Dr. Ernest Pickering, “The Separatist Cause is Not Advanced by Featuring Non-Separatists”

On Tuesday, February 8 [2011] the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron1 (SI) site posted an excerpt from Dr. Ernest Pickering’s Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. The excerpt was submitted by Brother Kevin Mungons of Baptist Bulletin and Regular Baptist Press. In his introductory remarks Mungons wrote,

“Several bloggers have recently addressed the subject of separation, suggesting that current leaders such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, and Tim Jordan are moving to a position that contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of fundamentalists…. Disappointed with the rough-and-tumble disagreements of his era, Pickering concluded his seminal Biblical Separation with a critique of fundamentalism’s well-documented foibles—advice that would have saved us a lot of grief, had we listened. A portion of the book’s conclusion follows.” (bold added)

We can all appreciate the outstanding teaching within the pages of Dr. Pickering’s Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Sharper Iron did not include any portion from Dr. Pickering’s classic that speaks plainly to the efforts of Drs. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson to embrace, feature and cooperate with non-separatist evangelicals. Dr. Pickering’s advice to them would have saved us a lot of grief, had they listened.

Today we will consider whether or not certain present day Fundamentalists, who claim a heritage in and militancy to authentic biblical separatism, are acting contrary to the teaching of and have drifted from the moorings that Dr. Pickering defined for biblical separation. Following is a timely subsection from Biblical Separation that addresses an application of authentic biblical separation.  The subsection is titled, Whom to Invite to Your Platform.

“Some leaders operate on the principle that they will use speakers who are well-known even though they may be shaky in their convictions in some areas-because they have special abilities that are helpful and thus can be a blessing to their congregations. The wisdom, however, of following this course of action is very doubtful. For instance, the president of a separatist school may be asked to consider using some outstanding Bible preacher in his chapel or Bible conference. The man may have expertise in the Scriptures, be fundamental in doctrine and possess a tremendous gift of communication. He may also be one who goes everywhere, evidencing little discernment in the choice of places he ministers, speaking one week at the separatist college and perhaps the next at a Bible conference controlled by new evangelicals or their sympathizers. Some see no harm in using such a man. They look only at the messages he delivers from the platform which, in themselves, may be without fault.

But a man is more than his pulpit message. He brings to the pulpit a lifetime of associations, actions and perhaps writings. He comes as a total person. Is he in his total ministry the type of person you would want the young people at the separatist college to emulate? Perhaps you, as an adult, mature believer, could make the necessary adjustments in thinking and divorce what he is from what he says. Most of the youth would not be able to do that. The same would be true of most church members. They would be influenced by the man’s example as well as by his preaching. If he is a compromiser, his example would be harmful, and the college president would be at fault for setting him up as such. The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non-separatists.” (Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Implementing Separatist Convictions, Whom to Invite to Your Platform, p. 229.)

This week Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder have joined non-separatist SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever on the platform with Tim Jordan at the Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale (CBS) Leadership Conference. They are sharing the platform with Dr. Dever and working in a cooperative ministry effort with him. Mark Dever is an SBC pastor, teaches at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is a leading institution for New-Evangelical compromise and the home of the Ockenga Institute2 and he sits on the board of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (home of the Billy Graham School of Evangelism & World Missions).

Mark Dever brings to the platform with him, amillenialism. Additionally, he brings all of the baggage of the Southern Baptist Convention with him to the platform. Knowing all of this CBS invited Dever to their platform. This week, without reservation or seeing any need to justify speaking there, Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder happily share the platform with the man who brings that baggage with him to it. Is this the manner of biblical separation that Dr. Pickering taught or practiced?

In 2010 Dave Doran and Matt Olson featured non-separatist evangelicals in their church, seminary and college pulpits.3 From 1979 Dr. Pickering warned against compromise and fellowship with non-separatists.

“The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non-separatists.”

Words fitly spoken to men and SI, who are reaching out to and advancing the cause of non-separatist so-called “conservative” evangelicals. Convicting words from a Fundamentalist on the principles and application of authentic biblical separation. We see men who would be accommodating rather than militant, appeasers rather than separatists, unifiers at the expense of fidelity to the doctrine. Dr. Pickering’s commentary clearly reveal Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson practice that which is antithetical to his teaching on a specific application of separation- platform fellowship. They have moved to a position that contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of Fundamentalists, Dr. Ernest Pickering in particular.

In recent days Dave Doran wrote very clear, unambiguous statements indicating what would constitute for him grounds to withhold fellowship from brethren. These are documented in The RAP on Mark Dever series.4 However, when faced with Dever’s obvious crossing the boundary that Doran set for himself, it is as if he (Doran) suddenly developed amnesia. He refuses to apply his own principles for separation. This begins to make one wonder why believe what Dave Doran writes or says about separatism, when his being at Lansdale with Mark Dever this week confirms that he personally ignores what he writes/says about separation. I see Dave Doran (as well as Bauder, Olson, Jordan) moving his fellowship increasingly toward non-separatists. I see a pattern of selective application of the timeless principles.

There is a disconnect between what Dave Doran writes on separation and what he does in practice.

Alleged separatists in IFB circles will keep walking the pathway of compromise. They are on this winding road to have their fellowship with non-separatist evangelicals. They are on the same slippery slope that men like Jerry Falwell chose years ago. They must believe they can succeed where Falwell, and many other lesser known who took the same steps, failed. They are headed, by choice, in that direction. Just like Falwell, van Impe, et.al., they are going to wind up in some kind of tragic “theological wasteland.”

What does Dr. Ernest Pickering say to men who claim to be separatists and unchanged in separatist convictions, who are increasingly featuring and cooperating in ministry with non-separatist evangelicals?

“The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non separatists.”

Dr. Pickering’s message from Biblical Separation is clear. The actions of Bauder, Doran, Olson and Jordan to embrace, feature and converge with non-separatist evangelicals demonstrates movement away from and what is contradictory to the teaching of earlier fundamentalists, in particular Dr. Ernest Pickering.

There is still time for the evangelicals’ apologists, who still circulate in Fundamental circles, to listen to Dr. Pickering’s advice and to heed his admonitions for biblical separation for the sake of a pure church. Lord willing these self-described biblical separatists, some who claim to be unchanged militant separatists, will rethink the direction they are headed toward and cease from influencing impressionable young people to follow them into compromise with so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

With the prayers and admonition of God’s people those men might be recovered and reverse course before much longer. I am hopeful they will one day repent and invest the balance of their lives undoing the damage they are presently doing to authentic biblical separatism. The kind of militant, consistent, balanced separatism that Dr. Ernest Pickering defined in Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church.


