An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum

As far as movements and ‘abandoning Fundamentalism’ goes- what is a family supposed to do when all the IFB churches in their area are dysfunctional in some way, or fail to engage with the text and context in their preaching and teaching? Then when that family visits other churches as a last ditch effort to find a local congregation, they find a couple of CE and Reformed churches who take very seriously the gospel, sound doctrine, the fruits of the Spirit as a measure of holy conduct (instead of the usual- pants and movies), and govern their church Biblically? Oh but wait- they are Calvinistic. That is supposed to be the kiss of death, when local IFB preachers are under indictment for sexual crimes, their wives and children are involved in immorality, their trustees and deacons are unethical, and they send out evangelists that have serious legal/criminal issues?

You’ve GOT to be kidding me.

This isn’t just an issue for the big names who go to conferences and publish books and have popular blogs. This is a problem for moms and dads and young people who want to be able to worship in a relatively healthy church that loves and abides by the Word.

Some of us haven’t moved away from Fundamentalism- Fundamentalism left us. The measuring stick should never have become about movements and labels and camps, but a fidelity to Scripture.

I appreciate Dr. Bauder’s approach because it serves as a good example to Joe Sixpack (of Coca-Cola, of course) and Suzy Homemaker in how to handle those tensions and struggles with Biblical interpretation and application we have to face daily, as well as how to deal with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Agreed!

I am a regular reader of sharper iron who doesn’t log in and post, but I feel compelled to comment on this topic because I am one of the young fundamentalist that has been affected by Dr. Bauder and Dr. Dorn. I am 31 years old and the pastor of a small church (about 140-150 Sunday morning attendance), in which I also grew up, that is a member of the GARBC and has a fundamentalist background. We are located about an hour from Cedarville University and a significant portion of our church members have graduated from Cedarville, so as Cedarville has become more broadly evangelical our church was influenced in that direction. I personally have an undergraduate degree from Cedarville and a master’s degree from Liberty. I say all that just explain how I am very much a young church leader who grew up out of a fundamentalist background and was advancing fully into conservative evangelicalism.

The one thing that stopped my progress in that direction was the discovery of the ministries of men like Dr. Bauder through his articles on here and Dr. Doran through his messages on sermon audio. Listening to and reading these men was honestly the first time I saw that the choice wasn’t between going all in with the T4G crowed or going all in with the Pensacola, HAC, KJV only, easy believism, anti-Calvinistic crowed. When the choices are between those two groups it is a no-brainer to with the conservative evangelicals. When I encountered Dr. Bauder and Dr. Doran I realized that those where not that only two choices, but there was a third option, a fundamentalism worth saving. That there are fundamentalist who are sound expository preachers, who are Calvinistic, who are thoughtful about translation issues, and though they point out disagreements they don’t treat godly men like MacArthur and even John Piper as the enemy.

Five years ago when I became a senior pastor I would have identified myself as conservative evangelical and rejected the label of fundamentalist. Now I describe myself as being on the boarder of conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism, right between John MacArthur and Mark Dever on one side and Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder and the like on the other side and my current movement is more toward fundamentalist side.

Brandon

I had to laugh at that one. You know, we Canadians just don’t get the American fascination. That’s not to say there aren’t gun owners and users here, but most of us don’t possess them. I think I might have shot a firearm maybe twice in my life. Can’t recall any more than that.

But I digress. I will work on a reply… copied out your original article, my first set of questions and your replies. At 10 pt Arial single spaced it works out to 6.5 pages so far. But first I am preparing a Bible study on Isa 32 for tonight. Will get back to you later on all that, and it sounds like you have at least one more reply coming my way so I may wait till that arrives before starting another round (if you have time for more).

A few months ago, I attended my first annual conference of the ACCC (American Council of Christian Churches). Registered delegates included Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible Churches, and I don’t know what else. I found Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Calvinism, Arminianism, Pre-mill, A-mill, etc., represented. But all were united in the defense of the historic Christian faith, and all enjoyed wonderful Christian fellowship together. Nobody denounced anyone because of the differences listed above. There was an implicit understanding that Fundamentalism has always embraced these variations. This is what the Fundamentalist movement was like in the early years. What happened?

[G. N. Barkman]

A few months ago, I attended my first annual conference of the ACCC (American Council of Christian Churches). Registered delegates included Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible Churches, and I don’t know what else. I found Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Calvinism, Arminianism, Pre-mill, A-mill, etc., represented. But all were united in the defense of the historic Christian faith, and all enjoyed wonderful Christian fellowship together. Nobody denounced anyone because of the differences listed above. There was an implicit understanding that Fundamentalism has always embraced these variations. This is what the Fundamentalist movement was like in the early years. What happened?

• The ACCC is a great organization. Under-appreciated! And for younger fundamentalists, under their radar. Ralph Colas is a fine man and tirelessly laboring in his Senior years
• ACCC website: http://www.amcouncilcc.org/
• Check out the ACCC doctrinal statement … compare with Sharper Iron’s … interesting

About what happened:

• Egos
• Personalities
• Machiavellian politics
• Stupidity

Thank you for the prompt about the ACCC. I had forgotten about them. I think you’re right when you say that they are not on the radar of the younger generation.

It’s a great group. The only problem I found was that their fellowship philosophy was not passed on to the local level in some of their churches. For instance, one church that hosted an ACCC meeting and has had brother Colas preach for them is very anti-calvinistic. Another church that is represented is strongly opposed to anything that is not Calvinistic while also being intolerant of fundamentalists who aren’t Baptists.

“When we all get to heaven!”

I know this sounds cyncial…but who in the world is Lance Ketchum and why does his opinion warrant so much of Dr. Bauder’s explaining himself?

As sort of an outsider, he just seems to be a guy with a real outdated website.

I’ve really appreciated the various responses to Don by Kevin. I would only add a little “addendum” from the shadows of the cacti.

In Kevin’s 5th response to Don - he gives a hypothesis that there are two types of fundamentalists who “converse” with evangelicals:

1. Those who at heart are drawn closer to the evangelical world because they enjoy it as a whole.

2. Those who believe fundamentalism is a great idea that the evangelical world needs.

I would only add one more kind of fundamentalist who would converse with evangelicals

3. Those who find the occasional evangelical brother who believes and loves the exact same kinds of things he believes and so the occasional contact sparks a deep love/relationship or at least a real appreciation for each other.

(I can imagine that in some scenario’s this kind of “conversation” or “relationship” is not sourced in a fascination with the evangelical world at large nor an attempt to convince the evangelical brother of the merits of fundamentalism [as an idea or movement] ). It simply is an organic relationship energized by the Holy Spirit.

