Mike, I appreciate your thoughts about levels of fellowship. It is an interesting way of looking at the difficult subject.
One of my concerns, though, has revolved around the conference/seminary attendance issue. I agree that these men may have much to offer in particular areas of study. No doubt they know more about the Bible than I. However, the problem I have is the issue of them being a consistently disobedient brother.
While a disobedient brother may not be wrong in all areas, and may be able to teach me much, his consistent disobedience in that certain area is a warning flag. Should I set aside the fact of his disobedience in order to learn the "good stuff" he has to offer? In other words, why go to a disobedient brother to learn? Doesn't separation preclude this type of relationship?
Andy, you asked: "In other words, why go to a disobedient brother to learn? Doesn't separation preclude this type of relationship?"
First, I think the term "disobedient" here is problematic. What Mike is saying could be paraphrased this way: There are levels of disobedience. I would feel much more uncomfortable with someone going to, say, Notre Dame (just to 'randomly' pick a school!!!), than Westminster.
I think using the term 'disobedient' then is perhaps a sticking point. When we "Type A's" use such a term about MacArthur, the "Type B's" choke. (I'm using Joel T's terms there.) We might use the same term of Graham, so when it is used of MacArthur, it tends to cloud the issue. The two are not cut of the same cloth, the errors are quite different in quality at least, if not in kind. So... I think using the term on a guy like MacArthur raises the stakes higher than they need to be raised. We are all disobedient brethren at some point, are we not?
Secondly, there is a big difference in my view regarding training in particular fields of expertise. That's what McCune was getting at in talking about not recommending young fellows go to evangelical schools for their first post-graduate level training. You need more solid grounding in fundamentalist thought and philosophy first.
But it may be profitable to gain expertise in certain areas and it can only be gained in certain places. Mike is at Westminster for apologetics, I think, a worthy course of study. Hopefully he will put that training to good use in some fundamentalist institution so that someone else won't have to go and do likewise. There are other areas that are like that. Suppose a fellow wanted to get into archaeology and really get into studying the actual manuscripts, etc. Where in fundamentalism is he going to get the hands on training with the guys who wrote the books? It isn't going to happen. He will have to go where they are.
So we can go sit and learn from people who fail our standards in many areas. But there is a risk. Not everyone should take that risk. Those who are mentoring such fellows should help them guard their hearts. And hopefully the effort will prove to be a blessing to the fundamentalist cause by increasing the expertise in our midst (and maybe writing better books than the current ones).
What has been presented is logical. It makes sense to attend the best school for your area of study. It also makes sense that MacArthur and Graham are not equal in their disobedience.
However, I am not yet convinced that the Scriptures treat disobedient brothers this way. What about Romans 16:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, and Matthew 18:15-17? These all point to a separation which would preclude (at least in my mind) sitting under that man's teaching.
Should a Christian separate himself from non-separatists because they have disobeyed these commands? I believe he should because of the above admonitions. That makes me wonder why a Christian (of any educational background) would want to sit under the teaching of a Christian who is under this ban?
Mike, I think you raise a valid point when you say that the issue of theological education is not quite the same as getting an engineering degree. I've heard the "plumber" argument before and it never quite seemed like apples and apples to me. I appreciate you taking the time to interact here.
I like the comment Bauder made: "we're ALL disobedient bretheren."
Another lengthier comment Chuck Phelps made when I interviewed him earlier this year stick in my mind here, too:
...I think all of us have a responsibility to read widely, and then to walk wisely. It’s one thing to read, and it’s another thing to reside. One needs to be alert to that which is round about us, so read- but read with discretion. In my early days of ministry, I tended to read old things. I read a lot of Spurgeon, a lot of G. Campbell Morgan. Having read a lot of older things, I feel like I put my contemporary reading through a different lens than I would have otherwise. I think Fundamentalism represents, in large measure, New Testament Christianity. The fundamentals of the faith, however you want to define or distinguish them, are those things that are essential for one’s salvation. Fundamentalism, of course, has a backbone of separation- believing that separation is necessary, lest we compromise either with the world or with compromised believers. I think anyone who would walk wisely in this present age and walk wisely before the Lord is going to be careful about sin. He’s going to be careful to say that “be ye holy” is a responsible position. So, I think it’s wise to know the cross-currents of our culture, and the cross-currents of our religious movement, but to understand where we identify. I would prefer to identify with those who take the doctrine of separation, the doctrine of holiness, a careful desire for purity and integrity in ministry- I want to identify with those people. I think Fundamentalism has done that over the years. There have always been those who have read widely and gone to conferences. D.L. Moody would not be known as a Fundamentalist in our way of thinking. And yet, his conferences drew the evangelical community en masse. That’s okay. But it didn’t mean that everyone would go out and become a Congregationalist- and that’s okay. So I’m saying being informed is wise. Be edified, but not always identified. You have to make the decisions as to where you’ll identify yourself- where you feel the Spirit of God would lead you to be where you have a pure and separated ministry of integrity.
"Greg Linscott said... I like the comment Bauder made: "we're ALL disobedient bretheren.""
