconciled to Him through Christ. This is not taught by other religions, nor clearly by the ancient Christian churches of the East, or by Rome, by liberal Protestant churches, by Mormons, the churches of Christ, or by groups of self-righteous, legalistic, moralistic Christians. And not only do we together affirm the exclusivity of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone—we agree on the sovereignty of God in life and salvation, the regenerate nature of church members, the importance of church membership and discipline, the priorities of expositional preaching, and evangelism, the importance of authority and a growing appreciation for the significance of complementarianism. These are not slight matters. And they only fire my desire to encourage you and cheer you on, until you cross that finish line that the Lord lays down for us.

Now, fundamentalist brethren and Dever fans, what do you make of that? Consider this blog, posted on the Acts 29 site, also citing Dever’s remarks.

It is said that it is possible for fundamentalists to expect a growing together between us and conservative evangelicals like Dever and Piper. Really? And would that mean that we would also be growing together with the likes of Driscoll and his ilk? Consider this comment from the Acts 29 blog referenced above:

I attended this week’s boot camp in Chicago, and I walked away totally blessed for having been there. What you are writing about is exactly one of the main joys I took away from the week. To see Pastor’s of different denominations and contexts (Dever, Stetzer, Driscoll, Patrick, etc.) coming together and uniting under the glorious cross of Christ. I was thoroughly blessed about a year and half ago when attending John Piper’s National Conference I was first exposed to Mark Driscoll. I highly respect John Piper, and highly respect him more for bringing Mark to the conference. It just goes to show that while we minister in different contexts we can still be unified under the banner of Christ crucified!!! I thank you guys for bringing Dever and for working hard to unite us to further the Kingdom.

Notice what this fellow cites as his introduction to Mark Driscoll. Will any association with the likes of Piper, Dever, and whoever (pick your name from the list of the young fundie evangelical heroes) lead to closer association, yea, even cooperation with the likes of Driscoll?

So brethren, is outrage easy?

What are we to make of the silence and apparent ambivalence of fundamentalist leaders?

Outrage is easy . . . or is it?

If it is easy, where is the outrage from fundamentalist leaders over the associations of Piper, Dever et al with Driscoll and his group? I hope it will be forthcoming. I hope that there will finally be someone besides a small church insignificant pastor like me calling for this criticism. Our young men need to be made aware that their flirtation with Piper et al has consequences.

Oh, they say that we can eat the meat and spit out the bones… can we? Do you realize how dangerous associations can be?

In my research, I discovered several sites criticizing Driscoll for his ongoing ties to Emergant ideas. He has made much of his alleged withdrawal from the Emergent groups, but has he really distanced himself far enough? Specifically, the criticism is that Driscoll embraces writers promoting mystic philosophy. Evidence for this is said to be on the Mars Hill Recommended Reading list. You can see the criticisms here, here, and here. Some of the criticism points to books by Thomas Merton, which no longer appear to be listed. Still, a number of the books mentioned in the critiques still appear on the Mars Hill list.

The ease with which Piper and Dever are willing to associate with Driscoll is disturbing. It seems that the major criteria for cooperation and unity is Reformed Theology. Is Reformed Theology so important that all other considerations should be swept aside? Is that where our fundamentalist leaders who are contemplating rapprochement with Piper are heading? Is that all that matters?

Piper and Dever were not born yesterday. They are not novices who need training. They know where they stand and why. See Dever’s statement above.

Why are we seeing fundamentalists make mild statements about their compromise? Consider, for example, these words:

Conservative evangelicals are allies, and not enemies, of historic (mainstream) fundamentalists. I disapprove of the myopia that sees no distinction between conservative evangelicals such as Piper, and the now-old New Evangelicalism of Ockega, Carnell, Graham, etc. While there are issues to discuss between mainstream fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, attacks and recriminations are out of order.

You can find the whole comment at #20 in the comments on this post.

So, brethren…

Outrage is easy . . . or is it?