"...(M)any fundamentalists have damaged their credibility as separatists because they don’t apply what they believe about separation to the KJVO issue."

[article] But the fact of the matter is that this heresy is treated much too kindly by those who call themselves separatists.

I was refreshed by this. In the part of Fundamentalism from which I came originally, no crackpot was so heretical as to be thrown out, so long as he proudly displayed the Fundamentalist label. Good to see still further affirmation that the movement is growing past that.

[article] (1) our church and ministry will not have fellowship with any who claim for an English translation what can only be properly claimed for the autographs; and (2) we will not have fellowship with those who refuse to break fellowship from those who hold such false doctrine. We don’t keep extending the breaking point past that (i.e., for those who won’t break fellowship from those who won’t break fellowship with KJVO people) because it is neither biblically warranted or practically workable—where do you draw the line on the chain reaction?)

This one surprised me. Is it DBTS policy to limit the extent of the links when it comes to breaking fellowship? Or is this a special case with this one identified heresy?
It’s not that I disapprove of the policy. I was just curious if they’re treating KJVO differently than, say, Open Theism.

But the fact of the matter is that this heresy is treated much too kindly by those who call themselves separatists. I readily concede that it can be quite difficult at times to discern the difference between those who possess merely a strong affinity for the KJV and those who have strayed into heterodox waters.

Kudos to Dr. Doran for getting that out into the open.

I agree with what Dr. Doran says about the KJVO issue, but I’ve never quite understood the secondary separation that the BJU crowd lives by. It is logically inconsistent to take it to a second level but not a third or fourth level or even on. When another ministry wants to know what I do and do not separate over I feel like telling them to mind their ministry and I’ll mind mine.

[Dr. Doran] I readily concede that it can be quite difficult at times to discern the difference between those who possess merely a strong affinity for the KJV and those who have strayed into heterodox waters.

I am glad he, and others, recognize this. Not all those who are called KJVO actually are. Dr. Doran and someone like Dave Cloud are on opposite sides of this issue, but would be on the same side in decrying the foolishness and unbiblical nature of Carter’s arguments.

poor guys.

are they separating from all their missionaries that are also supported by KJVO churches?

I have always viewed those KJVO churches (i.e., those who believe God supernaturally guided the translators; I am not talking about those who prefer it or consider its manuscript sources superior) as Christians I would prefer to avoid. Much like Lindberger cheese— if you want it, fine. But don’t give it to me. As a matter of fact, let me distance myself!

But then I don’t have to. They consider me as liberal as a Harvard grad.

I would not separate from someone who worked with them, but I would question their judgment.

As far as missionaries go, I know missionaries who get support from a variety of sources. We don’t screen who puts in money into our offering basket at home. Indeed, sometimes God uses lost people to give to support God’s work (like the Persian King to Ezra and Nehemiah) — but that’s another thread.

Anne,

Most of these churches will not support a missionary who is not KJVO. Just like I would not recommend out church to support a missionary who is KJVO. I remember a missionary ask me my position on the phone and him telling me that he would not present his work in my church because we are not KJVO. So I doubt Doran would have to do what you ask.

we have one little bap church that is KJVO that supports us. but they are not argumentatvie about it, have never asked us about it, and know that we are most likely not (and our mission is not) KJVO. it’s really a pittance what they support us, but they aren’t argumentative about it, and on this level, it doens’t effect us. it would be different if they wanted to visit here and teach KJVO (and there are those who do that here).

anyway, and who knew when we went there? they supported us for yrs before someone told me they are kjvo.

but if doran is going to be *really* honest, he needs to deal with that, don’t you think? He could promise to add support to the missionaries for the support they lose when they drop their kjvo supporters; that would be righteous :)

One of these days I’m going to sit down and try to figure out if separation was intended as person-to-person or ministry-to-ministry, and if ministry-to-ministry, whether or not the decision of a church leadership team is binding on the members. I’m in around 100 churches or so a year, and more than a few of them would be popularly classified as “KJVO,” and it’s been my experience that there’s usually a small minority, sometimes only the pastor and deacons and maybe a family or two, that are the actual KJVO folks in the church; the rest treat it as a non-issue, don’t have any education in the matter one way or another, or flat aren’t KJVO despite the pastor’s example. So do you separate from the church members of that church that *aren’t* KJVO because their pastor is and yours isn’t and that’s that?

I just don’t see that this is as cut-and-dried an issue as Doran wants to portray it. Separation like that is easy when the miles between you are measured in the hundreds; not so much when they’re measured in single digits and you know that the *entire* church isn’t like that. Separate your ministry from their ministry’s pastor? or separate from the entire ministry and leave a bad taste in the 80% of the congregation that doesn’t believe as their pastor believes on that one issue? Of all the doctrinal problems a church can have, this and music are the two that you can’t ever assume are church-wide.

[Greg Linscott] So, mounty, again, if we were talking about a different doctrine than Bibliology- a matter of the Deity of Christ, or of Baptismal Regeneration, would you feel the same way? What of only a few members and the pastor taught that baptism was necessary for salvation- would that be worth separating over?

