Doran: "The 'no changes' mantra can be worse than a distraction in that it can represent a lack of submission to God’s Word"

[Don Johnson]

[Susan R] I’m trying not to read into his arguments- it’s difficult at times not to interpret things through the lens of one’s own experiences and preconceived notions.

Well, all I can say is that it looks like that’s what you’re doing from this corner.

Fair enough, and you’re probably right. I’m looking at this through the lens of 30+ years in IFB churches. I can’t get that particular pair of glasses off long enough to be objective. I’ll just plead “Guilty” and try to do better.

[Don Johnson]… Separation, as we loosely use the term, encompasses a good deal more than this. Bauder talks about levels of separation, saying it is not a black and white, on and off issue. It’s not ‘binary’, he would say. It seems like that’s the way you are taking it here. There is such a thing as breaking fellowship and not walking together. Paul and Barnabas would be an example. And they had a sharp contention with one another. The Scripture doesn’t rebuke either of them.

Would you say that because Scripture doesn’t rebuke either of them, they were both right, both wrong, or it was a draw? :)

I agree there are levels of cooperation and separation, and this is true of every aspect of our lives. When we’re talking about rebuking sin and calling for some kind of action from others, though, I think we need to be very careful where we set that standard, or we could very well be guilty, however inadvertently, of sowing discord. That scares me personally- I want to know how to make these decisions in my own life without ending up in one extreme or other.

[Don Johnson] Are you judging motives? Pastor Arrowood has a ministry wider than his own church and is concerned about the direction of erstwhile compatriots. He may have more direct connections with some of these ministries than you realize. Regardless, does he not have the right to speak up if he thinks something is wrong, whether he has direct connections or not? If we were to go through your posts here on SI, it is possible we might find you criticizing something you don’t have any connection with, correct?

I’m not judging motives per se, but asking questions- questions that do cast light on motive, and I don’t think than when we discuss someone’s actions we can get away from considering motives, so I’ve just gone and totally contradicted myself. Oh well, it’s been that kind of week.

It’s possible that my questions are moot because Dr. Arrowood never intended for the world at large to view, meditate on, and discuss his opinions on the matter. But it seems that he did approve for his letters to be disseminated to some degree, so that leaves me with my random ponderings.

This isn’t about whether or not we should voice our opinions, but who, how, and in what manner. Sure I voice my opinions, some of them critical in nature, here at SI and on the WWW. I have different reasons to voice them- to connect others to a different train of thought, as a sort of FYI, and occasionally to inspire change. And sometimes I really hoover in the clarity, tact, and diplomacy departments, but then heads cooler than mine usually nudge me back in the right direction. I’m OK with with. AAMOF, it’s why I’m here. I learn alot, even when I’m chomping on shoe leather.

My question as to what Dr. Arrowood hopes will happen as a result of his letter is because I’m very curious as to how those in leadership decide which hills they want to die on- so here’s an inquiring mind who wants to know what he/we want to see happen, or what he/we think should happen.

[Don Johnson] Is it the fact that he doesn’t like SI that has you steamed? If so, I’d say just get over it! There are lots of folks who don’t like SI. I agree that he should not protest about a link. It appears he doesn’t have a firm grasp of netiquette. What does it matter in the long run?

I am in agreement with his concerns. I think his letters are not that articulate, but I share his point of view. And I think he has the perfect right (and responsibility) to express his concerns. I hope more men of like mind will decide to do the same.

“Steamed” isn’t the word I’d use. I’m not concerned with who does and doesn’t “like” SI. But if someone presents their view of A, while on the other hand inaccurately portraying B, I’m going to be less inclined to seriously consider criticisms of A. I agree that we have every right and even responsibility to voice our concerns, but as someone mentioned earlier- some of this kind of criticism misses the mark, in that there are pastors and teachers in our own ‘circles’ who have all their Fundy ducks in a row as far as who they rub shoulders with and what music they use, but are sadly lacking in other areas- the scariest of which is preaching that lacks sound doctrine but is soaked in the ministry pedigree, charismatic personality of the speaker, and the humor of his many anecdotes. Are we calling these guys out too? If so, where?

As for the concerns you share with Dr. Arrowood, where do you think sharing a platform with Mark Dever could lead? Why is Dr. Doran’s reasoning on this faulty?

