Modalism maintains that there is one God who manifests Himself successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but who is not contemporaneously all three. [Believer's Study Bible, electronic ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), Glossary.]

The ESV Study Bible expands on this with this paragraph:

One of the most fundamental ways to misunderstand the Trinity is tritheism, which overemphasizes the distinction between the persons of the Trinity and ends up with three gods. This view neglects the oneness of the natures of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At the other end of the spectrum is the heresy of modalism (also known as Sabellianism, named after its earliest proponent, Sabellius, 3rd century), which loses the distinctions between the persons and claims that God is only one person. In this view, the appearance of the three persons is merely three modes of existence of the one God. For instance, God reveals himself as Father when he is creating and giving the law, as Son in redemption, and as Spirit in the church age. A contemporary version of modalism is found in the teaching of Oneness Pentecostalism. [Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2514-15.]

Sabellius, the man usually credited as the earliest proponent of the view was excommunicated by the Bishop of Alexandria in 260 or 261. The Sabellians appealed to Rome (the church in Rome played an early leading role, but there was as yet no papacy). In 262, the Bishop of Rome held a council and condemned Sabellius and his modalism along with tri-theism and subordinationism (an early variant of what would become Arianism).

False doctrines like modalism were condemned by the church in the third and fourth centuries. That settles the question, right?

Wrong! Heresies are persistent. They crop up, sometimes in modified forms, throughout church history. Sometimes orthodox men may mistakenly embrace a heretical view at some point of their theology. An example would be the Bishop of Alexandria mentioned above. He excommunicated Sabellius for modalism, but in doing so committed the error of subordinationism (Jesus less than fully God). When the Bishop of Rome also rejected Sabellius, the Bishop of Alexandria “The bishop of Alexandria very cheerfully yielded, and retracted his assertion of the creaturely inferiority of the Son in favor of the orthodox homo-ousios.”¹

Since that time, modalism, or some form of it, has been taught by a variety of erring teachers. Karl Barth is a most prominent example as the founder of Neo-Orthodoxy.² On a far less erudite portion of the ecclesiastical matrix, we find modalists in the heretical Oneness Pentecostal (United Pentecostals) movement. A most prominent representative of that movement is the popular teacher, T. D. Jakes.

T.D. Jakes is pastor of The Potter’s House, a church in Dallas, TX.³ The link above takes you to the doctrinal statement of The Potter’s House where you will find this point regarding the Trinity:

There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

At best, this is a very imprecise theological statement. The statement says in the second point:

Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He died on the cross, the complete and final sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

One can see some wriggle room here, for the statement on the face of it sounds orthodox enough. If Jesus is now at the right hand of the Majesty on High, he may be considered to be distinct from said Majesty.

In an essay critical of Jakes, Ryan Turner says this about Jakes’ apparent ambiguity:

Even as a result of various criticisms, Jakes will not affirm the orthodox position on the Trinity.  Instead, he skirts the issue and continues using the “manifestation” terminology.⁴ In one interview on a Los Angeles radio station, he even implicitly denies the Trinity and advocates a Oneness Theology view of God: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/februaryweb-only/13.0b.html.

Turner makes this conclusion about Jakes:

While one does not have to positively affirm the Trinity to be saved, if one denies it he or she is in serious biblical error and should not be teaching on major television networks like TBN.  Furthermore, it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully comprehensible by humans, but it is problematical when people like Jakes deny this orthodox teaching of Scripture even after numerous warnings and specific clarification.

I certainly agree with that conclusion, but probably would go further. It is one thing for a Christian to slip into an error of thought or speech on a subject like this through ignorance or lack of education. On admonition, a true believer ought to correct himself on such errors. If someone will not correct such errors when confronted with them, one has to wonder about the validity of the Christian testimony.

Jakes is no ignoramus. He is not untaught. He has been corrected and he persists in his errors.

Well, according to James MacDonald, Jakes is a ‘brother’:

I do not agree that T.D. Jakes is a Modalist. 
I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture.  I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced.  I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque.  Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might.  His website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations.  I am looking forward to hearing him explain what he means by that.  I am also excited to hear him state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world.  I believe T.D. Jakes shows immense humility by being willing to step outside his own circles to interact with brothers in Christ who may see certain things differently.  Getting brothers together who believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone but normally don’t interact, is what the Elephant Room is all about.  Talking about issues that separate with grace and truth is what the Elephant Room is all about.  We are greatly honored that T.D. Jakes has agreed to participate.

I would have to say that MacDonald himself is squishy on the Trinity in this statement.

Why bring this all up? The subject came to my attention via Sharper Iron. There has been some discussion there, but most of it is skirting around a significant point for fundamentalists. (MacDonald clearly separates himself from a fundamentalist testimony in his blog. “I grew up with this separatist centerpiece of fundamentalist thinking, and I rejected it many years ago.” I don’t recall MacDonald’s background, other than that he is from Canada, I believe.)

The significance for fundamentalists isn’t just that James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll are teaming up to host T. D. Jakes at their conference, The Elephant Room. No, it also involves the participation of conservative evangelicals like Mark Dever.

Part of the controversy among fundamentalists these days involves the question of separation like this: “We agree that we need to be separate from apostates, but we don’t agree that we should separate from brothers like the conservative evangelicals – after all, they are separatists too… just not so separate as us.”

Well…

I wonder what some fundamentalists are thinking about this? Some of our fellow fundamentalists joined with Mark Dever in a recent conference. He is seen to be a “separatist, just not quite like us.” Is he?

Most fundamentalists would agree that T. D. Jakes should be kept at a distance. I don’t think we would be affirming him as a ‘brother’, would we? At best we would be expressing a good deal of uncertainty and doubt. We would say he shouldn’t be given prominent platforms, along with Ryan Turner, quoted above.

