Man, my brother and another pastor both sent me a copy of an e-mail from Matt Olson entitled "Open Letter to Friends in Ministry". I haven’t gotten my own personal copy, even though I know I am in Matt’s database. I wonder what that means? I think maybe we aren’t friends anymore.
Well, seriously, there are some issues between us, and I am still concerned about Northland and the direction it is going. Some of the things in Matt’s letter stretch credulity to the breaking point.
For example, consider the first sentence of this paragraph, Matt appears to be backing down somewhat from his recent invitations of Rick Holland and Bruce Ware to speak and teach at Northland:
We did not see that having these speakers would be a significant problem. Biblically, we worked through a process of decision making and felt these choices and the context in which they were made were consistent with what we have always believed. Knowing now that these decisions might be confusing, misunderstood, or miscommunicated, we would likely have planned differently. We have no desire to distract from our focus here or on the field of ministry.
Really Matt? "We did not see that having these speakers would be a significant problem." Hello??? Do you think we are so naïve as to believe that?
Let me refresh your memory, Matt. Rick Holland was the reason Dr. Olilla pulled out of speaking at a Pro-Teens conference just a couple of years ago. There were a couple of discussions on Sharper Iron that discussed it at some length (see here and here). ((some of the internal links in these discussions might be dead)) What changed between 2005 and 2010? (Hint: it wasn’t Rick Holland.)
And Bruce Ware? Man… you didn’t see that would be a significant problem for other fundamentalists? Did you sleep through all those preacher boy classes we had together, Matt?
It is simply unbelievable that you didn’t see a huge negative reaction coming.
What might be believable is that you thought the fundamentalist world was being transformed into the image being touted by certain seminarians and that the rest of the fundamentalist world [the old-style fighters] was a minor irritation that could be ignored.
And when Matt says this:
Knowing now that these decisions might be confusing, misunderstood, or miscommunicated, we would likely have planned differently.
We wonders, we really does, what he means by this. "Likely have planned differently," eh??? How so? How would you plan differently?
Matt goes on to say:
We affirm that Northland stands in the historic tradition of Fundamentalism and is committed to remain as an independent, Baptist, separatist institution.
Well, we’ll see.
Matt seems way too defensive in justifying his invitation of these new evangelicals to his campus, as if this is merely par for the course for an academic institution, what’s the big deal?
What’s the big deal about creating confusion among impressionable students?
- Is it ok, now, to cooperate with the MacArthur crowd?
- Would we encourage, now, our graduates to attend Southern Seminary?
- Are the pastors of students who take separatistic positions against these groups to be suspected as ‘hyper-fundamentalists’ or (gasp) legalists?
What is the big deal, after all?
I am afraid the big deal is that a lot of fundamentalist pastors like me are no longer recommending Northland and a precipitous drop in enrollment is about to ensue.
Don:
Thanks for your commentary on Matt Olson’s letter. many of the pastors who recived it have had the much same reaction to elements as you have. I have a few thoughts as well, such as-
I find it interesting that he alleges, “We did not see that having these speakers [Holland/Ware] would be a significant problem.” Then he writes, “Knowing now that these decisions might be confusing, misunderstood, or miscommunicated, we would likely have planned differently.” Are we to believe that everyone just does not understand what NIU is doing and/or is being miscommunicated? Why is there no mention that exposing NIU’s impressionable undergraduates to the influences of Rick Holland, might not have been the right decision in the first place? This IMO guarantees that this is only the beginning of the convergence with evangelicalism.
“We know that other Fundamentalists will develop different applications based on biblical authority and the principles that flow from it.” That is the new mantra, the paradigm shift away from separation for a “pure church” and replacing it with this new so-called “pure gospel” fellowship.
This appears to be a political statement, damage control, a circling of the wagons. I’m sure Dr. Olson and the administration realize their movement toward embracing and endorsing evangelicalism has triggered losing the support of friends, will probably see a drop in enrollment and a decline in financial support of various sources.
You wrote, “Matt seems way too defensive in justifying his invitation of these new evangelicals to his campus, as if this is merely par for the course for an academic institution, what’s the big deal?”
We’ve heard this new definition of separation in academic contexts; haven’t we? Seems NIU is adopting this new application of separation to open the door to evangelicals who will influence the young impressionable students.
Thanks for engaging and challenging these disconcerting changes in trajectory at NIU.
LM
I’m with you Don, haven’t received my personal copy either.
Looks as though Dr. Olson is trying to do damage control. Interestingly though, he did not bring up the recent chapel speaker Wayne Simien (spoke last Thursday, 11-18). A former NBA star turned sports ministry person. Wayne’s Called to Greatness ministry takes the cake. Dr. Olson is defenseless when it comes to having invited this man with this ministry to Northland. One of the Northland’s students who is in the Sports Ministry major interned last summer with Wayne and came back with a glowing report. Visit the website, iamctg.org. If you can stomach the “Christian” rap music go on to read about their Dance classes for your young ladies. With this I am not questioning Wayne’s conversion but all this worldliness in his so-called Christian ministry just doesn’t work.
1 Corinthians 13:1–3
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.”
From the perspective of this young, impressionable fundamentalist, your sarcasm, ridicule of, and negative spirit towards a fellow brother in Christ’s outright words hardly seems to pass the test of “speech that is for the use of edifying, ministering grace.” Stirring up conflict in the body is no ministry, Pastor. Meanwhile, Satan smiles. How tragic. (Dare to post?)
Don, do you discourage folks in your church from getting a J-Mac Study Bible? Go into the book stores in (I propose) the majority of FBF churches. It’s MacArthur, the Tripps, Ed Welch, Elizabeth George, right alongside the fundamentalist authors.
Maybe if Rick Holland wore a disclaimer button while teaching his block class?