[Susan R]
Those issues (sharing platforms, Calvinism, SG music) seem to be the ones Dr. Arrowood is most concerned about, so he’s admonishing Drs. Bauder and Doran… and Northland U…

Susan, that is the thing that scared me most when reading his letter. He seems to focus more on the side issues than he does on the fundamentals, all the while calling himself a fundamentalist. That is where the slippery slope lies. I am sure we could agree on many things in Scripture that we cannot back down on, but one sentence in his letter simply made me shudder:

“We have a history of writing articles, books, and resolutions admonishing and urging each other to be cautious about compromise and the dangers of it! At the top of this list is ecclesiastical separation and music.”

Separation is certainly biblical (to what degree is debatable), but music has been debated for centuries. Neither one of these would be “at the top of [my] list.” Go back to the fundamentals….they should be at the top of the list. Harping on debatable topics to the point of splintering the church as a whole doesn’t seem to mesh with Scriptural teaching about quarreling over opinions. Most people have no problem if he doesn’t like Sovereign Grace music or doesn’t want to share a platform with Dever. I think a line has been crossed though when those particular items are pressed onto others.

[Susan R] I agree that we have every right and even responsibility to voice our concerns, but as someone mentioned earlier- some of this kind of criticism misses the mark, in that there are pastors and teachers in our own ‘circles’ who have all their Fundy ducks in a row as far as who they rub shoulders with and what music they use, but are sadly lacking in other areas- the scariest of which is preaching that lacks sound doctrine but is soaked in the ministry pedigree, charismatic personality of the speaker, and the humor of his many anecdotes. Are we calling these guys out too? If so, where?

As for the concerns you share with Dr. Arrowood, where do you think sharing a platform with Mark Dever could lead? Why is Dr. Doran’s reasoning on this faulty?

As for the Fundy ducks, I’d say that this is partly urban legend and partly true. There is a tendency to say “There are lots of Fundamentalist pastors who do XXXXX” as if that is an argument against the question at hand. It sounds true, because we know some “Fundy ducks” and there are “probably” lots of them. But it really isn’t an argument, it’s an attempt to change the conversation.

But, alas, it is true that Fundy pastors sin at times also. That’s why people use such ‘arguments’ to change the conversation.

As for where the association with Dever will lead, it is hard to say. Historically, when Fundamentalists have begun to join hands with non-Fundamentalists, they have eventually left Fundamentalism. (See Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe and other less prominent names.) Who is to say where this will lead? The question can’t be determined by that, we each have to decide if the decision is right or wrong.

As for why Dave’s reasoning is faulty, I have written a post about it at oxgoad ” http://oxgoad.ca/2011/01/24/something-i-dont-understand/ Something I Don’t Understand “. I don’t quite get Dave’s reasoning on this. He has responded to the post a couple of times, but I remain unconvinced.

(Note, I am putting in a link to the post, but I am unsure if it is appropriate to link to myself. Put on your moderator hat and remove the link if you think I shouldn’t put it in. Thanks.)

**** Mod Note *****
ok to link to own blog
No issues
****************

[RickyHorton]
Separation is certainly biblical (to what degree is debatable), but music has been debated for centuries. Neither one of these would be “at the top of [my] list.” Go back to the fundamentals….they should be at the top of the list. Harping on debatable topics to the point of splintering the church as a whole doesn’t seem to mesh with Scriptural teaching about quarreling over opinions. Most people have no problem if he doesn’t like Sovereign Grace music or doesn’t want to share a platform with Dever. I think a line has been crossed though when those particular items are pressed onto others.

I don’t disagree that music, calvinism, and separation should be farther down the list than the fundamentals. However, I think the reason they are fought over so strongly is that there is mostly wide agreement on the fundamentals, so the focus then changes to the areas in which disagreement occurs. That’s just the nature of the beast. Although I disagree with a lot of what Arrowood wrote (making Bauder and others the leaders of a “new” New Evangelicalism), I doubt he would have much (if any) disagreement with either Bauder or Dever on the fundamentals. That tends to bring the lesser issues to the top of things he wants to deal with, as there’s no point in chastising them on areas in which they all agree. I’m sure he sees the issues he is writing about to be more important than opinion, but labeling opposition as “gossip” obviously goes too far.

