Dave: [“I decided a good bit ago that there really is no point in interacting with you.”]

tjp: Yes, I can understand why. But that aside, just go ahead and answer the Dever questions. I promise I won’t reply.

This will be short and pointed, but I don’t want you to have the wrong idea about why you weren’t answered over at the 9Marks blog, at least for my part. I decided a good bit ago that there really is no point in interacting with you. Perhaps others have drawn the same conclusion.

As for ‘wrong’ does not equal ‘disobedient’, uhh… I wouldn’t say people who ordain women are merely following matters of conscience. Yet Dever is willing to support people who do. That isn’t disobedient? Hmmm…

I’ll leave the rest of it for now. If anyone else would like to chime in, be my guest.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

When you state with respect to Dever’s uncleanness, “My answer would be, no, certainly not unclean – that is the category of the apostate / the liberal / the denier of fundamental doctrines of Scripture,” I must disagree. After all, 2 Cor. 7:1, which refers back to 2 Cor. 6:14-18, says, “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us CLEANSE ourselves from all FILTHINESS of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

If separatists take the injunction of 2 Cor. 6:14-18 as applying to all believers tied to religious organizations, fellowships, denominations, and conventions that have liberals or neo’s in them, then it appears, from what 2 Cor. 7:1 says, that they are indeed UNCLEAN and UNHOLY–even spiritually filthy–by virtue of their presence within those institutions. Hence, 2 Cor. 7:1 places such believers beyond disobedient; it makes them profane and defiled. I’m not sure how my conclusion is wrongly drawn here. It seems fairly straightforward. Yet present separatists are loath to draw it.

Don, perhaps it’s just my blockheadedness, but could you please explain to me how someone being wrong is, ipso facto, also disobedient? That’s how I understand this line of yours: “But is he disobedient? As I understand it, yes. You can look back to several of my posts here to note areas where I think he is clearly wrong.” It seems to me that, at least in the matters of conscience, God may allow believers to be “wrong” without necessary being disobedient (Ro. 14). This may also be the case with hyper-critical questions concerning “degrees” of separation.

Your fourth paragraph is exactly what the old-line fundies wouldn’t do and really distinguishes you from them. Unlike the separatist fundies, the old-line men would encourage the orthodox brother, counsel him concerning bad associations, but would still support and encourage him in his work. In fact, they’d befriend all orthodox brothers wherever Scripture, conscience, and wisdom would allow. But they certainly wouldn’t dismiss a fundamental man outright because he happened to attend a church that was connected with, say, the SBC.

In paragraph five, Don, you say this: “I think that is what separation looks like. And, quite frankly, I think that in the main, that is what it has always looked like – though errors and extreme statements and so on have sometimes been made.” I’m not sure what histories you’re reading, my brother; but Jones-family separatism, instigated by the rather bizarre teachings of Charles Woodbridge, looks nothing like original fundamentalism, and especially the fundamentalism of Rice and Jones, Sr.

I agree that “many fundamentalist leaders haven’t been doing much of a job of defining the differences lately.” At least I don’t recall anything recent. Bauder talked a little about separation and then disappeared. But it seems to me he was heading in the old-line direction, that is, away from the Greenville orbit, something that would not have settled well with you, I’m sure.

One thing that has puzzled me in this whole separation debate is the silence of the schools (BJU, PCC, MBC, NBBC, PBBC, CalBTS, CBTS [Bauder an exception], DBTS [Dave Doran is an exception; he has often entered the fray]and a host of basement operations). Really, where are the schools? Where are their representatives, their Davids? Why haven’t they established their own blogs to discuss these matters? What’s the problem? Or is there one?

Don, I agree with you separatists are doing little to make their case for separatist fundamentalism. And your frustration, from what I can tell, is not an isolated matter. But, hey, I’m not frustrated.:) I’ve never felt separatists had a case in the first place. I’ve always felt they’ve trampled on a lot of good brothers on their way to left field. Personally, I don’t care for the new Reformed magisterium: Piper, MacArthur, Mohler, Duncan, Mahaney, Dever. But I can’t see how their lack of separating from believers who themselves lack separation is a good thing. In fact, I think it’s a pernicious teaching now bearing fruit.
Have a good one.