Well… what are Driscoll, MacDonald, and Dever doing?

Should fundamentalists join in common ecclesiastical cause with non-separatists who persist in “preaching the gospel” at events that include at best very questionable people, if not out and out heretics?

Before anyone gets hysterical, let me be clear on something: I don’t think Dever is the same as Jakes. I don’t think he is the same as MacDonald and Driscoll. But I think he is demonstrating that he doesn’t have any concept of separation that is remotely close to that of most self-professing fundamentalists, even those who are on the ‘leftish’ side of fundamentalism. The distinction between Dever (and men like him) and fundamentalists is very marked.

Yet there is a clamor on the ‘leftish’ side that we should join with the Conservatives. They are not so different from us, it is said. What? Why is it that Dever shows up at so many Driscoll events?

What should fundamentalists say about the trend towards wider cooperation?

1. Philip Schaff, vol. 2, History of the Christian Church (Galaxie Software, 2002; 2002) 12:152.
2. “Although Barth rejects modalism by name (p. 196), the shades of modalism, more complex than in its third and fourth century forms, are present throughout his thought.” Fred H. Klooster, “Karl Barth’s Doctrine Of Reconciliation
   A Review Article”, Westminster Theological Journal Volume 20, 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1957), 182.
3. His wife, interestingly, is listed as the “First Lady” of the church… whatever that means.
4. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/february7/5.58.html.

Doran: I doubt we all agree with each other on the right way to solve that problem, but I do think (I’ll speak for myself on this one) that we are committed to the same principles of separation that we have always been, yet I do and have tried to acknowledge that there have been changes that have forced me to think through the applications differently than I have since becoming a pastor 22 years ago…[.in the midpoint of the last dedade, 2005-2006 there were some things that I thought were significant in a change of landscape, both internally and externally

Dever: I’d be curious to hear—what were those changes?

Doran: In early 2005 there was a meeting in which Kevin and I were both speakers. Both of us tried to make a case (I’ll try to say this as tactfully as possible) for drawing a circle, to say that if you are going to identify with historic fundamentalism,  certain theological aberrations have to be rejected. We tried to make an ernest appeal, but I didn’t think that that was actually going to get traction. I would say that outside [fundamentalism] in March 2005, Phil Johnson did his presentation on “Fundamentalism: Dead Right?” We spent four or five weeks going back and forth about it. The month right before that I had asked the folks at Grace [Community Church, John MacArthur’s church] very specifically on the issue of secondary separation, an idea they never publically accepted. But in his presentation, Phil Johnson said “we do believe it is valid, but has not been used properly.” So that was a significant change.

And later…

Doran: Right. And his book was beginning to talk about this. There’s probably a dozen books that began to talk about the problems of the evangelical left. Grudem in his book on Open Theism. Carson, Love in hard Places…the necessity of separating over the gospel. Mohler’s chapter in Horton’s book….so there actually was an uptick of talk about separatism among a certain segment of evangelicalism, that’s what I meant by a change in the landscape. [The evangelicals] were not as thorough and as consistent as I would have preferred…

I am cutting off a bits on these quotations, so please read the whole article for yourself to get the whole context.

It is interesting to note a few things here:

1. Dave has alluded to his change of mind in the past. He thinks these changes make a difference in how he applies separation. He has said this in various places and he says it here. The changes were internal and external, i.e., within Fundamentalism (although Dave says there is no Fundamentalism anymore) and outside Fundamentalism (if there is an internal and external… is there something defined by that boundary? but I digress).
2. The internal change seems to be that other Fundamentalists refused to be as aggressive against “certain theological aberrations” as Dave would have liked. I think we know what those aberrations are.
3. The external change seems to be that conversation on SI with Phil Johnson (and some other contact with PJ about that time). The change on the Johnson/MacArthur side is an acknowledgement on their part that secondary separation is valid, though misapplied. In addition, some other evangelicals were talking about separation (to some extent at least).

Is there any more to this? Please correct my impressions if I am missing something, but this does seem to sum up Dave’s view of what changed in 2005 resulting in a changing application of separatism.

What do you make of this?

• Should fundamentalism take some steps to draw a line over the versions issue?
• If yes, how tightly should that line be drawn?
• Does a ‘kinda, sorta’ acceptance of secondary separation by Phil Johnson constitute sufficient change on the part of Conservative Evangelicals to warrant ministry cooperation at any level?
• Does Phil Johnson speak for every conservative evangelical? Can we say that Phil’s acceptance of some form of secondary separation means that Mark Dever, for example, holds the same views and thus validates ministry cooperation with him?

I’m not sure about the answers to all of these. I am inclined to think that the ‘internal changes’ sound a lot like, ‘I’ll take my marbles and go home if you don’t play my way’ and the ‘external changes’ don’t go far enough in embracing separation as taught in Scripture. What do you think?

The first thing I would like to address is this point:

Ironically, both Don and I quote Webster dictionary as the basis for making our assessment. He does it in his post and I do it to make the opposite case in a post in October 2009. So, at least we can say that we agree that for a movement to exist there must be some unifying objective.

…

First, the reasons why Don and I can both use Webster to argue opposite points is that Don drops part of Webster’s definition. Now, to be sure, he acknowledges this—“Based on this definition, one could dispute whether there has ever been much of a fundamentalist movement, especially if the word ‘organized’ is emphasized”—yet dismisses this as a non-problem. But it is a serious, thesis refuting problem! A thousand people at the shopping mall to buy clothes for school all have the same objective, but nobody would consider them a back-to-school clothes buying movement, would they? Without organization and coordination of effort, there is no movement. When you drop the word organized from the Webster definition you actually change the meaning.

Dave is contending that my dismissal of the word ‘organized’ changes the definition of movement into something else.

