The Future of Fundamentalism: A Forum for Leaders

Evidently we've changed our residence for the duration of this conversation.

My thanks to Don for taking his best shot at an answer to my last question. My communication with certain FBFI board members indicates that there may be a dynamic at work of which you are unaware. How strong it may be, I am not sure. Something is brewing beneath the surface, however, as the number of recent departures from the board also indicates. But that's a different discussion, and it probably wouldn't be useful for us to go down that road yet.

Also, my thanks to Mike. You still did not answer just the question I wanted to ask, which is most likely an indication of my own lack of clarity in asking. You did, however, anticipate another question that really should be addressed. You offered an alternative proposal to Don's. Actually, I'm very glad that you did. My original question to Don was, "Other than drop off the face of the earth, what should I do. . . ." I really took Don's reply to be a way of saying, "Go ahead and drop off the face of the earth." Perhaps mistakenly, and because he presented no positive agenda, I took Don to be saying the he simply wished that I would cease to trouble the counsels of the FBFI board. You at least have provided an alternative in which I do not simply dry up and blow away.

And now both of you have suggested that things would be better if I would attend more meetings. Well, I did attend several meetings, and was grateful for the fellowship that I experienced. Sadly, some of the people whom I most looked forward to seeing have given up on the FBFI, so I wouldn't expect to see them there. Having been publicly blasted by several leaders within the FBFI--not to mention misrepresented and even lied about some some members--I think I might be excused for thinking that I am less than welcome at any given meeting. But the real problem is this: I am no longer my own boss. I am a man under authority, and my authority consistently schedules me to teach during the week when the FBFI consistently schedules its national meeting. Perhaps when it is held close to home (as I believe it is this summer) I will be able to find a way to break free and attend a few sessions.

By the way, I have been able to make it to more of the GARBC meetings recently, simply because the GARBC meets on a different week. I've also been able to attend the Rockford conference pretty consistently, just because of when it occurs. And I love to see those ex-HACers who show up there!

Let's review. Don said that I should:

1. Avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in "serious error."
2. Perhaps continue to write books (though Don doesn't say of what sort).
3. Stop talking about evangelicals in a way that makes them seem less bad than the FBFI wants them to seem, focusing on my difference with them and explaining why I cannot work with them.
4. Stop talking about Fundamentalists in such a way that they seem like abusive demagogues.
5. Stop talking about Fundamentalists offenses and excesses.

Have I summarized these correctly?

Mike said that I should:

1. Keep writing blog posts and articles.
2. Attend Fundamentalist meetings when possible.
3. Share my reasons for thinking that evangelicalism has problems that are as serious as Fundamentalist problems.
4. Maintain definite fences with evangelicals of all sorts.

I would like to respond to these suggestions. Before I do, however, I want to make sure that I've got a clear idea of your agendas. Please feel free to correct the above summaries where you think they are badly stated.

Also, before I begin my response, I want to put the ball in Kevin Mungons's court. First, Kevin, it would be useful if you would examine my summaries with your editor's eye. Tell me where they need to be corrected.

Then I'm going to ask you to do this. Suppose I were to follow Don's agenda just as he proposes it. What do you think would happen? What if I were to follow Mike's agenda? What would likely happen?

Finally, Kevin, if I were to ask you the same question that I asked Don, how would you answer it? Any differently? I probably have more contact with the GARBC than I do with the FBFI anyway. If it were an individual organization, I'd sign up! So how do you think I might best invest my time and gifts?

[By the way, I assume that you've all figured out that the question isn't just about me.]

Ok, the forum feature I mentioned in the previous post is all fixed now. Thanks Aaron.

You can use colorful language all you want - but let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt.

But remember these admonitions:

Jude 1:9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

2 Peter 2:10-11 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.

Let’s start with the easy answer. Everyone seems to agree he should keep writing.

[Insider alert: Regular Baptist Press is publishing a new history of Northern Baptists, coauthored by Kevin Bauder and Robert Delnay. And, we’ve discussed publishing a collection of Bauder’s essays on fundamentalism. Ah, but which to work on first?]

Sure, we’d be happy if Kevin could crank out a book a year with us, while keeping up his weekly blog essays, and perhaps contributing to other projects with mainstream publishers. Oh, and everyone would like him to continue his teaching ministry. And speaking engagements. Lots of those, making sure he gets to every conference in the fundamentalist orbit.

And I’m glad that Debbie is 400 miles away as I type this. She would be kicking me under the table right about now, except she’s too nice to do such a thing. Yes, all of this is too much. Part of Kevin’s original question is motivated by the obvious problem: his time is limited.

So here’s hoping that—whatever else Kevin is able to accomplish in his remaining days—he is able to make a substantive contribution to our literature. If he agrees to this “write more” goal, we’ll all need to help him. He’ll need administrative support, research support, editorial support. And he’ll need financial donors willing to fund important projects that wouldn’t otherwise get off the ground.

Anyone?

Don,

I'm going to keep trying to frame (4) in the list above until I get it worded concisely, but in a way that you're happy with. There is absolutely no sense in my responding to a point that you weren't trying to make. So let's try this one:

(4) Speak no more negatively about Fundamentalists than about conservative evangelicals, and speak no more positively about conservative evangelicals than about Fundamentalists.

After reading your last reply, it seems to me that what you're really doing is bringing the "equal time" factor into play.

Are you really sure that you want to bring Jude 9 and 2 Peter 2:1-10 into play here? Several questions occur to me.

(1) In what sense do you think that have I ever published denunciations of anyone who was one of my authorities? For that matter, what manner of biblical authority do people like editors, bloggers, publishers, agency presidents, institutional board members, etc., actually exercise (except over their own employees)? How far does a pastor's authority extend beyond his own congregation, and to what extent are outsiders bound to show him respect when he lapses into public error or (equally seriously) public stupidity? How respectful do you expect us all to be of Fred Phelps?

(2) Are you equally prepared to bring this principle to bear on Fundamentalist pronouncements against conservative evangelicals, neo-evangelicals, and even liberal churchmen? Are you willing to hold other Fundamentalists as accountable for their speech toward these figures as you are willing to hold me for my speech about Fundamentalist figures?

(3) Specifically, what shall we say about those Fundamentalists who have uttered vicious attacks against other Fundamentalists such as Doran, Jordan, etc? Some of these seem to think that you have sided with them. What are you personally willing to do to distance yourself from them? What are you willing to do to bring them to account?

By that I refer to the fact that I am running on very little sleep, caught a red-eye flight out of SeaTac to get to Greenville for the FBFI board meeting. Came a day early to celebrate one of my daughters birthday at a great Mexican restaurant. So I'm fed up (not hungry anymore) and a bit sleepy.

That is meant to offer a lame excuse for any misstatements or misspeaks that occur in what follows...

Close enough, I am mainly not wanting you to alienate fundamentalists you profess to be wanting to help and not encourage the bitterness/discontent of the wavering or disgruntled.

I was referencing the angels who are careful what they say against the demons... did I miss verse 11 in my citation above? No, I didn't... went back and checked. So don't miss my point. My point is that if angels are careful about what they say about demons, how much more ought we to be careful about what we say about one another.

These points are good questions, but I will point out that in the conversation we are having you asked me what you should do, not what others should do. I didn't volunteer my suggestions without your promptings. So it does seem that these questions, while fair questions will only serve to distract us from the subject at hand at this time. Perhaps we could deal with them in depth later.

However, lest anyone think I am simply dodging the questions, let me say this about what I am personally doing. (1) I am trying to reform my own practices and be more careful about what I say and how I say it. (2) Sometimes others comment on my own blog in ways that I think cross the line. I often delete these comments out of hand. I sometimes will publish them and then try to rebuke them (and I am sure that I have let some go through that I shouldn't have). (3) I think it is a worthy question that we should address regularly and publicly: how to disagree with brothers. Let's leave the works of the flesh out of our disagreements. Unanimity of opinion seems impossible, but we would all do well to have less sarcasm and rumour and inuendo flying around the internet. I will pledge to take some proactive roles in countering this in the future (after I get some sleep!)

Last thing I'd like to comment on is Kevin M's ideas of the differences of GARB style and other styles of fundamentalism. I think this might be an important point in understanding the differences  among fundamentalists. Too tired to work on this now, and I think it will take us off our topic as well. But, as someone - maybe it was you? - said, it's not fundamentalism but fundamentalisms. Differing approaches to the same problem. It might help explain some of the frustration various parties within broader fundamentalism have with one another.

Ok, more later. I've got to crash.

Don,

I just looked up the docket for the conference in June. Wow! On balance, this is a terrific lineup, and a topic that certainly needs to be addressed. You've probably got some of the best expertise anywhere to address it.

Because of my teaching schedule, I still do not know if I can make it. What I do know is that the conference should be well worth attending.

Kevin

Don,

If we're agreed on the wording for the last item, I think we can put your recommendations in final form. Since you are ambivalent about my writing books--it's OK with you, but not really important--it seems that your recommendations are really two in number.

1. Avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in "serious error."
2. Do not speak either so positively about conservative evangelicals or so negatively about Fundamentalists that I either (a) alienate the Fundamentalists whom I wish to help, or else (b) encourage the discontent of wavering and disgruntled Fundamentalists.

If you agree that these to points represent a fair summation of your counsel to me, then we are now in a position to the discuss them. I think that something can be said about each recommendation individually, and I think that something more can be said about them taken together. I'm prepared to do that if you see no further modifications that need to be made to the summary.

In the meanwhile, back to your question about Mohler. Yes, I take his change of mind about the Manhattan Declaration quite seriously. In the Spectrum book, all four authors were asked to apply their principles to ECT and the MD (among other things). By this time, Mohler had already tried to defend his actions in public, and he had already received significant criticism from other evangelicals. The book was really his opportunity to double down (which is what I really expected him to do) or to reverse course entirely. To nearly everyone's surprise, he did the latter.

In the book, Mohler reiterates his reasons for originally signing the MD--reasons that I believe are actually grounded in legitimate concerns. While those concerns had not changed, something else had. Mohler now recognized that the MD "crossed the line into an unwarranted and unbiblical recognition of the Roman Catholic Church.”

In the context of the book, Mohler's reversal on this issue could not have been more clear. I still remember gaping with astonishment when I first saw the draft of his chapter. It is pretty rare for a major leader within evangelicalism to make this kind of reversal, or to express this kind of repentance, in such a public forum. Almost as rare as within Fundamentalism.

