Antidote: A Cure for a Common Problem of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism
The first thing Aaron Blumer (publisher, SharperIron) said to me when we talked about our next conference was “I’m pretty skeptical of the idea of convergence.” Convergence—the idea that fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism are heading toward, or should be working toward, convergence into one movement—has certainly been what some have perceived Standpoint Conference to be about. We would argue that’s an oversimplification of what we’re about. As our last Standpoint Conference concluded, we made a conscious choice to leave previous issues behind and move on to more critical issues.
Specifically, we believe that fundamentalism and evangelicalism face similar crises. For different reasons, fundamentalism has lurking at its most conservative end some who are less concerned with doctrine than they should be. Evangelicalism has, in the mainstream, those who are also less concerned with doctrine than they should be. On the extreme right of fundamentalism, this expresses itself with a near-obsessive attention to stylistic details that distracts from doctrinal issues. On the left of evangelicalism, church growth, political activism and social influence provide similar distractions.
The alarming result is that both are disengaged from issues that have serious doctrinal consequences. Among those on the far right of fundamentalism, the disengagement results from a feeling that the larger problems of Christianity are irrelevant to them. (“All who are to the left of us are ‘liberals’ anyway.”) Among those on the left of evangelicalism, the disengagement results from a feeling that all must be well because their churches are growing numerically.
Meanwhile, battles are being waged over ideas that represent vast theological shifts. These shifts are happening not just in institutions of higher learning, but in the pews. Rob Bell preaches a form of universalism, and thousands don’t know how to respond—or feel the need to soft-pedal their rejection. N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul is only dimly understood (if at all) by the vast majority of those reading this article. The gay theologians advance their theories and they are uniformly rejected—but few realize that they are using hermeneutical models that are only slightly more radical than the ones taught in our colleges and seminaries. Ground is given, or freedom granted, on the roles of women in leadership, hermeneutics, creation models, eschatological views, all without recognizing that all of the changes are attached to theological structures that mean something and that changes in one area are harbingers of other changes to come—or changes that have already been made in theological viewpoints.
The role of writing
In the early 1900s, the spread of liberal theology drove a few men to engage in a series of lectures, papers and eventually books designed to address the crisis. The goal was to draw attention to liberal theology and renew interest in good theology. The Fundamentals, as a publication, became the foundation for all the fundamentalisms and evangelicalism we see today. They raised awareness of the issues and helped to turn back the tide of Liberalism.
We at Standpoint Conference propose to begin something similar. Over our next three conferences, we intend to address key issues that have theological implications that should alarm us. Your written contributions—or even lectures—may be helpful to us, and we desire your input.
We believe that the doctrinal drift of our times transcends the very real issues that still divide conservative evangelicals and those within the fundamentalist movement. Regardless of whether you believe in what Standpoint Conference has done in the past, or agree with its leadership team on certain particulars, you ought to care about theological purity. We challenge you to be part of the discussion.
This year’s planned topics include the importance of gender in theology and practice, the sufficiency of Scripture and modern counseling, the new mechanistic hermeneutics, responses to the gay theologians, which eschatological schemes are orthodox (and which are not), what constitutes authentic worship, the essentials of a believer’s life within the church body, the recent resurgence of various forms of inclusivism and universalism, and issues surrounding how we promote sanctification (if we can at all). The Standpoint Conference leadership is prepared to address some of these topics, if necessary; we are confident that there are persons with better knowledge of the topics who could address them more effectively. Perhaps you are one such person.
This need not be limited to the work of great doctors of theology. Pastors grounded in the Word through years of study can have equally valuable input. A detailed description of our topics for the next conference is at our website. Please consider them. In fact, we would welcome work on an entirely different topic of major doctrinal concern.
As of now, the conference has a great key-note speaker in Phil Johnson, of Grace to You. Phil is passionate about this topic and has spoken elsewhere on the need to re-emphasize sound doctrine in the church. Other speaker announcements will be made shortly. But we need the doctrinal core of the conference to come together soon—and that involves your help. Please stop by www.standpointconference.com today, look over our topics, and consider being part of the discussion.
Mike Durning Bio
Mike Durning has been the pastor at Mt. Pleasant Bible Church in Goodells, MI for more than 15 years. He attended Hyles-Anderson College, Midwestern Baptist Bible College and Bob Jones University over 8 years and somehow emerged with a mere bachelor’s degree. He lives in Goodells with his wife Terri and adult son, Ryan, and about 12 chickens that have wandered into his yard and like it better than the neighbor’s yard. Mike is flattered if you call him a “young fundamentalist,” since he is 46 and is prone to self-deception on such issues. If you see someone on the street who looks like the picture of Mike, but with gray hair, it probably is Mike.
[Jay C.] I have advocated in the past that Fundamentalists should begin withdrawing from the FBF when they sent their leaders to preach and teach at Hammond a few months ago.When did the FBF ever do this, let alone a few months ago? Individuals who are members of the FBF may have taught at Hammond, but they did so on their own initiative, not at the behest of the FBF, as far as I know.
Be careful how you state things!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Yes, I was referring to the FBF…a little blast from the past here:
http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-24-10/14345] Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap and John Vaughn??
Subsequent discussion at ” http://sharperiron.org/comment/13794#comment-13794] Given the long track record of doctrinal and moral messes at First Baptist of Hammond, there is no justification for ministerial cooperation… “
It’s also why I was so concerned about the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9858] Danny Sweatt issue last year. I see a persistent and ongoing toleration of unbiblical positions in that fellowship.
As to the thrust of your question - The distinction is that I see formal separation as a declaration that this person is no longer credible as a Christian because of their repeated and ongoing tolerations of error, and I cannot and will not have ‘fellowship’ with someone who is claiming Christianity and at the same time obviously in error or in sin.
The question is - when do we do that with organizations? Or can we even do that? My argument is that by sharing a platform and fellowship with the heretics at Hammond, the FBF has defined / endorsed them as orthodox Christians. The FBF has expanded the gospel to include people who at best muddy the gospel and downright confuse it at other times.
Clear as mud?
http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-24-10/14345] Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap and John Vaughn??
Subsequent discussion at ” http://sharperiron.org/comment/13794#comment-13794] Given the long track record of doctrinal and moral messes at First Baptist of Hammond, there is no justification for ministerial cooperation… “
It’s also why I was so concerned about the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9858] Danny Sweatt issue last year. I see a persistent and ongoing toleration of unbiblical positions in that fellowship.
As to the thrust of your question - The distinction is that I see formal separation as a declaration that this person is no longer credible as a Christian because of their repeated and ongoing tolerations of error, and I cannot and will not have ‘fellowship’ with someone who is claiming Christianity and at the same time obviously in error or in sin.
The question is - when do we do that with organizations? Or can we even do that? My argument is that by sharing a platform and fellowship with the heretics at Hammond, the FBF has defined / endorsed them as orthodox Christians. The FBF has expanded the gospel to include people who at best muddy the gospel and downright confuse it at other times.
Clear as mud?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Ted -
We demonstrate love for others because God loved us (I John 4). Love for God is what drives the actions that you pointed out, including breaking the fellowship with someone who jeopardizes the Gospel. It is because we love God and His Word that we stop demonstrating “brotherly” love for those who do not act in accordance with the Gospel. It is spiritual treason to love someone so much that we can’t break fellowship with them when they have amply demonstrated that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments (John 14:12-17).
Look at I John 4 and let me know if I’m making sense:
See also
We demonstrate love for others because God loved us (I John 4). Love for God is what drives the actions that you pointed out, including breaking the fellowship with someone who jeopardizes the Gospel. It is because we love God and His Word that we stop demonstrating “brotherly” love for those who do not act in accordance with the Gospel. It is spiritual treason to love someone so much that we can’t break fellowship with them when they have amply demonstrated that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments (John 14:12-17).
Look at I John 4 and let me know if I’m making sense:
[I John 4:7-12] God Is Love-edit-
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
See also
[John 15:7-17] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.Note the conditional phrase in v. 14 - “…you are My friends IF you do what I command you.”
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.] Ted -Makes all the sense to me ;)
We demonstrate love for others because God loved us (I John 4). Love for God is what drives the actions that you pointed out, including breaking the fellowship with someone who jeopardizes the Gospel. It is because we love God and His Word that we stop demonstrating “brotherly” love for those who do not act in accordance with the Gospel. It is spiritual treason to love someone so much that we can’t break fellowship with them when they have amply demonstrated that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments (John 14:12-17).
Look at I John 4 and let me know if I’m making sense:
But what secondary separation wants to do is “break fellowship” while at the same time still affirm that the one who’s fellowship is being broken is still to be considered a brother. What you have written above is spot on.
What do we call people “jeopardize the gospel” and who “do not act in accordance with the gospel?” and who “amply demonstrate that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments?” Those in the faith, or out of the faith?
Secondary separation, as a practice - and maybe this applies to the situation you alluded to earlier (idk) calls them “brothers,” but the NT calls them “apostates.”
My point is there is no such thing in the NT as secondary separation. People are either to be acknowledged as in the faith or not in the faith. Brothers are not to be held in limbo as suspect (and thus separated from), but to be loved. Just to be clear, I’m not speaking of personal separation as per 2 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11.
I think I understand what Ted is saying, and would agree with some of it. My problem is how to apply NT teaching and practice in the 21st century when the church scene is totally different. In NT times, there seems to have been one church in each city. Things were pretty simple. If a professed believe was a member in good standing of his church, I, as a member in good standing of a church in another city, considered him my brother in Christ, and treated him as such. If he were excommunicated from his church, I no longer considered him my brother in Christ. Clear and simple.
What do we do today with the more than 200 churches in Alamance County, North Carolina. Some are clearly apostate, though even these have some within them that seem to be genuine Christians. Others are evangelical, but compromised. Their membership appears to be a mixed multitude. Some are staunchly fundamental, but even so, I seriously question the reality of some of their members professed salvation. About the only ones I can be reasonably sure about are members of my own congregation. Members in good standing are considered my brothers. The few we have had to excommunicated over the years are to be treated as non brothers. But members of other churches are a problem. Since few churches practice anything close to NT church membership, how do I relate to them? I can’t assume they are all unsaved or apostate. Neither can I assume they are all my brothers in Christ. That is my dilemma. Has anyone on this thread sorted this out enough to provide some Biblical help?