LM

Originally published February 2011.

Site Publisher Addendum:
In the next we will excerpt portions from another of Dr. Ernest Pickering’s works. In that article we will once again recognize certain men in IFB circles are acting in ways that undeniably “contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of fundamentalists.”

Footnotes:
1) For various discussions in regard to SI please visit, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet

2) The Ockenga Institute in honor of early new evangelical leader Dr. Harold J. Ockenga (1905-1985) a founder and the first president of Gordon-Conwell, member of the board of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. This new evangelical inspired Gordon-Conwell is where Mark Dever chooses to teach and cooperate.

3) In 2010 Dave Doran hosted in his seminary or church pulpit Michael Vlach, Conrad Mbewe and Bryan Ferrell. Matt Olson at NIU hosted non-separatists Rick Holland, Wayne Simien and will feature another non-separatist SBC theologian, Bruce Ware, in a summer module.

4) The RAP on Mark Dever, Part 1

Related Reading:
Dead Man's Curve

Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism

1994 & 1995 FBFI Resolutions: Southern Baptist Convention

“Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.” (Dave Doran, 1994).

“…we [Doran, Olson, Jordan] do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.” (Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Matt Olson, 1995).

Is NIU “Unchanged?” NBBC Position Statement on Issues in Contemporary Christianity

Kevin Bauder: It Won’t Fly With Those of Us Who Know

NIU’s Convergence With Evangelicalism: What Does it Mean for Impressionable Students?

Kevin Bauder & Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

SBC Decides Against Expelling Members of Pro-Homosexual Baptist Alliance: What is the “Militant” Separatist to Do?

“The Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee decided earlier this week that a church’s membership in a pro-gay Baptist group does not automatically disqualify it from being part of the conservative Baptist denomination.”1

It is compelling irony that on the very day that the Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) Advancing the Church conference closed news of the SBC decision on homosexuality is published. This news stirs a few questions. Questions that must be directed to SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever and self-described separatists who featured, shared the Lansdale platform with and ministered in a cooperative effort alongside him.

•Does the Bible have enough to say about homosexuality to compel Dr. Dever to obey the Lord’s commands and withdraw from the SBC?

•Will Drs. Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder and Tim Jordan tolerate, allow for, ignore and/or excuse this news and Dr. Dever if he does not separate from the SBC?

•Will Drs. Doran, Bauder and Jordan admonish Dr. Dever as a brother to separate from the SBC as openly as they embraced and legitimized his ministry and associations at Lansdale last week?

•Will Drs. Doran, Bauder and Jordan offer justification for having featured and shared a platform with a non-separatist SBC pastor?

•Will Drs. Doran, Bauder and Jordan, realize they have erred, then apologize for having featured and ministered alongside SBC pastor, Dr. Mark Dever?

•Will Drs. Doran, Bauder and Jordan repent for reaching out to, featuring, ministering with and thereby endorsing the ministry of Dr. Mark Dever?

•Will Sharper Iron and Brother Kevin Mungons rethink and publicly recognize that the kind of separatism that Drs. Doran, Bauder and Jordan are currently practicing is contradictory to that of Dr. Ernest Pickering as he defined it in Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church?2

The SBC remains a liberal denominational structure. While some rooting out of liberalism has been accomplished within SBC schools, at the core the SBC allows for elements and persons that are a near anti-God sub-culture to operate and spread influence within the New Testament church.

Does the decision to allow for pro-homosexual rights churches to remain in the SBC qualify as direct disobedience to the Word of God? Will this decision from the SBC Executive Committee,3 finally be enough for Drs. Doran, Bauder, Jordan and Matt Olson to cease from reaching out to, featuring and worse exposing the impressionable among us to non-separatist, compromised, erring brothers?

LtoR: Doran, Jordan, Dever, Bauder, Harbin

Is this decision from the SBC finally enough for a segment of men in fundamental Baptist circles to finally live in fidelity, without partiality, to the God-ordained mandates to “admonish, withdraw from, mark and avoid” alleged “conservative” evangelicals and their fellowships? To withdraw from men that can remain within, allow for, minister along side and financially support the SBC in the wake of decisions such as this latest? (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15 Romans 16:17-18)


LM

Photo by Darrell Goemaat/Baptist Bulletin. Used by permission.

1) The Christian Post.

2) Dr. Ernest Pickering, “The Separatist Cause is Not Advanced by Featuring Non-Separatists?”

“With the prayers and admonition of God’s people those men (Doran Bauder, Jordan, Olson) might be recovered and reverse course before much longer. I am hopeful they will one day repent and invest the balance of their lives undoing the damage they are presently doing to authentic biblical separatism. The kind of militant, consistent, balanced separatism that Dr. Ernest Pickering defined in Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church.”

3) SBC Executive Committee

Site Publisher’s Note:
It was my intention this morning to begin a series of short summary articles in regard to the embracing and cooperative ministry efforts with so-called “conservative” evangelicals. Because of its timeliness, this news from the SBC will be the first in this series to summarize the waning of authentic biblical separatism that has been taking place in recent months. Once I conclude this series of summary articles I will be moving to a discussion of how the Gospel figures into the convergence of self-described separatists with the non-separatist evangelicals.

The RAP on Mark Dever: What is the “Militant” Separatist to Do? (continued)

The first installment of this series was The RAP on Mark Dever: What is the “Militant” Separatist to Do? We reviewed Dr. Dave Doran’s personal reasons for insisting there is no need for him to justify his cooperative ministry effort on the platform with SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever at the Feb. 22-25 Leadership Conference at Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale). I also provided a transcript of an interview Dr. Mark Dever conducted with RAP, Hip Hop artists Shai Linne and Curtis “Voice” Allen. We considered the revelation that Mark Dever has embraced and is promoting the RAP, Hip Hop culture. We also documented Dr. Dave Doran’s personal, “biblical justifications for and biblical boundaries of ministerial cooperation and fellowship.” Dave Doran asked,

“Do Mark Dever and CBTS obscure the distinction between the church and the world by denying the transforming power of the gospel, by embracing worldly approaches for the church’s growth and/or worship, or by failing to articulate and practice genuine church membership and discipline?”

Brother Doran answered, “No.” From the transcript of the Dever/Linne/Allen interview at 9Marks, however, we now know that the correct answer is, “Yes” to the bolded portion above.

