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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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/

Jeff,

What would BE "divisive to the cause of the gospel"? This is a new phrase to me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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!

Here's the link to Mark Dever's interview with Ed Stetzer at Whiteboard if anyone was interested:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zxSeamqaQes

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

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?

Jeremy:

First, as a "tee-totaler", I don't "fellowsip" with anyone. I suppose you would have to hold Mark Driscoll's view of home brew to do that.

All kidding aside, what you are missing here is that through out the Christian community there are levels of fellowship according to doctrinal solidarity. Even Mark Dever recognizes this. He can fellowship with Ligon Duncan at one level, T4G, but could not plant a church with him (I presume). So there is a de facto limitation even in their fellowship.

I can recognize many men as good brothers but not work with them in every way or in every event.

Moreover, I really think this should NOT be about any one person in particular because fundamentalists themselves are divided as to how far one may go with this person or that. Ironically, where I first learned my fundamentalism, we were encouraged to go as far on the right road with a man as we could.

Moreover, "mark and avoid" need not mean publicly rebuke and have no communication at all.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. That's helpful. I actually had that "right road" quote in mind as I was writing my question.

Teetotaling? Haven't heard that word in a while. I guess I deserve that for typing so quickly. By the way, a good Heineken could break you of your dry streak.

Seriously, I really don't understand how you can say there are levels of fellowship from Scripture the way the Fundamentalist say it should be practiced. Form my understanding of the positions within this dialogue- it seems that anyone that is not deemed under "full fellowship" is deemed disobedient. As far as Mark Dever goes, he may not start a church with a guy for practical reasons- but I think he'd still stand next to the guy at a conference and give articulate his position vs. the other guys. He wouldn't be "seprating" from the man because he sees the other man as "disobedient" or whatever it would be deemed.

It seems to me that as I dialogue with Fundamentalists their whole goal is to pursuade me that their position is the right one- which most likely won't ever happen because I would embrce John Mac. and Piper and the rest fully. I would even stand on the platform with them- Since I'm in high demand this has been a real dilemma at times- laugh.

Anyway, I still don't see it. I've read a lot of the blogs and to be honest with you (and I say this with grace) that some of these people just sound crazy. Maybe even a little mentally unstable. I wonder if this has more to do with real spiritual deception. I hope I do not offend you with my last comments- but is possible that Fundamentalists are blinded by a spiritual delusion with these extrme positions? If not, than someone please tell in the Bible (NT- please) where these "levels" appear in fellowship with believers? Wasn't it Peter who was rebuked for his lack of fellowhsip with the Gentiles? Wasn't he called out by Paul to repent for his devisiveness? I think if another evangelical is upset with Fundamentalists its for this reason. I really believe it is wrong to hold a sectarian position so staunchly. so how do I tell you this with grace without you thinking "I just don't get it" or that "he just must not want to see the truth--he just wants to revel in his sinful drunken frenzy- laugh again"

Jeremy

I think it might be helpful for you to read books by Ernest Pickering on Biblical Separation and another called The Tragedy of Compromise rather than blogs to get a more full understanding of fundamentalist philosophy. There are other books that are helpful as well, but these would give you a good start.

Earlier you suggested that a fundamentalist's marking and avoiding is the same as turning the brother over to Satan. This is one of the reasons that I think a serious mistake is made in conflating church discipline passages with separation passages. See my earlier post, the second one in this thread for a bit more, but the concept is a refusal or withdrawal of ministry partnership with brothers with whom you can no longer agree. The effect of such withdrawal might be disciplinary, but the motivation and purposes are primarily matters of personal integrity and protecting one's own flock.

One could say that means I am personally separated from Mark Dever - though we have never met and I have no need to "announce" such. But for my purposes, what that means is that I would caution the people in my ministry about differences we would have in philosophy and practice and warn them about associational errors he seems to make. For most of us, that is all that separation looks like and amounts to no more than that. I would also say that he (and some of the T4G crowd) have some helpful things to say.

Does that help at all?

Marantha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don points out the typical Fundamentalist response to this issue from what I have seen and read. The problem is it doesn't work like that in real-world Fundamentalism. Pastor A may have some disagreement with Pastor B and they just don't get together and have close fellowship (or fellowsip coffee!) or invite each other to speak at their church, conference or retreat. That is what I call (for my own mind's distinction) "soft seperation." This happens all the time in Fundamentalism. Jack Hyles was not invited to speak at BJU while I was there because he was getting goofy and going off the reservation. But Jack Hyles never got the treatment that John MacArthur got! That was "hard separation." There were sermons preached and names named and there are still a lot of Fundamentalists that only grudgingly admit that JMac isn't tooooo bad.
I am speaking from personal experience here! Which of these men should have been marked and avoided? Which of these men was building a life around earnestly contending for the faith? Why was it not a "mixed message for BJU to have Jack Hyles on their platform when they hosted the Sword of the Lord Conference but they could never have MacArthur, Piper or Dever on their platform?
I am back to the original post. I grew up in the heart of Fundamentalism and the separation that Mark Dever espouses and practices makes much more sense and seems much more Biblical than most of what I have seen in Fundamentalism!

Jon Bell (Bucksport, ME)

http://resources.christianity.com/default/mrki.aspx

The latest 9marks interview with Mark Minnick and Mark Dever about Fundamentalism and Separation.

I look forward to checking it out after reading all your thoughts here!

Seems to me, as I grew up around the "fundamentalist" movement, that you all are known more for what you are against than what you are for and you are known more for your lack of integrity in the areas of church finance,purity, and just plain goofiness that this all seems very trivial. Seems to me as well that much side-ways energy is being wasted on choosing sides rather than working on fulfilling the Great Commission. Much pondering and study could be redirected to Proverbs and what is said as to what a true wise person is. I think many of us could find value in shutting our lips and get busy sharing our faith with the lost rather then debating our "great position". Proverbs 17:28 I believe could help us all.
from the un-tucked in generation,
Jamie Limato

All over the world, all types of churches are a mess--pastors are steamrolling people, people are fighting each other, programs have replaced people, etc.

Some Emergents, and some others are using these reasons and others (partially) to dump the biblical idea of what a church is. IOW, they seem to be doing so because the people are failing to live up to the biblical ideal/std of what Church is to be & to do. I think we would all agree that simply because humans do not measure up to the Divine std of how to "do and be the church" that we are not then to dump the biblical teachings related to the church.

As I read here, some seem to be suggesting that since F'ists fail in the practice of separatism, (mean pastors, mean people, overdone separation), then separatism is not biblical? Since when does our failure to apply biblical principles mean the principle then is untrue? Or maybe I am misreading you...

Jon, et al:

There are a couple of things that fundamentalism has done poorly in recent years.

We have had far too many Shamgars who fail to correctly discern the difference between an Israelite and a Philistine. This results in far too much oxgoading for some of us.

Second, our contrition has seldom been as loud as our condemnation. We have been far to soft spoken when we have sinned and far to outspoken when we have censured. Perhaps this is changing for the better. I had a good friend in Canada when I pastored out west who was aged and critical. He was often right in his assessment but wrong in his approach. He often alienated people he might have helped by this tactic.

I think we have erred in going after certain conservative evangelicals as Philistines when they are really Israelites and ought to be treated better than we have.

Jon, you are correct that the BJ / Jack Hyles affair was a mixed message. But, though many of us lamented the affair, we had no internet to pontificate from :)

We need to be quick to identify unbiblical behavior on either side of the aisle.

Jeff

Pas. Dever,
thank you for offering this post and its questions.

I was delighted to hear you interview Pas. Minnick. In the discussion of Paul's rebuke of Peter, it seemed like you wanted to hold to an opinion that part of Paul's rebuke was that Peter was "separating" improperly. Both of you agreed, I think, in the final analysis that Paul had rebuked Peter because his actions had repercussions in the Gospel (justification) sphere. But, it seemed that you still wanted to suggest that Paul was also acting against Peter's improper separation. Is that so?

To return to your questions: It seems to me that Paul was preparing to "separate" from Peter for integrity-of-the-Gospel reasons only, (and the ensuing influence on others) not for anything else. And I think the way many of us fundies would answer your questions would follow his pattern of thinking.

Maybe I am stating or asking the obvious: Could I hazard that the difference (partially) between some of us fundies and you, would lie in the realm of what we deem to be an integrity-of-the-Gospel issue?

Sam asked,
"Could I hazard that the difference (partially) between some of us fundies and you, would lie in the realm of what we deem to be an integrity-of-the-Gospel issue?"

Sam,

Speaking only for myself, I'd certainly agree with you. Clearly, the vast majority of fundamentalists have not been nearly as aggressive as Dever has in repudiating integrity-of-the-gospel issues in their own associations over the years. I'm thinking of easy-believeism, manipulative revivalism, and man-centered soteriology. (See Hyles discussion above, and he's only the tip of the iceberg.)

Ben,

I apologize for the delay in responding and the fact that this will be somewhat direct and to the point, but I’ve got to leave for a conference in a few minutes (and will probably be out of the loop after I comment).

Your question really touches on two separate issues, a general one about associations and implied endorsements, and a specific one about Mark Dever’s participation in the White Board sessions. It is important to see that as separate issues (perhaps loosely as a matters of principle and application) because failure to do that actually leads to confusion regarding the more general question.

As for the matter of associations and implied endorsements, I guess I don’t see what the problem with this is on the level of principle (I recognize that some folks have abused it in application). There seems to be ample warrant in Scripture and common wisdom to justify the conclusion that the company we keep not only has an influence on us, but communicates something about us—most of us can recite the little sayings that we were taught in this regard. While I might not chose the word “endorsement” to describe how I think about this, the concept shouldn’t be completely dismissed. When someone of good reputation lends his credibility to an effort, that has to be something like an endorsement. So, if I have someone in to preach, I am giving that person a vote of confidence in some way. If I go to preach somewhere, it’s not to the same degree, but others will be inclined to think it a credible venue (or discredited depending on their view of me!).

It seems very unwise to eliminate these kinds of factors from our consideration, and, frankly, I don’t think anybody really does exclude it completely. We simply apply it differently.

As for Mark Dever speaking at the White Board Sessions, I do think his presence lent some credibility to the meeting, but because I am familiar with the purpose and format, I don’t believe that he was giving credibility to any of the other participants. That context was significantly narrow and the purpose was deliberately aimed at contrasting views, not coalescing them.

Great post and excellent discussion, thanks to all involved.

I grew up in some of the stricter waters of fundamentalism, but now am a member at John Piper's church. I still respect the fundamentalist position, particularly that embodied in Professor Jeff Straub's comments here. And I wish the position he described was more pervasive and truly independent. But I noted Jeremy's words above: "It seems to me you have to have a "hench club" who makes all the decisions about who is/who isn't worthy/acceptable? Am I wrong?" The truth is that in fundamentalism even still today, there is a group-think mentality which keeps fundamentalists pretty much on one side of a defined line. There is no flirting with the line if you want to keep your status within the fundamentalist movement. This politicizing has damaging effects. It leads to a hesitancy to embrace like-minded brothers like Mark Dever and John MacArthur, etc. And it fosters pride and sectarianism.

