About ten years ago I had a brief conversation with Mark Dever down at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was an engaging person and genuinely curious about what I meant when I told him I was a fundamentalist. He also asked me a pointed question: "What would I have to do," he asked, "for you and your circle of churches to welcome me into ecclesiastical fellowship?" It was a question that caught me a bit off guard, and I realized something important that day, viz., that I had no real expectation of ever remediating my non-fundamentalist acquaintances. I didn't think it could happen. Maybe, to my shame, I didn't even want it to happen.
But I had to say something to his inquiry, so I fumbled out something like, "We'd want you to practice secondary separation and repudiate any ecclesiastical alliances you might have with unbelievers."
Pastor Dever proceeded to suggest rather earnestly that he was attempting to do this very thing. And I was pleasantly surprised with the depth of his commitment to at least a form of secondary separation (though he never used that label). And as we shook hands and parted, I couldn't help but think that this man was, as it were, not very far from the kingdom (my fundamentalist kingdom, that is).
I've been reminded of this conversation twice in the past month. Once in a post by Thabiti Anyabwile and late last week in a post by Phil Johnson. In both cases, their blog posts clearly articulate a form of secondary separation. And I find in these posts a welcome and refreshing response to a serious problem.
And so instead of making my usual pontification, today, I'd like to ask a question of my fundamentalist readers: What would these Christian leaders need to do in order for you and your circle of churches to welcome them into ecclesiastical fellowship?"
MAS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mark Snoeberger
- After growing up in the great state of Pennsylvania, I settled down in 1994 with my new bride, Heather, in Allen Park, Michigan, and have been here at Detroit Baptist Seminary ever since (with a bit of time away for doctoral work). Since 2007 I have been privileged to be a part of the systematic theology faculty here. I love teaching, researching and writing, hunting with my two boys, and enjoying any little bit of God's unadulterated creation I can find (which means I occasionally have to get out of Detroit). But all these things matter to me only because theology matters. For it is God himself who gives all men life and breath and everything else (Acts 17:25).
6 comments:
Hi Mark,
For starters, they could start demanding James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll be booted out of The Gospel Coalition.
I'm not holding my breath.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, I suppose the statements they make are not "TGC needs to boot them out." But they come awfully close. At a minimum they are asking the right questions and making the appropriate confrontational appeals. And Dever has withdrawn from participation. Does this count for anything? Hear again what they wrote:
Thabiti: "But this I do know, the entire situation raises association, separation, and accountability concerns for me that I did not have to the same degree before now. It raises significant questions about how members of The Gospel Coalition associate and endorse beyond the Coalition meetings themselves. For me, it tests the bounds of cooperation. I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines. But as one attempting to draw lines–cardinal biblical lines, mind you!–in a community flooded with heresy, this is no easy relationship to balance. Can I really endorse or remain quiet on an event that features a heretic I’m committed to opposing in writing? I don’t think so. That decision is easy for me. More difficult: Can I really endorse or support a brother who willingly associates with such a heretic and extends them a platform? Painful. Sobering."
Phil:"So is biblical and historic Trinitarianism an essential tenet of Gospel truth, or is it not? If yes, then TGC needs to hold its own council members to the implications of that. If not, one wonders what was the point of the organization in the first place. Or to put it another way: The collective leadership of TGC are going to have to decide which is more important: the Gospel, or the Coalition."
MAS
Mark,
This isn't the first time for Phil. He talked about secondary separation when discussing Driscoll's "visions", taking other Reformed people to task for associating with him. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/08/pornographic-divination.html
"But Reformed charismatics themselves aren't careful to distance themselves from charismatic nuttiness." Why should they if Driscoll preaches the Gospel, Phil? Could we be talking about some kind of separation besides separation from apostasy?
So, to answer your question, they aren't "far from the kingdom" (nice line).
But neither of these men have worked through (as far as I can see) any kind of consistent understanding of the Biblical teaching on separation. They are getting wake-up calls that are telling them what separatists have known all along.
Until they actually come to terms with the fact that this isn't just a bad experience that someone dropped on them, but it is actually something the Scriptures talk about and tell them to act on, they'll still not be separatists.
Not that they care about "my circle of churches," anyway. :)
Hi Mark,
Well, I do appreciate a lot of what these guys are saying. I am glad Dever pulled out, but MacDonald's offence is so egregious that I would think he should have pulled out noisily, not quietly. Of course, that may be the funnymentalist in me talking.
Generally, though, it seems to me that these guys are still too committed to the evangelical approach which sometimes involves straight talk but rarely leads to any kind of decisive action.
I do appreciate the straight talk on this occasion, and am hopeful for more decisive follow-up action, but...
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
I admit I'm not an expert in evangelical history, but it seems that what these guys are saying was not being said by those seeking to form the new evangelicalism. Those men came out in defense of ecumenical evangelism, writing books and articles defending the practice of working with apostates. Whereas these guys are condemning that practice.
Regarding decisive action: I think Dever's pulling out of this event is decisive action. You complain he didn't do it the way you want. So, to be a fundamentalist one must practice separation the way Don Johnson prefers?
I think Dever's pulling out of the event is public knowledge, even if he didn't include a statement clarifying his action. Regardless, Dever's action was still more decisive than Vaughn and Schrock not pulling out of the conference with a heretic like Schaap. So he's been more decisive in recent years regarding separation than they have. (Not to mention those who defended Vaughn and Schrock...which would actually be closer to the new evangelical leadership defending cooperation with apostates.)
As for Phil, he's not a member of TGC, so he doesn't have any particular way to "boot out' MacDonald or Driscoll. I think he's made his opinion of Driscoll pretty clear. And he states that he thinks TGC should hold MacDonald responsible for his actions. What more could he do in this regard?
Ben
Ben, I agree they aren't talking like the new evangelicals did.
Dever is an interesting case. Is he separating from Macdonald, or is he just dropping out this time because of Jakes?
If he goes on with these guys, once this is over, as if it never happened, he's not a separatist. If he instead says, "What you do when I'm not around does have an impact on what we can do together," then we're definitely getting somewhere.
Post a Comment