Furthermore, Mohler did not simply express his change of view quietly and privately. This is a major volume issued by one of the most significant evangelical publishers. It is not an obscure work form some vanity press. The book is likely to be around long after the web sites have been taken down. If Mohler wanted to announce his change of position in a public, durable way, then he chose the best possible way of doing it. It would be one thing if Mohler repented in the virtual reality of the Internet, but he has actually done it in the real world.

Why does Mohler's defense of the MD still appear? Why hasn't he tried to remove his name from the MD? Why hasn't his change of mind been more widely circulated? Well, I can't really speak for Mohler on all of these points. As a rule, however, public people recognize the futility of trying to alter the past. Whatever is public stays public, sometimes unfortunately. It often cannot be eliminated, and so there is little use in trying. What you can do--and what Mohler has done--is to state where you now stand as opposed to where you once stood.

Remember when Joe Zichterman decided to ditch Fundamentalism a few years ago? He wrote to us at Central Seminary and asked us to remove all references to a lecture series that he had done for us at one point. I remember thinking at the time that his request was just goofy--the whole world (or as much of it as cared about him) already knew his change of position. He had told us. Who you are may not be who you were, but you can't erase who you were, either.

If you think that Mohler's repentance should be more widely circulated, then I invite you to circulate it. He has given you his own words. I can think of no reason that he would be reluctant for his statements to be as widely distributed as possible. Here's what I would suggest. Buy a case of Spectrum. Highlight the section in which Mohler deals with the Manhattan Declaration. Then, every time people ask you whether he has really changed his mind, give them a copy of the book.

In fact, you might even try reading it yourself! If nothing else, it has a pretty good chapter on Fundamentalism.

At the end of the day, I think that Al was as serious as a heart attack in his turnaround.

Kevin

Don,

Now I'm going to begin to reply to your recommendations. By way of review, here is my original question to you:

In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?

Here is our best condensation of your answer:

1. Avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in "serious error."
2. Do not speak either so positively about conservative evangelicals or so negatively about Fundamentalists that I either (a) alienate the Fundamentalists whom I wish to help, or else (b) encourage the discontent of wavering and disgruntled Fundamentalists.

As I said, I think that each point in this reply merits examination. More than that, the replies together deserve a response, particularly in view of the question that I asked.

Here is how the reply as a whole strikes me: I asked what I could do other than to drop off the face of the earth, and you have told me to go ahead and drop off the face of the earth! You have said nothing about what I might actually do, but have only articulated a couple of things that I should stop doing. The net effect is to suggest that the world (or at least the Fundamentalist world) would be a better place if I were simply to dry up and blow away. You're basically asking me just to sit down and shut up.

I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to communicate, but I do think it's the impression that you've left.

Remember when I said that my question was not just about me? Here's why.

The response you've given is is, I think, rather typical of what younger Fundamentalists believe they are hearing from the leadership of institutions like the FBFI. It does not help when "sit down and shut up" (as they hear it) is coupled with words like, discontent, wavering, and disgruntled.

Many younger Fundamentalists have questions about and see problems with Fundamentalism, but are not really looking to leave. This kind of answer, however, leaves them feeling like they are unwelcome. They've been taught to sing Just As I Am, but they feel that they will be accepted only if they are just as they want me to be.

I've tried to word this response in as non-inflammatory a way as I know how. I'm just telling you how I am hearing what you've said, and how I think this is reflected in what many other Fundamentalists hear what is said by some leaders of Fundamentalist institutions.

OK, it's your turn now.

Kevin

P.S. One question that comes out of these observations is the following: What responsibility do institutional and church leaders have for actually bringing younger leaders and voices into engagement with Fundamentalism, and how can they do that?

I think that Kevin and Mike may also have some ideas about how this should and can be done. They should feel free to comment.

Kevin Bauder,

I just returned from our three day board meeting for the FBFI.  We had an excellent time together and dealt with many important issues.  I think the up-coming national meeting will be excellent.   I don't sense from the men in the meeting that we are the voice of fundamentalism.  We are not under that kind of illusion.  The FBFI is highly involved in the military chaplaincy and much of our meeting dealt with the problems our chaplains are facing now in light of the policy changes from the federal government.  We no longer are passing "resolutions".  Instead, we will simply publish position and policy statements.  Frankly, I would welcome your input on our positions and policies committee.  We need all the brain power we can get.  I appreciate you and Sam Horn at Central as well as your faculty.  Our Fundamental seminaries are facing challenges today that are unique.  Their very survival is on the line.  I send a good number of students to DBTS and even pay their tuition.  I do my best to support our fundamental seminaries.

I have an infamous sermon entitled "The Cure for Factionalism in Fundamentalism".  In that message I go after KJV Onlyism, Keswick Arminianism, Easy Believism, Softer-gentler fundamentalism, eccentric externalism, and young-restless reformationalism.  The sermon hits both the left ditch and the right ditch.  When the dirt road gets wet, it is easy to inadvertently drive one's car into either ditch.  Regardless of what ditch one's car is in, one still needs a tow truck. My belief is that godly, doctrinally sound fundamentalists endeavor to avoid both ditches.  Without being idealistic, when I perceive that heart in our fundamental brethren, then our fellowship and cooperation is deeper and more meaningful.  I perceive that heart in you and Sam.  Thank you for keeping Central strong.  At DBTS where I completed my M.Div. and Th.M., I have a deep love and appreciation for my professors as well.  They represent to me some of the best men I have ever known in Fundamentalism, McCune being near the top of the list.  Rolland McCune represents to me the quintessential fundamentalist.  He, more than any other professor or pastor, has helped shape my view of a healthy fundamentalism.  I took every class he offered.  I wish every pastor could have taken his three systematics, Dispensationalism, Kingdom of God, Apologetics, OT Theology, and History of New Evangelicalism courses to name just a few.

When it comes to our relationships with the Evangelicals, I believe we have to be honest about their strengths and weaknesses and realize that they operate in a much broader environment.  I try to speak the truth in love and be candid about the differences.  By the way, I was mistaken about Bruce Ware.  Andy Naselli, whose family were former members of our church, conducted a recent interview with Bruce, and Andy informed me that Bruce was not a continuationist.  I apologize for that mistake.  The same goes for the Fundamentalists with whom I have been associated my entire ministry.  Borrowing the taxonomy from Nine Marks, we should write a book entitled, "Nine Marks of a Healthy Fundamentalism" in order to improve the Fundamental institutions already in existence.

Don,

My apologies for a couple of days’ hiatus. I trust your Lord’s Day has been a blessing. I’m traveling back and forth to a town near Eau Claire, Wisconsin, to preach each weekend. The Lord is granting us some sweet fellowship.

I remember an embarrassing episode when my son was small—walking and talking, but not yet two years old. It was a Sunday afternoon, we had guests in the house, and it seemed like everything Joshua tried to do resulted in trouble of one kind or another. I giving vent to my frustration by exclaiming, “Joshua! Just don’t do anything!” The boy gave me the most perplexed look, and the other adults the room laughed out loud at the stupidity of what I had just said.

I’ve tried to think about how to reply to your last post, but I really don’t know what I can say. I did my best to explain—without “inflammatory language”—how I thought you were coming across. I am perfectly willing to grant the benefit of the doubt: I don’t think you meant it the way it sounded. But when I asked you what you thought I should do, you told me only things I should stop doing. What I heard was, “Kevin! Just don’t do anything!”

You certainly don’t have to take my word for it, but I do believe that younger leaders often feel they are getting this kind of answer from older Fundamentalists. I’m not talking about what you (or others) mean to say, but about how you are being heard. You may believe me or not, as you wish.

So I’m now prepared to go on and offer a specific response to each of the two points that summarize your advice. I’ll try to tackle one of them tomorrow.

This is the point at which I think that the conversation might begin to get sticky. You say that the FBFI leadership is “filled with men who would like to work with [me] to influence Fundamentalists and Fundamentalism in a godly direction.” Maybe, but that sort of depends upon what we all mean by a “godly direction.” It will be interesting to see how much agreement we really enjoy. We’re going to be able to tell pretty quickly, I think, when I begin to address your specific recommendations.

Until then!

Kevin

Kevin,

Let's think out loud about this. Suppose we were to go with the theme, "Marks of a Healthy Fundamentalism," leaving the number open. In your opinion, what might be some marks that would deserve a chapter-length treatment?

Don and Mike ought to chip in on this topic as well.

(The other) Kevin

P.S. When I was a child, I never knew another person named Kevin. In fact, I didn't meet another Kevin until I was in college. I certainly didn't know any adults who were named Kevin, so I simply assumed that the name was inappropriate for adults. Naturally, I wondered when my name was going to change and what people were going to call me when I grew up.

I never guessed it would be "doctor." And I wish I could get them to stop! (I'd much prefer Grand Exalted Imperial Pubah. Or, among my friends, simply "Eminence"). JUST JOKING!!! But not about dropping the "doctor" business.

KTB

Kevin, I will grant you that serious mistakes have been made over the years by fundamentalists. Nolo contendere!

The example you give, however... when did it happen? The offending statement was in a MacArthur newsletter in 1976, the issue erupted in 1989, it was clarified by MacArthur in a later restatement, published by Phil Johnson on the internet in 2000. (See the Soteriology section of the Wikipedia article on MacArthur - I know, I know, it's Wikipedia, take it for what it's worth.)

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article mentions BBN, not fundamentalists as a major player in this conflict. I don't know if that is an accurate picture or not. But I do know that many fundamentalists "piled on" once the controversy came to light. I don't excuse the pack mentality with which we went after MacA at that point.

But you will note that we are talking about something that is almost twenty-five years ago. I remember all the discussion about it during the early days of Sharper Iron. Phil Johnson was involved in some of it, if I recall correctly. During some of that discussion, it was mentioned that Dr. Bob III made some contact with MacArthur to make amends in some way for his part in the issue. I don't recall if it was a phone call or a letter, or what it was. The issue was an issue between the two of them, apparently it has been settled between them for some time. MacArthur isn't calling for further action on it, is he? He probably hardly ever thinks about it.

But whenever a list of the egregious fundamentalist lapses is trotted out, this one is often one of the first ones cited.