I agree with others here that the central question boils down to degree. Fundamentalists don't think conservative evangelicals separate well enough. Separation is not a one-size-fits-all thing. Discernment is key. And the Bible calls us to keep the "unity of the faith". This is why as a young man, I left fundamentalism. I thank God for the concern for truth that I was taught, and for positive changes I see in the movement today. But for me and my house, the potential dangers of the movement outweighed its benefits. Many other young fundamentalist college grads are also exiting the movement. This mass exodus is helping fundamentalism reform itself, which would be a great thing (as would a reformation of Evangelicalism, too).

Blessings to all in Christ,

Bob Hayton

Fundamentally Reformed
(http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com)

Why is it that the Fundamentalist talk about themselves as if they are the only ones who care about the "pure" church? Is it the clothes we wear, the music we use, the Bible we read from or what? Just because its done differently for one church then another does not mean there is no care for worldliness. I noticed one blgger comenting on someone's clothing at a confernce just recently. My goodness, if that makes or breaks your idea of what Christ looks like -- then Heaven forbid! I have never been to a conference or church (at least in the last decade) where clothing was going to be an issue. Some things must be left up to an individuals choce. How do you know the person was even a Christ follower? If a man can't handl a poor outfit -- then he is in BIG trouble when he reaches out to this world. Thanks Jeff. I think you hit it on the head. I think the infightng, the inconsistentcy, the lack of loking to the right thing is all a side-track from really matters in life. I personally would never be able to aline myself with the scandals in Fundamentalism. Some of them seem to go very dark. There are certain things to nauseating for me. Of course, I'm experenced a great side of evangelicalsim -- although I would not agree with most of you when you say (in round abot terms) that evangelcalism is heading down a bad path and going to the devil. No way. There are many, many good (actualy great) churches out there.

In speaking of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist cleavage Dave Doran said of [New] Evangelicals and Fundamentalists that they were “both basically the grandchildren of the men from that era.” His responder said, “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….”

It would be well to visit the historical actualities of that cleavage. The grandparents of both camps came from the same denominational and interdenominational (a word often used in the post War era) groups at that time. My father, George J. Carlson, and Carl F.H. Henry, were friends and both were nominees on the conservative slate at the Northern Baptist Convention when the “fundamentalists” made their last stand in the late 40’s. What differentiated my fundamentalist dad and his emerging new evangelical friends in the 50s was a separation versus “stay-in-to-get-along-and-influence” spirit.

Carl Henry went on, as editor of Christianity Today, to the lead the intellectual pursuit of non-separatist evangelical denominationalism and interdenominationalism that birthed the accommodating winds of evangelical relativism that dominates today. Even though Dr. Henry was a rigorous thinker and theologian, the movement he and others championed greatly encouraged the loosely named “big tent” evangelicalism of today that goes so far as to embrace what I call “Evangelical Universalism.” To his credit Dr. Henry raised some concerns about the extremes of the leftward theological drift before he departed the scene. It is this very phenomenon that has been exposed by David Wells, Mohler, Dever, et al, and is now the challenge for conservative evangelicals. What will happen? Will history repeat itself with a new version of accommodation versus distinctiveness? I believe that theological distinctiveness is the separatist spirit that Dave Doran is articulating.

Bob,

I posted my last post before I saw yours pop up. I'm geting a better grasp of all this. Can you help me? Why does it seem lik there is so much conflict in Fundamentalsim all the tme? I have watched blogs (from all worlds) for several years and ther so much angst. I don't grasp that. I would never tak to someone in my church the way some of thes men do to each other? I've also noticed how ther own conflicts don't get reslved. tHe only way to try to solve it - is to call peopele names. WHy is this? It seems soem have tried to leve this group or stay or whatever but in the end no matter what the outcome they leave anyway and get out barly alive. Why does it seem when somone ever tries to address their issues--the other side is wating to pounce on their ideas. What about the pastors being elevated in this gorup? Matt 18 doesn;t seem to go both ways to the pastors in this group with their own people? Are the scandals part of the "perfection" fisade. They don't want peple to see the chink in the armor? So they wait to do anything until it because a huge blow. I've spent a few days looking up everythin I can about Separatism and Fundamentalism and I get a lot of bantering bac and forth and a lot of scandal. Seems like very dark scandals at that. I actually found an articl abotu a girl who had over 400 scars on her body from abuse by her father who was highly praised by Jack Hyles and is now in prison. That was just one thing I found-- not to mention teh KKK. I realzie I may be finding esxtreme things- but my lands- if I'm in this denomination-- I personaly would get out now!I realize all group hav demons- but some forms I just can't stand. With all the exremism being highlighted now a days -- you would thnk a different stratey would be beter.

Jamie --

I don't think you fully appreciate how much the issue of separation effects even sharing the gospel. Let me give you a perfect example from the last 2 days with 2 of the people posting here, so we aren't talking behind anyone's back. I'm one of the lost. I'm asking questions about this doctrine in some of the follow up threads / articles on Don Johnson's blog.

He can't answer them or discuss them. Why not? Well because without a real name he can't be sure I'm not someone he should be separated from. Separation is held higher than the great commission. Now mind you the bible absolutely explicit on the issue that separation doesn't apply to non believers.

The Donatists argued that a person baptized by a heretic could not share in the Eucharist, that is they couldn't be joined in meaningful fellowship with believers. As far as I can tell the position being taken here on secondary and tertiary separation is even stronger. Its not just baptism, bit effectively that someone who remains a member of a church or (essentially any spiritual society) for example som who appears on a podium with a heretic cannot share in the Eucharist that is be joined in fellowship. The argument is simple ex opere operantis the validity of a message from Dever or MacArthur or Piper is not based upon the contents of the message but his spiritual state as reflected by attending a conference with bad people.

