"Given the long track record of doctrinal and moral messes at First Baptist of Hammond, there is no justification for ministerial cooperation with that church, its ministries, or its pastor."

I don’t know if I agree or not.
I haven’t paid any attention to Hammond for many years so I have no idea what goes on there anymore. I know Doran is a sober minded guy so I’m sure he’s doing what he believes is right.

This is one of the most profoundly accurate statements I have seen from a fundamentalist leader. It is confusion over this inconsistency that creates a lot of problems.

[David Doroan] For instance, when well-known fundamentalists make a questionable decision, it is sometimes explained with reasons like: (1) personal friendships with the hosts; (2) assurances that the hosts do not agree with the stranger views of the other speakers; (3) explanations that while those guys do hold some strange views, they really love souls (or have some other commendable trait); (4) in spite of their errant views, we think we can help that circle move toward a more biblical position; and/or (5) lack of knowledge regarding who all was involved in the event.

Yet, when some “non-fundamentalist” speaks alongside a person with questionable theology or ministry practices, he might offer the exact same kind of explanations and be soundly rebuked for (in corresponding order): (1) putting friendship ahead of the truth; (2) failing to realize the confusion that platform fellowship creates; (3) exalting man above God; (4) embracing an end justifies the means mindset; and/or (5) being careless about his ministry and with the Truth.

To accept the explanations of the one while condemning the other is very questionable. Most of us can understand rejecting them both or accepting them both, but not an approach where special interests seem to be in control. The fact that two standards are applied suggests, at least to me, that the controlling factor is not biblical principle, but what label a man already has affixed to him. If he has the right label, his reasons are acceptable. If not, fat chance of that happening.

[RPittman] Isn’t this the same or worse problem with the conservative evangelicals?

And I think that’s why Phil Johnson [URL=http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26235196/Continuing-Dialogue-Phil-Johnson-a…] said this[/URL]:

Still, it disturbs me when fundamentalists respond to criticisms about the doctrinal poverty of the wider fundamentalist movement by deflecting the criticism and pointing to others who (they are convinced) are worse off. It’s true enough that American religion in general has tended to be anti-intellectual, atheological, devoid of propositional truth and objective content, and hostile to the very idea of doctrine since the beginning of the 20th century.

But for the fundamentalist movement, such doctrinal apathy and anti-intellectualism is absolutely inexcusable. Neo-evangelicals practically admitted from the get-go that they didn’t care much about doctrine. By contrast, fundamentalists are supposed to love sound doctrine, and they are supposed to be prepared to do battle for the fundamentals. Deliberate neglect of doctrine is therefore a worse sin for fundamentalists, because it also involves gross hypocrisy. This is not one of the flaws of fundamentalism that serious fundamentalists ought to be downplaying or discounting just because everyone else is doing it, too…

Meanwhile, even some of the best fundamentalist leaders and schools clearly aren’t putting the same kind of energy into warning their people about the influences of their own movement’s lunatic fringe as they spend critiquing John MacArthur. That is tragic. Thoughtful, conscientious fundamentalists ought to acknowledge the seriousness of this problem and not get indignant when it is pointed out. I remain basically unmoved by the complaints of those who insist that my portrayal of fundamentalism is unfair because I haven’t painted the best fundamentalists as the mainstream of today’s fundamentalist movement. Granted, a pastor like Mark Minnick is a true historic fundamentalist, and the average Jack Hyles clone is not, but that doesn’t make Pastor Minnick more representative of the mainstream in the movement—any more than the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ commitment to the historic Protestant creeds automatically places them in the “mainstream” of the modern evangelical movement…

It was actually a question about fundamentalism’s policy on separation when it comes to the kind of “disobedient brethren” who blatantly thumb their noses at what Scripture plainly teaches about morality, personal character, church leadership, or ministry philosophy—yet remain loyal separatists and want to remain “in” the fundamentalist movement. Why does it seem like separation from men like that is never done as quickly or talked about as profusely as separation from the kind of “disobedient brethren” who happen to be Southern Baptists? Or presidents of different colleges?

Roland,

I have debated whether or not to respond. I have actually written this twice. I want to be cautious, but I think there are some issues here that need to be addressed. I will try to do so quickly.

First, the person you are referring to is Dave Doran, not Dave Dorn. I know them both (actually four of them), and they are not the same.

To the bigger point, yes BJU had “Hyles & Company.” So what? It was years ago, and remember, that Hyles changed over the years. Furthermore, the issue is not “Did someone do it in the past?” (because people do wrong things all the time). It is “How should we respond biblically?” There are grave doctrinal and philosophical errors at FBC Hammond. If you want to stop short of using the word “heresy,” fine. But these errors include areas of soteriology, bibliology, church philosophy of ministry, and methodology. These are not small matters, and a one day conference about the KJV isn’t really addressing the issues. Furthermore, there’s the fact that FBC Hammond sat on the Hyles situation (both Jack and Dave) and did nothing for years apparently. Schaap was there for much of it and never separated himself from it. He apparently has never led the church to repudiate those past actions. These are serious matters. If we are to separate from John MacArthur because he has C. J. Mahaney to speak, are not the moral and theological issues of Jack Hyles greater than that?

