Separating from Separating
I know that for many of you, well, for all of you ( I think anyway) the philosophical (some dare to even say "doctrinal") position known as "Separation" among evangelical brothers is far from receiving your attention at this point in your thinking. That distance of thought is what I would like to encourage all the more. I am not trying to instigate a debate over the 50's and all that took place between the Fundamentalist and according to Ian Murray, Billy Graham (Referring to his book Evangelicalism Divided). That is not the day in which we live. There is a new horizon with which we need to be concerned. This new horizon is rarely, if EVER, addressed without an appeal to the 50's! Worse yet, the exegetical witness is not there for someone to defend separation from conservative evangelical brethren. It is not there. Not there.
On a historical level the Fundamentalists have been battling the Southern Baptists for many years over what now is true HISTORY. It is now a terrible rumor to say that the SBC aligns itself with a liberal agenda through cooperative financial effort. The data is not there. Not there. So, why are the fundamentalists "separating" from them again?
Falacious too, is the idea that the Fundamentalists are somehow abidig by Paul's admonition to "mark and avoid" certain brothers by not sharing pulpits or classrooms but none-the-less commending one another to the doctrinally disordered brother's literature on Godliness, Systematic Theo, Devotional material etc. I do not think that that is a proper application to the Apostle's warnings. Well, I know its not.
Anyway, I just thought that I would pass that little tidbit along so as to make sure that we are all on the same page. And better yet, if not we could contend for the unity of the body against all rivals.
I assume the separatist ship has sailed and none of you are on it. If you are still however on the shore and considering it, DON'T. It's not really there.
Finally, I hope you love the irony of how I am separating from separating. Get it? Oh well.
On a historical level the Fundamentalists have been battling the Southern Baptists for many years over what now is true HISTORY. It is now a terrible rumor to say that the SBC aligns itself with a liberal agenda through cooperative financial effort. The data is not there. Not there. So, why are the fundamentalists "separating" from them again?
Falacious too, is the idea that the Fundamentalists are somehow abidig by Paul's admonition to "mark and avoid" certain brothers by not sharing pulpits or classrooms but none-the-less commending one another to the doctrinally disordered brother's literature on Godliness, Systematic Theo, Devotional material etc. I do not think that that is a proper application to the Apostle's warnings. Well, I know its not.
Anyway, I just thought that I would pass that little tidbit along so as to make sure that we are all on the same page. And better yet, if not we could contend for the unity of the body against all rivals.
I assume the separatist ship has sailed and none of you are on it. If you are still however on the shore and considering it, DON'T. It's not really there.
Finally, I hope you love the irony of how I am separating from separating. Get it? Oh well.
posted by adam at 4:05 PM
24 Comments:
Thomas,
You are just writing on hot topics to attract a crowd -- you are the worst Fundy of all!
I hear what you are saying -- there is too little all the way around. Too little discernment of which battles to fight. Too little defense of the crucial doctrines.
There is also too much. Too much discussion over inconsequential ones. Too much fighting over application of biblical principles. Too much separation over non-issues. Too many people drinking in our local churches. Too many unlearned in our congregations. Too many teachers and not enough students.
I am with you bro.
Tim
ps. which one of these is not like the others
You love it
Lest, I be considered on the wrong side of the fence I must chime in. Separation from believing brothers is akin to severing an arm. I find no greater travesty in the Body (by that I mean all believers since the death of Christ regardless of denominations, creed, or poor separation from whatever anyone wants to define "wordliness" as this week). All believers functioning with the Scriptures and the inner work of the Holy Spirit cannot be shunned.
AT, you comments on the 50's is dead on. Also I would like to add to that the mistaken understanding of the Pure church model. We do not fight so our local church is "purer" than someone else's. We stand for unity on the gospel.
The Gospel, I mean the Gospel is what we fight for. This and all necessary corrollaries related (e.g. essential Christology, core tenets of Bibliology, etc).
To quote Doug Moo, "It is contrary to the New Testament,on the one hand to lump every detail of doctrine and practice into the category of Christian essentials" (2 Peter Comm, NIV Application, 96). He goes on to point out the overdone practice of separating on matters of Bible versions and eschatology. Moo calls not for unilateral tolerance but a commitment to the essentials.
Quite right from my side, and Fundamentalism is not showing a commitment to the real essentials. It is saying it is, but then griping and grumbling about every variance from their own theology hatched and received once for all delivered from Ryrie.
i'm with baylor - you're a fundy, thomas!!! you are what they're looking for...you are their guy!
actually, you know that nothing could resonate in my ears like this discussion (based on my present circumstances). i've spent the past few days talking/emailing with reps from westminster, trinity, wheaton, and bethel seminaries...and it has been very encouraging (to say the least).
you'll love what the guy from bethel said when i told him my "story" (for lack of a better term)...he disdainfully spoke these words: "that's a shame; we have enough battles to fight without cutting each others arms and legs off; we serve 60+ denominations without compromising our beliefs."
