“Mark Dever doesn’t practice separation?”
Really? Some have said this. But, I must confess that this comes as a surprise to me. I think defining marks of my time at CHBC have been involved with separation. So at our members’ meeting in May of 1996 we separated ourselves from most of our church’s members (256 disciplined for non-attendance!). Also, I remember the tears many of us shed over a marriage broken up in those early years, and the first of a number of excommunications we’ve decided (the latest being for a member who joined the Roman Catholic Church). These are sad duties, but we must separate ourselves from those who are openly disobedient to God’s command in His Word, whether that be to not forsake the regular assembling of ourselves, the command to marital faithfulness, to adhere to the Gospel, etc. For all of these matters, corrective church discipline which issues in separation (until the sinning party repents) is what is called for, and our elders have tried to lead our church into faithfulness in this area. And we have known not only the sadness of separation, but rejoicing in repentance. Regardless of what we experience, we see God’s Word is clear on this separation in the local church, and we intend to practice it.
Not only so, but I have advocated this in public teaching and writing. In fact, I have been caricatured and misrepresented for doing so. “OK,” my fundamentalist critic may respond, “but only in your local church.” Well, that is certainly my primary responsibility. And the Lord’s teaching through Matt. 18 and I Cor. 5 is certainly given with the local church primarily in view.
Having said that, I have tried to have a wider ministry of encouraging godly cooperation and discouraging ungodly associations. This is one of the sources of my being unpopular and even unwelcome in some circles. So we declined an invitation to give leadership in DC to a Graham-like crusade. Furthermore, we worked to get the Southern Baptist Convention to de-fund the local DC Baptist Convention, because (among other reasons) the convention’s organ, the Capital Baptist, had mocked those who believed that faith in Jesus was the only way to be forgiven for our sins, or who believed that Mormons need to be evangelized. I could go on. In fact, our own giving to the Southern Baptist Convention is targeted—it is focused on the International Mission Board, in order to help us fulfill the Great Commission. I regularly decline to speak at conferences because of who else is speaking there. On the 9marks website we critically review books. In our Together for the Gospel statement of faith, we deliberately had Affirmations AND DENIALS. In personal and private conversations I seek correction from others, and try to faithfully and lovingly rebuke others. Indeed, my recent conversations with Mark Minnick have been, in part, attempts to encourage us to do this with each other, so that we may both follow the commands of God in Scripture more faithfully.
In fact, such willingness to correct and be corrected is fundamental to leading a Christian congregation. So each Sunday evening, the CHBC staff reviews the day’s services and public teachings. In doing this, we hope to model giving and receiving godly criticism and encouragement. Soliciting critical, correcting feedback and responding to it is a large part of the burden that I am trying to faithfully model and encourage in other, younger pastors.
So, in light of all this, do I really not practice separation?
I think what my loving critics mean is “Mark doesn’t practice separation as well as we do.” Which may be true. When it is clear whom I should separate from, I mean to separate. But I have not yet come to understand the consistency in the “fundamentalist” practice of separation. That’s what some of you heard me searching for in my interview with Mark Minnick (a dear man, and clearly a brother in Christ with a commitment to God’s Word). To make my point, I share with you three simple questions:
1. Is ______ a sin?
2. Is this sin (mentioned in #1) a sin we should separate over?
3. If so, what should this separation consist of? What should it include and what should it allow?
My question to fundamentalists is this: is there liberty between Christians of good will and basic orthodoxy on the Gospel to disagree over any or all of these three questions? I have not yet perceived how in a fallen world there can always be complete consistency of practice on these matters between churches. I think some allowance must be made for differences with our brothers on such issues. And such differences should not necessarily bar us from fellowshipping and associating with each other. I think of Romans 14:4 “Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls.” Of course, there are some issues that seem to me both so important and clear that disagreement on them will affect, and perhaps even end my fellowship with someone who disagrees. But there will also be other issues which though important are not so clear, OR that are very clear to me in Scripture, but not quite so important. In these issues, I long to fellowship with and to work with as many of those for whom Christ died as I can.