A quick thought - for whatever it’s worth.

Straight Ahead!

jt

who in the world is Lance Ketchum and why does his opinion warrant so much of Dr. Bauder’s explaining himself?

Bauder will need to speak to this himself but here’s my hypothesis:

• Lance is somebody. He was a leader in the Minnesota Baptist Association and was the state missionary / representative for a number of years
• That being said you have a “disturbance in the force” in the MBA with his writing about Bauder and Central Seminary
• Additionally Lance’s blog quotes have been picked up maliciously by another (with a wider influence than Lance) to attack Bauder / Central Seminary

Just a couple of corrections and more info:

Lance Ketchum has had a lengthy career in the ministry. He is currently pastor of Shepherd’s Fold Baptist Church in Hutchinson, MN http://www.shepherdsfoldbc.org/.

He was formerly state missionary for the MBA friom 2001-2007. He has been active in evangelism and writing ministries. He maintains a blog at http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/. He is also Executive Committee Chairman of Midwest Independent Baptist Pastor’s Fellowship (MIBPF) (http://mibaptistpastorsfellowship.blogspot.com/). I do not claim to speak for his ministry (though I am still one of his Facebook friends! :) ), but would encourage you to look at his own statements and evaluate them for yourselves.

Thanks Steve,

Lance’s article critical of Bauder is reproduced there:

http://mibaptistpastorsfellowship.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-subtlety-of-…

(Bauder and Central named)

And the Calvinism is heresy quote is reproduced in the 1/28/13 post

Calvinism’s corruption of the doctrine of election and their heresy of Irresistible Grace (Monergism) are radical departures from the teaching of the Word of God and are therefore a corruption of what defines a biblical response to the Gospel. Yet, almost all those promoting Gospel Centrism are Calvinists.

The officers:

http://mibaptistpastorsfellowship.blogspot.com/p/officers.html

With full biographies here:

http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2012/07/annual-preaching-conference…

I wonder if MIBPF is pronounceable: MIB-Piff …. or MI-Bpiff

I find it amazing that this “Dr” Lance could be so far off in his description of MacArthur. I know what some of you are thinking. John MacArthur keeps his views a secret. He doesn’t publish any books, commentaries, or even a study Bible to know what he thinks about texts. You can’t find any of his sermons online. Youtube has even failed to have any of his clips that would be helpful.

No doubt the description was there as red meat to a hopelessly ill-informed mass. It is even more sad that such nonsense is then repeated over again by a more fringe, lounie, and desperate element equally devoid of understanding.

In reality, the younger generation has access to information that cannot be controlled by these “pastors” who think it their job to lord over rather than lead. These “pastors” or rather “butchers” of the sheep are presiding over their own downfall. Who is this “Dr” going to convince about MacArthur who has access to the internet? Those already in line for the slaughter.

I hope this “Dr” continues his work. Those who repeat the nonsense are helping to hasten their own loss of power, the real issue in all this. Look at how desperate they cling to what they are losing. I hope this “Dr” tightens his grip and produces more of this tragedy-comedy.

Does anyone have audio from the Lansdale conference referenced in this thread? I’m especially interested in the 2 panels. Links to those files that I’ve found online (pointing to http://www.advancingthechurch.org/) seem to be out of date.

Kevin,

As I read over your replies, it seems that my list of questions and your answers revolve really around two questions:

1. Should fundamentalists try to engage conservative evangelicals in public fora?
2. Should fundamentalists who engage in such meetings be concerned about the negative influence they might have on the erstwhile fundamentalism of “young fundamentalists”?

A corollary to the second question might be: “Are the actions of avowed fundamentalist leaders contributing to the loss of young men from the ranks of fundamentalism?”

To the first question, you are saying that in order to defend Biblical Christianity you will go “anywhere.”

[Kevin T. Bauder] So, to put it bluntly, I am happy to go anywhere, any time to defend biblical Christianity (including Fundamentalism) for anyone. (from post 46)

By anywhere, any time, would you go to the Mormon Tabernacle like Richard Mouw and Ravi Zacharias did? I realize that Mouw, especially, didn’t appear to be defending Christianity, but… are you seriously saying “anywhere, anytime”?

To the second question and its corollary, you seem to be saying that the risk of negatively influencing young men is worth the potential benefit of participating in these meetings. And, you say:

[Kevin T. Bauder] At the end of the day, for every young man who uses me as his excuse to leave Fundamentalism, ten more find encouragement to stay and to try to build a Fundamentalism worth saving. (post 46)

I suppose the ability to quantify the ratio of men you influence to stay as opposed to excusing leaving is really as difficult to quantify as the actual impact your meetings have on the conservative evangelicals you are interacting with. Perhaps we should mark this observation down to hyperbole?

But let’s get back to the purpose of engaging in these meetings:

[Kevin T. Bauder] Public interchanges are one of the best ways of placing one’s beliefs on display and holding them up for inspection.(post 63)

I can’t comment on all of your interactions in various venues, but I would like to comment on the Lansdale conference. I didn’t attend, but I listened to all the audio that was made available - as I recall, I listened to a lot of it on the way to a regional FBFI meeting. I agree with you that Mark Dever is a very gifted man and has made significant contributions towards a contemporary understanding of Baptist polity.

I don’t recall everything that was said, so what I am offering you is two or three year old impressions. I recall your challenging Dever on the notion of elders as a requirement and also to some extent on the liberalism still existing in SBC colleges at the state level. He vigorously defended the SBC as having rooted out liberalism (or words to that effect) and being completely clear of it. In listening to it, it seemed that a challenge was made about the state level problems, but that Dever was allowed to sweep them away as irrelevant.

My recollection of that may be faulty - but I don’t recall much more vigorous probing of Dever than those two areas. Given that you are unlikely to have a similar opportunity, though, I have to say that I wondered about the wisdom of spending time on the elders issue. It really is a side issue and not a core doctrine, correct? His position is fairly well known and he is unlikely to change it. Why not more probing on his ongoing connections with Mark Driscoll? At the time, Dever’s involvement with Driscoll’s Acts 29 network was a flourishing thing. He does seem to have backed away from it since the Elephant Room debacle, but that happened after your meeting with him.

(Actually, as I am working on this, I found transcripts of some of the sessions, helpfully published by Kevin Mungons. Readers can access them here and here. Kevin reports on the meeting here.)

Further, I wonder if these kinds of meetings are truly helpful at identifying differences sharply. The atmosphere seems much more collegial than ‘sharpening’ - in other words, both “sides” have an opportunity in a friendly atmosphere to let others see, “Hey, none of us are so bad after all.”