Sir: You say there are issues between you and Matt Olson, I hope you have done the biblical thing and talked to him yourself instead of rallying around all the gossip that is out there.
Hi Don,
I’m a BMM missionary in Utah and President of Rocky Mountain Baptist College. I’m not convinced that Dr. Matt is a committed separatist anymore. I had a problem with him hiring a Pastor from Phoenix about three years ago that definitely had beliefs and practices in ecclesiastical separation different than what Northland has had in the past. Nothing stays the same and we need to keep assessing all our associations. As any institution gets bigger (church or Bible college) there is constant and great pressure to compromise on everything. The Lord help us to be biblical and gracious in all our attitudes and practices. Since we are closer and have a good working relationship with International Baptist College in Arizona, we recommend that now and not Northland. Lord bless you,
Sir, with all due respect, have you talked to these men yourself? Especially Matt Olson. Anyone knows (or should know) written communication is often woefully inadequate to communicate with clarity. You need to talk to him personally before smearing his name on the internet like this. See Matthew 18:15ff; I Timothy 3:2-3; Titus 1:7; 2:15-3:7, etc, etc, etc. And, having talked with him myself (and still not agreeing with everything he says), it is glaringly obvious, sir, that you have not talked to him. He openly and graciously invites you to do so in that letter. When you’re willing to obey God’s Word, I’ll be more inclined to listen to your accusations of another man failing to do so. If you don’t post this, I understand, but you still need to hear this and apologize to your brother, for whom Christ also died.
For those of you who are so desirous of contact (which I agree is needful, and Biblical), yes, I have had personal contact with Dr. Olson. We talked on the phone a couple of weeks ago about these very men being invited to speak at NIU. It is evident that many others have as well and that is why Dr. Olson sent out this e-mail letter. He in this letter has reinterated what he told me in our phone conversation. So I see no reason why Don, or any other blogger should not bring this to the public eye, so to speak. Dr. Olson sought to do this rather quietly and under the radar, so to speak. A few men found out about it and started calling Dr. Olson and then they and others started posting so that more were made aware.
It is really more obvious that some are not pleased with those of us who disagree with the direction that Dr. Olson has charted and have said so, than whether or not we have actually talked to the man.
I held posts overnight in order to allow readers to respond without the influence of other commenters.
I inadvertantly posted an anonymous comment, then deleted it. All anonymous posts will be deleted.
Now, as to the bouquets and brickbats…
I expected some to agree, others to disagree. The comments disagreeing are the ones that need most to be engaged.
But how to engage? Every one of them are personal attacks on me, rather than attempts to deal with the substance of what I am saying. It really is tiresome to hear the ‘all you need is love’ defense or the ‘Matthew 18, Matthew 18, Matthew 18, Matthew 18″ defense. This has nothing to do with what I said and is completely irrelevant in this case. Matt Olson sent out a public letter about a public issue. There is nothing “Matthew 18” about it. Neither he nor I committed a personal offense against one another, we have no personal issues between one another. In spite of my headline, I still think of Matt as a friend, a former classmate, and one whom I could have great personal fellowship with. But I entirely disagree with the direction he is leading Northland in recent months. I think he is wrong.
But more than that, I think that in sending out this letter, Matt has made a serious error. He claims not to have anticipated the reaction (impossible to believe) and that he would have done things differently if he had anticipated the reaction. But he doesn’t specify what he would do differently…
All that sounds like is playing politics. He is trying to pacify critics while maintaining his direction and position. I am disappointed in him for doing so.
So, for the critics of my post, please feel free to criticise, but please actually deal with the substance of my arguments.
Further off topic criticisms will be deleted.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, I suspect that you and I wouldn’t see eye-to-eye on some of the changes that Dr. Olson is implementing, but I certainly agree with you on the “it was hard to see this coming” part. I’m not a pastor, and haven’t been around all that long, but I have seen enough of these types of controversies in fundamentalism since the early 80’s, and for someone active in fundamentalism to think that there *wouldn’t* be a firestorm over something like this would almost require him to have had a mind-wipe (if such a thing existed). He might have *hoped* that he would get no significant negative reactions, but that’s not the same thing as not expecting any.
Don, I disagreed with you. I don’t see where I attacked you personally. Perhaps you could point that out to me.
Hi Dave,
Sorry, you are correct. You were the one exception, I believe. My apologies.
However, I did think your comment was irrelevant. I wasn’t talking about books. I wasn’t talking about disclaimers. I was (and am) talking about Matt’s letter.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
G.A. Dietrich:
I am not a Don Johnson fan, but I get so weary of this kind of reasoning. Don has no obligation to speak privately to Matt Olson. Matt’s words were made public and public response is appropriate. Argue with Don if you will but don’t resort to sentimental pseudo-spirituality.
Thanks, Bob. I know we disagree on many larger issues, but I appreciate your comment on this point.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
You and I totally disagree about MacArthur being a “neo”. We are totally on opposite sides about the propriety of ministry with the likes of Holland and Ware. I also think that you may be misinterpreting what Olson means by “We did not see that having these speakers would be a significant problem” (there’s a chance that you guys are each using different meanings for “significant” — a vague term).
Nevertheless . . . To some degree we agree in our emotional reaction to the approach communicated in this letter.
Where were Olson and Horn when Dr. Smith was getting fired from BJU for being friendly with the Big Mac? Where’s the open admission of a change in their position/approach? What was their public evaluation of Beal’s “SBC — House on the Sand” book? Where’s the open admission of a change of mind or of previously private disagreement?
You think that these men are changing to abandon biblical separatism. I think that they are changing to abandon sinful schimsaticism. You’re concerned. I’m thankful. But, we both find the approach of announcing the change lacking.
