Preserving Some Truth

On Friday and Saturday (January 7-8), more than three hundred registered attendees (and about that many more walk-ins for the evening service) gathered for a “symposium on biblical separation.” I’m pleased to have had the opportunity to be among them.

Though the event could be improved in some substantial ways, it was an important step toward developing a biblical separation model that (a) improves on what separatists have practiced in the recent past and (b) functions better in the current evangelical landscape in America.

A significant plus is that this more theologically grounded and thoughtful approach to separatism stands a chance of winning the acceptance of theologically serious young people within fundamentalism (but on their way out) or outside fundamentalism but still listening to its better representatives.

Host pastor Mike Harding described the goal as a “theologically robust” and “biblically consistent” separatism as well as “cultural conservatism.”

What follows is a survey of conference highlights followed by some analysis.

Conference highlights

The event began with two workshop periods of about an hour each. Due to a snow storm I hadn’t anticipated, I missed the first hour and walked in just as the second was about to begin. Since I was late, I just headed straight for the nearest workshop.

It turned out to be one in which Dr. Bruce Compton provided an analysis of Wayne Grudem’s view of the NT gift of prophecy (a non-authoritative and potentially erroneous cousin of the OT gift). Grudem’s view has been foundational for much of current non-cessationist thought about the gifts of the Spirit. Compton’s analysis was interesting and helpful and highlighted some of the unresolved problems with Grudem’s view. The session concluded with brief consideration of whether non-cessationism is a separation issue. Compton’s view was that personal fellowship with non-cessationists was not a problem, but that continuationism’s threat to our belief in a closed canon is serious enough to preclude some other forms of fellowship. He explained that this included avoiding ministry cooperation and pulpit cooperation with non-cessationists.

An evening double-header

The evening service began at 7 PM. I was encouraged by the quantity of teens and young adults attending. This was not one of those “old guys bemoaning how things aren’t like they used to be” events. The gray hair ratio was probably well below 50%.

To me, things had a noticeable “Bob Jones” feel as well. Maybe it was the giant piano on the unusually high platform or the duet Mr. & Mrs. Scott Aniol sang in the characteristic BJU vocal style (thankfully, not with the full operatic-amplitude vibrato I recall hearing so often in my BJU days). Maybe it was the relative scarcity of women in pants (there were a few here and there, I think, though I didn’t exactly make a study of it). Men involved on the platform were in coats and ties but I saw few elsewhere.

The BJU déjà vu passed when we sang two songs I’d never heard before by Chris Anderson and Greg Habegger (words projected on the big screen and sheet music in the conference binder). These were traditional hymn-structured songs but still clearly (to me, anyway) not set to music of the 19th or 20th centuries. I’d characterize them as thoughtful, doctrinally meaty and not short on pathos and warmth. We’ll definitely sing these at our church.

Chris Anderson was the first of the evening’s two speakers. His message on “Gospel-Driven Separation” (from Jude) set an excellent tone for the meeting. The high insight-per-paragraph ratio will reward taking the time to hear the mp3. Some points:

  • Jude 3: Jude was a reluctant warrior. His delight was in the gospel and he wanted to write a letter focused on “our common salvation.” The situation required that he write about contending for the faith instead.
  • Our own contention for the faith must begin with a delight in the gospel. “If we don’t defend the gospel, we lose the gospel.” But we must make sure the fight has not become our delight.
  • Jude urges the defense of the faith on every believer. It is not a fundamentalist thing. It’s a Christian thing.
  • Contending does not begin with separation. This comes late in the process.
  • Jude is not about separation from disobedient brethren (taught elsewhere). Our dealings with brethren in error do not fall under the Jude umbrella.
  • If we allow the fight to distract us from the faith, we experience a slow death.
  • We must delight in the gospel, defend the gospel, and advance the gospel (v.20-22).

After a song or two, Dr. Mark Minnick took the pulpit and preached on the topic of what the gospel is. Again, the audio is well worth hearing. This was the first message I’d heard by Dr. Minnick in person since the late 1980’s. I was encouraged to see that his love for people, love for the gospel, love for the Scriptures and love for teaching are undiminished.

Day two

Saturday’s first session belonged to a newly-bearded Dr. Kevin Bauder who noted that he was lecturing, not preaching. The topic was officially to be “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving, Part 1,” but rather than rehash the points of his 2005 address by that title (given to the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries), he focused on what else (beyond defending the gospel and practicing separation) a future fundamentalism should do.