That is not to say that I think we should paint Dever (for example) with a black, black brush. He is far from being a false teacher, but he has many associations that make it very difficult for fundamentalists to cooperate with him in Gospel ministry, though I think we can wish him well in his preaching of the Gospel.

I’d also like to address the influence you have on the young men before I close. In post 46, you said:

[Kevin T. Bauder] If a young man is simply looking for an excuse to abandon the Fundamentalist structures in which he was reared, then I can foresee that he will use my words and deeds as part of his excuse to do so.

It is true that such is unavoidable, even if all one is doing is positively proclaiming the fundamentalist position in an environment where a conservative evangelical also has the floor and is able to articulate his positions as well. I concede that there might be some circumstances that would warrant taking the risk of moving the disgruntled to exit stage left.

But I think there is more to the problem that other fundamentalists see with respect to your words in these matters. We do need to be self-critical. It is true that a lot of foolish things have been said and done by fundamentalists in the past. Likely more of the same will come in the future. (And there are foolish evangelicals as well, but I digress…) However, it seems that even in this discussion on SI, you go beyond being merely self-critical of fundamentalism in some of your comments about other fundamentalists. I would point out that these same fundamentalists have in the past given you a platform and encouraged you to participate in their endeavors, but still, you will say things like the following:

[Kevin T. Bauder] One of the problems that we face in Baptist Fundamentalism is the high proportion of ministers who have been trained either in interdenominational or in imperialist institutions (or in both at the same time), and who consequently lack a real grasp of New Testament ecclesiology and church order. (post 36)

I think we know which school you mean. Surely more charitable words could have been used in the description. How do you think the disgruntled react to “imperialist”?

Or this one:

[Kevin T. Bauder] No, I think that young men are leaving more because of what they perceive in Fundamentalism itself, and their perceptions are only enhanced by the fulminations of the periergouzomenōn. (post 46)

What kind of people “fulminate”? It isn’t a good sounding word.

[Kevin T. Bauder] On the other hand, they heard a couple of rants and a panel discussion in which several speakers demonstrated that they had virtually no idea of what worldliness was. When one of these young pastors approached a muckety-muck FBFI official with questions about this discrepancy, he was simply told that it was none of his business. (post 57)

This would be referring to the FBFI meeting in Schaumburg, where you also spoke. Unless I mis-remember, Dr. Vaughn had at one point asked you to participate more actively in the FBFI, isn’t that right? But you chose not to be involved for whatever reason, and of course, that’s totally up to you. But… do you have as much interest in helping the “muckety-mucks” come to a clearer understanding of fundamentalism as you do in engaging the leaders of conservative evangelicalism on the same points? How do terms like “muckety-muck” help you influence misguided FBFI men? You are encouraged by some of the men in the FBFI whom you named, yet you are willing to refer to their cohorts in this way? Will that kind of talk further their efforts within the FBFI?

And back to the younger guys… isn’t that just like red meat to them? Doesn’t it lend itself to confirming their prejudices against fundamentalism in general?

[Kevin T. Bauder] That episode was followed by Rick Arrowood’s refusal (based, I believe, on bad information and false perceptions) to allow Central Seminary space for a display at the FBFI conference. He was within his rights as a pastor to decide who could appear in his church—no problem there. But what happens to the second F in FBFI when this sort of thing occurs? That one decision probably did more to blacken the name of the FBFI than almost anything that has occurred in the past decade. Is it any surprise that I cannot persuade Minnesota pastors to take any interest in the FBFI? (post 57)

Brother, you say here that you believe bro. Arrowood was within his rights as a local church pastor to decide who could and who could not have a display in his church. If you believe this, why are you bringing it up? If local churches have autonomy, the matter should be left there, correct? Would anyone outside of those asking for the display and those refusing have known about it if you (or others from Central Seminary) hadn’t publicized it? How does the publication of this story influence the younger observers? Should we be promoting and publicizing discord when it is “within his rights” to make the decision?

Last quotation:

[Kevin T. Bauder] The fact is that every time some blogger hammers Doran or Jordan, every time some preacher rails against them in a sermon, or every time some fellowship passes a resolution against them, these objectors convince another contingent of young leaders that Fundamentalism isn’t worth wasting time on. I’m not talking here about those who raise reasonable questions, as yours have been to me.

I hope that I am not hammering you this time. I have done so in the past. I hope that I have learned better how to express myself when I disagree with others. I have tried to be careful to keep pejoratives out of this discussion.

I recognize that the blogosphere is full of ranting and raving. There are rants from every side of every issue. And I can see how some young fellows can be turned off by over the top ranting. On the other hand, many will accuse a preacher of ranting when he is simply calling for loyalty to Christ and refusing to compromise with error. That is what they did to those fundamentalists who refused to cooperate with Billy Graham, as you will recall.

I know that this post is personal - but I will point out that I am only responding to what you have said. I am glad to be a part of the FBFI and happy to be known as a Baptist Fundamentalist. I wish that you would be willing to vigorously promote that cause, but I have seen things from your pen that tend to be otherwise. I wish that would change.

Don,

From my perspective as an observer of the blogosphere, there is a serious credibility issue here. In your last post you spend a good bit of time taking Kevin to task for using words like “fulminate”. And yet, in very recent days you publicly called other believers “part of the apostasy” because a guy with Beethoven hair (or for that matter, John Wesley or George Whitefield hair - without the curls, of course ;)) sings songs about Jesus accompanied by piano, acoustic guitar, cello, and light percussion. How does that help the overall conversation?

… why are you bringing [ithis inter-FBFI conflict] up? If local churches have autonomy, the matter should be left there, correct? Would anyone outside of those asking for the display and those refusing have known about it if you (or others from Central Seminary) hadn’t publicized it? How does the publication of this story influence the younger observers?

This is a really fascinating point of intersection between the local bodies (which are de facto affiliated with FBFI by virtue of one or more of their leadership being members) and the FBFI itself. The local body did not take the action. The leadership did. The leadership was perhaps under no real obligation to get advice or consent from the congregation because most (perhaps hardly any) of that body are not members of the FBFI, although the fellowship was taking place at the body’s facility. And, obviously, local shepherds must make decisions (even unilateral ones sometimes) to keep dangerous persons from influencing their flock and this pastor made what he felt was such a call. But on the flip side, that local pastor, by virtue of his membership in the FBFI is in direct affiliation with said dangerous person. What is the local body (or members of other FBFI affiliated local bodies who happen to hear about such goings on) to make of that?

