Mark Dever is a Warrior; or, A Fundamentalist Spends A Day at The Ockenga Institute
by Greg Linscott
Yesterday was a very good day. I had the privilege of attending a day-long seminar hosted by The Ockenga Institute of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. The featured speaker was Dr. Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC and executive director of 9 Marks Ministries.
It was a good day for several reasons:
The company. It was my privilege to spend the day in the company of 11 other pastors and deacons from fundamental Baptist churches here in Maine. I won’t ‘out’ them here, but I must admit there was more than a bit of juvenile laughter as we arrived on campus, and continued to make a series of left turns before we arrived at the proper building. More seriously, the quality of the experienced was magnified exponentially by the quality of company and continuous conversations throughout the day. I was encouraged, as I know our church’s two deacons who accompanied me were, too.
The content. Dr. Dever had us riveted. Many of the men who I traveled with were unfamiliar with Dever’s ministry. They were thrilled and encouraged by what they heard. Dever knows how to strike the chords of the hearts of men who love Christ’s church. It was a blessing to see brothers in Christ from diverse backgrounds and distinctive beliefs able to rejoice together- reveling in the common ground of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the task committed to His church to proclaim it and live it. More on the content later.
The conversation. The content had us talking. From listening to 9 Marks Audio, I knew Dever was good at interviewing. I learned yesterday that the skill wasn’t stilted or forced, or even dependent on engaging “big names” or intellectual equals. He genuinely likes to talk to people about these issues. Every pastor’s session ended with 10-15 minutes of lively Q&A. Each breaktime, Dever could be observed actively seeking out different people and groups.After one of the sessions, He approached some of the guys in our group. I had my jacket on, and 
my name tag was on my shirt underneath. So he looks at my jacket, sees the LL Bean logo, and says, “Hey, ‘LL,’ how are things with the Fundamentalists?” (I had mentioned to him earlier that day I worked on SharperIron with Jason, who interviewed him a while back). We had a very interesting conversation about some issues, and he made it clear to us that he realized that he was among friends, so to speak.
Dever’s theme was “The Gospel.” The first session (which you may listen to here) doubled as the chapel session for the GCTS faculty and students. Much of it was familiar territory for those who have read Nine Marks of a Healthy Church… and yet, at the same time, it seemed fresh and vibrant. While he is far removed in style and presentation from the “platform presence” valued by many within our movement, he spoke with a passion that was engaging and riveting.
I would like to share a few memorable thoughts. I do not have the recordings, so the quotes are quite loose, and subject to limits of my recollection.
On Public Invitations/Responses
- The story was told of a man who approached Martyn Lloyd-Jones. The man told him that he was inclined to respond to the message that he had preached the previous night. However, since Lloyd-Jones had not extended a public invitation then, he did not believe that he would respond positively tonight- the urge to respond had passed. Lloyd-Jones observed that a decision that could not even last 24 hours was not one he took seriously or thought very highly of.
- Sometime following these comments, Dever was questioned on the importance of making a public decision/affirmation of following Christ. Dever replied, “Yes- I think it’s very important. That’s why the Lord gave us the ordinance of baptism.” He also later mentioned that his policy at CHBC is not to baptize people until they are 19-21 years old, when, as he explained, “the church has had sufficient time to see the Spirit at work and observe them resist the pull of sin, the flesh, and the world.”
On The Limits of Contextualization and the specific example of Mark Driscoll:
- “Well, there are some things we can conclude… Swearing is a sin. If you are looking to Chris Rock as your influence/inspiration as a preacher, you are looking in the wrong place.”
On Distinctive Christianity
- Dever spoke of being in a restaurant waiting for a friend. While waiting, he overheard a conversation at another table. The conversants were Raelians. As his friend arrived, he prompted him to take a minute and just listen. Struck by the preposterousness of the conversation, they both sought to stifle incredulous laughter.“However, we must not forget,” Dever reminded, “that to the world, the Christian gospel sounds as completely foreign and preposterous as that conversation did to us.”
- In observing the mindset of the 20-something generation, Dever noted that there was a great deal of thought and effort being placed on making Christianity accessible to the culture. In the process, he noted, little to no thought is given on how their Christianity will present its differentness.
On Presenting The Gospel
- 1. Tell people with honesty. Remind them it will be costly to follow Christ.
2. Stress that there is no need to wait for a better offer- communicate the urgency.
3. Speak of the joy of following Christ- it will all be worth it.
4. Use the Bible.
5. Christian lives lived together are crucial. Your church exists to lend your words more weight- to give credence to the Gospel you proclaim. It is a community that gives hope.
6. Remember to pray.
On How-To Books
- The problem with The Purpose-Driven Life is that people may be confused. They want purpose in their lives- and in the process, may assume that’s what it means to be a Christian.
- Virtually all the books on methods in the campus bookstore are telling you how to get an immediate response.