Pray for me, and work together with me to lead the bride of Christ to be pure—purely faithful and purely attractive for the God we represent.
To sum it up, I want my separation from the world to be more pronounced than my separation from other Christians. Does this make sense?
Mark:
Thanks for addressing this issue so plainly. I grew up at BJU and I respect Dr. Minnick greatly but I after listening to the interview I had more questions than at the beginning. I heard distinctly what you were trying to ask. And what I heard from Dr. Minnick was an apparent inability to explain biblical separation from the fundamentalist viewpoint. Your position seems cogent and biblical. If a guy as obviously smart and spirit-led and committed to God's word as Minnick cannot elucidate the issue, how am I supposed to understand or apply it!
In early fundamentalism there was a lot of fellowship with guys who were in mainstream, increasingly apostate denominations but they were good fundamentalists. Somewhere after 1958 it became impossible to be a fundamentalist and be in a denomination. But while we have been practicing separation we have failed to hone the skill of unity. We have put up with a lot of goofiness in fundamentalism but we cannot work with a guy who is in the SBC! I just don't get it.
I appreciate your take on separation as a local church matter. I had never really heard that before.
Posted by: Jon | Jun 15, 2008 7:26:44 AM
Bro. Dever,
I don't have time for a full response, I'll try to put one on my own blog a bit later.
I am a BJU graduate (a former student of Mark Minnick's in Pulpit Speech, lo, these many years ago ... about 30 to be exact). I am a committed fundamentalist.
In my view, it is a mistake to call church discipline separation. Church discipline is difficult and necessary, but it isn't what the fundamentalists and the evangelicals divided over in the 1950s. You confuse the issue by adding church discipline to the mix.
A key concept is the meaning of the term "fellowship". In our current usage, fellowship has been watered down in English to mostly mean 'friendly social interaction'. Koinonia, I believe, is much closer to our English term 'partnership' than 'fellowship' [in current usage]. In a business partnership, each partner is completely liable for the commitments of the other partner. One must be sure of one's partner.
When it comes to ecclesiastical partnership, i.e., sharing pulpits, joining together in conferences, boards, evangelistic efforts, etc., I must be sure of my partners lest I become entangled in their liabilities. See 2 Jn and not bidding godspeed.
So for example, your association with Mark Driscoll's organization, with the emergent fellows at the Whiteboard Sessions, and even the ongoing connection with the SBC are things that make ecclesiastical partnership with you very problematic for me. I don't want to be in partnership with those fellows.
There are others with whom you would partner who have aberrations in theology that are significant enough for me to refuse partnership. And still others whose worship seems so worldly that I would not want to be in partnership with that, either.
I am only speaking for myself, but this is a small sample of fundamentalist philosophy as I understand it. There are a number of folks who appear to be disgruntled with fundamentalism who are ready to ignore the ramifications of these partnerships, but I just can't go there.
I hope that might bring a little light to the issue.
Now I've got to beat it... It's 8:30 am here, and I'll be in the pulpit in an hour and a half.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Donald Johnson | Jun 15, 2008 10:33:07 AM
Well said Pastor Mark! I am always learning from you and once again you have helped me in thinking through this issue.God bless you.
Posted by: Frank Emrich | Jun 15, 2008 12:35:25 PM
Mark,
I deeply appreciate your honest and forthright interaction with the idea of separation. Thanks for taking the time to wrestle through this.
If I could recommend some helpful reading in this regard, it would be the writings of Kevin Bauder (http://www.centralseminary.edu/index.asp?m=671). Unfortunately he has not yet compiled his research into a formal publication (may it be soon!), but you will get an idea of his line of thinking from the essays linked below. I believe you will find his treatment of the issue to be very clear and nuanced.