I am glad to be a part of the FBFI and happy to be known as a Baptist Fundamentalist. I wish that you would be willing to vigorously promote that cause …

For those not convinced that fundamentalism itself “is the presentation, in Word and deed, of the life changing grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ. Period, end of story,” (as I once read in a conversation in which both you and I participated) the importance being placed here on a lesser cause as essential to the Great Cause may seem odd.

This comment by Don is revealing to me:

He is far from being a false teacher, but he has many associations that make it very difficult for fundamentalists to cooperate with him in Gospel ministry, though I think we can wish him well in his preaching of the Gospel.

I’m sure Mark Dever would appreciate knowing that he is far from being a false teacher.

The rest of your quote, in my opinion, strikes at the heart of problem with modern, “cultural” fundamentalism. It is a misuse and misunderstanding of biblical separation. Many fundamentalists, again in my opinion, separate over every distinction without qualification. Must we “separate” over modes of baptism? Really? Eschatological differences? Continuationism? Styles of Music and Dress? Translations Used?

And by separation, I don’t mean that there aren’t levels of fellowship that might be more awkward than others. But could I have C.J. Mahaney preach in my church and still be a fundamentalist? Even though we have a disagreement over the sign gifts? Can’t I give instruction to a brother like that to not preach on that subject and still have fellowship and still learn from him and still encourage my people to read his books on Humility and the Cross and Worldliness? Can’t I invite a faithful PCA brother to teach on prayer to my congregation without being labeled a “compromiser” or worse? Even though we have significant disagreement on infant baptism and covenant theology?

I totally “get” that there is more than simply the basic gospel message that affects our fellowship with others. But why can’t we affirm something like Mohler’s “Theological Triage” and not have to “separate” over every little thing? Or is it the case that to all fundamentalists, all areas of difference in subjects like the timing of the return of Christ and modes of baptism and spiritual gifts must rise to the level of essential doctrine? Isn’t there room for charitable disagreement in some of these areas, especially when all concerned are committed to the faithful exposition of scripture? Aren’t there more important things to separate over and false teachers to call out and name, than some of these conservative evangelical brothers? By the way, these brothers, from my experience, exercise church discipline and biblical separation just as regularly as we do, if not more so.

I don’t know this to be absolutely true in all cases, but it seems to me that most of the “resolutions” passed by fundamentalist associations have their bullseyes right on faithful men like we’re discussing. When is the last time that the FBFI or other association passed a resolution against Joel Osteen or the Health and Wealth Gospel promoters or the “I Went to Heaven and Came Back” proponents or the Muslim or Catholic faiths or the New Atheists or the like? We’re shooting at our own family, in my opinion, rather than those who are REALLY attacking the faith. I like what happened at Lansdale. I hope it happens more often, all over fundamentalism. We don’t need to fortify trenches against these guys. They are our brothers.

Okay, my rant’s over.

Why am I getting a ‘if you are not a Fundamentalist Baptist by our definition, you are not serving the Lord in deed and truth’ vibe?

I seriously do not see the problem with acknowledging that others, who view some matters of faith and practice differently, DO love the Lord and are serving Him to the best of their ability and in good conscience?

If they are doing something different that one believes is heresy or borders on heresy, (for instance, I think Driscoll left Earth a loooong time ago) then let’s verify that they are, indeed, engaged in such practices or false doctrine, and examine such under the light of Scripture, and take steps of correction and restoration.

The problem that comes up again and again (from my 40 years of immersion in a couple of camps in IFBism) is the name-calling and tossing around of accusations, as if the pulpit somehow releases those who stand behind it from being accountable for bearing false witness, railing, gossip, and extortion. Or “calling for loyalty to Christ and refusing to compromise with error” with Scriptural support and in a spirit of meekness. As James K and Mark Mincy point out, this damages credibility.

There also seems to be a ‘2 strikes and you’re out’ policy, based on Titus 3:10. Somehow I don’t think that verse means what people want to think it means…

Of course, in IFBism, the laity are not allowed to question the credibility of their ‘leaders’. It’s all ‘sit down and shut up and do what you’re told’. And saints preserve us if you are a woman and you ask even a simple question. Outright hysteria ensues, usually involving words like ‘heifer’ and questions like “Don’t you have some dishes to do?”

All these calls to accountability, and the bottom line is, no one exercises accountability, they just talk about it. A lot. It’s the Clintonization of Christianity.

[Brian McCrorie]

…

The rest of [Don Johnson’s] quote, in my opinion, strikes at the heart of problem with modern, “cultural” fundamentalism. It is a misuse and misunderstanding of biblical separation. Many fundamentalists, again in my opinion, separate over every distinction without qualification. Must we “separate” over modes of baptism? Really? Eschatological differences? Continuationism? Styles of Music and Dress? Translations Used?

And by separation, I don’t mean that there aren’t levels of fellowship that might be more awkward than others. But could I have C.J. Mahaney preach in my church and still be a fundamentalist? Even though we have a disagreement over the sign gifts? Can’t I give instruction to a brother like that to not preach on that subject and still have fellowship and still learn from him and still encourage my people to read his books on Humility and the Cross and Worldliness? Can’t I invite a faithful PCA brother to teach on prayer to my congregation without being labeled a “compromiser” or worse? Even though we have significant disagreement on infant baptism and covenant theology?

…. I like what happened at Lansdale. I hope it happens more often, all over fundamentalism. We don’t need to fortify trenches against these guys. They are our brothers.

Okay, my rant’s over.

Brian:

Thanks for your rant and for injecting sanity into the conversation (aliong with others I hasten to add). In answer to your questions about separation the answer has been “yes” in Fundamentalism as long as I’ve been around. These are not issues I would separate over and for that reason, among others, I would not consider myself or be considered a fundamentalist. In answer to your question about fellowship answer has been “no.” I would gladly have Dever, Jordan, Mohler, Doran, Piper, Bauder, Carson, Olson, etc. in our church (none have been here and are not scheduled :-) ) because I don’t care if they are called conservative evangelical or fundamentalist. Those categories are part of the problem and there is an artificiality and flexibility about them to be bent however one wants to define them, especially those claiming the high ground for limited or distorted perspective on fundamentalism. I would ask if these men are faithful men of God approved by Him and given to the church as gifts holding to sound doctrine in what has constituted biblical Christianity throughout the ages. Of course I know there are those who are as sure of the details of the future, what Bible God blesses, and what music honors God as they are about everything related to the fundamentals of the faith and the gospel and are ready to separate over their correctness. Fine. Let them claim whatever mantle they want.

