Hi Larry

Can’t really disagree with any of that. It is way too easy to get carried away in the heat of debate. We are talking about brothers, and we have disagreements. We do need to allow brethren to differ and it may mean we can’t work closely together. I just noticed a facebook page of an old friend from BJU days. He is definitely in a much different orbit than me. I can maintain a personal friendship with a guy like that, but I couldn’t work in ministry with him.

However, I do think some seriously wrong decisions are being made by our erstwhile compatriots.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I think the margins of fundamentalism, both left and right, are probably a bit fuzzy. The GARBC is one of those types, IMO. I know there were some big battles, but I am not all that familiar with the history. I did read Tassel’s book years ago.

There are some people who claim the title of fundamentalist to whom I would never grant the title as I use it and so we have no ministry partnership. I don’t begrudge them, and for the most part say little to nothing about them. But then I am probably more separatist than most (for both practical and theological reasons), though it doesn’t bother me that people differ. My circle of fellowship/ministry partnership is pretty limited.

I do think a split is already underway and has been for many years. I am not troubled by that. I think there is too much of a difference about some things to profitably work together. So I think it is time for there to be a redrawing of some of the lines.

For my part, however, I would like to see a bit more gentleness and caution in impugning others hearts and motives. I think these things are not as clear cut as some seem to think. We can all agree that Romans 16:17-18 is true and necessary for biblical obedience while differing in good conscience about where exactly to draw the line. I think it is obvious that 2 Thess 3 refers to more than simply a lazy man in the church at Thessalonica, but exactly to how much more is a matter of some legitimate dispute.

So I think we need a renewed call for grace along with our firmness. I certainly have a sharp tongue at times and I have repented of that and asked forgiveness from people for the way that I have said some things. I see an awful lot of rancor that is, at times, even uninformed. I don’t mind strong and direct language. I think we need some caution however.

Thanks again.

Well, my only point is that for a real fissure to appear, someone else has to publicly go in the opposite direction. Otherwise you just have quiet acquiescence and the marginalization of the few who don’t like it and say so.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

As far as a split happening already, it is not quite fully tangible, but I think the decision has been made for many men on both sides of the current issues. IMO it will be an increasing drifting apart, that is already underway, not a single event or convention where sides choose to split on the spot as some denominations have been prone to do.

I saw and have been discussing the CCC/IFCA merger with some friends. I interact with a particular man who had a long history with, but pulled out of the IFCA over another earlier flap. He shared some helpful commets with me today.

Lou

Did you see the item about Clearwater and IFCA on SI? That fits the pattern.

I wouldn’t say a split has happened already, since only ‘pastors of small churches’ etc are saying anything. There will be a split only if other larger ministries censure the EFT moves that have already happened and follow it up with a break in fellowship / partnership of some kind (sometimes called separation).

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

“Now we are going to have to decide what to DO about it. I am not sure that 2011 will see a resolution to the question, but I suspect we are going to see additional deeds of EFT in the coming year.“

I am quite certain there will be more EFT convergences this year. What we saw in 2010 is just the beginning.

“Three options occur to me: 2.Resisting the change and experience a sharp split in what has heretofore been known as Fundamentalism.“

Like you, I also favor #2 and wonder what both sides are waiting for. The convergence with non-separatist evangelicals has made this unrecoverable. IMO, the split has happened already.

Lou

I think that you left a word out there, but I assume you are asking what he is saying that is revisionistic.

It seems to me that it is becoming increasingly clear that he has a GARBC viewpoint and considers the BJU / IFB viewpoint to be the extremist and minority point of view in fundamentalism. From my perspective, the GARBC was (and perhaps is still) on the margins of Fundamentalism, if it could really called fundamentalist at all. I am thinking of the Tassel-led GARBC and onwards when I say this. This viewpoint distorts reality, in my opinion. I have elsewhere noted that he distorts the history of evangelicalism by his so-called silent majority that were neither fundamentalist nor new evangelical. I don’t think this is accurate at all.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

What do you think the revisionism in KTB’s statements at Ben’s blog?

thanks,
Larry

Thanks for recapping your blogging year and boiling it down. I would agree with you on desiring option 2. While it certainly will not be the most peaceful of the options, it is the most Biblical. If we are indeed IFB and hold to the principle that the Bible is our ONLY rule for faith and practice then really option 2 is the only option to consider. Just my opinion.