Now maybe I'm wrong in my assessment maybe there is some sort of genuine biblical mandate and there is a real difference between what is being argued and some sort of super donatism.

Gerry Carlson --

I was the person who wrote the comment you were responding to. I agree 100% that the neo-evangelical movement which became today's evangelism came out of fundamentalism. I was questioning whether evangelicals on average (that is the people themselves) came out of fundamentalism. What I was asserting was they mainly came directly from mainstream churches decades after the fundamentalist-modernist controversy was over.

Jeremy,

Fundamentalism can be hard to understand for the non-initiated. It is more of an idea or a movement than a denomination. Almost all fundamentalists eschew denominations, but many are in Fellowships, or Conferences. (Not sure how much difference that makes, but they prize their church autonomy). There are many extremes in the movement, but they don't necessarily represent everyone who claims to be a fundamentalist.

Basically, a fundamentalist holds to the essential doctrines of scripture and is willing to separate over them. This is why people like J.I. Packer and John Piper in one sense would consider themselves fundamentalists. Dever would as well, I'd wager.

But the movement of fundamentalism includes an emphasis on ecclesiastical and secondary separation. Often it also includes certain holiness standards, like traditional music only, or KJV Bible only. Many pride themselves in being "old-fashioned".

It really breaks down into multiple movements around chief personalities (or Bible Colleges/Seminaries). But there are two or three basic kinds of fundamentalists. The Sword of the Lord guys, which prize old-fashioned-ism and hold to the KJV. Jack Hyles' crowd is similar if not more extreme. There would also be an extreme version of KJV-onlyists which make that issue the most important (Ruckmanites). Then there are the more moderate fundamentalists like Mark Minnick, Dave Doran, and Jeff Straub. These allow differences in versions, and some theological differences (other fundamentalist groups tend to be exclusively Baptist and non-Calvinist), and to a lesser extent, allow divergence in positions on acceptable church music.

Which group is larger? That's hard to say. The moderates would claim the majority, and perhaps they are. But the old-fashioned group is also quite large.

All of them have a praiseworthy attitude about Scripture and the essential doctrines. All of them include good people. But as in any group, there are some bad apples. And fundamentalism seems to open the way for moralism, legalism, and church abuse. But many a good fundamentalist fights against these perils.

Hope that helps a bit. You can browse my site for more info. http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com. Also, a large fundamentalist site which showcases a moderate fundamentalist viewpoint, but includes fundamentalists of all kinds in the forums and comments, is http://sharperiron.org.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton

CD-Host,

Not necessarily so. Most influential evangelical leaders do not come from mainstream churches. Leith Anderson, current president of the NAE serves in the same evangelical denomination that John Piper serves in -- the Baptist General Conference. Leith's father was in the Conservative Baptist movement, and preached for my dad in the 50s. The former president of the NAE was Charismatic with no ties to mainstream denominations. Much of the leadership in organized evangelicalism has come from non-mainstream denominations like the BGC, E. Free, CMA, Free Methodist, Nazarene, Assembly of God, and a number of other small evangelical denominations.

Although it is true that some evangelicals have arisen from the evangelical minorities of mainstream denominations, most leaders 50 years ago came from fundamentalist orientations. Since that time they have come from within evangelicalism itself. But remember that interdenominational institutions like Moody, Dallas, Wheaton, and even Fuller came out of fundamentalist backgrounds. It could be argued that it was the accommodating mood of evangelicals that has lead some young evangelicals back to the mainstream denominations.

Another curious notion is that liberalism is somehow passe because the engagement of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy is ancient history. Evangelical theologians like Wells and D.A. Carson, and others, have exposed the influences of old and new liberalism that is infecting the evangelical movement today. Theological modernists still totally dominate the prestigious theological seminaries, even though some of these institutions have their token evangelicals.

The question that the future will answer is whether the engaging growing conservative evangelical minority can overpower the larger accommodating evangelical middle and the ever present evangelical left. It could be that a fragmentation may be coming within evangelicalism that will expose several fault lines reflecting diverse societal/political, ideological and theological views and orbits.

Bob,
Thanks for the tips. It helps.

Gerry,
Sounds like you're anxiously awaiting the "great apocalypse" of the denominaitions. You talk about this big devisive split on the horizon- sounds like unfounded rhetoric. I don't mean to be unkind -- but you insinuate this big shift coming in Evangelicalsim (and site 2 men) at a ttime when the "libersls" are still frustrated because the SBC (50,000 in membership) is in their words "stanchly condervative." I think you'd have a very hard time backing up your ideas/predictions with establiched research with anycredibility.

I unashamedly call myself a Fundamentalist because I don't believe ASSOCIATING myself with Fundamentalism means that I have to answer for every bad thing that any fundamentalist has ever done. I think most Fundamentalists would take the same view. So why is an Evangelical's association viewed so negatively?

CD-Host if you are not repenting of your sin and placing faith in Christ then that is your primary concern and what everyone here would encourage you to do. But I do hear what you are saying and it goes to the heart of my struggle. I see true Separation as being separate to the gospel not from a hundred things that I have deemed wrong. I think this was clear circa 1958 but got muddied somewhere after that. And I think things like T4G are clear on that too.

My other hair-puller is that if Fundamentalism is really about standing for truth and defending it then why are Fundamentalists not being invited to T4G and other conferences to share how to do this? Fundamentalism has cut itself off but I think this is coming to an end. I would love to see Bauder, Minnick or Doran at Desiring God, T4G, Shepherds, Ligonier, or Sovereign Grace sharing with Evangelical Pastors how to earnestly contend for the faith!

