"...(L)et's heed Piper's warning not to fall into an error of secondary separation. There is no need for us to separate from Piper over such a decision."

Jonathan Charles wrote:
that leaders of the school often fellowshipped with these men in private. Even though BJU separated from Billy Graham, Bob Jones Jr. would still fellowship privately with Cliff Barrows. Also, while the school would not have John MacArthur on campus for chapel, bible conference, leaders in the administration also had fellowshipped with him in private.

1.where in Scriptures does it say it’s okay we fellowship with disobedient brethren in private?

J Ng, are you saying that you believe that MacArthur is a disobedient brother?? Just wondering?

Don’s article at oxgoad.ca is up. It’s really good, and I’d recommend [URL=http://oxgoad.ca/2010/04/05/its-not-about-separation/ checking it out[/URL].

Here’s a taste:

So why should I care about who he invites to Desiring God? What difference does it make to me? What, if anything, should I do about it? Should I comment to anyone, should I make any criticism to anyone, should I discuss it with anyone? Should I blog about it?

All of what I have said so far assumes that I agree with Tim Challies in his evaluation of Piper’s decision to invite Warren to Desiring God. Well, I do agree. Challies says the invitation was wrong. I think Challies is right, Piper is wrong about this. It is a foolish decision, especially given the kind of influence Piper has in Christian circles.

But I think Challies final comment, dismissing ‘secondary separation’ is irrelevant and misses the real significance of Piper’s error.

Here is how I, as a local pastor of a small church should look at this situation:

* Piper is demonstrating tremendously poor judgement in this case. Read Challies for a lot of good reasons why this is so.
* Piper has, in fact, shown similar poor judgement in inviting others in the past (Mark Driscoll – twice! – is perhaps the prime example).
* Piper’s poor judgement belies a number of things he has written in his own books. Which speaks louder, words or deeds?
* Piper’s books and sermons are widely available. The people in my church can and do ask me about them from time to time.

THEREFORE I should be extremely careful about recommending Piper as a reliable source for my people to develop their spiritual lives. I shouldn’t recommend attendance at his meetings or support his gatherings by pointing my people to the online resources. And so on…

The point of this error is that Piper’s judgement is certainly open to question. This error is very significant, even evangelicals are criticizing it and using the “s” word in the discussion (“separation”).

J Ng, are you saying that you believe that MacArthur is a disobedient brother?? Just wondering?

No, not personally. I was simply probing the principle at play here. It could be somebody else, indeed—plenty of examples!

Okay, practically speaking this issue does cause me discomfort. For example, I appreciate Al Mohler (especially his book reviews-that man is a machine with reading and reviewing) but when he signed the Manhattan Declaration, I felt queasy inside and decided to remove his site from my ministry blogroll put out by our church, but still kept him on my personal blog. Now I know that Al Mohler has no idea I did that and he could care less and he shouldn’t care. But from a pastoral perspective, I was concerned that the people within our church (understand the vast majority are first generation Christians with no axe to grind and to them fundamentalists and evangelicals are the same thing-I have no desire to teach them categories, but instead want to warn of false teaching and teachers on a case by case basis) could be swept into an ecumenical mindset since the MD was so public and i used it as an illustration of separation. Now, I appreciate John Piper and love to hear him preach. I don’t always agree with him, in fact, some of his holiness preaching causes me to search the Scriptures not sure of his position. But I have to admit he loves the Scripture and is at least consistent. In my heart, I am undecided as to whether I should remove him from the blogroll. Not to “punish” him or issue some childish retort, but rather because I am concerned about his discernment in this area. I have no intention of ever speaking to Piper, I have our local assembly to worry about. I see inconsistency (as many have already noted) and was deeply troubled by his statement that he doesn’t care what a guy holds in his left hand if right doctrine is in the right hand. I don’t want that message being received by the flock God has given me leadership over. So in a practical sense, if I practice any kind of separation from Piper and Mohler it is purely on a local, practical level. It is about protecting the church that God has placed me as the undershepherd over because I must give an account for how I lead God’s people. Separation becomes very practical for me and when we start thinking of separation as some kind of protest or “take that” then we have missed the whole point. At the same time we are using Piper’s book “Don’t waste Your life” with our youth. I endorse the book whole-heartedly, yet the recent events have given me pause and I am seeking truth in action with the whole matter. Knee-jerk reactions must be guarded against in any situation.

Without regard to the merit of Challies’ opinion piece, if he believes that Piper and Warren are overtaken in faults (a belief shared by most members of sharperiron, including myself), does he, in the spirit if not the letter of Matthew 18, have an obligation to approach Brothers John and Rick privately before criticizing them publicly?

Of course not. It is not a one one sin towards another in a local church. It is a public matter involving many.

That was my error: Matthew 18 would apply when “…thy brother shall trespass against thee…” I was thinking of Galatians 6:1.