Of course, leadership is hard. Communication is difficult. And, good is good — even when arrived at poorly. So, since it’s Thanksgiving (in the US), I’m going to focus on Thanksgiving for a little more Christian unity today.
Keith
Thanks Keith,
Enjoy your thanksgiving. We already did that (ours is in October) so I am back to my curmudgeonly self.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, I think I’ve said this before, but if I haven’t, I want you to know that I understand you and Lou and, on many points, Kent to represent the mainstream of fundamentalism from the past 25 years or so.
Some things have clearly changed. You guys are not among them.
Ben, how many fundamentalists does it take to change a light bulb?
Change?????
Well, I am not sure whether to take your comment as a compliment or not. I am sure none of us are exactly like what we used to be. And I think it though there are similarities, each of us represents somewhat different viewpoints. I also am attempting to maintain a consistent fundamentalist point of view. I don’t think that point of view has changed in the last 100 years, contrary to the opinions of some.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don:
For the record, since my two articles on NIU posted I’ve been asked at my blog and in e-mails and since it has furthermore been raised here to you- I personally contacted Matt Olson last week. We exchanged several cordial e-mails. Some of the content from our discussion appears in his public letter to friends.
Again, thanks for this important contribution.
LM
Ben:
I’ve changed a great deal in 25 years. There are, however, certain non-negotiables I learned after my conversion to Christ in 1979. Lord willing I will never compromise what are for me Bible based convictions.
I don’t care how many alleged biblical separatist colleges and/or seminarians redefine the application of Scriptural mandates to have their fellowship with Charismatics, ecumenical compromisers and the worldly culture of the so-called conservative evangelicals, I am not going to change to be accepted or respected by them. And while I can I will do what I can to raise the alarm, warn the NT Church and put forth the Word of God that the Spirit may do His convicting work among the children of God.
LM
I am hoping that Ben is being complimentary. As you note, Don, the doctrines which have been the rallying point for Fundamentalists have not changed. The doctrine of separation has not changed. The proper application of the doctrine of separation has not change. All of these have not changed because they are founded upon the unchanging Word of God. People have changed though, whether they admit to it or not.
As you have noted Don, just 5 short years ago, Dr. Ollila pulled out of a conference where Rick Holland was also a speaker. Now, in 2010 he sits down with him in CA and is party to his coming to speak in chapel. When one looks at Rick Holland there is no noticable change in position doctrinally within these 5 years to cause this invitation. Which leaves the change being in another person/s, in this case, Dr. Olson, and Dr. Ollila. Why? comes to mind very quickly. Why the change?
Don, I don’t mean that you’re completely unchanged, but that you seem to me to represent the principles of fundamentalism that institutions like the FBF and Bob Jones University have articulated and defended for some time now. I think that’s what you intend to do, and if there’s a discussion about who represents the fundamentalist mainstream of the past 25 year, I’m arguing in your favor.
Ben,
Since you mentioned my name and totally misrepresented me, I’ve got to comment on it. In my opinion, you misrepresented me in a slanderous way.
I am NOT a fundamentalist. I don’t separate like fundamentalists at all and I don’t take the position of historic fundamentalism on separation. Anyone who reads me knows that. I think you know that. You’ve smeared me by saying so. And in public. As it would apply to me, you’re using the term “fundamentalist” as a pejorative, because it does not apply.
In addition,
I don’t preach like the fundamentalists I heard, growing up with very few exceptions in every camp—because I heard every camp.
I don’t preach an identical gospel that I heard from most of them.
Our church doesn’t worship like most of those from which I heard and especially how they are today.
Our church doesn’t use the methods of most of fundamentalism.
Our church has a strong expositional, exegetical, and theological basis for everything we do. We are not pragmatic in our doctrine or practice. Your church is far, far more pragmatic than our church. And you operate far more like fundamentalism than I do from everything I’ve read and watched of you.
I would expect a full retraction of that public slander on your part.
PS: One more thing, I’d talk to you any time and answer any question you have of me. I would sit down and do that with you, either by phone or in person. And I’d be glad to go to the Bible for every single answer. I’d do that with anyone. And you are welcome to comment on my blogs any time.
PPS: One more thing, I formally disassociated myself from the FBF 13+ years ago. I wrote all the FBF members in the SF Bay Area and gave my scriptural reasons. I offered to sit down with any one of them to talk about it.
Moderators note: I combined two additional comments by Kent per his request. (But one should note that the second “one more thing” makes it “two more things…” heh, heh)
Kent,
I don’t believe Ben slandered you. He did distance you from me and Lou by saying “on many points” you represented the traditional Fundie view. I think you would have to agree with that, although he is probably incorrect to say you haven’t changed.
It is better not to throw the ‘slander’ word around. If anything will inflame debate, that one will.
Personally, I would hope that you would retract the word and call it something else.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As someone whose initial response was (admittedly) only tangentially related to the OP, I still must question why folks allow Lou to post barely on topic statements (#19) that amount to little more than billboards for his website/quixotic crusade.
Particularly the portion raising the spectre of further wrongdoing while patting himself on the back for being big enough not to bring it up.
Hi Dave
With respect to Lou’s posts, I agree that they tend to contain too much self-promotion and self-congratulation. I agree the “spectre of further wrongdoing” was particularly uncalled for.
I am in a bit of a quandary when Lou posts. I trash about half of what he posts. I wondered about trashing this one, particularly in view of the “spectre” you point to. I held it for some time (as I often do with Lou) while waiting to decide whether or not to post it. In the end, I just approved it as is because my thinking was that Lou’s posts speak for themselves. I think I should have gone with my earlier misgivings and trashed this one.
So I apologize, I was wrong to approve it.