What do we do today with the more than 200 churches in Alamance County, North Carolina. Some are clearly apostate, though even these have some within them that seem to be genuine Christians. Others are evangelical, but compromised. Their membership appears to be a mixed multitude. Some are staunchly fundamental, but even so, I seriously question the reality of some of their members professed salvation. About the only ones I can be reasonably sure about are members of my own congregation. Members in good standing are considered my brothers. The few we have had to excommunicated over the years are to be treated as non brothers. But members of other churches are a problem. Since few churches practice anything close to NT church membership, how do I relate to them? I can’t assume they are all unsaved or apostate. Neither can I assume they are all my brothers in Christ. That is my dilemma. Has anyone on this thread sorted this out enough to provide some Biblical help?
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] I think I understand what Ted is saying, and would agree with some of it. My problem is how to apply NT teaching and practice in the 21st century when the church scene is totally different. In NT times, there seems to have been one church in each city. Things were pretty simple. If a professed believe was a member in good standing of his church, I, as a member in good standing of a church in another city, considered him my brother in Christ, and treated him as such. If he were excommunicated from his church, I no longer considered him my brother in Christ. Clear and simple.What you write about is why I jumped in on this thread, Greg (post 36). What we actually need are clear and distinctive articulations of biblical ecclesiology. The cure for the common problem of a flawed fundamentalism and compromising evangelicalism is as close as an open Bible and Titus 1:5-9. The church of Jesus Christ on Crete was where we are today (i.e., what you describe in Alamance County). Paul’s solution then is still the right solution today.
What do we do today with the more than 200 churches in Alamance County, North Carolina. Some are clearly apostate, though even these have some within them that seem to be genuine Christians. Others are evangelical, but compromised. Their membership appears to be a mixed multitude. Some are staunchly fundamental, but even so, I seriously question the reality of some of their members professed salvation. About the only ones I can be reasonably sure about are members of my own congregation. Members in good standing are considered my brothers. The few we have had to excommunicated over the years are to be treated as non brothers. But members of other churches are a problem. Since few churches practice anything close to NT church membership, how do I relate to them? I can’t assume they are all unsaved or apostate. Neither can I assume they are all my brothers in Christ. That is my dilemma. Has anyone on this thread sorted this out enough to provide some Biblical help?
Ted:
I am going to be out of circulation for about 10 days, so here is my conclusion to the whole matter.
I agree with the dictum that the cure is biblical ecclelsioogy; put that way, who could disagree? But your “biblical” ecclesiology (and the notion of ecclesiastical non-separation from another believer) is biblically indefensible and quite out of the question. So where does that leave the issue? My loving conclusion is to drop it here and elsewhere. The horse can’t get any more dead; let it RIP.
I am going to be out of circulation for about 10 days, so here is my conclusion to the whole matter.
I agree with the dictum that the cure is biblical ecclelsioogy; put that way, who could disagree? But your “biblical” ecclesiology (and the notion of ecclesiastical non-separation from another believer) is biblically indefensible and quite out of the question. So where does that leave the issue? My loving conclusion is to drop it here and elsewhere. The horse can’t get any more dead; let it RIP.
Rolland McCune
[Jay C.] Yes, I was referring to the FBF…a little blast from the past here:Jay, you said above that the FBF sent people to TEACH at HAMMOND.
http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-24-10/14345] Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap and John Vaughn??
That is a far cry from what actually happened. John Vaughn happened to be scheduled in a meeting in Powell, Tennessee, a long long way from Hammond, along with Jack Schaap. That is NOT teaching at HAMMOND. Furthermore, while Dr. Vaughn is very visibly “the FBF”, the fact is that “the FBF” didn’t send him there, he went on his own initiative. I can assure you that if “the FBF” includes at least the whole board, the whole board was and is very concerned about connections with Jack Schaap of any kind.
But you said something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from what actually happened. I think you need to retract the statement.
[Jay C.] My argument is that by sharing a platform and fellowship with the heretics at Hammond, the FBF has defined / endorsed them as orthodox Christians. The FBF has expanded the gospel to include people who at best muddy the gospel and downright confuse it at other times.No, just not true. I think you need to retract this also. The FBF has NOT defined/endorsed ‘the heretics at Hammond’ as orthodox Christians. You may criticize the FBF all you like, but please at least be truthful in your criticisms. This is just wrong.
Clear as mud?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
This post is for everyone, but deals especially with questions raised by Larry.
I have thought long and hard about this series of posts. I believe what I need to do (along with everyone else) is slow down. This is an important discussion, so let me try to post little chunks carefully rather than rush into posts that will raise more questions than they answer. And let us all try to avoid taking sides or hardening our positions too soon. Every thread on SI should be about pursuit of truth, not protecting our viewpoint.
With that in mind, let me try to field a couple of the questions with each post over the next hours and days.
Christian Unity teaching pervades Scripture, yet within my heritage (fundamentalism), it is a study seldom undertaken in depth. In some new-evangelical groups, it is also seldom thoroughly studied, but rather invoked as a basis for ignoring the kinds of separation standardly practiced by fundamentalists. Either way, since it is a recurrent theme in Scripture, unity deserves our attention. John 17, Ephesians, Philippians, and I Corinthians all contribute large amounts of data to a study of unity. The full scope of these passages is beyond the scope of one post. But let us try to summarize.
The Unity is “of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). This genitive usage can be interpreted in various ways, but it is at least clear that the Unity is related to the Spirit’s work. It is not something created by us. It is something that already exists between believers, and we are commanded to “keep” it or guard it. This is an important point. Unity is not created by our action. It can be, however, diminished by some inaction on our part.
Eph. 2:11-22 places the source of the unity as being the work of Christ “by the cross”. John 17 links it to a work of the Father, in the sense that Christ is asking the Father to establish it. Clearly, there is a triune work here with regard to Unity.
Logically, two extremes need to be avoided:
1). The presumption that we must do something to create Unity between Christians. That Unity is a reality.
2). The presumption that we can or should create Unity where it has not been created by God (Ecumenism would be one example).
Where does this unity exist? It exists wherever the truly redeemed exist. All who are in Christ are united, as evidenced by the way Unity is dealt with in Ephesians. And yet, the way that Christ prays for Unity to the Father certainly hints at some more ultimate expression of it, perhaps eschatological. We can return to that concept in a future post.
So, unity exists. It is the presumed relationship of the redeemed one to another.
One might ask, as Larry did, what is the practical effect of such unity at great distance? How can my church and Larry’s church have Unity in a meaningful way? This is a great question. An illustration might help. I am married to my wife. I wear a ring, so it is presumed I am married. Yet the visible expression of our marriage is lacking when my wife travels out of town. Our married state is not removed, but the visibility is.
So, in answer to your question, Larry, I will freely grant that any visible expression of unity, as prayed for by Christ in John 17, must be found primarily in those who are already more related (by geography, by common cause, by common worship-styles). But an acknowledgment that other believers are believers – brothers and sisters to us and joint-heirs with us in Christ – seems to be required at the very minimum.
Larry, you have also asked how we can know that the passage in Ephesians is about other than local church relationships. That’s a great question. Part of the answer may be in the evidence suggesting that Ephesians was written to more than one church (most Introductions on Ephesians will cover this). But one could then merely extend the question, asking how we can know the unity is not for each of these local churches. A more full response is available. There are the presumptions of cross-assembly unity in Scripture, such as III John’s condemnation for believers not receiving the missionaries, or the cross-assembly support in II Cor. 8. But there are also express statements. For example, in John 17:20-21, we read “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” From this, we see that it is Christ’s desire that all who believe in Him through the Apostles’ message – all of them – might be one. No restriction as to sub-sets divided by church or locale is given.
Having said all of this, I hope everyone can see why I identify Unity as the default position. I assume it exists between me and another believer because God says it does. Only when Scripture specifically authorizes me to deal with a brother or sister separately can separation that pierces this unity be practiced.
You asked why I think my Unity/Separation paradigm was superior to that of Dr. McCune (and thanks so much for making it all the more intimidating by emphasizing the academic disparity between us ;) ). I’m not sure I fully understand everything Dr. McCune said yet. I am still digesting it.
You asked about degrees of separation and unity that I was glossing over with my hyperbole. The best answer to that will be to discuss the particulars of separation scenarios specifically authorized by Scripture.
But this does raise a question about separation. If my view is correct, one might ask, “What are we really saying when we practice separation?” Are we saying “We no longer accept you as a believer.” Or are we saying “We now are shunning you so that you will feel like you are not being given ‘unity’ status.”? The answer I would give is, it depends on the authorizing passage based on which separation is being practiced. More on this in a later post.
Larry, you mentioned that one reason for doctrinal statements is to outline the basis of unity. I would agree with that if we mean “unity” in the limited sense of membership. But the Biblical unity we are defining here is distinct from “joining” based on assent to a doctrinal statement. It exists because of who we are in Christ, as surely in the new convert who couldn’t begin to comprehend a doctrinal statement as in the learned doctor of theology who compiles one. The list in Ephesians 4 is not just a doctrinal list (since a new believer may not know he shares “one baptism” for instance, with all other believers). More than a common doctrine, it is a set of common possessions we believers have in Him.
The question about ancillary versus primary doctrine/teaching is the perennial problem, isn’t it? I’ve been harping on it for years (as in, “the problem with Fundamentalism is nobody ever defined exactly which beliefs / practices were fundamental”). I’ve been trying to build a Biblical paradigm for determining this for years. I am writing an article about my preliminary findings. I will try to post a few ideas soon.