I don’t know Arrowood at all (or Bauder or Dever for that matter), but my theory is that the new methods of communication have outpaced many or even most of the men from his generation, and although I disagree with Arrowood’s portrayal of the role of SI, I believe him when he says he genuinely didn’t understand what could happen when papers or other forms of communication “go viral.” Even though to those who are comfortable with the speed of communication today such a position seems hopelessly outdated or even willfully ignorant, I’ve met far too many who just haven’t “gotten it.” I hope that as one of the prominent figures in the FBF, he’ll figure this out over time.

As to his contention that “the way things have always been done” is “the right way for them to be done,” well, that’s another matter entirely. I understand concern when change appears, but the nature of the change needs to be better understood rather than writing it all off as the same old, same old. That may not have been his intent, but the paper certainly makes it appear that way.

[Don Johnson]

[Susan R] I agree that we have every right and even responsibility to voice our concerns, but as someone mentioned earlier- some of this kind of criticism misses the mark, in that there are pastors and teachers in our own ‘circles’ who have all their Fundy ducks in a row as far as who they rub shoulders with and what music they use, but are sadly lacking in other areas- the scariest of which is preaching that lacks sound doctrine but is soaked in the ministry pedigree, charismatic personality of the speaker, and the humor of his many anecdotes. Are we calling these guys out too? If so, where?

As for the concerns you share with Dr. Arrowood, where do you think sharing a platform with Mark Dever could lead? Why is Dr. Doran’s reasoning on this faulty?

As for the Fundy ducks, I’d say that this is partly urban legend and partly true. There is a tendency to say “There are lots of Fundamentalist pastors who do XXXXX” as if that is an argument against the question at hand. It sounds true, because we know some “Fundy ducks” and there are “probably” lots of them. But it really isn’t an argument, it’s an attempt to change the conversation.

The question isn’t an effort to change the subject, but to advocate that we attempt to be fair, consistent, balanced . That whole beam/mote thing. I don’t think it’s urban legend at all- you hear a lot when you are washing dishes, sweeping floors, emptying trash cans, and scrubbing toilets after conferences and revivals. It certainly isn’t my fault that so many preachers consider the ‘help’ invisible. I think we are naive to be more concerned about the dangers from without when we are being consumed from within.

I agree that we can’t expect to reach perfection before we can point out serious error wherever we find it, but I’m having a hard time understanding how the issues that concern Dr. Arrowood and yourself (whose opinions and insights I very much respect and usually agree with btw, so I hope I don’t sound like an argumentative shrew), represent serious error or a dangerous detour…?

And if Fundamentalism is an idea, how does one ‘leave’ it, except to deny the fundamentals?

I’ll head on over to your link in a bit- gotta take the crumbcrunchers and the dog to the library.

[RPittman] We must be able to put ourselves in the poster’s perspective and understand his POV. And, yes, the new digital age does make havoc of older etiquette, manners, politeness, privacy, civility, courtesy and rules of communication. Perhaps we have lost something that’s worthwhile. Even so, we must bear with and understand those who still retain older standards.

I would give Pastor Arrowood the same respect I would give anyone in trying to understand their perspective and POV before giving answer. That’s simply biblical. That’s not to say that I agree with him. Yes, we don’t want to go down the road that leads to apostasy. What fundamentalist would argue with that? That doesn’t mean the issues he discusses will get us there, though he is certainly entitled to have his view and present it to others. That doesn’t automatically mean it will be accepted because of any position(s) he holds.

I also understand that the digital age has played havoc with the older rules of communication. I think politeness, courtesy and civility should still be present, though I don’t equate either posting a link or egalitarian communication with a lack of communication etiquette, as many of the older generation might. When I said I hope he’ll figure it out over time, I meant that although he might not change his views in the face of all the opposition, he needs to learn how to deal with the new information landscape. Posting something on a public web page is essentially giving up any expectation of “privacy.” And a good defense of one’s ideas has always been necessary for them to be more widely accepted, not just recently as part of the advent of email and the internet.