"we basically adher to a sort of 3-tiered model: level 1 would be core essentials of the faith such as bibliology and Christology which we will fight and die for; level 2 would be non-essentials - in short, we agree to disagree, but will not separate from our brothers (mainly ecclesiology, etc.); level 3 would be (and this is a direct quote), "WHO CARES! you know - like whether or not someone is a pre-millennialist!"
all i could do was chuckle - and say, "i am so with you it's not even funny."
i've been positing that in class for the past 2 years (to no avail).
Jesse, that was the whole irony of the blog! I do want to separate from separating:).
Seriously though, I think that separation from brothers over nonessentials such as eschatology, ecclesiology (church govern, form etc)or any preference oriented issues such as music, social choices or liberties is borderline disobedience in and of itself. Forget the brother who is being cut off and take a moment to consider the genuiness of the one who is doing the cutting off. What is his christianity? Seems to be very close to sectarian pharisaism (pharaisees)under the guise of "mature" (obedient)christianity?
I love all the comments and thoughts thus far guys! Keep it comin'.
Ribero,
CURTIS LEE LAWS! THAT WAS AWESOME!
smlogan,
I love the 3-tiered idea. It seems to make perfect sense.
Adam,
You gotta love the irony. You're a fundy,huh?
To all,
Do we agree to the contents of the 3 tiers? Is there anything in tier 1 besides Christology and bibliology? And, where does soteriology fit it?
Looking forward to the responses,
James
jr gordon,
I for one would say that tier 1 is anything that can be directly tied to a proper view of the gospel (e.g. not able to be saved or pretty close to it). Thus, an improper Christology, denial of inspiration or inerrancy, radically aberrant pneumatology potentially, denial of hamartilogy entirely, or missing the cores of soteriology would qualify for separation b/c then one is outside or pressing as close as possible to being outside of the body of Christ.
Thus, I could embrace someone on tier one who is an Arminian. I don't like it they don't agree with me, and I believe strongly to the contrary; yet at the end of the day he is my brother.
That's my take...anybody else going to chime in.
Yeah, I am with Barker, I think tier 1 would include many individual concepts in all of the major categories: Return of Christ, sinfulness of man, resurrection, existence of God as a trinity, etc. I am a little hesitant to say that if someone denies inerrancy that they aren't saved (though I believe in inerrancy - for the record) -- I might want to group this under the larger heading of "authority" of the Scriptures.
In short, I think Barker's stress upon the gospel should be the key. The question becomes, "what qualifies as 'gospel-truth'." The Gospel in the early church seemed to surround these concepts: 1. Fulfillment of OT promises (thus the authority of the canon); 2. the atoning death of Jesus; 3. the bodily resurrection and exaltation of Jesus; 4. Gift of the Spirit; 5. Repentance and Faith (NDBT, 523) so this should represent the core. All Christian doctrine connects to this, the question is, what is foundational of this doctrine, and what is not -- and how do you tell the difference?
For instance, does a Propitiation model of the atonement fit in tier 1?
Baylor,
Who are you to call out "foundationalism". Didn't Davey say you are leaving foundational ministries for more "non-foundational" ministries, i.e. charismatics?
That is a good point -- in that case, let me introduce you to my friend and brother Bishop Shelby Spong
there's a great post on the resurgence blog on the church's unity.
http://www.theresurgence.com/joel_beeke_1999-07_the_churchs_unity
what I appreciate is the commitment to the unity of the church by any means, except where that unity ignores the gospel of Christ.
Ahhh...unity b/c of the gospel. It sounds so Pauline it's refreshing. Not unity on the basis of all except the gospel. Not disunity despite gospel unity.
The gospel plain and simple. It is what should rightly set us apart.
Would you rather be noted as gospel centered or militancy centered? Might the gospel call for militancy? Sure at points. But should anyone's hallmark be militancy?
If the proverbial wisdom is right, "The proof is in the pudding", then we must all acknowledge that the "pudding" is overloaded with the "proof" of fundamentalisms poor choices. The proof is certainly identifiable through the discord that it has sown among the brethren. Thus, the "pudding" needs to be avoided.
Ok, Ok, enough with my pudding analogy, but seriously, the fruit of the movement, as it stands, is one of discord and infighting. It is visionless.
Barker: The answer, as you know, is NO! Good thoughts and analysis, you too everyone else. Thanks.
There's also been some fairly decent discussion on this at http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/. A TMS grad and associate of MacArthur has been interacting with some BJ and DBTS grads along with Dave Doran. I think this guy's interpretation of 2 Thessalonians is right on.
I actually have a question. I realize that we are using a term to describe a segment of the visible body of Christ which kind of lumps a lot of people in together, even thought there is quite a bit of diversity within that larger subgroup. Naturally, we don't want to completely write off the entire group of people - there are some sincere, godly men and women alligned with this subculture. Some of this group, we really don't have to spend to much time worrying about, since they (no matter how much we desire unity) will keep as far away from us as possible, right? Maybe that's a passive application of Paul's command to avoid the divisive person. But we still can and should endeavor to enjoy as much fellowship and dialogue with the "left side" of this group as they will allow, right? I realize the "separating from separatists" comment was somewhat in jest. But just to make sure that those who read and do not comment don't think we're about to ship out cut off whatever body parts get us upset. Our best course of action is to love them like Jesus until they clearly threaten the gospel.
