November 21, 2006Practical separatism: am I binary? Part 1

My recent post on Joel Tetreau's taxonomy of fundamentalism elicited a comment from a reader with whom I had previously enjoyed a spirited discussion about separation, a discussion inspired by a post I wrote in review of Phil Johnson's "Dead Right: Part 2". Brad and I (and others in the discussion, including Don Johnson) primarily discussed the meaning of ecclesiastical independence and the practical application of a graded view of separatism.

My last post to Brad said something like, "I'll write a reply this afternoon." To my shame, I wrote that about eight months ago. And so with appropriate remorse felt and confessions made, I am now grateful for the opportunity to revisit this discussion.

As Brad noted in his most recent comment, our previous discussion ended (without resolution) when he pointed out what he believes is a disconnect between my theory and my practice of separatism. He contends that while I advocate seeing separatism as a matter of degrees, in reality I practice binary separation; that is, my fellowship with others tends to be either completely on or off, and the decision to separate tends to be made along previously established party lines rather than on the actual degree of agreement that I have with the other person or ministry. He suggests that while I would openly acknowledge substantially more agreement with John MacArthur than I would with Billy Graham, I would be reduced to mere coffee-cup-level fellowship with both of them. This, he suggests, should demonstrate that something is amiss in my approach to practicing separation.

Due to Joel's articles, Brad's question became more pointed, in that Joel (who wants to consider MacArthur a fundamentalist) and I minister at the same college. Brad asks,

Now that we have more data from some recent discussions, I would like to present you with a situation that is not so hypothetical for you. You teach alongside Joel at International Baptist College. Yet he would extend a much greater level of fellowship to MacArthur just by calling him a fundamentalist. (I guess we will have to wait until tomorrow to see more particulars.) Why do you teach alongside someone who views MacArthur in such a different light? Is not Joel compromising by his willingness to treat MacArthur as he does? If not, why? Why draw such a strong line between what Joel calls type B and C fundamentalists? Is there really that much of a difference between those two groups? The difference between MacArthur and Graham is much, much greater than the difference between MacArthur and Tetreau, is it not? Why is Tetreau a fundamentalist and not MacArthur? I guess you could boil down my entire post to that last question.

Just for sake of clarity, I don't believe that Brad intended, nor did I infer, any amount of nastiness in this line of questioning. I don't believe that he is trying to put me on the spot; rather, I think he is (rightly) appealing to the immediate situation as an illustration of the difficulties that he sees in my system.

Before I begin to identify the ways in which I practically demonstrate my differing levels of agreement with Graham and MacArthur, I'd like to take a short but relevant detour. As I've considered practical separatism, particularly as I try to answer as I might if I were pastoring a church, it has become more and more apparent to me that, in many (and perhaps most) cases, my lack of overt participation in other ministries is not necessarily based on lack of theological or practical agreement as much as it is on a lack of enthusiasm on my part for inter-church and para-church ministries in general. I do not believe that this is entirely insignificant to a discussion of my practice of ecclesiastical separation. I've said before the my level of fellowship with a given ministry is based on my level of agreement with that ministry; I am now suggesting that this is not necessarily so. That is, it is not necessary for me to pursue the level of fellowship implied by the level of agreement that I have with every ministry. At one level, this is obvious: I cannot realistically maintain active fellowship with every assembly of believers with which I find myself in agreement. Of course, Brad realizes this as well; it is for this reason that we end up talking about hypothetical situations, such as conferences and youth outings, in which I am (in the illustration) forced to participate or refrain.

What I'm wondering (and perhaps others can help me think through this) is whether I am biblically obligated, even hypothetically, to fellowship with another ministry to the degree that I agree with it. In other words, given a (very) hypothetical example in which I'm offered a speaking opportunity at a conference with John MacArthur, if circumstances and theological issues do not prevent me from doing so, should I feel compelled to participate? If I decline the offer, am I actively attacking the unity of the church, or committing some other such sin? At this point, I do not believe that I am. For sake of clarification, I am operating within a theological grid that includes belief in the universal church; those who advocate the local-church-only position (which is an issue I hope to address in the near future on this blog) will obviously have ready-made answers that I will not find satisfying.

Another related issue, worthy of elaboration, is that the discussion of separation in terms of "big names" is somewhat artificial. I think this will become more evident as I discuss my differing levels of fellowship with Graham and MacArthur. It would be much more useful in due time to turn this discussion toward fellowship and separation on a local or associational level.

For the sake of actually getting an answer to Brad posted, I am going to stop here. I have already begun a follow-up post in which I list some specific ways in which I try to demonstrate differing levels of agreement with Graham and MacArthur; I will post that as soon as it is completed, or as soon as conversation about anything I've suggested here has died down.

