I mean that Dave spoke at a church in the last year that has strong ties to MacArthur. That is not to condemn the church, and Dave can go wherever he likes. But it is confusing to those of us who see significant differences between MacArthur and fundamentalism. Dave will make strong statements about separatism, etc, but then show up in a place that seems outside of the separatist loop. It’s confusing and seems to me to give an uncertain sound.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

What do you mean by the term “MacArthur orbit”?

Thanks.

I am thinking about a post about it one of these days.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I will be posting more in coming days on the subject which I think will interact with your questions.

I will say that I think that those in leadership positions in fundamentalism have been unwilling to forthrightly address the distinctions between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. I don’t know why that is so, there could be multiple and conflicting motives, different for each one.

In any case, what I am pushing for is for leadership to articulate the fundamentalist position for the current era. What should we do and why should we do it with respect to conservative evangelicals AND encroaching worldliness in our churches? It seems to me that these are THE vital questions facing fundamentalism today.

It also seems to me that it is not hard to answer them.

BTW, to any and all lurkers out there, if you think my analysis is skewed, if I am totally nuts, or what? Feel free to chime in, now that the ‘big dog’ has had his say!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

To be honest, I don’t think your points stand and I have a hard time seeing how most of them really interact with what I said. I explicitly said that the third challenge was too big to be tackled in my session so I am not going to address it. It’s fine to disagree with that decision, but not to give the impression that I actually attempted to address that point.

And the suggestion that there is something wrong with saying that we need to do hard thinking on these matters seems betrayed by your little series on the lengthy discussions with Dr. Minnick. If this is all simple and does not require thoughtful interaction, then why waste so many pixels and so many hours on it? Don, you haven’t made a counter argument, you’ve simply tried to discredit the idea by comparing it to Canadian politics.

But, as you can tell, I’ve started to slip into a discussion when I really shouldn’t. So, having said these things, I’ll bow out. I asked for help understanding where I may have been unclear and you’ve obliged my request. Thanks.

Nevertheless, I did get the picture that you were emphasizing separation from apostates (we all agree) and separation from new evangelicals (you and I agree, but some say there are no new evangelicals – and some aren’t willing to separate from them). But my point there is that you seem to be limiting the conversation about separation to those two categories and those two categories alone. Hence my concluding statement #3 at the end of my post above.

It seems that these two categories are about a very old argument (as old as me, almost). So if, as your message seemed to me to suggest, separation is primarily about those two categories, is there really any argument about separation from conservative evangelicals?

1. They are not apostates.
2. Arguably, they are not new evangelicals.

Nonetheless, you indicated earlier in your response to my questions in the thread ‘still no middle ground’ that Dever, for example, won’t be invited to Inter-City any time soon. Why? Because significant differences remain.

So, what are those differences and why do we have to think so carefully about it and why can’t we simply and plainly articulate to our young fellows why we can’t at this time invite someone like that to our pulpit? Or join in some other ministry endeavour?

I don’t think this is that hard.

And… you haven’t addressed my other points. Do they stand?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Are you suggesting that I have claimed that new evangelicals no longer exist? I don’t think I’ve ever made this claim, and if I haven’t then I really don’t see how your comment is an answer to what I stated. I must be missing something.