I am going to go back to it and delete the offensive portion.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Thanks. Ben knows what he is doing. “On many points” isn’t enough of a disclaimer. Let’s say that I said something like this about Ben, for sake of illustration: “On many points, Ben represents the mainstream of Nazi-ism.” “Hey, I didn’t call him a Nazi!” Got that base covered.
But, I don’t represent ANY of fundamentalism in the last 25 years. I don’t get my positions from fundamentalism. I don’t take my positions like fundamentalism. I’ve separated from fundamentalism. I shouldn’t be lumped in with it at all. Ben is more a fundamentalist than I am. Ben separates more like the fundamentalists of the last 25 years than I would.
At the same time, I’ve shown appreciation for points of fundamentalism, it’s stand against liberalism. I appreciate militancy in the preservation of true doctrine. I support anywhere that fundamentalism would line up with Scripture, just like I would rejoice in Ben anytime he lines up with the Bible.
Kent, I’ll stand by my statement that, IMO, you represent in many points the mainstream of the fundamentalist movement of the past 25 years. But I’ll gladly concede that had I known that, to your way of thinking, you are to fundamentalism as I am to Naziism, I’d have refrained from raising your name so as not to arouse any distress on your part.
Okey-dokey, Ben.
I believe that most of these decisions like Dr. Olson and the leadership of Northland have made are connected to this new position on separation defined by Conservative Evangelicalism.
I saw this rising on the scene over 12 years ago and wrote a number of articles about what I believed is its source. I believe this comes out of what Charles C. Ryrie in his book Basic Theology (Victor Books, 1982) deals with. He makes a discerning statement regarding the influence of Karl Barth’s position on inspiration upon evangelical Christianity.
“Karl Barth (1886-1968), though one of the most influential theologians in recent history, held a defective and dangerous view of inspiration, a view many continue to propagate. Barthians generally align themselves with the liberal school of biblical criticism. Yet they often preach like evangelicals. This makes Barthianism more dangerous than blatant liberalism.
For the Barthian, revelation centers in Jesus Christ. If He is the center of the circle of revelation, then the Bible stands on the periphery of that circle. Jesus Christ is the Word (and, of course, He is); but the Bible serves as a witness to the Word, Christ. The Bible’s witness to the Word is uneven; that is, some parts are more important in their witness than other parts. Those are the parts that witness about Christ.”
I believe that Barth’s position on inspiration and its resulting influence, although often covertly, is the basis for this idea of separating only over issues of the Gospel. Certainly, even the definition of the “gospel” is highly inclusive in these circles of Conservative Evangelicals.
This is new division out of Fundamentalism. However, for many of these guys, they still want to be included in the “camp” of the old mainline, militant, separatists Fundamentalists while wanting to cease militancy and reduce separation to only errors regarding the “gospel.” In my many years of experience with these kinds of issues is that most mainline, militant Fundamentalists will never write to Northland or to Dr. Olson. They will just stop recommending the school to students, and will in fact recommend they go elsewhere.
For those who have Ryrie and want to check the quote Lance cites, it is found in Chapter 11, Point VI: Barthian Inspiration. My electronic edition says that is page 85, but my paper copy has different pagination. That is at the office and not available just now, but the chapter headings are the same.
Interesting angle on this, Lance. Perhaps this has a lot to do with the controversy. I’ll have to think that one over.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Kent says: “I don’t represent ANY of fundamentalism in the last 25 years . . . I’ve separated from fundamentalism.” Separatism of this sort is exactly like much of fundamentalism in the last 25 years.
Lance says: “I believe that Barth’s position on inspiration and its resulting influence, although often covertly, is the basis for this idea of separating only over issues of the Gospel.” I’d argue that this statement couldn’t be more wrong. Disagree with Northland’s “direction” all you want, but the guys that Northland is “associating” with come from a part of “conservative evangelicalism” that oppenly opposed Barth’s views on inspiration. The emphasis on only separating over the gospel, from this crowd, comes from years of observing non-Christian schism and strife in the name of purity or standards or militancy or separation from worldliness or some other fundamentalist shiboleth.
How so, Keith? Who are you Keith? Don, who is Keith?
Keith is a frequent commenter on fundamentalist blogs. I am not sure exactly where he is coming from. If I remember right, he is a Presbyterian. He is not a fundamentalist. Sometimes I think he just wants to argue, but I can sometimes get him to engage in a somewhat fruitful conversation.
@ Keith, I am not sure what to make of Lance’s argument there either. I don’t think he is saying the CE types support Barth’s view of inspiration exactly, but that Barth’s views have subtly influenced the current thinking more than they realize.
Not sure if I agree with that, but I can see some similarities as Lance points out. It may be more coincidence than direct influence, however. I need to think that one over a bit.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The point is that the arguments presented for redefining separation as maintaining the purity of the gospel and not the purity of the local church or the purity of “the Church” is very similar to the old arguments that came out of what Ryrie warned about. Even if Barthian inspiration is not the source, we have the same argument and the same outcome.
If we want to discuss the substance of this, there are some questions we must answer theologically:
1. Do the Scriptures teach that the main purpose of separation is only over the issues of Soteriological heresies?
2. What is the Scriptural definition of “heresy”?
3. Is Calvinism a Soteriological heresy?
4. Do the Scriptures present any cases where there was separation over other theological heresies in Ecclesiology, Eschatology, or Pneumatology?
5. Is Conservative Evangelicalism a heresy by Scriptural definition?
Don, I don’t know if I’m a frequent commenter on fundamentalist blogs — yours is the only card carrying fundy blog that I think I comment on very often – Larry’s occassionally. Sometimes Bixby’s and Ben’s, but are they allowed to be called fundamentalists anymore?
