Don Johnson on 'The Convergence" and Fundamentalism
Bro. Johnson’s gracious discussion of “Convergents” and fundamentalism. A response to this article.
- 41 views
RESOLVED:
I hereby separate from all who separate from people with whom I don’t separate, unless they first separated from folks who initially separated from Jack Hyles, in which case I refrain from separating now but reserve the right to separate soon, depending on whom they associate with and who those people separate from. In that event, I’ll require a list of who you separate from, so I can compare this to my own separation list, so as to determine whether I must also separate from you. If separation is deemed necessary, I will, of course, be willing to separate from even myself, because though my own disobedience I didn’t separate from you fast enough.
If you disagree with this, I will separate from you immediately. Unless you do agree, in which case I will not separate, providing (of course) that you don’t associate with anybody whom I separate from. Regardless of all this, if you do not agree with this, feel free to separate from me.
In short, I separate.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Secondary separation used to be (and maybe still is) defined as separation from a brother in Christ who was disobedient. My first encounter with the practice involved Billy Graham’s ecumenical evangelism. We understood that Graham’s co-operation with apostates was wrong because Christians should be separate from apostasy. We were then told that we should separate from Graham because of his disobedience. Then we were told that we should separate from anyone who wouldn’t separate from Graham. I’ve seen it cascade from there. I’ve also seen an interesting group of actions considered “disobedience”.
If you want to hear crickets, ask one of these separated fundamentalists WHY he separates from a brother. Ask him if he’s making any efforts to “gain a brother”. Ask him if that brother even knows that he’s being separated from.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
FBFI calling MacArthur not a “true Biblicist” and a “New Evangelical” is absolutely laughable! (Links in Jay’s posts above)
Back in 1985 - what was BJ III’s position on race? They should have called him not a “true Biblicist!
Rather the FBFI clique huddled together protecting their own
Obviously the founder of Rhode Island Colony came before the term secondary separation, but I was told once that Roger Williams had practiced separation in about the way Tyler describes. But Tyler is more Calvinistic. :^)
Seriously, the argument I’ve got is not whether separation is Biblical, but rather specific reasons for separation are Biblical.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I am separating from you because you don’t agree with me on separation. I will also henceforth separate from everybody who does not separate from you, because if they do not separate from you, then they are in error, hence I must separate from them. This also means I must separate from everybody who doesn’t immediately separate from those who don’t separate from you.
In fact, I am violating my principles of separation right now, because I am in fellowship with you by writing this post. Therefore, I will not separate until I finish writing this post. That is, I will forestall my separation until a more advantageous time, which means I am being sinfully pragmatic and deliberately disobedient to my own understanding of separation, which means I must also separate from myself.
Goodbye. I am separating now.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]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?
Earlier you said:
[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).
So in the sense that my theology of the Bible is that it is the absolute authority over me, you can argue that separation is theological. But your early quote said systematic theology which is not the same thing.
So assuming that two men agree on systematic theology, but A practices something like, say, inviting T. D. Jakes to speak in his church, what is B’s ground for separation? It isn’t just systematic theology is it?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Systematic theology is your “systemization” or summing up of what you believe the Bible teaches about a specific point of doctrine. These areas of systematic theology include:
- angelology
- bibliology
- theology proper
- Christology
- pneumatology
- hamartiology
- anthropology
- soteriology
- eschatology
- ecclesiology
There are, of course, many other doctrines within these broad categories. But it is safe to say that what you believe the Bible teaches about something will probably fall into one of these standard, overarching categories. For example, then:
- If you disagree with T.D. Jakes, it is probably because of his anti-Trinitarian views about theology proper and Christology.
- If you decide to separate from a church which hosts Jakes, it is probably because of your views on ecclesiology and soteriology (i.e. sanctification, a subset of this).
- If you do not fellowship with the local OPC church, it is probably because of your views on ecclesiology.
- If you believe Covenant theology is wrong and decide to not fellowship with a church which teaches this, it is probably because of your views about eschatology and ecclesiology.
- If you believe open theism is a heresy, it is probably because of your views about theology proper
- etc, etc, etc.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
to suit your answer?
look at the question again… A and B have the same theology, but A invites Jakes for some reason. Should B separate from A, not from Jakes? That’s the question.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Yes, B should separate from A, because A either doesn’t understand the Trinity or doesn’t care. He is condoning a false Gospel. This goes to Christology, Theology Proper and Soteriology. If A promotes a man who advocates for a false view of Christ, then A:
- doesn’t understand Christ (Christology)
- doesn’t understand God (Theology Proper)
- doesn’t understand the Gospel (Soteriology)
A and B obviously do not have the same theology. A is being deliberately disobedient and perverting the Gospel by inviting a heretic to speak. B will separate from A.
Allow me to go into a bit more detail (this is satire … maybe):
If A happens to fellowship with C, then B must also stop fellowshipping with C. However, B must first speak to C and obtain a list of all ecclesiastical and personal associations, so B can compare this to his own list. Then B will compare lists from both A and C and, if necessary, separate from D, E, F, I, N, S and probably Z, too. However, B must also take close note of who in his circles does not also separate from A, and separate from them accordingly. If any common associates from those associations also refuse to separate from these associations, or at least straddle the fence, then B may have to also separate from them. If they do separate first, then B will not have to separate. However, if C separates later, then B may have to revise his association list to reflect this, and perhaps even separate at a later date. If H does agree to separate, then B should immediately stop all fellowship with Q. If Q repents, then B may restore such a one to fellowship, providing he first severs all ties to C. If he does not, then B must separate again. However, if C repents, B may then accept T back into fellowship, provided he first apologizes to Y for having E speak during a missions conference in 1993.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Separation from Jakes—or really those who call him “brother” and endorse his positions on prosperity theology—is not hard.
1. Modalism.
2. Prosperity theology (see same link; if God intended for His people to be rich and prosperous, He owes a big apology to the Apostles)
3. Personal character/love of money (goes along with that prosperity theology).
Or, let’s posit things a little differently in Don’s words; A and B think they have the same theology, but A invites T.D. Jakes to fill the pulpit. Is this not evidence that, when push comes to shove, A and B do not indeed have the same theology? That is, for what it’s worth, why at least four affiliates of Harvest Bible Chapel left that association after Elephant Room 2. They realized that James Macdonald did not in fact have the same theology as they did.
But really, separating on the Trinity is a different beast that separating based on social issues, the charismata, and the like….there are reasons that our spiritual forebears chose five Fundamentals and not fifty, and we forget this at our peril.
Side note; I found it darkly amusing that Jakes’ sermons are often carried on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Now there’s a failure to separate.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Name 5 Convergents
If you’re going to name convergents (remember when we weren’t afraid to “name names” under the old “Mark and Avoid” banner?) you can’t list those of us who may have already confessed.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Count me as one who really could care less about the identities of specific “convergentists” (except for Roger Williams of course), but would still like to hear a coherent definition of a “convergent” person, as well as a defense of why this is critically important. Some of the things FBFI says I completely agree with, but others—especially those social issues—I really don’t see clear evidence of even a halfway Biblical position.
It’s not that hard; be specific, use Biblical examples to support your position, and no “guilt by association” or other genetic fallacies. Got the goods? Awesome, we’ll be blessed. Falling short? OK, that’s just a different group of people that get to try on a new way of thinking about things. Awesome.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The first part of my response to Don’s piece.
–– Mod Note ––—
Am closing this thread - please continue this conversation in the above thread
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion