You wrote, “I agreed with it at the time, but that was almost 17 years ago. It seems impossible to deny that there have been changes all across the board in the past 17 years.”

Certainly, there have been changes all across the board, some in the SBC. Have your views on the SBC changed from what you co-drafted in the 1994-95 FBF resolutions?

LM

I am the “you-know-who” that posted the FBF resolutions Dave Doran assisted in the drafting and approval of.

You wrote, “Do you [Dave Doran] agree with the 1994 FBF resolution posted recently by you-know-who that states that the conservative parties “within the SBC still accept the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham which makes them New Evangelicals…”?
Today, you will find some SBC men who support the Billy Graham crusades. And we can go back to 2001 and find Dr. Al Mohler serving in the leadership of the 2001 Billy Graham crusade in Louisville. We can go back to 2009 and find Mohler as well as a significant number of lesser known SBC men signing the Manhattan Declaration, which gave Christian recognition to the Roman Catholic Church and undermined the Gospel. Then there is the RAP/Hip-Hop culture making inroads in the SBC as well as movements such as Charismatic theology firmly set in the SBC community.

BTW, this morning you added two earlier FBF resolutions from 1981 on the SBC and Fundamentalism to the current thread. They were very helpful, thanks.

Kind regards,

You-Know-Who

I agreed with it at the time, but that was almost 17 years ago. It seems impossible to deny that there have been changes all across the board in the past 17 years. FWIW, a very godly man who spoke at that FBF meeting expressed his disappointment to me the day that resolution passed because he felt it was too broadly stated and did not leave room for the fact that there were men and churches in the SBC that didn’t fit that description. I think his exact words included the phrase “broad brush.” His assessment caught me completely off guard, but it did get me thinking more carefully than I had been.

thanks for that clarification. In my haste I think I misread your statement about being consistent with past decisions as a criterion rather than a present assessment.

I have two further questions, I’m probably going to sound like I’m playing both sides here, but I beg the benefit of your doubt as I ask them. Of course either you or Don can decide if they are apprpriately pursued in this comment stream.

1. If in considering the wisdom of various speaking engagements the opinions of FBFdom and DTBS “constituency” come into play (and I do not assert they do–this is hypothetical), is that necessarily a “fear of man” issue?

2. Do you agree with the 1994 FBF resolution posted recently by you-know-who that states that the conservative parties “within the SBC still accept the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham which makes them New Evangelicals…”?

Again, even if you decide not to engage these points now, thanks for your earlier clarification.

I read through the thread and I think you have been fairly consistent in saying the problem with CHBC is their connection to the SBC. I’m not sure I would say you have been clear, but having now made that clear and definitive statement, as I read back through your comments, I can see that is what you are saying.

Your comment at the Preserving the Truth Conference was “I won’t come and preach is because I don’t agree with stances that you’ve taken and your church might be an anomaly…”

I grant that this was an off the cuff response so I won’t hold you to any kind of inquisitory parsing, but I am sure that you can see this answer seems to imply a problem with Dever personally and with the church as a body in the SBC.

If the wisdom of speaking at CHBC is settled solely and only by its SBC affiliation, I do wonder if you would now be willing to have Dever speak at Inter-City, something you previously held you would not do. He is, after all, an officer in some SBC denominational roles, is he not? On the board of Southern Seminary, I think? (I can’t find a list of board of directors at their site, so perhaps I am wrong on that.) If the SBC affiliation is the sole objectionable issue with respect to the church, how is the pastor himself unconnected from that objectionable affiliation?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

D4–I have, as far as I can recall, believed that there is a boundary line between permissible and impermissible ministry relationships, but that being inside the permissible realm does not obligate you to do everything that is possible to do (and I doubt anybody disagrees with me on that last point). We all make decisions about what we will do in terms of what we believe is the wisest course of action. There are a lot of factors which play into deciding a wisest course and seldom will everyone agree on what constitutes the wisest decision. It is important, though, to recognize the difference between decisions which violate clear biblical truth and those which fall within permissible grounds although debated as to the wisdom factor.

I am not sure what you mean by “maintaining a consistency with [my] own personal history of decisions.” I don’t think I’ve said anything like “I won’t do that now because I didn’t do it before.” I think I did say something like “I have always tried to make decisions in this way.” I have also considered whether a decision would be inconsistent (or appear to be so) with things that I have taught. I guess I’m not clear about what you’re asking, so if I’ve not answered the right question, sorry.

If you’re still around reading this, you raised an interesting distinction here, specifically that, beyond the rightness/wrongness issues your decisions in these matters have been motivated by “the wisdom” of speaking certain places and maintaining a consistency with your own personal history of decisions.

Would you be willing to expand on those latter two?