A Fundamentalist’s Casual Observations
- Dever is a warrior. Listening to Dever say what he did where we did increased my respect for him exponentially. I imagine that there were many listening who did not embrace what he had to say. A simple visit to the recent chapel schedule will demonstrate that Dever, a visibly outspoken complementarian, was in hostile egalitarian territory. Dever spoke fervently and passionately against the emergent and seeker sensitive philosophies that have obvious and sizeable followings represented on the campus.Some will say that Dever is not a Fundamentalist (in the sense that he is not a part of the modern manifestation that was left by the New Evangelicals)- and I would agree, as I’m sure he would. He is an Evangelical with a capital “E,” and identifies himself as such. That being said, I see qualities in him that I respect, affirm, and seek to learn from in my own life and ministry, including the way he practices what I believe to be a form of militancy and separation. In the short day I spent listening to him, he addressed problems such as the PurposeDriven franchise, the inadequacy of SBC stat-tracking, the faulty theology of Emergent Village… and many others. There is no question in my mind these issues are the equivalents to the Liberalism and Modernism faced by our Fundamentalist forbears of generations past. I praise the Lord for men like Dever who fear God more than men, and boldly proclaim the truth. May his tribe increase!
- Has Linscott Gone Liberal? I’m sure there are those out there who would ask why on earth any self-identified Separatist Fundamentalist would set foot on the GCTS campus, much less an event sponsored by the Ockenga Institute! It’s not an unfair question.I do believe it behooves us to know what is going on in our world. While I would not want to get primary influence from an institution such as Gordon, I certainly believe there is value in understanding what distinguishes me as a Fundamentalist from my counterparts. Being on campus there helped me understand the distinction a bit better. I may reflect on that thought more later.
- Misery loves company. This may be difficult for some of you to understand, but I found strange comfort in a remark Dr, Dever made to me personally. As he conversed with our small group, he was asking our names and where we were from, where we pastored, and so on. I seemed to recall that Dever himself had pastored a New England church at one point, so I asked him about it. He didn’t go into detail, but I understood him to have had less than a successful tenure there. As funny as it might seem, that was helpful to me. Here, a man of some renown and skill in ministry had also experienced… failure. Setbacks. In New England.Hey, if Dever had problems… can I expect anything less? 😀
In the unlikely event that Dr. Dever or anyone from 9 Marks happens to read this post- Thank you. I appreciate your stand for the Gospel, your evident love for Christ and His church, and your steadfastness for the Truth. You have been a blessing and a help to at least 12 Fundamental Baptist pastors and deacons here in Maine. May God continue to bless your efforts and see churches abandon the “faithless methodological pragmatism” so indicative of the age.
Greg Linscott 
[…] I had the chance to hear Mark Dever in person. You can read my report, “Mark Dever is a Warrior; or, A Fundamentalist Spends A Day at The Ockenga Insititute,” at my personal blog. […]
Hey Greg, I don’t think it is wrong to listen to evangelicals in evangelical settings. Dr. Monroe Parker, the late former director of our mission took a summer course in Boston with Ockenga as the teacher. I believe that at the time Dr. Parker was in some official position at my alma mater.
The issue I have with Dever (and other SBC conservatives) is that they will not really address the issues that divide them from the egalitarians and compromisers of GCTS ilk. They still tacitly support the Graham compromise. Until that ends, we are going to have a lot of trouble on cooperative efforts. That is not to say that we can’t learn from them, see above. But as you correctly discerned, Dever isn’t a fundamentalist and wouldn’t claim to be, at least as those of us on the fundie side of the ledger would define it. (I do recall he used the word in Jason’s interview.)
On the issue of invitations, I noticed something on that line in the Lord’s preaching as I went through the Synoptics recently. I’ll post something on my blog sometime tomorrow about it.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Greg,
Great report. I have a small report on my blog as well. Not nearly as good, but a report nevertheless. 🙂
I enjoyed the day and especially enjoyed the fellowship and conversation on the ride down. Thanks so much for the invite. Hope to see you again soon.
Micah’s post can be seen here:
http://www.bensfriends.com/mestudios/archives/005121.html
Micah- I’ll be in touch with you about another fellowship opportunity you will find compelling, I think. It was great to see you as well!
Greg:
Thanks for the write up. Sounds like a great day. I was glad to see him address the “differentness” issue. We’ve been wrestling with that issue also.
I think you’re OK to keep the Fundy label a little while longer. 🙂
BTW, I was jealous to see you were having a retreat at Bar Harbor. I was there on business back in the late 80’s. Neat place. Yes, I bought a “Cool as a Moose” shirt while I was there.
I attended Gordon College for a semester back in 96, just down the street from the seminary – though I spent some time in their library. Glad to be gone, but every once in awhile I wander back, don’t tell anyone!
Greg,
LIBERAL … I knew it all along!
Welcome to the left-wing side of fundamentalism … a place inhabited by those of us who dared to attend T4G in Louisville with Southern Baptists, Presbyterians and (gasp) Cavlinistic Charismatics.
Can you say BLACKBALLED???!!!
Don,
I think “they” have addressed the egalitarian matter quite vocally. The same with Graham- at least with Dever himself.
The difference I would see is that he chooses to stay in and take the lead in a renovation/reformation effort. I would not adopt the same approach. I cannot condemn him for doing so, though.
As far as cooperation- I’m not sure that will ever be much of an issue, practically speaking. I will go out on a limb and say that I would not hesitate to have him preach to my congregation- but that’s easy to say, because no one would come up to our little church anyway. But if Dever would come to preach, I am certain that he would proclaim truths that would knit our hearts together in a desire to obey and bring glory to the Lord Jesus. I would see it as little different than having a Fundamentalist Presbyterian speak, for example.
Greg,
I also don’t understand the sensitivity about going to GC or to hear Dever. I think this shows how stunted we’ve become. I go and hear conservative evangelicals, mainstreamers, emergents, atheists, philosophers, liberals, and even Jack Schaap when I get a chance. And that doesn’t even cover what’s on my Ipod:)
To say that you went to just understand the differences seems to be a stretch. Your whole article was talking about things you learned. I do understand what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think it even needs explanation.
Anyway, glad you went and glad that you had a chance to meet him. I think it’s healthy for both “camps” to see each other eyeball to eyeball. It helps the stereotypes to diminish.
Jay,
I think I learned because of the teacher more than the setting. I would have been much less inclined to attend a session that featured Aida Spencer, for example.
That being said, I don’t think I said I went just to understand the differences between us and GCTS. It was helpful to do so, but I don’t think it will become a regular habit, either.
OK. I just think sometimes we perpetuate a fear of going to evangelical conferences. One guy who went to Shepherds who is in leadership at a seminary made sure everyone know he was “just observing.” I find this type of fear to be unhealthy.
Right- but as I understand it, there is a huge difference- HUGE- between Gordon-Conwell and Grace Community Church. Even the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals guys will tell you that.
I am not sure how one could conclude that Greg was defensive about attending the conference since he posted it out there for all to see. And he has nothing to hide in that he, like the man in leadership at whatever seminary to which Jason referred, has done nothing which is contrary to biblical separation (at least in my mind).
For the sake of full disclosure, I attended Shepherds and Together for the Gospel, did my doctoral work at TEDS, etc., so I may be blinded to my own problems here.
Good review, Greg. Thanks. I went to the Sproul Pastors Conference and enjoyed, but I came away more convinced than ever that I am on the right track as an unaffiliated, fundamental baptist. Maybe that’s one benefit of going to these conferences!
Wow. I can’t wait until your mug shows up in an ad for the Ockenga Institute.
Fresh meat!
Greg,
Thanks for the article and report. Glad you went to this. These are great settings for Type A, B and C’s to figure out how close they are (or not). I’m sure you guys had a great time traveling together to and from this thing.
Joel
I came across this website after following a link. Wow, is all I can say. I grew up in New Hampshire in a fundamental church. Went off to a Christian liberal arts college that was NOT BJU, and was told by my pastor it couldn’t possibly be “The Lord’s Will for my Life.” Actually I did eventually end up in a fundamental bible college.
Three cheers for Greg for being willing to listen to Mark Dever. I haven’t personally heard him, but I now consider myself “Reformed” and know he is highly respected. Some of my favorites are now CJ Mahaney, Joshua Harris, RC Sproul, and John Piper.
I realize now that after growing up in a fundamental church that I didn’t properly understand the gospel. I had MANY theology classes in college. I think the fundamental movement and the legalism imposed on people causes many to leave the faith. The motto of fundamental churches should be “saved by grace, live by works”. It’s sad that I never truly understood grace until I was in my late 30’s. God was always there to whack me if I went to the movies or wore pants or something. Once you realize that salvation is all of grace, and Christian living is all of grace, the freedom experienced is incredible. To lift one’s hands while singing is incredible– that would have been a huge no no in a fundamental church, which is silly when you think about it.
I’ve been involved in some churches (Sovereign Grace Ministries and the PCA) that have a lot of accountability with leadership teams, church discipline, people being held to a theological standard, etc. When I think of some of the independent fundamental Baptist churches in NH, and how it is often a one man show, I cringe.
Well, gotta run, but I just want to encourage all of you to listen to people like Mark Dever. You will be very pleasantly surprised, and more challenged spiritually than you thought possible.
I appreciate your summary of the conference. You were able to go, knowing who you are and where you stand–therefore not feeling threatened or pressured to change your stance on any issues, and you were able to take the good and leave the bad. It takes a good man to be able to do that.
PS/ I am working my way through the biography of Robert T. Ketcham you recommended. So far so good!
I think anyone who steps foot on GCTS soil is a compromiser. 😀
Don’t worry, Chris- we’re already scouring the Ligonier site… 😈
Good report Greg.
Re: Don Johnson’s comment about Monroe Parker. Just a little documentation about the breadth of Dr. Parker’s academic experience. I have before me six Pillsbury catalogs from 1958-1964, during Dr. Parker’s tenure as president. Dr. Parker’s listing included grad studies at: Winona Lake School of Theology, 1943; Princeton Theological Seminary, 1945; Biblical Theological Seminary of N.Y.C., 1946; Columbia University, 1946. During the years of 1937-1949, Dr. Parker served in the administration of BJU.
Dr. Parker spoke very openly to us in class about the benefit he experienced from listening to the liberals on their turf. Monore Parker was a well trained scholar and educator, but he was also a very experienced and committed evangelist.
I do not remember Dr. Parker ever speaking of taking a class under Ockenga. Maybe Fred Moritz knows something about that. Ockenga did not have a formal relationship with GCTS until 1969-70 when he led in the formation of GCTS at that time and became president. From 1947-1954 he was founding president of Fuller Sem.
Those who think that theological liberalism was a pre-modern phenomenon that has withered away into nothingness should check out the Boston Theological Institute link on the GCTS web site. GCTS students may take courses at BTI institutions. Certainly the evangelical voice of the GCTS professors is a distinct minority in the certifiable liberalism of the BTI. As I heard this year the distinguished poly sci prof. Harvey Mansfield of Harvard say, “I am the token conservative professor — 1 out of 50 — on the faculty in my department at Harvard .” GCTS, in all its broad evangelical splendor, is the token institution in the liberal and ecumenical BTI.