Jon Bell (Bucksport, ME)
www.standingontherock.blogspot.com

These recent articles on fundamentalism have been very interesting and encouraging.

I have been very encouraged with Dave Doran and Mark Minnick's statements about being unified in things that are essential to the gospel, while not causing unnecessary divisions over the non-essentials.

However, what does that mean specifically?

Mark Minnick mentioned KJV-onlyism in the original interview. Yet, leading fundamentalists that he would closely associate with have also caused divisions over music style, dress standards, hair styles, alcohol, entertainment issues, school choice, and others.

How is KJV only-ism divisive, but grape juice only-ism and classical music only-ism and Christian school only-ism not divisive?

Seeking unity in the essentials and love in the nonessentials sounds really good. And I agree that it is what we should strive for.

So how do we pick and choose what specific issues are essential?

And how should we deal with fundamentalists who separate over nonessentials? Should we separate from them because they are sowing unbiblical discord among the brethren? Or should we just overlook it because after all, they are fundamentalists?

CD Host said:

I'm asking questions about this doctrine in some of the follow up threads / articles on Don Johnson's blog.

He can't answer them or discuss them. Why not? Well because without a real name he can't be sure I'm not someone he should be separated from.

I don't have much to add to the discussion at this point, but since CD Host brought up my name (real) here, I thought I should respond to his/her insinuations about my motivations. He/she is ENTIRELY wrong.

I have allowed him/her to make one comment on my blog. I mentioned that I preferred real names. He/she made a subsequent comment. I refused to publish it but gave an answer to his/her question. I ask that people who post to my site use their real names. That's all. It is quite clear that I would probably be separated from CD Host, whoever he/she is from the content of his/her posts if he/she had the courage to reveal his/her identity.

Clear?

Marnatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Gerry --

I get the impression we may be talking past one another here. I think I"m being unclear. Forget about leaders. Assume you picked 10 evangelical churches at random in the USA. Assume you picked 10 people in their 30's on their membership roles (not pastors just random members), whose grandparents were all American. That gives you 400 grandparents. My assertion was of those 400 people a huge percentage, say 300+ were in a mainstream church not a fundamentalist church.

Leaders I agree, intellectual pedigree I agree (with some qualifications that would take us way off topic), I was only responding to the claim regarding members.

As far as evangelicals going back... I'm not sure that's really happening in any great numbers.

As far as you comment about liberalism not being dead. I agree I think though the war is over, compromises are being struck. Even in the mainstream denominations you don't see the social gospel as to anywhere near the extent you did 70 years ago. Missionaries today agree with Moody, that the goal of the great commission to convert people to Christianity not anglo-saxonism. As the same time when the conservative wing put out their own bible translation (the ESV) it used the NA27, that is a Greek text constructed via. historical critical methods. E.P. Sanders ideas influence N. T. Wright who is influencing many in the reformed world. There isn't Rockefeller ecumenicalism but the entire evangelical world is filled with "non denominational protestantism". There is a 2 way conversation going on between mainstream churches and and the evangelical world.

Just my $.02

Jon --

The reason they aren't invited to T4G is because they aren't willing to stand together. Dever, Minnick was a great example. Minnick wouldn't even answer the question of what Dever would have to do so that Minnick could talk at his church. And fundamentally evangelicals consider bring people into the faith to be an important part of their faith. That is they consider it absolutely vital to be welcoming, and absolutely vital to convert people to Christ. Would your church be welcoming to someone with a nose ring or green hair.

Lets make this concrete. Goth music is leading a renaissance in Christian music creating hymns and putting them to music that kids will listen to.
hhttp://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/02/goth-music.html
This is getting applauded by the EM crowd and attacked by fundamentalists. Even worse, at the bottom of the post I mention a type of service that Karen Ward does, called Santorum Mass. In evangelical communities that's seen as effective outreach, she's made church exciting and is getting dozens of people saved each year through this. But among fundamentalists she gets attacked for that service.

Moderator here:

Wow, do you guys sleep? ;^)

Please take a minute to check your heart and consider how others will take your posts.

There is a lot of courtesy going on, but please use an extra dose of charity. There is a lot of helpful conversation going on...thank you for that!

In Christ,
Noah

Thanks Dave. I would agree with your assessments. And I think one necessary implication of your perspective is that there must be some liberty granted for different churches/individuals to assess different situations and reach different decisions about cooperation and separation.

There must be an infinite variety of factors that could enter into these kinds of judgment calls. But would you agree that they are judgment calls, and that godly, conscientious, discerning believers who are attempting to assess and apply these factors might reach different conclusions even as they seek to employ biblical wisdom and prudence?

There's been some interesting points and nuances tossed around in this discussion, some quite funny actually, especially if you're familiar with a variety of fundy practice.

But doesn't the real question come down to this: Is Mark Dever unclean? Is he out of fellowship with God? Given how Jones-style fundyism applies 2 Cor. 6:14-18, isn't Dever's contamination certain? And if he is contaminated, and if he encourages others to embrace such contamination (and thereby incites divisions and offenses contrary to sound doctrine), shouldn't he be marked and avoided as a bellyworshiper (Ro. 16:17,18)?

Does Mark Minnick really think Dever is filthy and disobedient? And if not, then how does he escape such a conclusion given the fundy penchant for making the consequences of 2 Cor. 6:14-18 apply to those who remain yoked with associations, fellowships, conventions, or denominations that have open unbelievers in them?

I've always felt John R. Rice, Bob Jones, Sr., and Robert Sumner had it right on ecclesiastical separation and perhaps represented the best of fundamentalism on this point. But they were soon kicked to the curb by the more radical elements in Greenville.