The rest of the lecture articulated a vision for a relentlessly—and comprehensively—thoughtful fundamentalism, one that concerns itself with all of life, especially the questions weighing most heavily on the society in which we live. A key component, he said, was to recover the Christian doctrine of vocation and stop viewing God’s call to business, science, medicine, the arts, etc. as inferior to God’s call to do the things we usually think of as “ministry.”

I can’t begin to say how encouraging I found that lecture. Where can I sign up? It’s true that the vision is far from the reality, but everything important begins with a vision. If we can get the audio transcribed, the lecture may appear here at SharperIron in written form down the road.

panel.jpg

Later in the morning, Dr. Dave Doran provided a thoughtful exegesis and application of Romans 16:17. A twenty-something young man told me later that this was the most persuasive case for separation he’d ever heard and that he was now far more open to the whole idea.

The discussion session

The highlight of the event for many was probably the afternoon “discussion session.” All the platform and workshop speakers were invited to the platform to discuss a series of selected questions.

Though the audio will probably be available shortly, you’d really have to see video to fully appreciate this session. The body language was at least as interesting as the verbal responses (and several moments in the audio will make no sense at all without seeing the interaction).

Several thoughts stood out in my mind when the session ended.

  • These men possess serious and thoughtful convictions. The discussion format was making some of them squirm but their willingness to be involved speaks well of their courage as well as their desire to be persuasive.
  • The old separation-by-category (or maybe separation-by-acronym, as Chris Anderson observed in his Friday PM message) paradigm doesn’t work anymore. There are too many leaders and ministries promoting and defending the gospel these days that just do not fit into the boxes we used in the 70s and 80s (it’s debatable whether the boxes worked well back then either, but that’s another subject). There seemed to be general agreement on this point, though Doran was most emphatic and Minnick most hesitant.
  • We need more of this. When the hour ended, there was a silence I took to mean something like “What? We’re done already?” It’s difficult to impossible to alter the schedule of an event of this sort on the fly. But I wished we could have taken a break and resumed the discussion for another hour.
  • We separatists have work to do. As a thoughtful conversation about separation—with no fear of anyone labeling anyone else a “neo” or “pseudo” for differing on one point or another, the discussion was important and encouraging. But it also revealed that though we’ve awakened to the deficiencies in the separation paradigm of the past, we do not yet have another paradigm to adopt in its place. Many questions remained unasked and unanswered.

Next time?

I came away with the feeling that more work toward a “theologically robust” and “biblically consistent” doctrine and practice of separation is too urgent to wait for 2013 when the next PTC is tentatively planned. I also believe that what we need now is not so much a conference as a work group of some kind that produces a document or two—not another “resolution” by a fellowship or association, but a document aimed at answering the questions most are actually asking about separation, developed through a process that is sure to attend to those questions. Ideally, the document(s) would have the support of leaders from multiple associations and fellowships.

Mike Harding suggested that the next PTC may be devoted to “cultural conservatism.” Either way, I look forward to how this event develops in the future.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

Aaron,

I agree that Minnick was confusing at that point. I also think part of the confusion is the broadness of the way we use “gospel.” There is no agreement on how to use it, so probably better just to explain how we are using it.

But think of it this way: Jesus’ words in Mark 1:15 are, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

For the moment, take out the issue of what the “gospel” was here, and the whole kingdom idea and focus on the last: “Repent and believe the gospel.”

It seems that here, Jesus affirms that the gospel and repentance are two different things. He doesn’t say “Repent and believe which is the gospel.” The gospel is rather the object or the content or the basis (however you want to say it) of repentance and belief. It seems that Jesus makes a pretty clear distinction, and it’s one we all make.

I think Dever in his book on Personal Evangelism makes this point as well, that we confuse “evangelism” (telling the good news) with a number of things including the response to the good news.

So, the word “gospel” is used a number of different ways both in the NT and in our context. Perhaps, it’s easy to get lost in the details and fine distinctions, and miss the point.

Larry and Aaron,

Thanks for your response to my John 17 comments. Both of you helped clarify the issues that need to be addressed, correctly pointing out that my comments did not indicate what form unity should take.