"Separation from Professing Brethren - Notes Toward an Understanding," http://sharperiron.org/2006/07/01/separation-from-professing-brethren-notes-toward-an-understanding/#more-452
"Thinking About the Gospel: The Gospel and Christian Fellowship," http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick125.html
"Thinking About the Gospel: Demeaning the Gospel," http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick126.html
"Thinking About the Gospel: Frontloading the Gospel," http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick127.html
I have also found a very interesting treatment by the Presbyterian Church in America here: http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-052.pdf
To highlight a helpful quote from that last treatment: "On the one hand we must avoid an unnecessary aloofness that can lead to a false pride and even further separations over less and less crucial issues. On the other hand we should avoid fellowship on an ecclesiastical level that will lead to participation with or tacit approval of those who undermine the Faith in doctrine or life." (p. 71).
Grace and peace,
Chuck Bumgardner
Posted by: Chuck Bumgardner | Jun 15, 2008 2:53:09 PM
Mark,
Thanks for posting this. I hope it provokes some profitable discussion. I believe the interview with Mark Minnick has done so, and I’ve been involved in a few conversations lately that have been prompted in part because of things like these.
I’ll start by saying that I disagree with any fundamentalist who says that you do not separate, and agree with you that what they really mean is that you do not separate enough. And, as you know, that’s the big question for those of us who stand on the fundamentalist side of the divide that happened in the middle of the last century. Specifically, at this stage of history what constitutes a sufficient commitment to and expression of the separatist position? It would be nice if the answer to that were found simply by entering data into a formula, but it’s not that simple.
But I’d like to appeal for a little sympathy for those of us who struggle with this question. When viewed in the light of the past 75 years, it is very clear that separatist fundamentalists have taken many unjustified hits at the hands of the modernists and then from their Christian brothers, the new evangelicals. Pull out some old books and articles and find them being mocked and ridiculed by men like Carnell, Vernon Grounds, etc. Read Marsden’s history of Fuller and think about the ethical ramifications of how that school presented its public image in order to keep fundamentalist money coming in all the while it was turning away from the fundamentalist position (and doctrines). Ponder the sense of frustration for separatists who warned, based on evidence, for years that Billy Graham was making an unholy alliance with apostates and Roman Catholics, only to be told to shut up and go away (and the Catholic connection was denied publicly well after it was being practiced privately).
I mention these things simply because they significantly effect the mindset of fundamentalists, creating a hesitancy because we don’t want to get fooled again. We watched what happened when a deliberate plan was hatched to minimize doctrinal deviations for the sake of unity and for obtaining positions of influence in the denominations, schools, and culture. We watched solidly orthodox men, ministries, and schools open the doors to doctrinal errors which spread like leaven. Who would have figured that the movement started by the “new evangelicals” would end up where it has? While exact specification of cause and effect is hard in these situations, it seems clear that the open stance of that movement was its undoing. It was overconfident about its ability to gain the favor of unbelieving scholars and cultural elites, and about its ability to renegotiate a contemporary expression of the faith. In broader evangelicalism it seems as if any doctrine can be redefined without worrying that evangelicalism itself may be left behind—inspiration, justification, explicit faith in Christ, etc.
So we are cautious, perhaps to a fault, but also perhaps wisely. Since, as you’ve pointed out, the local church is the primary place of concern, then it is wise to be careful about the local church’s relationships. We may seem like isolationists to outsiders, but there is an incredible amount of cooperation happening between like-minded separatists. We’re planting churches, sending out missionaries, training pastors, and aggressively committed to local church life. In reality, we decided a long time ago that we don’t have to have big denominations, fellowships, schools, or conferences. We’re not trying to impact the culture or change the denominations, we’re just working in our churches to obey the Great Commission. And we think there’s ample biblical and historical evidence to make us very cautious about the subtleties of error and compromise.
