Someone sent me an e-mail on it also. I find the whole thing a bit bizarre. I’m thinking of posting a bit more on it shortly. We are off tomorrow to send two more boys to BJU. Don’t know when I’ll post next…

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I am not as concerned about these academic sessions as you are. My reason for commenting at this late date, however, is to direct your attention (if you haven’t already seen it) to Dr. Priest’s new post on SI:
(http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=8197)

To quote Roberto Duran, “No mas”… What’s with all the hard questions, eh?

Ok, actually, I won’t say no mas, I’ll attempt to answer.

When it comes to separation questions, it does bolster one’s confidence if someone agrees with you. It is possible that one would be called upon to stand alone, but that usually isn’t the case. And, in this case, I know that I am not totally alone in my views.

But what I am waiting for is really where the movement as a whole will go. It isn’t necessary for my own decision making that the movement as such survive. It could well die a death. I hope not, but if so, so be it. In the meantime, I know I will have to wait to see how this all shakes out. Perhaps I am very much in the minority. We’ll see.

And you do know that we disagree about “acknowledging fundamental brethren”. The so-called conservative evangelicals are not fundamental brethren. They don’t claim it for themselves and there is still a wide divergence of philosophy between fundamentalists and them. Are they brethren? Yes. Do they do good? Yes. But there are significant differences that preclude partnership. That’s where it stands.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Your dilemma is a real one, to be sure. And how you resolve it will surely tax your patience and convictions. Since you run with separatists, I’d be interested in knowing how widespread your feelings are among your fellow travelers. I’m sure they feel the DBTS shift, as well.

I find it puzzling, Don, that you speak of a “consensus” concerning the DBTS matter. Is that how separatists act on their principles, that is, by consensus? Or is this simply “code language” for, “I’ll have to wait and see what the “University” says about Dave’s new found friends”?

You say you may not understand the situation correctly. Perhaps so. And yet maybe this hesitancy you feel about DBTS’s decision arises because, in your more vulnerable moments, you really do believe that, all separatist rhetoric aside, there’s room for reasonable concourse among the brethren, even with those who reject separatist peculiarities.

On a personal level, Don, I’ve longed for the “old days” when fundamental brethren would acknowledge other fundamental brethren and relate to them on the principles of wisdom and prudence and not on some fabricated doctrine of “secondary separation.”

Of course, as I’ve stated in other posts, I don’t see Dave’s decision as compromise. Not at all. Rather, I see it as a brother trying to work his way through the maze called evangelicalism in such a way that he upholds the best of his principles and yet acknowledges the presence of other soundly orthodox brethren. Personally, I don’t see that as a fault.

Have a good one!

Tracy, the truth is, I simply don’t know. We will have to wait and see. I don’t think that my assessment and mine alone is infallible, so I won’t make any final conclusion on this matter. That is why I am asking questions. I am not totally satisfied with the answers I am getting, but it could be that I am not seeing this correctly.

So where we are right now is that it is a fact that Dr. Priest is scheduled to speak at Southern Seminary next summer. Some will likely accept Dave’s view that it is merely an academic matter and not a matter of concern. Others may take a view similar to mine that this fact is evidence of a weakness or a weakening of the fundamentalist philosophy. It will take some time for a consensus to form over this and other facts that may arise over time (or that have already arisen).

At best, I think one would have to say that such a decision APPEARS confusing and requires explanation if it is to be accepted by the common fundamentalist as legitimate. If it requires explanation, that makes it to some degree a doubtful thing.

Where that leaves us, I just don’t know.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Second, if an historical society like the Andrew Fuller folks asked us if they could use our facility for a conference like this, I doubt that we would do it simply because it wouldn’t be something to which we’d devote those kinds of resources. Since it is very clear what the purpose and focus of that society is and that has nothing to do with ecumenical matters, I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that a fundamentalist school was compromising itself at all if it did host it.

Third, I think a better parallel, in our case, would be what we actually do host, e.g., the Rice Lectures are an academic lecture series. You can check out our seminary website to get a sense of what we will do in that kind of context.

Fourth, my point in raising the example of the religious liberty conference is to show that this is not a new phenomenon and that it seems, at least to me, that your position is really a very small minority view among separatists.

With that I shall return to the joys of working through 1 Peter 3:18-22 in preparation for this Sunday.

A few quick questions:

1. Would you say, given your separatist pandect, that Dave has now compromised his fundamentalist virginity?

2. Would you now say Dave and his disciples have wilfully formed an unequal yoke with unrighteousness, darkness, demonism, infidelity, and idolatry by their brazen identification with a religious institution fully steeped in compromise?

3. Also, would it be fair to say from your perspective that, due to Dave’s divisive and deceptive tactics, and his decent into bellyworship, you’ll note his disorderly walk and thus separate from him as a “disobedient brother”?

Have a good one.

And, Dave, no, you don’t have to answer to me. I don’t recall the conference you allude to, you’d have to give me some names. In principle, I don’t agree with it either, and if it is relation to a famous court case, you and I both wish that it had never been fought. A foolish hill to die on.

But I still wonder. Why don’t you offer to host an Andrew Fuller conference? Or suggest that, say, BJU host the ETS? Would you do that? If you wouldn’t host such a gathering, why would you go?

Just asking. No need to answer, you don’t answer to me.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Good catch on the misspelling–actually two of them (are for our and seminary for seminar). Careless on my part.

Hey, try this one–a Catholic, a Christian reconstructionist, and your standard garden variety new evangelical all part of a conference on religious liberty hosted by a fundamentalist university. Hunch you attended.

Trust me, Don, we don’t make our decisions on the basis of what might happen in the sense that you probably mean. I think we have a pretty clear track record of doing what we believe is right regardless of the political fallout. A sense of accountability to the Lord carries far more weight that bloggers’ opinions.

But seriously, Dave, here’s a thought question. Plan a seminar at Detroit. Invite these same men to speak:

Drs. Robert Strivens of London Theological Seminary; Crawford Gribben of Trinity College, Dublin; Tom Nettles and Greg Wills of SBTS; Greg Thornbury of Union University

Then see what happens. Are you up to it?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3