What are we supposed to do? Do we need to make an annual apology for a shopping list of past offenses? Perhaps we should do that on the Jewish Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement every year. We could have a special ceremony somewhere, get Dr. Bob, Dr. Vaughn, Paul Hartog, you, Dave, Mike Harding, you know, a gathering of fundamentalist leaders, drape you in sackcloth and ashes and have our annual recital of our past many and great sins. We could list every sin from J. Frank Norris to the two Jacks to the BLOOD, to who knows what, put it on a great scroll and offer it up on a pyre every year, confessing that we are unworthy.

Is that what we should do? Or something like it?

It gets rather tiresome to hear these issues being constantly thrown in one's face when they are ancient history and, in this case, as far as I know the principals have dealt with it. It isn't my offense - and it probably isn't your offense either, so why bring it up?

Now please don't suppose that by saying all that I mean we should just forget about issues that involve fundamentalists. Things happen and they should be dealt with as they happen. Dr. Vaughn made an error a couple of years ago, there was a hue and cry on the blogs and there was some straight talk in the FBFI board room. Things changed. Issue over. Let's move on. That is how things should be dealt with.

There are a few things swirling around right now that may deserve some public comment in the next few months. You could compare speakers lists at upcoming major Baptist meetings and see if some eyebrows should be raised about one or two of them. On both sides of the fence, so to speak. But they are, or are about to become, current controversies.

The time for dealing with the old controversies has pretty well passed. When folks keep bringing them up, I wonder about their spirit. Nobody likes me to use the word "bitter", but I wonder if someone isn't bitter about something and is nursing these old offenses like a bad grudge. It isn't just you that does that.

Earlier I talked about a fundamentalist "Day of Atonement". I was being partly farcical, but it does seem that some would want us to be constantly apologizing for sins of the past that I never committed. I should start with the blood controversy (or controversies), then move on to a host of other offenses. Where would this stop? Should I apologize for the sin of Adam?

Well, that's enough of that. I hope I have made myself clear.

I have to say, though, that you made me laugh with your "equal time" comment. Couple that with your "last best hope" comment earlier and I have come up with a new name for you. Instead of referring to you as KTB, I think I should refer to you as GWH - the Great White Hope!

Seriously, you've got to stop referring to your self that way. The only hope of Christians is Jesus Christ. It isn't up to you or me to solve all the problems of fundamentalism or evangelicalism. We should be willing to serve and try to have influence where we can to solve what problems we can, but we need to do that as servants of Christ, not as the "Doc" of fundamentalism.

Check the dates of those bulletins again... 1989 and 1990. You wish to perpetuate an issue that is over 23 years old? There are precious few guys who were on the board then that are on the board now.

In a somewhat relevant resolution that came after that date, the FBFI said this:

I have bolded the positive part, just so no one will miss it.

Now, that is still old, 18 years ago. It is the last mention of MacArthur that I can find in my set of resolutions. (I don't have any resolutions on my computer after 2009 for some reason and something is funky with the FBFI site where they are stored - hopefully that will get fixed soon.)

My point is:

• First, we have said something positive since the blood issue of 1989/1990.
• Second, this is still old news.

If you want to live in the past, be my guest, but I am interested in promoting fundamentalism in the present. I like a lot of what you have said on "The Fundamentalist Idea" and want to promote that.

But I'm not interested in working up a lather about long past issues.

And re the PS: I agree with what you say. I am simply saying we don't need to be offering a prominent Public Apology for things that are in the past. It's time to move on.

Well, yes, but above you did say "I am equal time", citing the precedence of Rush.

I see that you didn't explicitly say you were the last and best hope, but "people like me". A difference, but only slight.

I see how you are qualifying it, yet I don't see how these references are helpful to the discussion in the main. I'm not the only one who took it the way I did, and you did follow it with the Rush reference.

Rolland McCune on the Blood of Christ

from the Systematic Theology

Matthew indicates that Jesus “yielded up His spirit” on the cross (Matt 27:50). The order is first abandonment by the Father, then physical death. Jesus’ literal blood was shed on the cross (John 19:33–34). Although one is not saved by touching the molecules of the blood of Jesus (if such were even possible), it is not wise or Scriptural to deprecate His literal blood. The literal blood that was poured out was representative or symbolic of His perfect obedience. Blood always deals with the judicial, forensic, or legal aspects of the atonement. It deals with guilt. The physical blood of Jesus (corpuscles, glucose, plasma, etc.) had no sacramental value. In short, the term “blood of Christ” stands for the sacrificial death of Christ, a violent termination of life. In fact, Paul puts “blood” and “death” in parallel in Romans 5:9–10. (2:168)

If saving efficacy is attributed to the literal molecules of Christ’s blood, His true humanity is denied at that point and thus His natures are confounded. The Logos did not deify His red and white corpuscles or any other aspect of His human nature. (2:168)

The shedding of blood in the Bible speaks fundamentally of death. However, this is not the mere act of dying or the simple exit of one’s life principle. A sacrificial death is the extraction, or the yielding up, of a life. “Blood” in sacrifice equals the violent termination of a life that has atoning moral value before God. (2:179)

The theological rationale of the Old Testament sacrificial system is given in Leviticus 17:11—“For the life [nephesh] of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.” The nephesh of the animal was its source of life, the animating or driving principle, and God had “given” (nathan, to appoint, set) this arrangement in approaching Him. The animal was not capable of accountability, personality, or freedom; it was moved by instinct or the necessities of nature. Morally, the sacrificial victim was sinless or guiltless and became the vehicle of the forgiveness of the sin of the offerer. Atonement was “by reason of” (preposition beth) the nephesh, which was the innocent life that was taken in death, and on that basis God, granted an expiation for the sin of the people.

This does not mean that the animal blood itself (the chemical components) secured the atonement; it was the blood “by reason of the life.” Yet there was no atonement until the animal blood was offered, so that the sacrifice was not merely a symbolical charade or theological pantomime. (2:180)

 By the efficacy of the atonement of Christ is meant that which enables and causes His blood to produce its divinely intended effects. What does Christ’s blood possess or represent that enables it to satisfy God’s holy demands in the areas of guilt, slavery, wrath, and enmity? What unifying factor is there that can comprehend the four categories? The answer is the obedience of Christ. This is the integrating principle that permeates atonement and makes the blood of Jesus efficacious with respect to sin and the exigencies sin creates because of offended holiness. (2:198)

Pickering made his comment with respect to Lordship Salvation, not the blood issue. Just want to clarify that, otherwise my point still stands, I think.

Don,

Here are your statements to which I wish to respond:

Have you scoured the records of Dr. Clearwaters or Dr. Dollar, two men not known as shinking violets, and had Central make apologies for any errors they may have made in their militancy for fundamentalism?

I didn't think so.

But if we are going to pursue this game, what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander, don't you think?

You are raising several related issues, so my reply is going to have several parts.

First, you ask whether I (we?) have “scoured the records” for the transgressions of Clearwaters and Dollar. But that misses the point and introduces an element that has not been part of the conversation. I have not asked the FBFI to scour the records looking for past transgressions. I merely hinted at a very public transgression that everybody already knows about and talks about. You yourself recognized the hint immediately, which is further evidence that the episode does not belong to the distant past. No, we have not scoured the records, but when somebody brings up a sin (public or private) from the past, we are willing to deal with it.

Second, there is a difference between the way that public and private sins ought to be addressed. We are to confess our faults to one another, which I understand to mean that we acknowledge our faults within the circle of those who have reason to know them. Supposing Clearwaters or Dollar sinned privately against some student or professor, Central Seminary has an obligation to correct the wrong privately as far as we can. Supposing Clearwaters or Dollar sinned publicly in the same way that the FBFI did, then Central Seminary has an obligation to distance itself publicly from the deed that was done and to try to correct the wrong.

Third, Central Seminary has done lots of distancing and correcting for public faults. Probably the clearest example was the apology to Doug McLachlan and his restoration to the pastorate of Fourth Baptist Church and the presidency of Central Seminary. Everyone knew that a wrong had been done; both church and seminary united in seeking to correct that wrong. Forgiveness was asked and received. Restoration occurred. It was a rare moment in Fundamentalism, and in my opinion it established a beautiful example of the way that such things ought to be handled. If we don’t often bring the episode up now, that’s only because it actually is a closed chapter. It was closed by confession and restoration.

Fourth, we have tried very hard to distance ourselves from past transgressions when they have been brought to our attention. On multiple occasions we have brought men back to our campus as part of the effort to try to repair hurts that were, in some cases, decades old. We have also tried to correct past wrongs to the best of our ability. There are actually people who think we've done too much of this.

It is not always easy to judge whether a wrong was done, but we have generally tried to err on the side of possible victims. For example, an alumnus came to us a couple of years ago, alleging that his thesis had been “mislaid” at an administrator’s direction and that he had consequently been denied graduation from a particular program. We did our best to talk to the principals, but too many of them were now dead for us to be able to determine exactly what happened. Nevertheless, we gave this alumnus the option of completing the requirements for the degree and graduating decades late. We had to bend a few academic standards, but we thought that it was important to correct an (possible) injustice.

I could give you a listing of specific events in which we’ve tried to live by the very same standard I’ve articulated for you. Of course, there may still be things that we don’t know about or have not taken seriously enough. That’s why we try to listen carefully when people approach us with concerns. But to answer your question directly, yes, if somebody comes to me with a legitimate concern about some past episode of character assassination or other public transgression, I’ll be happy to advocate that it be addressed. What’s fair for the goose is indeed fair for the gander.

Finally, I’ve tried to make a personal practice of public confession when I’ve become convinced that I’ve committed public sins. I’ve had to do this more than once. Members of the Central Seminary faculty can bear witness. In fact, there should be members of SI who can remember when I’ve acknowledged my faults in public. We’ve seen Mike Harding do something similar as part of this discussion. You yourself have come close to it by distancing yourself from some of your past behavior as a blogger. Well, it’s hardly a vendetta to suggest that what’s fair for the gander certainly ought to be fair for the goose.

Kevin

First of all, let me commend you on the actions taken by you and/or Central for righting wrongs. No disagreement there.

Second, I don't think anything would be gained by dredging up the MacArthur blood issue once again. All of the links you selected as evidence of the pressing need for dealing with it once again are from obscure, non-influential, and even 'dead' sites (in the internet sense). I presume you selected the better examples of what you could find? If that is all there is, it would seem to indicate that the only people continuing to raise it are not worth dealing with.