The real difference is that the audience has changed. We no longer have just the pastor to interpret the Bible for us and feed us our convictions and opinions, and we no longer just blindly accept them. We expect more from our leaders, especially those with national exposure, and the “internet democracy” we have means that one does not need to have the stature of someone else to be able to challenge their ideas. We now have more resources to enable us to be “Berean” in our thinking than we have ever had, and I believe it is unsettling (at best) to those from a slower time. It is exactly this unexpected challenge to ideas that I’m afraid is being written off as gossip in an attempt to distract from the weakness of what has been presented, and a later, fairly self-serving 2nd post with lots of anonymous “support” for “telling it like it is,” again, without good arguments or defense of the ideas only reinforces my conclusion.

I believe that Pastor Arrowood is sincerely concerned about what he sees, not just stirring up dissent. Until I know otherwise, I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I still see what he has written as representative of the “old guard,” who did not like their ideas challenged, and did their best to keep any challenge from coming to light or be considered credible. He might be right in his conclusions (though I don’t think so), but what he wrote did his side no favors.

From the comments at oxgoad-

[Dr. Doran] I hope we can all agree that there is a difference between saying I won’t do that because I don’t like the potential outcomes versus I can’t do that because it would violate God’s Word. I would contend that some have turned the former into something more authoritative than the Scriptures themselves. The fence to protect us from the cliff of disobedience now is treated as if it in fact is the line between obedience and disobedience. And we now have fences to protect us from getting to close to the fence.

IMO that is an important distinction. There may be decisions that to some do not seem prudent, but that is not the same as being in violation of Scripture.

The neutral-third-party argument makes sense to me, because I agree that there is a tremendous difference between sharing a platform at a conference and inviting someone into your church to teach your sheep. The premise is different, the audience is different, the purpose is different… thus the implications of the nature of that sort of limited fellowship/cooperation is different.

That’s why I said that separation- as in labeling someone a heretic or disobedient brother- is reserved for apostasy and unrepentant sin. Limited fellowship and cooperation IMO are not the same as separation. Whether someone else agrees with that interpretation or not is not my point- I’m simply laying out context for my assertions here. Even in the uber-conservative circles I hang out in, the boundaries of fellowship and cooperation are elastic. We allow for differences that others might be concerned about- and that’s fine if Dr. Arrowood et al are concerned about Bauder-Doran-Dever-SG music-Northland… and wants to express his concern- but I think his grounds for concern are very weak.

[DavidO]

[Susan R]…why did he need to warn his congregation? And is the basis for his warning Scriptural?

He thinks there’s a problem based on his understanding of Scripture, the situation, and history. Pastors do this every Sunday, even if they don’t hang it on the internet for the world to see.

True, but I was thinking about the average congregation that doesn’t know Bauder from Band-Aids. Seriously- how many laymen have any kind of deep knowledge of the officers and staff of the FBFI, IBFI, CBTS, DTS, etc… for many layfolk those names have no meaning. They think “Oh, ok- I don’t know who these guys are you are warning me about, but if you say there’s a problem, I believe you”. They look around at others with raised eyebrows, people shrug… the warning only has meaning if you know who/what you are being warned about.

That’s some framework for my questions.

[dcbii]
The real difference is that the audience has changed. We no longer have just the pastor to interpret the Bible for us and feed us our convictions and opinions, and we no longer just blindly accept them. We expect more from our leaders, especially those with national exposure, and the “internet democracy” we have means that one does not need to have the stature of someone else to be able to challenge their ideas. We now have more resources to enable us to be “Berean” in our thinking than we have ever had, and I believe it is unsettling (at best) to those from a slower time. It is exactly this unexpected challenge to ideas that I’m afraid is being written off as gossip in an attempt to distract from the weakness of what has been presented, and a later, fairly self-serving 2nd post with lots of anonymous “support” for “telling it like it is,” again, without good arguments or defense of the ideas only reinforces my conclusion.

I believe that Pastor Arrowood is sincerely concerned about what he sees, not just stirring up dissent. Until I know otherwise, I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I still see what he has written as representative of the “old guard,” who did not like their ideas challenged, and did their best to keep any challenge from coming to light or be considered credible. He might be right in his conclusions (though I don’t think so), but what he wrote did his side no favors.