I am a Presbyterian, but there were a lot of Presbyterian fundamentalists (ever hear of the Bible Presbyterian Church?) and there still are some who are willing to use the title (Free Presbyterians).
Nevertheless, while “I believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments . . . ” I cannot be labeled a fundamentalist by Don’s criteria, and that is fine by me. To most people the label has come to represent those who perpetuate the mistakes, not the strengths, of the movement.
As far as just wanting to argue Don — Man, in this case, I actually agreed with you, Olson’s letter strains credulity. What kind of discussion do you want here? Atta boys all around? That sure isn’t how you interact. I guess Olson should just send out a follow up letter saying, “There are those who disagree, like Don, but they just want to argue.”
As far as “how so” Kent — really? You are unaware of the various “separations” of the fundamentalists of the last 25 years? They even came up with a whole category of “secondary separation” to help justify it. Here’s how Joel Tetrau recentlydescribed it on another blog: “Every significant leader had his own little army and off to war they went with each other.”
Without even looking things up, let’s see — BJU/Sword of the Lord, BJU/Hyles, KJVO/non-KJVO groups, IFBC/GARBC. Those are separations of groups that both lay claim to the name. Then, there’s all the fundamentalist/psuedo fundamentalist separations — BJU & IFBC types separating from Fallwell types for example.
I mean really, BJU used to have students from so many denomintions and fundamentalist groups that Sunday school was by denomination/group. I’d guess that if they did that today there would be a giant Baptist Sunday school, a small presby, a small “Bible”, and not much else. There used to be fundy Methodists (Jones Sr. himself), Nazarenes, and more. But most have been separated out.
You don’t want the title fundamentalist, and for all I know you aren’t one. My only point was that your extreme separatism — even separating from fundamentalists — is a trait you share with them. And, it is one of their most defining traits in the last 25 years.
I guess I see your point re the blogs. Perhaps I should say ‘frequent commenter on blogs I frequent’ – is that better?
No, I don’t want ‘attaboys’ all around. However, I think sometimes you just take a contrary view just to argue.
Regarding the fracturing of Fundamentalism, I acknowledge that as a weakness of the separatist position. Rather, of the men who hold the position. I am convinced that the position is essentially right. However there is no doubt we have had empire builders who have divided unnecessarily. This is perhaps one strength of denominations that independent churches lack. In a denomination there is a procedure for working through disputes. However, there are other dangers in denominations that we independents don’t think are worth the benefits.
One question – “IFBC/GARBC”? what do you mean by IFBC?
I think he means the I.F.C.A. = Independent Fundamental Churches of America, now Independent Fundamental Churches International
http://www.ifca.org/
MacArthur was I.F.C.A. although I am not sure that he still is.
“I think sometimes you just take a contrary view just to argue.”
Pot, meet kettle.
Actually, I don’t think that I take contrary views just to argue. I think that I argue when I have a contrary view. Sometimes I do express ridicule, but only when I find something ridiculous.
Again . . . Pot, meet kettle.
I didn’t mean the IFCA although that group’s street cred within “real” fundamentalism is also an example of the over separtist mania.
I just meant the “truly” Independent, Fundamental, Baptist Churches and their suspicion of the “association” churches.
Touche!
That was what I thought you meant, but wanted to clarify. Well, there was/is sufficient evidence of weakness in the GARBC at times to warrant the concerns in my view. Witness the goings on at Cedarville. But in recent years the GARBC has seemed to return to a somewhat more fundamentalist viewpoint, as seen by their expulsion of Cedarville.
We use RBC curriculum for our Sunday School in the Primary Level but we are not happy with the older levels. They promote a culture we don’t want to promote. (Unless that, too, has changed, we haven’t looked at their older levels for some time.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Keith,
I’m not concerned whether what I or my church practices fits in with any era of fundamentalism, a relatively modern (20th century) interdenominational movement. I am concerned whether what we do conforms to Scripture (eternal). Our church fellowships with other churches, based upon doctrine and practice. That’s what I see the understanding of fellowship is in 2 and 3 John, among other places.
We welcome true, biblical unity, like Jesus had with the Father, which was sanctified by the truth. Jesus believed and practiced exactly as the Father, obedient in everything the Father said, completely in the Father’s will.
I haven’t noticed at all that fundamentalism itself has separated based on that basis, so I don’t agree that my separation is like that of fundamentalism. My separation is open to biblical criticism. I want to be sure that I’m obeying God’s Word in my personal purity and the purity of my church. I believe in unity where unity is seen in scripture—in the church. A church has the wherewithal for unity. Outside of a church, I believe we can have fellowship with other churches, but if it is fellowship, it must be biblical fellowship, which is seen in scripture as fellowship in and of the truth. The truth is more than just soteriological. I haven’t yet had one person show me from God’s Word that unity or fellowship is based upon only the doctrine of salvation. Unity or fellowship is not based upon the disregarding of biblical teaching and practice. That isn’t unity.
This is where I am in no way like fundamentalism, like Ben asserts. Ben fits more into the ways of fundamentalism, which ignores selective doctrines, an ever changing list, in order to get together for a faux unity and fellowship. Getting together seems to be of chief importance, putting aside differences, even scriptural ones. It results in politics of the first order, something very prevalent in the Southern Baptist Convention of which Ben resides. And why stay in the Southern Baptist Convention that harbors false gospels and other false doctrine and practice? To keep possession of buildings and property. That’s what his pastor, Mark Dever, reported to Mark Minnick in their interview a year or two ago. I hope the best for all these guys, but this is not what the Bible teaches on either unity or separation. Ben’s way of dealing with this kind of challenge, I’ve found, is to ridicule, give cold shoulder, and then tell you you’re not welcome. You can see it in his sophomoric comments here. That’s fundamentalist separation if I’ve ever seen it. Card-carrying fundamentalism.