I have thought long and hard about this series of posts. I believe what I need to do (along with everyone else) is slow down. This is an important discussion, so let me try to post little chunks carefully rather than rush into posts that will raise more questions than they answer. And let us all try to avoid taking sides or hardening our positions too soon. Every thread on SI should be about pursuit of truth, not protecting our viewpoint.
With that in mind, let me try to field a couple of the questions with each post over the next hours and days.
Christian Unity teaching pervades Scripture, yet within my heritage (fundamentalism), it is a study seldom undertaken in depth. In some new-evangelical groups, it is also seldom thoroughly studied, but rather invoked as a basis for ignoring the kinds of separation standardly practiced by fundamentalists. Either way, since it is a recurrent theme in Scripture, unity deserves our attention. John 17, Ephesians, Philippians, and I Corinthians all contribute large amounts of data to a study of unity. The full scope of these passages is beyond the scope of one post. But let us try to summarize.
The Unity is “of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). This genitive usage can be interpreted in various ways, but it is at least clear that the Unity is related to the Spirit’s work. It is not something created by us. It is something that already exists between believers, and we are commanded to “keep” it or guard it. This is an important point. Unity is not created by our action. It can be, however, diminished by some inaction on our part.
Eph. 2:11-22 places the source of the unity as being the work of Christ “by the cross”. John 17 links it to a work of the Father, in the sense that Christ is asking the Father to establish it. Clearly, there is a triune work here with regard to Unity.
Logically, two extremes need to be avoided:
1). The presumption that we must do something to create Unity between Christians. That Unity is a reality.
2). The presumption that we can or should create Unity where it has not been created by God (Ecumenism would be one example).
Where does this unity exist? It exists wherever the truly redeemed exist. All who are in Christ are united, as evidenced by the way Unity is dealt with in Ephesians. And yet, the way that Christ prays for Unity to the Father certainly hints at some more ultimate expression of it, perhaps eschatological. We can return to that concept in a future post.
So, unity exists. It is the presumed relationship of the redeemed one to another.
One might ask, as Larry did, what is the practical effect of such unity at great distance? How can my church and Larry’s church have Unity in a meaningful way? This is a great question. An illustration might help. I am married to my wife. I wear a ring, so it is presumed I am married. Yet the visible expression of our marriage is lacking when my wife travels out of town. Our married state is not removed, but the visibility is.
So, in answer to your question, Larry, I will freely grant that any visible expression of unity, as prayed for by Christ in John 17, must be found primarily in those who are already more related (by geography, by common cause, by common worship-styles). But an acknowledgment that other believers are believers – brothers and sisters to us and joint-heirs with us in Christ – seems to be required at the very minimum.
Larry, you have also asked how we can know that the passage in Ephesians is about other than local church relationships. That’s a great question. Part of the answer may be in the evidence suggesting that Ephesians was written to more than one church (most Introductions on Ephesians will cover this). But one could then merely extend the question, asking how we can know the unity is not for each of these local churches. A more full response is available. There are the presumptions of cross-assembly unity in Scripture, such as III John’s condemnation for believers not receiving the missionaries, or the cross-assembly support in II Cor. 8. But there are also express statements. For example, in John 17:20-21, we read “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” From this, we see that it is Christ’s desire that all who believe in Him through the Apostles’ message – all of them – might be one. No restriction as to sub-sets divided by church or locale is given.
Having said all of this, I hope everyone can see why I identify Unity as the default position. I assume it exists between me and another believer because God says it does. Only when Scripture specifically authorizes me to deal with a brother or sister separately can separation that pierces this unity be practiced.
You asked why I think my Unity/Separation paradigm was superior to that of Dr. McCune (and thanks so much for making it all the more intimidating by emphasizing the academic disparity between us ;) ). I’m not sure I fully understand everything Dr. McCune said yet. I am still digesting it.
You asked about degrees of separation and unity that I was glossing over with my hyperbole. The best answer to that will be to discuss the particulars of separation scenarios specifically authorized by Scripture.
But this does raise a question about separation. If my view is correct, one might ask, “What are we really saying when we practice separation?” Are we saying “We no longer accept you as a believer.” Or are we saying “We now are shunning you so that you will feel like you are not being given ‘unity’ status.”? The answer I would give is, it depends on the authorizing passage based on which separation is being practiced. More on this in a later post.
Larry, you mentioned that one reason for doctrinal statements is to outline the basis of unity. I would agree with that if we mean “unity” in the limited sense of membership. But the Biblical unity we are defining here is distinct from “joining” based on assent to a doctrinal statement. It exists because of who we are in Christ, as surely in the new convert who couldn’t begin to comprehend a doctrinal statement as in the learned doctor of theology who compiles one. The list in Ephesians 4 is not just a doctrinal list (since a new believer may not know he shares “one baptism” for instance, with all other believers). More than a common doctrine, it is a set of common possessions we believers have in Him.
The question about ancillary versus primary doctrine/teaching is the perennial problem, isn’t it? I’ve been harping on it for years (as in, “the problem with Fundamentalism is nobody ever defined exactly which beliefs / practices were fundamental”). I’ve been trying to build a Biblical paradigm for determining this for years. I am writing an article about my preliminary findings. I will try to post a few ideas soon.
Mike, thanks for a thoughtful post. Your understanding of this issue is very helpful.
Ted, I can’t make any sense out of your last comment. As near as I can tell, the churches in the cities in Crete were not at all like those in my area, or yours. And I don’t see what the appointment of qualified elders in the churches on Crete does to solve the problem I have with how to relate to members of churches in my area, whose churches do not practice Biblical ecclesiology.
If you are saying that the solution is to get all the churches to return to NT doctrine and practice, agreed! But what do we do in the meanwhile in sorting out our relationships with professing believers in our community? Do we accept every profession at face value and treat everyone as a brother, regardless of the evidence? Do we stand aloof from every professed believer who is not a member of our church, or another church that believes and practices what we do? That is my question. I fail to see how your answer addresses the problem.
Ted, I can’t make any sense out of your last comment. As near as I can tell, the churches in the cities in Crete were not at all like those in my area, or yours. And I don’t see what the appointment of qualified elders in the churches on Crete does to solve the problem I have with how to relate to members of churches in my area, whose churches do not practice Biblical ecclesiology.
If you are saying that the solution is to get all the churches to return to NT doctrine and practice, agreed! But what do we do in the meanwhile in sorting out our relationships with professing believers in our community? Do we accept every profession at face value and treat everyone as a brother, regardless of the evidence? Do we stand aloof from every professed believer who is not a member of our church, or another church that believes and practices what we do? That is my question. I fail to see how your answer addresses the problem.
G. N. Barkman
Greg, would you agree that that many church leaders in Alamance County are spiritually dangerous to those bought with the blood of Christ? If so then your assessment would match the apostle Paul’s concerning the churches on the island of Crete in the 1st Century. Paul’s first adjective in describing the dangerous church leaders on Crete was “many” (Titus 1:10). Hopefully, that will help you reconsider your statement, “As near as I can tell, the churches in the cities in Crete were not at all like those in my area, or yours.” Oh, they were… so very much.
Titus was commanded by Paul to rescue the elect from the dangerous church leaders in every city on Crete (Titus 1:1-16). According to 2009 figures, Alamance County has a population of about 150K. Then we have your estimate of 200 churches. By comparison, Crete likely had a minimum population of 300K in the 1st Century. We aren’t told how many churches there were on Crete by the time of The Titus Mandate, but they were many and in every city, and most were well established. I make a case in my book for a minimum of 100 churches on Crete, using this as the most conservative number.
“In every city” Titus was mandated by Jesus Christ to reform all the believers into a single church under one group of qualified elders (Tit. 1:5-9). Some of the churches in each city were probably OK, but most were not. Yet all were dismantled and merged due to several factors brought out in the letter. Then when Titus had finished appointing elders over the newly constituted church in one city he left the believers in that city under the oversight of their newly appointed elders, while he moved on to the next city to appoint elders for the rescue and protection of the elect there.
There in a thumbnail is the reformational aspect of The Titus Mandate. It is an apostolically mandated rescue operation that results in biblical church reform, strips power away from dangerous men in the church, and protects Christ’s sheep from dangerous church leaders who lead churches by worldly pragmatism. If you would like to read a little more you can download the 1st chapter of the book for free at www.TheTitusMandate.org.
Titus was commanded by Paul to rescue the elect from the dangerous church leaders in every city on Crete (Titus 1:1-16). According to 2009 figures, Alamance County has a population of about 150K. Then we have your estimate of 200 churches. By comparison, Crete likely had a minimum population of 300K in the 1st Century. We aren’t told how many churches there were on Crete by the time of The Titus Mandate, but they were many and in every city, and most were well established. I make a case in my book for a minimum of 100 churches on Crete, using this as the most conservative number.
“In every city” Titus was mandated by Jesus Christ to reform all the believers into a single church under one group of qualified elders (Tit. 1:5-9). Some of the churches in each city were probably OK, but most were not. Yet all were dismantled and merged due to several factors brought out in the letter. Then when Titus had finished appointing elders over the newly constituted church in one city he left the believers in that city under the oversight of their newly appointed elders, while he moved on to the next city to appoint elders for the rescue and protection of the elect there.
There in a thumbnail is the reformational aspect of The Titus Mandate. It is an apostolically mandated rescue operation that results in biblical church reform, strips power away from dangerous men in the church, and protects Christ’s sheep from dangerous church leaders who lead churches by worldly pragmatism. If you would like to read a little more you can download the 1st chapter of the book for free at www.TheTitusMandate.org.
[Don Johnson]You know what? You’re right. I was thinking about Ron Hamilton giving a concert at Hammond and conflated it with Vaughn going to that conference. My apologies to those involved and mentioned. I also wasn’t as clear as I should have been. What I should have said is that when Vaughn went, even of his own accord, to this conference in Tennessee, he legitimized Hammond by appearing on a platform together with Schaap and others. It doesn’t matter if he went to Hammond, they met at some other place, or if Vaughn brought him in to speak to his church (which thankfully didn’t happen). He strengthened and gave credit to the HAC orbit.[Jay C.] Yes, I was referring to the FBF…a little blast from the past here:Jay, you said above that the FBF sent people to TEACH at HAMMOND.
http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-24-10/14345] Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap and John Vaughn??