Just for the record, in comment #21 I made an assumption about the esteemed Right Reverend Doctor (honorary, from the Robert Bixby Divinity School) Chris Anderson G.G. (Good Guy), S.S. (Staunch Separatist), B.F. (Bronco Fan), and his apparent complicity in compromise in attending a conference with someone we will only refer to as “Bob.”
I humbly beg Chris’s forgiveness, and issue a heartfelt
MEA CULPA.
Greg:
Is it true you are thinking of naming your son Harold Ockenga Linscott?
Chris:
What makes you think they take pictures at such events? 🙂
Oh, and thanks for not “outing” those “other guys.”
Ken,
At this stage, I might as well just take the plunge and bestow the name of Harry Emerson Fosdick Linscott to my firstborn son… 😆
NO!!! I have to at least be able to pronounce my son’s name quickly when he’s in trouble. 🙂
My wife, the pragmatist…
Alas, there’s a way: “HEF.”
Still, NO!!!
Greg,
I’m curious about what your Scriptural reason was for going. I would wonder the following at least. Is Mark Dever disobeying Scripture by not separating with Southern Baptists? Is Mark Dever disobeying Scripture by not separating from those practicing sin or false worship of some kind? If this is the case, do we disobey for associating with him? I know Jesus ate with sinners, but he evangelized them. Should Mark Dever at least be confronted for his lack of separation? By participating with Gordon Conwell, do you give some type of accommodation to them? I am asking you to think with me on this Scripturally. Why is Mark Dever a warrior when he will not separate from the convention (“Come out from among them”)?
Whoever the pastor was that said he was there “observing”—could he have a Scriptural reason for making sure that people knew that he wasn’t there associating? Are there Scriptural principles for that? How is that “unhealthy?” I’ve heard that term used a few times now to refer to behavior—not unScriptural, but unhealthy. Is the unhealthiness physical, mental, or spiritual? I think fear of compromise or of being a stumbling-block is healthy spiritually. Isn’t that was 1 Cor. 10 is about, a holy reverence that keeps away from legitimate Scriptural lines?
Re my comment on Dr. Parker… perhaps it was not a formal class under Ockenga, but in lectures where Dr. Parker taught us about the Graham compromise and rise of new evangelicalism, he talked about hearing Ockenga call for a ‘new evangelicalism’ in person in a lecture of some kind in Boston. My recollection is that Dr. Parker was there taking a course of some kind, so I associated the two in my mind. That’s what comes from relying on memory! I was just reading Beale again (In pursuit of purity) and he mentions that students notes are not even evidence they were awake in class!
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Not everyone who worked at Enron was convicted of a crime. Not everyone in the Nixon White House was indicted, not everyone who was in the Clinton White House was impeached, reading Marx does not make one a socialist, and not everyone who attends a theological conference, just because there may be compromisers there, are compromising themselves.
Good job, Pastor Linscott. I applaud your effort. May the cause of Christ be uplifted in everything we do.
Greg,
You’d be better off going the other way with naming your son. I like Ian Paisley Linscott.
BTW, our last daughter was born two days before Christmas. I lobbied for Holly Anna Ivy but had to settle for Holly Anna Grace.
Kent,
Scripturally speaking, I believe there is legitimate consideration for Dever to do what he is doing in the SBC. The books of 1 & 2 Corinthians are testimonies to the fact that there is a time for leaders to stand and confront sin, not just to leave those involved in it. Paul did not separate from the Corinthians. The other churches did not turn away their contributions for fear of being tainted by association with them.
Dever is not old enough to have been influential in the formative days of New Evangelicalism. As I see it, the Lord has placed him in circumstances where he has developed convictions rooted in Biblical truth. At this stage of his life, he has chosen to be part of a reformation effort. Fundamentalism had men who chose this route in its history as well. I, for one, do not believe his feet are pointed in the direction of compromise.
That being said, my responsibility is to lead where God has placed me- within an independent Fundamentalist Baptist congregation. Our church has a long and varied history (going back in to the 1800s), but I believe in its past they did the right thing by leaving the Northern Baptist Convention, later on the Conservative Baptist Association, and still more recently “Hylesism.” All these things happened before I came, but I don’t think, looking back, I would have acted any differently.
Our circumstances are different, so our responsibilities are, too. As a vocal and increasingly prominent leader in the SBC, Dever has an obligation, I believe, to speak the truth as long as they are willing to listen. It is evident that man of the caliber of Dever and Mohler are having great influence for the cause of Christ. I don’t think this means I join them in the SBC- but I do think that there is room to encourage them, pray for them, and learn from their faithfulness in their particular setting.
As far as participating with Gordon Conwell, I do not believe I participated or collaborated with them in any meaningful way- any more than I would have if I had visited their bookstore and purchased a book. FWIW- I have two friends I know are pursuing advanced degrees there (they are involved in local church efforts in the greater Boston area). I see no Scriptural reason to believe they are compromising their Christian testimony by doing so. The level of fellowship, in this case, does not dictate complete isolation and avoidance. I would say a much tighter distinction would need to be made at the local church level. I would not be likely to join Capitol Hill Baptist Church, for example.
But in this case, I do not believe I have compromised anything. I have taken the time to explain to my church why I went, and told them where I went. I have expressed a common love for Christ and a unity on common truth with many others whom I share various disagreements. To the best of my understanding, nothing different has taken place in this scenario.