Following are select excerpts from Mark Dever’s interview with RAP artists Linne and Allen.

“I’ve listened to this [RAP, Hip Hop] for a few years anyway and you gave me your Atonement album and I loved that.”

“The rhyming, I love words, and the complexity of the rhyming, it’s dazzling. Forget Jesus in this; I’m artistically interested. Then as I understand it I’m fascinated. It has the Gospel clearly…It is more theologically dense than any other kind of music I’ve ever heard. I love Bach’s oratorios, but this beats them as far as theological density.”

“I can testify as one Beethoven lover that I have listened to this [RAP] music on and off, with all the rest of my music, for a few years. But the last three days just only listening to this, and listening to it again and again, I liked it when I began, I like it even more now.”

“Get [Storiez] for one of your ministers who works with children in your church, and I bet you’d encourage them.”

“Felix…is one of our members here [Capital City BC] and did some rapping for us in one of our member’s meetings...and I would say it was well received by our congregation.”

These quotes show that Dever’s admiration for RAP, Hip Hop is not an “occasional inconsistency…a single episode,” nor merely “a wrong decision based on bad judgment.”5 No, Dever has “for a few years” been personally listening to, encouraging and promoting this form of worldly pop culture into his personal life and ministry.

“Significant doctrinal differences are certainly more serious than differences of cultural philosophy. But I would argue that differences of philosophy of culture are more dangerous because they are more subtle. Allow me to explain. If someone in my congregation is exposed to an argument for infant baptism or the continuation of sign gifts, I can fairly easily point him to exegetical and theological reasons we do not hold to such doctrines. But if someone in my congregation is exposed to sacred music that is fleshly, it is much more difficult to demonstrate why that music is fleshly because expression of abstract emotion (that’s what music is) is difficult to articulate.”6

If Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder are on the platform at Lansdale next week tacit endorsement of and legitimacy is given to Dever’s affinity for and promotion of RAP. This is the kind of “mixing and mingling” that has not been seen in sixty years, but with Bauder, Doran, Matt Olson (at NIU) and Tim Jordan leading the way, a convergence with non-separatist evangelicals is coming into vogue. This kind of fellowship and cooperative ministry with non-separatist evangelicals will not end with Mark Dever at Lansdale. Greater compromise is sure to follow.

One of Brother Doran’s guiding principles for necessitating separatism is “embracing worldly approaches for the church’s growth and/or worship” that, furthermore, “obscures the distinction between the church and the world.” Let’s Get Clear on This, Mark Dever’s long time personal embrace and promotion of the RAP, Hip Hop medium in the NT church is a CRYSTAL clear case that the biblical boundary has been crossed. Unless Dever removes himself from the Lansdale conference, is excused from it, or repents Dave Doran has one option if he is to be faithful to his own principles for biblical separatism as he defined them. So, what is a self-described militant, biblical separatist to do?

In the days leading up to the February 22nd opening of the Lansdale conference we will anticipate whether or not a man who claims personal “militancy” in separatism, who has stated in black and white terms his convictions for ministerial cooperation and fellowship will hold to his convictions in principle and in actual application.

In his 1995 article, In Defense of Militancy, Dave Doran wrote,

“It is difficult for most of us to handle the relational pressure that comes from being a separatist without a strong, compelling belief that it is not just an option, but the right thing to do.”7

Could Dave Doran be under relational pressure? Just as it was in 1995 “separation is not an option, but the right thing to do.” It’s the right thing to do today just as it was sixteen years ago. This week Brother Doran has to decide if he will be a militant separatist as he defined it. Or will he opt to appear with SBC pastor Mark Dever at Lansdale and thereby confirm he has become another whose voice for and commitment to militancy in the defense of biblical separatism that has waned?

“It seems to me that those who want to rid contemporary Fundamentalism of its alleged belligerence should watch the pathway carefully. The last group of people to take that path found it to be a winding road which ends up in a theological wasteland.”8

It becomes increasingly clear that Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan are well down that “winding road” and seeking to influence this and the next generation of impressionable young people to join them there.


LM

For related reading see, Is Northland International University, “Unchanged?” NBBC Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity and for reading on the convergence of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism at Lansdale see Ps. Brian Ernsberger’s Dead Man’s Curve at The Parsings of a Preacher.

Footnotes:
5) Quoting Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran respectively. With these comments they each dismissed Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration, which gave Christian recognition to the deadly enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18). See- Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

6) Scott Aniol, Is Music a Separation Issue? Preserving the Truth Conference, Jan. 2010.)

7) Dr. David Doran, In Defense of Militancy, Sentinel 11:2, Spring 1995.

8) Ibid.

Addendum:
Following are additional examples that reiterate and reinforce what we have considered from Mark Dever in his interview comments above.

“But there’s one access pass Mark Dever has lacked since his growing up days in rural Kentucky, one elusive audience and language he has not commanded, one world to which he is a stranger. Da ‘hood. Da block. Da peeps. Now, Mark and the Merita brothers at 9Marks are taking it to the street, the hip hop generation. They’re teaming up with Lamp Mode recording artists to produce a new holy hip hop cd called ‘The Church: Called and Collected.’ That’s gonna be hot–the 9 marks set to hip hop. Coming June 8th.” (Mark Dever Trying to Earn His Ghetto Card, Thabiti Anyabwile, May 5, 2010.)

Moving ahead to June 2010 to The Church Called and Collected, which is based on Mark Dever’s What is a Healthy Church? (9Marks of a Healthy Church) See, Ecclesiology Meets Hip Hop at The Gospel Coalition’s Between Two Worlds blog.

“Justin Taylor over at [The Gospel Coalition’s] Between Two Worlds has a post on the new album by LampMode that covers Mark Dever’s Nine Marks of a Healthy Church…. I believe that solid Christian hip-hop music is today’s hymns.” (Bryan Thornton, Voice of the Sheep, “The Church” is Hip-Hopping Good)

The RAP on Mark Dever: What is the “Militant” Separatist to Do?

In January Brother Don Johnson posted something i don’t understand1 at his blog an Ox Goad, eh. This article included an e-mail by Dr. Dave Doran published at his personal blog, which he had previously sent to Dr. Rick Arrowood. Doran’s article (01/24/11) was under the title, Arrowood, Dever and Me.

