Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

Republished with permission (and unedited) from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. (The document posted at Central’s website within the last couple of weeks.)

Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

To be an evangelical is to be centered upon the gospel. To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines. We are both evangelicals and Fundamentalists according to these definitions. We all believe that, as ecclesial movements, both evangelicalism and Fundamentalism have drifted badly from their core commitments. In the case of evangelicalism, the drift began when self-identified neo-evangelicals began to extend Christian fellowship to those who clearly rejected fundamental doctrines. This extension of fellowship represented a dethroning of the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. It was a grievous error, and it has led to the rapid erosion of evangelical theology within the evangelical movement. At the present moment, some versions of professing evangelicalism actually harbor denials of the gospel such as Open Theism or the New Perspective on Paul. We deny that the advocates of such positions can rightly be called evangelical.

On the other hand, we also believe that some Fundamentalists have attempted to add requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship. Sometimes these requirements have involved institutional or personal loyalties, resulting in abusive patterns of leadership. Other times they have involved organizational agendas. They have sometimes involved the elevation of relatively minor doctrines to a position of major importance. In some instances, they have involved the creation of doctrines nowhere taught in Scripture, such as the doctrine that salvation could not be secured until Jesus presented His material blood in the heavenly tabernacle. During recent years, the most notorious manifestation of this aberrant version of Fundamentalism is embodied in a movement that insists that only the King James version of the Bible (or, in some cases, its underlying Greek or Hebrew texts) ought be recognized as the perfectly preserved Word of God.

We regard both of these extremes as equally dangerous. The evangelicalism of the far Left removes the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The Fundamentalism of the far Right adds to the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neither extreme is acceptable to us, but because we encounter the far Right more frequently, and because it claims the name of Fundamentalism, we regard it as a more immediate and insidious threat.

Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.

We also reject the “new-image Fundamentalism” that absorbs the current culture, producing a worldly worship and a pragmatic ministry. These self-professed fundamentalists often follow the latest trends in ministry, disparage theological labels such as Baptist, and aggressively criticize any version of Fundamentalism not following their ministry style.

We oppose anti-separatist evangelicalism, hyper-fundamentalism, revivalism, and new-image Fundamentalism. We wish to reclaim authentic Fundamentalism, to rebuild it, and to strengthen it. For us that reclamation involves not only working against the philosophy of broad evangelicalism (which assaults us from outside), but also working against those versions of Fundamentalism that subvert the Christian faith.

On the other hand, these positions do not exhaust the evangelical options. Conservative evangelicals have reacted against the current erosion of evangelicalism by refocusing attention upon the gospel, including its importance as a boundary for Christian fellowship. These conservative evangelicals have become important spokespersons against current denials of the gospel, and they have also spoken out against trends that remove the gospel from its place of power in transforming lives (e.g., the church growth and church marketing movements).

Certain differences do still exist between historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Fundamentalists, in contrast to Conservative evangelicals, tend to align more with dispensationalism and cessationism. Fundamentalists tend to react against contemporary popular culture, while many conservative evangelicals embrace it. Perhaps most importantly, Fundamentalists make a clean break with the leadership of anti-separatist evangelicals, while conservative evangelicals continue to accommodate (or at least refuse to challenge) their leadership.

Because of these differences, we do not believe that complete cooperation with conservative evangelicalism is desirable. Nevertheless, we find that we have much more in common with conservative evangelicals (who are slightly to our Left) than we do with hyper-Fundamentalists (who are considerably to our Right), or even with revivalistic Fundamentalists (who are often in our back yard). In conservative evangelicals we find allies who are willing to challenge not only the compromise of the gospel on the Left, but also the pragmatic approach to Christianity that typifies so many evangelicals and Fundamentalists. For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.

We wish to be used to restate, refine, and strengthen biblical Fundamentalism. The process of restatement includes not only defining what a thing is, but also saying what it is not. We find that we must point to many versions of professing Fundamentalism and say, “That is not biblical Christianity.” We do not believe that the process of refinement and definition can occur without such denials. The only way to strengthen Fundamentalism is to speak out against some self-identified Fundamentalists.