Hey, I thought I said that. Was I plagiarizing??? Typical fundamentalist, the next thing you know, I'll be stealing sermon outlines... [g]
Mike said: "I think that this is a legitimate position if a person is seeking advanced schooling in, for instance, engineering. The issue becomes more cloudy when one is talking about theology-related education."
I'd like to add a bit more on this point.
It is one thing if someone is seeking a certain specialized sort of theology-related education and another when one is seeking a more general theology degree. What I mean is, say a guy has an MA in Bible from Central or BJU or some fundamentalist school. He plans to go on for more training. He wants an M Div. or a Ph D in New Testament Intepretation...
So where should such a guy go? Should he head off to say, Masters? Or Dallas? or TEDS? or should he go to Central/BJU/Detroit/Lansdale...?
This is where the identification thing that Chuck Phelps was talking about happens, I think. The fundamentalist seminaries offer perfectly valid MDivs, PhDs etc. No need to go elsewhere, unless you have an attitude problem, I think.
But suppose you want to do something in the field of archaeology as I mentioned before? or you want more detailed training in Greek, classical, Koine, interaction directly with the manuscripts, etc? That kind of training is hard to come by if it is available at all in fundamentalist institutions. It might be good if we had some guys who were trained in these specialized ways. They could come back to our fundamentalist schools and add some real value to the curriculum.
So it seems to me that in the more specialized fields, it becomes less problematic. When it is in the generalized theology related degrees... then it is more of a problem. I don't think it is the end of the world if a guy went off to Masters or wherever, but I would want to be watching what he did after. Does he get into a fundamentalist ministry? Does he take a relatively consistent separatist stand? Or not?
My suspicion is that those who head off like that are not heading to a fundamentalist ministry.
Example: I have a close friend who sought training for a linguistics PhD in Bible translation. There was no Fundamentalist option for such training.
How does geographical convenience fit into this picture? Do you give a guy more of a pass if he is in current ministry and takes classes at a non-fundamentalist seminary?
Greg asked: "Do you give a guy more of a pass if he is in current ministry and takes classes at a non-fundamentalist seminary?"
Just my opinion here... Yes, I think so, although I think with the Master of Ministry/Doctor of Ministry programs that fundamentalist seminaries are running, some questions might be raised by taking a full program at an evangelical school. Taking a course here and there would be less of a big deal, at least to me.
As an example, Stanley Grenz was here in Victoria for several weekends ... last year??? I think... just before he passed away. A local group sponsored a course taught by him here. I thought about attending, but scheduling conflicts prevented me. It would have been very interesting to interact with someone who was so out on the left wing of evangelicalism in a setting that I don't think would be a compromise.
Another example I have a friend in Boston who is taking grad classes at Gordon. He is someone who you would in no way associate with being progressive or compromising- but is in Boston for another reason, and wants to further his education while there.
Comments
Any perspective on that particular tidbit, Mark?
One of my concerns, though, has revolved around the conference/seminary attendance issue. I agree that these men may have much to offer in particular areas of study. No doubt they know more about the Bible than I. However, the problem I have is the issue of them being a consistently disobedient brother.
While a disobedient brother may not be wrong in all areas, and may be able to teach me much, his consistent disobedience in that certain area is a warning flag. Should I set aside the fact of his disobedience in order to learn the "good stuff" he has to offer? In other words, why go to a disobedient brother to learn? Doesn't separation preclude this type of relationship?
Andy, you asked:
"In other words, why go to a disobedient brother to learn? Doesn't separation preclude this type of relationship?"
First, I think the term "disobedient" here is problematic. What Mike is saying could be paraphrased this way: There are levels of disobedience. I would feel much more uncomfortable with someone going to, say, Notre Dame (just to 'randomly' pick a school!!!), than Westminster.
I think using the term 'disobedient' then is perhaps a sticking point. When we "Type A's" use such a term about MacArthur, the "Type B's" choke. (I'm using Joel T's terms there.) We might use the same term of Graham, so when it is used of MacArthur, it tends to cloud the issue. The two are not cut of the same cloth, the errors are quite different in quality at least, if not in kind. So... I think using the term on a guy like MacArthur raises the stakes higher than they need to be raised. We are all disobedient brethren at some point, are we not?
Secondly, there is a big difference in my view regarding training in particular fields of expertise. That's what McCune was getting at in talking about not recommending young fellows go to evangelical schools for their first post-graduate level training. You need more solid grounding in fundamentalist thought and philosophy first.
But it may be profitable to gain expertise in certain areas and it can only be gained in certain places. Mike is at Westminster for apologetics, I think, a worthy course of study. Hopefully he will put that training to good use in some fundamentalist institution so that someone else won't have to go and do likewise. There are other areas that are like that. Suppose a fellow wanted to get into archaeology and really get into studying the actual manuscripts, etc. Where in fundamentalism is he going to get the hands on training with the guys who wrote the books? It isn't going to happen. He will have to go where they are.