It is important to remember who abandoned whom 60 years ago. The New Evangelicals left the Fundamentalists and did so with a high hand. We’re both basically the grandchildren of the men from that era, so it’s understandable that we might be trying to figure each other out at this stage of the game. A lot of water has gone under the bridge, but that doesn’t mean that the basic positions have truly changed. As a general statement, I doubt that most evangelicals think that the ecumenical evangelism of that era was the abomination that most fundamentalists think it to be. As a general statement, I doubt that most evangelicals think that the Evangelicals and Catholics effort is so offensive as to have it radically realign fellowship, but most fundamentalists would find it hard to ignore. The question on our side is simple—if those things don’t matter enough to affect relationships, then are we really as close to each other as it may seem?
I apologize for the length of my comment. This discussion matters a lot to me. I don’t want unnecessary separations, but maintaining a good conscience before God matters very much, and there is a lot of ground that was lost because of new evangelicalism. I am more than willing to leave it to God to judge His servants, and I want to be faithful so that I am prepared for that judgment. Just as you want some room to do what you believe is right before the Lord, please allow us the same.
For the sake of His name,
Dave Doran
Posted by: Dave | Jun 15, 2008 8:26:46 PM
I am a big fan of all the work that 9 Marks has done and I am very appreciative of how the Lord has used Mark Dever to edify so many through his writings. I have personally benefitted from reading his books and have pointed others to 9 Marks for a resource to use within their local church.
My area of concern and maybe this doesnt fall strictly within the confines of this discussion is Mark Dever's association with those that clearly practice matters that are contrary to what is supported by 9 Marks. I am especially concerned with Mark's appearance at the recent Whiteboard conference. I am going to single out one pastor here but it is confusing and troubling that Mark would share the stage with Perry Noble who has some troubling views and practices such as:
1. Perry's views on TD Jakes. Jakes holds to modulism. Perry praises Jakes:
http://www.perrynoble.com/2008/04/24/what-if-pastors/
http://www.perrynoble.com/2008/02/27/thoughts-from-c3-day-two/
Perry calls Jakes "one of the most anointed men on the planet". Interesting, considering the heresy that Jakes holds to.
2. Perry's careless words on the latest book "The Shack"
http://www.perrynoble.com/2008/06/10/what-ive-been-reading/
where Perry says about The Shack: "It will definitely cause you to look and God in an entirely different way". A book filled with heresy yet Perry does nothing to try to protect his flock from the false teaching found within the book.
3. Also in that same post, Perry praises the work of John Eldredge. Eldredge's books have been reviewed on 9 Marks as well in a less than favorable light.
4. Perry's methodology within his local church. Coming to the stage carried in a casket, his praise band playing secular songs such as "Friends in Low Places" and AC/DCs "Hells Bells".
I could go on. But all of this runs contrary to what Mark Dever and 9 Marks claim. It could lead to confusion when Mark shares the stage with men such as Perry Noble as Mark's presence no matter how well intentioned can be seen as an endorsement of the other speakers of a given conference such as Whiteboard. In some sense the work of 9 Marks is undermined by Mark appearing with men that do the very opposite of what 9 Marks is doing and claims to believe.
It is a confusing signal to send to be sure. I, for one, was taken back by Mark Dever's agreeing to speak at Whiteboard. I do not see what was accomplished other than damaging the credibility of 9 Marks.
Posted by: sam | Jun 16, 2008 6:47:09 AM
I've had conversations with such "loving critics", and I've always wondered what your take was on the matter. Thank you for clearing that up for all of us.
Posted by: Andrew Randazzo | Jun 16, 2008 7:09:49 AM
Mark:
Thanks for your candid views of separatism. I think this is actually where a number of us are even within self-identified fundamentalism. Those to the right of us suggest that some of us are not fundamentalists because we do not draw the lines where they do (e. g. Bible versions). Fundamentalism has tended too often to be self-defining among individual leaders. This has caused unnecessary fragmentation within the Body of Christ and hinders the genuine defense of the truth. For some, EVERYTHING is a matter of separatism.
