December 21, 2006Practical separation: am I binary? Part 2
My last post on this topic served as an introduction to my practice of separation. I have actually thought of a couple more introductory concerns which I will merely suggest here, and then (hopefully) develop in future posts. I realize that this seems somewhat backwards (discussing introductory concerns after discussing the issue itself); however, if I don't answer Brad's questions soon, it's going to look like I'm ducking them.Unfortunately, it probably already looks that way. If I'm going to earn my fightin' fundy merit badge, I had better get this done. (For what it's worth, all of my fantasy sports teams are named "The Fightin' Fundies," which, as you can imagine, is immensely popular with all of the guys in my basketball league from Westminster Seminary.) An additional side note: I'm leaving Phoenix this evening to head back to Michigan for Christmas, so my participation in any ensuing discussion here will be spotty, depending heavily on my access to free wireless connections in the Detroit area.
All right, let's begin with a couple of quick ideas that might be relevant to our discussion. First, Brad raised an interesting thought in his last reply to me. He suggested that if my refusal to fellowship with MacArthur is based primarily on concerns about what other men might think of me, I am likely guilty of fearing man (he referenced Proverbs 29:25). I think that this point merits some discussion, because I'm not convinced that he is completely correct (although I'd concede that this might be a motivation more often than we're comfortable admitting). In answer to Brad's charge, I might suggest that to fellowship with MacArthur would hinder my ability to minister to some groups of people, and that I am thus willing to give up what might well be allowable to me so that I can more effectively reach those particular groups. At this point, I'm not even satisfied with my own articulation of this (there are a number of holes in this brief sketch), and I'd like to think about this some more, but not now.
Second, I do want to post later on the difficulty that I have trying to distinguish ecclesiastical separation from levels of fellowship implied in various professional relationships, especially those professional relationship that seem to incorporate some level of religious or specifically Christian assumptions. For instance, here at International Baptist College, our Media Center (a title that seems a snobby, vacuous replacement for the book-centric, and thus vastly more preferable term library) belongs to an association of theological libraries throughout the state of Arizona. On more than one occasion, I have been at least a little uncomfortable in our meetings, because the underlying assumption is that we're all in some sort of ministry together. However, our association represents a wide spectrum of theological positions, including one Roman Catholic school.
Quite honestly, I would be more comfortable joining a secular association of libraries than I am in our current arrangement. It seems to me that as soon as the label Christian is attached to something, there is (obviously) some level of Christian fellowship implied. How is this relevant to the MacArthur discussion? I could certainly see the argument being made that attending or even speaking at a conference with MacArthur is justifiable if I participate purely in my role as a pastor or theologian, not tying my appearance to my church in any way. This, to me, seems difficult, but it also seems necessary if we are to defend fundamentalist professors who are members of the ETS (which I am not, but not for reasons of principle). Again, this is a discussion for another time.
I now turn to actually suggesting two ways that I demonstrate, practically, my varying levels of agreement with various men and ministries.
The first distinction that I'm going to suggest here is one that Brad has already dismissed, but I believe his dismissal was a bit cavalier; therefore, I'm going to give it another try. I had said in the past that while I would gladly attend a Shepherd's Conference and participate in the corporate worship service (assuming that the service is conducted in what I would deem an acceptable worship style, which is another debate), I would not participate in worship led by Graham, even if I were to attend a crusade. Brad objected to this distinction, saying that unless my worship participation is very obvious (raised hands, etc.), the difference between one and the another would not be readily apparent.
Brad probably has a point here; however, I still believe that I am demonstrating a real difference in the way that I relate to these men, and I think that a little imagination will illustrate my point. Suppose that I came to the Shepherd's Conference wholly antagonistic to MacArthur's ministry; my purpose in coming might be to write the sort of scathing exposé typical of what Phil Johnson once called "indy-fundy-Baptist rant-rags." Given such a scenario, I don't think that it is implausible that my demeanor in the meetings might give away my intentions. I might, for instance, wear a suit and tie while everyone else is in business casual, just to set myself apart. Or, perhaps I would carry myself with the detached aloofness characteristic of a disinterested teen.
Of course, I'm not suggesting for a moment that I'd do these things to this degree, even at a Graham meeting. My point is simply this: it is quite possible to distinguish the wholehearted and the halfhearted participants at most gatherings.
Additionally, (back in the real world) I would likely announce my intentions to my church (if I were the pastor) or to the church leadership (as a member and employee of a ministry) before going to either of these meetings, for the very purpose of avoiding unnecessary confusion. Should there be serious objections to my attendance by those to whom or with whom I minister, I would likely reconsider going.
Further, I would suggest that my composite level of fellowship with a given man or ministry might not be obvious if the sample size is a single decision. I concede that if I attend both the MacArthur and Graham meetings, someone might come to the conclusion that I agree with both equally. However, my greater level of comfort with MacArthur might be evidenced by the fact that I would go to the Shepherd's Conference, and I might later drive some distance to here him speak in my area, or I might purchase a number of his books or sermons. On the other hand, my visit to a Graham crusade would likely be a one-time occurrence, just to get a firsthand look at what it is like. Thus, even if there is no observable difference between my attendance at Graham's crusade and MacArthur's conference, my long term pattern of behavior is a better indicator of the fellowship that I feel that I can have with each.
A second way in which my fellowship with Graham differs from my fellowship with MacArthur is the way in which I present their ministries to those with whom I have influence. For what it's worth, I've never been a huge MacArthur-ite; I'm actually much more indebted to John Piper for my theology and worldview. As any of my students will attest (and especially the men in the dorm whom I serve as dorm supervisor), I reference Piper constantly, and very (though not exclusively) positively. In fact, I began this school year by having all of the guys in the dorm listen to Piper's sermon "Let Your Passion Be Single."
Theologically, I believe that I have more in common with MacArthur than I do Piper; certainly, I would just as happy to recommend my students to MacArthur's works. However, I would be much more hesitant to speak so glowingly of Graham. Frankly, I have told my students that Graham has, in recent years, made such errant statements that, if they truly reflect his beliefs, give good reason to question his commitment to the gospel itself. I do not pretend to know the state of his soul; my hope is that his denial of the uniqueness of Christ in salvation, for instance, is more a product of his age than it is a reflection of a shift in his theology. However, such significant error gives me good reason not to cite Graham as a highly positive example of theology and practice.
Thus, I do think that this is another example of an action that reflects the strongly different levels of agreement that I have with MacArthur and Graham.
Of course, the major objection to this point is this: announcing your agreement with a person is not in any way a case of actually fellowshipping with that person. Strictly speaking, this is true; however, rather than defusing my argument, I think it points to an already-noted deficiency in the scenario being addressed. Not being within comfortable distance of Grace Community, my fellowship with MacArthur is almost exclusively mediated through his public influence. As mentioned previously, the discussion could be made markedly more practical by considering churches with whom I might actually have personal fellowship; quite honestly, that would force me to make some very difficult decisions.
However, in light of the scenario as it is currently constucted, I do think that my public repeated endorsements of much that MacArthur has said and written constitutes a closer level of fellowship than I have with Graham.