We also see a need to speak out against the abandonment of the gospel by the evangelical Left, the reducing of the gospel’s importance by the heirs of the New Evangelicalism, and the huckstering of the gospel by pragmatists, whether evangelicals or Fundamentalists. On the other hand, while we may express disagreement with aspects of conservative evangelicalism (just as we may express disagreement with one another), we wish to affirm and to strengthen the activity of conservative evangelicals in restoring the gospel to its rightful place.

The marks of a strong Fundamentalism will include the following:

  1. A recommitment to the primacy and proclamation of the gospel.
  2. An understanding that the fundamentals of the gospel are the boundary of Christian fellowship.
  3. A focus on the importance of preaching as biblical exposition.
  4. An emphasis upon progressive sanctification understood as incremental spiritual growth.
  5. An elevation of the importance of ordinate Christian affections, expressed partly by sober worship that is concerned with the exaltation and magnification of God.
  6. An understanding of Christian leadership primarily as teaching and serving.
  7. A commitment to teaching and transmitting the whole system of faith and practice.
  8. An exaltation of the centrality of the local congregation in God’s work.

These are features of an authentic Fundamentalism that we all feel is worth saving. These features describe the kind of Fundamentalism that we wish to build. Their absence in either Fundamentalism or other branches of evangelicalism constitutes a debasing of Christianity that we intend to oppose.

Discussion

[AndrewSuttles] Why are fundamentalists so obsessed with the denominational mindset? Why can’t we have independent churches instead of wasting so much effort trying to figure out who is on our team?
The reference to denominationalism seems to be introducing a different idea. From the beginning, fundamentalism was not a matter of the denomination to which one was linked. I recognize that some who view themselves as fundamentalists have become excessively focused on denomination, but the implication that this is true of fundamentalists generally lacks foundation.

Moreover, having independent churches does not itself avoid either issue. First, some churches that call themselves “independent” nonetheless have quite a denominational mindset. Second, avoiding the pitfall of whether one is of Peter, Paul, or Apollos (as Paul puts it in I Cor 1 and 3) does not eliminate all “team” issues. At minimum, we always have to recognize the team boundary imposed by the gospel (e.g., Gal 1:8-9; 2 John 10).

Things That Matter

As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton

…but RPittman should know that Kevin was at one point in his life a member of the church formerly pastored by Jack Hyles in Garland, TX.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Dr. Bauder,

Thanks for your interaction here. It truly is helpful.

You said, “For example, if you can cite any section of the posted statement that suggests making music a test of Fundamentalism, then I have a thousand dollars that I’ll put in the mail to you tomorrow.” Rest assured I’m not looking to cash in on anything :-) I did see the following quotes which got me thinking that way, however.


We also reject the “new-image Fundamentalism” that absorbs the current culture, producing a worldly worship and a pragmatic ministry. These self-professed fundamentalists often follow the latest trends in ministry, disparage theological labels such as Baptist, and aggressively criticize any version of Fundamentalism not following their ministry style.


The marks of a strong Fundamentalism will include the following:

5. An elevation of the importance of ordinate Christian affections, expressed partly by sober worship that is concerned with the exaltation and magnification of God.
I am happy if by this you aren’t “making music a test of Fundamentalism”. Happy to hear it. For my part, I help out our church’s worship “band” where we very much do not want to be offering “worldly worship” and inordinate affections. We do however utilize contemporary music styles as we sing songs that exalt and magnify Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, I do applaud your rejection of aberrant fundamentalism. Everything you object to (although I wonder a bit about Straub’s description of the “new-image camp”) I do too. I just wonder if a clear rejection opens you up to the charge that you are elevating certain Calvinistic tendencies and viewpoints to a level equal with the gospel.

I guess, as I stumble along here, I’m trying to harmonize the list of marks of fundamentalism with the statement that you believe separation should be from those who reject doctrines essential to the gospel or with those who associate with doctrines essential to the gospel.

Truth be told, I walked away from fundamentalism altogether once (at least that is how I viewed it). But interaction with Sharper Iron and with some of your writings has taught me much about a fundamentalism I never really knew. I agree separation over the gospel and the big doctrines are important in fact that is the basic separation doctrine I see in Scripture. To be fair, I’m struggling finding how I can still view the hyper-fundamentalism of my past (which doesn’t explicitly deny such doctrines or hob-nob with those who do) with as much disdain as I once did. I see good people there and so I’m working through these things even now.

