"Undermining separatism for the purposes of cooperation with those who either define the doctrine more loosely or do not hold it at all has proven costly in the past, and it will do so again."

I am concerned about this resolution on Together for the Gospel. Particularly with regard to a selective quotation in the following paragraph:

However, there is one vital element of Biblical truth that is missing from the document. There is no call to adhere to the Biblical doctrine of separation. Instead, Article XV states, “We affirm that evangelical congregations are to work together in humble and voluntary cooperation and that the spiritual fellowship of Gospel congregations bears witness to the unity of the Church and the glory of God.” However, what constitutes an evangelical congregation is not readily apparent. It is even less apparent when considering that two of the signers of that document, Albert Mohler and J. Ligon Duncan III, are also signers of the Manhattan Declaration that pointedly affirms that Roman Catholics and adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy are fellow Christians.

Article XV actually states, in full:

Article XV
We affirm that evangelical congregations are to work together in humble and voluntary cooperation and that the spiritual fellowship of Gospel congregations bears witness to the unity of the Church and the glory of God.

We deny that loyalty to any denomination or fellowship of churches can take precedence over the claims of truth and faithfulness to the Gospel.

And that article follows Article XIV which has a call for church discipline:

Article XIV
We affirm that the shape of Christian discipleship is congregational, and that God’s purpose is evident in faithful Gospel congregations, each displaying God’s glory in the marks of authentic ecclesiology.

We deny that any Christian can truly be a faithful disciple apart from the teaching, discipline, fellowship, and accountability of a congregation of fellow disciples, organized as a Gospel church. We further deny that the Lord’s Supper can faithfully be administered apart from the right practice of church discipline.

In context, it is clear that Together For the Gospel is not about unity at all costs. A Biblical separation centered in church discipline and faithfulness to the gospel is certainly implied.

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered ….

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial [sic] differences to affirm ….

Re: T4G … it’s just a conference every 2 years. Not in my mind a new movement! But I appreciate the ACCC’s concern

The problem I have with “connect the dots” separation.

Connect the dots:

• I could not sign the M/D
  
• Mohler did
  
• Therefore he is a disobedient brother
  
• Therefore I should separate from him
  

Of course some take it further

• Peet won’t separate from Mohler
  
• Therefore he [Peet] is a disobedient brother
  
• And I will separate from him
  

Caveat: My association with Mohler (or probably better stated this way … Mohler’s association with Peet): I read him and quote him

[Jim Peet] http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered ….

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial [sic] differences to affirm ….

Re: T4G … it’s just a conference every 2 years. Not in my mind a new movement! But I appreciate the ACCC’s concern

I wouldn’t sign the document. But I can see some seeing it as not a theological definition of Christian but a cultural definition or something along those lines. I just think the background and the chief architects of it are too suspect in my view.

But that’s my view, and if someone else signs it, isn’t that up to his/her conscience? I fail to see signing that non-theological statement as a tipping point when it comes to separation. It isn’t anything close to ECT in severity, I would think.

Didn’t see your post, Jim, but I agree with what you said in post #3

Thanks for the tip, Greg.

Corrected link for the handout sheet is: http://www.ibfna.org/IBFNA-Docs/ConferenceHandouts/2010/FundamentalismS…

I like it, but still reject the “new image fundamentalism” label. It’s not about “image”. It’s about commitment to truth and leaving behind practices and approaches not clearly established in Scripture.

I think the ones who really are about “image” are those who bail from fundamentalism altogether.

I’ll have to listen to the panel discussions, too….

The ACCC resolutions are all a worthwhile read

I have friends who are part of T4G who practice the separation that characterized historical fundamentalism. They do pay a price for their stand on the Word of God. These men do not practice the mutiple degrees of separation that characterizes much of the hyper-fundamentalism of our day.

I respectfully disagree with my friends at the ACCC for seeing the need for such a resolution at this time.