Thanks for your lengthy comment. Your analysis is correct in some points at least, and that is why I worry. However…

As to example one, I was involved in the thread early on, but quit reading it because it seemed to degenerate pretty quickly. In fact, I regretted making my last post in it. I don’t recall seeing your questions concerning whether Dever is unclean or disobedient. My answer would be, no, certainly not unclean – that is the category of the apostate / the liberal / the denier of fundamental doctrines of Scripture.

But is he disobedient? As I understand it, yes. You can look back to several of my posts here to note areas where I think he is clearly wrong. One from earlier this year is called “outrage is easy … or is it?” A more recent one is this one: “so who cares about separation?“. And one more, “so what to make of all this?“.

So, I think he is wrong, so what? So I don’t (or wouldn’t) join with him in some ministry endeavour. If someone of my folks were to ask about his books I would say, “Fine, he is orthodox in his theology, has good things to say, but I have some problems with some of his practices so you have to read him with discernment.” It also means that if a 9marks guy were to show up in our area as a church planter that I would not be inclined to support his work locally in any way, not that I would wish him ill, but that I would want to expend my resources and energy on supporting someone who is more completely compatible with my own philosophy.

I think that is what separation looks like. And, quite frankly, I think that in the main, that is what it has always looked like – though errors and extreme statements and so on have sometimes been made.

As for your example Two: Yeah, I noticed that line. Not the most reassuring line. I was going to let it slide for now, but you are right that it is different from the statements of separatist leaders of a by gone day. For me, I would find it problematic to find another fundamentalist inviting in any of the Togetherness Boys.

As for example Three, I guess I need to read that one again. Alarm bells didn’t go off for me, so maybe I need to read it and see if they should.

Now, as for the future, I don’t know what it will hold. I think many fundamentalist leaders haven’t been doing much of a job of defining the differences lately. If there are no differences, there is no reason to exist as a distinct group. But if there are real differences, then let’s have the courage of our convictions and articulate them clearly enough so that people can have some hope of at least understanding the view they are rejecting!

Thanks for the comments, anyway.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

My first name is Tracy.

I’m sure we disagree on any number of issues. But that’s nothing new. Fundamentalists have always disagreed among themselves over various internal questions, and that’s certainly been the case between old-line fundies (which are NOT dead) and separatist fundies.

I share your concern over clarity, but I doubt the present separatist policymakers will satisfy your concerns. You see, whether they know it or not, they are moving toward the old-line take on separation and are (at least in spirit and in tone) moving away from radical separatism. Surely this shift is partly the unease you sense among your separatist brethren.

Let me give you three quick, albeit minor, examples of “this shift.”

EXAMPLE ONE:

I’m sure you remember the rather protracted discussion that ensued over Mark Dever’s post on separation (“Mark Dever Doesn’t Practice Separation?”) over at IX Marks. I made several posts in that discussion, and each one asked a straight forward question about the spiritual purity of Mark Dever given separatist principles. And guess what, Don. Not one separatist addressed those posts, even though they were reading the discussion.

Here are the questions I asked at IX Marks. They are not mean; they are not crude. But they do logically follow of the heels of separatist principles, assertions, and interpretive claims.

1. “But doesn’t the real question come down to this: Is Mark Dever unclean? Is he out of fellowship with God? Given how Jones-style fundyism applies 2 Cor. 6:14-18, isn’t Dever’s contamination certain? And if he is contaminated, and if he encourages others to embrace such contamination (and thereby incites divisions and offenses contrary to sound doctrine), shouldn’t he be marked and avoided as a bellyworshiper (Ro. 16:17,18)?

“Does Mark Minnick really think Dever is filthy and disobedient? And if not, then how does he escape such a conclusion given the fundy penchant for making the consequences of 2 Cor. 6:14-18 apply to those who remain yoked with associations, fellowships, conventions, or denominations that have open unbelievers in them?”