Dave Doran was reacting to Rick Arrowood’s open letter in which, among related subjects, he expressed concern about Doran’s intention to share a platform with Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) pastor Dr. Mark Dever at the Feb. 22-25 Leadership Conference at Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale).2 While some men may appreciate certain elements of Mark Dever’s ministry, many more have deep reservations about any degree of public ministry cooperation with him, as with many of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. In Doran’s e-mail, which you can read for yourself in black and white, Doran offers his reasons for participating.

That said, let me offer my thinking about why I don’t believe my speaking there needs to be justified…. The shortened version is simply the answer to these questions:

(1) Do Mark Dever or CBTS extend Christian recognition and fellowship to those who deny the Faith?

(2) Do Mark Dever and CBTS oppose the granting of Christian recognition and fellowship to those who deny the Faith?

(3) Do Mark Dever and CBTS obscure the distinction between the church and the world by denying the transforming power of the gospel, by embracing worldly approaches for the church’s growth and/or worship, or by failing to articulate and practice genuine church membership and discipline?

I suppose someone could disagree with me about these, but my answers to these questions are, respectively, no, yes, and no. (bold added)

Those are Dr. Doran’s personal reasons for insisting there is no need for him to justify a cooperative ministry effort on the platform with Mark Dever at the Lansdale conference. Immediately following his three questions Doran added further explanation. Pay particular attention to the underlined portion as we move ahead.

“Since I believe that Christian fellowship and recognition is limited to those who embrace the Faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), that we cannot ignore or disregard God’s commands about separation (Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Thess. 3:6-15), and that the distinction between the church and the world must be guarded (1 Cor. 5; 1 John 2:15-17), these are the biblical justifications for and biblical boundaries of ministerial cooperation and fellowship.”(underline added)

Are there any concrete reasons why militant, biblical separatists should avoid a cooperative ministry with Mark Dever? Does Mark Dever embrace any “worldly approaches for the church’s growth and/or worship?” Is there a clear “distinction between the church and the world [that] must be guarded?”

Mark Dever at SBTS

I have listened to and transcribed an interview with RAP artists Shai Linne and Curtis “Voice” Allen.3 Mark Dever hosted and conducted the interview. Pastor Dever’s comments included the following:

“I’ve been listening to both of your music, actually for some time, but a lot lately getting ready for this interview.”

“Is it expositional rapping… With you [Shai] the music is so word heavy that its almost like I’m attending a conference and just hearing an incredibly artfully given sermon.”

“In trying to get more of your music to listen to I am encountering a problem. CD’s seem to be disappearing.”

“It’s [Shai’s music] lyrically more intense…more complex, dense.

“I’ve listened to this [RAP/Hip Hop] for a few years anyway and you gave me your Atonement album and I loved that. Shai asked, “What is it that you [Dever] loved about that?” Dever replied,

“The rhyming, I love words, and the complexity of the rhyming, it’s dazzling. Forget Jesus in this; I’m artistically interested. Then as I understand it I’m fascinated. It has the Gospel clearly…. It is more theologically dense than any other kind of music I’ve ever heard. I love Bach’s oratorios, but this beats them as far as theological density.”

In discussing RAP being used in congregational music Dever said, “Christopher’s brother who is a member of our church who is going to uhhhh, let’s explore this idea of using this music congregationally.”

Christopher (unknown last name) speaking, “One of Shai’s songs, “Jesus is Alive,” in a Philadelphia concert and everyone knowing the words and singing that together…” Dever, “Yeah, I was singing along with it…I’ve heard it enough.”

“I can testify as one Beethoven lover that I have listened to this [RAP] music on and off, with all the rest of my music, for a few years. But the last three days just only listening to this, and listening to it again and again, I liked it when I began, I like it even more now.”

“[The Atonement] is a wonderful CD...If you’re listening and you haven’t listened to any of this [Christian hip hop music], that would be a great place to start [listening to it]. Something similar would be Curtis Voices’s Not Guilty.”

“I just want to give a word of testimony about Storiez one of your most recent ones Shai. That’s amazing, it’s very fun and clear. For people who have any kind of dim view about the medium [RAP/Hip Hop] I think listening to your stories is a very bright, cheerful, in a really fun rhyming way. I would say it’s a five stars out of five stars kind of success.

“I haven’t shared it with my wife yet because she wouldn’t give it back. So, I’m going to share it with her soon after I finish listening to it a few more times.”

“Get [Shai Linne’s Storiez] for one of your ministers who works with children in your church, and I bet you’d encourage them.”

In the Q&A after the formal interview closed you hear Dever say, “Felix…is one of our members here [Capital City BC] and did some rapping for us in one of our member’s meetings...and I would say it was well received by our congregation.”

These are not the comments of a man dabbling with, uncertain over, exploring or researching RAP and Hip Hop.

The interview comments are Mark Dever’s RAP sheet on the RAP, Hip Hop movement within the New Testament church.

The Mark Dever, Shai Linne, Curtis Allen interview is all one need hear to understand that Dever has embraced and is encouraging a carnal form of worship in the church that you would be exposed to in a worldly RAP concert.

“Indeed, a far better quality Calvinism still flourishes in very many churches, where souls are won and lives sanctified, and where Truth and practice are both under the rule of Scripture. Such churches have no sympathy at all with reporter Collin Hansen’s worldly-worship variety, who seek to build churches using exactly the same entertainment methods as most charismatics…. The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did.”4

In explaining why his sharing the platform with Mark Dever at Lansdale needs no justification Dave Doran wrote,

“Do Mark Dever and CBTS obscure the distinction between the church and the world by denying the transforming power of the gospel, by embracing worldly approaches for the church’s growth and/or worship, or by failing to articulate and practice genuine church membership and discipline?”

Doran says, “No.” We now know, however, that the correct answer is, “Yes.” Mark Dever has embraced a worldly approach for the church. So, what is a self-described “militant” separatist to do? What does the separatist do who staked out “embracing worldly approaches for the church’s growth and/or worship” as the “boundaries of ministerial cooperation and fellowship?” Dave Doran wrote,

“The distinction between the church and the world must be guarded.... these are the biblical justifications for and biblical boundaries of ministerial cooperation and fellowship.”

We will continue this discussion in the next.


LM

Please proceed to Part 2

For related reading on the convergence of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism at Lansdale see Ps. Brian Ernsberger’s Dead Man’s Curve at The Parsings of a Preacher.