That is a far cry from what actually happened. John Vaughn happened to be scheduled in a meeting in Powell, Tennessee, a long long way from Hammond, along with Jack Schaap. That is NOT teaching at HAMMOND. Furthermore, while Dr. Vaughn is very visibly “the FBF”, the fact is that “the FBF” didn’t send him there, he went on his own initiative. I can assure you that if “the FBF” includes at least the whole board, the whole board was and is very concerned about connections with Jack Schaap of any kind.
But you said something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from what actually happened. I think you need to retract the statement.
I remember very well sitting in preacher boys’ classes at BJU and NIU where teachers would talk about associations and how dangerous it was to give any semblance of endorsement/encouragement to people by sharing a platform with them, wherever it was. If I understand right, that’s why so many people claim to be upset at MacArthur and Piper’s associations as well now. So for someone like Vaughn to decide that it’s OK to sit on the platform at a conference, knowing full well that Schaap will be there, and to not leave, is amazing to me.
Therefore, when I say:
[Jay C.] My argument is that by sharing a platform and fellowship with the heretics at Hammond, the FBF has defined / endorsed them as orthodox Christians. The FBF has expanded the gospel to include people who at best muddy the gospel and downright confuse it at other times.I was not pointing to Vaughn teaching at Hammond, although it certainly looked that way (and I apologize for it). I am pointing to the fact that the President of the FBF didn’t have a problem with being in the same room as those who teach false doctrine and man-centered legalism.
Finally, this isn’t the first time that Fundy leaders have been associated with HAC/Hammond. Other stories include:
* Ron Hamilton http://sharperiron.org/2006/10/03/patch-the-pirate-goes-to-hammond] gives a concert at Hammond
* Frank Garlock and Jim Binney http://www.fundamentalforums.com/309858-post22.html teach at Hammond .
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Ted Bigelow] But what secondary separation wants to do is “break fellowship” while at the same time still affirm that the one who’s fellowship is being broken is still to be considered a brother. What you have written above is spot on.Well, seems to me that any of those people in quotes can’t be Christians, can they? Or, if they are that confused that they can’t articulate a problem with whatever it is that they are doing, then can we claim that they really understand it? I don’t know. Separation is on a case by case by case basis, depending on the offense, the confrontee and confronter’s consciences, and other factors.
What do we call people “jeopardize the gospel” and who “do not act in accordance with the gospel?” and who “amply demonstrate that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments?” Those in the faith, or out of the faith?
[Ted Bigelow] Secondary separation, as a practice - and maybe this applies to the situation you alluded to earlier (idk) calls them “brothers,” but the NT calls them “apostates.”I agree with you that there are no formal secondary separation models in the NT between Christians and Organizations…there were no parachurch ministries in Rome :). However, I do not agree with you that because there are no models, there is no warrant for secondary separation. It is perfectly legitimate for a believer - Old or New Testament - to withdraw from apostasy and error, and even to withdraw from those who endorse/encourage apostasy and error if they claim to be believers. That’s why Paul commanded the church at Corinth to throw out the man who was with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5).
My point is there is no such thing in the NT as secondary separation. People are either to be acknowledged as in the faith or not in the faith. Brothers are not to be held in limbo as suspect (and thus separated from), but to be loved. Just to be clear, I’m not speaking of personal separation as per 2 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11.
Separation made more sense to me once I realized that I wasn’t responsible for discerning the person’s heart. What I am supposed to do is to look at their ongoing pattern of disobedience and realizing that it doesn’t line up with what they should be doing as someone who loves and wants to obey God, confronting them on it, and then finally saying that because they will not turn, they should not be considered as a believer (Matthew 7:15-23).
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.] I agree with you that there are no formal secondary separation models in the NT between Christians and Organizations…there were no parachurch ministries in Rome :). However, I do not agree with you that because there are no models, there is no warrant for secondary separation. It is perfectly legitimate for a believer - Old or New Testament - to withdraw from apostasy and error, and even to withdraw from those who endorse/encourage apostasy and error if they claim to be believers. That’s why Paul commanded the church at Corinth to throw out the man who was with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5).Jay, pardon me if I have misunderstood you, but what does throwing out the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife have to do with secondary separation? The paragraph itself doesn’t make much sense since you start talking about secondary separation then somehow try to prove it is warranted by showing primary separation.
[Rolland McCune] Ted:I thank you sir for your plain spokenness, and would love to be instructed when you make it back. I don’t want to hold onto anything that is biblically indefensible, and if you would help me see where I hold to something I ought not, I would be eternally grateful.
your “biblical” ecclesiology (and the notion of ecclesiastical non-separation from another believer) is biblically indefensible and quite out of the question.
[Jay C.]Jay, I am curious about this. Is it legitimate for those two men to go somewhere outside their circle for the purpose of helping and being an influence on them? Would you be saying the same things if they went to a church on the left rather than the fringe right? It seems to me that they believe their ministry is to help churches with music. Why should they stick only with churches that “supposedly” already have it right on music? Where does the concept of being salt and light play into this?
* Ron Hamilton http://sharperiron.org/2006/10/03/patch-the-pirate-goes-to-hammond] gives a concert at Hammond
* Frank Garlock and Jim Binney http://www.fundamentalforums.com/309858-post22.html teach at Hammond .
@ http://sharperiron.org/comment/29702#comment-29702] Daniel #67 - It’s worth noting that Paul did expressly condemn the Corinthians for tolerating the sin in their midst. (5:1-2, 5:6-7, 5:11)
@ http://sharperiron.org/comment/29707#comment-29707] Greg #69 - What is the purpose for teaching on how to have ‘right music’ to a church that gets the Gospel wrong, like the Galatians did? Or that does get it right and then encumbers it with all manner of extra-biblical demands that are not scriptural? If Hammond was an unregenerate college campus, I might see your point, but they claim to be believers.
@ http://sharperiron.org/comment/29707#comment-29707] Greg #69 - What is the purpose for teaching on how to have ‘right music’ to a church that gets the Gospel wrong, like the Galatians did? Or that does get it right and then encumbers it with all manner of extra-biblical demands that are not scriptural? If Hammond was an unregenerate college campus, I might see your point, but they claim to be believers.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I find that hardly condemning to the Corinthians, unless you are using a far weightier word to describe what he told them to do to the brother who was sleeping with his father’s wife. I mean, it is condemning in the sense that Paul is disapproving of their arrogance in the matter, but not condemning how many people would define secondary separation. So, where is secondary separation in this passage? Or again, did I completely miss your point?
If condemning is used in the sense of judging them for punishment, no, then Paul didn’t do that. Paul did http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn] condemn (use #1) them for tolerating the sin in their midst.
Here’s the passage - I’m bolding the sections that are addressed to the church, since it seems to me that we usually get caught up in the man and his wife and not in the admonishments to the church:
I’ll concede that this may not be the strongest point in favor of secondary separation, but I did think it was worth noting in light of the discussion. As I said above, I don’t think there is a clear example of secondary separation delineated in the NT, but I do think that guidelines are given that would indicate that it is occasionally necessary.
Here’s the passage - I’m bolding the sections that are addressed to the church, since it seems to me that we usually get caught up in the man and his wife and not in the admonishments to the church:
[1 Cor. 5] Sexual Immorality Defiles the ChurchMy basic argument is that if Schaap et al are believers, then they are in serious error and we should not allow them to remain in our midst either because of their error.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
I’ll concede that this may not be the strongest point in favor of secondary separation, but I did think it was worth noting in light of the discussion. As I said above, I don’t think there is a clear example of secondary separation delineated in the NT, but I do think that guidelines are given that would indicate that it is occasionally necessary.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I agree, we often get caught up in this man, when a great deal of it also has to do with the church at Corinth. I was questioning your use of it, because it seemed like you were to prove or show secondary separation, when it doesn’t. It does speak to primary, but that is it. It also shows Paul’s attitude towards those that permitted it, but that is in no way separation, first, secondary, tertiary, nth.
Could you provide some of those guidelines you believe to indicate secondary separation. I really would like to take a look.
Could you provide some of those guidelines you believe to indicate secondary separation. I really would like to take a look.
I wonder if we aren’t getting a bit loose with terms here. “Secondary separation” is typically reserved for separating from someone because they failed to separate. It is not merely separation because of disobedience. That is why I think “secondary separation” is a misnomer.
But Ted’s whole case seems to rest on 2 Thess 3 and 1 Cor 5 being local church only and being “personal” (I suppose opposed to “ecclesiastical”).
To this the following points are made:
1. In both cases, the admonition to separation is coming from Paul who is outside the local church. It is inconceivable that Paul would tell a church to separate from someone while not believing he himself should separate from them. Therefore, this is not “local church” only, but also involves at least one person from outside the local church (Paul).
2. In 2 Thess 3, the person is plainly declared to be a brother, so claiming that the NT has no place for separation from a brother, but only apostates is clearly disproven.
3. In 1 Cor 5, the person is delivered over to be destroyed in the flesh so that the spirit may be saved, thus implying the presumption is that this is a brother. If 2 Cor 2 is talking about the same man, he is a brother, and therefore Paul here is calling for separation from a brother.
4. It is unlikely that Paul would command a body to pass judgment on one of its members (expel him, have no fellowship with him), but would condone another body or individual to have fellowship in this sense. Remember, he from outside the body has already passed judgment meaning that there is room in the NT to pass judgment on someone who is not a part of your local body.
Thus, the suggestion that someone must be an apostate to justify separation seems to be proven wrong simply by noting these things. The idea that we can only separate from apostates does not stand in line with these commands. And if we are to separate from brothers over behavior, should we really have a lesser standard over doctrine and behavior of pastors and churches?