I do agree some evangelicals have given party to fundamental-doctrine-deniers. But the conservative evangelical crowd hasn’t exactly done that. I’m a former member of John Piper’s church (for 4 1/2 years), and have been helping a church plant in St. Paul pastored by a fellow who used to be on staff at MacArthur’s church. So I want to let everyone know that in case it makes a difference. That’s my perspective. Our little church isn’t approving of those denying fundamental doctrines, by any stretch.

I’ll quit now as I’m not sure I’m making that much sense. I appreciate the clarity with which you typically write Dr. Bauder. And I see this statement as clear too, but I’m just struggling fitting the first part about the gospel in with everything else.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Roland,

I don’t know why you are so insistent here. I think this kind of approach is over the top and not called for.

Dr. Bauder in what I’ve read of his work, is very aware of other spheres and sectors of fundamentalism. I don’t think he’s necessarily claiming that his views are dominant and the mainstream, but they have been represented in fundamentalism all along. The other crowd appears larger from my vantage point too, and they speak more loudly, but that doesn’t mean they can define what fundamentalism really is. There have always been J. Frank Norris types even as there have been J. Greshem Machen types.

You should also be a bit more humble in addressing an elder statesman. That would be respectful and fitting in a forum like this.

Not really sure why I’m addressing this. I just wanted to let you know you can express your disagreement without being so abrasive.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Knowing how busy you are and how ridiculous forum conversations can get when everyone has an equally weighted say, I just wanted to say I appreciate your interaction here. Please keep writing and shining the truth in the darkness.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

I think Dr. Bauder represents (at least in part) the positions held by those Fundamental Baptists who came out of the Northern Baptist Movement\Convention. For what it’s worth, many of us do not trace any of our spiritual DNA to or through the SBC. I would think it better to compare J. Frank Norris to W.B. Riley, Richard Clearwaters, Arno Q. Wenigar, Sr., G. Archer Wenigar, or B. Myron Cedarholm. Remember, we Northern Baptists have had any organizational ties to the Southern Baptists since the demise of the Triennial Convention.

Dr. Machen was a Proto-Fundamentalist Presbyterian. He was uncomfortable with the Fundamentalists of the 30s.
[Bob Hayton] Roland,

I don’t know why you are so insistent here. I think this kind of approach is over the top and not called for.

Dr. Bauder in what I’ve read of his work, is very aware of other spheres and sectors of fundamentalism. I don’t think he’s necessarily claiming that his views are dominant and the mainstream, but they have been represented in fundamentalism all along. The other crowd appears larger from my vantage point too, and they speak more loudly, but that doesn’t mean they can define what fundamentalism really is. There have always been J. Frank Norris types even as there have been J. Greshem Machen types.

You should also be a bit more humble in addressing an elder statesman. That would be respectful and fitting in a forum like this.

Not really sure why I’m addressing this. I just wanted to let you know you can express your disagreement without being so abrasive.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Roland,

I appreciate the kind things you’ve said about me and all. I still don’t advocate a “no-holds-barred” approach to interacting with my seniors. It is a sticky issue with blogging and forums and all. But 1 Tim. 5:1 comes to mind, as do several passages in Proverbs about interacting with people. I think we have to take extra care in online venues as the demeanor and manner behind our typing is completely invisible, often.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[Rob Fall] I think Dr. Bauder represents (at least in part) the positions held by those Fundamental Baptists who came out of the Northern Baptist Movement\Convention. For what it’s worth, many of us do not trace any of our spiritual DNA to or through the SBC. I would think it better to compare J. Frank Norris to W.B. Riley, Richard Clearwaters, Arno Q. Wenigar, Sr., G. Archer Wenigar, or B. Myron Cedarholm. Remember, we Northern Baptists have had any organizational ties to the Southern Baptists since the demise of the Triennial Convention.

Dr. Machen was a Proto-Fundamentalist Presbyterian. He was uncomfortable with the Fundamentalists of the 30s.
Thanks, I knew there were other names in the opposite version of Fundamentalism besides Machen. He was all that came to mind at the time though.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

I must say, if one is squeamish maybe the exchange between R. Pittman and Dr. Kevin Bauder wasn’t for them but as for me, Roland and Kevin requited themselves very well and much to the benefit of the readers. And I believe that, in interacting here, Kevin Bauder is quite aware that the context is much more pedestrian and the usual formalities of elevated contexts are not as demanded, hence he is appreciated for accepting Roland’s directness and countering without posturing (I say this not because Dr. Bauder would do this but it is often the modus operandi of many here and in theological circles to feign pretentious aghast that someone would approach with such bluntness while, in truth, never actually delivering the kind of blows they are accused of delivering) . Neither strayed from any point and both making the force of their arguments compacted instead of needlessly extended and I appreciate Mr. Pittman sticking to his views (not that I agree or disagree with them, that isn’t the point) and insisting on taking them to their ends while Dr. Bauder’s returns which were perspicacious to say the least.

But this is the least of what I wanted to say. Mainly that it was good to read, as Aaron and Bob T. pointed out (and any others who I may have missed) that there is a clearly articulated rejection of those on the fringe whose exotic (and at times simply condemnable) extremes place them outside the circle of approval and in fact Central willingly used the word “dangerous” to describe them. There is a certain elevated level of responsibility that Central and Dr. Bauder are taking that other institutions would not come close to even admitting in private, that is to be applauded zealously.

A significant amount of time and energy has been invested and this effort, whether one agrees in whole or in part, should give a sense of indebtedness to its readers. It is clear that a protracted process has gone in in the mind of Dr. Bauder, but likely far from only his but with his peers as well it seems, and as a result a very detailed survey and and assessment of Christianity on the right and in the middle and where fundamentalism lies along with its cousin (CE), has resulted. As well and most pertinent, where is fundamentalism headed?

This is critical. While it might be true that fundamentalism is a dynamic to which no one can claim proprietary rights, it appears that many happily will eschew this label (therefore it means something to many) or some will hijack this tag and bring to it types and kinds that render great damage to a legitimate and worthwhile theological identification. So why then cannot it be resuscitated and brought back to a position of strength through the process of reclamation involving the shedding of extremes and re-articulation? And who is to say that it may not be? So while Christian fundamentalism may be a dynamic, it need not be a dynamic left without leadership and expression.

As a former Calvinist and now a non-Calvinist (as distinguished from an Arminian) I personally have no issue with the Calvinistic leanings that one can find at Central and its periphery. They are not excessive or sycophantic. They appear to be Christian first with commitment to grammatico-historical exegesis which allows for recognition of theological schools and arguments, without condescension, from more than one quarter while reasonably defending their own convictions.

RPittman wrote:
As I understand your boundaries, you have left large groups including Pensacola Christian College, Ambassador Baptist College, West Coast Baptist College, the Sword of the Lord , Crown College, Hyles-Anderson College, Heartland Baptist College, Tabernacle Baptist Seminary,
These institutions appear to represent the KJVO position. They were founded in the 1970s. They are historically disconnected from the Fundamentalists of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s by their doctrine of scripture. Further, by their doctrine of scripture they hold to a view of preservation that advocates a kind of continuation of apostolic authority to translators and textual critics. Such continued divine inspiration denies the traditional doctrines of scripture. This denial moves them away from Fundamentalism by basic doctrine. Further, some Fundamentalists believe this doctrine is a dangerous deviation of foundational truth that brings disrepute upon the intellectual integrity of Christianity. While the KJVOers believe and preach the true gospel, they undermine the true basis for discovering and knowing that gospel.

Those advocating the non Fundamental KJVO doctrine appear to come far short of representing the majority who call themselves Fundamentalists. Such groups as the FBFI, GARBC, and other institutions and groups, appear to represent a majority. However, numbers are not relevant to whether the KJVO churches and persons fall within the historic Fundamentalist definition. As one who was a student at Central when the founder, Doc Clearwaters, was still at the helm, let me assure you that this Ethos statement is representative of the Fundamentalism advocated then by Doc and the school. It is representative of the Minnesota Baptist Association. The school was then representative of Fundamentalism of the type that fought the battles in the old Northern Baptist convention. This was a major part of historic Fundamentalism. They would later clearly denounce the new emerging doctrine of the scriptures being promoted by KJVO advocates.

