DBTS Blog vs. 9 Marks on Fundamentalism
- 581 views
My major thought is "which fundamentalism is each person talking about?" The DBTS writer is framing things carefully (as is appropriate) in terms of separation, but there are, I think obviously, a lot of different interpretations of what that doctrine entails--whether it extends only to rejecting fellowship with those who deny the Gospel, or whether it extends to rejecting fellowship with those who attempt fellowship with those who deny the Gospel, or whether it extends to the 2nd/3rd degree, or where separation is required based on certain cultural positions.
So my answer is "tell me a bit more about what you're talking about."
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
One type (I'll call it historic) holds to and defends the fundamentals of the Christian faith and practices separation from those who do not hold to the fundamentals.
The second type is like the first but has added separation from other Christians whom they consider disobedient as essentially a fundamental.
BTW, Group 2 does not consider Group 1 to be true fundamentalists.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Sounds like the kind of fundamentalism you don’t like
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Everybody believes in ecclesiastical separation. Many say they don’t, but it’s really a question of what is appropriate to separate over.
What if a church/author/ministry normally in close cooperation with 9 Marks started openly preaching universalism, or justification by works, or modalism? Lots of formerly United Methodists have been separating over recent UMC trends in sexual ethics/LGBTQ inclusion. I bet it’s even possible for an Episcopal congregation to get kicked out of the Episcopal church. I’m not sure what it would take, but openly teaching that there is only one way to heaven might do it? I wouldn’t know, but I’m sure they have some boundaries of belief and practice.
Everybody does.
So the really pivotal factors are
a) what is worth separating over (including failure to separate)?
b) what is the nature of the separation?/what do we say it implies about those being separated from?
c) what’s the process?
It’s probably also fair to say that way more groups believe in ‘secondary separation’ than are willing to own up to it. I mean, suppose some ministry or congregation decides to go on a public, high visibility campaign in favor of abortion and advocating violence against pregnancy centers.
Let’s call this movement Conservative Evangelical’s for Radical Choice Activism. Then suppose some other ministry says it disagrees with CERCA but invites them to have a conspicuous role in their conference? Let’s hypothetically say it’s something like the old T4G events.
So T4G has the leaders of CERCA speak and do some workshops or something.
There would be a big controversy among evangelicals over whether participating in T4G is OK, because T4G prominently featured CERCA.
Maybe you can think of a more plausible scenario, but my point is that everybody believes in separating and nearly everybody would also separate over failure to separate—if the associations involved had sufficient stink to them.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
my point is that everybody believes in separating and nearly everybody would also separate over failure to separate—if the associations involved had sufficient stink to them.
I like the especially apt theological term you close with!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Maybe “negative theological or methodological ambience” would be more appealing to to some than theological “stink” ? 😃 Give it an academic tint.
(An observation: If you want a concept to catch on with nearly everyone, give it a one syllable name. If you want it to catch on in academia, give it a four or five syllable name. … I’m teasing my academic friends a bit here. I do appreciate them and their work, but the quirks are still amusing at times.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If you want it to catch on in academia, give it a four or five syllable name. … I’m teasing my academic friends a bit here.
Like "complementarianism" for example... just rolls off the tongue! Interestingly, I was in a discussion group years ago focused on this subject. In the discussion, the terms were reduced to "comps" and "egals" ... proving your point, I think
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion