You’re better connected and have broader and deeper knowledge than I do of fundamentalism, so I defer to your comment. It is a surprise to me and shows my naivite in this area, but I believe you. It is true that I am commenting based on the books I’ve read by fundamentalists—we have the Moritz and Pickering books mainly—and based on my experience. However, I have also found myself many times to be surprised about how book writings flesh themselves out in real life. Thanks for your comment.

Well, I don’t think much remains to be said vis a vis the righteousness or unrighteousness of ETS participation. The question hangs on whether or not such participation and/or membership falls in the realms of biblical fellowship. I think we haven’t settled this question. Or perhaps better, no one has convinced me that ETS participation is NOT the same as fellowship as described by the Bible.

Not that I am the final authority!

As far as this particular post is concerned (to bring us back on topic), do you see the ironies in the way this meeting was conducted? It does seem to me to be clearly a power play by those opposed to further defining membership.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I am not that familiar with the realities of ETS membership, etc., but I think that the only means of participation would be to go to or present in one of the meetings. You can be a member and not go to these. It seems like the main value to membership is voting privileges, but also the right to present papers (I think that is tied to mbrship).

When the FBF shifted its policies on membership, then tied it to Frontline subscriptions, it created a somewhat similar scenario–people who are members who never attend anything and are so only because they subscribe to the magazine.

I don’t know if it bad form to cross comment between threads, but Duncan raises, and you’ve made before, a point that relates to my post, but I don’t think contradicts it. In the past year or so I’ve seen some of the comments by Kevin Bauder that raise question about ETS membership. I wasn’t at the presentation which Duncan cited, but KB had some things on SI that pointed in that direction. I don’t necessarily believe that this was something that he was taught, but is the outworking of his own thinking regarding separation (particularly the question of what ecclesiastical means in the label ecclesiastical separation). But, perhaps Kevin would echo Kent’s view on this. Could be. I don’t think so, but might be.

Thinking out loud here: is it possible to be a member of something but not a participant? For example, if you want to get National Geographic, you become a member of the society… That doesn’t mean you are participating in anything, you are just receiving a magazine.

In this discussion, is it possible to be a member of ETS without participating, as such?

Or would this fall into the category of too much hair-splitting?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I think we are roughly the same age, but we have walked in slightly different circles and I’d counter your statement by saying I have known fundamentalists who have participated in ETS for the past 30 years. Well known fundamentalists. Strong separatists. I think we both are looking at what the other is writing and scratching our heads. I can’t believe you’d claim what you have, given my experience and observation. You can’t believe what I’ve written given your own experience and observation.

While I agree that Moritz’s statements might imply something like ETS, perhaps it would be better to allow his actions to indicate whether it does or not. He did, and may still, sit on the board of a seminary that has had profs who are members of ETS for decades and that’s never posed a problem for him that called for separation.

We’ve seen recently that my memory isn’t what it used to be, but I cannot ever recall hearing during the course of my training anybody suggest that membership in ETS is compromise of the biblical convictions regarding separation. I don’t ever recall hearing a sermon on this at any fundamentalist conferences. I can only recall it popping up on a few blogs from time to time. That’s my experience, but obviously experience isn’t the final court (for any of us).

For the record, I am not a member of ETS (not that there’s a problem with that) and have never attended a meeting, so I am not defending myself here. Anyway, carry on.

Andy, I believe my Moritz quotes do apply, unless we are not defining what they are doing as fellowship. Why are these men getting together? Here is what ETS says about membership in its bylaws: “Associate members shall be those who are in sympathy with the scholarly and theological purposes of the Society and who desire its publications and fellowship.” Members desire the “fellowship” of the ETS, plainly stated. This goes against what Moritz wrote in treating these types of organizations the same way as a church.

I’m pretty sure this article is what Duncan was referring to earlier. (Duncan, you can correct me if I’m wrong.)

Actually, Andy, I wasn’t referring to the Straub article (I didn’t know of it until I read about it here). What I was talking about last week was something that Bauder said.

I’m going to put that up now, but I’ll do it over on the other thread (more musings on the ETS).

I actually am not making a point against participation with this post. It just struck me how ironic it was to see the conservatives snookered again and the fundies standing alongside amazed at it all.

Conservatives vs. conservatives? Maybe. I would describe them as conservatives vs. (at best) indifferentists – though they are all tinged with indifferentism to some degree or another.

Finally, I think that our discussion boils down to your question:

is it biblically wrong to discuss theology with a Roman Catholic or to apologetically interact with an Open Theist in an academic forum?

As long as the organization has a doctrinal basis at all, and there is any sense of a notion that the group can decide who is in and who is out, then the organizational basis defines what the organization is. In this case, it is a very broad, loosely evangelical organization, promoting a loose evangelical cause. As such, I don’t think fundamentalists can legitimately participate.

If there were no doctrinal basis, if it is just a society for the study of evangelical topics, and no one can get kicked out – then maybe there is a basis for involvement. Although I would still wonder about the fundamentalist commitments of those who want to hang out with those who betray Jesus Christ.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Jeff Straub seemed to indicate that there were potential problems with the resolution that may have prevented conservatives from voting for it as written, who may have otherwise:

… some who opposed the particular statement favored additional doctrinal strengthening.

Moreover, the statement itself, while broad enough for some, was too narrow for others. One Arminian argued that he could not sign it because the statement affirms that all humans are guilty. He believes, however, that infants, though sinful, are not actually guilty until they commit personal sin. So it seems that while the statement is broad, it is not broad enough. Another man suggested that the statement would omit Landmark Baptists because it affirmed the universal church.

The other interesting thing is that the members of the executive committee that spoke against the motion would all be conservatives. So, the conflict was not between conservatives and modernists but between conservatives who favor a more tightly controlled membership and conservatives who didn’t (or who at least didn’t approve of the narrowing as defined by the motion).

But all this is really beside the whole point that I was raising in my previous comments, and that is, does participation in ETS really constitute unbiblical fellowship? Membership does not mean that you agree, or support, or promote everybody or anybody in the society. It just means that these are the people who get to contribute to the discussion. The issue for people in ETS is whether the group as defined by their current doctrinal statement is too broad or too narrow for profitable discussion. The doctrinal statement helps limit topics and viewpoints to those that are most apropos to the group.

It appears that a subset of ETS members would prefer to limit their discussion participants to those who hold a more tightly defined conservative position. I think the Beckwith situation has shown that the doctrinal statement is not narrow enough to even limit the participants to bona fide evangelicals. So, personally, if I was involved, I would support a tighter statement. But my question is, is it biblically wrong to discuss theology with a Roman Catholic or to apologetically interact with an Open Theist in an academic forum?

In response to Kent, I appreciate and agree with the portions from Moritz that you quoted. I just don’t see how it applies to ETS.

Like I said previously, we may not see eye-to-eye on this one, and I feel that I’m beginning to just repeat myself, so I’m not sure if there is anything else for me to say. But I do appreciate the discussion and give and take.