Footnotes:
1) something i don’t understand

2) Dr. Rick Arrowood, Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism

“Who really is changing as we see this new wave of picking and choosing, applying and justifying, defending and mitigating, ‘mixing and mingling’? If it is right for us to ‘platform fellowship’ with new-evangelicals and those in the SBC, why have we not had them preach in our colleges, seminaries and fellowships over the past sixty years? A Southern Baptist teaching theology in a fundamentalist church, college or seminary has his roots in Southern Baptist soil, and when transplanted temporarily to a fundamental church or school brings that soil with him.”

3) Christian RAP: Shai Linne/Voice Interview, Posted at 9Marks October 1, 2009.

4) Dr. Peter Masters: The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness

“A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm…is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists [including Mark Dever], this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.”

1994 & 1995 Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Resolutions: Southern Baptist Convention

REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION (1994)

While applauding the attempts of conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention to reemphasize the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, we do not believe that these men are “fundamental” Southern Baptists. Our reasoning is twofold: first, they still accept the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham which makes them New Evangelicals; and second, they do not desire to be known as Fundamentalists. Writing in “The Church God Approves,” James Draper, conservative in the Southern Baptist Convention, condemns Fundamentalists for their divisiveness, bigotry and unfairness; and says that they have a wholly negative approach and show little love and compassion. Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.

REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION (1995)

The FBF applauds those in the Southern Baptist Convention who fought a battle for the inerrancy of Scripture, but disagree with Jerry Falwell and Tim Lee who attempt to convince followers that the SBC conservatives are Fundamentalists. At best, conservative Southern Baptists are New Evangelicals who cooperate with and promote the ecumenical evangelism ministry of Billy Graham. The Southern Baptist Convention dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, the two Southern Baptist leaders who signed the 1994 ecumenical Evangelicals and Catholics Together* agreement (the furor created caused them later to ask to have their names removed), and statements made by Convention leaders embracing charismatics indicate dangerous drifts in the SBC.

We believe that statements made by Charles Stanley, twice elected president of the SBC, such as, “If it’s a Southern Baptist seminary, it should be balanced in its approach. If you’re going to have liberals, you need strong conservatives . . . if you’ve got people who don’t believe in the virgin birth, you need people who do,” lead to unscriptural confusion. Adrian Rogers, elected to two terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said, “I don’t want any witch hunt to purge the seminaries.” Statements such as these reveal that even conservative leadership in the SBC will not take the strong stands necessary to rid the Convention of its liberal and neo-orthodox factions. Until this happens, we do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.

In recent years some strides have been made to rid the “convention of its liberal and neo-orthodox factions,” but not all of them.** Many of the “dangerous drifts” described above, however, remain in the SBC.

What is glaringly left out of this issue is the matter of separation. [Kevin] Bauder claims that the “conservative evangelicals” aren’t New Evangelicals and he conveniently defines New Evangelicalism in a way that proves his point (whereas his predecessors at Central, Richard Clearwaters and Ernest Pickering, understood New Evangelism much more clearly).

While there are many aspects of New Evangelicalism, the defining principle from its inception was a “repudiation of separatism.” That was the way that Harold Ockenga put it. That is Billy and Franklin Graham’s foundational working principle.

And by that definition, every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical. That is evident by the simple fact that they remain in the SBC, which is an unholy organization that encompasses theological liberalism, Charismaticism, Masonism, ecumenical evangelism, modern textual criticism, Amillennialism, the rock & roll emerging philosophy, female preachers, psychoheresy, Catholic mysticism, and other errors and evils. (David Cloud: Conservative Evangelicals, Jan. 27, 2011.)

On February 22-25 at Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale, PA) Dr. Dave Doran and Dr. Kevin Bauder will be participating in a cooperative pulpit ministry with SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever. The 1994 FBF resolution above warns of compromising the cause of biblical separatism. Dever maintains close friendships with and participates in cooperative efforts with ecumenical compromisers and charismatics. Does the common cause cooperative ministry of Bauder and Doran with Dever at Lansdale compromise the cause of biblical separatism? How do Brothers Doran and Bauder justify their “cooperation in pulpit ministries” at Lansdale with SBC pastor Mark Dever?

Dr. Rick Arrowood details the current posture of SBC pastor Mark Dever,

Just because a man like Dr. Dever is seen by some as a “conservative Southern Baptist, who fights for truth in the SBC,” does not mean he fits in as a separatist and should be called a fundamentalist. Matter-a-fact, he would not want to wear that name tag. He is a leader among Southern Baptists:

•He serves on the Board of Southern Theological Seminary under the direction of Dr. Al Mohler. (Dr. Mohler signed the ecumenical Manhattan Declaration and watches over the Billy Graham School of Evangelism and Home Missions at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. [Mohler served as chair for the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville])

•Dr. Dever also willingly teaches at Gordon-Conwell College in Massachusetts, long known as a leading institution for New-Evangelicalism and compromise.

•To add to the matter, Dr. Dever is quite reformed and a-millennial, which, of course, is a far-cry from the position promoted by the founders of Calvary, Detroit, Central and Northland.

•He has spoken it [sic] the past and is slated to speak in the future with Dr. C.J. Mahaney, one of the founders of the Together For The Gospel [T4G] Conference where he states that his desire is to start churches that are reformed in theology and charismatic in doctrine. T4G has attracted an assortment of our young men, exposing them not only to doctrinal error, but also a steady diet of Sovereign Grace Music.

(Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism)

Does that read like the personal resume of a man who is committed to the theology, application and cause of biblical separatism? It appears troubling inconsistencies among evangelicals such as Mark Dever are no longer a barrier to fellowship and cooperative ministerial efforts for certain men in Fundamental circles who profess allegiance to the cause of biblical separatism as defined in the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the Southern Baptist Convention.

Who really is changing as we see this new wave of picking and choosing, applying and justifying, defending and mitigating, “mixing and mingling?” If it is right for us to “platform fellowship” with new-evangelicals and those in the SBC, why have we not had them preach in our colleges, seminaries and fellowships over the past sixty years? A Southern Baptist teaching theology in a fundamentalist church, college or seminary has his roots in Southern Baptist soil, and when transplanted temporarily to a fundamental church or school brings that soil with him. If our position has been wrong, then we have missed the placating of well-organized denominationalism with its comforts and retirement benefits. Perhaps we should go to those retired fundamental Baptist missionaries, who have sacrificed term after term on a foreign field, who may be physically and financially struggling in some nursing home, and apologize to them, admitting the Lottie Moon Missions Program would have been a better choice for them. Can you see the shifting of the sand and how it strikes at the foundation of our fundamental Baptist history? (Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism)

For those who may not be aware the 1994 FBF resolution on the SBC was prepared and submitted by the resolutions committee that included Dave Doran. Brother Doran signed on to and therefore endorsed the 1994 resolution on the SBC, which closed as follows,

“Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.”