However I do think many of the critics of the oft-cited quadrumvirate (Bauder, Doran, Jordan, Olson) are partly right in their assessment although mostly wrong in their stance, attitude, and obsession with correcting others. I agree with the direction of the aforementioned men. But apart from early, historic, interdenominational fundamentalism, their direction is a departure from what the present generation has known (at least back to the 40 years I’ve been around fundamentalism). That’s a good thing but it is not fundamentalism as most have known it. I think they are walking a tightrope. I personally don’t think there is a fundamentalism worth saving. It had its day. What has value is the defense of the faith, the pursuit of both biblical unity and biblical separation, the urgency to preach Christ crucified, and the minding of one’s business in certain matters in being less concerned about how and with whom someone in another vineyard labors. He has his master and his day of reckoning. Much human judgment parading as wisdom reminds the world that many Christians are needlessly divisive and focused on issues that have little value in the grand scheme of God’s plan of redemption. And I must add that at times in my ministry I’ve been as guilty as anyone. I’m still in repentance and recovery.

Steve Davis

I’ve been sitting here with a bowl of popcorn watching this thread and truly enjoying and appreciating Dr. Bauder’s responses and wishing only that Joel Tetreau would fire up a bonfire and bring over some marshmallows. I truly hadn’t intended to jump in the fray (for a change.)

But as one of those who is likely viewed by many “Fundamentalists” as a new-evangelical and is viewed by ALL of my evangelical friends as “fundamentalist” and who in honesty is probably most comfortable sitting on the immediate left of Joel Tetreau when he is using his “A”, “B” and “C” categories, (And whom, I would note is —at least at the moment — Facebook friends with Lance.) I would say that — and I realize that this is purely anecdotal — it is men like Kevin Bauder who have kept me as closely aligned to fundamentalism as I currently am. Conversely, it is EXACTLY, those who (and I shall name no names here) vocally and continually raise their “purity” and “separation” and other controlling issues to try to keep the independent thinkers on the plantation replete with their innuendo, threats, gracelessness and no small amount of peer and institutional intimidation that have been no small part of my motivation to want to distance myself with at least the reputation of fundamentalism, if not the core doctrines. In the circles in which I have been called to minister over the last 30 years, a failure to engage and interact and debate and challenge and argue with and listen to those who were not of my particular stripe would have largely ended my credibility with and consequentially my ministry to them.

Thank you, Kevin, for interacting with a wide array of learners, scholars and skeptics. You have kept many of us engaged positionally with fundamentalism when dispositionally, we were heading for the exits.

Amen to what has been said by Dan, Susan, Brian, Steve and others of you.

Maybe we should pass our own resolution here at SI - encouraging fundamentalist to leave associations bent on passing resolutions against dear brothers who are committed to the gospel and who are militant, even though they may not be as “isolated” as some of our own Baptist fellowships tend to be.

I’ll be happy to write said resolution.

Of course it will do nothing but tick off the Type A’s but it would be good for those guys to taste a little of their own medicine! (Actually this would probably be a waist of time)

Hey, I keep asking this question - why not do a poll here at SI on this? We could put up like 3 or 4 views of “what is the right relationship between careful fundamentalism and militant evangelicalism.” You could have Don write up his view, then come up with two or three other approaches. I think it would be telling. I’m thinking you could at least come up with 3 views (and I know there are more than these).

Type A+ (these evangelicals probably aren’t even saved because they didn’t come to faith with the KJV - the only time we are with them is to witness to them)

Type A (these evangelicals are disobedient because they are not us - therefore we should not be with them - the only time we are with them is when we are scolding them - or scolding fundamentalists who are with them - which means those fundamentalists probably aren’t even fundamentalists - they are newevangelicals!)

Type B/C (conservative evangelicals who are militant are essentially “us” - even though they might be in a group we are not in - when we are together we enjoy sweet fellowship)

A few thoughts - from the chilly shadows of winter cacti

Straight Ahead!

jt

[JVDM]

Alex - I’ve read through your post (#80) several times and I believe I speak for most of us here: hunh? Too many wayward punctuation and quotation marks, and too many qualifiers and weaslers for most of what you said to register any meaning for me. I don’t mean any disrespect. It sounds like you are trying to say something interesting, it just isn’t coming through.

So glad it wasn’t just me!

Alex- could you reiterate please? ‘Cause you lost me at the second line. I don’t want to respond to something you didn’t actually say.

[JVDM]

Alex - I’ve read through your post (#80) several times and I believe I speak for most of us here: hunh? Too many wayward punctuation and quotation marks, and too many qualifiers and weaslers for most of what you said to register any meaning for me. I don’t mean any disrespect. It sounds like you are trying to say something interesting, it just isn’t coming through.

My questions for Dr Bauder

Preface: You are often taken to task by critics that your position is different than your predecessor at Central - Ernest Pickering (as exemplified in BIBLICAL SEPARATION: THE STRUGGLE FOR A PURE CHURCH)

Questions:

• Is Pickering’s book still used as a textbook at Central?
• How closely / divergent is your position on separation to Pickering’s?
• Leap: If Pickering were alive how would he evaluate your position?

Thanks

So Kevin - two points:

1) Really you are so unique you warrant your own personal classification. You really don’t fit clearly into one category in my taxonomy which is both fun and highly irritating all at the same time! :) (Bauder = Type Z fundamentalism!)

2) I’ve kind of feared you’re very close to the”Type A” in the “Tetreau scale” (not that that matters at all to dear folk “out there”). I had you pegged in as an A- until Lansdale. That whole episode brought you into the “Aug-ust” gathering of Type B! (or B+ at least in my mind). But alas - if you must stay with the A guys, I’m happy for the influence you will continue to leverage……espcially with guys like Don. It’s good - but do you really want to hand over a weapon to someone from Canada? I mean would he even know how to use it? (Just kidding Don - I’m sure you could handle a weapon!)

Straight Ahead!

jt

Kevin,

My personal thanks to you for taking a substantial amount of time to help men navigate the theological waters.

Alex (again), I presume that you recognize the tu quoque fallacy when you see it. It is, among other things, a common resort of bullies when they are challenged. They think that if it’s wrong for them to use force (to bully people), then it’s wrong to use force to stop them. Well, for the record I don’t think it’s wrong to stand up to bullies. C. S. Lewis wrote somewhere about people who scratch like cats, but bleed at a touch. It seems to me that some Fundamentalist champions fit that description with astonishing exactness. They call out their opponents in the most brutal terms, leveling accusations filled with gratuitous insults, half-truths and innuendos, but when anybody mentions that they are bullies (or uses other equally accurate descriptions), they immediately begin to squeal out protests about name-calling. It’s kind of like the wife-beater who charges the arresting officer with police brutality. Don’t expect this argument to get much sympathy from me. Or from anyone else who has watched the periergouzamenous.