I know Dave Doran despises Rice and Sumner, but it looks as if more and more fundies and strong conservatives are moving toward the balanced view of separation once articulated in the Hamilton Hotel Resolution by Rice and others.

TJP,

Do you have any info on the "Hamilton Hotel Resolution" of which you spoke? Any links you can point us to?

Thanks

I didn't really undestand til just now how this Separation thing has become a Fundmentalist doctrine. Any my reaction is: A DOCTRINE? Really. Wow. Baffled still. I think the hardest thing to reconcle with that take is that acording to even to the Printcipls approach I think that are being used- its just not Biblical. You don't see any example of this in NT. You really don't. The Bible is good to us to give us cleer lines in practice when someone should be separted from and disciplined. Audultyr, fornication, etc. are clear. No judgment calls. I would imagine that becuse of this "doctirne" of the Fundamentalist you would have nothin but devision and strife among people- because if its an arbirtary line, who is the onw who's right? At least with men like Devr, he has clear lines. There isn't much to disagree about- besids how he handles it on a practicla level when he's called to pratice it. But in Fundamentalism you're going to have one be of Paul and one of Apollos- over something liek the clothes one should wear or not wear. Please again I dont' want to soudn arrogant-- but this jsut seems crazy. I'm sure there are people out there who think that a woman should be "turned over to Satan" for her 2" too high shorts- but really-- how else can this be practiced without that sort of stuff goin on? You have now created a doctrine (I use the word created, creatively:) where it is every man for himself. "Well, I think so- and -so sat on teh platform with so - and - so" "Did you knwo he is now dancing with his wife?" I think it would turn into a lot of locker room gossip and maybe even a "better than thouness" attitude.

I didn't really realize it boils down to being "in" or "out" over this issue. Interseting.

Again, I have to add. If separation is a seroius thing- which I think it's very serious in Scripture- according to the application- it's either all or nothin. You are either CLEARLY "diobedient" and unrepententand ultimately turned over to Satan or you are "obedient" with blind spots-- which we would agree we all have an thats why we try to be unified. There is no "gray" area separation in Scripture. It's clear. It's a horible thign to have to pracitce and it shoudl be done at last resort. And you never see the idea of separating form a "body" of believers over another man's leader and hsi philosophy. It's always practiced one man at a time. Which is where Matt. 18 comes in. If you say youhave to start practiceing one denomianation at a time- you have just failed/undermined the Scriptures and added to the gospel (a very SERIOUS error)and are no different then the cults who come up with all sorts of wacko indepndent "doctrines"(not saying you are- just adding for afect). And I must add we should never be proud at how "separated" we are. It is sad- not a badge. If we are separating and proud aboutit because we are "purer" than the rest- I'd have to say something is wrong. The fewer peole we have to separate from teh better- it means people have a heart fro doing what's right.

I sat in M. Minnick's class as an 18 year old freshman many years ago and really enjoyed him as a Bible teacher. He has a heart to teach and IMO is a very smart guy. (BTW I got an A in his class).

I spent the time (an hour) to listen to his interview with Mr. Dever and was left wanting. I think Mark D. was exceptionally kind and let him wiggle out of many spots where he IMO was cornered. I wanted to jump into the monitor and demand that the question be answered, particularly "what must I change to be considered in full fellowship with you."

My opinion is that some part of the equation is power. Like Bob Hayton said, you have these camps that wield a lot of power and they don't want to give it up. They want you to look to them as the final authority of what is right and what is wrong and if you don't tow the line you are out.

I came out of BJU looking down on most people who didn't practice "correct" Christianity, and it breaks my heart now to think of the many people I impacted negatively for the Kingdom because I had this attitude.

Mark Dever, the next time you are with M. Minnick please ask him why BJU (and specifically BJIII) still carries on such a close relationship with Stuart Epperson (a former BJU board member an current CEO of Salem Communications). I got 50 demerits for listening to the music that Mr. Epperson broadcasts on his contemporary Christian radio stations and I would like him to either publicly separate from Stuart or expunge the 50 D's from my record.

Bill

Wow, Bill. I guess my assessment of the situation is geting pretty close. Sounds like a doubleminded man/position. How do you flush this philosopphy out? There are obviously gonna be loopholes and exceptions. Who is in charge of making those? Is there a "Figurehead" in this group?

Bob Hayton,

BH: [Do you have any info on the "Hamilton Hotel Resolution" of which you spoke? Any links you can point us to?]

tjp: Yes, of course. You can find the text--and context--of the Hamilton Hotel Resolution in chapter five of John R. Rice's book, "Come Out or Stay In."

While I think Rice was extreme in his emphasis on personal separation, his understanding of ecclesiastical separation was spot on.

I'm sure you'll be surprised at the signatures affirming the resolution. One of them is J-Mac's father, John F. MacArthur, Sr.

By the way, you won't find this resolution, or any discussion on it, in "Promise Unfulfilled."

Thanks, TJP. I'll have to see if I can find a copy of that book somewhere. This seems helpful.

Working to gain an understanding of biblical separation is just that--work. A good separatist Christian will not accuse non-separatists, or those who separate "less than me" of being "cults" or "cultists." Or more properly, he should not do so--the flesh is weak.

The same Scriptures from which we gain the doctrinal teaching on separation are to be the same Scriptures which guide us in our attitude and actions in carrying the principle out.

Such an approach should keep a separatist from making accusations against others as to their level of piety, their "cult"-ishness, or even accusing those unlike himself as "adding to the gospel"--if they indeed are not. Such an one will not hold grudges from times past, nor make undiscerning accusations about public Christian figures, if the matter were better handled with more discretion.

A separatist understands that biblical teaching works out in many areas not in terms of gray, but certainly in a spectrum of decisions and levels of connectivity.

