Just wanted to briefly point my readers’ attention to an interesting thread over at Sharper Iron, where Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs) continues his criticism of fundamentalism. His main point continues to be that fundamentalists demand separation from anyone outside of their movement. Why? Well, because they are not fundamentalists (inside their movement), of course. Such an all-or-nothing approach is what Phil (with myself and many others) finds so troubling.
I blogged about Phil Johnson’s presentation on fundamentalism at the 2005 Shepherd’s Conference (presented by John MacArthur’s church) here. And I added my own thoughts about his follow up presentation for the 2006 Conference here. The discussion going on right now over at Sharper Iron, is in a sense a continuation of this prolonged interaction between Phil Johnson and the best side of fundamentalism. This whole interaction is very helpful in understanding the shortfalls of fundamentalism’s views of separation (and secondary separation), in my opinion. It is an occasion for discussing the “why’s” of separation, not merely the “how to’s”. And thus, such a discussion is profitable no matter on which side one ultimately ends up. So, go ahead and lend Phil Johnson your ear, once again!
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 \”¢ Rom. 15:5-7
I read (and I’m a member on SharperIron) the interaction of Phil Johnson and Larry (Rogier), as well as others who posted on this thread over at SharperIron. I’m more inclined to agree with Phil Johnson than Larry Rogier, but both have contributed greatly to the discussion. Needless to say, it’s a hot potato!
One thing that I’ve noticed is that there seems to be a flaw in either side’s understanding of separation. Here’s something to ponder, and I thought about it this weekend. You have the two groups: “Thoughtful Fundamentalists” (TF’s for short) who for the most part are the bloggers who post on SharperIron, and “Conservative Independent Evagelicals” (CIE’s for short) who for the most part blog here and on PyroManiac. These two terms (TF’s and CIE’s) are of my own invention, but bear with me in an illustration….
TF’s accuse CIE’s of not separating from some elements of New Evangelicalism, or the seeming toleration of ‘errors’ of other CIE’s, like Piper. On the other hand, CIE’s accuse TF’s of not separating from some elements of ‘IFBx’ elements, like KJV-onlyists and shallow revialist ‘pastoral theology’ that permeates modern fundamentalism. What’s interesting to note is that TF’s have no problem in pointing out the CIE’s toleration of some ‘New Evangelicals’, yet tolerate KJV-onlyism that permeates their own group. On the other hand, CIE’s have no problem pointing out TF’s toleration of “KJV-onlyists”, yet tolerate New Evangelicalism’s influence within their own group. It is interesting that one group will tolerate erroneous influences and demand some kind of ‘separation’ from the other, yet won’t demand separation within their own ranks of the erroneous influences that the other group points out. TF’s have no problem lambasting CIE’s of not separating from New Evangelicals, but won’t turn out the KJV-only heresy in their own ranks. CIE’s have no problem lambasting TF’s of not separating from KJV-onlyists, but won’t turn out New Evangelicalism in their own ranks. How’s that for an illustration?
It’s difficult to apply separation, and both groups can be accused of not applying it ‘perfectly’ or consistently. I tend to believe that it’s the fundamentalists who have erred greater since they have produced an untenable ‘standard’ of separation that seems to change due to the voodoo fundamentalist political landscape. Only recently have the “thoughtful fundamentalists” (like Bauder, for example) begun to view separation biblically and apply it consistently. Conservative independent evangelicals have been consistent for the most part, but haven’t seen the need to apply separation more vigorously as fundamentalists insist upon. Methinks we’re closer (that is, TF’s and CIE’s) than we think we are, and it’s not necessary to unduly separate when we are more united than divided.
Larry,
I agree that TFs and CIEs are very similar. The difference though is their views on separation. CIEs point out that TFs are inconsistent to separate from CIEs while not separating from KJVOs and other extreme fundys out there. CIEs do not see the same things as problematic as fundys do. CIEs may be aware that Piper is in the BGC but they also know that he is doing all he can to keep the BGC from being overrun by open theists and the like. He is standing and clearly separating from error, but not in the manner that fundamentalists think he should.
My problem with TFs is that most of them claim the CIEs do not practice separation at all. Why? Because they do not practice separation/secondary separation the way fundamentalists do. Just because someone is not in the fundamentalist movement, does not mean they do not separate. Groups such as the IFCA and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, by their very nature are an exercise in separation. Upholding the denials of the T4G doctrinal statement is in effect a separation stance. Many CIEs do much more to separate from clear cut doctrinal errors (denials of the truly fundamental points to the Gospel) than do fundamentalists.
Anyway, I am rambling on, but I agree that Phil and Larry’s conversation is very thought-provoking. I appreciate your comments.
[…] was home to pages and pages of comments about the state of fundamentalism. Later that year, an additional thread was started with more of Johnson’s thoughts and reactions to the folks at Sharper […]