My contention is that the word ‘organized’ in the definition doesn’t mean some kind of formal organizational structure across the length and breadth of a movement – it is impossible for such to be the case and I doubt that it has ever happened. That is not to say that there isn’t some organization that galvanizes, leads, influences, or directs movements, but that one really can’t expect a movement to have an over-arching organization.

From Dave’s Oct 2009 post, we see what he means by organization in the Fundamentalist movement of the past:

It seems that the very definition of movement would need to include some objective or purpose. In fact, Webster defines movement as “a series of organized activities working toward an objective” and “an organized effort to promote or attain an end.” Fundamentalism was brought together by its opposition to liberalism—it moved in the direction of “an organized effort to promote or attain the end” of defending the Faith against modernism. Later, its energies were catalyzed by opposition to New Evangelicalism. As time has passed, though, no one objective or end has proved compelling or unique enough to hold the movement together.

That is not to say that fundamentalism doesn’t exist. I think it does, but I think it does so more like a belief system than a movement. IOW, it is more like dispensationalism than it is home education. Dispensationalism has a core set of beliefs which distinguishes it from other hermeneutical approaches, but I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that there is “an organized effort to promote or attain the end” of establishing dispensationalism as the dominant approach to Scripture among believers (though I’d personally sign up for that movement). The home school movement, on the other hand, clearly represents “an organized effort to promote or attain the end” of advancing home education.

Let’s look at the four examples in these two paragraphs, plus one more that Merriam-Webster provided:

First: the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies

What organization occurred in these controversies? There was some organization among the Northern Baptists in the form of the Fundamentalist Fellowship and the efforts of leaders in that group to achieve political ends within their convention. There was also organization amongst the Presbyterians which ultimately led to the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Westminster Seminary. Earlier there was the organized effort that led to the publication of The Fundamentals. Other examples could be cited.

However, how coordinated were these efforts? What connection did they have with each other? Was there ever some kind of over-arching fundamentalist cabal, plotting the various moves of their minions and orchestrating the fundamentalist side of the controversy? Hardly.

Second: the New Evangelical challenge

I am not sure how fundamentalism was exactly organized in its response to New Evangelicalism. By this time Fundamentalism was much more independent than in its first decades. To be sure, the leaders of Fundamentalism had some communication with one another and they all read each others writings and heard each other’s sermons. But what structure and organization existed? There were also famous falling outs between leaders in this phase of fundamentalism – John R. Rice vs. Bob Jones is an example. So how organized was the Fundamentalist response? I submit not very, although Dave does acknowledge that we could describe the fundamentalism of that day as a ‘movement’.

Third: Dispensationalism

Dave rightly sees that there is little or no movement to dispensationalism – that is, it is a philosophy of Bible interpretation but it is not characterized by organized efforts to promote it. The days of the prophecy conferences are by and large a thing of the past. There are, however, some who spend some time and effort trying to promote dispensationalism. This is led largely by schools characterized by it, by theologians committed to it, by a few evangelists who still preach prophecy conferences. But as a movement with a groundswell of support, it has had its day.

Fourth: Home Schooling

Just how organized is the home schooling movement? No one denies that such a movement exists, but after having had seventeen years of direct experience with home schooling, I can assure you that there is no over-arching organization directing the movement. There are all kinds of conferences, publishers, advocates, groups, etc, promoting home schooling. Many of them are rivals of one another, some of them think the others are nuts and won’t have anything to do with them. There is no one-size-fits all organization, it is incredibly diverse and independent (much like present day fundamentalism). So… Movement, Yes. Organization? Not much.

Fifth: the Civil Rights movement

This comes as the example used in the Merriam-Webster definition. The civil rights movement involves a whole lot of different people, events, directions, organizations, and efforts. I don’t think it can be said that there was some kind of unified organization. All in the movement were pushing for the same goal and some of them organized themselves into various different groups, promoted different events and different rallies, etc. One could argue that the NAACP is one such organization, a part of the civil rights movement, but would you argue that it is the only part of the civil rights movement, everything else is outside the movement? I don’t think so.

Finally, organized efforts in Fundamentalism today

For better or for worse, there is quite a bit of diversity in the fundamentalist movement. That diversity is expressed in a variety of organizations, led by differing groups of leaders in some cases. (I submit that they are pursuing an identifiable fundamentalist goal, but that is a matter for my second post of response.) Organizations like the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship, the American Council of Christian Churches, the Canadian Protestant League (admittedly small, mostly Free Presbyterian) and others are promoting the ends of Fundamentalism. There are some conferences from the Bob Jones University Bible Conference to Clarence Sexton’s “Baptist Friends International” and others. All of this involves loosely organized efforts with some links and ties between different groups, but no overall organization.

I ask, in order to fit the Webster definition:

How Organized do You Need to Be?

I answer, Not Very.

About as much as Fundamentalism is currently organized. About as much as the New Calvinist movement is currently organized. That is, Not Very.

So this part of Dave’s critique I simply disagree with. There is enough organization within the Fundamentalist movement today to qualify it as a movement in my opinion. I would suggest that there is about as much organization as there ever has been. Which isn’t a lot…

His ‘case study’ is the recent conference in Powell, TN, the International Baptist Friends Conference. His view is that it is unacceptable to enter into ministry partnership with a church and pastor from Hammond, IN. In the main, I agree with this point.

In discussing the topic, Dave says this:

My guess is that plenty of people in the FBF are prepared to overlook it. It is clear that speaking for the Pastors School in Hammond doesn’t get one excluded from Bible Conferences or have churches refuse to host your music seminars. And that reality raises the point that needs to be discussed and illustrates something that I’ve been saying for at least a couple of years now—what ripple ramifications should this have for my fellowship?

Well, that is a good question. What should our relationship be with those who don’t see Hammond as such a problem as I do (or as Dave does)?