Now, I do note that you didn't address the comment by Pickering regarding MacArthur's Lordship Salvation - "changing the terms of the gospel". According to a paper published by Jeff Straub the pamphlet was originally published by Central Seminary. That's a pretty serious charge - was it right or wrong? If wrong, has Central done anything about it?

But I don't want to attempt to go back and forth trading stories about how one institution did this and another did that. We could cite examples of errors and misjudgements as well as examples of handling ethical misdeeds in a godly way, both by Central and the FBFI. I am not sure what we would gain by rehearsing more of these.

However, the bottom line of this discussion, it seems to me, is this:

If we are to promote the fundamentalist idea, what is the best way to do it?

• Should we rally men to the fundamentalist idea, as the FBFI attempts to do through its publications and fellowships?
• Or should we discourage men from promoting the fundamentalist idea by regularly rehearsing the errors of the past?

The path forward seems pretty clear to me.

Kevin,

I have been away from my computer preaching at a Christian college.  I would like to make a few comments about the MacArthur issue.  The author of those FBF bulletins you cited was wrong.  McCune states the issue on the blood accurately.  The Divine Blood theory is heterodoxy because it denies the true humanity of Christ which by implication nullifies the true nature of the substitutionary, various sacrifice of Christ.  If the humanity of Christ is not truly human, then his humanity is a hybrid of sorts (i.e. not 100% man).  Whoever wrote those articles in the bulletin decades ago was terribly mistaken.  If I remember correctly, I recall that Dave Doran addressed this issue publicly (blood and the humanity of Christ) about a dozen or more years ago at the National FBFI meeting in a message he delivered at Faith Baptist in Taylors, SC.  I thought that message put the issue to rest.  JM made some confusing statements and in my opinion, some poorly worded, unwise statements, upon which some with an agenda took advantage in order to discredit him.  Others who were theologically ignorant or confused simply misunderstood JM and jumped to a wrong conclusion.  For the most part the same people who misunderstood the blood issue are the people who misunderstand the translation issue.

In defense of the FBFI we avoided the error of the divine blood theory in our own re-written doctrinal statement and we defined the meaning of the blood of Christ shed on the cross as his his substitutionary, sacrificial death.  We agree with McCune who agrees with the Bible.  McCune was also correct when stating that we have to be very careful in our wording to not give the impression that we are deprecating the blood of Christ.  Christ's blood is precious because it is the real human blood of the God-man; nevertheless, his blood is part of his humanity not his deity.  God is Spirit and we who worship him worship him in spirit and in truth.  God incarnate, however, has blood by virtue of his virgin birth and genuine humanity and therefore could actually die and be raised again.  The Sacramental view of the blood, on the other hand, is Romish and must be rejected by all Bible-believing protestants.

A letter to JM on this issue is not out of line.  I am for it and would be glad to write it, if that will help settle the issue.  However, I have also read Pickering's booklet on Lordship Salvation where he accuses JM of changing the gospel.  That booklet is still available.  I highly respect Pickering, but some of the non-sense in free grace theology out of Dallas via Hodges and to some degree Ryrie, may have influenced Pickering when he wrote that booklet.  Again, JM makes some over-the-top statements in his polemics about the nature of saving faith, but in principle I think he is right.  Saving faith implicitly involves submission and explicitly involves repentance.  I think Pickering would actually agree with this concept regarding the true condition for being declared righteous on the merits of Christ.  Nevertheless, he misunderstood and thereby misrepresented JM on this issue which was just as serious as the FBF bulletin's misrepresentation of JM on the blood. 

We do not regard JM as heretical or heterodox on the gospel or the blood.  I dare say that JM has moved to the right over the last 30 years on many issues and has been quite militant on many doctrinal issues.  I disagree with JM on church polity, music to some degree (i.e. Holland), his view of legalism, an occasional speaker, and some associations he maintains.  Other than that I think he has made many helpful contributions via his books and messages.

As with Christ's Deity, so his humanity is a test of fellowship.  Christ's whole person with two natures necessitates that that we not deny or diminish either one of the natures without casting aspersion regarding his person--otherwise known as the Theanthropic person.  It is neo-platonic or at worse, gnosticism, to deny any aspect of the humanity of Christ, including his blood.  Unless Jesus was fully and completely man, no man could be saved.  "Only what God became can be saved."  He didn't become an angel or an animal; he became a full, complete, 100% man while simultaneously remaining 100% God.  Thus, Jesus, the eternal Son of God, took upon himself, perfectly and completely, sinless human nature in human flesh, blood, and form.  His humanity is completely, absolutely genuine.  Christ said, "Take eat, this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant" (Matt 26:26-28 NASB). The Word became Flesh (Jn 1:14).  This refers to his body and blood--all a part of genuine human nature.  Prior to the incarnation Christ was not human in any sense.  After the incarnation he added full, complete, perfect, sinless human nature to his personhood, without confounding the natures or dividing the person, equaling his hypostatic union--the God-Man (Phil 2:5-11).  His flesh and blood speak of a human being (Matt 16:17).  Even Christ exercised human emotion on the Cross in connection with his sweat which became like great drops of blood (Luke 22:44). 

Human nature includes the sum total of all the essential qualities that make something genuinely what it is.  A nature is not a person, but rather is a complexity of attributes that gives definition to the reality of something.  Jesus is one, eternal divine person who now has two complexes of attributes--divine and human.  Yet the natures though united in the one person, still remain distinct (Rom 1:3-4; Rom 9:5 ESV).  There is no transmutation of one nature into the other to form a hybrid third nature.  The theanthropic person does not have theanthropic natures.  Therefore, it is important to realize that the Divine Logos did not deify the sinless, genuine, human nature of Christ.  This would be the ancient heterodoxy of Eutychianism that fused the two natures into a unity of nature with the divine nature absorbing the human nature. 

We enthusiastically must affirm that Jesus' literal blood was shed on the cross to make atonement for the sins of the world (Jn 19:33-34).  His blood is inseparable from his person, but is not confounded in its nature.  As Christ poured out his blood in his sacrificial, atoning death it represented his perfect life of obedience to the Father, the true satisfaction of the Mosaic Law, and the obedience unto death, even the death of the cross which paid both the positive price of imputed righteousness and the infinitively negative price of a true and just punishment for our sins.  Unlike the Romanist heresy, however, we clearly affirm that the physical properties of the blood's corpuscles, glucose, plasma do not have any mystical, sacramental value (Rom 5:9-10; Col 1:20; Heb 9:14-15).  Thus we don't literally "eat his flesh" or "drink his blood" as the papacy affirms.  If we assign the efficacy of Christ's blood to the literal molecules as does Rome, we deny his true humanity and confound his natures.  In light of this further explanation, I have asked Aaron Blumer to remove my sarcastic note on this issue in my previous post.  It was unnecessarily pejorative and a poor attempt at humor.  Nevertheless, for a more complete explanation of this issue, read Leon Morris in "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross" (pp. 108-24).

Thanks for the note.

I understand how my words initially contained "an unfair personal element", but perhaps it would have been easier to simply point to those words and ask if that was the best way to express it? This is not meant critically, I do see what you mean in criticizing my comments. Hyperbolic expression is habit-forming and isn't helpful in discussion.

Secondly, on thinking this over, I am not that anxious to pursue the Pickering pamphlet. I personally don't think it is a matter you or Central need to clear up. I offered it as an example of a past controversy that is outstanding, but one that doesn't really need to be answered, just as I don't think the FBFI needs to answer, in the present time, errors that are long past and not really germaine to the present discussion.

Look forward to addressing a larger issue. In some ways, the discussion has taken us down a path of dealing with what I see as minor or petty issues that really aren't the main point of where we need to go.

Don,

Now it’s time to get to your other word of advice, which is to avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in "serious error." This advice actually raises substantial issues. It forces us to ask three questions.

First, how do we gauge the gravity of any given error? Presumably we agree that we have an obligation to affirm all and only those doctrines that Scripture affirms, and to implement all and only those moral and ecclesiastical practices that Scripture requires. We commit error whenever we hold a wrong view on a biblical topic or whenever we fail to implement some moral or ecclesiastical practice that Scripture requires (or, for that matter, when we implement as a matter of morality or ecclesiastical practice something that Scripture does not require). The upshot is that whenever two brethren disagree about what the faith actually affirms of requires, at least one of them must be in error (and, since we are obligated to avoid error, to be disobedient).

Requirements of the faith, however, are different from applications of the faith. Applications involve particular circumstances, and because circumstances differ, applications require an element of judgment. Differences in judgment do not necessarily imply biblical error disobedience on the part of either party, while differences over doctrines and practices do. In other words, errors in judgment are not necessarily matters of disobedience.

But how do we determine whether our disagreement is over a matter of obedience or a matter of judgment? When it is over a matter of obedience, how do we determine which forms of disobedience are more serious and which are less so? Evidently you would distinguish levels of seriousness for disobedience, since you charge conservative evangelicals with serious (rather than mild or moderate) error. What is the mechanism for making that determiniation?

Second, do all instances of disobedience (let alone errors of judgment) require the same reaction, or do different levels of disobedience require different levels of response? In other words, are there levels of fellowship at which we can tolerate greater disobedience (or errors of judgment) in our brethren than at other levels? Different levels of public ministry? Of platform participation? If so, how do we know which levels of fellowship, ministry, or platform participation are broader and which are narrower? Is it possible to answer this question biblically and theologically, rather than simply on the basis of personal prejudices?

Third, what would lead you to believe that the errors of conservative evangelicals (with whom you do not wish me to engage in public ministry) are any more serious than the errors of some Fundamentalists with whom leaders of the FBFI actually have engaged in public ministry? In fact, don’t we find a range of errors being committed by both conservative evangelicals and Fundamentalists? Until we have a mechanism for gauging the gravity of these errors, it seems presumptuous to insist that the errors of the one are necessarily worse than the errors of the other.

In this post, I am simply trying to frame the questions, not to answer them. In my next post, I hope to put up some ideas that are not my own, in order to show that even some very separatistic Fundamentalists recognize the legitimacy of these concerns.