Second, if you think the differences between Detroit and Hammond are “most likely cultural differences,” you really need to find out more. There are far greater differences in many areas—theological, philosophical, and ministerial. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make one wrong and one right. But this is not mere cultural issues, or a turf war about influence.

Third, you question whether or not Dr. Doran has done his homework. He knows the doctrinal aberrations at Hammond. He knows that these differences are not “cultural differences.” You ask if he called Vaughn or Shrock. I don’t know. Did you call him and ask him before commenting here about it? I wonder if it’s not at least a little disingenuous to argue publicly that Doran should have called these men if you have in fact not called him? You say, “Have Schaap’s critics approached him personally?” Again, I don’t know, but did you approach Doran personally? My point is not that you should, except that you made an issue of the personal approach. Both Doran and Schaap have made statements in the public venue, and while personal approach may be wise and good at times, particularly from friends, they are not necessary. But if you are going to say that Doran should do it, surely you should as well. And perhaps you did. I think this is an area where many people pull out pious sounding language about approaching someone else privately, but rarely do it themselves. If you did approach Doran, that is a good thing, given your point here. If you didn’t …

Fourth, you say that Schaap is trying to remediate some of his errors and we should wait and see. I think that is a good point: we should wait and see. Let’s see how far down this road he goes. Sexton didn’t wait and see. He honored him by asking him to participate in this conference. Perhaps ten years from now, if Schaap genuinely turns from these errors, a conference invite would be appropriate. But until then, to use your words, “We should wait and see.”

Lastly, you comment about inconsistency. You say, It is interesting that we tolerate aberrations in our friends and expose them in our enemies. I think this is part of Doran’s point. Some fundamentalists give wide berth to Schaap because he is “one of us.” But they do not give wide berth to evangelicals, who are actually more doctrinally sound than Schaap is. Some are calling for separation from men who preach the word clearly but perhaps do it in different places than we think they should, but we give a free pass to those who abominate the word with their preaching and their lives, but manage to do it in the “right places.” I think many, including myself, find that problemmatic. Too many fundamentalists tolerate error and ungodly behavior because they are “one of us.”

The issue of separating from Schaap vs. conservative evangelicals really brings the separation issue to the fore. What will we separate over? If biblical separation is primarily over doctrine, then we must separate from Schaap, but the case for separation from some conservative evangelicals is much weaker. It is clear that John MacArthur and Mark Dever are far more orthodox than Jack Schaap. Yet some separate from MacArthur and Dever, but not from Schaap. If biblical separation is primarily over associations, then things change slightly (although Schaap still has some issues, though to his credit perhaps, those with a more radical denial of bibliology are separating from Schaap, which is a bit humorous seeing this fight over who is going to embrace heresy more publicly and more tenaciously).

I think separation is primarily over doctrine, and secondarily over associations. The first question is, “What does a man believe and teach and do? The second question is, “Where does he do it?” Both should be asked. Too many fundamentalists have reversed that, and made separation primarily over associations. They overlook doctrine because they are “one of us.” I think that’s what Doran is saying needs to change. There are some conservative evangelicals we should have nothing to do with; there are some we might have measured fellowship with in some areas. There are some fundamentalists we should have nothing to do with; there are some that we might have measured fellowship with in some areas; there are some that we can have full fellowship with.

But we need to get over the game of camps or groups. It has to be first and foremost about doctrine and life.

Amen Larry. I second everything you wrote so well!

Let me quickly respond here, Roland.

Well, Larry, if it’s something that need straightening out, then why did you need to agonize over it?

Because I have concluded it is impossible to overestimate the way in which people’s words can be misunderstood and twisted to fit someone’s agenda. And I want to be careful so as not to be misunderstood, or appear as harsh. And quite frankly, I don’t want to get involved in a protracted public discussion.

I understood Dr. Doran’s article as firing salvos at those who would associate with Hammond. IMHO, he could have used a more balanced approach.

I didn’t take it that way. I don’t know. My guess is that people sympathetic to movement fundamentalism will read it more negatively than those not sympathetic to it.

Why bring it [issues with Schaap] up now?

Because it has never been rectified. It is an ongoing issue.

It’s on record that Schaap has admitted to past failures. He is reputedly trying to correct things in his ministry. (Romans 14:1)

Fine. Give him time to do so, and have make the repentance as loud as the tarnish. Don’t restore him until the fruits of repentance have been borne. A one day seminar slightly modifying a heretical position on Bibliology is not going to fix that problem, much less all the others. It will take more.