The 1995 FBF resolution was prepared and submitted by the committee that included Dave Doran, Matt Olson and Tim Jordan. The 1995 resolution closed with,

“…we [Doran, Olson, Jordan] do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.”

Yet, Matt Olson will be featuring SBC theologian Dr. Bruce Ware at NIU later this year. In a matter of days Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder will join SBC pastor Mark Dever, invited by Tim Jordan, in a ministerial effort at Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale.

"Changing?"

Who’s changing? The men who co-drafted and signed the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the SBC, or the non-separatist evangelicals in the Southern Baptist Convention? Brother Dever, what do you say?

We will continue on these themes later this month.


LM

*In 2009 Southern Baptist leaders including Dr. Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD). The MD is the first cousin of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Signing the MD extended Christian recognition to Roman Catholics and apostates. Mohler and other SBC signatories have been admonished by their peers, but have not repented of their deed, which compromised the Gospel. (See- Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration)

**2001- 01.6 Regarding the Southern Baptist Convention

The FBFI expresses gratitude to God for the changes in the Southern Baptist Convention nationally since 1979. We commend the reaffirmation of inerrancy, now a confessional requirement for its agencies—the seminaries, Mission Boards and its publishing arm. Furthermore, we applaud the repudiation of homosexuality and the confessional commitment to a biblical role for women. However, we exhort our brethren to continue reformation by opposing the ecumenism of Billy Graham and “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” We also urge perseverance at the state and local levels, purging the theological and moral decay. And, where purging is not possible, we urge Southern Baptists to withdraw and rebuild, showing fidelity to the Scripture. Until Southern Baptists fully recognize and repudiate the destruction of Neo-evangelicalism that has weakened their churches and seminaries, the Scriptural response of Fundamental Baptists must continue to be separation.

Site Publisher’s Note:
See the FBFI Resolutions for access to the resolution archives.

The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism by Pastor Tod Brainard

Dr. Kevin Bauder is President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minnesota. Let me say first of all that as editor of The Projector, I have followed the ministry of Dr. Kevin Bauder and have appreciated his writings and ministry in past years. We have even printed an article or two of his in The Projector. I have no interest in getting into a brawl with Dr. Bauder or in carrying on a tit for tat discourse. However, in recent time I have watched him move Central Baptist Theological Seminary from a Biblical Separatist entity to a conciliatory, accommodating entity toward men and ministries who are clearly not Biblical Separatists. This is quite revealing as the founder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. R. V. Clearwaters, was a very strong, model Biblical Separatist. It seems that Dr. Bauder is now leading the charge for the acceptance and fellowship of those he calls, “Conservative Evangelicals.” Prior to the advertisement that Dr. Mark Dever will be speaking, along with Dr. Bauder [and Dave Doran], at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA, he wrote this back in March of this year on his web-blog, In the Nick of Time:

“Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel...

Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.

Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy”.

The “Conservative Evangelicals” have a great articulator in Dr. Bauder. Dr. Bauder gives a positive overview of the movement but says nothing as to their position on ecumenism and Biblical Separation. Read again Dr. Bauder’s definition of neo-evangelicalism. According to his definition, New Evangelicals of the past would qualify as “Conservative Evangelicals” today. Very Interesting. Can this be? Dr. David Beale in his book, In Pursuit of Purity, states “According to (Harold J.) Ockenga’s definition ( of new-evangelicalism which phrase he coined), new evangelicalism differs from Fundamentalism in three major areas: (1) a repudiation of the doctrine of separation; (2) a summons to greater social involvement; and (3)a determination to engage in theological dialogue with liberalism.”1 How is it that according to Dr. Bauder, “Conservative Evangelicals are not New Evangelicals”, yet the founder of New Evangelicalism labels the three major areas of difference from Fundamentalism that current “Conservative Evangelicals” identify with? I do not buy Dr. Bauder’s statement. Dr. Bauder’s “Conservative Evangelicals” repudiate the doctrine of separation, they are for greater social involvement, and they are determined to engage in theological dialogue with liberalism as is seen by their associations with what are considered liberal religious organizations.

In addition, as early as 1956, Christian Life magazine carried a descriptive article on New Evangelicalism and listed eight general features of the movement: (1) “A friendly attitude toward science”;(2) “A willingness to re-examine beliefs concerning the work of the Holy Spirit”; (3) “A more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology”: (4) “A shift away from so – called extreme dispensationalism”; (5) “An increased emphasis on scholarship”; (6) “A more definite recognition of social responsibility”; (7) “A re-opening of the subject of biblical inspiration”; (8) “A growing willingness of evangelical theologians to converse with liberal theologians.”2 It sounds very much like “Conservative Evangelicals” to me. Or are they New Evangelicals? Nowhere in these eight things is there a reference to “peaceful co-existence with apostasy.” Rather, the new-evangelical wanted the opportunity to dialogue with liberalism.

In addition, Dr. Bauder makes the strong assertion that Conservative Evangelicals have “scoured apostasy from the world's largest seminary.” Is this not Puritanism, rather than separatism? When I read of Dr. R. Albert Mohler and Dr. Timothy George signing the Manhattan Declaration in September of 2009 in cooperation with Roman Catholics and the National and World Council of Churches’ members, my first thought was, “This is cooperation with apostasy!” With one sweep of the pen, however, Dr. Bauder has declared that Conservative Evangelicals are not new-evangelical and that Conservative Evangelicals have “scoured” apostasy from the world’s largest seminary without providing any proof. What Dr. Bauder seems to be alluding is that staying in and “scouring” rather than separating from apostasy really does work after all! He is ignoring the history of past attempts to “scour apostasy” by giving tacit approval of what these men have supposedly done, that is, staying in and not coming out from among them yet without giving any real proof this has actually happened. History has always proven that “trying to clean out apostasy while staying in” leads to apostasy not to purity. I would encourage all to read the late Dr. Ernest Pickering’s books, Biblical Separation: The Struggle For a Pure Church and The Tragedy of Compromise. (Note: Dr. Earnest Pickering was past president of Central Baptist [Theological] Seminary)

Separation is God’s answer to apostasy in any generation!

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their god, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (II Cor. 6:14 – 7:1).

