Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Follow-Up on Evangelical Secondary Separation
In November last year I asked you, the readers, a couple of questions about conservative evangelicalism and what any given conservative evangelical would have to change before ecclesiastical fellowship could ensue.
The response was not overwhelming, but the persistent answer was that secondary separation was the critical issue. Specifically, he needed to either purge or withdraw from alliances that include believers who grant Christian recognition to people who are demonstrably not Christians. The particular concern in view was James MacDonald, a founding member of the Gospel Coalition, who insisted on calling a oneness Pentecostal by the label brother. Today the news came out that James MacDonald has withdrawn from the Gospel Coalition.
Nowhere is it communicated by this statement or by those who accepted the resignation that MacDonald was "forced out," nor is there any statement of censure. If these occurred, they were private in nature, and as such can at best be inferred. This will no doubt be a stumbling block to some. But let me ask the questions anyway: (1) Is this secondary separation? And, as a follow-up, (2) what more would you, the reader, require in order to pave the way for fellowship?
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).
8 comments:
Hi Mark,
Nobody at this point knows what the Gospel Coalition really thinks about this. What I would like to see is clarity. The actions of MacDonald are public, there should be a public statement if they think he is wrong. Keeping it all behind closed doors leaves everyone guessing.
If they were to issue a public statement expressing disagreement and some kind of separation, that would be encouraging. So far their statement seems to say 'we don't exactly see eye to eye, but blessings on you, brother.' I would think this error is a bit more egregious than that.
Would this be enough to pave the way for fellowship? It would be a start in the right direction. One incident of clear thinking doesn't a separatist make.
I put up a post today over at my place that is somewhat related (although not specific to MacDonald) if you care to look. (Go ahead and delete this paragraph if you like!)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So Don, putting your reply in terms of my question, I'm hearing you say that in order to make fellowship possible you would require:
(1) Secondary separation.
(2) A consistent track record of secondary separation.
(3) Public censure.
Is this correct?
The answer to your question 1 is easy: If MacDonald was forced to leave, directly or indirectly, this is secondary separation though few will be brave enough to call it that.
The answer to your question 2, while clear, is not so simple (this assumes that you are referring to paving the way for fellowship with MacDonald; if not, perhaps I misunderstood you):
TER is not the local church nor was MacDonald allowing Jakes into his pulpit. Had MacDonald acknowledged Jakes' historically erroneous theology (and he could have done so graciously even without calling him "brother") and indicated that he was going to interview Jakes and then explore the question of where we draw the line in fellowship with each other or whether fellowship was even possible, that would have been a different story. Had that been the case, I don't think as many people would have had a problem with it.
From the few notes posted so far from the current TER, Jakes' position is still unclear and his statements don't serve to make them any more clear than they were before. (Perhaps a transcript will bring clarity but I'm not holding my breath.) Then in later sessions, Jakes sits down, as a "brother," and weighs in on various issues as if he is one of them (us?).
At this point I don't know that fellowship is possible with Jakes or MacDonald (not that I would necessarily have fellowshipped with either before). Jakes still has not renounced his (historic) heresy and MacDonald is still insisting (despite his apology then non-apology then continued non-apologizing) that he and Jakes are brothers. Without an acknowledgement of error there is nowhere left to go.
Michael:
I'm not talking about whether you (or your church) could fellowship with MacDonald (there's an obvious elephant in that room). I'm talking about whether you could fellowship with those who practiced secondary separation and disfellowshipped from MacDonald.
A few comments and then an answer to your questions:
Though there is no public statement, I find it hard to believe that MacDonald's resignation from TGC is unrelated to The Elephant Room.
It is true that no public statements have been made regarding the reason for MacDonald's resignation, but public statements have certainly been made regarding Jakes and the Elephant Room. This makes it even more likely that they are connected.
It's interesting that some fundamentalists reacted to the public statements with a "they may talk about it, but nothing will happen." Now that something has happened, their response is "something may have happened, but it's not enough." (It may not be enough, but the constant criticism makes it seem like nothing will ever be enough.)
To answer your questions:
1) Yes. As Michael pointed out, it certainly seems as though MacDonald was forced out, which means there was a level of censure involved with this non-fellowship.
2. I would think the pathway to fellowship would depend on several circumstances, including who is involved from TGC, where you are located, what the nature of the fellowship would be, etc. This move would seem to open the possibility of greater fellowship, but other factors must be considered.
Sorry, Mark, it's hard being good-looking and smart! I honestly don't know how I've done it this long. (joke)
The answer to number 1 is still the same: if he was forced to resign then this is clearly separation at work. If not, then he just resigned and they have taken no stand at all, even a private one.
The answer to number 2 is still not so simple but with regard to this incident only and assuming there were no other problems with TGC , then they have to take a public stand, which they certainly could do graciously. Also, I would like to see some more clear language in their statements that define with whom and how they are aligned to prevent this from happening again.
Hi Mark,
I realize I wasn't very clear in my response. Let me try again:
But let me ask the questions anyway: (1) Is this secondary separation? And, as a follow-up, (2) what more would you, the reader, require in order to pave the way for fellowship?
(1) I think the term 'secondary separation' is problematic by itself, don't really think there is such a thing. But to answer your question, we don't know. The TGC people have not made it clear that they are separating. So who knows?
(2) If they are separating, that would be good and it would be encouraging. But the fact is that there are many compromising entanglements with TGC. This one has been perhaps the most egregious, but Driscoll is still part of the TGC and The Elephant Room (not to mention all his other problems). So if this was real separation and they made it clear, that would be encouraging, but its only a beginning. (And Driscoll isn't the only other problematic bit to the TGC equation.)
BE commented:
It's interesting that some fundamentalists reacted to the public statements with a "they may talk about it, but nothing will happen." Now that something has happened, their response is "something may have happened, but it's not enough." (It may not be enough, but the constant criticism makes it seem like nothing will ever be enough.)
Oh, please. How did the TGC get into this situation in the first place? They have a lot of people involved who have a lot of different positions and problems. There are so many of them, quite frankly, that I don't expect the organization as a whole to make the kind of wholesale change to ever be acceptable from a Fundamentalist perspective. Why is that so astonishing? There might be a few individuals who move out of evangelicalism to fundamentalism, but I wouldn't expect much more than that.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Hi Mark,
You may have seen this post regarding this very situation. I found it interesting and helpful. I'm not sure it sheds much light on the exact details of your discussion but I wanted to share.
http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2012/01/even-better-than-race-cardtm.html
Post a Comment