I concur strongly and hope you do understand my reference to the real acts of ecclesiastical and personal bullying by past or present Fundamentalists, particularly IFB, is something I not only acknowledge but believe should be challenged with equal or greater force. I do agree that there are those who “bleed at a touch” and easily concede there are IFB who have a record of having modeled this kind of dysfunctional ministry and it behooves everyone who might be involved as a Fundamentalists to point out not only the men but their specific errors and submit corrections while acknowledging where they were correct. And in some cases, disqualifying ministries completely as a source, even with qualifications, such as Jack Hyles. I understand such things are not judgments upon men regarding their standing before God or their heart which only God knows but their work toward the church which is to be vetted. I cheer you on in this.

My hope in bringing those things up was not that their identification, both the person and their poor models not be named (the Fundamentalists) with a robust rebuke and then correction or remedy offered seeing that such did and do bring havoc and injury to our brothers and sisters. But, as I said, if one is going to use part of their time with such things I hope to see an equal effort (not by you, personally, necessarily but by any Fundamentalist who identifies with your approach and general view) in dealing with men and ministries that do not identify as Fundamentalists but touch and interact with them enough that where they are in error such things be treated with the seriousness they need as they do great damage themselves.

Alex, about the only thing I can suggest is that you read Hegel and his responsible interpreters. I’ll grant that Hegel does use a three-part formulation (consisting, not of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, but of abstract, negative, and concrete), but that is where his similarity to Dr. Ketchum ends. As it was later articulated (beginning with Chalybäus) the so-called Hegelian dialectic deals with stages of development, not procedures in dialogue. In Hegel, the three-part movement arises out of a contradiction that is implicit in things themselves, and it cannot be arbitrarily applied to any given thesis. Perhaps the best-known instantiation of Hegelian dialectic is Marx’s historical materialism. I just don’t know what else to say, except to encourage you and others to read the literature.

Thank you for all of your time. Your consideration in responding is greatly acknowledged.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

…I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ…

I have to admit…this statement arrested my attention. I promote a very conservative philosophy of corporate worship…probably almost liturgical to some people. But I still struggle with this statement. I know this issue is the quintessential tangent of all tangents, but I wonder if you could point me to some resources where a specific statement such as this is defended from the Scripture?

Edit: Sorry…just saw your cry for help regarding the post limit. Perhaps Aaron will make an exception for this thread?

[Kevin T. Bauder] You want to know who is most responsible for young men leaving Fundamentalist institutions? I’ll give an example. When the FBFI met in Schaumburg, we had a number of young leaders from Minnesota who attended. They went with the best of intentions, but they left completely perplexed. On the one hand, they heard some very good, doctrinal, expository preaching (Minnick and Hartog, for example). On the other hand, they heard a couple of rants and a panel discussion in which several speakers demonstrated that they had virtually no idea of what worldliness was. When one of these young pastors approached a muckety-muck FBFI official with questions about this discrepancy, he was simply told that it was none of his business.

That episode was followed by Rick Arrowood’s refusal (based, I believe, on bad information and false perceptions) to allow Central Seminary space for a display at the FBFI conference. He was within his rights as a pastor to decide who could appear in his church—no problem there. But what happens to the second F in FBFI when this sort of thing occurs? That one decision probably did more to blacken the name of the FBFI than almost anything that has occurred in the past decade. Is it any surprise that I cannot persuade Minnesota pastors to take any interest in the FBFI?

That’s just one illustration. The fact is that every time some blogger hammers Doran or Jordan, every time some preacher rails against them in a sermon, or every time some fellowship passes a resolution against them, these objectors convince another contingent of young leaders that Fundamentalism isn’t worth wasting time on. I’m not talking here about those who raise reasonable questions, as yours have been to me. Every one of us should value the sharpening effect of thoughtful interlocutors. I’m talking about the (funda)Mentalist types who, like Patrick Jane, seem to possess some uncanny ability to read minds and to tell you what Olson or Davey are really thinking or trying to do. The only problem is that they almost always get it wrong.

By the way, I’m also regularly targeted by these types. Personally, I love it! They can’t hurt me (or Doran, or Jordan, etc.), but they give me loads of free publicity. They help me sell more books than my publishers do. Furthermore, because their attacks are so clearly out-of-bounds, they gain sympathy for me that I could get in no other way. At the personal level, I’m actually grateful for their opposition. I don’t ever have to dignify them with a reply, but I come out the winner. The problem is that Fundamentalism comes out the loser, because too many people assume that they represent what Fundamentalism really is. For that reason, I grieve over the damage they do.

Let me put it this way. You want to help? Then spend less time worrying about me, and more time challenging … no, I’m not going to give them the satisfaction. Just spend more time challenging the periergouzomenous. They know who they are, and so do you.

Do I think that continued conversation with conservative evangelicals is worth pursuing? I’ll get to that question later.

Kevin

Yup. There’s not much else to say to that, really. Fundamentalism is ‘dying’ because the captains of the ship are running it into icebergs, or too busy shooting at each other to steer the ship in a safer direction. Bauder is right, as usual.

Don, I know you mean well, but Dr. Bauder is right. It’s LONG past time to stop ignoring wingnuts in the IFB camp. “Come out from among them” is EXACTLY what us younger guys want to do.

I’m really torn to a high degree about even getting into this conversation, but am having a hard time staying out.

It seems to me there is a real “generation gap” among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals as well. I’m 50+ and yes, I’m not content to remain a product of my training, nor should we be. There seems to me to some misunderstanding from a historic point of view on some of these issues. I was saved as a secular college student, then God directed me to Pillsbury and Central. This was mid-1980’s through 1992, when I graduated from Central. There was a long shadow cast by Dr. Clearwaters even then (I was in the last class he taught), and the Fundamentalism of that place and time was unique from that of the BBF or Hyles or the GARBC. The term “New Evangelical” really meant Evangelical in the main.

To me, the term “New Evangelical” is being redefined today by a new generation. There really wasn’t a gradation between the spectrum of it. On the other side, Evangelicalism in the main seemed to be hostile to Fundamentalism and the term itself was a term of derision.

We weren’t opposed to thinking. There was some unity and togetherness, though there were definite differences and newer fights against error. The KJVO controversy was just blooming (the Dell Johnson - Letis) video was making the rounds. MacArthur was best known for instituting elder government and urging others to dump congregational rule for it, and the local church was most important. Some even went too far to a “local church only” viewpoint in reaction to the “universal church only” thinking.