“Jesus believed and practiced exactly as the Father, obedient in everything the Father said, completely in the Father’s will.”
And such is impossible for you — unless you are God like Jesus always was, is, and always will be.
As a result of the fall all humans are alienated from God, from other humans, and from themselves. In Jesus, we can be reunited. That’s the gospel and the only basis for unity.
Keith,
Perhaps you should reread John 17, because our unity is “as” the Father and the Son, not identical. “As” doesn’t mean identical to. And we are sanctified like the Son was sanctified. Obviously we are not sanctified in an identical way as He either, because He sanctified Himself. I’ll wait for your rereading of John 17. That will be a great help to you, and keep you from shooting from the hip, which is where it seems you presently are. You haven’t given me anything the Bible says about unity.
Brother Brandenburg,
Just because I am cantankerous (actually curious as to how you will answer), could I ask why you connect sanctification through truth with unity? I have certainly heard that taught before, but am not sure I see a direct exegetical connection (at least in a causal way).
BTW, the content, requirement, and impact of the gospel permeate this prayer (ie vss 2,3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 24) and the persons prayed for are explicitly those who have responded to the truth with faith passed down (vs 20) …just sayin’
Keith,
Your case is better made from Ephesians 2:11ff and 4:3. The whole book of Philippians is a great study of unity and like-mindedness as well.
I will reserve my very nuanced view of biblical unity for another time, but I will say that the Gospel is a key component (without it there is little to be unified about ie Titus 3:3c), but it is far from the sole necessary component for a full the full orbed unity that I believe Jesus is praying for in John 17.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
The whole Bible is equal in importance. To say that one portion is more important than another is to begin to make man the judge of the Bible and not the Bible the judge of man. If God put it in the Bible, it is all equally important. Not one jot or tittle shall pass away til all be fulfilled. We cannot pick and chose what part of the Word of God is important, it is an all or nothing proposition.
You guys are hilarious.
Kent, you really need to lay off the condescension — especially if you are going to castigate guys like Ben for handing out ridicule. It really is quite amazing how touchy you and Don can get. I guess you’re ok as long as you’re the Jack Hammer or Don’s the Ox Goad. It’s just when other guys act that way that it’s not ok.
I didn’t base my last comment on a misreading of John 17. I based it on your claim that you welcome unity among those who like Jesus, “believed and practiced exactly as the Father, obedient in everything the Father said, completely in the Father’s will.”
You said, “believed and practiced exactly”, “obedient in everything”. To which I responded that such is impossible for you. And this side of glory it is. Nothing in John 17 says otherwise.
I am completely aware that John 17 says “as” and that “as” and “like” don’t have to mean “identical”. I didn’t say they meant identical. You are the one who said “exactly” and “in everything”. Perhaps you were shooting from the hip.
This side of glory, neither you nor anyone in your congregation will ever practice exactly as the Father. You will not be obedient in everything. Ain’t gonna happen. Since you value obedience to all of the Bible, I’m sure you are aware of the passages which reveal this truth.
By saying that “unity is in Christ”, no one is arguing against sanctification. Those who are in Christ will grow and mature. By emphasizing unity in the “gospel of Christ”, no one is arguing that some parts of the Bible are more important than other parts. The whole Bible is God’s Word.
What is being argued, is the blessed truth that in Christ, you can be united with God and with all of Christ’s Body — in spite of your failure to know, or understand, or obey every part of the Bible perfectly. It’s not that complicated or controversial.
Here’s how John 17 says it: “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE IN US; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.” John 17:20-21
Will we allow the Gospel to be reduced to only those aspects of salvation pertinent to deliverance from condemnation and not extend its message to God’s methodology of grace enablement in deliverance in our progressive transfiguration (Romans 12:2) from the ravages of the sin nature upon our lives? Will we not take into consideration that aspect of the gospel in our future glorification that delivers us from the very presence of sin and recreates our bodies to be like the glorified Jesus Christ? Will we not address the relationship of union with Christ in salvation to our unity with Christ in the filling of the Spirit and practical sanctification?
Brother Ketchum,
EXACTLY!! Thank you for pointing this out.
I believe there are some that see the Gospel as simply (and solely) the means of a sinner to go to heaven; thus it should only be preached to sinners and is way to narrow a scope of doctrine to make the sole issue of separation (ie neo-evangelical controversy of the 50’s).
However there are others who use the same nomenclature (gospel) to cover a vastly wider scope including the sanctification process and the resulting glorification. I would hold that that is how Paul makes use of gospel truths (ie Romans 1:15; Titus 2:11-3:8; ect.) and that a reductionist view of the Gospel is a serious flaw which will effect much more than separation.
This all said, I believe there is a reality that when we do not know which one each other is talking about, it makes it hard to discern how one should respond. There is also the danger (or delight) of a mid-stream shift as we each maneuver through life (grow or digress spiritually) which further complicates the issue.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Nobody (in this discussion) is reducing the gospel in any way. For those who are in Christ ALL things will be made new. No one is arguing otherwise.
The question on the table is, do we only experience and express unity with those who have reached total sanctification (glorification)? If unity now doesn’t require 100% sanctification, then what percentage is ok? 80, 75, 50, 25? And, how do you even gauge what percent someone has attained — since you aren’t 100% yourself?
Again, no one is arguing for antinomianism. No one is arguing for “I’ve got my fire insurance so I can live like the devil now.” We’re just saying that our Christian unity has its basis in Christ, not in us.