Greg,
Thanks for answering and for the thoughtful answer. I don’t believe it was wrong to be there. I would not at all lavish praise upon him as you did, however. I think some tempered praise for certain doctrinal stands would be fine. Do you think he knows the texts of Scripture about separation? If he does, he should obey them. Attending and teaching at Cambridge doesn’t permit certain types of disobedience, does it? It would seem that a Cambridge degree should make someone more suspect than a candidate for greater respect. You use the word “caliber.” What makes a man of high caliber? I don’t doubt that Dever and Mohler are intelligent men. They even say some very good things in an excellent manner. A measure of their popularity proceeds from their willingness to stay in the Convention. It seems that we ought to moderate the adulation with warning over paucity of separation.
Effecting change in a young church as her founder through corrective preaching and instruction, I believe is different than staying in a Convention despite the Scriptural mandate to separate. We don’t have a reason to believe that the Corinthian church as a whole wasn’t listening to Paul. Dever’s fellowship in the Convention violates Scriptural commands to separate. We have no Scriptural basis for reforming a Convention of churches. The Biblical model for change is to separate and confront, not stay and gradually reform.
Is finding “common love for Christ” and “common truth” among otherwise disobedient brethren what Scripture teaches on unity? Do we ignore violations of Scripture for the sake of common truth and love?
Is Gordon Conwell of sound theology and practice? What benefit would someone derive from learning and being influenced by unsound theology and practice? This is how liberalism came into this country–men went from American colleges and universities to liberal German seminaries in Europe and brought back the liberlism with them.
Thanks for your interaction, Greg. I was interested in how you approached this.
Kent,
Again, I think he is. His local church does not submit statistics to the Convention. His church is nominally complicit with the Cooperative Program. His local church membership is very separated, as I would understand it from the description.
Speaking Scripturally, dealing with a Convention situation is very gray, in my mind. We have no model because Conventions are extra-Biblical.
As far as evaluating them as disobedient brothers solely based on their parsing of separation- I don’t buy that. You cannot make a case that Dever completely ignores the matter of separation/personal holiness- where he differs with “us” is the means and extent to which he carries it out. Even with Fundamentalism, there are people and churches who flesh it out differently. Robert Ketcham, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, had no problem serving simultaneously in the GARBC and ACCC- because the basis for fellowship was different for each. WB Riley remained in the NBC until late in his life.
BTW- I am not saying I would attend GCTS. I respect the decision of my friends, but for me, prudence would dictate that I find another place to receive theological training. If someone was wanting to study something specific (say, Biblical archeology), I could more easily justify that.
SBC member churches support the cooperative program—see two words: support and cooperative. Unless we assign new meaning to those two terms or “fellowship,” he disobeys the Scriptural command to separate. I never said that he ignores separation. He is less likely to change when we offer him admiration and the warmth of our fellowship.
Perhaps. My objective is not to get him to change, though I would think that expressing agreement on issues we share would offer more of an opportunity for our differences to be considered. The level of disagreement I share with Dever, however, does not warrant the complete removal of “warmth,” as I understand it. Separation is not an all-or-nothing proposition. My Bible talks of separation, but it also talks of edification. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.
From what I see coming out of Dever and men associated with him, they do take separation very seriously- but also are strongly motivated to carefully attempt to avoid anything that would lead to unnecessary strife, divisions, and schisms.
I believe that the circumstances he is facing today are much different than the ones who left the SBC generations ago had to face. As a pastor who has had to lead in his own share of change, I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt as he works in the situation he has been given.
Mark Dever is part of a different breed than earlier evangelicals. He is the closest among evangelicals, in my mind, that I have seen to a pre-1920s fundamentalist. That is, a fundamentalist whose view of separation was the “put out” variety while the battle was still raging in the denominations and conventions. He is not content to peacefully co-exist with apostates, and he does not back any ecumenical strategies or platforms. He personally led the charge to have the DC convention de-funded from the SBC cooperative program because of its liberalism.
Obviously, he does not hesitate to speak at places like Gordon-Conwell and Beeson, but, as I understand it, he views these as academic settings, not church settings, and therefore not requiring the same approach. (I would think a local church only view wouldn’t have much complaint on this point since the call for unity and separation is within the local assembly, but I may be misunderstanding something here.)
Dever is an anomaly, in my mind, and at the present time it is unclear if he represents the direction of conservative evangelicalism or if he is just a very conservative conservative evangelical. While not agreeing with some of his decisions (I don’t even agree with all of mine in hindsight!), there is much to appreciate about his commitment to biblical truth and its application in the local church. I do not see in him an attitude of unbiblical compromise. He sees things differently than I do, but he is acting consistently with his beliefs, and that leads him to contend for the faith and confront error quite regularly.
I don’t believe that these positives about Mark Dever should not cause us to become wistful about the state of evangelicalism as a whole. If they elect Mark Dever the president of evangelicalism, then I might get wistful, but not until then.
Well said, Dave.
Is it just me, or is the sky falling?
All,
It is a beautiful day. I mean to hear Type A guys – talk like Type B guys. I’m almost weepy!
I’ve enjoyed the back and forth. I would agree with Dave on several points he makes…which doesn’t surprise me because Dave is a solid guy. Let me be quick to add he along with Dr. Priest was my favorite practical theology prof at Detroit Seminary.