Now we have a new generation of “new evangelicalism” when some of the older evangelicalism has moderated and some have not. Most still can’t resist taking an occasional potshot at Fundamentalists occasionally, even though they are becoming more like them in some ways.

The older Fundamentalists today (unfortunately I have to put myself in this category!) really have a feeling of betrayal toward some of the newer Fundamentalists today. The institutions that were built on a different set of convictions are changing. Some change is inevitable and even understandable. Unfortunately, the change is definitely polarizing. It is also a reaction to the world in which we find ourselves. I trust that as you all think about these things, that you are thinking about where you want to be in 20-30 years or more down the road and the accountability you have. We remember the counsel of “taking the long look”, but we are concerned what kind of next generation we are handing things off to. I appreciate Dr. Bauder’s respectful tone, but many Fundamentalists, especially older ones in the Upper Midwest, just don’t come from where he does.

Well, this is a lot of rambling, but I will summarize this way:

1. Isn’t today’s “conservative evangelicalism” yesterday’s “new evangelicalism” somewhat moderated?

2. I do believe that Dr. Bauder is philosophically “right wing”, especially to many of the readers here. I just don’t know that most evangelicals can help themselves from being anti-fundamentalist.

3. I’m not KJVO, but would be more “type A” as far as separatism. Is there going to be a place for folks like that in the future. I’m not convinced there will be.

Moderators Note: We will leave the thread open so long as there is good conversation that is on this topic.

1. Isn’t today’s “conservative evangelicalism” yesterday’s “new evangelicalism” somewhat moderated?

I don’t think so. Conservative Fundamentalism (I’m thinking Al Mohler for example) is picking up the pieces of NE. While it’s not fundamentalism, it’s not 1950’s NE either, and not just in a moderated way. Al Mohler doesn’t wake up every morning wondering how he can moderate New Evangelicalism with fundamentalism.

2. I do believe that Dr. Bauder is philosophically “right wing”, especially to many of the readers here. I just don’t know that most evangelicals can help themselves from being anti-fundamentalist.

How many evangelicals are you friends with? Currently I’m getting to know a former small group leader from Mars Hill Seattle who is coming to our church. As I explain where I’m from and fundamentalist principles, he says “that makes sense.” If fundamentalists truly have a position that’s intellectually honest and supportable, it should fear no dialouge.

There is a certain degree of revisionism in what Kevin Bauder and others are saying here. Although, I would probably share many of the underlying pre-suppositions as Bauder on what constitutes acceptable music, I must take issue with his statement:

(Having said that, I do not think that music is a matter that decides whether you’re a Fundamentalist. I’m not sure that Fundamentalism has ever had a unified or consistent view on music. So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian. I don’t see a contradiction here. Christianity is, after all, more than Fundamentalism.)

The World Congress of Fundamentalists have passed resolutions on what is acceptable music. On November 12-19, 1980 held in Manila and Singapore the WCF passed the following resolution in respect of music,

The World Congress of Fundamentalists rejects the sensual trends of the religious music today because it contradicts and nullifies the spiritual emphasis of the preaching and teaching ministries of the church. We oppose the superficial and carnal fruit produced by this music in the lives of both those who perform it and those who are exposed to it. We oppose all such music that incorrectly places the emphasis upon the physical instead of the spiritual and that has roots in the world instead of the Bible.

In respect of the KJVO position, there were historic positions established. The annual Congress on Fundamentalism held at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on October 22-29, 1978 passed the following resolution signed by FBF President Dr Rod Bell, Dr Gilbert Stenholm of BJU, Dr. Arno Weniger, Jnr. of Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Dr Ian Paisley, and Dr Bob Jones Jr.,

That we recommend the use and distribution of only the King James Version of the Bible in English and only those foreign language versions and translations which have been faithfully translated by those committed to the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scripture.

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) used to stand unequivocally against all Bible versions produced by liberals. In their 1984 Resolutions adopted at Maranantha Bible College on June 12-14, 1984 they state,

We condemn paraphrases such as The Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man and the products of unbelieving and liberal scholarship such as the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible. We deplore the rash of new versions which add to or delete from the Word of God, such as the New International Version, with special reference to those so-called “revisions” which by footnote additions undermine the text. We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version, providentially preserved by God in the English-speaking world.

While these statements are not the full-blooded KJVO positions one sees today in places like PCC they are indicative that fundamentalism was held together by a pro-KJVO bias. It is not accurate to portray historic separatist fundamentalism as operating on a laissez-faire attitude to issues relating to acceptable music and translations.

While these statements are not the full-blooded KJVO positions one sees today in places like PCC they are indicative that fundamentalism was held together by a pro-KJVO bias. It is not accurate to portray historic separatist fundamentalism as operating on a laissez-faire attitude to issues relating to acceptable music and translations.

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the FBF is most or all of Historical Fundamentalism rather than a slice of Historic Fundamentalism. During the the late 1970’s and 1980’s the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches were over 1500 churches strong (I think they are about 1200 today) and I believe as was the Independent Fundamental Churches of America. Many within these associations might have preferred the KJV at the time, but most were against a KJVO position.

[PSFerguson]

The World Congress of Fundamentalists have passed resolutions on what is acceptable music…

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) used to stand unequivocally against all Bible versions produced by liberals…

Unfortunately, history has shown that some of the key people who made up the World Congress of Fundamentalists were many times grandstanding while ignoring “sin in the camp”, so to speak. Furthermore, I believe the statement you quote from the FBF resolution (“…We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version…”) represents a mindset that has ultimately caused significant division and confusion in many churches. While I know there were many well-intentioned people involved in these organizations, an honest and thorough examination of the history results in facts which are certainly no cause for uniform celebration or emulation.

[Joel Shaffer]

While these statements are not the full-blooded KJVO positions one sees today in places like PCC they are indicative that fundamentalism was held together by a pro-KJVO bias. It is not accurate to portray historic separatist fundamentalism as operating on a laissez-faire attitude to issues relating to acceptable music and translations.

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the FBF is most or all of Historical Fundamentalism rather than a slice of Historic Fundamentalism. During the the late 1970’s and 1980’s the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches were over 1500 churches strong (I think they are about 1200 today) and I believe as was the Independent Fundamental Churches of America. Many within these associations might have preferred the KJV at the time, but most were against a KJVO position.