Dave goes on to say:

I doubt that many men in fundamentalist circles will stop having any of the good men who have spoken for or along side of Jack Schaap in to speak for them. They will ignore this or explain it away. They will say that these men have good reasons for what they are doing. They will minimize the theological and ministerial aberrations in Hammond.

To be clear, we are especially talking here about Vaughn, Binney, and Hamilton. A lot of fundamentalists will continue to have ministry partnership with these men, to one extent or other.

It sounds like Dave is saying that he wouldn’t have ministry fellowship with these men, given this statement:

I have good friends who are thoroughly committed separatists who will still have these men speak in conferences or in their churches or will serve with them on boards. It doesn’t make sense to me, but the bottom line is that it doesn’t need to make sense to me since they don’t answer to me.

A logical step from this position is to say that, on the other hand, fellowship with certain conservative evangelicals is legitimate even though they may have some problematic associations themselves. But, the logic would say, we shouldn’t condemn any brethren who do this, since many of our fundamentalist brethren are entangled with these other problematic associations.

To all that I say this:

1. The Hammond connection is a huge problem. I understand the rationale of Dr. Vaughn for attending the IBF conference, but am not entirely comfortable with it.
2. I don’t like the connections of Binney and Hamilton with Hammond. I still use their materials, but my connections with them likely end there.
3. One conference does not a pattern make. I am not comfortable with this choice, but it isn’t yet the end of the world for me.
4. I am appreciative of the apparent movement of Sexton towards the BJU/FBF orbit. I want to encourage it, but I wouldn’t just enter into unreserved fellowship at this point. He does need to shed the Hammond baggage if he wants less reserved fellowship, in my opinion.
5. The support of men like Dever for the Acts 29 (Driscoll) movement is far more problematic for me than Vaughn’s participation in the IBF conference. The charismatic confusion MacArthur promotes by his associations is likewise far more problematic.

As I say in my subject line, ‘it’s not simple’. The decisions of others make our relationships with them a matter of individual judgement. Since fundamentalism is largely an unorganized group of independents, it will always be thus. Some who wear the label won’t fellowship (partner) with others who also wear the label, for various reasons. Those reasons (and partnerships) may change over time.

This complexity is frustrating, but it is unavoidable if we wish to attempt a consistent fundamentalist testimony.

Restore the local assembly to the center where God intended it to be. When your local assembly engages in Great Commission work outside its walls, find some folks you agree with and get busy doing it. Unity is built on agreement about the truth, not by politics. Few things are as political as trying to preserve movements once they have fragmented theologically.

Would that it were so simple. But it is not that simple. In the words of John Donne,

No man is an island entire of itself…

And certainly the pastor and church in question is no island, entire unto themselves. If we were talking about a small church in a small community it might be that simple, but … probably not.

Everyone influences someone else. That’s why our private decisions are important. They have influence on someone.

In particular, Dave is the pastor of an influential church, partly due to its history, partly due to its size, partly due to its location (in a major city), partly due to a particular aspect of its ministry (a leading fundamentalist seminary), and partly due to the impact of the ministry of its current pastor, i.e., Dave himself. When Dave speaks, many people do listen. When Inter-City Baptist Church takes a position, many people on the outside make observations, take notes, and some follow that lead. When Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary invites in speakers, the impact is felt not only by the current students, but by friends, alumni, and observers, both the like-minded and not so like-minded. That is the consequence of influence.

The fact is, God has blessed the ministry of this church and pastor for many years. That blessing enhances influence. Like it or not, that influence makes a difference in what others do and is subject to the public scrutiny, for good or ill, of outside observers. Some decisions will be applauded, others criticized. I suppose that every decision is likely to be criticized by someone, but I am speaking of the general constituency of influence that DBTS, Inter-city, and Dave Doran generally command. There are circles to whom these names mean nothing. But to those circles where these names mean something, they carry a measure of influence, and that influence is inescapable.

I guess it isn’t OK to call this Detroit/Doran circle of influence “fundamentalism”, but it does represent a group of people whose background, philosophy, interests, and ministries overlap and touch on one another in many ways. Some of this is due to the influence of other large educational ministries with overlapping constituencies and sometimes shared ministries (BJU, Maranatha, Northland, Central, et al). Some of this overlapping circle of influence is due to the influence of other large fundamentalist churches. Some of it is also due to the influence of parachurch entities like mission boards, the FBF, and even Sharper Iron and similar on-line communications hubs. What shall we call this group? The “Non-whack-job Conservative Fundamentalist Coalition”? The “Doran Axis”? I don’t know, you pick a name.

In any case, those of us in this group notice what others in this group, especially the influential leaders, are doing. We evaluate what they are doing and decide whether what they are doing is something we should also do. Maybe they have some speakers in that we think we should recommend to our people. Or not. Maybe they promote some new ministry that we think is worth gleaning some resources from for ourselves and our ministry. Or not. Everything that is done is watched, noted, observed, evaluated and decisions are made.

So it would be nice if one could simply reduce one’s ministry decisions to my local church and my local ministry, but it isn’t that simple. It probably isn’t even that simple for me, with a very small ministry compared to Detroit/IC/Doran, but it certainly isn’t that simple for Dave himself, no matter how much he might wish it is so.

The leadership Dave offers matters to a lot of us. The directions he goes matters. The people he cooperates with matters. The things he says matter.

It just isn’t that simple – there is more to the process than simply one’s own ministry and one’s own direction no matter how important the local church is.

In Dave Doran’s recent presentations concerning separation, he touched on the area of worldliness, some of which I objected to earlier. He continues this discussion by putting into writing a good deal of the material he covered in the presentations. This article deals with worldliness.

Dave starts off with a reasonable definition of worldliness:

Worldliness is having a heart and mind shaped by the world’s beliefs and values so that we engage in its sinful pleasures and pursue earthly treasures.