Jumping in really really late, sorry, But the discussion is really encouraging.
In other words G, using the knife not to cut off a limb but to cut out disease??
adam: careful; big brother is watching...(fyi - 1984 was written by orwell, not piper)
ed:
if i'm c. lee laws, you're BALTHAZAR HUBMAIER!!!
love you bro,
j. harold ockenga
van32:
not quite...
it would be rather foolish to critique a separatist movement on said issue and then to become just like them as we leave. this is not what we (at least, I) want. rather, we simply want to acknowledge the rest of those in the body of Christ who also love God and the gospel of His blessed Son. if fundamentalists want to join us - great?!; if not, their loss.
gordon13:
sorry to confuse...
the list was certainly not meant to be exhaustive (hardly even introductory); i think barker and baylor are where i'm at here. was just trying to keep it short and representative.
g:
of course, i'm with you in acknowledging that i have many vested relationships in fun...ism (too long to keep writing). i have been struggling with the fact that some seem to think that our "non-separatist" (for lack of better term) posture will force them to sever personal ties. i've been saying: no; perhaps educational/ecclesiastical/denominational, but not personal.
baylor:
sadly, you bear physical and theological resemblance to SPONG.
i'm still fine with separating from liberals, so - YOU'RE OUT!
for the rest, i stumbled over a gem accidentally (yet providentially, of course)
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/john-macarthur-newevang.html
just look at the time table of the "beef". 1959!!!
David Cloud is comedic. be sure to check out his "apostasy database" as well. what does that even mean???
Cheers and Amen!
Logan, well pointed as to "Big Brother" warning. This discussion is more than dorm room theology or the rantings of angry, bitter small minded people.
I think the reality is that after hearing the arguments for and against- a decided section is saying "we ag'n it." G's comments are on target as to our dealings and approach with those who would desire unity still with those espousing differing views. The problem all to often is the deaf ear.
"They are just bitter and angry." "They're just young." "Ignore them and spend your time with the ones that will follow."
These maddening phrases, all too characteristic of the fundamentalist movement, are missing the experience of those making the comments. We have heard the arguments. We have been there for most, if not all of these discusions. We have asked questions. We have pointed to the textual difficulties. The pat answers were given and the real issues side-stepped.
The sad state of affairs for the movement is, "We are not convinced." There can be no sadder reality for we have heard the best arguments offered and yet they do not hold up. Not that any one unconvinced party debunks the theory. However from the business analogy, if your product is not being purchased you might want to examine the validity of your critics (especially informed critics).
So again with G, sure strive for unity in the body. The problem will inevitably be...I am not there on separation. Thus, I will not be welcomed. Let me assure you. The body of Christ is able to encompass both separatists and Non, the trouble is few buildings are.
G,
Many thanks for directing us to the discussion on faithandtheology.blogspot.com.
I think you are right - taking a combative posture against "separatism" will not win the day. It is important for us to maintain a gracious attitude toward those who desire to maintain the unity of the body in the bond of peace.
I think we would all agree that separation does and, at times, should occur between brothers (practical or otherwise, i.e. church discipline, soteriology). But this does cut both ways, and we ought to be willing to defend against disunity just as virulently as we maintain unity. This is, of course, the hardest of balances to maintain.
Thanks for the perspective G.
May God help us all.
thomas: why so quiet recently?
get home from your tomfoolery and frivolous spending at the Beer Family's Kingdom (read: Busch Gardens), and invest some of the money and energy into the True Kingdom.
all:
came across someone the other day who's been a silent reader (and understandably so). he's a commited fundamentalist and former pastor. we had an amicable discussion, and i mentioned that all we (gen x) really admire in others (and hope/trust is true of ourselves) is love for God and a defense/propagation of the gospel.
to the extent that any fundamentalist does this with joy and unity, i admire and appreciate him. of course, i simply mentioned that our generation sees many people in the evangelical community contending for the faith - and for that, they should be commended.
you only need see al mohler defend
an egalitarian perspective to a lesbian priest once to know that behind his sweet threads and winsome smile is a fierce theologian. he just quoted scripture the entire debate and said, "i don't condemn you; scripture condemns you...and adulterers and whoremongers God will jugde."
bottom line: the man contends. (he could hold a clinic for funds. and anyone else on defending one's faith). he's my brother; he should be commended, learned from, loved -and PURSUED IN FELLOWSHIP.
Where do I begin? I am indebted to all the comments on this blog for their accurate portrayal and articulate encouragement of our goals, perspective, discernment and ministry vision.
I can simply sit back in confidence with you all. I am certainly your brother and greatly encouraged from our shared concerns and goals.
I must say that Barker's last post was poetically perfect and reassured my already cemented thoughts.
In sum, we have heard the comments/arguments and we are no longer sitting at the table. It is over for the argument. As I posted originally, that ship has, quite simply, already sailed. Remember, I went to the T4G conference b/c I really am TOGETHER for the Gospel.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home