Perhaps you need to find out more. How do you know I am wrong? This is an inane comment because it has no substance. If you have something to teach me, then teach me but don’t tell me that I am simply ignorant. You’re trying to win points without any ammunition.

You separated this quote from its context where I explained how you were wrong. You were wrong because it isn’t about culture, but about theology, philosophy, and ministry. And those aren’t part of culture. They are part of theology, philosophy, and ministry.

Wouldn’t you say that this is a nice little piece of “disingenuous” piece of work that you’ve written. Now, you’re simply defending Dr. Doran. Let the man defend himself if he chooses. How do you know what he knows or does not know?

No, I wouldn’t say that. It’s not disingenuous in the least because I didn’t say you should have called him. I am not defending him. He certainly doesn’t need it. But you brought up the point about him calling them, and I was merely asking if you lived by your own standard. Most people who bring up the “private confrontation first” argument do not first engage in private conversation about it. And you admit that you didn’t. If you were posing simply as a question for information, fine. It sounded like a rhetorical question to make a point that Doran was in error for not calling them.

So you seem to think that he owes them a phone call, but why? The data is pretty public and pretty clear isn’t it? Numerous men shared the platform with a man known for serious theological and ministerial errors as a pattern of life and ministry, not as an aberration. How does a phone call help explain that? Every man on that schedule knew what Schaap and FBC Hammond stood for. And if they didn’t know that Schaap was the on the schedule, they could have graciously pulled out when they found out. It’s not that hard, aside from the politics of it. If these were lesser issues, then it wouldn’t be a big deal at all. But they are major issues. I am not particularly troubled that they spoke with Sexton. I think there are some issues that Sexton has, but that doesn’t bother me. Schaap is a good deal beyond that.

No, I didn’t. And there’s no need to do so when the debate is in public forum.

So why question whether Doran did or not? By your own standard here, there was “no need.”

Notice that you did not approach me privately either. That’s okay. My point was simply that our Fundamentalist leaders don’t practice what they preach.

Not sure what this means? I don’t think leaders have a duty for private conversations in matters of public issues. Remember, you are the one who brought up the phone call and you did it in public. I didn’t approach you privately because I think it is unnecessary. You seem to agree since this is in the public forum, which makes me wonder why you brought it up.

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations(Romans 14:1).”

Not sure how that applies here. Schaap is not struggling in the faith. He was honored as a key speaker at a large national conference. Romans 14 does not address these kinds of issues.

No, I think that I was talking about those with connections to Schaap. There’s an entanglement that is impossible to resolve.

How is it impossible? You cut off fellowship and state why. And state what steps would be necessary to restore fellowship. That’s not impossible. It’s only hard, particularly since it involves politics.

Biblical separation is not primarily doctrinal.

I think here is a key difference. Roma 16:17-18 and a host of others passages focus on teaching and doctrine. That is the primary basis for separation. Associations with disobedient brothers are secondary and are related to doctrine, i.e, they should have separated over doctrine but they didn’t.

We need to reclaim that doctrinal basis of separation and get it out of personalities and the like.

Also, separation is clearly based on behavior as well. (II Thessalonians 3:6, I Corinthians 5:11)

Of course.

But we need to get over the game of camps or groups. It has to be first and foremost about doctrine and life.

On this we agree. It doesn’t matter that Schaap is in a “fundamentalist church.” We should not have fellowship with him. And that’s my point.

Anyway, I will try to bow out here and return to my regularly scheduled life. Thanks Roland.

I think that the issue here as to whether or not Doran is correct to address this issue on his blog is almost irrelevant. I also think that it is borderline rude to even insinuate that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He did earn his own Ph.D., pastors a church that is considerably closer to Schaap than most of us, and is the leader of a major Fundamentalist seminary. To add to this, Doran may be one of the most forceful, Scriptural, and clear speakers that the Lord has graciously given to us today.

(For the record, no, I’m not a DBTS grad. =) )

If we were talking about a more private incident between two public institutions, maybe it would not be appropriate to discuss this in a public forum. However, we have two of the more prominent institutions of ‘Fundamentalist’ lineage giving support (by sending speakers) to a highly visible “fundamentalist’ church that at best has a long and public history of abuses and misdeeds by multiple pastors. Personally, I was always taught that the scope of the problem is only as large as it’s visibility - which makes this problem very clear and obvious.

Personally, I suspect that because FBC Hammond has been ‘numerically’ successful and because it continues to ‘defend’ the KJV (although I would argue that the ‘defense” is theologically aberrant and possibly worse than the original problem) we (and I’m speaking of “movement Fundamentalism”) are having a difficult time separating our relationships and the truth of what needs to be done. W need to act in a manner that Scripture mandates by demanding consistent behavior and radical course corrections at FBC Hammond or force them out of the ‘movement’.

At this point I’m not sure if I should cry for the embarrassment of it or if I should just give up entirely.