So far, so good. You can read any number of articles on worldliness and come up with similar definitions.

But it is the expansion of this definition that I find … what? Curious? Unusual? Discordant? Troubling? Perhaps all of the above…

In expanding the phrase, ‘we engage in its sinful pleasures’, Dave says that it is possible to trivialize worldliness “by treating it as if it means something like ‘popular among lost people.’” He says that popularity does not equal sinful. He suggests that the popularity of a particular hairstyle or style of clothing isn’t sinful simply because a lot of lost people like them. These styles can be questioned if they are immodest – popularity is irrelevant.¹

Dave then goes on to say this:

The consistent witness of the NT is on the sinfulness, not popularity, of any particular practice. Just after instructing the Ephesians in 4:17-24 about not living like those who don’t know Christ, the Apostle Paul provides practical instruction about what that means in 4:25-5:14. The contrast he draws is between vice and virtue—don’t lie, but speak the truth; don’t steal, but work and share; don’t use unwholesome words, but those which edify. He focuses on matters like immorality, impurity, greed, and filthy talk. In the same way, Peter marks off the difference in terms of vices like sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries (1 Peter 4:3).

Churches that are serious about resisting worldliness, then, will be serious about dealing with sin.

Let’s attempt to be clear about what is being said:

• Worldliness is to have a heart and mind shaped by the world’s beliefs and values so that we engage in its sinful pleasures.
• The NT issue is not whether a practice is popular or not, but whether it is sinful or not.
• The apostles instruct us ‘Don’t do sinful things’.
• Churches that resist worldliness deal with sin.

I think that is a correct understanding of Dave’s description. I am happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood him.

Dave goes on to expand on the second phrase of his definition, ‘pursue earthly treasures’:

Temporal, material preoccupation is clearly a sign of worldliness and must be resisted by believers and congregations. Frankly, assessing this aspect of worldliness has always been difficult since there is nothing inherently evil about material prosperity and it can be tricky to spot the line between having things and them having you. This is even more difficult when we apply it to congregational life. We all probably have our own views on when the line is crossed, but we’re not talking about disagreements or things we find objectionable. We’re talking about matters which cast doubt on one’s profession to be “seeking the city which is to come” (Heb 13:14).

So, let’s see if we can sum this up:

• Materialism is a sign of worldliness and must be resisted.
• It is difficult to know when someone has crossed the line here.
• The line is crossed at the point where someone’s profession of faith is in doubt because of their materialism.

Would it be fair to say that the way Dave is describing worldliness is to say that worldliness = sinfulness or a certain level of materialism?

Maybe these thoughts describe a certain amount of worldliness, but I am left asking, ‘Is that all?’

For example, let me give you another definition of worldliness:

Worldliness is not so much a matter of activity as of attitude. It is possible for a Christian to stay away from questionable amusements and doubtful places and still love the world, for worldliness is a matter of the heart. To the extent that a Christian loves the world system and the things in it, he does not love the Father.

Worldliness not only affects your response to the love of God; it also affects your response to the will of God. “The world passeth away… but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 John 2:17).

Doing the will of God is a joy for those living in the love of God. “If ye love Me, keep My commandments.” But when a believer loses his enjoyment of the Father’s love, he finds it hard to obey the Father’s will.

When you put these two factors together, you have a practical definition of worldliness: anything in a Christian’s life that causes him to lose his enjoyment of the Father’s love or his desire to do the Father’s will is worldly and must be avoided. Responding to the Father’s love (your personal devotional life), and doing the Father’s will (your daily conduct)—these are two tests of worldliness.²

Note this line: “Worldliness is not so much a matter of activity as of attitude.”

It seems that most of Dave’s definition is limited to activity, certainly the part he expands on the most deals with activities, not attitudes. Warren Wiersbe’s definition puts the matter squarely in the area of attitude. In fact, he says, worldliness can very well be present when all the activities are blameless. Worldliness is a matter of the heart and its loves.

I don’t suppose I need to note that Wiersbe is not a fundamentalist.

Here’s another non-fundamentalist’s definition:

Wordliness (2:15–17). Given the nature of “world” in the N.T., worldliness is not a matter of some list of do’s and don’ts. It is adopting the perspectives (cravings), the values (lust of the eyes), and attitudes (the boasting of status) of man’s society rather than the perspective, values, and attitudes of God.³

You see, it’s not a list of do’s and don’ts. Worldliness is heart issues.

In Wiersbe’s lengthy comment on 1 Jn 2.15ff., partially quoted above, he emphasizes the tests of the devotional life and the daily conduct – responding to the Father’s love and doing the Father’s will (see above). He goes on to say this:

Many things in this world are definitely wrong and God’s Word identifies them as sins. It is wrong to steal and to lie (Eph. 4:25, 28). Sexual sins are wrong (Eph. 5:1–3). About these and many other actions, Christians can have little or no debate. But there are areas of Christian conduct that are not so clear and about which even the best Christians disagree. In such cases, each believer must apply the test to his own life and be scrupulously honest in his self-examination, remembering that even a good thing may rob a believer of his enjoyment of God’s love and his desire to do God’s will.⁴

Notice that Wiersbe goes to the same passage in Ephesians that Dave cited. He says there is no debate over these sins. They are categorically wrong. Then he says, “but”. It appears that in his mind there is a difference in category between doing something that is clearly and categorically wrong and things that may be harder to discern and require an application of his two tests. In analyzing these things, he calls for an analysis of the heart – the area where worldliness resides.

It seems that worldliness isn’t so much sinful practices as it is heart attitudes. No doubt heart attitudes may express themselves in sinful practices, but these may not be overtly seen as lying, stealing, etc, the things condemned in Eph 4. Wiersbe illustrates by telling of a fine young man preparing for the ministry whose preaching and personal life seemed to decline – no obvious sin, just less zeal and obvious distraction of some kind. The end of the story is that the young man realized he was so focusing on his impending marriage that he almost was wishing for the Lord not to come back before he got married. His heart was on the things of the world, not the things of the Lord.