Ted says, What do we call people “jeopardize the gospel” and who “do not act in accordance with the gospel?” and who “amply demonstrate that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments?” Those in the faith, or out of the faith? The Bible says that these people can be brothers (2 Thess 3). They may also be outside the faith. Ultimately, we have no way to know. In 2 Thess 3 we are plainly to treat him as a brother. In 1 Cor 5 we are also to treat him as a brother because we are not to eat with him, but we are to eat with those outside the church (i.e., unbelievers).
But Ted’s whole case seems to rest on 2 Thess 3 and 1 Cor 5 being local church only and being “personal” (I suppose opposed to “ecclesiastical”).
To this the following points are made:
1. In both cases, the admonition to separation is coming from Paul who is outside the local church. It is inconceivable that Paul would tell a church to separate from someone while not believing he himself should separate from them. Therefore, this is not “local church” only, but also involves at least one person from outside the local church (Paul).
2. In 2 Thess 3, the person is plainly declared to be a brother, so claiming that the NT has no place for separation from a brother, but only apostates is clearly disproven.
3. In 1 Cor 5, the person is delivered over to be destroyed in the flesh so that the spirit may be saved, thus implying the presumption is that this is a brother. If 2 Cor 2 is talking about the same man, he is a brother, and therefore Paul here is calling for separation from a brother.
4. It is unlikely that Paul would command a body to pass judgment on one of its members (expel him, have no fellowship with him), but would condone another body or individual to have fellowship in this sense. Remember, he from outside the body has already passed judgment meaning that there is room in the NT to pass judgment on someone who is not a part of your local body.
Thus, the suggestion that someone must be an apostate to justify separation seems to be proven wrong simply by noting these things. The idea that we can only separate from apostates does not stand in line with these commands. And if we are to separate from brothers over behavior, should we really have a lesser standard over doctrine and behavior of pastors and churches?
Ted says, What do we call people “jeopardize the gospel” and who “do not act in accordance with the gospel?” and who “amply demonstrate that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments?” Those in the faith, or out of the faith? The Bible says that these people can be brothers (2 Thess 3). They may also be outside the faith. Ultimately, we have no way to know. In 2 Thess 3 we are plainly to treat him as a brother. In 1 Cor 5 we are also to treat him as a brother because we are not to eat with him, but we are to eat with those outside the church (i.e., unbelievers).
The thing that sticks out to me when I read discussions about secondary separation is that Scriptural separation requires firsthand and/or shared, verifiable knowledge, right? IOW, I don’t separate from someone just because Dr. Snodgrass separates, and for him to separate from me because I won’t separate based on his knowledge or opinion is where the whole thing gets sucked into chaos, IMO. And then if I’m in a position to attempt to restore someone based on Gal. 6:1 and Dr.Snodgrass separates because from his perspective there’s already been a first and second admonition (Titus 3:10)…
Anyway-
Anyway-
This year’s planned topics include the importance of gender in theology and practice, the sufficiency of Scripture and modern counseling, the new mechanistic hermeneutics, responses to the gay theologians, which eschatological schemes are orthodox (and which are not), what constitutes authentic worship, the essentials of a believer’s life within the church body, the recent resurgence of various forms of inclusivism and universalism, and issues surrounding how we promote sanctification (if we can at all).Can’t wait.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy105.gif
This need not be limited to the work of great doctors of theology. Pastors grounded in the Word through years of study can have equally valuable input.
Ted,
You have an interesting interpretation regarding the book of Titus and the church situation on the island of Crete. I have never considered the Jewish teachers in Titus 1 (probably Judaizers, similar to Galatians) to be pastors of established churches. I have considered them to be men who were “pecking around the edges” of established congregations to try to draw members after themselves, must like we see in several of the other Epistles. I wonder if anyone else shares your interpretation, and believes that there were 100 or more churches on Crete, many of which were apostate? If so, I haven’t come across it before now.
Be that as it may, that still doesn’t actually solve the problem. What you are proposing is, I suppose, the ideal solution, assuming that your descriptionof the church situation on Crete is correct. So, what is the application to Alamance County? Am I to gather up all the believers in apostate and compromised churches into my church? I would love to. For those who stay in compromised churches, am I to assume they are unregenerate false brethren and treat them as such? Should I have nothing to do with professing church members in Alamance County who remain members of compromised churches? How compromised does a church have to be before I do this? The worst churches, those which are brazenly and openly apostate are not very difficult to figure out. How about those evengelical churches that are weak on doctrine? How about, say, charismatic churches? How do I regard the members of those churches? These are the questions I wrestle with as I try to “keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” as my default position, like Mike suggested. It’s not too difficult to apply the principles of Scripture within my own church. It can become very challenging in regard to members of other church in our community.
You have an interesting interpretation regarding the book of Titus and the church situation on the island of Crete. I have never considered the Jewish teachers in Titus 1 (probably Judaizers, similar to Galatians) to be pastors of established churches. I have considered them to be men who were “pecking around the edges” of established congregations to try to draw members after themselves, must like we see in several of the other Epistles. I wonder if anyone else shares your interpretation, and believes that there were 100 or more churches on Crete, many of which were apostate? If so, I haven’t come across it before now.
Be that as it may, that still doesn’t actually solve the problem. What you are proposing is, I suppose, the ideal solution, assuming that your descriptionof the church situation on Crete is correct. So, what is the application to Alamance County? Am I to gather up all the believers in apostate and compromised churches into my church? I would love to. For those who stay in compromised churches, am I to assume they are unregenerate false brethren and treat them as such? Should I have nothing to do with professing church members in Alamance County who remain members of compromised churches? How compromised does a church have to be before I do this? The worst churches, those which are brazenly and openly apostate are not very difficult to figure out. How about those evengelical churches that are weak on doctrine? How about, say, charismatic churches? How do I regard the members of those churches? These are the questions I wrestle with as I try to “keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” as my default position, like Mike suggested. It’s not too difficult to apply the principles of Scripture within my own church. It can become very challenging in regard to members of other church in our community.
G. N. Barkman
[Susan R] The thing that sticks out to me when I read discussions about secondary separation is that Scriptural separation requires firsthand and/or shared, verifiable knowledge, right? IOW, I don’t separate from someone just because Dr. Snodgrass separates, and for him to separate from me because I won’t separate based on his knowledge or opinion is where the whole thing gets sucked into chaos, IMO. And then if I’m in a position to attempt to restore someone based on Gal. 6:1 and Dr.Snodgrass separates because from his perspective there’s already been a first and second admonition (Titus 3:10)…Yup.
Personally, I don’t see separation (I’ll drop the ‘secondary’ term since Larry did a good job in noting the problems there) as something that can be legitimately practiced when it comes to:
1. Rumors and hearsay - the infamous John MacArthur http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm denies the blood story didn’t include a reference to whatever statement MacArthur actually said and wasn’t verifiable. People believed it because it came from a “trustworthy” source.
2. “Separating” from people that I don’t actually know or have any legitimate interaction with (I can’t separate from John Piper, John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes because I have never met them). Jim Peet has done a good job in pointing that out on a couple occasions.
edit - I say “trustworthy” because in this case, I do not believe the claims of the publication were trustworthy - I personally believe that the claims were intended to be inflammatory and reactionary. I do believe that, as a whole, the work and ministry of BJU is trustworthy now.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Hi again, Jay.
Thanks for getting what I was saying yesterday. I’ve been away all day and haven’t been able to acknowledge your response.
But on rumours and hearsay: you said that the MacArthur story didn’t include a reference to what he actually said… well, not so. There are things that you can criticize people about in that story, but the fact is that there are several written statements by MacArthur that were ambiguous at best, so the complaint wasn’t based on nothing. I have some documents in my files…. hmmm… packed away somewhere… that I could scan and send you at some future date to confirm what I am saying. Can’t get my hands on them right now…
However, I have no wish to rehash that here. I am just continuing a caution of being careful about making statements in these arguments that rely on memory. We are all subject to the vagaries of memory and make assumptions about what we think we remember. So be careful…
On your last point, do you think it is ok to ‘separate’ (or find a better term) from Rob Bell, the Michigan universalist? I mean, what legitimate interaction do you or I have with him?
I do think that using the term “separation” to apply to so many different actions of discernment is part of the problem.
Thanks for getting what I was saying yesterday. I’ve been away all day and haven’t been able to acknowledge your response.
But on rumours and hearsay: you said that the MacArthur story didn’t include a reference to what he actually said… well, not so. There are things that you can criticize people about in that story, but the fact is that there are several written statements by MacArthur that were ambiguous at best, so the complaint wasn’t based on nothing. I have some documents in my files…. hmmm… packed away somewhere… that I could scan and send you at some future date to confirm what I am saying. Can’t get my hands on them right now…
However, I have no wish to rehash that here. I am just continuing a caution of being careful about making statements in these arguments that rely on memory. We are all subject to the vagaries of memory and make assumptions about what we think we remember. So be careful…
On your last point, do you think it is ok to ‘separate’ (or find a better term) from Rob Bell, the Michigan universalist? I mean, what legitimate interaction do you or I have with him?
I do think that using the term “separation” to apply to so many different actions of discernment is part of the problem.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I remember the problem pretty clearly, even though it’s been decades ago. MacArthur stated that references to the blood of Christ were metonyms for the death of Christ. A metonym is a figure of speech in which a part stands for the whole, such as “all hands on deck” instead of “everbody come to the deck.” MacArthur was saying that references to the blood of Christ were speaking of the death of Christ, a sort of shorthand for everything involved in His death. It turns out that MacArthur was and is correct on this issue, but some used it to malign and misrepresent him. It was, I fear, a shameful episode in the history of fundamentalism.
In a different vein, MacArthur used to teach that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, but became the Son at His incarnation. This was truly a serious error, which MacArthur has long since acknowledged and corrected. Interestingly, I am not aware that many fundamentalists demonstrated the same level of concern over this doctrinal matter as they did over the blood issue, which is more emotional than theological.