IFBF Resolution – Concerning Ecclesiastical Separation

Forasmuch as the Indiana Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of Churches has from its inception adhered to Jude’s admonition to, “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints,” and,

Whereas, every generation faces its own unique and specific challenges to steadfastness and fidelity to the Scriptures, which are able to make one wise unto salvation; and,

Whereas there has in this generation arisen movements which have called for a merging of professing Christendom to gather under a Gospel banner, rallying ‘round a mantra of holding to and setting forth the gospel message, i.e. that Christ died for our sins and was buried and rose again the third day, as the only test of faith for fellowship and the standard for legitimacy in New Testament Christianity in this 21st century; and,

Whereas the IFBF has always been, and remains to this present hour, committed to the biblical principles of both personal and ecclesiastical separation, believing that the whole counsel of God’s Word is our imperative, and that erring brethren ought to be loved, yet admonished and even separated from when persisting in error;

Therefore, be it resolved at this IFBF annual meeting in the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, on the 12th day of April, 2011, that our constituency goes on record as affirming our commitment to these separatist principles and further,

Be it resolved that we, as a fellowship of Independent Baptists, reject the compromise of the present Together for the Gospel movement, the Southern Baptist Convention, Sovereign Grace Ministries, the Resolved Conference and similar current theological philosophies, associations, publications and trends impacting churches, colleges and seminaries which for the desired end of togetherness, cooperation and oneness in our understanding minimize doctrine and sacrifice faithfulness to our historic separatist, Biblicist stand, i.e. that of separation from Christian individuals or organizations that affiliate with those who deny the faith or are content to walk together with those who compromise the doctrine and practice of Scripture;

Be it further resolved that the IFBF affirms today that it stands as a separatist body where it stood at its inception when, rejecting the new evangelicalism of the 50’s, the IFBF was born and came into existence because of a need for a strong fundamental, separatist, independent and Baptistic fellowship to which men of conviction and churches of like faith could adhere; we stand now where we stood then, and we shall continue to steadfastly stand for, and upon, the once delivered faith, so help us God.

Respectfully submitted by the 2011 Resolution Committee:

Dr. Tony Slutz, Committee Chairman

Dr. Larry Hufhand, IFBF Secretary

Dr. Rick Arrowood, Board Member

So far, so good. No disagreement that we can have differences over fundamental doctrine, denominational distinctives, theological systems, corporate (local church) and individual applications, or judgements, as you call them.

Now for a clarifying question of my own: in defining a 'serious error', must we limit it to matters  of disobedience only? Are not some judgements/applications of doctrine also serious errors?

For example, when Billy Graham joined with liberals in his evangelistic campaigns, I think we would agree that he was in disobedience to the doctrine of separation. There were some who didn't necessarily join with Graham in his crusades, but defended him, took up his cause, took issue with his critics, etc. Would we say they were in disobedience or making an error of judgement? Whatever we would call it, would it be a serious error or not?

In other words, I am not certain I want to concede that the only kinds of errors that are serious are errors that involve disobedience. There are other, more current issues that come to mind, but I'll hold off on those for the time being as we go through the process of defining terms.

Simple answer: No.

I have long thought and often written that one of our problems in this discussion is the word "separation". In the purest meaning of the word, we are only separate from unbelievers. As far as I know, Billy Graham (our usual whipping boy) is a believer. If that is correct, we will all share eternity with him and others like him. We wouldn't cooperate with him in ministry, but all ties are not broken if his profession of faith is true - and I have no reason to suggest that it is not true.

Other men have committed errors far less egregious than his, yet both of us would still be unwilling to enter into ecclesiastical cooperation with them. I have seen you argue for limited cooperation with some, and as far as the argument goes, I agree in principle. Most likely, we will disagree in some applications and will therefore have to make decisions about each other, perhaps even at some point limiting the extent to which we could work with one another.

That last question: it remains to be seen...

The argument, such as it is, is not about the right side of the ditch, but the left side of the ditch. If there are serious errors on the right side (and we know there are), they have no bearing on an argument about errors on the left side. One can't suggest that since there are some guys in the right ditch that I am given license to run headlong into (or even one tire in) the left ditch. The question is about the left side of the ditch not the right.

So I think your third issue is irrelevant.

In looking the following posts over, I am not sure I see why you posted them. So perhaps you could enlighten the dull plodders as to the points you want us to see!

While I can see your point, I fail to see the relevance. Neither you nor I are members of the IFBF, so these statements could serve as an illustration, I suppose, but I don't know the details so it is impossible for me to comment on them or use them in our discussion.

What we are discussing is my suggestions to you on avoiding the left ditch, not someone else who may or may not be in the right ditch.

Kevin,

I want to emphasize here that these are my personal assessments and not the assessment of the executive board.  I am one among many board members. 

Mike,

I finally tracked down a copy of Pickering's booklet on Lordship Salvation. From the looks of it, he was responding to the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus which, I think we agree, contained a few problems. I've heard that many of those were the result of MacArthur's editors who, in at least some cases, over-rode his own preferences. If that's so, then Pickering's (and others') reactions to the first edition may be more understandable.

On the one hand, Pickering does appear to be concerned that MacArthur is in danger of adding elements to the reception of the gospel. On the other hand, he is still very careful to treat MacArthur as a brother and respected leader. As far as I know, Pickering never engaged MacArthur's later writings, which certainly nuanced some of his original assertions.

If I could be given three theological wishes, one of them would be to turn down the temperature on the whole Lordship Salvation debate. On my view, none of the positions represents an actual denial of the gospel (leaving aside Hodges' later development of a crossless gospel). In terms of what they meant to challenge, each of the principals had an important truth at the core of his claims. Clearly errors were taught, and some of those errors were more serious than others. But not every error is a deadly error. Hodges and MacArthur in particular seemed to push each other further than either would otherwise have gone.

For myself, I have still not found a position that I'm entirely happy with. In my opinion, each of the major views does less-than-perfect justice to some aspect of biblical teaching. I suppose that means is that I presently hold what McCune would call a brushpile position. Bad as that may be, I just have not found the way to put all the elements together coherently.

• Saving faith has to be more than intellectual assent. It involves a movement of the heart, a seizing of the promise of salvation grounded in the finished work of Christ.
• Christ could not offer salvation if He did not hold authority (Lordship); consequently, implicit in every act of saving faith is an acknowledgement of the authority of Jesus.
• God does not intend to save us merely from the penalty of our sins, but from our sins. Any exercise of faith that presumes to receive forgiveness so that one can continue to sin with impunity is an exercise in bad faith.
• Sanctification begins in some meaningful sense at the moment of conversion and continues throughout the believer's life.
• God will not allow His children to live permanently in sin, but will use means (including chastening) to provoke perseverence.

These are the points at which I agree with those who teach Lordship salvation. Where might (and I emphasize the subjunctive) I disagree? Over the definition of repentance. Over the possibility of Christians whose lives are for some period of time indistinguishable from those of unsaved people (i.e., carnal Christians). Over the degree to which the implicit recognition of and submission to the authority of Jesus must be made explicit in order for salvation to be applied.

These are points over which some of the more extreme statements of some defenders of Lordship Salvation have made me uncomfortable. But not as uncomfortable as those anti-Lordship types who want to insist that Lordship Salvation is a false gospel. That's just ridiculous.

Kevin

P.S. I can't speak for Dave or anyone else, but you'll notice that I have kept my membership in the FBFI. But I'll still leave the board work to people who are better at administration.

The one from Kevin "The Book" and the one from Mike "Kevin, Thanks for". In particular, I agree exactly with Kevin's statements concerning Lordship salvation. That wouldn't be a bad theme to expand into an article, if I may be so bold as to suggest a topic for you.

And I agree with Mike that we have to get over the mistakes of the past - we are all fallible and no organization is going to have a perfect history. Instead, we have an opportunity to do better and we should.

Having said that, I'd like to get back to discussing the topic of my suggestions to Kevin regarding relationships with evangelicals. I like what Mike just said in his last about that topic, but more could and should be said. I also think we have not finished discussing what, if anything, should be made of the quotes Kevin posted.

So what I am saying is that I am waiting for Kevin's response to my post #52867 and also to my post #52856. Kevin has responded partially to the last, but not completely, I think. And I'm thinking it is now his turn to respond (in case he is waiting for me to say something).

Mike,

You may not have noticed, but we have anti-dispesationalism in Fundamentalism, and we have for years. My valued friend Reg Kimbro wrote an entire book against dispensationalism. I'm actually trying to get him to join this conversation.

We have old-earth creationism (though not of the progressive variety) in Fundamentalism, and we have for years. The first theory of creation that I ever learned was the gap theory--and it's still in Larkin.

Fundamentalism was built upon music borrowed from popular culture, and it is now following the popular trends almost as rapidly as the evangelical world. Probably forty percent of the Fundamentalist churches that I visit use some version of CCM. Some of those churches have leaders who are affiliated with the FBFI.

As I said earlier, the only rock concert that my wife has ever attended was a chapel service at one of the Fundamentalist Bible colleges (and I do not mean one located in northern Wisconsin).

It seems that the "whole new world" is coming to a neighborhood near you.

On the other hand, there are Southern Baptists who are more musically conservative than the vast majority of Fundamentalists. You know at least one of them pretty well.

Young-earth creationism is being promoted primarily by evangelicals (ICR, AIG) who are much broader than the FBFI.

The primary voices defending dispensationalism today are located on the left edge of Fundamentalism and over into the conservative evangelical movement.

Not only that, the most important advocates of cessationism are also outside of Fundamentalism.

If these things are the cause, then what does the cause require us to do with Fundamentalism?

Kevin

Kevin,

As I have said before, my disagreements with JM and his ministry have to do with music, speakers, associations, church polity, and previously unwise, over-the-top statements on issues like the blood and the Lordship issue. By the way, I thought your comments on the Lordship issue were very helpful and balanced. Other than those matters, I think JM and company have been very helpful on many doctrinal issues including young earth, cessationism, dispensationalism.  JM and company are somewhat in a unique category.  However, T4G and GC, as you have wisely pointed out, are very broad when it comes to those kinds of issues, while being militant on covenant theology.  The FBFI is not guilty in my opinion, however, of tolerating CCM (the wedding of pop-rock genres to Christian lyrics for worship and edification), being anti-dispensational in any way, tolerating continuationism, dumbing down the gospel, being off on the blood, promoting or encouraging KJV onlyism, or encouraging/tolerating ecumenism.  We have had our problems in the distant past with some issues I just mentioned.  We have corrected those problems.  The IFBF is different than the FBF.  It is unfair to load us with their baggage and I think Don gave a reasonable explanation for the IFBF.