Thayer gives this as one of the definitions of kosmos:

worldly affairs; the aggregate of things earthly; the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments, riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which, although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ⁵

Worldliness occurs when desires are stirred and the heart is pulled from God and obstacles are thus put in the way of serving Christ.

A few more comments on worldliness and then I will close:

Too often Christians in the evangelical community have rejected the overt acts of worldliness but have retained the attitude of worldliness. Both worship and worldliness in their opposite spheres are more representative of attitudes than of acts. A person can go through all the motions of worship (and millions probably do each week) and yet have a heart that is completely out of touch with God and therefore unable to worship. At the same time, a person could meticulously avoid all acts of worldliness and still have a heart full of pharisaical hypocrisy, criticism of other Christians, jealousy, bitterness, and anger.

One obvious example of worldliness in church work is the Madison Avenue gimmickry which goes on in the name of evangelism or church education. If churches have to use Bozo the clown to attract children to Sunday school, they reflect not only cultural slobbism but also a very high degree of compatibility with the systems of this world.⁶

Or  how about this one about rock music used in the church. Is that an example of worldliness?

Contrary to the shallow viewpoint of the marketing advocates, rock music is far more than a life-style choice. It embodies and establishes a culture loaded with meaning and values, and the culture of rock music is antithetical, not neutral, to Christlike living. The fact that it can be embraced within the church for worship purposes is a tell-tale sign of contemporary evangelicalism’s inability to sense its own worldliness.⁷

Perhaps I am missing something, but it does seem to me that worldliness is more than overt sin or materialism. It also seems to me that if we can’t be clear on what it is, we have failed to align the compass of our next generation of Christian leaders.

I invite correction on these points and would be glad to know that I am misunderstanding Dave’s full view of worldliness. It does seem to me that we need to be thorough in our understanding and preaching in this area especially if we are going to make the issue part and parcel of the separation discussion.

1. Is modesty the only standard? … but my question digresses from the topic
2. Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996, c1989), 1 Jn 2:15 .
3. Larry Richards, The Bible Reader’s Companion, (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1991), 893.
4. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 1 Jn 2:15. [I highly recommend Wiersbe’s comments on 1 Jn 2.15 – there is much more than I quoted here and it is very good, in my opinion.]
5. Thayer, Lexicon, s.v. ‘kosmos’.
6. Kenneth O. Gangel, “Christian Higher Education at the End of the Twentieth Century — Part 4: Christian Higher Education and Contemporary Culture: Isolation or Penetration?”, Bibliotheca Sacra, (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978; 2002), 135:301.
7. David M. Doran, “Market-Driven Ministry: Blessing Or Curse? Part Two”, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. (Detroit Baptist Seminary, 1996; 2003), 1:218.

First of all, one problem that seems to be fairly frequent these days is the problem of historical revisionism. The general outline of the history of separation is presented, but certain details are somewhat distorted in order to make a point.

Before I mention a specific example, let me say that I am not saying that anyone’s distortion is deliberate or malicious. We all have faults of memory and can often say a thing a certain way enough times that we think we are telling the story correctly, but it is a distortion nonetheless.¹

In the third lecture, a point was made concerning the early fundamentalist movement being one where Christians found their fellowship outside their local church in ‘parachurch’ gatherings. The notion was that since their churches were so divided they couldn’t find likeminded fellowship there, so their outside the church gatherings became their place of spiritual camaraderie and involvement.

I don’t doubt that some churches were divided like that, and that in some cases, people found themselves involved in churches where there was so little gospel preaching and belief that conferences and gatherings outside their own local churches provided a welcome relief. However, I can’t imagine that those churches led by the men who eventually came out of the Northern Baptist Convention were as described. That is not to say they may not have had some problematic non-Gospel believing people in their churches, but if these had the Gospel convictions that could provide that ‘welcome relief’ to Gospel-starved individuals in ‘parachurch’ conferences, it is hard to see how their own churches would not be beacons of true Gospel fellowship, belief, and practice.

Thus, I think there is a bit of a distortion of the state of things in the historical presentation of the first wave of fundamentalism. While this distortion may be relatively minor, there are many such distortions being promoted in the ‘Fundamentalist Modification Movement’ which attempt to make points about ‘what’s wrong with fundamentalism’ and to point to some new kind of attitude and orientation.

Second, in the fourth lecture, a pretty good definition of worldliness is offered. I’ll attempt to paraphrase it: “Worldliness is adopting the beliefs and values of the world in an enjoyment of its sinful pleasures and the pursuit of its earthly treasures.” The definition is really good, I think. But the following presentation keeps reiterating only part of the definition which seems to weaken the position of separation from worldliness that Fundamentalism has usually been noted for.

That is, a statement is repeatedly made to this effect: “If the activity can be said to actually be sinful then we need to separate from it, but if it isn’t clearly sinful, then we need to be tolerant.” I am not quoting directly, this is my paraphrase! But this is what I came away with: an activity must rise to the level of clear sin before it can be objected to.

For example, this makes some forms of music less problematic for Dave than for many other fundamentalists. That is, he is less bothered by musical styles than has been argued for, although his personal taste and practice is very conservative.

Now, I don’t want to get sidetracked on music alone here. My problem with the presentation is not some specific application. I think I would be more bothered by some music styles than Dave would, but that is not my point.

The problem is that the whole presentation in lecture 4 had to do with the “enjoyment of its sinful pleasures” part of the definition and made no mention of the “pursuit of its earthly treasures” part. It does seem to me that worldliness isn’t simply a problem with identifying something that is clearly sinful. It is a problem with a world-admiring value system, with lusts and desires that exalt the earthly rather than the spiritual. This part of the definition was left alone and as a result, separation from worldliness came down to separation from sin (clearly identifiable). Well, duh!