In a different vein, MacArthur used to teach that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, but became the Son at His incarnation. This was truly a serious error, which MacArthur has long since acknowledged and corrected. Interestingly, I am not aware that many fundamentalists demonstrated the same level of concern over this doctrinal matter as they did over the blood issue, which is more emotional than theological.
G. N. Barkman
DEAR MODERATOR: I tried to edit a post, and then there were two! Please delete number 80 or 81. Thanks. Mike
I continue to try to answer the questions given by Larry, and to some extent, Dr. McCune.
In last night’s post I attempted to explain my thoughts on the Bible teaching with regard to Christian Unity (see post # 62). Of course, much more needs to be done to expand that basic summary. Before I attempt to fill in more details, I want to divert course to two other issues. First, I want to post on the topic of what this view of Unity implies about how we do separation. Then, in the next few days, I want to talk about it in terms of general ecclesiology, and in particular, management of the local church.
Starting from the assumptions of the previous unity post, we have to ask the question “What are we saying when we practice separation?” If we have default unity with all believers, what does separation mean?
Separation is based on one of two assumptions:
1). The subject is a true believer, but is wayward. The form of separation, presumably, is designed to bring repentance (see II Thess. 3:6, 14-15 for an example). A secondary purpose of protecting the flock may be served.
2). The subject is not a true believer, and the separation is intended to guard the flock (II John 1:9-11).
A third state exists though…
3). The subject’s status as genuine believer or not is left unclear, or is open to some interpretive debate (I Tim. 6:3-5).
Other “separation passages” can be variously sorted into these 3 categories. These include, though are not limited to Matthew 18:15-17, Acts 19:9, Rom. 16:17-20, Eph. 5:11 (possibly), II Tim. 2:19, I Cor. 5:9-11, and II Tim. 3:1-9 (possibly).
Note the effect of sorting the separation verses into these 3 categories. True believers are only separated from (unity appears to be limited or broken) when there is sufficient cause and authorization, based on these passages. Otherwise, unity must be maintained. In fact, in some ways, it is maintained.
There is a tendency in the passages for the consistent and uncorrected teaching of false doctrine to become a presumptive evidence of non-believer status. This means that unity is not violated by separation, since the heretic is not a believer.
There is a tendency for the language used about believers to be softer than an ultimate separation instruction (as with II Thess. 3:15, where they are to be admonished as a brother). Again, unity is not violated, because the actions are not actions of separation, but of loving concern.
In some cases of grievous sin, after pleading for repentance, the local assembly of believers may judicially decide to separate from the individual believer (see Matthew 18:15-17). Though the treatment required (treating them like a pagan or tax collector) implies a judicial decision to treat them like an unbeliever, the treatment may be regarded as a loving desire to restore them / produce repentance. This is based on the fact that Jesus Himself, who gives this command, was notable for his outreach to pagans and tax collectors (though the culture did look down upon them). It is also indicated by Paul’s stated purpose for the execution of such a church discipline situation (I Cor. 5:5), that their spirit might be saved in the end. While there is a surface level that implies separation, a disunity, there is an underlying unity purpose, in that the congregation shows loving concern for the repentance and return of the subject of the discipline.
With the conclusion of these thoughts, I hope it is clear why I have stated my position the way I have: Unity is the default position we are to adopt toward all believers. Only when certain Scriptural conditions are met are we to practice separation. Even in those cases, it is my belief that unity is not violated, but enhanced (in the case of disciplining a believing and unrepentant sinner) or clarified (in the case of rejecting a heretic).
The distinction that is important in this is the underlying attitude. I continue to assert that in too many cases, Fundamentalist pastors start with a skeptical, anti-unity attitude, and require people to pass certain “tests” before they will grant them unity. This violates the spirit of Eph. 4, which urges us to guard the unity that is automatically present due to the Spirit and holdings in Christ we share in common.
The doctrine of separation, well studied and developed by Fundamentalists (though not always flawlessly, and not always practiced with good attitudes) is an important doctrine, but not so important that it outweighs the doctrine of unity.
I like to say the doctrines of unity and separation are in tension. Others might observe (correctly) that separation is, as described above, an expression of unity. After all, if there is no unity acknowledged, from what are we separating? I would not practice church discipline against a person who had never attended my church. The discipline only has meaning in the context of the unity.
But unity is key. And it is time we stop raising the bar for accepting, loving, teaching, and even admitting to our churches true believers who do not meet the criteria for separation. And that is the subject of my next post (Thursday night?) on ecclesiology, unity, and separation.
I continue to try to answer the questions given by Larry, and to some extent, Dr. McCune.
In last night’s post I attempted to explain my thoughts on the Bible teaching with regard to Christian Unity (see post # 62). Of course, much more needs to be done to expand that basic summary. Before I attempt to fill in more details, I want to divert course to two other issues. First, I want to post on the topic of what this view of Unity implies about how we do separation. Then, in the next few days, I want to talk about it in terms of general ecclesiology, and in particular, management of the local church.
Starting from the assumptions of the previous unity post, we have to ask the question “What are we saying when we practice separation?” If we have default unity with all believers, what does separation mean?
Separation is based on one of two assumptions:
1). The subject is a true believer, but is wayward. The form of separation, presumably, is designed to bring repentance (see II Thess. 3:6, 14-15 for an example). A secondary purpose of protecting the flock may be served.
2). The subject is not a true believer, and the separation is intended to guard the flock (II John 1:9-11).
A third state exists though…
3). The subject’s status as genuine believer or not is left unclear, or is open to some interpretive debate (I Tim. 6:3-5).
Other “separation passages” can be variously sorted into these 3 categories. These include, though are not limited to Matthew 18:15-17, Acts 19:9, Rom. 16:17-20, Eph. 5:11 (possibly), II Tim. 2:19, I Cor. 5:9-11, and II Tim. 3:1-9 (possibly).
Note the effect of sorting the separation verses into these 3 categories. True believers are only separated from (unity appears to be limited or broken) when there is sufficient cause and authorization, based on these passages. Otherwise, unity must be maintained. In fact, in some ways, it is maintained.
There is a tendency in the passages for the consistent and uncorrected teaching of false doctrine to become a presumptive evidence of non-believer status. This means that unity is not violated by separation, since the heretic is not a believer.
There is a tendency for the language used about believers to be softer than an ultimate separation instruction (as with II Thess. 3:15, where they are to be admonished as a brother). Again, unity is not violated, because the actions are not actions of separation, but of loving concern.
In some cases of grievous sin, after pleading for repentance, the local assembly of believers may judicially decide to separate from the individual believer (see Matthew 18:15-17). Though the treatment required (treating them like a pagan or tax collector) implies a judicial decision to treat them like an unbeliever, the treatment may be regarded as a loving desire to restore them / produce repentance. This is based on the fact that Jesus Himself, who gives this command, was notable for his outreach to pagans and tax collectors (though the culture did look down upon them). It is also indicated by Paul’s stated purpose for the execution of such a church discipline situation (I Cor. 5:5), that their spirit might be saved in the end. While there is a surface level that implies separation, a disunity, there is an underlying unity purpose, in that the congregation shows loving concern for the repentance and return of the subject of the discipline.
With the conclusion of these thoughts, I hope it is clear why I have stated my position the way I have: Unity is the default position we are to adopt toward all believers. Only when certain Scriptural conditions are met are we to practice separation. Even in those cases, it is my belief that unity is not violated, but enhanced (in the case of disciplining a believing and unrepentant sinner) or clarified (in the case of rejecting a heretic).
The distinction that is important in this is the underlying attitude. I continue to assert that in too many cases, Fundamentalist pastors start with a skeptical, anti-unity attitude, and require people to pass certain “tests” before they will grant them unity. This violates the spirit of Eph. 4, which urges us to guard the unity that is automatically present due to the Spirit and holdings in Christ we share in common.
The doctrine of separation, well studied and developed by Fundamentalists (though not always flawlessly, and not always practiced with good attitudes) is an important doctrine, but not so important that it outweighs the doctrine of unity.
I like to say the doctrines of unity and separation are in tension. Others might observe (correctly) that separation is, as described above, an expression of unity. After all, if there is no unity acknowledged, from what are we separating? I would not practice church discipline against a person who had never attended my church. The discipline only has meaning in the context of the unity.
But unity is key. And it is time we stop raising the bar for accepting, loving, teaching, and even admitting to our churches true believers who do not meet the criteria for separation. And that is the subject of my next post (Thursday night?) on ecclesiology, unity, and separation.
[G. N. Barkman] In a different vein, MacArthur used to teach that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, but became the Son at His incarnation. This was truly a serious error, which MacArthur has long since acknowledged and corrected. Interestingly, I am not aware that many fundamentalists demonstrated the same level of concern over this doctrinal matter as they did over the blood issue, which is more emotional than theological.It’s not my job to defend MacArthur, but I think an important distinction needs to be made. It is my understandign that he was not denying the eternality of Jesus as the 2nd person of the trinity. He was denying the role or title of Son as an eternal title, linking it distinctly to the incarnation event. The argument can be made, but it is not consistent with most theologies.
I just don’t want anyone thinking that MacArthur was adopting a view like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Mike, thanks for the clarification. That is my understanding as well.
G. N. Barkman
[Don Johnson] Hi again, Jay.No problem. I’m glad you saved me from myself! :D
Thanks for getting what I was saying yesterday. I’ve been away all day and haven’t been able to acknowledge your response.
But on rumours and hearsay: you said that the MacArthur story didn’t include a reference to what he actually said… well, not so. There are things that you can criticize people about in that story, but the fact is that there are several written statements by MacArthur that were ambiguous at best, so the complaint wasn’t based on nothing. I have some documents in my files…. hmmm… packed away somewhere… that I could scan and send you at some future date to confirm what I am saying. Can’t get my hands on them right now…If someone does have a copy of that article that ran, I’d LOVE to see it. All the evidence that I’ve been able to find (and this issue has bothered me for years) is contained on the link that I posted above by Phil Johnson. I don’t necessarily want to start the whole issue up again, but I think that it is critically important that the verifiable facts be known, esp. since MacArthur continues to get harassed by this.