The two most prominent worldwide historic fundamentalist groupings in the Twentieth Century were the World Congress of Fundamentalists (including FBFI) led by Dr Bob Jones Jr and Dr Ian Paisley and the International Council of Christian Churches led by Dr Carl McIntire. Both groupings had a broad base yet undoubtedly had a strongly pro-KJVO/anti-CCM bias. That is undisputed, as is evidenced by the resolutions. GARBC may be significant among Independent Baptists but it is not among historic fundamentalists of all stripes.

Mark Mincy - Your opinion on the merits and motives of those who crafted these resolutions is not the point in hand. I doubt if you really could prove your viewpoint in all cases. However, what I am establishing is a factual historical framework that those in this thread need to face honestly.

[PSFerguson]

Mark Mincy - Your opinion on the merits and motives of those who crafted these resolutions is not the point in hand. I doubt if you really could prove your viewpoint in all cases. However, what I am establishing is a factual historical framework that those in this thread need to face honestly.

Paul - I’ll not get into a back and forth on this…this will be my last post on this sidebar. But you don’t have to look far to see that my opinion is not the question here. Look at the facts. Look at some of the more influential names from the WCOF back in the day and I believe you will find my prior description to be accurate. Furthermore, look at the havoc that has been wrought in churches by the KJVO position - both here in the US and there in Singapore where you are. Certainly, not all of the blame can be laid at the feet of the organizations you refer to. And as I mentioned earlier, I know there were well-intentioned people in those organizations. But the ultimate fruit of their labors is not something that I can celebrate.

Good night from here. Good day over there :).

The two most prominent worldwide historic fundamentalist groupings in the Twentieth Century were the World Congress of Fundamentalists (including FBFI) led by Dr Bob Jones Jr and Dr Ian Paisley and the International Council of Christian Churches led by Dr Carl McIntire. Both groupings had a broad base yet undoubtedly had a strongly pro-KJVO/anti-CCM bias. That is undisputed, as is evidenced by the resolutions. GARBC may be significant among Independent Baptists but it is not among historic fundamentalists of all stripes.

According to an article Carl McIntire and the Fundamentalist Orgins of the Christian Right from the Periodical “Church History,” http://www.readperiodicals.com/201206/2670022431.html The GARBC and the IFCA were in fact members of the American Council of Christian Churches (and I believe the International Council of Christian Churches) a half a century ago, but broke ties with them because of Dr. McIntire’s dictatorship leadership style and increased political involvement (which in their view got in the way of the gospel). Both of these groups at one time were the ACCC’s largest fellowships of churches. They are more than just independent Baptists and independent Bible Churches, but rather historic fundamentalists just as those other groups whom you mentioned. These two groups happen to be both mostly non KJVO and split about using CCM music, but are truly historic fundamentalists. They just happen to be to the left of the groups that you mention on these issues.

Kevin - Yes, I am seriously going to cite the ICCC and the WCF as the most prominent and largest group of historic separatist fundamentalists. What these groupings ended up and how they got to that point is a different argument. The point is that when any reputable Church Historian thought (and still thinks) of representative separatist fundamentalism they thought of the BJU/Paisley/McIntire axis. Both groupings had thousands of member churches and organisations, which spanned the globe and embraced diverse views of eschatology, church polity, soteriology, baptism etc within their ranks. Whatever you may think of their resolutions, they were representative fundamentalism to a large degree.

Please note it was not me who was appealing to a fundamentalist consensus but you. In your writings on this blog you made claims of a lack of consensus within the fundamentalist consensus. I merely pointed out that the two most significant players in the fundamentalist movement of the twentieth century did not fit your model. They had a united consensus on the primacy of the KJV/TR and anti-CCM position. That is an observation that must be noted in the interests of historical accuracy; however uncomfortable that makes you feel.

Incidentally, your claim of “everythingism” is unfair against the WCF. As a group they clearly understood that “Exposes and separates from all … compromise with error” did not apply to issues relating to personal distinctives such as baptism. For they were made up of churches and organisations that reflected the whole spectrum of biblical Christianity on those matters. So, clearly the WCF’s understanding of separation was much more nuanced than what your portray as they included amillennialists, wesleyans, and paedobaptists in their ranks.

I wish that so many contemporary fundamentalists did not define everyone to the right of them as “hyper-fundamentalist.” That is not an honourable way to review historical events and persons. If you have changed from the historic positions Kevin, then just say that you have shifted towards the centre of the spectrum and you reject the past consensus on these issues.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

(1) Yes, anywhere means anywhere.

Fair enough, just want to be sure what you are saying. I take your point with respect to the Areopagus. Under those parameters I would have no problem with that either.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

(2) On the topic of those who go versus those who stay,…

I’ve nothing to add on this point.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

(3) As for the interchange with Dever, as nearly as I can make out, you’re doing some Monday morning quarterbacking.

Granted, and I am certainly not looking for a place on a platform. My point is related to the reaction that the disgruntled made to this conference. I don’t think the differences are being painted as starkly as you might think. It is very easy for young fellows (and others) to come away from these meetings with the notion that there is nothing to be concerned with in cooperation with Dever or 9marks, for example. Yet he is not where you are, you are not where he is, and there are good and sufficient reasons for both of you to limit the kinds of cooperation you would be willing to engage in. I suspect you would be more strict about limiting cooperation than he would be, but still significant differences exist.

Those who are on the outside looking in are left wondering what the fuss is about and why we are distinct and different. After all, even you can only find (seemingly) differences on peripheral issues like elders. We have fundamentalists who have a form of elder rule in their churches (Mark Minnick for example). Its a peripheral issue, so why are we distinct and different from Dever.

No one knows. See some of the comments from others on this thread. They don’t get the significant difference that some of Dever’s associations make for cooperative ministry. And that’s not to say we condemn him as an unbeliever, far from it. But I doubt very much that you would engage in a cooperative ministry with him, even though you might be willing to appear at a conference like Lansdale.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

(4) Now, interdenominational and imperialist institutions. Here are some examples of the kind of schools that I had in mind.

Perhaps I should get you to define what you mean by “imperialist” then. I offered it as an example of pejorative words you tend to use when discussing other fundamentalists. Perhaps you don’t see them as such, but I can guarantee you that they are perceived as such by those with whom you ought to be friends, men who are not KJO, not hyper-fundamentalist at all.

I offer those comments for your consideration, my point is that I don’t think the way you discuss these things helps fundamentalism - it promotes the antagonism that you see displayed in this thread towards fine fundamentalist ministries and leaders.

Well, that’s all for now. I don’t think we need to rehash these points, I’ll see what you have to say when you have time for the rest of it, and may respond to that. I, too, have much to do for the weekend… including finishing a little plumbing job in our church building. What looked like a simple job is turning into a four day nightmare. If only I had more than a quarter of a clue about plumbing!