1. Dever is one of the guys that is reflective of pre-1920’s fundamentalism. Right on the mark! The point I have been trying to make elsewhere is that guys like Dever (and others), are consistent with what I’m calling Type C fundamentalism. The other point I’ve been trying to make is that in the 1920 version of fundamentalism there was at least a friendly coalition between some of the more Biblically-oriented “stay-in-ers” and between some of the more Biblically-oriented “stay-out-ers” when both were attempting Biblical militancy.
Yes there were settings when they could not work together. However, there were a few settings when they could co-habitat together. Greg has already mentioned Ketcham.
(I understand that a few name-less type B and type A men would not agree with the Type C category as a whole. You are still loved.)
2. Dave also makes the great point that Evangelicalism (in the main) is not like Type C fundamentalism (such as we see with Dever). Again – Right on. You can especially see that in the angst “main-line evangelicalism” is having right now with the Dever’s and guys like him.
My heart goes out to these guys – They probably feel like “men, without a country.” (Of course these guys are Puritan enough – they would wear that like a badge!)
Straight Ahead!
Joel
It is nice to know that of the two practical thelogy profs at DBTS, I made the list of the top two. That compliment warmed my heart.
Just to make sure we don’t get to lost in the alphabet soup…
I think there is a difference between the way I stated my point and the way Joel has re-stated. I said “closest thing to” not “is” one. That may seem minor, but for me it is significant. I don’t really think there are any pre-1920s fundamentalists because we don’t live in that era and every man has had to make a choice on the issue of new evangelicalism. If we both mean there are some similarities, then I am fine with that. But I don’t think it is that simple.
I have no idea what Type C fundamentalism is and I really don’t think these categories are very helpful. Everything that is biblically orthodox is some type of fundamentalism. The early new evangelicals were clear that they were still fundamentalists in doctrine and we far more militant than almost all of evangelicalism today.
The problem with the categorizing systems like this is they really boil down to subjective assessments by the person doing the labeling. One man’s A is another man’s B and is probably some other man’s C. Oh well, I don’t want to get this thread sidetracked, so back to whether Greg is a fundamentalist or not.
Dave,
Once again I find myself in agreement with you. Amazing. My heart is also “warmed.”
I also agree that you are just a bit “short” (and I know “short) of what I’m saying. Right – you are saying “these guys are similar.” I’m saying “this view is essentially the same.”
I think I understand your view and respect the difference and of course my appreciation for you is intact (no humor or “wink…wink” on this one – that is my respect and appreciation for you is as pure white as the Upper Peninsula snow – as opposed to Detroit Snow – which is filthy!).
Soon the SI guys will be presenting the A, B, C thing. They are having to chop it up into four segments because of length. After they post it – Dave, I’m expecting you to chop it up further – just like wood for the winter. (You Type A’s like chopping! 🙂 ) By the way, your “almost acceptance” of Dever brings you down to an A-, maybe even an B+.
(which is no problem for my world – your view would be challenging I think for some in your world – maybe not).
By the way, in my article – I agree with you that the A, B, C thing is made based on the criteria that I give (you’ll have to read that)…but that indeed some of it is in fact subjective. And furthermore, it’s my chart – so I’m not really “put out” that you or others reject it. You are in fine company! (I do secretly – and I would never admit this publicly – I do secretly hope that some will agree with my thoughts on the A-B-C thing….opps….I mean the B, C, A thing)
With continued warmth and emotional support,
Joel
PS – Sorry for the Tigers loss. I would say something about the D-backs but we were as nasty as “Detroit snow” this year. Of course the last time we made it to the World Series – we won! As a matter of fact the Arizona baseball team has won 100% of their World Series appearances. Which I think places them near the top in % category. Ah, but this is asking you to “rejoice with they who rejoice”….and being the sensitive guy I am, we need to “mourn with they who mourn.” Hang in there Dave!
Your favorite former student! 🙂
(this would be a “wink….wink” moment!)
There is much to admire about Mark Dever and his ministry. Much. I think he expresses what I believe — and what I should believe — in the area of ecclesiology better than anyone I’ve read or even heard. (I refer specifically to his excellent philosophy of local church ministry.) Our board is benefiting from studying “Nine Marks” together. “Nine Marks” and “The Deliberate Church” should be required reading for church leaders. I love what he says about worship, membership, preaching, discipline, etc. And I admire his boldness to buck his own denomination and urge change. Ouch.
Further, I’m glad to see fundamentalists deal with him honestly. Too often, I think, we’ve painted non-fundamentalists with a broad brush, equating everyone outside of our camp as a new evangelical. Thus, MacArthur=Warren=Graham. That’s neither accurate nor fair.
That said, I’m still troubled by Dever’s associations and the reasoning behind them. For example, it seems that his reasoning for participating in the SBC (the cooperative program) lacks the conviction that he almost always demonstrates. He explained the same point to me in a personal conversation several months ago: I asked why he put up with the SBC, and he explained that his church is producing a lot of missionaries–as any expositional ministry will, he says–and the SBC offers them the financial support that a single church could not. Though I appreciate his Great Commission focus, I think his participation in the C.P. (and the broad cooperation it requires) contradicts the clear and courageous stand he takes for the gospel in other settings.