I agree with you that there are men outside of fundamentalism who at times take equally conservative or more conservative positions on these issues.  I thank God for their work.  I benefit from their books and respect them for going against the tide of evangelicalism in regard to those specific subjects.  Most of my arguments deal with substance, not mere associations.  Nevertheless, associations are still important.  Substance---what a man actually believes, teaches, and lives, is more important.  Therefore, we have to be very careful when passing broad-brush resolutions and accusing people of fellowshiping with those who deny the cardinal truths of Scripture when there is no substantial evidence that they do.  I think your criticism along that line of reasoning is constructive.

Don,

Nobody is more aware than me of how limited and situated my perspective is. Truthfully, I would love to welcome your assessment and to agree that I have simply been making unwarranted assumptions. My life would be considerably easier because the universe would be simpler if I could only perceive it in terms of more straightforward contrasts.

Your last post contains so much that I can’t respond to everything, so I’ve chosen to focus upon your rebuke. I’ve tried to swallow my pride and to revisit the whole question related to the IFBF, actually hoping that a more charitable reading of events would result in a change of perspective. Here is my re-assessment.

First, you credit me for having correctly understood that the IFBF calls for separation over the whole counsel of God, and not just the gospel. Evidently we have no disagreement here.

Second, you charge me with assuming that the IFBF does not recognize levels of fellowship and therefore advocates all-or-nothing separation. Actually, I don’t think I assumed that at all. Rather, I simply noted that the IFBF fails to address this question in principle.

What is not clear is whether the IFBF recognizes the distinction between minimal and maximal fellowship, or whether it would recognize any intermediate levels. This is an important question, because separation (as the IFBF envisions it in this resolution) is inversely proportional to fellowship. If there are no levels of fellowship, then there are no levels of separation. If the IFBF does not recognize the existence of levels of fellowship, then the separation for which it calls must be all-or-nothing. In other words, no fellowship of any kind would be possible with any believer who fails in any way to affirm the whole counsel of God.

In the very next paragraph, however, I note that the IFBF does recognize levels of fellowship and separation in practice: “Such draconian separation is certainly not what the IFBF practices.” In other words, nothing is assumed here at all.

Third, you accuse me of charging the IFBF with inconsistency for practicing less-than-complete separation when they (as you suppose I have assumed) affirm all-or-nothing separation. But nowhere does this charge appear in my writing. To be sure, I do think the IFBF is inconsistent, but not in the way that you indicate.

Fourth, you suggest that Dr. Hufhand was not speaking in an official capacity, since (1) he no longer has any official capacity with the IFBF, and (2) his remarks appeared in a document entitled the “Hufhand Report.” It is immaterial whether Dr. Hufhand presently has any official capacity with the IFBF. What matters is that he did then—in fact, he was the official representative for the association. That his remarks appeared in the “Hufhand Report” is also immaterial. Does John Vaughn only speak for the FBFI when he issues an official document? I have re-read Dr. Hufhand’s words: he was making representations about the association, and he was its official representative. While I would like to think that Dr. Hufhand’s remarks did not actually represent the IFBF, I can’t see any reasonable way of reaching that conclusion.

Fifth, you charge me with assuming that Crown College elevates the exclusive acceptance and use of the KJV to the doctrinal level. Again, I would be happy to think otherwise. Nevertheless, here are the exact words from the Crown College “Statement of Faith”:

We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed. The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice.

These words do not appear in a position paper or in some professor’s class notes. They appear in the official doctrinal statement. Crown College begins by affirming belief in the inerrant, infallible, God-breathed Scriptures. It concludes by insisting that the Bible is its sole and final authority for faith and practice. But which Scriptures? What Bible? The answer appears in the middle of the statement. Sandwiched between its affirmation of biblical inspiration and its affirmation of biblical sufficiency, Crown College specifies that it accepts the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, and only the King James Version of the Bible. It’s not simply that these people choose not to use other versions. They do not accept other versions. Accept them as what? If they are saying what they mean, Crown College does not accept other versions as inerrant, infallible, God-breathed Scripture or as the Bible that is sufficient for faith and practice. That is part of their “Statement of Faith.” This is not an assumption, it is a straightforward reading of Crown College’s own confession.

Finally, you suggest that I’ve only assumed that Dr. Hufhand’s naming of the graduates of about half-a-dozen  KJVO institutions represents any endorsement of or concession to those institutions. Perhaps (you suggest) those graduates “think differently” from the schools from which they graduated. And I certainly would rejoice if they do. I readily acknowledge that graduates may not reflect the positions of the schools from which they have graduated. I’m actually one of those—at least with respect to the last couple of schools I attended.

Nevertheless, if that is so, then Dr. Hufhand neglected to mention that these pastors had abandoned the ideas that they had been taught. He failed to distance the IFBF from these institutions in any way. In fact, he cited these schools as evidence of the diversity that exists within the IFBF. Furthermore, while a graduate here or there might abandon the teachings of his alma mater, do you really find it plausible that all of the graduates of all of these schools who pastor in the IFBF have done so? To put it as kindly as possible, this suggestion seems overly sanguine.

Also, Dr. Hufhand mentioned no IFBF pastors who are graduates of Master’s, Southern, Southeastern, Cedarville, Cornerstone, Philadelphia, or comparable schools. In fact, he does not even mention graduates of Fundamentalist schools like Central, Calvary, or Detroit. It is not likely that he could have overlooked those schools while remembering the names of half-a-dozen KJVO institutions. What we do know is this: either the fellowship has pastors who have graduated from at least some of these schools, or it does not. If it does not, then we need to ask why not one of the churches in such a diverse fellowship has called any of the graduates of any of these institutions—such a significant omission cannot be accidental. If it does have pastors who are graduates of some of these schools (which is actually the case), then we can legitimately infer that Dr. Hufhand found it more convenient to name KJVO institutions than schools in the other categories I've listed. Whichever possibility is true, this list of names is certainly an indication of the kind of people the IFBF is most comfortable including in its fellowship.

None of this constitutes a statement about the personal godliness of the pastors or officers of the IFBF. I do not see them as evil men or conspirators (how could you have suggested such a thing?). I do not question their sincerity. But I do question the judgment of some leaders. To the extent that their resolution and Dr. Hufhand’s interpretation represent the position of the association, I do not believe that they are in a position to offer a credible advice regarding boundaries of fellowship. What is more, to the extent that you commit yourself to defend their perspective, I wonder whether your counsel can be taken without a grain—if not a whole shaker—of salt. That is why I think this conversation is relevant, not only to the third question, but also to the first two.

Don,

Whatever else it is, separation is always a rejection, truncation, or limitation of fellowship. Consequently, a discussion of separation is meaningless unless we have a strong doctrine of church unity and fellowship. Probably the clearest text that discusses church unity and fellowship is the epistle to the Ephesians.

There Paul spends three chapters arguing that all believers have been raised from the same depth, to the same height. The inclusion of Gentiles in these privileges was a mystery that was hidden in the Old Testament, but it has now been revealed through the apostles—especially Paul, to whom was committed an administration of the mystery.

The last half of Eph. 2 strongly emphasizes that unity that the gospel has produced among believers in spite of previous hostility. Jews and Gentiles used to be two nationalities or humanities, opposed to each other and filled with hostility. But Christ has taken some who were Jews and some who were gentiles, and out of these he has fashioned a single new humanity. The new humanity transcends previous categories: in the new humanity a Jew is no longer reckoned as a Jew and a Gentile is no longer reckoned as a Gentile. Both are reckoned as something new.

Not only are they united in one humanity, they have been united in one body. They have been given access to the Father by one Spirit. They are being built into one building, a holy temple (naos). These statements describe a fundamental, overarching unity that the gospel creates between all believers. They describe the Universal Church. It is neither the Fundamentalist church nor the evangelical church, but the Church which is His body.

After a digression personal and doxological in chapter 3, Paul brings the lesson home with force in chapter 4. Having spent three chapters describing our calling, he implores us to walk worthy of it. How do we do that? We do it by humbly, gently, patiently, tolerantly loving each other. We do it by earnestly endeavoring to preserve (not create) the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

The failure to preserve the unity of the Spirit is significant, because unity is actually a gospel issue. The oneness of the new humanity, of the body, of the Spirit, and of the temple is at stake. A failure to recognize, acknowledge, and practice unity where it actually exists is a very serious failure indeed. In some sense, the gospel is at stake.

Consequently, unity and fellowship should always be the “default state” among believers. That is to say, we should be prepared to work with one another unless some other factor gets in the way. That factor might be as simple as geography or chronology (it would be difficult to cooperate personally with Calvin or Wesley right now), it might involve different directions in ministry (e.g, Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15), or it might involve some difference over the meaning of the faith.

In any case, the burden of proof always rests upon the individual who rejects some level of fellowship. Sometimes separations (understood as deliberate limitations of fellowship) are necessary within the household of faith. We cannot justify them, however, simply by stating that another Christian is guilty of serious error. We have some responsibility to show why it is serious and just how serious it is. We must also show how it affects the particular level of fellowship that is under consideration.

External fellowship or cooperation must always rest upon a foundation of internal fellowship or commonality. The requirements for internal commonality will be determined by the level of fellowship that is being attempted. All other things being equal, where the necessary internal commonality is lacking, the attempt to join in external cooperation is contrived, hypocritical, and sinful. On the other hand, where the necessary internal commonality is present, the rejection of participation is also contrived, hypocritical, and sinful.

In order to avoid hypocrisy, we may well have to separate from a brother at one level while participating with him at another. We are going to have to make decisions about fellowship and separation on a case-by-case basis. The level of fellowship will vary. The requirements for fellowship will vary. The potential partners in fellowship will vary. All of these things need to be evaluated in every fellowship decision.

These observations could be qualified in certain ways, but as generalizations I think they hold true. Furthermore, they provide the foundation for a genuinely Fundamentalist theory of separation. They also explain why I do not think that separation (in the sense of complete non-cooperation) from all conservative evangelicals is always necessary at every level, any more than I think that separation from certain kinds of fundamentalists is always necessary at every level.

I am a Baptist, but at some levels I would just as soon work with some Presbyterians as with some Baptists. Indeed, for some things I would rather work with most Presbyterians than with most Baptists.

By the same token, I am a fundamentalist, but at some levels I would just as soon work with some conservative evangelicals than with some fundamentalists. Indeed, for some things I would rather work with many conservative evangelicals than with many fundamentalists.