Do all fundamentalists carry out these ideals perfectly? Of course not. But, based on some of the rhetoric in the comments, it seems non-separatists struggle with the same demons.

The failure/inability of a Christian to properly carry-out a biblical directive, principle or example does not determine the viability of that directive, principle or example. As I said earlier, this is part of the mistake the emergent-types are making in regard to church-life, and some of them speak as though church needs to be re-tooled (and not retooled following a biblical model.)

For His Cause and Glory Alone,
Sam Hendrickson (BTW, not the other "sam")

Sam,
No accusatoins have been made. I didn't really follow your post. It seemed to me that you were addressing separatist about how to do Matt 18 or were you trying to say don't bring our methods into question to the Evangelicals? Couldn't get it. How come noone wants to answer teh tough qeustions? I noticed once the hard things started being said that people have just dropped out of the discusion altogether.

If anyone is sinful, boorish, incautious, w/out discretion or ill-mannered in public discourse that does not mean that the idea of free speech must needs be overhauled.

If any fundamentalist carries out an understanding of personal and/or ecclesiastical separation in a sinful, or at the least boorish manner, his failure to live out the teaching does not mean that the doctrine must needs be up for restructuring. Some seem to think that way: "Fundamentlists aren't nice when they practice separation, so it must be wrong."

If a doctrine does not hold up, or it does, such is never dependent upon the ability of a Christian to live out said doctrine.

I have some comments for Pas. Dever later. I've occupied too much bandwidth already.

Okay, perhaps the Jones camp missed it. So I'll ask the question again. And I trust either Mark Minnick or a some other Greenville devotee will answer it.

Here it is: IS MARK DEVER UNCLEAN? IS HE OUT OF FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD?

Again, given the separatist take on 2 Cor. 6:14-18, doesn't that make Dever filthy spiritually, at odds with God personally, and in sympathy with rebellion doctrinally?

What saith Greenville?

TJP:

This is where the "Doctrine" of Separation gets dicey. IME if you ask leaders in Fundamentalism about a particular evangelical leader (i.e. Dever, Piper, MacArthur) you will typically get a litany of areas of weakness. If you press them on the main thing: The Gospel!, you will get a grudging, "He is saved and he preaches the Gospel, but…"
You know, Fundamentalism is 90% independent Baptist yet there is a strong leaning in Fundamentalism toward some kind of ecclesiastical hierarchy that adjudicates these kind of questions. Since none exists a de jour hierarchy has arisen. But since it is informal you get these different camps and it is all very fuzzy.
Again, I go back to PRINCIPLE of separation. If you think a guy is weak on something then don't hang out with him. Don't push his books or go to his conferences. But you don't have to "warn" everyone about him all the time! We should separate from those who are clearly enemies of the Gospel and we should be careful about applying that same judgement to those who clearly are orthodox.

Jon Bell: We should separate from those who are clearly enemies of the Gospel and we should be careful about applying that same judgement to those who clearly are orthodox.

Bob Hayton: Excellent and important distinction. This is where fundamentalist separation falls short. They have not been able to create a clear enough distinction when they separate from weak/erring brothers and clear Gospel deniers. Perhaps there's a way to separate from both in different ways, I don't know.

Sam --

I think you are ducking the issue. If separation is on average incautious, boorish and ill-mannered then the problems aren't specific to individuals but systematic. If the doctrine is correct and the community is practicing the doctrine properly one would not expect to see these problems. Which has a contrapositive of:

If problems are widespread either:
a) The doctrine is incorrect or only partially correct and/or
b) The practice is incorrect

Okay. It appears the Jones-style separatists are reluctant to draw the inevitable conclusion that Mark Dever is indeed unclean and disobedient based upon their handling of 2 Cor. 6:14-18. But perhaps we can help them place the Washington preacher among the leprous with this final question: Is Mark Dever walking disobediently? Is he a shame to Christianity? Is he violating the apostolic tradition of secondary separation as taught by Greenville and Detroit and assumed in 2 Thess. 3:6-14?

Again, given the separatist's assumption that 2 Thess. 3:6-14 teaches that obedient believers must separate from all disobedient believers who themselves have failed in their ecclesiastical separation, how is Mark Dever not a spiritual disgrace and public shame; how is he not walking ungodly, especially given his connection with the SBC and the separatists' view of that organization? Aren't Minnick and Doran, then, by withholding Christian fellowship, implying Dever is a dangerous example of Christian orthopraxy who should be shamed into obedience?

Once again, we wait to hear from Greenville or its satellites.

Well guys, this has been fun. It's hard to believe how much has come out of this thread. Thanks to Mark Dever for allowing the variety to go back and forth here.

For the brethren who still see themselves in some regards as a "historic fundamentalist" (vis-a-vis a modern evangelical) I hope if nothing else happens from this exchange that we at least understand that many who refer to themselves as "conservative evangelicals" are frankly far closer to us in belief and even practice than other groups who bear the name "fundamentalist." Our brother's pondering the question why some of our ministries would tolerate the likes of "Hyles and gang" and then go after the likes of Mac, Dever, etc....is right on the mark (no pun intended!).

To those of you who still see yourselves as "evangelical" and have been under the impression that fundamentalism is some sort of a monolithic "group think," man I hope you can see how far from reality that is! You have to understand that most of us commenting here on the fundamentalist side know each other and actually have a fairly good relationship. Yet, significant differences remain between us on these same issues. And yet those of us commenting over here frankly have much in common against the "Hyper-Fundamentalist" group consisting of KJV onlyism, Baptist Bride-ism, etc.....