What many of us wish to hear the more conservative wing of evangelicalism say
1) Separatism is not, in and of itself, DIVISIVE. It may divide believers but it is not divisive to the cause of the gospel. Rather (like church discipline), it is a necessary part of maintaining gospel truth. It is interesting to me that Murray’s book Evangelicalism Divided came out before SBTS participated in the Billy Graham Louisville Crusade. Despite the significant evidence of Billy’s undermining the gospel, SBTS students were encouraged to participate it the meetings. Iain Murray, no fundamentalist, pointed out succinctly Billy’s problems. The issue was that NO line was drawn. Was Iain being divisive by telling the truth? [N.B. I do understand that Billy gave assurances that no Roman Catholics would participate, but there were others who did participate who preached at the time a defective gospel.]
2) Separatism is both necessary and biblical. ETS a few years back tried (unsuccessfully) to deal with open theism. That whole action sounded like separatism at some level. Yet some of the very men who tried to push Pinnock and Sanders out in Atlanta, disparage the notion of separatism as a concept. I appreciate your willingness to talk about this with us. The truth is that even among ourselves, consensus is a difficult thing to find. For this reason, we need to give one another a bit of breathing room to search the Scriptures individually and apply the truth personally.
No one WANTS to withdraw fellowship from a true believer, certainly not any more than a pastor with a shepherd’s heart wants to withdraw fellowship from a sinning congregant. In both cases, fellowship is withdrawn out of allegiance to Christ and for the sake of the Gospel. In one case, the testimony of the local assembly is in view, in the other, the testimony of the wider Body of Christ.
Respectfully
Jeff Straub
Associate Professor of Historical Theology
Central Baptist Seminary
Minneapolis
Posted by: Jeff Straub | Jun 16, 2008 11:56:54 AM
For those interested in exploring source material on the issue of ecclesiastical separation, I have compiled a link page of online resources here: http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/resources-on-ecclesiastical-separation/
Posted by: Chuck Bumgardner | Jun 16, 2008 2:00:01 PM
Jeff,
What would BE "divisive to the cause of the gospel"? This is a new phrase to me.
Posted by: David T. | Jun 16, 2008 2:29:03 PM
Dave --
The New Evangelicals left the Fundamentalists and did so with a high hand. We’re both basically the grandchildren of the men from that era, so it’s understandable that we might be trying to figure each other out at this stage of the game.
I think I would disagree with that. By and large Evangelicals are children of people from mainline congregations. Fundamentalist grandparents took part in the modernist-fundamentalist wars evangelicals grandparents didn't, on average. That is most right protestants today either came from mainstream denominations or their parents did. They responded to suburban church growth movement and christian right movement.
Posted by: CD-Host | Jun 16, 2008 4:23:12 PM
Sam --
Are you really advocating for tertiary separation, on suspicion of heresy?
T.D. Jakes has not been disciplined
Perry likes Jakes
Dever likes Perry
And you are "troubled" i.e. might have to separate from Dever.
There are 6 or less degrees of separation between you and every heretic on the planet. One degree is biblical, 2 is questionable. 3 is no longer questionable its just wrong.
Also here is Perry's quote in context:
In my opinion this book is an excellent piece of fiction writing that is loaded with some tricky theological issues. I’ve seen both positive and negative reviews on it…but I can say that, for the most part, I enjoyed it. It made me think…and I love books that make me do that. It will definitely cause you to look and God in an entirely different way.
He refers to the book as "fiction" and the theology as "tricky". Me thinks you are being a bit unfair in a public accusation here for soft on modalism.
Posted by: CD-Host | Jun 16, 2008 4:33:02 PM
1. Modalism is a heresy. As Christians we should separate ourselves from false teachings. AND as a pastor, there is a greater responsibility to protect the flock from false teachings and not call them "one of the most anionted men". My question is why would Dever associate with someone who praises someone that holds to a view of modalism? Would Dever share a stage with Jakes?