Michael Riley | eight comments | Link

November 16, 2006A reply to Joel Tetreau's fundamentalist taxonomy

Disclaimer: Joel Tetreau and I both teach at International Baptist College here in Tempe, AZ. My purpose in saying this is to acknowledge upfront that I consider Joel a friend and a companion in ministry; nothing I say here is intended as any sort of personal attack on him. In fact, before posting this here, I first sent it to Joel privately, asking whether he had any problems with my offering a public critique. He replied:

Michael,

This is very kind of you....you don't need to do this [that is, give him advance notice]. Post it bro....great analysis! Before you post this, notice my further clarification on Chris Anderson's blog that a futher explanation about the differences between Type A and Type B is the centralization of pastoral authority, and the plurality of elders issue. This is hardly subjective as many have tried to make my article to be.

Blessings Bro!

Joel

Joel's note to me makes reference to this thread, which those interested in getting a better grasp of Joel's position would do well to read. However, for the good of your soul, I'd ask that you ignore the OSU logo on the side of the page. Go Blue. Now, to my actual critique:

In the past week, Joel has formally outlined his categories or types of fundamentalists, categories that he originally proposed about a year ago. Even though Joel had not yet officially defined each position, his categories have cropped up in a variety of blog conversations over the past year. His new article on the topic, broken into more manageable sections, is being posted at SharperIron. Parts one, two, and three have already been posted; part four is due tomorrow.

First, I want to acknowledge that I do believe that Joel's categories have some value. I am not among those who believe that categorization is unprofitable. Certain groups of people do have certain broadly observable characteristics, and those characteristics are fair game to be noted and critiqued. Inasmuch as this is Joel's project, I have no problems with it. Not everyone who is called fundamentalist is the same; evaluating the nature and value of these differences is, in my estimation, a worthwhile project. For instance, many of us objected to Phil Johnson's Dead Right series specifically because he did not seem to consistently acknowledge these differences, at least not to a degree that satisfied us.

So, while I think that Joel is on the right track to point out different kinds of fundamentalists, I also think that he blunts the usefulness of his insights by raising a wide variety of related topics that, in my estimation, miss the real point of his taxonomy. For instance, Joel has especially highlighted church polity and leadership style as points of division between type A and type B ministries. Other issues, such as music, entertainment choices, and translation preferences also distract from what I believe is the major benefit of Joel's taxonomy.

For sake of comparison, I would like to introduce a streamlined view of Joel's types, reducing the discussion to various views of separatism.

The real heart and novelty of Joel's proposal is type C fundamentalism. Joel would place men like John MacArthur and Mark Dever in this category. His point is this: these men are clearly separatists, and to deny them that title is dishonest. I happen to agree with Joel at this point. Both MacArthur and Dever are, in a very legitimate sense of the term, militant in the defense of the faith. They are both unhesitant to identify error and to oppose it. In MacArthur's case, his books opposing the mega-church movement (Ashamed of the Gospel) and the charismatic movement (Charismatic Chaos) make it impossible to honestly suggest that MacArthur is soft on errant theology and practice. Dever's leadership in the conservative resurgence of the SBC gives him similar status.

The question for those of us who are self-identified fundamentalists, then, is this: should we count a man like Dever or MacArthur as one of our own? The answer to this question gives us Joel's other two categories: those that belong to type A would say that we should not, while those in type B would say that we should.

It really is that simple, in my estimation.

If we reduce the taxonomy to this, we have something useful to discuss, without having to deal with all of the messy and irrelevant issues of personality and polity. In my revised version of Joel's system, one could be type A and be cantankerous or pleasant; a type A could be a senior pastor or serve at a church with a plurality of elders. Type A men could use Sovereign Grace choruses or sing Tersteegen; they could be Calvinists or Arminians. These are all real issues, and they deserve their own discussions and taxonomies. Trying to lump all of these issues into one taxonomy, however, causes excessive confusion.

Michael Riley | 24 comments | Link

November 02, 2006Camera phone fun

Inspired by this post, and taking a bit of a break from the more serious questions we've been considering here, I've decided to empty some of the more inane pictures that I've taken with my camera phone onto my blog, so the whole world can laugh with me.

I've now lived in Arizona for a little over a year, but there are still some aspects of life here that I just have a hard time comprehending. I certainly understand the desire to keep people off of freshly planted grass, but if it already looks like this (because it was planted in a desert), why bother?

I noticed this when getting off the plane after my last flight to Detroit. It was probably funnier after four hours in thin air, but I couldn't help but think that this could be the name of Osama's cousin.

I took this photo in the St. Clair Shores (MI) public library. It's a board game. For kids. Ages 3-6! I suppose we can't teach gambling too early.

I took this next photo when my parents and Sarah visited last, and we went to old town Scottsdale. Basically, Scottsdale is a tourist trap with lots of southwestern stuff. This sign, however, caught me a bit off guard. I'm assuming that the store sold large carved Indian statues, but they weren't anywhere to be seen, making the sign even funnier.

This was in Detroit Metro Airport. I suppose that I'm still a two-year-old, because I think it's funny.

This picture was also taken at the St. Clair Shores library, on a display case of WWII-themed toys. Political correctness run amok.

Michael Riley | six comments | Link