I think that’s a bit of a rabbit trail. By and large we’re not talking about “another gospel” (though some have crossed that line). We’re talking about a lot of personal interpretation being mislabeled as conviction, and conviction being misappropriated as orthodoxy, and therefore 90% of the time we’re basing our decision of whether to separate or not on a vague feeling of “that’s now how *I* was raised!” I’ve met a lot of KJVO fringe with their reams of printouts, proof texts, comparison lists and bizarre assemblages of coincidences that all prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the KJV is the translation all Christians should use. Are they wrong? Yup, as far as I’m concerned. But are they all unorthodox/heretical? I say no. Misinterpretation and misapplication by themselves are not heresy, do not constitute “another gospel” and therefore are not grounds for separation.

That’s why I say it’s not cut-and-dried. In the examples Doran cites, he boxes himself into a very narrow definition of KJV-Onlyism (which is probably the only definition of KJVO that deserves to be separated from), then (perhaps out of frustration, which I completely understand) lumps in the rest of the KJVO crowd that is KJVO because of error and not unorthodoxy. So if the discussion is to be about separating from the KJVO crowd, what I’m saying is, let’s make the distinction between those who are simply (?) misapplying the promise of preservation and those who are grossly stomping on the doctrine of inspiration, then separate accordingly.

To answer your question, *all* heresy is “worth separating over” (I’m just not sure if separation is meant to be person-to-person, ministry-to-ministry, or somewhere in between). My beef is that it seems like he’s trying to include too much in what he considers “heretical KJV-Onlyism.”

In the examples Doran cites, he boxes himself into a very narrow definition of KJV-Onlyism (which is probably the only definition of KJVO that deserves to be separated from), then (perhaps out of frustration, which I completely understand) lumps in the rest of the KJVO crowd that is KJVO because of error and not unorthodoxy. So if the discussion is to be about separating from the KJVO crowd, what I’m saying is, let’s make the distinction between those who are simply (?) misapplying the promise of preservation and those who are grossly stomping on the doctrine of inspiration, then separate accordingly.

Hey Tom,

I imagine that he was intentionally narrow — “Those who claim for an English translation what can only properly be claimed for the original text.” I am not sure what your basis is for saying that he is lumping the rest of the KJVO crowd in that. Would you mind telling us?

We could talk about distinctions in the KJVO crowd (which wouldn’t be very useful, IMO because the distinctions are not that great), but I don’t think Doran is ignoring that there are distinctions among them.

Labels do cover a lot of ground and even in his second-to-last paragraph he seems to be drifting from that narrow definition - “my path doesn’t cross a lot with KJVO folks.” There really aren’t that many “hardcore” (his word) KJVO positions out there when it really comes down to it because, frankly, most pew members haven’t done enough thinking about it to bring themselves to that point - at least in the churches I’ve been in. Then in the last paragraph - “[fundamentalists] don’t apply what they believe about separation to the KJVO issue.” I know he’s been talking about the far-right versions of KJV-Onlyism, but if you look from a practical side, your typical fundamentalist has already separated, more or less, from what he’s just been talking about above, partially because the far-right is doing a good job of marginalizing itself. So when I read this and I think about the KJVO folks and ministries I’ve come across (granted, in a different ministry context and geographical region than Doran operates from, and that may be part of what’s coloring what I read), I’m forced to decide whether he’s truly limiting himself to hardcore KJVO folks, in which case it seems like he’s spent a smidge over 1000 words describing something that most folks have already done implicitly; or if he’s not branching out a little towards “mainstream” KJV-Onlyism with his call. Of course, in his position and ministry, he’s going to have a lot more contact with the unorthodox strains of this position than probably 85% or more of your average fundamentalist crowd, and no doubt that level of interaction would be seem more to the front than it would in a lot of other places.

So in a very academic sense, I do agree with him. It’s just that when you get out of the academic sphere those waters get a bit more murky (which he admits) and I’m not sure as much separating “out there” needs to be done as he suggests.

I wish I would have said that first… ;)

[mounty] One of these days I’m going to sit down and try to figure out if separation was intended as person-to-person or ministry-to-ministry, and if ministry-to-ministry, whether or not the decision of a church leadership team is binding on the members. I’m in around 100 churches or so a year, and more than a few of them would be popularly classified as “KJVO,” and it’s been my experience that there’s usually a small minority, sometimes only the pastor and deacons and maybe a family or two, that are the actual KJVO folks in the church; the rest treat it as a non-issue, don’t have any education in the matter one way or another, or flat aren’t KJVO despite the pastor’s example. So do you separate from the church members of that church that *aren’t* KJVO because their pastor is and yours isn’t and that’s that?

I just don’t see that this is as cut-and-dried an issue as Doran wants to portray it. Separation like that is easy when the miles between you are measured in the hundreds; not so much when they’re measured in single digits and you know that the *entire* church isn’t like that. Separate your ministry from their ministry’s pastor? or separate from the entire ministry and leave a bad taste in the 80% of the congregation that doesn’t believe as their pastor believes on that one issue? Of all the doctrinal problems a church can have, this and music are the two that you can’t ever assume are church-wide.

If membership has been handled well, then wouldn’t we assume the members to hold to whatever is in their church’s doctrinal statement? And wouldn’t KJVO churches be pretty clear about this doctrine in their statement? It may not be as difficult as you think - though, of course, in today’s churches many members haven’t seen a doctrinal statement EVER. I have seen the doctrinal statements of churches or organizations represented by men who are far more KJVO than their doctrinal statement would ever allow. You’re right in saying that we should never assume that the membership agrees in every point and degree with the pastor, but I would think we have far more reason to assume that they agree with their own statement of faith, or they wouldn’t be members.

BTW, when I read the article, I got the feeling that Dr. Doran was just having a bad day…