There are some Hyper Fundamentalist bloggers chomping at the bit to attack the Central Ethos statement, and the fact that Central and Faith are not formally merging at this time, into some sort of sign of compromise or disagreement that it does not appear to be. Actually, the statement indicates clearly that Central remains a strong historical Fundamentalist school. It represents what the Founder represented. We should certainly take as true Kevin Bauder’s statement regarding the unity of position and fellowship of Faith and Central.

I state the above but probably have a much more cautious view of the CEs than some Fundamentalists at Central. I am very familiar with the MacArthurism LS gospel and Masters College and Seminary. There are many more problems involved here than many are willing to recognize. There are a multitude of doctrinal deviations, exaggerations, misrepresentation of opponents positions, and harsh militant attitudes, that need to be addressed. There is often an imperious elitism that does harm within and to churches.

He accused me of judging motivation. I did not. I boldly challenged his position but I attached no stigma to his or Central’s motivation. Let me define “spiritual oneupmanship.” This is when one group defines the issues, history, or positions of a larger movement so that this one group is the quintessential (Dr. B’s term but I like it) body of the larger. IMHO, this is precisely what Dr. Bauder and Central were doing by his definition of historic, mainstream Fundamentalism to lie within their sphere meanwhile excluding a larger and different representation of the so-called far right wing. They marginalized the larger portion of Fundamentalism to make their own position mainstream. This is not judging motives but it is a critique of their statement.
Roland, You defined “spiritual oneupmanship,” but you didn’t define “to gain status and ascendancy.” Generally, the word “to” as used in that sentence is understood as “in order to,” meaning purpose or intended result, which sounds a lot like motivation: They did this because they were motivated to do that. The implication seems to be that they did this “in order to gain status and ascendancy.” You can probably see how easily that could be confused with attributing a motivation to them.

Therefore, I wonder if “to” might have been the word you should have defined to show how it was not a statement about motivations.

I also think it would be incumbent on you to show how gaining status and ascendancy is somehow wrong. You liken it to the Corinthian church, but why not liken it to Paul in the Corinthian church, where Paul asserts his status and ascendancy over the false apostles? If someone is right, their view should gain status and ascendancy (such as Paul over the false apostles). Consider yourself: You think you are right and so you spend time here (and probably other places) trying to gain “status and ascendancy” for your view. And you object strongly when someone disagrees with it, which you did here and that is certainly fine; I don’t think that’s wrong. If it stems from pride, of course it’s wrong. If it stems from a desire to love and honor the truth, it is not wrong. If CBTS’ statement seems to be a desire to love and honor the truth, and if it in fact does so, then it is hard to argue that gaining status and ascendancy for it is wrong.

At the risk of appearing to defend Dr. Bauder (which some have strangely and incorrectly attributed to me), I think Dr. Bauder’s grasp on fundamentalism is broad enough to include the groups you mention, and that is precisely why he wants to “restate, refine, and strengthen biblical Fundamentalism.” He believes, and many would say with good reason, that certain forms are fundamentalism are deficient and should be repudiated, or at least refined and strengthened. His whole argument (here with the CBTS faculty and elsewhere with his own comments) seems to stem from his knowledge of broader fundamentalism and his concern with it. If everyone he knew about or had experience with agreed with him (i.e., his “narrow slice”), there would be no need for him to argue for a different type of fundamentalism worth saving. The only reason he says fundamentalism needs saving is because he is aware of the things you mention, and considers them to be a fundamentalism not worth saving. Complain about his point if you will, or disagree with it; but realize that his comments are made because he knows them, not because he doesn’t.

I would add most of the schools which Brother Pittman cites come out of the former\ex SBC side of the family.

Clarification: My statement above should read, “we Northern Baptists have not had any organizational ties to the Southern Baptists since the demise of the Triennial Convention.”
[Bob T.] RPittman wrote:
As I understand your boundaries, you have left large groups including Pensacola Christian College, Ambassador Baptist College, West Coast Baptist College, the Sword of the Lord , Crown College, Hyles-Anderson College, Heartland Baptist College, Tabernacle Baptist Seminary,
These institutions appear to represent the KJVO position. They were founded in the 1970s. They are historically disconnected from the Fundamentalists of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s by their doctrine of scripture. Further, by their doctrine of scripture they hold to a view of preservation that advocates a kind of continuation of apostolic authority to translators and textual critics. Such continued divine inspiration denies the traditional doctrines of scripture. This denial moves them away from Fundamentalism by basic doctrine. Further, some Fundamentalists believe this doctrine is a dangerous deviation of foundational truth that brings disrepute upon the intellectual integrity of Christianity. While the KJVOers believe and preach the true gospel, they undermine the true basis for discovering and knowing that gospel.

Those advocating the non Fundamental KJVO doctrine appear to come far short of representing the majority who call themselves Fundamentalists. Such groups as the FBFI, GARBC, and other institutions and groups, appear to represent a majority. However, numbers are not relevant to whether the KJVO churches and persons fall within the historic Fundamentalist definition. As one who was a student at Central when the founder, Doc Clearwaters, was still at the helm, let me assure you that this Ethos statement is representative of the Fundamentalism advocated then by Doc and the school. It is representative of the Minnesota Baptist Association. The school was then representative of Fundamentalism of the type that fought the battles in the old Northern Baptist convention. This was a major part of historic Fundamentalism. They would later clearly denounce the new emerging doctrine of the scriptures being promoted by KJVO advocates.

There are some Hyper Fundamentalist bloggers chomping at the bit to attack the Central Ethos statement, and the fact that Central and Faith are not formally merging at this time, into some sort of sign of compromise or disagreement that it does not appear to be. Actually, the statement indicates clearly that Central remains a strong historical Fundamentalist school. It represents what the Founder represented. We should certainly take as true Kevin Bauder’s statement regarding the unity of position and fellowship of Faith and Central.

I state the above but probably have a much more cautious view of the CEs than some Fundamentalists at Central. I am very familiar with the MacArthurism LS gospel and Masters College and Seminary. There are many more problems involved here than many are willing to recognize. There are a multitude of doctrinal deviations, exaggerations, misrepresentation of opponents positions, and harsh militant attitudes, that need to be addressed. There is often an imperious elitism that does harm within and to churches.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

I think, based on what I’m reading of Bauder, that he’s articulating a design for what real Fundamentalism should look like, not trying to paint a portrait of what it currently is. If you look at some of his other writings - the lecture to the AACS jumps to mind - that’s a little more obvious.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Mr. Hayton,

Drop me an email and let’s grab a Coke some time (or coffee if you prefer—I can’t stand the stuff). These are questions well worth discussing.

I do personally think that music is a very important issue, and I am willing to argue for its importance elsewhere.

Having said that, I recognize that it is not the issue that distinguishes Fundamentalists from other evangelicals. Our faculty and students represent a whole spectrum of views on this subject. It’s one of those things that we can talk about seriously without having to get upset or break fellowship.

That’s really the core of our ethos. We are a fellowship of learning, in which professors and students challenge one another to think. Our classrooms are not full of profs imparting unchangeable wisdom and students carefully copying it into their notebooks (though we are not ashamed of holding to unchangeable truths). Rather, our modus operandi is constant conversation, both in the classroom and out of it.

We expect our students to question us. We expect them to argue with us. We expect them to push us to the limits of our understanding. How else will they ever know where those limits are?

We do not expect them simply to parrot what we believe. We want them to own their beliefs, and that means thinking through the problems for themselves. Our profs are more like coaches than like oracles (though we do proclaim the oracles of God). Our goal is not to give our students all the answers, but to give them a box full of tools that they can use to get answers for themselves.

It’s all a long way from stuffy, egg-headed, ivory-tower intellectualism. Most of all, its about ministry. While some seminaries try to train their students in techniques, we prefer to teach them to think, all the while seeking to shape their affections.

It bothers me when people who don’t know us put us into an IFB stereotype. It also bothers me when people think that we are just about bright minds. We are also about skillful hands—but more than that, we are about devout hearts. We believe that it is sinful to set these things in opposition to each other.

Now I’M the one who is using our exchange as an excuse to talk about what is important to me. Sorry to derail the conversation! But do send me that email. I’m good for lunch.

Kevin

Thanks, Dr. Bauder. I’ll be sending that email soon.

It’s refreshing to hear that perspective on seminary education. I would have loved such an environment, but often took flak for being the one to ask questions in the IFB Bible College and Seminary where I went to school….

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.