2. Yes, The Shack is fiction. So is Brian McLaren's "New kind of Christian". Fiction is used as a device by these men to tell a story in which they incorporate their views on theology. In the case of The Shack, a heretical view of the Trinity is represented. Albert Mohler also has a review on this book where he warns other Christians not to read it because it is full of error. Again, Perry, as a pastor has a responsibility and duty to protect his flock from false teaching and he fails again by not warning people about this book especially the newly saved people within his congregation.
Yes, I am troubled by Dever's speaking at Whiteboard with the lineup of speakers that were there. Quite a contrast from the speakers at Together for the Gospel.
Posted by: Sam | Jun 16, 2008 6:36:32 PM
Sam --
I'm not arguing that modalism is not a heresy or that the shack doesn't preach modalism. There is no debate there.
My debate is with tertiary separation. Its also with the standard of proof. Before declaring a modalist and declaring them a heretic I think we need either:
a) Overwhelming evidence
or if they belong to a biblical church
b) A declaration of heresy from that church.
For example I've probably written 200+ pages on Saint Jerome's views on biblical sexuality all over the internet and I don't believe any of his views are correct. I have no trouble imagining how easy it would be for someone to take quotes out of context and build a very good case, how supportive of the convent movement I am.
Jakes not being disciplined by his church already strikes me as strong counter evidence. The proper way to establish what Jakes actually believes in modalism is Matt 18. Or less formally, start the process and ask him to respond on the record and give him the chance to present his views. For example he may not know what modalism, and only if he persists in these after being educated does he qualify as a heretic.
But lets assume that burden was met and overwhelming evidence did exist in your opinion that T.D. Jakes is a heretical modalist. Perry has a different assessment of the evidence. A difference of opinion with regards to discernment is not sufficient for separation. So even if Dever agreed with you regarding Jakes as long as he believed that Perry honestly disagreed he is still not obligated to separate.
Lets assume that Perry did believe that Jakes was a modalist. And lets further assume that Perry won't separate, he believes any trinitarian position is sufficient to avoid separation. Dever doesn't agree that Perry's application of separation is correct. Dever still shouldn't separate from Perry.
Now lets make it worse. Lets assume that Perry does think Jakes is a heretic and does believe he probably should separate but he thinks the practicalities are against it. Then Dever could potentially separate under secondary separation. But if he didn't I still don't see how your separation is justified. Improper practice of secondary separation is not grounds for separation. What you are describing is tertiary separation and I see no biblical support for that.
Now for Perry on the shack I think you are missing the point. He isn't viewing The Shack as teaching doctrine. You disagree and assert it is a doctrinal work. I happen to think you are absolutely right on this point and I would assert that The Shack is a textbook teaching modalism. But I'm not justified in separating from Perry because his literary analysis is poor.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Posted by: CD-Host | Jun 16, 2008 8:19:08 PM
David T.:
Many have argued that fundamentalism has made issues where none exist and has fractured the Church or a portion therefore (evangelicalism), and is hence divisive. Ergo, this divisiveness is a hinderance to the furtherance of the Gospel. I whole heartedly agree that we should make every attempt to get "Together for the Gospel." But this also demands that we stand apart from some who undermine the very gospel we are standing together for, even as Mark Dever has alluded to in his original piece.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Straub | Jun 16, 2008 10:00:04 PM
This discussion has been interesting but it all revolves around one basic problem. "You are not as separated as me." One man says that he would not go to Whiteboard, yet when I listened to Pastor Dever's address and Q&A at Whiteboard I think he went in and hit them squarely with some of their biggest problems. One of the biggest problems I have with Fundamentalism as that we have developed a finely honed method of writing people off. We declare them to be New-Evangelical or Seeker or whatever and then we just separate and never look back.
I appreciate Dever bringing in the Matt 18 paradigm to the separation discussion because Fundamentalism has often closed the door to reconciliation.