Finally, I have an objection to some comments that were made with respect to the ‘errors of fundamentalism’. In the presentation, we are told to be patient with evangelicals who are moving in the right direction. We are told that one deed doesn’t a pattern make. But then we have raised again an issue that occurred within fundamentalism. We are reminded yet again about someone’s teaching concerning the blood of Christ. This is mentioned as an example of fundamentalism giving someone a pass because he has a fundamentalist ID card, whereas an evangelical wouldn’t get the same treatment (supposedly).

I agree that the particular point of view isn’t biblical and it isn’t really acceptable. However, I question whether the view is actually one that undermines the gospel itself. I also question whether it is a pattern that leads to erosion of orthodox doctrine. What I mean by that is that denials of the virgin birth, of the supernatural in general, of inspiration, etc, all hallmarks of liberalism, certainly eroded orthodox doctrine and devolved into a kind of social gospel, good works salvation, modernistic teaching. How exactly did this one odd view of the blood of Christ work out into that? I don’t believe it did.

Dave has brought this thing up many times in the past. It appears to be something that seems to be a big objection to fundamentalism at large in his mind, and in the minds of several others.

I don’t defend the teaching, but it never had the impact on orthodoxy that any liberal aberration did. If in fact we should be patient with the errors of others, why shouldn’t we be patient with this one? Where did it lead? (Nowhere) What was its effect? (nothing). What’s the big deal? (It’s an opportunity to use as a whipping boy for fundamentalism)

And, as far as fundamentalism is concerned, it’s ancient history. No one is promoting it currently, it isn’t putting anyone at risk, and it is an evidence only of an error that essentially has corrected itself.

In the end, I think there is a good deal of value to the basic presentation of fundamentalist separatism as Dave has given it to us. There have been some overly separatistic practices by some on issues that were not ‘gospel-oriented’ essentials. This is true. I object to that kind of divisiveness as well.

I am concerned, however, that some issues might be minimized in this presentation of separation that shouldn’t be minimized. I am concerned that too much might be made of other, rather minor issues. And I am concerned that sometimes a distortion of history may lead to faulty conclusions.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the presentation as it is. I think everyone should listen to it. I see Dave is writing out his views on his blog. It is worth reading.

1. I recently caught myself in such a distortion with respect to the purchase of our church property – for  years I have been telling people that the appraisal was one number when in fact it was an entirely different number.

I have listened to the audio of his first two presentations at the recent Mid-America Conference on Preaching. I have to say that in general I am in agreement with what he is teaching about ecclesiastical separation. We may differ on some points of application, but as to philosophy, biblical grounds and motivation, I think Dave has it basically right. (I am sure he is relieved to know I think so!) I would encourage anyone to listen to the audio for their own instruction.

But I do have some questions:

Dave says that one of the evidences there is no more fundamentalist movement is that we have no “Fundamentalist Council” and no leaders. Two questions from this:

1. No leaders? You don’t consider yourself to be one? Bauder, Vaughn, Jones III, et al are not leaders of Fundamentalism?
2. When did we ever have a “Fundamentalist Council”? From my reading of history, Ketcham, Riley, the Joneses, Rice and others took positions and some followed them. That was the movement in days gone by, no? Where was the Council?

Dave wants to use the term ‘Gospel-driven’ separation. Why this term specifically? I find it ambiguous and confusing. Dave himself has to spend the bulk of his first lecture explaining what it is. Here are some reasons I find it ambiguous:

1. Some people use the term ‘Gospel’ as a code word for Calvinism. I don’t think Dave is doing this, but to hear some talk about ‘Gospel-centered’ and ‘Gospel-focused’, etc., they mean
   Calvinism. Why use a term that has that connotation?
2. The more Dave describes his term, the more I hear the term “the Fundamentals”, as in “those things essential to salvation”. Is Dave trying to avoid the term ‘Fundamentals’ because so many want to limit it to a five item list? Or some other list?

In explaining ‘gospel-driven’ separation, Dave mentions that the virgin birth isn’t essential to salvation in that when he came to Christ as an 8 yr old, he wouldn’t have understood the concept, but certainly believes he was born again at that point. But… we aren’t really talking about 8yr olds when it comes to separation, are we? Aren’t we talking about orthodoxy here? That is, essential to orthodox Christian doctrine? Wouldn’t we consider the virgin birth essential to orthodoxy? Would we accept the testimony of a trained theologian who denies the virgin birth? Or anyone who, having been taught what it means, denies it?

What about the doctrine of inerrancy? Would that be essential to orthodoxy? Would we be willing to accept the Christian testimony of someone who denies inerrancy? Would we make ‘errancy’ a separation issue? Would an ‘errantist’ who is basically orthodox with respect to salvation be an apostate?

When it comes to the doctrine of secondary separation, i.e., separation from true Christian brothers, Dave posits the idea of someone who is in a denomination along with an apostate. He says that if an orthodox person in such a denomination is actively trying to oust the apostates, he would accept that person as a separatist.

So ok… would, say, an Open Theist be an apostate? Would it be tolerable to remain in a denomination that allowed an Open Theist to continue in membership? What if an attempt had been made to oust the Open Theist, it failed, and now the orthodox was just co-existing? Would that be acceptable? [This is all hypothetical, eh?]

Or how about a large Baptist group in the South. It has recently enjoyed a ‘conservative resurgence’. Were there at one time apostates in that group? Were the conservatives in that group pushing for ouster or control? Having gained control, are there still apostates lurking? Is anyone pushing for their ouster? Is this state of affairs acceptable from a Fundamentalist perspective?

