Don Johnson on 'The Convergence" and Fundamentalism
Bro. Johnson’s gracious discussion of “Convergents” and fundamentalism. A response to this article.
- 41 views
Answer = no more fellowship. I think the FBFI and John MacArthur and Mark Dever would agree on that.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[AndyE]Tyler,
Suppose you are in fellowship with a church across town. Perhaps you’ve done some joint mission work together or something. You feel that church, though not exactly the same, is basically in agreement with your core principles and you view them as a sister ministry in many ways. Then, one day you look at their website and see they have Daniel Kirk scheduled for a Bible conference, or TD Jakes, or Matthew Vines, or Robert Gundry. I’m assuming you would try to talk them out of it but let’s say they persist? Will you stay in fellowship with that cross-town church? To me, that’s the primary issue.
Depends on the relationship you have with them. If it’s the local Unitarian Universalist church, then I would just shrug and blow it off. If it was Evangelical Bible Church (or FBFI Bible Church, or Convergent Bible Church), then yeah, I’d probably give them a call.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]Given Tyler’s articles here on the Trinity, I think we can safely assume he wouldn’t view these people as a sister church. :)If it’s the local Unitarian Universalist church, then I would just shrug and blow it off. …
[TylerR]OK, so what you just agreed to is so-called secondary separation. Anti-separatism was the #1 thing Don called out on his list and here’s the question – is it valid to separate over issues like this or not? I know that the devil is in the details and such but, just as a principle, it seems like you are in agreement. Do some people in the FBF apply this principle more aggressively than they should, or more leniently in certain situations than they should. Sure but that doesn’t invalidate the general principle. I think the main characteristic of people Don has in mind are those who disagree with this general principle.Answer = no more fellowship. I think the FBFI and John MacArthur and Mark Dever would agree on that.
Every person and organization is selective in whom he separates from, based on which areas of systematic theology are most important to him (or it). In the FBFI’s case, I believe their main complaint about alleged “anti-separatism” is that some fundamentalists have redefined what they are willing to separate over. That is, there are different interpretations about what is important enough to warrant separation.
Then comes the allegation that some of “them” are not like “us,” and are thus don’t properly deserve the “label” of fundamentalist. This seems to reduce to a fight over labels and who deserves to “own” and speak for the movement. This is why, when you take a step back, I believe a fair-minded person can understand why a conservative Christian “outsider” might see this entire discussion as being trivial and, ultimately, a waste of time.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[AndyE]TylerR wrote:
Answer = no more fellowship. I think the FBFI and John MacArthur and Mark Dever would agree on that.
OK, so what you just agreed to is so-called secondary separation. Anti-separatism was the #1 thing Don called out on his list and here’s the question – is it valid to separate over issues like this or not? I know that the devil is in the details and such but, just as a principle, it seems like you are in agreement. Do some people in the FBF apply this principle more aggressively than they should, or more leniently in certain situations than they should. Sure but that doesn’t invalidate the general principle. I think the main characteristic of people Don has in mind are those who disagree with this general principle.
If a church has T.D. Jakes teaching, who is a modalist/Unitarian in his theology, I think we’ve got to question whether separating from that church would constitute secondary separation. The church obviously has delegated some of its pastor’s shepherding role to a heretic. Refusing to cooperate with such a church would be primary, not secondary, separation.
Not a totally academic issue for me, as I have left a church in part because they were using James MacDonald’s teaching, and MacDonald obviously beclowned himself at Elephant Room 2 by greeting Jakes as a brother. By presenting his videos to a study my wife was part of, and then to the whole congregation, they were not just partnering with theological error, but rather were bringing it right into the church. GARBC, brothers—we are not talking about “Community Bible Church” with a “pastor” with a mail-order ordination here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[TylerR]Every person and organization is selective in whom he separates from, based on which areas of systematic theology are most important to him (or it). In the FBFI’s case, I believe their main complaint about alleged “anti-separatism” is that some fundamentalists have redefined what they are willing to separate over. That is, there are different interpretations about what is important enough to warrant separation.