In both cases the decisions should be made carefully and targeted to the level at which fellowship is intended.

Mike,

I actually agree with you about most of what the FBFI isn't guilty of and most of what they've corrected. I'm not sure it's as clean-cut as you're perceiving it, but perhaps that's because you're in the inside where you can see nuances that I can't. But I am willing to accept your assurances, as much as I'm willing to accept anybody's.

There may be some parallel between MacArthur's initial statements on the blood and on Lordship Salvation. As I understand it, in both cases his words were edited by staff members who may not have represented his view exactly. The difference would be this: his statements on Lordship Salvation appeared in a book that was released by a major publisher, while his statements on the blood appeared in a decade-old church bulletin, long forgotten, that somebody dug up and used against him. And I actually don't think that there was that much lack of clarity in the bulletin.

Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts about using MacArthur's people in the areas where they are most like us. Do I recall that Doran has had Vlach in to talk about dispensationalism? Our administration just had Bill Barrick lecture on young-earth creationism. The program committee of the Minnesota Baptist Association has arranged for Phil Johnson to speak at the annual meeting this year. I'm interested in your perception of these associations. Are they sufficiently careful? Are they giving away too much? Is there some difference between these venues that ought to be taken into account?

This is simply a request for your thinking on these matters. The door between the two camps is open just a crack. What principles should guide us as we consider different levels of participation?

Kevin

Mike,

You're actually bringing up a new topic--legalism. That may be worth exploring on its own. Maybe the Site Administrator would start us a new topic dealing with it.

I think we're in about the same place on MacArthur. It's probably worth noting that at least two of his profs are (or were, last I knew) in a GARBC church. Maybe Kevin could comment on whether that tells us more about MacArthur or about the GARBC--or neither. I do know, however, that in certain areas Barrick is more conservative than many or most fundamentalist scholars. I think that Thomas probably is as well.

On the other hand, I think you may be giving MacArthur too much credit for being Baptistic. Believer immersion is not our only distinctive. Congregational polity is somewhere near the top of the list--and MacArthur definitely doesn't like that. In fact, when it comes to issues of church order, I'd take Dever over MacArthur any day. Which raises a question: who do you think are the best Fundamentalist figures to whom we can point young men for an understanding of New Testament church order or (to use the trendy phrase) healthy churches? I grew up in the Regular Baptist movement, where Robert T. Ketcham and Paul R. Jackson had a pretty good vision of what it meant to be a Baptist. Sadly, they are little known today. Who would you suggest?

Kevin

My week has suddenly been filled up with the passing of a long time church member. The funeral is Friday at 1pm. So lots of extra duties this week. Our dear brother was 91.

just to let you know I'm not running away, just busy.

Kevin Bauder already understands my response here—I just wanted to say it again to answer his question. As an association of churches, the GARBC defines fellowship at a church level. I’m a “member” of the GARBC because I’m a member of a church in fellowship with the GARBC (not because of my current job title).

For outsiders who are not as familiar with this model, it sure makes for some fun ironies. Bill Barrick (a respected OT scholar who teaches at The Master’s Seminary) is an elder at a GARBC church. Paul Plew (a gifted choral conductor and music department chair at The Master’s College) is worship pastor at a GARBC church. Daniel Estes (distinguished professor of OT at Cedarville) is a member of a GARBC church. Michael Wittmer (professor of systematic theology at Grand Rapids Seminary and best-selling Zondervan author) is a member of a GARBC church. Over the years, noted GARBC church members have served at any number of institutions (Radio Bible Class, Back to the Bible, Moody Bible Institute, Grand Rapids School of the Bible and Music, Davis College, the Cleveland Browns). And yes, my use of parenthesis is deliberate here, indicating which relationship we considered to be the most important!

Throw all of these people together in the same room and what do you get? A whole bunch of people who have very similar ideas about what a church should be. Framing the relationship as a logical extension of church fellowship seems brutally simple. It only gets complicated later, when one starts to reflect on the differences among the (parenthetical) organizations.

Yes, other corners of Baptist fundamentalism were organized as a “preacher’s fellowship,” but to be honest, their functional ties came as fellow alumni of regional educational institutions. Because these pastors were unified around a single university, they had trouble understanding movements that were glued together with something other than alumni loyalty.

While some might complain that the GARBC’s “enforcement mechanism” seemed too loose at times, the same was true of the “preacher’s fellowship” model, where a person could retain membership by merely signing a doctrinal statement and paying annual dues. The real power of excommunication came from the Alumni Association!

Now, before the charge is leveled, let me plead guilty ahead of time for offering a badly truncated summary. If all of these groups were on Facebook and had to post their relationship status, they’d be clicking on “It’s Complicated.”

Mike,

Since you're probably not going to say it, I think I'd add First Baptist of Troy, MI to the list of churches that provide good models. Of the churches that you mention, I'm probably best acquainted with Inter-City, and I agree that it provides a good model. Steve Thomas's insight on church discipline is exceptional. From what I know of Endean and Minnick, I would expect their congregations to be exemplary. I don't recall that I know Dave Whitcomb or Community Baptist, but I'll take your word for that ministry as well.

How are these guys trying to communicate Baptist order and polity to younger pastors? I know that Doran deals with it piece-by-piece at his conferences. How are the rest of the guys getting the word out? (I suppose my question was geared more toward the written word, though I didn't make that clear. Both Ketcham and Jackson wrote constantly on aspects of Baptist church order, particularly about Baptist associationalism.)

It seems to me that in the areas where Dever is strongest (i.e., his discussions of church health), he is not saying anything that is not typically practiced by the better churches among us. I think that he would admit he's not saying anything new. I once heard him refer to himself as something like "an ambassador from your grandparents."

On the matter of platform appearances, you've made me curious--you hint that you wouldn't have a Presbyterian in your pulpit. How about a strong, amillennial covenant Baptist like Peter Masters? This is not entirely an academic question. When I was a student at Faith, David Nettleton invited Masters to preach to the college. It raised some eyebrows (and some hackles).

One final question: to what extent do you believe that New Testament polity should be reflected in Baptist organization that extends beyond the church? Kevin Mungons pointed out the difference between associations and preacher's fellowships. There are other models that Baptists have used. Is it possible to make a principled decision about which, if any, is superior?

I'd also like to hear Don's response to these questions when he is able to get back to us.

Kevin

Kevin,

I will try to answer your questions as best I can.  I belong to two fellowships, FBFI and IFBFM.  The FBFI is a fellowship of individual pastors/parishioners and the IFBFM is a fellowship of churches.  IFBFM behaves more consistently with Baptist principles of polity.  All the churches vote on major initiatives each year.  Most of our combined work revolves around the camp.  We also have a Baptist Builders org. that assists  in church planting and a youth org. that helps to organize some statewide youth rallies.  The FBFI is run mostly by the executive committee consisting of the officers.  We also have several other committees on the board which also contribute ideas and policy regarding the Frontline magazine, regional and national meetings, position statements, and the military chaplaincy.  The majority of the power rests in the hands of the elected officers and the full-time president.  We have two board meetings a year for the executive board and cooperative board.  We discuss matters more openly now than in years past.  The FBFI rank and file members virtually have no official voice other than private conversation with officers and board members. To what extent should Baptist polity be practiced by these orgs.?  They are not churches; therefore, I don't expect them to act just like a church in their government.  In the spirit of a democratic consensus, the leaders should not act as if they were imperial kings or backroom politicians where all the key decisions are already made in smoke-filled rooms (visions of the SBC).  My opinion is that the form here is less important than the substance of the leaders themselves.  The best system with poor leaders will fail.  A less than perfect system with a plurality of very good leaders will succeed.

Have we been vocal in our leadership?  I confess that we have not been to the degree that we need to.  People like Dever have filled the void left by us.  Doran has probably done the best job in this area, but his conference is not that well-attended compared to the well-known CE conferences.

Don,

You've asked a couple of questions that probably deserve answers. It's crunch time right now, but I'll try to address them briefly.

First, I agree that not every parachurch organization needs to be structured like a church. Having said that, I think there are specific reasons for preferring some forms of organization to others, especially when an organization exists for generalized fellowship amongst Baptists. I see three main considerations.

First, if an organization says that it is a fellowship, then it ought to be. A fellowship is by definition something that is held in common. Within a fellowship, a fellow has a piece of the action. He or she is part of the decision-making process. Consequently, any organization that really means to exist for the purpose of fellowship ought to be controlled by its constituents (whether they are called members or something else). To "fellowship with" an organization ought to mean to have a voice in its operation.

Second, the New Testament teaches not only the autonomy of the church, but also the centrality of the church. If we really believe that God purposes to do His work primarily in and through churches, then our primary endeavors ought to be answerable to churches. This does not mean that all parachurch organization is wrong--you can find it in the New Testament. It does mean, however, that the larger the scale of a supposed fellowship, the more important it is to make it formally accountable to churches.

Third, the New Testament presents a very strong pattern of churches cooperating with churches. They worked together, cared for each other, and counseled one another. There is a place for individual fellowship(s), but the most important work ought to involve churches helping churches.

In other words, I think that New Testament principles ought to propel us in the direction of associationalism. Preacher's fellowships and other organizations of individuals have a use as long as they are kept in their place, but they cannot replace the dynamic of churches cooperating with churches.

This is certainly a dynamic that has been grasped by some Fundamentalist Baptists. What is now the GARBC first organized with individual membership (1923-1932), but made a principled decision to restructure as a church fellowship. The NTAIBC experienced considerable debate over this question at Beth Eden and the Eagledale, then for a year or two afterward. But it, too, made a principled decision to organize as a church fellowship. I think those were good decisions.

The organization that is now the FBFI made the opposite decision. While it was never a church fellowship, it had been controlled by its members for decades. The control was taken away from the members and placed in the hands of a self-perpetuating board. There were reasons, to be sure. I'm just not convinced that they were good reasons.

The WBF and BBF both reflect the Norris mentality. Power is concentrated in the hands of the pastors, usually in the churches and certainly in the fellowships. The same was true of the churches in the SWBF (which was never much more than a meeting for preaching).

There are several strong state and local associations of Baptist churches. The Hebron Association around Cleveland is a close-knit fellowship. Among Regular Baptists, I know that the Iowa, Mid-Continent, and Il-Mo associations offer good fellowship. From what I've seen the same is true of Wisconsin, though the Regular Baptist fellowship there is smaller than the Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches. Minnesota has a small but vigorous Regular Baptist association as well as the Minnesota Baptist Association--and the two are on better terms than ever.