2. “Okay, perhaps the Jones camp missed it. So I’ll ask the question again. And I trust either Mark Minnick or a some other Greenville devotee will answer it.

“Here it is: IS MARK DEVER UNCLEAN? IS HE OUT OF FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD?

“Again, given the separatist take on 2 Cor. 6:14-18, doesn’t that make Dever filthy spiritually, at odds with God personally, and in sympathy with rebellion doctrinally?

“What saith Greenville?”

3. “Okay. It appears the Jones-style separatists are reluctant to draw the inevitable conclusion that Mark Dever is indeed unclean and disobedient based upon their handling of 2 Cor. 6:14-18. But perhaps we can help them place the Washington preacher among the leprous with this final question: Is Mark Dever walking disobediently? Is he a shame to Christianity? Is he violating the apostolic tradition of secondary separation as taught by Greenville and Detroit and assumed in 2 Thess. 3:6-14?

“Again, given the separatist’s assumption that 2 Thess. 3:6-14 teaches that obedient believers must separate from all disobedient believers who themselves have failed in their ecclesiastical separation, how is Mark Dever not a spiritual disgrace and public shame; how is he not walking ungodly, especially given his connection with the SBC and the separatists’ view of that organization? Aren’t Minnick and Doran, then, by withholding Christian fellowship, implying Dever is a dangerous example of Christian orthopraxy who should be shamed into obedience?

“Once again, we wait to hear from Greenville or its satellites.”

Now if I were a separatist, practicing the Greenville-style of separatism, and the mentors and leaders of that separatism could not publicly affirm that Mark Dever is FILTHY and UNCLEAN and OUT OF FELLOWSHIP with God based upon Holy Writ and its normative interpretation, then I’d be worried. Yes, I’d be very, very worried. Why? Because a change is taking place. Twenty-five to thirty year ago, Dever would have been publicly flayed by separatists for his hob-nobing with Southern Baptists and scouted as budding liberal. But today? Today we can’t even get the major representatives of separatism to say Dever is spiritually FILTHY and UNCLEAN. Yes, Don, you have reason to worry.

EXAMPLE TWO:

This example comes from your blog and the most recent post by Doran. At one point in his post, he said this: “And that leads to the answer to the second question, no I won’t be inviting Mark to preach at Inner-City any time soon. But I’d hasten to add that I wouldn’t break fellowship with someone who did for that reason.”

Now I’ve been around separatist fundamentalism and its various mutations for years, and I find Doran’s statement–especially the second sentence– a real bolt. Can you imagine ANY separatist fundamentalist saying this twenty-five year ago? I know pastors who were disfellowshipped by other pastors because they had Jerry Falwell in to speak (and Dever appears to be in the exact position as Falwell was). I know pastors who were criticized and OSTRACIZED by separatist organizational heads for having men like Mark Dever in their pulpits. But NOW Doran says, “But I’d hasten to add that I wouldn’t break fellowship with someone who did for that reason.” Yes, Don, things are a-changin.’ And you have ever reason to worry.

EXAMPLE THREE:

Here I simply mention the recent FBFI resolution on separation. I’m sure you read it. Given the current confusion over CE’s and Separatists, one would have expected a stronger separatist tone in the resolution, but alas! it wasn’t there. This is a small thing, of course. But It may very well signal the direction some toes are pointed.

Not to add to your quandary, Don, but I think these “shifts” are a good thing. I’m encouraged by the slight movements toward Dr. Bob, Sr’s original views. I think it’s a good thing to look to the former days when fundamentalism made sense, offered balance, and attracted serious men. Back then, the issues of separation were as clear as the Biblical texts that taught it.

Have a good one.

Anyway, if you read me much you will know that I disagree with your point of view to some extent. I am a separatist. And I am in a quandary. Hence the calls for clarity and exposure of errors among the conservative evangelicals. I for one am not willing to partner with the errors they are making. (That is not to say I don’t make my own errors, but at least they are my own, no one else’s.)