I personally believe that in the future the Biblically balanced wing of fundamentalism and the discerning wing of evangelicalism will actually find out they have enough in common to form some sort of a working relationship. I believe that this is already beginning to happen and that the elements of extreme fundamentalism (to the far right) and extreme evangelicalism (to the left) will not rejoice when this marriage takes place.

Such a new ecclesiastical world will not be an easy one. Our generation will have to work out the Biblical details including thinking over the last half-century of separation from each other. I know that I am looking for conservative evangelicals who are willing to consider some of the important issue Dave Doran brought up in one of his first posts in this thread. Frankly, several of those themes are valid tensions that remain between us. Hey, you don't have to agree with our take on this. Just answer them honestly and let’s start thinking together through these issues.

Because Dever-type evangelicals take God's Word as authoritative, and we "left-wing" fundamentalists take God's Word as authoritative, how in the world can we not have a legitimate shot at this?

For the record you evangelicals need to understand that many of us on the fundamentalist side of the isle are now saying that it's not always wrong to stay in a group and contend. That is some of us are saying the key principle in standing up for the gospel is Biblical militancy not necessarily separation. Some of us have said that militancy sometimes can take the form of a non-conformist standing for truth inside a group; while allowing others to respond to error by means of separation.

Both may be God-honoring at the same time! That's why I believe that it is at some level possible to have a closer relationship between exegetical fundamentalist and discerning evangelicals.

(Of course you evangelicals should also know that there has been somewhat of a civil war going on over here in Fundy-ville over said theory)

I frankly am encouraged that at least we are starting to talk to each other instead of past each other. I pray God will build something on these sorts of efforts.

Straight Ahead!
Phil 3:12-14

Joel Tetreau
Southeast Valley Baptist Church - Gilbert, AZ

Yeah Joel is here!
I agree whole-heartedly that there is a convergence coming. I think it is being powered largely by blogging like this. What I am watching is the 40-50 year old Fundamentalist leaders like Minnick, Doran and Bauder and how they will respond. In the G'ville sphere that TJP keeps wanting to hear from there is a profound distrust of blogging and a lot of that is founded on this very kind of dialogue! Unfortunately a lot of Fundamentalist leaders seem unwilling to even think or talk about any reproachment with Evangelicals unless, of course, the Evangelical wants to repudiate all his associations and come into "the Camp!"
TJP: As I said above, I think a lot of Fundamentalist leaders would have to admit that Mark Dever is doing a lot of good for the Kingdom. However, the big BUT will come right along with that statement and will talk about the compromise of staying in any kind of fellowship with a group like the SBC.

Lovin' the brotherhood,
Jon Bell (Bucksport, ME)
www.standingontherock.blogspot.com

Jon,

I agree with you. In one sense it will be much harder for the 50 year olds. Think about it. They came up under the war-horses of fundamentalism that fought through the CBA Wars, the MBA Wars, etc.....To many of those guys, this sort of thing would be high treason. Many of us in our 30's and 40's also had the War horses, but they were already on their way "out" when we were coming in. The 50 year olds were actively mentored by the "fighters" for the first 10 years (or so) of their active ministry.

OK, it would be great to have more of the "Greenville Gang" as well as other visible leaders on board for this active discussion, but it may simply be that they are not willing to pay the price of leadership. Think about it. Many of those guys are trying to live in two worlds. They are trying to keep one foot in this dialogue world between what I call Type B (guys like me) and Type C fundamentalists/militant evangelicals (like Dever, Mac, etc....) while at the same time stay in favorable light with the Type A fundamentalists (Our Canadian friend Don here comes to mind....guys who simply don't see a valid "coalition.")

So, as much as I love the Doran’s and Minnick's of the world, I don't think we should wait for them. I'm ready to move on without them. I will be keeping an ear out for their wisdom, but they are only men. If we believe God is honored by a continued discussion and increased relationship, then who is Doran and Minnick then? (No offense to either Dave or Mark…..blessings on you both!)

Great seeing you over here Jon! Stay warm up there in Maine!

Straight Ahead!
Phil 3:12-14

jt

Earlier post: "Sam, I think you are ducking the issue. If separation is on average incautious, boorish and ill-mannered then the problems aren't specific to individuals but systematic. If the doctrine is correct and the community is practicing the doctrine properly one would not expect to see these problems. Which has a contrapositive of:

If problems are widespread either:
a) The doctrine is incorrect or only partially correct and/or
b) The practice is incorrect"

As I duck the issue, I have been involved (to varying degrees) with a number of different elements calling themselves fundamentalist. From my little view of the light streaming through the barndoor crack, I am unconvinced that descriptors such as "on average", or "widespread" can be linked with "boorish, sinful, ill-mannered," etc. when describing fundamentalist Christianity. Maybe I simply don't get out enough. I guess I am too close to "40 or 50?"

For me, there is too much false dilemma tied up in the contrapositive listed.

To attribute an attitude to a movement or a people based on the activities of luminaries or larger personalities is iffy at best. Is it not a mistake to do so from the fundamentalist POV when looking at the group of evangelicals?

In a similar vein, is it an accurate, or kind portrayal to depict these poor lumbering 50 year olds as being so dominated and angst-ridden because of the opinions of their mentors? Are the "young ones" so objective in their purview that such statements can be made? Has anyone considered that many of these men are continuing in their paths--not torn between two worlds, not overly concerned about rapprochement--because of biblical convictions they hold(perish the thought?)

In all of this, will younger, wiser heads prevail? That seems to be the zeitgeist.

(Bandwidth limit exceeded for Sam H.)

Sam,

I would say, you are reading something alien into the 50 year old comment. It was not intended to be a pejorative as you are making it. You are driving your Mac Truck off the road, into the trees and in the swamp. Hate to see you all wet like that! :)

Straight Ahead!

jt