What if we have a guy who is ostensibly orthodox in theology but uses gutter language and seems obsessed with the ‘shock value’ of certain subjects in his preaching and teaching? Would that kind of practice be acceptable? Is it acceptable for others who are orthodox to maintain close ties with such a person or his organizations?

Near the end of the second session, Dave sums up four positions.

• A = Apostasy
• B = Ecumenical Evangelical (formerly ‘New Evangelical’? – those who grant Christian fellowship to apostates)
• C = Inconsistent Separatist (Bauder’s ‘Indifferentist’? Those who claim separation but won’t separate from ‘B’?)

He says here, “I do not believe that we should extend fellowship to any of those.”

• D = Those who will fellowship with C – we won’t break fellowship with D for this reason, he is personally a separatist but is willing to be more open than Dave on C.

I hope I am understanding this right and am willing to be corrected. But if I have that right, I agree with this position.

I would but, say, Dever in the C position, basically. I don’t think that he grants Christian fellowship to apostates, but he is willing (I think) to have some fellowship with some in the B crowd. Actually, for me, it seems that Dave and some other friends of mine are the Ds – they’ll fellowship to some extent with Dever. This makes me nervous. But I’m not prepared to break fellowship at this point. That might be a future call, if some D brethren start looking more and more like C brethren, but if things stay as they are, I would be nervous but open to fellowship.

Does that make sense? Am I getting those views right?

One more thing: following this discussion, he takes the discussion to the area of King James Only advocates.

Dave says, “Let’s say there is someone who claims to be a fundamentalist but also attributes to an English translation what can only be attributed to the originals and therefore is undercutting the inspiration of the Scriptures.” Dave says, “no fellowship with that person.”

This brings up more questions in my mind. What is the basis for this ‘no fellowship’ position? Is Dave saying that the Ruckmanite is an apostate? That is to say, if we are applying the separation grid as Dave has described it, is that where the Ruckmanite would fall?¹

So then Dave goes on to describe the fundamentalist who thinks Ruckmanism is wrong to the point of heresy but doesn’t completely break fellowship with them. Dave wouldn’t have fellowship with this person either. So would these ‘professing fundamentalists’ be like position ‘B’ on the chart above? They aren’t ecumenical, but they are extending some sort of Christian recognition to a heretic, an apostate?

Next, we talk about guys who would now be in position ‘C’ with respect to Ruckmanism… they won’t break fellowship with ‘B’ (Ruckman fellowshippers) because they are giving them some slack because they are optimistic about them. Are these guys “Inconsistent separatists”?

According to Dave’s chart above, he says he won’t fellowship with ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘C’ (although I guess I accused him of fellowshipping with C, didn’t I!).

Dave says the ‘C’ men on the version issue are willing to fellowship with the ‘B’ men on the version issue, but not the ‘C’ men on the ecumenism issue because the ‘B’ men have the right “membership card”, not because they are consistently following Biblical principle.

Is that right? Have I got all my alphabet soup in the right order?

On this point, there are some key questions: Is Ruckmanism actually

an apostasy such that gospel essentials are being denied or sufficiently undermined so as to destroy the gospel? Can a man be a Ruckmanite and be a Christian? Are we saying NO to that question?

I am perfectly willing to cut Ruckmanites completely off. I have done so. (It actually created a little dicey situation in church yesterday.) I have urged KJO friends to do the same. But… are we saying that Ruckmanism is the same thing, spiritually speaking, as modernism? That Ruckmanites are not Christians?

~~~

Well, as you can see, I have a lot of questions. I agree with the basic grid as explained, but I still have a lot of questions.

1. Please note, Dave doesn’t use the term “Ruckmanite” in this discussion – I am using it for shorthand, because I think that this is who he is talking about.

He concludes:

The center of God’s will for this dispensation is in the local church (1 Tim 3:15). That’s where the unity of the Spirit is to be preserved in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). The local church has been charged with the task of carrying out the Great Commission (since baptizing is an ordinance of the church). The movement that ought to matter most to us is one that aims to plant churches that will reproduce in every place where the name of Christ has not been named, and that movement must spring from local churches in order to be biblical. Sign me up for that movement.

I once met a preacher who told me that he wasn’t much for going to conferences and getting known. He just preferred to stay home and “hoe corn” (he pastored in the Midwest).

So in light of this non-movement movement sentiment, I wonders:

• Will brother Dave cease accepting speaking engagements at conferences and just keep himself busy in his own local church?
• Will he cease to submit articles for publication in nationally circulated magazines and papers?
• Will he resign from boards of non-local church institutions on which he may serve? Or even from boards of any institutions other than his own local church?

I am up late. These questions trouble my sleep.

Here’s his answer: “So I would answer the question, No.”

He carries on discussing this as if that is all there is to the answer. He never links to the unnamed blogger so that you can read the context and judge for yourself if DMD is representing him fairly (bad netiquette, Dave).

As you know, it is possible that Dave could be referring to my answer given on this site. We don’t know for sure, because the quoted portion above isn’t exactly like my answer.

However,  Dave does offer a quote from the comments section that is word for word from my comments:

And I really think it may be unbelievable because in the comment section that follows, the same man writes, “Well, I am not saying don’t appreciate the good that such men do, although we may debate what is good and what isn’t.”

So … let’s make these points:

1. It really isn’t legitimate to attack another blog without providing links so that readers can evaluate context.
2. It has never been my position that it is wrong to use or appreciate the work of men with whom I would not join in ministry partnership with.
3. My complaint on this point is that so-called fundamentalist educators, pastors, leaders have been guilty in recent years of unreserved enthusiasm for men with serious ministry flaws. My answer to Dave’s question wasn’t a bare “No” as he suggests. I gave reasons for it which he conveniently ignores.

I’d be interested if Dave would have the courtesy to deal with the entire argument, not misrepresent what was said for his own purposes.