However, I have no wish to rehash that here. I am just continuing a caution of being careful about making statements in these arguments that rely on memory. We are all subject to the vagaries of memory and make assumptions about what we think we remember. So be careful…
On your last point, do you think it is ok to ‘separate’ (or find a better term) from Rob Bell, the Michigan universalist? I mean, what legitimate interaction do you or I have with him?I agree with you that the “separation” term is badly overused.
I do think that using the term “separation” to apply to so many different actions of discernment is part of the problem.
http://sharperiron.org/comment/29718#comment-29718] As I said before , I don’t think that I can legitimately “separate” from Rob Bell since I don’t know him personally or have ever read any books that he’s written. I think Bell falls into the 2 Thess 3:13-15, 2 John 10, and possibly Romans 16:17 categories of “mark and avoid”. Based on what little I have read that he’s said, I don’t see how he could possibly be a believer, so the whole idea of his being my ‘brother’ is a disconnect. There are four copies of Love Wins in my local library, so I may have to eventually borrow one to make sure that I’m understanding his ideas correctly.
Finally, if I can expand on post #77 a little (new sections are in bold):
1. Rumors and hearsay - the infamous John MacArthur denies the blood story didn’t include a reference to whatever statement MacArthur actually said and wasn’t verifiable. People believed it because it came from a “trustworthy” source.
2. “Separating” from people that I don’t actually know or have any legitimate interaction with (I can’t separate from John Piper, John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes because I have never met them). Jim Peet has done a good job in pointing that out on a couple occasions.
3. It is not possible to Biblically separate from people that you do not have direct, personal relationships.
4. It is not possible to separate from people who are not saved in the first place.
Point #4 is where the Biblical command to know a tree by it’s fruits (Matthew 7:15-23) and why a right understanding of the gospel is critical. If we continually define people like Bell as ‘believers’, our separation model will be flawed.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.]Jay, using “separation” in the broadest sense possible, as in “that which violates the visible and practical unity between believers”, I’m not sure I agree.
3. It is not possible to Biblically separate from people that you do not have direct, personal relationships.
I can acknowledge someone else is a brother, and then “mark” and “avoid” them (as in Rom. 16:17-20) at a distance.
An example came up recently. Rob Bell’s most recent work denying eternal suffering hit some parts of Michigan as a shock. While our church is about 3 hours from Grand Rapids, and many of our people have never heard of him, we have a recent graduate from a Christian college in Grand Rapids. He is BIG in Grand Rapids, especially among the student crowd. So I have Crystal, the recent graduate, who says that she is alarmed for her fellow-alumni and is in contact with them. And we have the frequenters of “Christian” Bookstores, who will doubtless see the book prominently displayed.
So, I “marked” him by explaining to the congregation. Avoiding him IS problematical, I’ll grant, since we weren’t in any kind of fellowship with him anyway, nor were we promoting his materials in any way.
But “marking” is a breaking of unity on the most visible level (and thus, a separative act), though we acknowledge the underlying unity that exists because we accept that Rob Bell is likely a redeemed individual. We pray for him to turn around theologically on that basis.
[Mike Durning] Jay, using “separation” in the broadest sense possible, as in “that which violates the visible and practical unity between believers”, I’m not sure I agree.I think you’re right; I do disagree with you on this. I don’t see how Bell can be credibly held to any orthodox position. I’ll note that he says http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA] he’s not a universalist (which is good). But look at what the doctrinal statement of his church is:
I can acknowledge someone else is a brother, and then “mark” and “avoid” them (as in Rom. 16:17-20) at a distance.
An example came up recently. Rob Bell’s most recent work denying eternal suffering hit some parts of Michigan as a shock. While our church is about 3 hours from Grand Rapids, and many of our people have never heard of him, we have a recent graduate from a Christian college in Grand Rapids. He is BIG in Grand Rapids, especially among the student crowd. So I have Crystal, the recent graduate, who says that she is alarmed for her fellow-alumni and is in contact with them. And we have the frequenters of “Christian” Bookstores, who will doubtless see the book prominently displayed.
So, I “marked” him by explaining to the congregation. Avoiding him IS problematical, I’ll grant, since we weren’t in any kind of fellowship with him anyway, nor were we promoting his materials in any way.
But “marking” is a breaking of unity on the most visible level (and thus, a separative act), though we acknowledge the underlying unity that exists because we accept that Rob Bell is likely a redeemed individual. We pray for him to turn around theologically on that basis.
Mars Hill: Narrative Theology
We believe God inspired the authors of Scripture by his Spirit to speak to all generations of believers, including us today. God calls us to immerse ourselves in this authoritative narrative communally and individually to faithfully interpret and live out that story today as we are led by the Spirit of God.
In the beginning God created all things good. He was and always will be in a communal relationship with himself-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God created us to be relational as well and marked us with an identity as his image bearers and a missional calling to serve, care for, and cultivate the earth. God created humans in his image to live in fellowship with him, one another, our inner self, and creation. The enemy tempted the first humans, and darkness and evil entered the story through human sin and are now a part of the world. This devastating event resulted in our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation being fractured and in desperate need of redeeming.
We believe God did not abandon his creation to destruction and decay; rather he promised to restore this broken world. As part of this purpose, God chose a people, Abraham and his descendants, to represent him in the world. God promised to bless them as a nation so that through them all nations would be blessed. In time they became enslaved in Egypt and cried out to God because of their oppression. God heard their cry, liberated them from their oppressor, and brought them to Sinai where he gave them an identity and a mission as his treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, a holy people. Throughout the story of Israel, God refused to give up on his people despite their frequent acts of unfaithfulness to him.
God brought his people into the Promised Land. Their state of blessing from God was intimately bound to their calling to embody the living God to other nations. They made movement toward this missional calling, yet they disobeyed and allowed foreign gods into the land, overlooked the poor, and mistreated the foreigner. The prophetic voices that emerge from the Scriptures held the calling of Israel to the mirror of how they treated the oppressed and marginalized. Through the prophets, God’s heart for the poor was made known, and we believe that God cares deeply for the marginalized and oppressed among us today.
In Israel’s disobedience, they became indifferent and in turn irrelevant to the purposes to which God had called them. For a time, they were sent into exile; yet a hopeful remnant was always looking ahead with longing and hope to a renewed reign of God, where peace and justice would prevail.
We believe these longings found their fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, mysteriously God having become flesh. Jesus came to preach good news to the poor, to bind up the brokenhearted and set captives free, proclaiming a new arrival of the kingdom of God, bringing about a new exodus, and restoring our fractured world. He and his message were rejected by many as he confronted the oppressive nature of the religious elite and the empire of Rome. Yet his path of suffering, crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection has brought hope to all creation. Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God. God is now reconciling us to each other, ourselves, and creation. The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus. The Spirit empowers us with gifts, convicts, guides, comforts, counsels, and leads us into truth through a communal life of worship and a missional expression of our faith. The church is rooted and grounded in Christ, practicing spiritual disciplines and celebrating baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The church is a global and local expression of living out the way of Jesus through love, peace, sacrifice, and healing as we embody the resurrected Christ, who lives in and through us, to a broken and hurting world.
We believe the day is coming when Jesus will return to judge the world, bringing an end to injustice and restoring all things to God’s original intent. God will reclaim this world and rule forever. The earth’s groaning will cease and God will dwell with us here in a restored creation. On that day we will beat swords into tools for cultivating the earth, the wolf will lie down with the lamb, there will be no more death, and God will wipe away all our tears. Our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation will be whole. All will flourish as God intends. This is what we long for. This is what we hope for. And we are giving our lives to living out that future reality now.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Here are some things that Bell doesn’t mention:
1. God’s wrath on sin - since sin is an offense to God, and our condemnation is not a ransom, but the just sentence of God.
2. Substitutionary atonement for sin by the death of Christ
3. The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, although he does say:
1. The openness of ‘non Christian’ theologies (but only as long as they line up with what he says)
2. The heavy, heavy emphasis on social justice as a critical component of belief
3. The work of Jesus as “confront[ing] the oppressive nature of the religious elite and the empire of Rome.”
4. The emphasis on “communal” and “missional” living
5. Although he refers to Jesus as “God mysteriously becoming flesh”, he doesn’t say that Jesus was “fully God” or “fully man”. He also leaves open the possibility that it could some kind of divine incarnation could happen again.
6. He mentions resurrection twice but doesn’t explain the importance of it (Acts 2:25).
7. He mentions “our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation being fractured and in desperate need of redeeming” but downplays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity] total depravity .
8. Finally, he denies the existence of a real, literal hell with conscious suffering for sin.
So if there’s some legitimate reason to consider him as orthodox, I’d like to know what it is.
edit - Al Mohler seems to agree with me. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2011/03/15/msnbc_host_makes_ro…!] He writes :
1. God’s wrath on sin - since sin is an offense to God, and our condemnation is not a ransom, but the just sentence of God.
2. Substitutionary atonement for sin by the death of Christ
3. The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, although he does say:
Since story is central to our belief about God, our words about God–our theology–exists in the form of a narrative. You won’t find isolated text references or a list of specific propositions in it, because ultimately neither of those things best reflects what we believe about God. What we believe about God is at the heart of what we believe also about each other, ourselves, and creation: that ultimately everything is part of the one great story.Note somethings that Bell does mention:
1. The openness of ‘non Christian’ theologies (but only as long as they line up with what he says)
2. The heavy, heavy emphasis on social justice as a critical component of belief
3. The work of Jesus as “confront[ing] the oppressive nature of the religious elite and the empire of Rome.”
4. The emphasis on “communal” and “missional” living
5. Although he refers to Jesus as “God mysteriously becoming flesh”, he doesn’t say that Jesus was “fully God” or “fully man”. He also leaves open the possibility that it could some kind of divine incarnation could happen again.
6. He mentions resurrection twice but doesn’t explain the importance of it (Acts 2:25).
7. He mentions “our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation being fractured and in desperate need of redeeming” but downplays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity] total depravity .