More later.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

tjp: This is absolutely the case and clearly voices a growing feeling among separatist fundies. Ever since the Minnick interview with IX Marks, I’ve had several separatist fundies tell me of their profound disappointment not only with Minnick’s dismal performance but with the entire fundy war machine, a vicariate that has virtually remained silent concerning the principles of separatism and their application. Clearly, the separatist are in quandary, and their old paradigms are not fitting present exigencies. And this appears to be more than the fundy brass can handle.

It’ll be interesting how the separatists will present themselves in the next year or so and what principles will be their mainstay. Most folks I know feel there is a change coming. But whether that change will be substantive is hard to tell. And, from what I hear, there is some disagreement among the various movers and shakers representing the fundy institutions (schools, publications, etc.) about how to proceed in the current climate. That a change in tone has already occurred is obvious given the recent FBFI resolutions.
I take my stand with the fundamentalists (that is, the oldline: Rice, Sumner, Jones, Sr.). I always have. However, I’ve felt from the beginning the separatist fundies hijacked the fundamentalist movement and turned it into a laughingstock and a parade of arrogance. Perhaps with a more intense focus on the whole issue of fundamentalism and separatism, we can experience a much-need correction in course and a return to the days when fundamental men acknowledged other fundamental men.

I think you basically are getting what I mean by the middle ground as per your first paragraph above. Thanks for your answer.

The idea of a “middle ground” comes from some things Bob Bixby has said (recall his posts about an “emerging middle” – I have one of those, but that’s not what he meant!! Actually, mine is sort of fully emerged… but I digress). Others in the fundamentalist orbit who have made much of their criticism of fundamentalism and approbation of the conservative evangelicals seem to think there is little difference between the ce’s and the ‘best’ of the fundamentalists.

My point about there still being a middle ground is that as I see it there remain significant differences between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists that still preclude ministry partnership (I use the word partnership as more useful in conveying the notion of koinonia in English than fellowship.) As you have noted, there is as yet no foreseeable partnering in ministry together by such things as sharing pulpits etc. There is probably more that could be examined here, but the shared pulpit is objective enough to be something of a clear example.

As for the FBF message, I appreciate your willingness to have more detailed analysis. I occasionally here critiques of my own preaching – often from you know who – and she means them as the help her role as helpmeet is meant to provide – well… critiques are hard to take, aren’t they? So I appreciate your willingness to open yourself up to analysis and perhaps some criticism.

Here’s what I’ll do, since Sunday is fast approaching, I will go listen to your message again and offer a post late Monday or Tuesday with my assessment.

All in all, what I am after for our rising generations of young fundamentalists is that there be another generation after them. I want our schools and our churches to be producing young men who are willing to pay the price for a fundamentalist philosophy and be willing to stand against the current errors of our day.

My part in this is very small, but I hope to have an influence on some.

Thanks again for your response.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I am not sure I am tracking well with the middle ground image you’re using, so I really don’t know how to answer that one. If it means that there is distance between Mark Dever’s position and mine, then the answer is yes, there is middle ground between us. And that leads to the answer to the second question, no I won’t be inviting Mark to preach at Inter-City any time soon. But I’d hasten to add that I wouldn’t break fellowship with someone who did for that reason.

I’d be interested to hear what your concerns about the FBF message are. My hunch is that they are connnected to the anwser I just gave, but hunches aren’t a reliable guide. I suppose I should say, I am interested in your concerns, but not likely to engage in much discussion over them simply because I am trying to cut back on blog discussions currently. So, please do offer your assessment and I will attempt to listen carefully, just probably won’t respond lest I find myself in a long discussion.

Like you, I believe, I don’t want to be wrong on these matters, nor do I want to send confusing messages. I didn’t personally find Minnick’s answers in the interview confusing and I tried hard to be clear at the FBF meeting. But I’ve learned over the years that what I thought was clear coming out of my mouth isn’t always clear reaching other people’s ears. So, I welcome your feedback as an opportunity to improve my clarity.