So we can go sit and learn from people who fail our standards in many areas. But there is a risk. Not everyone should take that risk. Those who are mentoring such fellows should help them guard their hearts. And hopefully the effort will prove to be a blessing to the fundamentalist cause by increasing the expertise in our midst (and maybe writing better books than the current ones).
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
However, I am not yet convinced that the Scriptures treat disobedient brothers this way. What about Romans 16:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, and Matthew 18:15-17? These all point to a separation which would preclude (at least in my mind) sitting under that man's teaching.
Should a Christian separate himself from non-separatists because they have disobeyed these commands? I believe he should because of the above admonitions. That makes me wonder why a Christian (of any educational background) would want to sit under the teaching of a Christian who is under this ban?
I agree with everything you said, except for the Sons of God comment. :)
Another lengthier comment Chuck Phelps made when I interviewed him earlier this year stick in my mind here, too:
...I think all of us have a responsibility to read widely, and then to walk wisely. It’s one thing to read, and it’s another thing to reside. One needs to be alert to that which is round about us, so read- but read with discretion. In my early days of ministry, I tended to read old things. I read a lot of Spurgeon, a lot of G. Campbell Morgan. Having read a lot of older things, I feel like I put my contemporary reading through a different lens than I would have otherwise. I think Fundamentalism represents, in large measure, New Testament Christianity. The fundamentals of the faith, however you want to define or distinguish them, are those things that are essential for one’s salvation. Fundamentalism, of course, has a backbone of separation- believing that separation is necessary, lest we compromise either with the world or with compromised believers. I think anyone who would walk wisely in this present age and walk wisely before the Lord is going to be careful about sin. He’s going to be careful to say that “be ye holy” is a responsible position. So, I think it’s wise to know the cross-currents of our culture, and the cross-currents of our religious movement, but to understand where we identify. I would prefer to identify with those who take the doctrine of separation, the doctrine of holiness, a careful desire for purity and integrity in ministry- I want to identify with those people. I think Fundamentalism has done that over the years. There have always been those who have read widely and gone to conferences. D.L. Moody would not be known as a Fundamentalist in our way of thinking. And yet, his conferences drew the evangelical community en masse. That’s okay. But it didn’t mean that everyone would go out and become a Congregationalist- and that’s okay. So I’m saying being informed is wise. Be edified, but not always identified. You have to make the decisions as to where you’ll identify yourself- where you feel the Spirit of God would lead you to be where you have a pure and separated ministry of integrity.
I like the comment Bauder made: "we're ALL disobedient bretheren.""
Hey, I thought I said that. Was I plagiarizing??? Typical fundamentalist, the next thing you know, I'll be stealing sermon outlines... [g]
Mike said:
"I think that this is a legitimate position if a person is seeking advanced schooling in, for instance, engineering. The issue becomes more cloudy when one is talking about theology-related education."
I'd like to add a bit more on this point.
It is one thing if someone is seeking a certain specialized sort of theology-related education and another when one is seeking a more general theology degree. What I mean is, say a guy has an MA in Bible from Central or BJU or some fundamentalist school. He plans to go on for more training. He wants an M Div. or a Ph D in New Testament Intepretation...
So where should such a guy go? Should he head off to say, Masters? Or Dallas? or TEDS? or should he go to Central/BJU/Detroit/Lansdale...?
This is where the identification thing that Chuck Phelps was talking about happens, I think. The fundamentalist seminaries offer perfectly valid MDivs, PhDs etc. No need to go elsewhere, unless you have an attitude problem, I think.
But suppose you want to do something in the field of archaeology as I mentioned before? or you want more detailed training in Greek, classical, Koine, interaction directly with the manuscripts, etc? That kind of training is hard to come by if it is available at all in fundamentalist institutions. It might be good if we had some guys who were trained in these specialized ways. They could come back to our fundamentalist schools and add some real value to the curriculum.
So it seems to me that in the more specialized fields, it becomes less problematic. When it is in the generalized theology related degrees... then it is more of a problem. I don't think it is the end of the world if a guy went off to Masters or wherever, but I would want to be watching what he did after. Does he get into a fundamentalist ministry? Does he take a relatively consistent separatist stand? Or not?
My suspicion is that those who head off like that are not heading to a fundamentalist ministry.
Hope that adds a little to the conversation.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
How does geographical convenience fit into this picture? Do you give a guy more of a pass if he is in current ministry and takes classes at a non-fundamentalist seminary?
"Do you give a guy more of a pass if he is in current ministry and takes classes at a non-fundamentalist seminary?"
Just my opinion here... Yes, I think so, although I think with the Master of Ministry/Doctor of Ministry programs that fundamentalist seminaries are running, some questions might be raised by taking a full program at an evangelical school. Taking a course here and there would be less of a big deal, at least to me.
As an example, Stanley Grenz was here in Victoria for several weekends ... last year??? I think... just before he passed away. A local group sponsored a course taught by him here. I thought about attending, but scheduling conflicts prevented me. It would have been very interesting to interact with someone who was so out on the left wing of evangelicalism in a setting that I don't think would be a compromise.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Interesting topic, anyway...