Well into the reformation, Luther reflected that an aspiring theologian now has “a major advantage: he has the Bible.” Luther meant not merely that Bibles were available for study, for that had always been the case for professional theologians; he meant “that laymen now demanded that theologians furnish biblical grounds for their statements. They had to be experienced in Scripture-based argumentation and to have acquired criteria to assess the relative significance of various biblical passages” (Oberman, Luther, 168). In other words, whether Protestant or Catholic, thorough scriptural knowledge and argumentation was necessary to be taken seriously.

I think the internet is accomplishing for many what the printing press did for those in the 16th-century. We needed something like the internet, since most Westerners have forgotten how to read print material.

[Susan R] The neutral-third-party argument makes sense to me, because I agree that there is a tremendous difference between sharing a platform at a conference and inviting someone into your church to teach your sheep. The premise is different, the audience is different, the purpose is different… thus the implications of the nature of that sort of limited fellowship/cooperation is different.

Well, Dave says this AM that the neutral third party location is a minor point in the discussion. And I don’t think its really that good an argument. Your people are aware of where you are going and what you are doing. I think it communicates essentially the same thing, regardless of the location. Furthermore, someone with Dave’s stature has an influence and ministry beyond the walls of his local congregation. That’s why we’re discussing it.

[Don Johnson]

[Susan R] The neutral-third-party argument makes sense to me, because I agree that there is a tremendous difference between sharing a platform at a conference and inviting someone into your church to teach your sheep. The premise is different, the audience is different, the purpose is different… thus the implications of the nature of that sort of limited fellowship/cooperation is different.

Well, Dave says this AM that the neutral third party location is a minor point in the discussion. And I don’t think its really that good an argument. Your people are aware of where you are going and what you are doing. I think it communicates essentially the same thing, regardless of the location. Furthermore, someone with Dave’s stature has an influence and ministry beyond the walls of his local congregation. That’s why we’re discussing it.

Well, I’m people and I understand the difference between my pastor bringing someone in to speak to the church, and going elsewhere to a conference or fellowship, or even someone else’s church, especially if he were to communicate his intent to work through some of the differences he was concerned about.

There are people, including relatives, that I will ‘fellowship’ with at a public function but not bring into my house, because that is a different level of fellowship IMO.

[Don Johnson] Your people are aware of where you are going and what you are doing. I think it communicates essentially the same thing, regardless of the location. Furthermore, someone with Dave’s stature has an influence and ministry beyond the walls of his local congregation. That’s why we’re discussing it.

Assuming we’re still talking about “platform fellowship” and similar activities, I have two objections to these statements.

First, I think it gives people too much credit. I seriously doubt that the majority of the attenders in a local church bother to check out everything the pastor does while he’s away. Many people’s interests stop at the point of registering that someone other than the pastor is filling the pulpit today. I think very few people will realize the pastor is gone, inquire where he has gone, research the venue, note the speakers, and then research the speakers’ views on debated issues. My pastor spoke at T4G last year, and many of the people in my church still don’t know what that is, who else was there, and what those other people believe. Most of the members of my church have no idea what goes on in our own presbytery meetings. Of course, if the pastor himself is really big into these associations, and spends his preaching time detailing who’s doing what with whom, then maybe more church members will care.

Second, I think you give some people too little credit. Those few people who are interested enough to keep up with who’s doing what and where are probably already fairly well acquainted with the landscape and know where their pastor agrees or disagrees with other people. If they work in IT, business, education, or a host of other professions, they’re familiar with the concept of a conference and know that it’s not a homogeneous group of people all there to affirm their unanimity; it’s a venue for discussion, debate, networking, and other things. Even competitors become collaborators at conferences. So, these people who do keep up with the conventions and conferences are savvy enough to realize that the presence of their pastor does not provide an unqualified endorsement of everything that every other participant does or believes.

In the end, I think the only people affected by these discussions of platform fellowship are other pastors who never made it past high school discussions of who’s kissing who in which closet.

But my last line was:

“That’s why we’re discussing it.”

The fact that we are discussing it here shows that we are aware of it, that the meeting has significance and meaning, and that we are trying to sort through how significant and what that meaning is.

The meaning isn’t as trite as ‘who’s kissing who.’ World leaders think about who they are seen with, whom they associate with, etc. Are they just people who never made it past high school discussions of who is kissing who?