I may have been addressing a “problem” that is uncommon to most, but was large in my youthful experience. I heard preachers, on more than one occasion, say that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 was effected by God, and was already accomplished, and therefore we do not need to concern ourselves with it. I think such comments must have been a response to criticisms of the doctrine of separation. Critics, I assume, must have said something like, “We can’t practice separation because the Bible commands unity. Don’t forget that Jesus prayed for unity in John 17, so we must work at unity, not separation.”

My posts were to point out that I know of no other doctrine where we could correctly use that kind of reasoning. If I were to say, “Since God has elected His people from all eternity, and has promised to bring everyone of them to Himself in time, therefore I do not need to concern myself with evangelism,” I would be labeled a heretic, and rightly so. What God reveals He has done and is doing becomes the revelation of His will for His children. We are to be working with God to accomplish what He tells us He is sovereignly doing in this world. If He is unifying His people, then we are to be concerned to work with Him, not against Him, to accomplish His revealed purpose.

As to the nature and forms of unity, it is obvious that I cannot have organizational unity with every true believer, whether obedient or disobedient believer. It is humanly impossible. My post had more to do with attitude than details. I do not think John 17 unity requires that I seek to engage in ministry partnership with as many believers as possible. I think it requires that I endeavor to avoid intentional separation from as many brethren as possible. Obedience to Scripture requires that I separate from some of my fellow believers, if indeed they are true believers. Only God knows the heart perfectly. But my attitude should be toward unity in affection as much as possible. Similar to, “As much as lies within you, live at peace with all men.”

G. N. Barkman

Larry,

Forget about inter-State or inter-Country unity. Go ahead and think locally. Think Eph. 3 & 4 in a local-universal sense. Does the language and teaching in those chapters naturally fit with just the people inside the boundary of your local church? Or can’t you see something wider than that in Ephesians? Some of the verses in chapter 3 are foundational for belief in a universal sense of the church. Ephesians is where many of the proof texts explicating that doctrine are found, by the way. Do you not believe in the universal church? That would explain some things.

But back to your situation. In your town. We’ve admitted (I think), that Ephesus was a large city with groups of people scattered around all called one church, with a large group of elders overseeing it all. And then there is your church in a city where there are likely many other gospel-preaching churches (Presbyterian and Bible to be sure, but likely even others), within a relatively close distance. Can you admit that Ephesians 3 & 4 would have something to say about how you view those other churches, the solidarity you have with them in Christ, and may it not push you to work with them in ways you can to express and work out this real unity that you share with them in Christ?

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[GNB]…say that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 was effected by God, and was already accomplished, and therefore we do not need to concern ourselves with it.
That is pretty much what I’m saying, except for the already accomplished part. It is in progress and won’t be done until all who are going to believe actually do.

But it isn’t possible to get an obligation to “organizational unity” out of Jesus’ prayer and do justice to the text and the context.

The application of that prayer could go several directions, the most obvious being a revelation of some aspects of how we ought to pray.

I’m still not entirely clear on what your view of unity itself is.
  • Does unity exist where people believe the same thing or…
  • Does unity not exist until those people get together under the same roof or join the same organization or cooperate in a project together?
  • Do you disagree with my idea that actual unity is a distinct thing from cooperation?
I’d add now that it’s also a distinct thing from “organizational unity.” People can join an organization and not really believe. Sometimes openly. So getting into the same outfit does not create unity between people who do not have the same faith. By the same token, in my view, two people can have the “unity of the faith” (Eph.4) and never be in the same organization.

So my point is that organizational membership and cooperation are independent from unity.

But your post introduces a third thing (or maybe we’re up to four now?): the absence of strife and fighting is yet another thing we often call unity. We’re on more solid ground here because the epistles sometimes call it unity also. But this is unity in the sense of harmony in (usually inter-personal) relationships. It presupposes unity of the faith and calls for mutual respect and love.

But mutual respect and love do not create unity of the faith. Again, they are independent things though unity in relationships ought to go hand in hand with unity of faith.