Actually, Brother Keith,
We are not really at odds. However, others are concerned about those that are pursuing a purity of the Gospel in lieu of the purity of the church. When one is only concerned about the Gospel message (sinners saved) and not the full orbed Gospel in all its ramifications then I would agree with their concerns wholeheartedly, but for those that use the term Gospel and desire its purity in all of its ramifications, I am far less concerned. I am not sure what the significance is of purity of the gospel (and all its ramifications) vs the purity of the church. One is a purity of expressed doctrine the other is the purity of a divine institution. Both seem valuable to me.
I do realize what you are trying to say to Kent, and I await his answers along with you. Please do not take anything that I have said directly or indirectly so far to be against you.
For now, to reduce any further confusion, I will bow back out of the thread unless I am (or what I have written is) addressed directly.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
FWIW, the concern about ‘gospel’ terminology with respect to separation partly comes about because of Kevin Bauder’s writing where he makes ‘the gospel’ the parameters of separation. It is unclear at times what he means by this, although I think he probably has a more full-orbed view of ‘gospel’ than some critics give him credit for. He would do better to be more explicit, because the term ‘gospel’ does have narrow and broad definitions.
The concerns also come from the use of the term by the T4C and TCC groups. They are centering their fellowship around soteriological lines only. Separatists look at them with suspicion as a result, and when you couple that with the apparent infatuation with at least some of them by erstwhile fundamentalists, using the term ‘gospel’ in conversations about separation makes separatists nervous.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Keith,
What do you mean by this statement, “We’re just saying that our Christian unity has its basis in Christ, not in us.” Where else would it be? “In Christ” refers to our theanthropic union through regeneration “I in you, and you in me” (John 14:20). Are you making no distinction between theanthropic union and theanthropic unity?
Conservative Evangelicalism is seeking to remove individuals from the main stream of Bible believing Christianity to form another division that wants to represent itself as the main stream or the norm. Uniquely, they do this using the argument that Fundamentalism is becoming too fractured and that we must unite under the umbrella of a common denominator; i.e., the Gospel. Their acceptable Gospel is as broad a stream as the reductionism of Only Believism to the extremes of Lordship Salvation and Calvinism’s Soteriology of Monergism and/or Limited Atonement. They have chosen to declare themselves neutral on these wide diversities of Soteriological positions within Evangelicalism. Neutral means they will not even discuss them in public forums lest they fractionalize their constituency. This nonsense does nothing more than create a manufacture, plastic kind of unity that completely lacks in genuine spiritual unity. It is certainly not “unity of the Spirit” and unity in “the faith.”
Brother Christian, I wrote my last note in response to brother Lance before I even saw yours. I saw yours after I posted mine. Thanks for the clarification, I think I agree that you and I are not at odds.
Brother Don (I’m loving all this family lingo — families are united by their name not by their actions), I believe that you are completely wrong in alleging that The Gospel Coalition is centering fellowship around soteriological lines only. The Gospel Coalition folks would say that the Gospel is at the center of soteriology, sanctification, ecclesiology, worship, missions, and well everything. Did you get in (soteriology) by grace but now you have to remain in (sanctification) by works? No, you got in to Christ by grace and you grow in Christlikeness by grace and you will be glorified by grace. That’s the gospel. It is the gospel of grace in Christ. Everything results from that. If it doesn’t, it is chaff.
Lance,
I wasn’t talking about theanthropic union (the doctrine that Christ is 100% God — theos — and 100% man — anthropos — yet one person — union).
I was talking about our union with Christ. Which is a distinct doctrine.
Nevertheless, if I were to accept your idiosyncratic terminology, then I’d say, “sure”. How can one make a distinction between union and unity? How can those who are in union not be united?
“They have chosen to declare themselves neutral on these wide diversities of Soteriological positions within Evangelicalism. Neutral means they will not even discuss them in public forums lest they fractionalize their constituency.”
I don’t know who you are referencing here. It sure isn’t the T4G or TGC — whom Don has refernced. The leaders of these groups — while willing to fellowship with those who don’t share all their views (even soteriologically) speak openly of their soteriological Calvinism. To the point that some have claimed they are together for Calvinism.
If you are talking about Olson, Horn, Northland, etc. Well, I have no idea as to whether what you say is true of them.
Keith,
I think you’re really going to need to buck up a little. Normally men aren’t going to roll into the fetal position when you come on strong like you do. So when you think you are getting back a whiff of what you bring, it would be good for you to be able to handle some.
The unity for which Jesus prays is as the Father has with the Son—that is a unity that is more than positional or spiritual, based upon the unity we see between the Father and the Son in every other place where it is described in Johannine writings and even in John 17. In other words, Jesus is praying for something more than spiritual or positional, but practical. The unity between the Father and Son was seen in their common purpose and practice. We should follow their model of unity, one that is based on everything that the Father said, because that is the kind (“as”) of unity the Son has with the Father. The strength of the sanctification aspect in John 17 between v. 11 and v. 20 is that it fits right with the relationship the Son had with the Father in the rest of the Johannine writings.
When you look at unity in Ephesians 4, it is in a church, the church at Ephesus, because the jointly fitting together comes from the perfecting of the saints through the preaching-teaching of the pastor.
I don’t really get your argument, Keith. It seems to be this: none of us can be perfect like Jesus and the Father are, so the unity we have must be something different than what they had. That’s not an argument that is being made from any text, any Bible passage. It seems to be an argument made from your own reasoning.
I would understand anyone’s frustration that was looking for unity outside of a church. I don’t see it anywhere but a church in the NT. And a church does have the basis for keeping it at 100%—one mind, one heart, one judgment. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 1:10, “that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
What is it to be “one in us” is what we’re talking about? Being “in us” is positional and spiritual, but being “one in us” is more than just positional and spiritual. We can’t be “one” without being “in Christ.” But the oneness is more than just positional and spiritual, but also practical. You can see this in John 14:20-21, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me….” The unity is not separated from the keeping of what God said. It is more than positional and spiritual, but practical.