8. Finally, he denies the existence of a real, literal hell with conscious suffering for sin.
So if there’s some legitimate reason to consider him as orthodox, I’d like to know what it is.
edit - Al Mohler seems to agree with me. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2011/03/15/msnbc_host_makes_ro…!] He writes :
As a communicator, Rob Bell is a genius. He is the master of the pungent question, the turn-the-picture-upside-down story, and the personal anecdote. Like Harry Emerson Fosdick, the paladin of pulpit liberalism, Rob Bell is a master communicator. Had he set out to defend the biblical doctrine of hell, he could have done so marvelously. He would have done the church a great service. But that is not what he set out to do.Edit 2 - Kevin DeYoung posted a http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWins…] twenty page PDF review as well. He says:
Like Fosdick, Rob Bell cares deeply for people. It comes through in his writings. There is no reason to doubt that Bell wrote this book out of his own personal concern for people who are put off by the doctrine of hell. Had that concern been turned toward a presentation of how the biblical doctrine of hell fits within the larger context of God’s love and justice and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that would have been a help to untold thousands of Christians and others seeking to understand the Christian faith…Instead, Rob Bell uses his incredible power of literary skill and communication to unravel the Bible’s message and to cast doubt on its teachings.
He states his concern clearly: A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.
That is a huge statement, and it is clear enough…In Love Wins, Bell does his best to argue that the church has allowed the story of Jesus’ love to be perverted by other stories. The story of an eternal hell is not, he believes, a good story. He suggests that a better story would involve the possibility of a sinner coming to faith in Christ after death, or hell being a cessation of being, or hell being eventually emptied of all its inhabitants. The problem, of course, is that the Bible provides no hint whatsoever of any possibility of a sinner’s salvation after death. Instead, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” [Hebrews 9:27]
He also argues for a form of universal salvation. Once again, his statements are more suggestive than declarative, but he clearly intends his reader to be persuaded that it is possible — even probable — that those who resist, reject, or never hear of Christ may be saved through Christ nonetheless. That means no conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. He knows that he must deal with a text like Romans 10 in making this argument, “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” [Romans 10:14] Bell says that he wholeheartedly agrees with that argument from the Apostle Paul, but then he dumps the entire argument overboard and suggests that this cannot be God’s plan. He completely avoids Paul’s conclusion that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” [Romans 10:17] He rejects the idea that a person must come to a personal knowledge of Christ in this life in order to be saved.
…But this is how Rob Bell deals with the Bible. He argues that the gates that never shut in the New Jerusalem [Revelation 21:25] mean that the opportunity for salvation is never closed, but he just avoids dealing with the preceding chapter, which includes this clear statement of God’s justice: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” [Revelation 20:15] The eternally open gates of the New Jerusalem come only after that judgment.
Unfortunately, beyond this, there are dozens of problems with Love Wins. The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.] I think you’re right; I do disagree with you on this. I don’t see how Bell can be credibly held to any orthodox position.Jay, I never said he was orthodox. Wouldn’t dare say it. I said he is “likely a redeemed individual”. I can see why you might question that, and lean more toward unlikely, though.
Please do not interpret anything I said as defending him. Remember I “marked” him and am “avoiding” any association.
I didn’t mean to imply that you thought he was orthodox, but I don’t think that Bell is ‘a redeemed individual’. I say that based on what I noted above - his statement of ‘narrative theology’. I do not believe that it is possible for someone who so clearly misunderstands and teaches a false gospel to be part of the believing Church. I think Bell falls into the Luke 8:5 category of people who profess belief but are really unregenerate.
Maybe I’m grossly oversimplying here, but Bell can’t, or won’t, articulate a clear gospel message on his church website or in the interview that I linked to above. So how can he possibly believe it?
Maybe I’m grossly oversimplying here, but Bell can’t, or won’t, articulate a clear gospel message on his church website or in the interview that I linked to above. So how can he possibly believe it?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I tend to agree with Jay’s assessment of Bell. However, more to the point of this thread, I think this discussion is exactly the reason we have to stop being so dogmatic about our personal flavor of separation. Two solid men identify Bell differently here. That is going to impact the way they describe him and potentially how they interact with him. This kind of thing goes on all the time all up and down the ecclesiastical (and theological/philosophical) rolls. Fundamentalists must be able to come to opinions that diverge with others, at least to some degree, without being castigated. I think this is the heart of the discussion regarding our interaction with CE’s.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] I tend to agree with Jay’s assessment of Bell. However, more to the point of this thread, I think this discussion is exactly the reason we have to stop being so dogmatic about our personal flavor of separation. Two solid men identify Bell differently here. That is going to impact the way they describe him and potentially how they interact with him. This kind of thing goes on all the time all up and down the ecclesiastical (and theological/philosophical) rolls. Fundamentalists must be able to come to opinions that diverge with others, at least to some degree, without being castigated. I think this is the heart of the discussion regarding our interaction with CE’s.I guess in response to Jay C’s comment, I would say that the jury is still out on Bell. If he returns to the doctrinal fold in a few years, I think it will be certain He knew Christ. I’m praying for that. If he stays where he is, then I suspect he does not.
Meanwhile, I’m not so sure it makes a huge difference. My “mark” and “avoid” will be little different than Jay’s treatment of him, in the end.
I should mention that some are poking me personally and telling me that the “mark” and “avoid” verses are about unbelievers. Taking a look at that too.
He is BIG in Grand Rapids, especially among the student crowd.Yes and No…..There is also a huge reaction against him in Grand Rapids, not only from conservative evangelicals like Calvary Church of Grand Rapids (which was the starting church of Mars Hill), but even more broad evangelical churches such as those from the evangelical covenant crowd. African-American and Latino Churches in Grand Rapids have never been enamored by him, even when the “Mars Hill Miracle”(thats what M.H. insiders have called themselves) began. For our ministry in Grand Rapids, our only concern comes from sheltered Christian college students (usually guys) with Man crushes (they began dressing and acting “hip” like him) on Rob that want to volunteer with our urban ministry so that they can demonstrate justice to the poor and oppressed. Whats really ironic is that these young evangelical progressive emergent types who are most vocal about “social justice” seem most disgusted and upset by a God that even brings justice and eternal punishment against those unregenerate that oppressed or ignored the poor during their lifetime.
[Joel Shaffer] Yes and No…..There is also a huge reaction against him in Grand Rapids, not only from conservative evangelicals like Calvary Church of Grand Rapids (which was the starting church of Mars Hill), but even more broad evangelical churches such as those from the evangelical covenant crowd. African-American and Latino Churches in Grand Rapids have never been enamored by him, even when the “Mars Hill Miracle”(thats what M.H. insiders have called themselves) began. For our ministry in Grand Rapids, our only concern comes from sheltered Christian college students (usually guys) with Man crushes (they began dressing and acting “hip” like him) on Rob that want to volunteer with our urban ministry so that they can demonstrate justice to the poor and oppressed. Whats really ironic is that these young evangelical progressive emergent types who are most vocal about “social justice” seem most disgusted and upset by a God that even brings justice and eternal punishment against those unregenerate that oppressed or ignored the poor during their lifetime.Thanks for the encouraging report.
In response to some questions, I have given my position on Unity and Separation. That leaves us with a question: How does this position on Unity and Separation influence Ecclesiology, especially with regard to the local church?
Based on the premise that Unity exists between all true believers by default, our church must be more accepting, rather than more restrictive.
Our church sees a doctrinal statement as being descriptive of the taught position of the church, rather than as outlining the bounds of fellowship. The board is given authority to evaluate for membership those who have “mild” disagreements with the doctrinal statement, so long as they give firm profession of faith and seem to properly understand the gospel.. Thus, we have received into membership historic amil guys, charismatics, etc. They must agree to abide by the Statement of Faith. For instance, the Charismatics had to agree to not speak in tongues publicly or encourage it among others. Disagreements with our position are dealt with as teaching issues, not heresy issues, unless they become stubborn about the “discussion” that is on-going between us, or their position becomes a launch pad for other more serious doctrinal deviations..
What has been the impact of this?
1). The presence of those who feel differently about such things has forced us to frequently slow down and explain what’s under the hood of our theology. This has enriched the teaching, but not broadened it. Our church folk have become more certain of what we believe and why we believe it, and we have seen others change their views toward ours (or, occasionally, move on). We have not adjusted our position, but become more certain.
2). The presence of those who come from different traditions has been a great blessing. For example, the Charismatic family, having learned to think Scripturally as we try to do, still tended to be more adventurous in ventures that required much faith. The result was they were eager to challenge the “timid and stodgy” crowd when it came to stepping out to do that which God had clearly called our church to do.
Based on the premise that Unity exists between all true believers by default, our church must be more accepting, rather than more restrictive.
Our church sees a doctrinal statement as being descriptive of the taught position of the church, rather than as outlining the bounds of fellowship. The board is given authority to evaluate for membership those who have “mild” disagreements with the doctrinal statement, so long as they give firm profession of faith and seem to properly understand the gospel.. Thus, we have received into membership historic amil guys, charismatics, etc. They must agree to abide by the Statement of Faith. For instance, the Charismatics had to agree to not speak in tongues publicly or encourage it among others. Disagreements with our position are dealt with as teaching issues, not heresy issues, unless they become stubborn about the “discussion” that is on-going between us, or their position becomes a launch pad for other more serious doctrinal deviations..
What has been the impact of this?
1). The presence of those who feel differently about such things has forced us to frequently slow down and explain what’s under the hood of our theology. This has enriched the teaching, but not broadened it. Our church folk have become more certain of what we believe and why we believe it, and we have seen others change their views toward ours (or, occasionally, move on). We have not adjusted our position, but become more certain.
2). The presence of those who come from different traditions has been a great blessing. For example, the Charismatic family, having learned to think Scripturally as we try to do, still tended to be more adventurous in ventures that required much faith. The result was they were eager to challenge the “timid and stodgy” crowd when it came to stepping out to do that which God had clearly called our church to do.
Discussion