So “unity” in that sense (treating eachother right): yes, I believe the NT calls us all to it and that this applies outside local church boundaries, too. (But John 17 isn’t where we find that)

The problem is that many call for this kind of harmony in situations where there is no actual unity of the faith and the result is that either a) the effort fails or b) it succeeds but it’s a sham. It’s barely skin deep.
[Bob] the solidarity you have with them in Christ, and may it not push you to work with them in ways you can to express and work out this real unity that you share with them in Christ?
Not speaking for Larry, but for my part, I think this is a weighty question… but not one with an obvious answer. For me, joining in projects together hinges on questions like these…
  • Is there some way that doing this project together will make it more effective than doing it separately?
  • Are there differences in ministry philosophy, emphasis, etc., that commend doing the project separately?
So to me—so far—I’ve not been driven by the question “How can we find ways to make our unity more visible?” I haven’t found an obligation yet in NT teaching that we need to go after demonstrations of unity for demonstrations of unity’s sake.

But my mind is not settled on the question by a long shot.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron,

No, I do not disgree with your idea that actual unity is distinct from cooperation. Nor do I understand where you picked up the idea that I believe John 17 obligates us to organizational unity. I thought I stated that I do not believe this. Apparently I wasn’t clear enough.

I believe John 17 obligates us to an attitude that manifests a spirit of unity, that is, love and good will toward other Christians as much as possible. In broad generalities, perhaps we can say that one of the weaknesses of Evangelicalism is that it exalts unity so highly that it seems unable to strongly defend truth if it perceives unity to be threatened. Conversely, one of the weaknesses of Fundamentalism is its tendency to exalt truth above unity so much that it seems unable to practice unity if the slightest disagreement develops. This is an attitude, a mindset. It is not the same as organizational unity, nor ministry partnership, although it may well influence decisions that impact these areas. I recall someone saying on a previous SI post, “Try unity first.” I think that’s the correct Biblical attitude. Separation may become necessary, but let’s work hard to avoid it if at all possible. Some Fundamentalists have developed an attitude akin to, “He was ready to fight at the drop of a hat, and he’ll even drop the hat.” Surely John 17, as well as numerous other NT passages forbid such an attitude.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

G. N. Barkman

Greg, perhaps you can word this a different way -
one of the weaknesses of Fundamentalism is its tendency to exalt truth above unity so much that it seems unable to practice unity if the slightest disagreement develops
but I had to stop and read it twice when I came to it. Surely, are not saying we can ever give to much priority to truth, right? I mean, what basis is there for Christian unity without truth? Any diminishing of truth MUST diminish unity, since the structure cannot stand if the foundation crumbles or disappears. I cannot conceive of any way in which we might say the exaltation of truth is a bad thing. Now, honestly, I think I might know what you are trying to say here, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Chip,

I agree. We cannot exalt truth too much. Perhaps my thoughts were not well conceived and stated. But the doctrine of Christian unity is Divine truth. Perhaps what I should have said was something like this:

One of the weaknesses of Evangelicals is that they tend to exalt the doctrine of Christian unity to the neglect of defense of the faith. One of the weaknesses of Fundemantalists is that they tend to exalt the doctrine of separation to the neglect of the doctrine of Christian unity.

I am encouraged to see this issue openly discussed on SI, and in various other Fundamentalist forums. Thankfully, many now recognize that there is a problem. Identifying and addressing the problem accurately will no doubt require much discussion. In the past, the prevailing attitude seemed to forbid honest discussion of the issues of separation, at least in my experience. Now, thankfully, that is changing. Thanks for extending this helpful discussion.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

G. N. Barkman

Greg, I understand and agree. We cannot claim to exalt the truth when we neglect, or even refute, a portion of that truth. It’s interesting, though, how important it is to some people to try to make unity happen. I have always felt that unity is a function of truth. Consequently, I do not really see it as being something we work to make happen as much as something we enjoy when it happens. It’s like being wet is a function of being in the water. We don’t have to work to get wet, we just have to work to be in the water. Being wet is the natural, inevitable result of being in the water. In the same way. if I strive for truth, unity will happen with those who are also striving for truth. And, as a corollary, disunity will naturally happen with those who are not striving for truth. Truth is the core value and emphasis; unity is the natural, inevitable byproduct of truth.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Chip,

To your latest post, I both agree and disagree. I agree that unity is the natural byproduct of truth. The more truth we agree upon, the greater unity we enjoy.