BTW, that conversation took place at a conference where he was speaking alongside Jerry Bridges. The host was a church, not a school, and the church is a well-known mega/seeker church in Columbus, Ohio. (Mark Lowry was scheduled to be there just a few weeks later.) I loved the messages on holiness and church discipline. I enjoyed the privilege of coversing with him. I’ve enjoyed the books I picked up at the time. I just didn’t understand why he was there, at that church–a point not lost on the fundamental pastors in the area that have had to deal with the church’s influence in their community for years.
During the 10-15 minute conversation at the conference (he was alone between sessions; the attendees didn’t know what they had, it appeared), I specifically asked him if he believed that the principles of separation that he applied to church discipline applied outside of the local church setting (extending to fellowship with Christians in general and especially to cooperation in ministry). He matter-of-factly said no. As an example, he mentioned his that he would decline participating in a Billy Graham Crusade, not because the Bible forbids it, but because he believes it would muddy the waters regarding his church’s testimony & gospel witness.
At any rate, I don’t think his choice of venues and co-laborers–both of which are quite broad–can be chalked up entirely to academic settings. Per his own statements, he rejects the typical fundamentalist understanding of separation, both in theory and in practice. As Dr. Doran suggests,he is acting consistently with his beliefs. I just disagree with those beliefs in this important area.
We should read from him, learn from him and appreciate his great contributions to the cause of Christ. But we should also note our differences–and what I believe to be his errors–for what they are.
Is this blogal warming? So much warmth, and yet I always thought we were to shed more light than heat? And other cliches, but I digress. Fundigressalists.
OK, Dave, so Dever labels GC an academic institution, freeing him to associate. I’m local only (grammatical-historical ecclesiology), and I understand the local Christian Science reading room isn’t a church, but doesn’t giving a lecture or read there violate Scripture on separation, even according to a universalist-fundamentalist (Platonic-Augustinian ecclesiology) standard?
Greg, isn’t separation a matter of Scriptural conviction, not just a matter of conscience? Doesn’t continued relations with Dever necessitate telling him the truth about separation? Truth sanctifies (John 17:17), not positive personal opinion. Shouldn’t we assume that such a warrior would welcome the truth. That would be at least one of the 7, 8, 10, 11, or let’s just say arbitrarily 9 marks of a healthy NT church, wouldn’t it?
Joel, Right-Center-Left, Conservative-Moderate-Liberal, Strict-Flexible-Loose, C-B-A, John Kerry-John McCain-Rick Santorum. For me, it is right-wrong, Scriptural-unScriptural, obedient-disobedient.
Kent,
You’ll either laugh or cry at this one. A friend of mine who believes very much like you on a variety of issues once told me, “Tetreau – you’re the John McCain of fundamentalism.” I laughed at first. Of course being from Arizona I knew he wasn’t trying to be funny. Ah well.
Kent – believe me – we all know that for you it’s “right-wrong, Scriptural-unScriptural, obedient-disobedient.” I’ve never questioned your motives my friend – just some of your conclusions.
We still need to get together to do that game of “horse.”
Blessings on you my “Type Z” friend!
Joel
Kent,
I think you need to draw a better comparison than GC as an academic institution and a Christian Science reading room is not a church. Perhaps, GC vs. UC Berkley or Oral Roberts or something other than a cult center which is not an academic context. Of course, given the prejudiced way in which you stated the positions on the church question, I am not surprised.
My, apparently mistaken, understanding of earlier posts in other places by you was that your position on the local church would limit the application of the separation commands to the local church (within it and between churches). That being the case, I thought you wouldn’t believe that speaking in an academic context would fit with ecclesiastical separation. As I say, I must have been misunderstanding you, so I stand corrected (although still unclear about it).
To be clear, I have only addressed Mark Dever’s view on this and asked about your view. No one should conclude that I agree with him or you about this. I’ll leave the rest of the discussion to Joel and you.
Dave,
Thanks for your interaction. I appreciate your spirit in this as well.
I thought through the Christian Science illustration enough beforehand to think my comparison apt because of Scripture on separation, for instance, 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1–light/darkness, temple of God/idols, etc., therefore, church/Christian Science reading room, church/GCTS, Dever/GCTS. GCTS stands as a theological institution involved in religious activity. I believe that text requires a church to separate from all false churches, false religion, false teaching, i.e., anything in the religious realm, which would also include mission boards, parachurch colleges/universities/seminaries, that harbor leaven.
As far as practice is concerned, separation doesn’t mean that we can’t go and preach the truth at these places, confront them with true doctrine, i.e. shine light on darkness. For that reason, invitations to these “academic settings” would likely grow sparse until non-existent. It also doesn’t mean that in our confrontation we must be belligerent. We keep dealing with the prime stronghold until the door closes.
As far as prejudiced ecclesiology, respectfully, I never actually said what you believe, although I assumed you were UC. After much discussion over now decades, I have not received the exegetical answers from UC proponents to dissuade me from this bias. They typically offer an apologetic of pages from theology notes or texts. When on rare occasion one offers some attempt at a Scriptural defense, he invents a non-grammatical usage of the singular noun, buttressed by the many-good-men-have-taken-this-view argument, and then opts out. I have never had anyone apply the same hermeneutic to the applicable passages on the church as they normally do with other portions of Scripture. So, my prejudice is the conclusion of many conversations that have ended this same way. As with other false doctrines, I looked for a historical explanation, and my belief is that UC runs from Plato to Augustine to RCC to the Reformers to today.