Dr. Bauder does often speak on separation issues, yet seems to have blind spots regarding separation from disobedient brethren and ecclesiastical separation.(Matthew 18:15-18; Romans 16:17-18; I Cor. 5:1-13; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; Titus 3:9-10). Is there absolutely no separation issue here with “conservative evangelicals?” Read on.



 Mark Dever, The New Darling

Dr. Mark Dever has become the new darling of those who profess to be Fundamentalists. Dr. Dever is considered to be “scary smart” by his close associates and has a charming personality. There is no question that he is a brilliant scholar and considered to be conservative in his understandings of the Gospel and an apologist for the same, though many are concerned of his commitment to Reformed dogma. However, when it comes to doctrinal issues such as Biblical Separation, he is way off the mark of Scripture. Dr. Mark Minnick, Pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC, and a professor at Bob Jones University, was on Dr. Dever’s radio program in Washington nearly two years ago to debate the issue of ecclesiastical separation and that of separation from disobedient brethren. It is clear from that interview that Dr. Dever does not share Fundamentalist views on ecclesiastical separation or secondary separation. In addition, let it be known that Dr. Mark Dever also serves on the Board of Directors of Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Though this Seminary is considered by some to be “conservative,” it is funded and supported by the compromising Southern Baptist Convention. Space does not permit a full examination of the compromises of the current Southern Baptist Convention but they are well documented.

Dever’s Alliances

[See below for an important site publisher addendum]

Capitol Hill Baptist Church, (Mark Dever is Pastor there), is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention which is affiliated with the following three national associations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Southern Baptist Convention, and the Progressive National Baptist Convention.3 The American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention are both members of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches which are both blatantly apostate. In addition, the American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention maintain affiliation with the Baptist World Alliance which in turn maintains ecumenical relations with the apostate Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Roman Catholic Church). It does not take a person long to realize that Mark Dever’s associations and that of his church reveal associations with apostasy. If I am playing Ring-Around-the-Rosie and I join hands with Mark Dever, and Mark Dever joins hands with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, and the District of Columbia Baptist Convention joins hands with the American Baptist Churches, USA, Southern Baptist Convention, and around to the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sooner or later we come full circle and we realize that we all are holding hands together.

To say that my hand-holding of Dr. Dever is a separate issue from Dr. Dever’s hand-holding with compromising associations is disingenuous and deceptive.

Dr. Dever writes eloquently on many Biblical subjects, but rejects Biblical Separation. He is like many of our time who like to have the appearance of holiness, but deny the basic premise of holiness, the doctrine of Separation! The late Carlton Helgerson, who served on the New England Chapter of the Billy Graham Crusades, wrote this after separating from New Evangelicalism,

“From Genesis to Revelation the doctrine of a moral law of God, namely the Biblical Doctrine of Separation is there. More is said in the Bible on this subject than on salvation. In fact, the Doctrine of Separation is involved in the doctrine of salvation. God’s Word clearly teaches separation from alien religions, from idolatry, and from apostasy. Furthermore, it teaches that true believers separate themselves from professing believers who are disobedient. But this new religion, calling itself evangelical, not only ignores the doctrine but treats with scorn those who adhere to it.”.”4

Helgerson further remarks,

“Its attitude toward the doctrine of separation is that it is outmoded, unrealistic, and incompatible with the contemporary emphasis on love (editor: Christian Unity). Pride of intellect is characteristic of this movement. It looks to the demonstrable, takes the position that the only passages of Scripture to have validity in our day are those which the human intellect can recognize as worthwhile

Division is Betrayal of the Gospel?

Mahaney, Mohler, Duncan, Dever

Mark Dever, C. J. Mahaney, and R. Albert Mohler were contributors to a document issued Together for the Gospel (T4G) which lists the imperatives of the movement. They write; “We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.” 5 Who can argue that the church should accept discrimination and racial prejudice, but to say that “division” betrays the Gospel is to say exactly what the New Evangelicals said in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. Division over error is how the Gospel (which by the way includes the whole of Scripture, not just salvation truth) is kept pure and protected for God’s glory, yet we are led to believe that “division” betrays the Gospel. Unity at all costs is the heart throb of New-Evangelicalism.

Witnessing the Convergence of Non-Separatist Evangelicalism (old name New Evangelicalism) with Fundamentalism

There is a joining together of former Fundamentalists discontented with Biblical Separation, tired of the “old Fundamental prohibitions” and those who were never Biblical Separatists, but somewhat conservative in their doctrine, open on eschatology, open on social drinking, and open on music that blends a decent message with the music of the corrupt culture. They are meeting in the middle, so to speak. Their common ground: Rejection of Biblical Separation. Basically, they are saying, “Accept me on my terms: Don’t criticize who I hang out with, what I listen to, what I watch, what I drink, where I go, who I follow, what associations I maintain. Those are under ‘Christian liberty’ and, therefore, are off limits.” I ask you, is this Biblical?

If we say we believe in the authority of the Scriptures, then we must also believe that it authoritatively speaks to all areas of life and godliness. It stands to reason that limited or watered down authority is not a sovereign authority. The Non-Separatist Evangelical reins in the authority of the Scriptures and limits it to certain areas it deems as core doctrine. However, daily life is considered under the realm of personal tastes, rather than under the domain of the authority of the Word of God. The Non-Separatist Evangelical has so compartmentalized his or her life that they only apply God’s authoritative Word to certain areas deemed what I call “God zones;” refusing to apply them to those areas deemed “My life zones!” This, of course, is the height of arrogance and self-love and reduces the Scriptures to nothing more than a salad bar where we pick and choose what we like and leave behind what we don’t like!

Having a Form of Godliness

Corrupt self-love is the heart of apostasy. II Timothy 3:1-9 indicates that in the last days perilous times shall come. What will be the key note of the last days? Self-love and the satisfaction of self! Professors of faith in Christ will demonstrate in the last days the characteristics of being: “lovers of self, covetous (loving things that we do not possess and willing to do anything to have them), boasters (self-praise), proud (self-love), blasphemers (loving what God hates), disobedient to parents (loving my self-will over and against the authority placed over me), unthankful (loving what I have without being thankful for it), unholy (loving the profane), without natural affection (having unnatural concepts of love for children, spouses, animals, fellow man, the environment, etc), ...lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (that is the practice of Biblical separation!). Dear reader, can the Bible be any clearer? Separation is God’s answer to the corruption of apostasy, yet that very truth is what is being rejected by the Non-Separatist Evangelical.

