I think this is a great summary. I can appreciate and profit from much of what Dever, MacArthur, etc., produce. However, I would add one disclaimer: It would be foolish for me to make any of these men or (collectively) all of these men my primary influence. Obviously, that place belongs to the Word of God. My other reading, listening, etc. comes from a variety of sources; but I purposely seek out materials from solid sources. The problem is most fundamental literature is not backed by lucrative book contract$ and expensive marketing. Perhaps we need to buy our books based on our beliefs instead of yielding to fleshly marketing technique.

Thanks for that follow up. I believe I understand what you refer to, and I would be in agreement with you. I am aware and do agree that there is a larger consideration to “earnestly contend(ing) for the faith which was once delivered,” prior and/or in addition to separatism.

Thanks again,

Lou

Thanks, Kent… I think!!!

Way to lighten it up, with a bit of a ‘smiting below the fifth rib’ thrown in.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Here’s my instant thoughts.
9Marks—You should have at least these nine marks if you’re going to be a scriptural church.
Ligonier—Really smart people love reformed theology.
Grace To You—Find out what the Bible means, unify on what we say is essential.
Desiring God—Desire a God with few restrictions, you’ll find real pleasure in that.
BJU—Fight and maintain a certain fundamentalist application of Scripture to the world.
FBFI—Here’s fellowship for those who see evangelicalism as too loose and like mainly BJU types of stands.
Sword of the Lord—Build churches numerically through revivalistic methods and preaching.

I agree with you in application, Lou, but the idea of “contention” in my definition encompasses separation. Separation is certainly part of the package, but it isn’t all there is to the ministry of contending for the gospel. Making it the sole focus or the prime focus distorts the whole ‘vision’ of what fundamentalism should be, I think.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I appreciate the charity and balance you bring to this discussion. Some others tend to get somewhat exercised over the kind of considerations that Don and I interject. The comment you posted this morning at my blog was quite helpful to the discussion. I think Don and his readers will appreciate it as well.

Anyway, I’m pleased to see you are in large agreement with Don on the “entanglement” issue he raises. It is a real and valid concern, which you acknowledge.

As I noted to you elsewhere, continued participation with the ce camp conferences, apart from admonishing them openly and warning others, will desensitize you to the obvious problem areas we’ve discussed. You (as well as others who are embracing the ce men) won’t go to bed one night determined to resist these errors and wake up the next morning ready to embrace them fully. That slide will, however, happen overtime- incrementally. This is a primary reason why God gave us His mandated hedges of protection. We, all of us, are susceptible to and can be drawn into egregious doctrinal errors and/or practices originating from within or without the church (Acts 20:29-30).

I’ll close by paraphrasing a sermon except I heard many years ago. The original application then was to interpersonal relationships and was directed to teens over whom they choose run with.

“You show me who your friends and fellowships are- and I will show what you are now or soon will be.”

LM

PS: My use of “You” is not meant for YOU only. I mean these comments of mine for any man who is growing in his affinity for the conservative evangelicalism or on the fence about it.

I wanted to expand upon this from you,

“Fundamentalists stand for the unashamed proclamation of the gospel. [I’d prefer to say “the old fashioned gospel” to distinguish it from the new fangled ‘gospel’ we seem to be awash with these days…. In standing for that gospel, Fundamentalists also are quite willing to contend for it, as we all know.”

I appreciate and agree with your comment above. I would, however, expand on it to include- The Fundamentalist is also historically recognized for his fidelity to balanced, biblical separatism from unbelievers and/or disobedient brethren, which is IMO where the real divide in Fundamentalism is going to be over the so-called “conservative” evangelicals (ce).

Those who still identify with Fundamentalism, but have a growing affinity for the star personalities and conferences of the ce camp, are becoming increasingly less inclined to make a practical application of the biblical mandates (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Romans 16:17) when it comes to the obvious doctrinal aberrations and/or questionable methods of ministry among the ce men. Most can barely find their voice to admonish over or raise a warning to our own in regard to one of the most egregious of the issues coming from Piper and Mahaney, which is their teaching that the charismatic sign gifts are active and should be sought after today. Then there is the ecumenical movement among some ce men that has recently come to the forefront.

There is a growing willingness among some in IFB circles to allow for and tolerate these aberrant doctrines and practices in the ce community that they (for now) would never allow for or tolerate in their own ministries. Why? Because they preach “good” sermons or write “good” books? Is it ever right to set aside fidelity to the Scriptures for a preferred fellowship?

LM

Hi Will

Attending conferences wouldn’t be partnership, as far as I can see. I wouldn’t go out of my way to hear some of these fellows speak, but if it were convenient, I might try to hear any of them (or even people much further to the left than them).

In the past, however, men who have consistently pursued the conferences of evangelicals often slide into some kind of entangled ministry partnership with evangelicals. That doesn’t mean they have lost their salvation, but it does demonstrate a lack of commitment to fundamentalist ideals.

