As a follow-up, it was pointed out to me that going back and finding an audio clip now would make it look like I doubted Dave’s explanation of his meaning or was accusing him of dishonesty in making the explanation. That is NOT my intent at all. So… I won’t post any audio on this one. I would urge anyone interested to listen to all six sessions by Dave. In spite of objections and questions, I think the presentation expresses what the Fundamentalist position should be.

Now what I would like is to see it specifically and regularly applied to currently popular teachers from whom we must nevertheless separate. I think our younger preachers need to know how and why we need to be separate from these men.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

On the first point, I think I’ll find the audio clip and add it to the post in an update so people can judge for themselves.

I am fine with leaving the discussion where it is at present… but I’ll be back!

BTW, I notice that you didn’t deal with my objection concerning the worldliness issue. Should I take it that my objection stands?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I’ve got an ordination council today along with the usual, so I’ll back away and move along now.

It is not necessary to change the basic theological elements of the gospel for gospel compromise to occur. Weaving threads of worldliness into a fundamental gospel is compromise. A Christian leader who preaches the gospel with proper content, but places the gospel in a worldly context commits compromise.

To recommend a book, conference, ministry, etc. that maintains gospel content, but not gospel context, is risky at best, and wrong at worst, especially without an articulate disclaimer. Recommendations made by pastors of churches and leaders of Christian training institutions have a sacred responsibility to protect the gospel and their people from error.

This being said, the best antidote to these problems is preaching, teaching, and writing that articulates a pure gospel, both in content and context. More resources (especially books) written by fundamentalists that accomplish this end, with genuine life and vibrancy, are certainly welcome!

I want to add a little something here. I recently heard of a situation where members of a local church became concerned with the teaching of an assistant pastor that included favorable references to Piper and inclusion of Piper quotes in the bulletin. When challenged, the assistant wanted to know what associations Piper had that would make him objectionable. Of course, perhaps he knew but didn’t care, but let’s assume that he genuinely didn’t know.

It seems to me that it is incumbent on those in our educational institutions to thoroughly educate our young men about the dangers of compromise. I don’t know what is being taught at Detroit, but at the institutions I am most familiar with, students are often getting unqualified recommendations to read Mahaney or read Piper or whoever.

Those recommendations may be fine as far as they go and for such writings of these men that might be beneficial. But are we simply going to make recommendations without constantly making the distinctions clear so that our young men understand we are separated from them in some ways? In Dave’s recent lectures, he said that his categories A, B, and C were all categories to be separate from. A = Apostate, B = Graham like ecumenical evangelicals, C = inconsistent separatists, i.e., those who would separate from A but not B. Piper, Mahaney, et al, thus fit in category C.

So don’t you think our young men need to see why it is so important to maintain a stance of separation with category C if it is as serious as Dave seems to think, given his position in his recent lectures? I think it is. I don’t think our young men should be unaware of the problems. It is not that we are simply looking for dirt to besmirch people with. It is a matter of diligently training our young preachers.

From what I have heard coming out of at least some Fundamentalist schools, this training hasn’t been happening thoroughly enough. That’s why we have a lot of youngsters sitting in Dave’s category D and edging towards C and beyond.

Ok, I’ll quit now. I just think we need to have a little more unction in our separatism and less nuanced evangelical admiration societies.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Dave, thank you for taking the time to respond. I want to concede first of all that in making these objections, I was relying primarily on memory. I didn’t want to go back through both presentations to find and clip out relevant sections as I have done in the past.

On point 1, I accept your explanation, but you were making such an emphasis on the local church centric nature of Christian fellowship and unity that your comments seemed incongruous to me. Are you saying “outside the convention” = “outside the church”? Surely you are not saying that the Northern Baptist Convention is equivalent to any sense of the meaning of the word ‘church’ in the Bible are you? It was every bit as much parachurch as the Fundamental Fellowship was/is, to my way of thinking. So I don’t see how the early fundamentalists can be faulted for seeking fellowship in a parachurch gathering when they didn’t find it in another parachurch gathering.

On # (2), I am not certain that the issue is as grave as you portray it, but regardless of its gravity, I would like to point out again that it appears to have led nowhere. I see it more as an oddball view that one man held and no one was really sidetracked from orthodoxy by it. It seems to be used by those with an axe to grind against the FBF more than anything else.

On (2) (c), if the issue is as grave as you suggest, then I would be conflating two things in my mind.

I am not in disagreement about being patient with men who are moving in a separatist direction. I am not optimistic that they will ever get to where we would be able to have full fellowship with them – you said about Dever that he was the most conservative of the various men considered to be conservative evangelicals. But for him to move out of his orbit and into ours, he would have to sacrifice a lot of connections that currently exist, might have to refute some of his own previously published material, would have to change a good deal of his current practice and philosophy of ministry. I just can’t see it happening. I can see some erstwhile fundamentalists (your “D” in your A, B, C, D breakdown) moving into the “C” configuration. It is a regular occurrence.

Nevertheless, I am willing to remain patient, but I think that young men should note significant areas of problems with such men and be warned in moving in that direction (for example, ties with Acts 29 and Packer and other less well known compromises). It seems to me that a lot, probably the majority, of the fellows in your “D” category … who seem to be moving away from Fundamentalism, are seeing only positives with the C crowd and are denying or minimizing the negatives. While it is appropriate to remain patient, it is incumbent on men like you to be publicly pointing out why we are being patient at a distance.

Instead, what we are getting from some leaders is the continued positive commentary on what Piper is saying or what Dever is saying with no counterbalancing warnings. And when I point out negatives, I am chided for always wanting disclaimers, which isn’t the point at all.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Happened to pop by and was curious as to your objections. Not sure what it says about me that I have read your objections post, but not the other post (hence no comments regarding it). Two quick replies:
(1) I think you have misunderstood, or I miscommunicated, something regarding the first point. What I intended to communicate was not a matter individual local churches being divided, but of the larger group, e.g., the Northern Baptist Convention or the Presbyterian Church. Because there was great division there, fundamentalist believers began to form fellowships apart from their churches–Bible conferences, pre-convention meetings (which is what the FBF traces itself back to). Because their church fellowships were so fraught with conflict, they began to form parachurch places of fellowship and cooperation to replace them.
(2) Regarding your final concern, I’d simply counter by saying (a) denying the full humanity of Christ is a very serious theological error based on my reading of 1 John; (b) that you seem to be making my point, i.e., you counsel a relaxed response to it whereas anything but a relaxed response was given in response to teh supposed heresy of others. This difference is illustrative of my point. Friends get a pass, while perceived enemies feel the full weight of the law. (c) it seems to me that you are conflating my statements about these matters. I urged some patience as men are working their way through how to respond to separation, not patience for them as they come to grips with heretical teaching. I am pretty sure that I did not encourage anybody to be patient with heresy. I urged, though, the same kind of patience we have exhibited with one another in how to respond to those who have not broken as cleanly as we believe they should.

With this in mind, it is helpful to consider the opposite of worldliness, which is Christian holiness. It is easy to oversimplify a discussion of holiness by restricting the discussion to matters of practice. While the matters of practice are a necessary part of holiness, they are peripheral to the main issue, a single-minded pursuit of God (opposite from attitude portrayed in 1 John 2:15-17, and on par with Paul’s attitude portrayed in Philippians 3:7-12).

Gospel separation really does address something more than obvious sinful infractions. It must address trends that encourage believers to value elements of this present world system over a single-hearted devotion to Christ. It must also address trends that endeavor to combine elements of worldliness with elements of holiness. As John points out in 1 John 2:15, any such synthesis is flat-out worldliness, too.