Kent:
Keith:
What are you talking about? I’m not the least bit offended or upset or threatened by what anyone is “giving back”. I’m handling just fine — mostly scratching my head and chuckling, but just fine even so.
My telling you to lay off the condescension if you’re going to criticize others for condescension does not indicate that I’m not handling. I just thought it comment worthy to note that you think it’s ok for you to be a “jack hammer”, but you think it’s not ok for Ben to behave jack hammerly, to “ridicule, give cold shoulder, and then tell you you’re not welcome.” Maybe you need to buck up.
Kent:
Keith:
I agree with that statement fully. John 17 contains a command to be one (practically) it is not just a statement of fact that we are one (positionally). I have no disagreement with that at all.
But of course, what I initially responded to was your suggestion (whether intentional or unintentional) that this practical unity requires that the united believers “believe and practice exactly as the Father, obedient in everything the Father said, completely in the Father’s will.” And, if this is the requirement for practical unity today — then none is possible. You can call that my reasoning if you wish, but unless you can show me a Scripture that teaches sinless perfection prior to glory, then I think I’m on solid ground here — rationally and exegetically.
Therefore, since our practical unity cannot be based upon present practical perfection, it must be based on something else — namely our position. I cannot comprehend how this statement can be controversial. It does nothing to rule out church discipline, it says nothing against progressive sanctification. All it says is that our attitude and approach to discipline and discipleship should reflect our positional unity.
Kent:
Keith:
Outside of The Church — the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, sure me to.
Kent:
Keith: The 100% unity you describe here is totally different than believing and practicing exactly as the Father, obedient in everything the Father said, completely in the Father’s will. Even if you could maintain complete agreement on everything within a congregation, that would still not equate to being completely obedient to God.
Further, though, being of the “same mind and of the same judgement” as a congregation does not in anyway require absolute, total, heart-level agreement of every member on every single item. That kind of absolute unity is one of God’s incommunicable attributes.
Nevertheless, that we can have unity of the corporate mind, I agree.
Keith,
OK, so we can both buck-up. I haven’t found that with Ben—ridicule and cold shoulder don’t fit into “bucking up”—what you’re doing is far from a cold shoulder. Cold shoulder isn’t jackhammering. I didn’t criticize anyone for condescension. Could you point me to that?
I never ever said that the unity for which Christ prayed was identical to what the Father and He had and have. I said it was like or as what they had. I didn’t say it all either unintentionally or intentionally. Their unity is a practical unity so ours is practical. It’s like that which they had because it is based upon the will of God, the truth.
Again, I don’t understand your sinless perfection argument. I believe that being of one mind, one judgment, one heart doesn’t mean sinless perfection. However, it does mean that we have the same belief and practice. A church believes and practices the same. Someone may sin, but the sin isn’t accepted or acceptable. A different doctrine isn’t acceptable either.
1 John 1:7 calls church fellowship walking in the light as He is in the light. The unity is maintained by means of confession, the blood of Jesus Christ continuing to cleanse us from all sin. That Johannine passage assumes sinning and yet it is walking in the light as He is in the light. Walking. More than just a position, but practical. And it is in the church, see 1 John 2:19. Not something universal and invisible, but local and visible.
I can’t see how that you read that verse in 1 Cor 1 and not see total unity there in every way. The verse is to guide our thinking and experience rather than bringing our experience to the verse to conform its meaning to our experience.
1 Cor 12:27 defines “the body of Christ”—it is the local church, or else Paul would have said “we” instead of “ye.” Some universal, nebulous something or other doesn’t fit the flow or the context of 1 Cor 12 either. 1 Cor 10 talks about the communion of the body at the bread and the cup. All believers don’t partake of the bread and the cup. Communion or unity occur in the church, local only. In Eph 4, the way the body is jointly fit together is through the pastor’s teaching. The teaching of a pastor brings a church into one doctrine and practice.
For what it’s worth, I think both Kent and Keith are talking about different things. Kent is local church only, sees no universal body until the return of Christ. This tends to color everything he says about unity.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3
Don,
First, hopefully I’m just looking at scripture, stepping beyind that, and letting it determine my positions.
Second, I would be twisting in the wind like Keith if I had to somehow fit the unity described in the NT into all believers. It doesn’t work. Since God is consistent with Himself, it has to work, and the way that it works is the right way to look at it.
Well, I see myself in the middle – I see that unity in this age is primarily local church (and the doctrine of the church in this age is primarily local), but I don’t deny that there is a true universal aspect to the present day church.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I agree with Kent. How can we take a text like Ephesians 4:1-6 and apply it in any real & practical way to some universal, intangible, mystical entity? Obviously the intent is within a local church where there is accountability.
As for what Keith says, how can we “endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit” if we never can never have it in the first place? The “unity of the Spirit” is threefold:
1. Unity in doctrine (Eph. chapters 1-3)
2. Unity in purpose (Eph. chapter 4)
3. Unity in practice (Eph, chapters 5 & 6)
Theanthropic union (“I in you & you in me”) is the baptism with the Spirit into “the regeneration” under the New Theanthropic Federal Headship of Jesus Christ.
Theanthropic unity is the filling of the indwelling Holy Spirit which supernaturally energizes the Spirit filled believer to be “made the righteousness of God in Him” (II Cor. 5:21). This is not referring to imputation or impartation of God-kind righteousness, but the actualization of supernaturally producing God-kind righteousness through the believer’s life.
I also agree with Don as far as what Kent is saying to Keith. You are using the same words but talking in different theological languages. That is one of the reasons I have such difficulty with the idea of trying to communicate in these kinds of forums with people you do not know or who want to hide behind some kind of anonymity.