The danger I see is that of setting myself up as the standard of truth, and recognizing unity only with those who agree with me, or at least closely agree with me. From a purely practical standpoint, a certain amount of this is inevitable, for the reasons you stated. Unity of this nature just “happens” when I come into contact with those who agree with me. However, that can also lead to arrogance and condescension. For my part, I try to remind myself regularly that I do not have a corner on truth. Other believers understand some areas of truth better than I, and if I am wise, I will endeavor to learn from them. If I “separate” myself from everyone with whom I do not agree, I will stagnate. I will also fail to recognize and exercise the unity God has created with every born again believe in Christ.

Warm regards,

Greg Barkman

G. N. Barkman

Greg, a couple of thoughts struck me as I read your last post, but I will come back to those at another time. First I want to ask a question. I am curious how you would describe
the unity God has created with every born again believe(sic) in Christ
as you see it played out in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Chip,

As I understand I Corinthians 5, those who persist in living in immorality are not to be considered as genuine believers by the visible church. Verse 11 says, “not to keep company with anyone ‘named’ a brother.” He is a “so-called brother,” which is to say that he calls himself a brother, but the church does not consider his profession valid. The church refuses to call him a brother. That is why he must be put out of the church. The church’s relationship to him must match his actual condition.

When he is put out of the church, the church will have no more responsibility to him as a Christian. Then he will be treated as an unbeliever to be evangelized. That’s the jist of the “inside/outside” language of vs 12, ie. “inside” the visible church vs. “outside” the church.

Kind regards,

Greg Barkman

G. N. Barkman

Greg, looks like everyone has abandoned us!

Ok, this is a little bit of a rabbit trail, but do you see 2 Thess. 3:6-15 in the same way? Here, it is clear it really is a brother, and it is clear they are still treated in some special way because of their brotherhood despite losing full fellowship.

Thanks for interacting with me on this.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

No, this is a different situation. It is corrective discipline within the local church, not excommunication from the church, as in I Corinthians 5. This man is considered a brother, but a disobedient one. Specifically, he is guilty of sloth. He will not work, and is a gossip. (I’m writing quickly and recalling from memory, as I’m due at a budget meeting in 15 minutes.)

His sin is not one of the serious sins resulting in excommunication (if confrontation does not bring repentance and change) listed in I Corinthians 5 and 6. Apparently he doesn’t fall below “bottom line” behavior for a Believer, but he needs to be corrected.

That’s all for now. More later if needed.

Warm regards,

Greg Barkman

G. N. Barkman

Well Greg, my fantastic example is laid to waste. Perhaps another thread on the nature of church discipline would be in order for further discussion of that rabbit trail. My own take is that the man in 1 Cor. 5 is a brother, as referenced by Paul. We are seeing a working example of Matt. 18 discipline there. Furthermore, I would argue the person identified in 2 Thess. 3 is a candidate for Matt. 18 discipline and censure, just like 1 Cor. 5, if he remains unrepentant after confrontation.

The point I was trying to make is that in the case of church discipline, I may still be spiritually united to the erring brother or sister, but my unity is practically limited by the sin present. This goes to the heart of posts 83 and 84.

Whew! Back on track.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

[Chip Van Emmerik] Greg, looks like everyone has abandoned us!

Ok, this is a little bit of a rabbit trail, but do you see 2 Thess. 3:6-15 in the same way? Here, it is clear it really is a brother, and it is clear they are still treated in some special way because of their brotherhood despite losing full fellowship.

Thanks for interacting with me on this.
Got swamped.

I personally think the 2Thess situation is quite a bit diff. from the Rom.16.17 situation, but I do think it is an example of unity of the faith working out. The separation occurs as discipline but is never—in this case—seen as separation from apostasy.

I found the unity vs. truth exchange very interesting. The tension is an interesting one. There is an inverse correlation between the exhaustiveness of the truth that unifies and the number of people that exist to be unified. That is, the the more truth you agree on, the fewer of you there are to agree on it. If you take it all the way in that direction, it’s “just me and you and I’m not too sure about you.” But the reverse is also true. The bigger the tent, the less truth there is truly uniting its occupants. We could all get together under the banner “We love Jesus,” and even include a fair number of Buddhists and Muslims, know what I mean?

So there is a real need for discernment as to how much truth/which truths to be slushy on in order to cooperate, fellowship, demonstrate visible unity, etc.

(Which is why I think we are hearing more emphasis from guys like Bauder and Minnick on the gospel as the boundary of separation…. though we are not seeing complete agreement on what we’re including in the term.)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.