Well, we all have sort of got off, you aren’t the only one!

I think that little rabbit trail might be worth a post of its own. I’ll think about it, maybe put something up tonight.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

It was an unintentional Rabbit Trail. I do love BWM – like I said we do support missionaries from there. In answer to your question, I could have been a little more clear. The particular church had a policy that they used a particular conservative translation in their church. So anyone preaching in their church was to do so from that translation. That is the churches right to do so. The church did was not against other conservative translations but in their local church only a particular translation was used. I think any mission organization should be fine with that policy.

Ok, off the rabbit trail and I will go back to oberving the discussion. Have a great day of ministry.

Hi Roger

First, do you know that I am a BWM missionary? So I don’t really want to get too much into discussing BWM policy specifically. I would suggest that you take it up with Dr. Steadman who is our director.

Are you serious that a church has adopted a NASB-only policy? Isn’t that counter-acting one wrong with another?

In any case, I think that in a situation like this, the missionary and the church should talk things over with BWM officials. I think they would find BWM to be emphatically for local church autonomy. I don’t know what the outcome of any discussions would be, but I would be surprised if there was any attempt to over-rule a local church. They might agree to disagree, don’t know.

Anyway, this is leading us off the general theme of my post, so perhaps we could leave off discussing BWM policy here?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Just and FYI about BWM. There policy is such that one of their missionaries is not allowed to use the translation that a local church uses even if that church’s policy is something other than KJV. I know of one church who asked BWM about this.
My sentence is confusing, so let me illustrate. Joe the missionary has a meeting scheduled with xyz Baptist church. XYZ soley uses the NASB – that is the only translation allowed in their pulpit. With BWM’s current policy Joe would not allowed to preach at XYZ because he is not allowed to use the NASB. Now should XYZ be a little more flexible? Maybe, maybe not. But I find troubling is that by having this policy, BWM is not taking this into account and they are in essence dictating to local churches.

I know for a fact the above scenario did happen. And my church does support BWM missionaries. The Board’s are in a tough position. But if our friends that are KJV in the sense you describe (I think most are, but we are catering to those who are not), they should have no problem with BWM allowing their canidates to preach from a conservative translation if that is what the church uses. Para church organizations should respect the autonomy of the local church.

No, it is not a label game. Dave has, however, been attempting to make the debate over labels. The true crux of the controversy and debate lies exactly where you noted it is above,

“But we are talking about direction here. Where should fundamentalists be heading? Should we now be associating and joining in ministry with conservative evangelicals? That is THE question!

Don, that is indeed THE question! The direction is toward embracing and ministering alongside an expanding circle of evangelicalism’s personalities.

LM

Hi Andy,

I am sympathetic also, in a general sense. In a way, it is appalling how slow we are to deal with some issues.

However, in spite of agreement with the complaints in general, these complaints aren’t the real problem. No one is talking about them, except as an excuse to ‘depart’ from Fundamentalism. The thing we are all talking about, and have been talking about for the last 6 or 7 years almost constantly is ‘what to do with the conservative evangelicals?’

It is all very easy to take shots at Fundamentalism and say, see, it has this problem and this problem and this problem. And then one looks away and sees the supposedly greener grass of Conservative Evangelicalism. Man, talk about a group not dealing with things! They won’t deal with charismatism, which has real inspiration problems, they won’t talk about ecumenical cooperation like Piper and Lausanne, they won’t talk much about the ongoing problems in the SBC, just claim there are no liberals anymore! (But look at the state conventions!)

So what I am seeing in this effort is just more of the same. See, we have our warts, so lets just forget those ‘funny-mentalists’ and join up with the good and the pure. Sure, that’ll fix everything.

OK, I’ll take off my Bixby hat and stop ranting! (I had it on backwards so the direction of the rant would be opposite to his!)

Regarding the KJV issues, this is a thorny thorny problem. Given the independent nature of fundamentalist churches, it seems a very difficult problem to solve because so many churches (plus individuals in other churches) have bought into the emotional “they’re coming to get our Bibles” arguments. I hope we can really work to make a positive difference in this area. We do need to get it somewhat resolved.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

I am sympathetic with much of what Dave has written. The one thing, though, that I would love to see him clarify is who are all these churches that believe in separation but are not self-proclaimed fundamentalists. I can’t figure out who he has in mind.

Regarding the KJV and mission boards, I remember looking at this once a few years ago and being very disappointed. I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. On the positive side, though, I’m assuming GFA allows their state-side church planters to use versions other than the KJV….because, I know of at least two that are doing so.

Re: “If…then…” … Well, if he is speaking of who I think he is speaking of, you will find very positive affirmations of very God, very man in one way or another in their writings. So? What do you do with all that?

Re: Peter as an heretic, I can’t think of any definition of heretic that fits the situation. He wasn’t dividing the church, such as it was, the original meaning of heretic, by keeping to his Jewish prejudices. None of them had really seriously thought about it up to that point. There wasn’t even a church in Antioch yet. And he wasn’t denying the faith, our modern view of heretic. So I don’t think the label fits.

It is clear that he was in error and needed correction/training. That’s all the vision was, I don’t read it as a harsh rebuke at all.

As for my biases, I am awash with biases. I am awash with rhetoric. I am a walking, bigoted, cliche. So sue me. I’m a fundamentalist!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

Please note that I said, “If they teach that his blood was divine, then they are denying the human, physical nature of Christ.”

This is an “If . . . then . . .” statement. If no one claims that the blood is divine (meaning non-physical), then we don’t have any problem.

Re: “Peter heretical? That’s a stretch.”

What would you call his refusal to abandon the ceremonial law? Call it what you will, God thougth it was sufficiently problematic to send him a vision, and Paul thought it was worthy of some harsh rebuke.

Could it be that your “too little too late” type rhetoric reveals a bias against the possibility of real change in people?

If someone believes the KJV is the only version any English speaking church should use b/c it is the only version of the Bible in English, then they are KJO.

Yes, but that doesn’t make them Ruckmanite.

I believe both groups you pose fit with the BWM policy. And as long as we are going to be in this ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ period with respect to the KJO issue, I think it makes perfect sense. I personally would prefer that we get a little more settled on this issue, but I am not holding my breath at this stage of the game.

On my sentence, please note the word “many”. I think it demolishes everything you are saying about my playing the label game. I think you are not reading me carefully and trying to make me say what I am not saying. Let me say it again: the LABEL IS NOT THE GOVERNING FACTOR IN UNDERSTANDING SEPARATISM. ACTUAL PRACTICE IS WHAT MATTERS.

In my observation, most who are happy to wear the label fundamentalist have a fairly biblical understanding and practice of separatism (not uniform, but close enough). Many who won’t wear the label but claim to be separatists show by their practice that they haven’t much of a clue about separation.

Note: that is my observation. It is totally anecdotal and should not be construed as the conclusion of any sort of scientific study. That there are some Biblical separatists who aren’t fundies by label is possible as a concept. I just don’t know of any.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3