The UC doctrine has resulted in the definitive book on separation not having been written yet, IMO. I don’t think I’ve ever laid out my position on separation outside of our church, so you were mistaken as to hearing something in this realm.
Thanks again Dave.
Joel, I’m always open to talk about my sincere and straight-ahead conclusions on the church and separation. It would surprise me if you wanted to, and I don’t mean that disrespectfully. I hope the best for you too.
Kent,
Thanks for the clarification regarding of your view on separation. Makes sense.
To be clear, in my mind, the “prejudiced” part was calling one view grammatical-historical and the other Platonic-Augustinian. Your further elaboration helps me understand why you label them this way, but does not blunt the edge of prejudice (not a bad word) in your labels (i.e., one takes the scripture seriously while the other is rooted in extrabiblical philosophies). Obviously, those who disagree with you believe they do so on biblical grounds whether you agree with their exegesis or not.
Again to be clear, because I probably didn’t state my point well earlier, what I meant to say was that I thought your view on separation and the local church implied a certain stance. You have clarified it for me now, so thank you. I doubt that we disagree with each other here on the principles, but perhaps on the application.
Kent,
No disrespect taken. Because I’ve interacted with not only you but others that hold similar views – It’s hard to take the deep dive into your views of separation and church life. I think we are probably too different to get much out of that sort of an exchange. I remain grateful for your salvation, your love for the Lord and His church, and your commitment to minister the Word as you understand that. I honestly desire that God will visit you, your family and your ministry with blessing, clarity and mercy. I do not question your sincerity. Kent, I like your passion, your zeal and your willingness to exercise leadership. I think even with our different views if I pastored near you, I would enjoy cups of coffee and occasional basketball fellowship (of course we would have to make the rule of no dunking – I would hate to show you up 🙂
Perhaps the Lord one day would allow a time for us to take the deep dive on whatever issue would be beneficial for you, or I or both of us.
Until then!
Joel
Kent,
I do believe separation is a matter of Scriptural conviction. I am not sure why you would think otherwise. I believe Dever would as well. The question would be the means by which it was applied in life. I would tend to think that Dever is irregular in his application of separation- though I’m sure he would say something similar of me (if he knew who I was). I’m not sure I would place that in the same category as “willful disobedience,” however. From what I can see, he is consistent with his principles as he understands them Biblically.
Dave,
I’m curious what has led you to conclude that Dever is closer to pre-1920s fundamentalism than MacArthur. I’m not disagreeing with you, but I’m interested in hearing your rationale.
Also, I’ve never really grasped the whole “academic setting” argument. At the risk of being perceived to agree with all of Kent’s argumentation, I tend to agree tentatively with him that the real issue is light vs. darkness. Obviously, he and I would land in different places on what constitutes an appropriate level of fellowship and confronting error. (For example, based on Greg’s report, it would seem that Dever absolutely did confront error at GCTS at this event. I think it would be too much to expect for him to address every possible permutation of error there in one lecture series.)
Ben,
Have to be quick this morning, but I have two basic reasons for my statement about Mark Dever:
(1) Mark Dever speaks and acts more consistently on these issues than John MacArthur (e.g., MacArthur’s answers regarding separation during the Q & A at Shepherds in 2005 and 2006; I am sure that Dever would answer differently, and more conservatively, than this.).
(2) While I am thankful for the conservative stands that John MacArthur is taking, most (even evangelicals) recognize that this is a newer development. The real question is whether this represents a change in MacArthur or a change in the environment. That is, has MacArthur really become more conservative or have things just gotten so bad in evangelicalism that he appears to be different than previously. Sure, he currently rejects Graham, but this has not always been the case, and it certainly was not the case well after it was clear about Graham’s ecumenical agenda and betrayals of the gospel. I don’t believe that Mark Dever would have ever responded like this. For the record, I did not intend to make it an unfavorable comparison between Dever and anybody else as much as a statement about Dever.
Regarding the academic context, I don’t think it is as simple as “light vs. darkness” without any reference to the context and the significance of the relationship.
Jesus and Paul weren’t wrong to eat with unbelievers (i.e., men who loved darkness rather than light [John 3:19] and in fact are “darkness” [Eph 5:8]). So, some level of social interaction between light and darkness must not violate this text. Generally, it seems that there is some necessary differentiating between levels of fellowship (e.g., attending my Roman Catholic neighbor’s retirement party is not the same as going to Mass with him). As I understand it, Dever believes that an academic setting is not the local church (this much is obvious), so we do not have the same obligations. A school is a place for the distribution and debate of ideas, not the pillar and support of the truth. Now, I would agree in principle, but differ that a seminary is closer to the church than, say, a secular university. Each person has to make his own decisions on the application, but it seems that the distinction has been recognized historically and, I would add, has biblical justification. As you pointed out, it helps if you enter these situations with confrontation.)
Personally, I take the 2 Cor 6 passages as primarily as prohibition against participation and cooperation with false worship (cf. Temple of God with idols). Are we really saying that GC is pagan? I don’t think so. Wrong on many things, some seriously so, but I would not be comfortable calling it a liberal/unbelieving institution. If not, then I don’t see the use of that imagery as accurate. Does that mean that there are no biblical principles that apply? No. I think they do, but I would imagine that Dr. Dever does too–he just doesn’t agree with our/my application.
FWIW, Dever’s ministry was first brought to my attention by Jason Janz’s interview with him. I think I gave him a hard time about it–or at least intended to.
My fault.