No mode of extra-church organization is without problems. In church associations, however, those problems have a chance of getting worked out between churches rather than simply between leaders. I don't think it's any accident that the preponderance of cranks and power mongers within Fundamentalism have gravitated toward preacher's fellowships or executive-run organizations.

As for your second question, yes, I have sometimes served on boards. When I was president at Central Seminary I served on the board of the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries. In fact, I was president of the AACCS for two years. I presently serve on the board of the Minnesota Baptist Association (this is an elected position, not an appointment). I'm also on the board of reference for Deo Cantamus (no authority, I just lend them my name). And I serve on the board of Religious Affections Ministries.

I left the presidency of the AACCS because I felt I could not do it justice. Frankly, I don't make a very good board member. If the "trellis and vine" analogy means anything, I'm much more a "vine" kind of person, while a board needs strong "trellis" people. Furthermore, I'm allergic to institutional politics and powerplays. Ideas are worth fighting for, but humanly-invented institutions usually aren't.

Dear Brethren,

I want to thank you for the invitation to join this discussion, and apologize for the length of time it has taken me to actually offer a contribution after agreeing to do so.

Let me say at the outset that both my perspective and my participation may be limited. I do not possess knowledge or experience concerning many of the organizations being referenced. Having come through what I saw described in the thread as the Fundamental Baptist/BJU/Wilds orbit, I do have some familiarity with the major personalities in those circles stemming from the 1970s and 1980s. My adult ministry has been confined to the Free Presbyterian Church. I should also say that I do not speak for every minister or elder in my presbytery. Similar discussions about Conservative Evangelicals currently exist within our own body.

Of the contributors I should say that I know Kevin (having enjoyed several interactions with him over the last decade). I have met Mike (as he mentioned in the thread). My only knowledge of Don has come through reading the thread.

Here is a summary of my understanding of the conversation thus far:

1) There is an underlying given to the situation: Fundamentalism is losing an inordinate amount of young men to the Conservative Evangelical orbit, thus the major question of the Future of Fundamentalism.

2) Kevin has spoken objectively and openly about the problem. His observations have included a willingness to speak publically about the strengths of Conservative Evangelicals in areas where they are doing good work and where some Historic Fundamentalists would be in agreement with their teaching. He has not ignored their problems. He has suggested that Fundamentalism would be better served by confronting its own problems/sins as aggressively as it has been willing to confront the problems/sins of the Evangelicals. He has also defended and engaged in differing levels of fellowship outside of the local church/denominational setting.

3) Don is concerned that Kevin’s outspokenness is contributing to the problem and has asked him to reconsider his methodology. (Defining the specific parts or nature of the outspokenness that Don finds objectionable has occupied a considerable part of the discussion thus far. Kevin wanted to discover the impersonal root principles Don was concerned about).

4) Mike is appreciative of Kevin, and others like him, and believes they are seeking to help Fundamentalism by their methodology even if some Fundamentalists would not necessarily do everything Kevin is doing.

Perhaps I have been overly general. That may characterize my contributions. I’m a big picture guy more than a name and date guy.

My initial observations contain an element that will almost certainly appear partisan and touch areas where I will most likely be in disagreement theologically with all of the other participants, so I must ask for understanding and patience as I contribute. That partisan fact, however, will play a major part in my initial comments. My contribution below will address an element Kevin has touched upon before that is not prominent in the current thread, but I believe it is most relevant to the larger topic of the future of Fundamentalism. I do not introduce what follows in an attempt to draw out debate concerning the doctrines where we may disagree, but nonetheless I believe the fact of these doctrinal disagreements deserves a place at the table in this discussion.

If I could first offer some general categories to the discussion as I see it…I will call them Associational, Attitudinal, and Theological. What I describe as associational matters obviously have the major principle of separation in view.  (Perhaps one crux of the situation is the difficulty of how men who agree on that scriptural principle, as Fundamentalists, may yet disagree on how and where to apply that principle). Offering just one comment in this large category, I would say that we must admit the fact that many young men are willing to move “left” on this principle, at least as it has been taught by the main line Fundamentalism of the recent past, with their eyes open. My observation would be that we cannot categorically criticize these men who are leaving Fundamentalism for doing so in an unprincipled way. Some doubtless may be doing so with a reactionary spirit or with degrees of rebellion on board. But others are doubtless moving “left” more deliberately. There are simply other principles in view that they are using to trump the principle of separation (or perhaps, as they see it, merely the principle of separation as applied by their former leaders).

Secondly, I would suggest that there are attitudinal matters that play a major role in this problem.  Perhaps this has occupied the largest part of the thread thus far. I would probably come down on Kevin’s side of this one. It’s possible to do the right thing in the wrong way and thereby give a bad name to a good principle. (It’s also possible even to do some wrong things and excuse them under the banner of the good principle of separatism, hence many of the problems of Fundamentalism). I have preached often that scripture demands at times that we separate from those who are true Brethren, but we should never enjoy it and never become or even appear to become self-righteous in our exercise of it. In matters of personal actions, demeanor, and integrity, it is entirely possible for Evangelicals, who may err on some principles of separation, to excel beyond some Fundamentalists who rightly maintain the principle of separation. This can even affect the content and depth of their teaching. This certainly does not help the separatist cause. (I remember hearing a Bible Conference speaker during my years at BJU once say that he knew some New Evangelicals that he liked better than some of his Fundamentalist colleagues. That really brought a hush to a large room).  I should also add the observation here that young Fundamentalists who have been put off by attitudinal problems they have observed within Fundamentalism should not entertain the delusion that Evangelical circles are entirely devoid of political maneuverings, personality conflicts, and attitudinal problems of their own. The Flesh does not observe ecclesiastical boundaries.

Thirdly, I would suggest that the discussion to this point has in my opinion omitted an important element—the theological matters that are in play currently. It cannot be overlooked that a common thread linking the most popular Conservative Evangelicals today is the resurgence of Reformed or Calvinistic theology. (This is true even of MacArthur’s “leaky Dispensationalism.” It is certainly true of those he has chosen to openly associate with in more recent years). In the evolution of the Fundamentalist movement, what began as an interdenominational movement in response to Liberalism, thus containing Reformed partisans, came to be dominated by the Dispensational/Baptistic party. Young men growing up in Fundamentalism who became interested in Reformed doctrine were then faced with a dilemma: “I can either be a Fundamentalist or be Reformed.” A century ago this would not have happened. A Reformed presence was gradually pushed outside the American Fundamentalist movement. (I found a happy haven within the originally European Free Presbyterian denomination). While Dispensationalism certainly had a presence within the Evangelical orbit, it was within the Evangelical orbit that the mid-20th century renaissance of Reformed theology began. The late 20th century brought the prominence of some articulate Bible teachers on the radio, along with some significant contributions in written and reprinted form (ala Banner of Truth, etc.), as well as the burgeoning internet media, thus allowing this renaissance to spread further as some Fundamentalists began to explore this newly rediscovered world safely and quietly. Some have entered that new world without sounding bells or whistles and remain within their Fundamentalist habitat, but many were convinced enough to make an open move theologically that was frowned upon by the majority of Fundamentalists, but they were so persuaded of the Reformed system (or some version thereof), that they were willing to break with former ties in order to fully embrace it. Other things, and some things that even as a Reformed minister I would disagree upon (i.e. music and some lifestyle choices), they came to see as secondary to their newfound theological views. Since Fundamentalism, as it had evolved, provided no apparent channel for the expression of their views they have chosen to move outside the camp even if it meant picking up new (or different) baggage. Sadly, (and it took me some time to actually be persuaded of this), some Fundamentalist leaders have been so antagonistic to any form of Calvinism, they have been happy enough to see these men leave the movement. I do not think this theological reality can be ignored as a significant factor in the current decline of Fundamentalism. Until Fundamentalism can genuinely welcome and allow the expression of views other than the Dispensational/Baptistic variety, I think the exodus will continue. Any future for separatism must include this as part of the discussion.

I apologize for the length and perhaps the uncomfortable nature of my initial comments, but as the thread has already displayed, hard times call for hard discussions. May they be pursued with charity and grace.

---Reggie Kimbro

Mike,

Good to hear from you again too. And the answer to both questions is yes. I’m a full time minister at my church and teach as an adjunct at Geneva Reformed Seminary (usually one 2-3 week module a year).

I may get back to you on the issue of hermeneutics you mention, but for now I would like to ask Kevin to weigh in on his understanding of Machen’s relationship to Fundamentalism in its current expressions. Also, I wonder if the OPC/BP split by McIntire may have had an impact on the willingness of American Presbyterians to identify with Fundamentalism. (The gulf I point out between Fundamentalism and the Reformed faith may have included more of a mutual agreement to part ways than I indicate in my last post. I wonder if some ‘attitudinal’ issues might have been in play at the time).

I do not deny your observation that the tension between Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic theologies exists in other circles besides Fundamentalism. There has been a recent push back against resurgent Calvinism in the SBC. My point is that modern Fundamentalists, largely, have not been willing to allow a similar presence in their movement, thus those with openly Reformed convictions usually must look elsewhere for ecclesiastical identity. (Unless they want to look at Free Presbyterianism)! This is also largely true of those who identify with Baptistic Calvinism (in its full “5-Point”) expression but who do not prefer the title “Reformed,” and even those who take the title “Reformed Baptists.” They usually see themselves moving outside of Fundamentalism.

Fair enough. 

I'll see if we can arrange getting one to you.

I think you would change the entire idea of the organization, without a doubt. I think that the organization has a reason to exist as is, but that reason would disappear by making changes like this. Organizations of this kind are already available (example: GARBC). For those who wish to participate in such organizations, there are plenty of them around. I don't see a need for duplication.

I should note that I am expressing my own opinion here, I do NOT speak for the FBFI.

Beyond my statement in the paragraph above, however, I am not sure what else to say. I don't plan to say anything further on those questions at the moment.

I agree on the last sentence for sure.

Interesting comment in the first paragraph - We all only have so  much time and energy to invest in the cause of Christ. We have to decide where best to invest it.

Last, in this thread, at this point we seem to be meandering around a bit. Hopefully we can get things together in a new discussion that will regain a focus (for a while, at least) and be profitable to those who read.