Fundamentalism separated so effectively from most Evangelicals that a smart, well-read, highly studied guy like Dever has no idea what we have been saying! He has to go looking for it. But the Emerging folks know what Dever, Mohler, Piper, MacArthur and the Pyros are saying about them. I appreciated the fact that Dever asked Minnick the question, "What would it take for us to work together?" It seems to have caught Dr. Minnick off guard. I would love to see a return to a time when Fundamentalists could go places and stand up and strongly preach the fundamentals to non-fundamentalists! What we have now is a lot of preaching to the choir. We circle the wagons and preach separation to the separated instead of going outside the camp and preaching discerning militancy to those who are mired in the milieu of American Evangelicalism.
Jon Bell (Bucksport, ME)
Posted by: Jon | Jun 17, 2008 7:27:45 AM
Thanks to Mark, Dave Doran, and Jeff Straub for engaging in this discussion. I don't think I'm alone among my peers in my expectation that these kinds of conversations will produce much good fruit.
A question to Dave and Jeff:
The side conversation here about associations and implied endorsements are fairly typical of the arguments that have been used to defend separating from various conservative evangelicals over the years. What is your perspective on these kinds of issues? Is the fact that Mark Dever spoke in the same conference as various types of evangelicals a valid reason to mark him as a New Evangelical/"disobedient brother" and maintain walls of separation from him.
Thanks,
Ben Wright
Posted by: Ben Wright | Jun 17, 2008 11:06:58 AM
Jeff-
Thanks for the response. So if separation is only valid when it concerns issues "divisive to the cause of the gospel", isn't that the same as saying that as long as they have it right on salvation by grace through faith and nature of Christ and His work, there is no valid ground for separation? I have always understood this to be the position of evangelicals. Fundamentalists usually consider this to be too "reductionist." Am I right?
Posted by: David T. | Jun 17, 2008 12:54:30 PM
It seems to me in this separation discussion we are missing a key component. Doesn't separation always involve the act of "marking and avoiding" the disobedient brother? The Bible goes on to say that if you have to go this far then you are at a point where they are "being turned over to Satan." The scripture seems to emphasize separation is our LAST resort! Doesn't it seem pretty harsh to say you have marked and avoided and turned men like John Mac., Piper and Dever over to Satan? And if you're not willing to go that far then there should be no reason to separate from them in any compacity. It seems the only clear reason to separate from another person is if they are CLEARLY in unrepentent sin (adultery, covetous, fornication, etc...). I don't think we should be separating over issues that can legitimately be debated from both sides of the spectrum (i.e. baptism, women, church practice, etc.). It actually seems ludicrous to do so if you take all the separation passages in their context. To be honest its hard to believe an individual or denomination could take these principles so far.
Posted by: Jeremy Matson | Jun 17, 2008 2:58:57 PM
Mark, it seems to me from conversation & teaching that I have heard within the fundamental circles that the attention given to conservative evangelicals and their "lack of ecclesiastical separation" has been selective at best. I have heard men whom I respect speak negatively (but graciously) of men like yourself and steps that you (& others) had and hadn't taken that they "respectfully" disapproved of. I think the line here between arrogance and discretion/sincerity is micro-thin. To be frank, I had never heard some of the positive details regarding separation of some of the conservative evangelicals (the t4g group, etc.) before attending the 9Marks Weekender in May of this year. I would put forward that if someone is going to be dogmatic on an issue like this, it would be fitting that they should have all the facts and be careful not to misrepresent people.
Posted by: Brandon Godwin | Jun 17, 2008 4:11:20 PM
I must agree with Brandon. Facts are the foundational points from which "good" fruit will come. Without facts any comment good or bad is going beyond our conversation being seasoned with salt and happens to reach far beyond yea or nay commanded by our Lord. I personally do not watch or listen to Jakes. Therefore I cannot comment on Him or His doctrine. I have listened to Mark and watched him interact with a panel of men to discuss issues and answer questions. Mark has not given any reason for me to think him anything but worthy of the office he holds in service to the King of Kings.