And yes, hosting a conference featuring a major evangelical speaker would be ministry partnership. Does your partnership with Lawson put you into partnership with MacArthur’s resolved conference where Lawson also spoke? No, not exactly. Does it put you in into partnership with charismatism since Mahaney is involved with the Resolved conference? No, not exactly. But it does begin to entangle you in that orbit.

Let’s put it this way, are you going to challenge Dr. Lawson about the terrible music that is reportedly involved in the Resolved conference? Are you going to challenge him about his tolerance of charismatism and ongoing gifts through his partnership with Mahaney?

I kind of doubt it.

So to the extent that you wouldn’t make those challenges, you are becoming entangled.

That’s dangerous, in my opinion.

We could ask Dave, who commented earlier, whether I am right in thinking it dangerous. I doubt he would have Lawson to speak in his church, and precisely for the reasons that I think it would be dangerous for me and for my people to do the same. Of course, I don’t know if he will read through all these comments, but if he does, I wonder what he would say to this.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

It is the entanglement we object to, not the vision and not the usefulness.”

I would agree with that to a great extent. How does attending one of their conferences differ from using one of their resources? I don’t see it as partnership in the way you’re describing per se.

However, our church is hosting a conference on expository preaching with Steven Lawson and I am promoting it to anyone who is willing to come and learn how to preach biblically. I guess that would entangle me too much since he’s a close friend of MacArthur who’s friends with Piper who is friends with Driscoll who is friends with Robert Schuller who’s friends with the Devil himself.

Now for my summary perceptions of ‘vision’:

9Marks – the biblical function of the local church
Ligonier – ??? I’m not too familiar with them… I’ve heard the name, of course. Is this R.C. Sproul?
Grace To You – expository preaching
Desiring God – promoting pleasure in God
BJU – uncompromising complete Christian higher education
FBFI – promoting fellowship among fundamental baptists
Sword of the Lord – promoting a particular emphasis on preaching and, especially, soul-winning

As you can see, one needs to be relatively familiar with a particular ministry to have a sense of its vision. I am not that familiar with Ligonier, so I can’t comment.

I’d like to expand on my comments concerning the fundamentalist ministries. Some might not understand what I mean by my brief summary statements, so here is a bit more:

BJU: uncompromising complete Christian higher education – the founder established the University to enable Christian ‘boys and girls’ to get a quality Christian education in a school that would build rather than tear down their faith. The school is intended to educate the whole man, not just provide an academic education. That was the purpose at its founding and I would suggest is still the heartbeat of the school today. The fundamentalist emphasis is an essential part of the overall philosophy, but it isn’t the central feature of its vision and never has been.

FBF: promoting fellowship among fundamental baptists This purpose has been repeated again and again by the leaders of the FBF in their meetings and in the pages of Frontline. Whatever other purposes the FBF may have held in the past (when it embodied a fellowship concerned with modernism in the Northern Baptist Convention), this is what it has become. It isn’t hard to see that this fellowship is what it exists for. Some may not value the emphasis. Personally, I have to say that it has been a great blessing to my ministry.

Sword: promoting a particular emphasis on preaching and, especially, soul-winning On this one, bro. Dudding may not be so far off when he says ‘preserving revivalism’, although I think he means it more negatively than I would. There are some aspects of what is called revivalism that I think need correction, but the concept also has some things to be commended. (It isn’t my purpose to get into that subject with this post, however.) Soul-winning was a major emphasis of John R. Rice. Perhaps subsequent leadership has diminished what that means, but it still remains a central vision of the Sword.

After writing this, I went to the web-sites for the fundie ministries on our list. Both the BJU and the FBF have mission statements. For comparison to my summaries, here are the ‘official’ statements:

BJU: Within the cultural and academic soil of liberal arts higher education, Bob Jones University exists to grow Christlike character that is scripturally disciplined, others-serving, God-loving, Christ-proclaiming and focused above.

FBF: The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International exists to provide a rallying point for Fundamental Baptists seeking personal revival and the opportunity to work with committed Bible-believers in glorifying God through the uncompromising fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Refreshingly, the Sword site has no easily identifiable mission statement!

Before signing off for the night (the Slovaks just beat Russia!!! heh, heh), I’d like to make a bit of a comment on the appeal of the evangelical ministries.

It is quite obvious that the things emphasized by these ministries have an appeal to Bible believing Christians. These ‘visions’ are things, generally speaking, that we believe in.

Moreover, the fact is that we find these ministries to be useful to us in our own ministries. I have used materials from John MacArthur’s ministry. I have appreciated Dever’s books, for example. I submit that fundamentalists have always appreciated the useful tools created by non-fundamentalist but theologically orthodox ministries.

So they are useful, but that doesn’t mean we should enter into formal ministry partnership either. (That is what koinonia, biblical fellowship, means – formal ministry partnership; cooperative sharing of gifts, time, and cash in common endeavours.)

The reason? As so often said, it is a fact that embracing these particular ministries without reservation will inevitably entangle you in charismatic and ecumenical errors. This is easily documented.

It is the entanglement we object to, not the vision and not the usefulness.

And it is the fact that we resist the entanglement that makes us out to be ‘negative, narrow-minded legalists’. So be it.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3