In my opinion, Dr. Bauder is seeking to administer the morphine of “Conservative Evangelicalism” to ailing Fundamentalism to finally put it to sleep.

What is lost in the passing of Fundamentalism? Lost is the Biblical truth of going outside the camp to Christ, bearing His reproach, contempt, abuse and shame. We are laying down our arms to pick up the olive branch. Militant, Separatist Fundamentalism is anathema to the Non-Separatist Evangelical and, in their estimation, the sooner it is buried the better. Dear Reader, all I can say is, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”


Reprinted by permission: The Projector, Fall 2010. Ω

1) David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1986, p. 262.

2) Beale, pp. 256 – 266.

3) http//dcbaptist.org Look under Capitol Hill Baptist Church and its affiliations. “Google” American Baptist Churches, USA and Progressive National Baptist Convention and see their ties to the National Council of Churches, World Council of Churches, Baptist World Alliance, and the Roman Catholic Pontifical Council Promoting Christian Unity.

4) Pastor Carlton Helgerson, The Challenge of a New Religion, Burlington, MA: The Church of the Open Bible, 1971, p. 11, 19

5) http//t4g.org/uploads/pdf/affirmations-denials.pdf See Article XVII

Site Publisher’s Note:
It has come to my attention that there may be several errors in this article on the biography of Dr. Mark Dever. Yesterday I addressed one of them. Today, however, I’d like to offer additional details for your consideration.

1) On the District of Columbia Baptist Convention- I have confirmed that Mark Dever and/or his church are not a member of this organization. In fact, there is a story in Christianity Today (2002) where Dever himself makes this very clear. You will find the link to that interview in the thread below.

2) On the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS)- Mark Dever is not a member of the SBTS board. Mark Dever is, however, noted at sites such as Wikipedia as a long-standing member of SBTS’s board of trustees.

3) On the radio program in Washington- Mark Dever does not have his own radio broadcast that I am aware of. In May 2008, however, Mark Dever conducted a 9Marks interview with Dr. Mark Minnick. I tried to provide a link to that interview, but according to several online sources it “could not be found or has been intentionally disabled by the content owner.”

I have alerted the author of this article to these biographical concerns. He has informed me that he is doing additional research to either reconfirm what he has written, revise or retract what may be in error. I appreciate the contact from several men who have with a good motive and spirit brought these things to my attention.

For related reading see:

Conservative Evangelicalism’s Distortion of the Doctrine of Separation, by Dr. Lance Ketchum

“In recent years we have had men rise up out of professed Bible believing Christianity (commonly referred to as Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism) to propose that Scriptural separation is not intended to maintain local church purity (Ecclesiastical purity) relating to doctrinal purity and practice, but merely intended to maintain purity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore they propose that local churches should not separate over other lesser important doctrines such as issues of Church polity, Pneumatology, or Eschatology (to mention a few areas they propose as lesser important areas of Truth). I believe this is little more than another level of an attempt to keep Bible believing Christianity culturally relevant in a national and world culture where true Bible believing Christianity is being rapidly relegated into cultural obscurity.”

Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

Excusing the Brother for the Sake of His Sister: Is This the New “Fresh Application” of Biblical Separation Principles?

A Letter From Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Questions have now been answered about this statement from the *Central Seminary Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism, “For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.”

Mark Dever will be the keynote speaker at the Calvary Baptist Seminary Lansdale Conference Advancing the Church in 2011. Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder are joining Dever on the platform.

Doran, of course, has already hosted three evangelicals in his pulpit and seminary. Will Bauder soon be opening the classrooms of Central Baptist Seminary to the evangelicals? To date he finds no significant differences that might give him pause. “Careful, limited forms of fellowship...?” This is only the beginning of what will be greater forms of compromise for the sake of fellowship with the evangelicals.

The magnetic attraction for men like Bauder and Doran to the so-called “conservative” evangelicals is Calvinistic soteriology. Calvinism is their so-called “pure gospel” rallying point. Because of that point of agreement Bauder and Doran have shown a growing willingness to tolerate, allow for and excuse the aberrant doctrine, worldliness in ministry and **ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals.

Anyone believing this cooperative fellowship with Dever is going to be the full extent “limited form of fellowship,” is mistaken.

Mark Dever is just the latest step toward greater compromise of genuine biblical separatism for expanding the boundaries of limited fellowship. Dever is the bridge that will take Bauder, Doran and those they are seeking to influence to completely embrace the entire T4G/Gospel Coalition community.  Compromise is a learned behavior. It typically progresses this way: Crawl, then Walk, then Run. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran have, in my opinion, just about outgrown the crawling stage.

It is timely to repeat the prophetic commentary of Dr. Gerald Priest who in reacting to Bauder’s incendiary Let’s Get Clear on This noted,

“Kevin has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism…. What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear.”

That is exactly what we are witnessing in these days. The Trojan horse is being brought into the fundamentalist camp and it is Bauder, Doran and Lansdale that are holding the gate open and leading it in. All doubt has been removed on the bent of Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder toward cooperative ministry with non-separatist, compromising evangelicals. Is this a fundamentalism worth saving?


LM

*See- Cogitations Stemming From the Central/Bauder Ethos Statement

**The reaction from Bauder and Doran to Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration was to dismiss it as merely an “occasional inconsistency, single episode” (KB), merely “a wrong decision based on bad judgment.”(DD)

For post conference reading please see articles such as, Dr. Ernest Pickering, “The Separatist Cause is Not Advanced by Featuring Non-Separatists and The RAP on Mark Dever: What is The “Militant” Separatist to Do?

ADDENDUM:
At SI Don Johnson just posted the following to one of SI’s staff (JayC), which IMO bears repeating.

“Jay, may I point out that the only one arguing that people should ‘sit down and shut up’ is someone who is arguing in favor of the Dever/Doran/Bauder/Jordan connection. The ‘traditional’ fundamentalists who are supposed to be against this haven’t told anybody to be quiet....”

Jeff Straub is among those telling anyone who does not agree with the new, and sure to be greater convergence with a broader scope evangelicals, to sit down and shut up.

I also found it ironic that Jeff Straub (at SI) ran down the pastor(s) and foreign missionary of a small church when he and Bauder serve at a seminary in serious decline. His comment for what may have been one pastor besmirched the pastors and foreign missionary church planters of any and every “small” church.

Go to this link at SI for the full context of Don’ s comment.