As for sharing the stage with those we might disagree with. To stress my point I will insert myself in this example. I am Baptist. I consider myself conservative. If I were asked to stand and preach on stage with any other denomination you can be sure I will. Why? If they ask me it is their responsibility to k now where I stand doctrinally. If they ask me it is my duty to preach the gospel. You can be sure I will. My time will not be wasted on pleasantries, political corectness or tender attempts at truth. If we are going to issue charges against our brother, Mark Dever, shouldn't we do it on the grounds of his doctrine mixed with his actions. So far he has been faithful to the word on any stage I have heard him preach from.
May we all learn from these discussions.
Brett
Posted by: Brett Clements | Jun 17, 2008 6:45:49 PM
My dilemma with this whole Fundamentalist thing is that they always seem to talk down about an Evangelical brother as if they aren't reading hte same Bible. Why is this? Do they see themselves as superior to others? Is it a fighting mentality instilled in them from their earliest years? I think the reason most of them get any negative press in the books/journal articles is because they make such incredible statements (i.e. above) about men who are really commited. When people fight, others naturally want to defend themselves and their positions. If a friend of mine was being called out- I'd write something about the positions and defend him. Any good friend would do this. So, if evangelicals are getting accused falsely- they will defend themselves. Which goes both wyas. But we need to talk about the issues- not label each other. This whole separation thing has me baffled. Separation should be "a" position hled among others, not "the" position emphasized above all others. It seems to me that every discussion by Fundamentalist pastors/bloggers on the net about this is like reading dialogue with a bunch of gerbels in a cage about the separation issue. Why not jsut make the deicision you believe is right for your church/family and move on with it? Why is this such a debated issue? I just don't get it. I know, I'm probbaly one of the "disobedient" in someone's eyes. But, obviously Mark Dever is respected by many of you- so join the team with those you respect and look to Christ!
Posted by: Jeremy Matson | Jun 17, 2008 8:03:55 PM
Here's the link to Mark Dever's interview with Ed Stetzer at Whiteboard if anyone was interested:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zxSeamqaQes
Posted by: Terry B | Jun 17, 2008 8:16:40 PM
Ben:
A short reponse.
1.) It's not my mission in life to be a watchdog for anyone else's walk before God, including Mark Dever. In all of my interactions with him, in person or through his writings, I have been edified and seen in him a true partner in the Lord's work. I use Polity with my theology students and find his work very helpful, especially on church discipline.
2). I have not seen anything like "new evangelicalism" (a now hopelessly out-dated term) in his ministry.
Is he a "disobedient brother?" Aren't we all at some level. He goes places I would not, as I understand things, to use his influence FOR righteousness. This good or bad? Depends on who you ask. Kevin Bauder went to Beeson a number of years ago to present fundamentalism first hand. The bedfellows were strange, but the message was not mixed.
Moreover, I have encouraged Mark next time he comes to Minneapolis, to make time to see our seminary and meet our president. While they would have some significant points of disagreement, there would also be significant points of agreement. As far as Mark speaking at a particular conference (Whiteboard?), did he go there to support the ideas put forth or to offer a counterpoint? I don't know enough to say one way or the other. Therefore I'll leave the pronouncement of judgment against Mark Dever for that transgression to another.
Jeff Straub
Posted by: Jeff Straub | Jun 17, 2008 8:57:36 PM
Jeff,
I know you are not necessarily respondning to any particular post, but I appreciate your response- but I'm still a little baffled. If you have respect for Mark Dever and you have encouraged him to come to your seminary and "take a look" (I'm not sure what that means)- then are you fellowsipping with him? At this point- have you not broken your own definition of the biblical practice of separation to do so? If we are to "mark and avoid" those we separate from and separating is a VERY serious matter- then how can you have ANY fellowship? If I define it the way the Fundamentalist seems to define it - then ther is no way for them to be consistent. Hence- this is where I'd have to say -- how can this position possibly be Biblical? It seems to me you have to have a "hench club" who makes all the dicisions about who is/who isn't worthy/acceptable? Am I wrong?
Posted by: Jeremy Matson | Jun 17, 2008 10:09:02 PM