Is theology the only reason to separate from someone?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Theology; that is to say, what you believe the Bible teaches about a particular subject, should be the only basis for separation. Shouldn’t it?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Don Johnson]TylerR wrote:
Every person and organization is selective in whom he separates from, based on which areas of systematic theology are most important to him (or it). In the FBFI’s case, I believe their main complaint about alleged “anti-separatism” is that some fundamentalists have redefined what they are willing to separate over. That is, there are different interpretations about what is important enough to warrant separation.
Is theology the only reason to separate from someone?
In my view, 100% yes, any grounds for separation ultimately comes down to what we do, or do not, believe about theology. If we have a social position for which we are willing to separate, we either have a strong Biblical and logical argument (and hence a theological argument), or we do not. In my view, the tragedy of Fundamental theology, especially towards the hyper-fundamental area, is to internalize Victorian/revivalist mores to the point that we see them as Biblical, and then come up with any argument we can think of to justify it—generally including a TON of genetic fallacies. In the same way, the tragedy of neo-evangelicalism is that they internalized mid-century American mores in about the same way. And because of the sloppy argumentation, both sides get nowhere.
It ought to be noted as well that both sides, when they engage in argument this way, are more or less saying they have a flawed view of Sola Scriptura. That’s a confession I try not to make, obviously.
So really, the surprise is not that things are as they are. The surprise is that the hyper-fundamentalists don’t have their wives and daughters in corsets, and that the neo-evangelicals don’t have theirs in poodle skirts and saddle shoes.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Can someone point me to a source where early fundamentalists used and accepted the term “Secondary Seperation.” Wasn’t it just a pejorative used by new-evangelicals? I have read them adopting it to make a point but nowhere that they actually put it forward.
i don’t understand the idea that separation is only ever for theological reasons. So if a pastor has perfect theology but is a known adulterer and we choose not to fellowship based on that, that’s not separation? What about separation from a disobedient brother?
If you separate from a disobedient brother, it is because the Bible tells you to. If a Pastor is a known adulterer, you separate from him because the Bible tells you to. These are theological reasons.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
If you separate from a disobedient brother, it is because the Bible tells you to.
FYI, this is the argument behind “secondary separation.” If the Bible commands A to separate from B and he doesn’t do it, then he is disobedient and we (whoever “we” is) must separate from A.
[AndyE] OK, so what you just agreed to is so-called secondary separation. Anti-separatism was the #1 thing Don called out on his list and here’s the question – is it valid to separate over issues like this or not? I know that the devil is in the details and such but, just as a principle, it seems like you are in agreement. Do some people in the FBF apply this principle more aggressively than they should, or more leniently in certain situations than they should. Sure but that doesn’t invalidate the general principle. I think the main characteristic of people Don has in mind are those who disagree with this general principle.
There seems to be this idea that convergents / young fundamentalists have utterly rejected the principle of secondary separation that is brought up every time that we have a conversation like this. I think it’s just easier to say, “see, they don’t believe in secondary separation!”
It’s not a matter of IF people believe in that, but HOW it is applied. Part of the reason why I refuse to join the FBFI is because they have continued to make friends with people that hold problematic positions. When John Vaughn went to Pastors’ School all those years ago, it was a theological problem. The refusal to censure or address Danny Sweatt’s insulting attack on Calvinists was another reason because it brought a massive fissure in Christian unity, not to say anything of the resolutions attacking John MacArthur (2010, 89.09, 1995 95.22) or the Southern Baptist Convention (81.02 - although to be fair, the SBC has had its’ share of issues). The association of Clarence Sexton and his KJV Only position with the FBFI is a third reason. There are plenty of other issues here - and I think I’ve been consistent on all of that.
So please bury this idea that convergents / young fundamentalists / conservative evangelicals don’t practice secondary separation. We just draw lines differently from the FBFI, and I would argue that we draw them somewhat more consistently than the FBFI does, although there is always room for improvement.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I think this is the main area where Fundamentalism has gone awry. I don’t think the intention of the NT writers was for their commands about separation from disobedient brothers to be applied by para-church organizations or fellowships. It is a command to the local church to be applied in that context. National or international associations of churches were, in my opinion, never in view. And when these organizations take to applying secondary separation, we get into the silliness we see today.
Phil Golden
Discussion