The Future of Fundamentalism: A Forum for Leaders

I’m happy with the way you have stated my suggestions at this point.

As to Mohler, well, I guess I’ll have to get the book and maybe write to Mohler himself after I read the relevant portion.

Don,

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

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

Here is our best condensation of your answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, it’s your turn now.

Kevin

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

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

I can’t see where my suggestions can be interpreted as “Sit down and shut up”, so perhaps you can enlighten me as to how they can be construed that way at all.

i can assure you that the meeting I just attended was filled with men who would like to work with you to influence Fundamentalists and Fundamentalism in a godly direction. Yet many of us are mystified as to why you use inflammatory language in attempting to offer correctives to us. From this side of the fence it looks like you want to be at odds with us.

I want you to do what you are doing, to write, to teach, to speak. What we’ve talked about here is modifications I’d like to see in >how< you do them.

Kevin Bauder,

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

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

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

[Mike Harding]

We should write a book entitled, “Nine Marks of a Healthy Fundamentalism” in order to improve the Fundamental institutions already in existence.

Need a publisher?

Actually, the idea of a group project is quite a attractive. This was also the impetus behind the RBP’s recent agreement to publish a book on Northern Baptist history. Rather than following just one strand (namely, our own!), we’re grateful that Dr. Delnay and Dr. Bauder are going to trace all of the main branches that developed after 1932, including Conservative Baptists and the FBFI.

In a similar way, it may be more healthy to view fundamentalism as a family of overlapping constituencies, rather than a single unified viewpoint. At some point we may be able to figure out a way to write about “the ideas of fundamentalism” in a way that reflects the whole picture.

Mike seems to be pleading for a bit of charity, pointing out that his organization has now taken positions against previous problems such as KJV Onlyism, Keswick Arminianism, and Easy Believism. If so, great. And Don seems to be asking Kevin B to be more charitable in his phraseology (to borrow a made-up word from The Music Man.) If so, I guess I should confess to some mixed feelings here; the FBFI has consistently offered less-than-charitable critiques of the GARBC.

(“Mom, he hit me.” “No I didn’t. Besides, he hit me first.”)

Don,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until then!

Kevin

Mike,

Thank you for your post, which I deeply appreciate. Particularly, thank you for telling us what you have learned about Bruce Ware. Any of us can make this kind of mistake. I am grateful for the way that you corrected it—i.e., within the same circle of influence in which the mistake was made. I truly believe that the kind of humility you have shown is one of the most appealing things about true religion and undefiled. It adorns the gospel.

What you say about the FBFI going to position and policy statements instead of resolutions is interesting. Could you clarify what the difference will be? I always thought that the purpose of resolutions was to express a position, so I’m not completely clear on the nature of the change. Also, I’m assuming that these will still be issued by the board rather than by consent of the membership. Is that correct?

Military chaplaincy is one of the most important contributions that organizations like the FBFI can make. I’m on the fringes of this discussion because I serve as a chaplain in the USAF Auxiliary (the Civil Air Patrol). CAP chaplains work under DOD requirements, so we are encountering the same things that are challenging active duty, reserve, and guard chaplains. For example, my squadron commander recently tasked me to inform the squadron how our policies against discrimination and harassment applied to the treatment of homosexual members—especially now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been rescinded. We’re headed for much worse, I believe.

We need organizations like the FBFI and the GARBC who will help their chaplains to work through the thorny issues and who will stand by their chaplains at the difficult moments. This is an important responsibility, and it is part of the justification for the existence of these groups.

Oh—I’m happy to provide any help that I can in working through position and policy statements. On this kind of thing I prefer to work quietly and behind the scenes. Hard to believe, no? But P&P statements are not the place for rattling sabers. They need to be carefully considered and meticulously worded. I’d be willing to help with that.

In fact, let me offer a suggestion here, especially since Kevin M. is eavesdropping. When the issues are of the sort that confront all Fundamentalists (or all Fundamental Baptists), it might be worth getting the FBFI and the GARBC to work together to issue joint statements. Obviously, that won’t be appropriate all the time, but sometimes the combined effort might result in a statement that produces a synergistic effect. That’s one place that a little synergism might be good.

Kevin

Kevin,

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

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

(The other) Kevin

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

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

KTB

Don,

Now it’s time for me to address your specific recommendations. I’ll take the second one first. Here it is.

Do not speak either so positively about conservative evangelicals or so negatively about Fundamentalists that I either (a) alienate the Fundamentalists whom I wish to help, or else (b) encourage the discontent of wavering and disgruntled Fundamentalists.

Do you remember back in the 1990s when Rush Limbaugh had burst on the scene as a wildly popular radio voice for conservatism? Liberals were hyperventilating because so many people were listening to him, so they pushed the FCC to apply the so-called “fairness doctrine” to radio talk shows. The effect would have been to force the networks to give equal time to a liberal for every hour Rush was on the air.

Rush’s reply was simple and straightforward: “I am equal time.”

Well, I am equal time within Fundamentalism. On the one hand, some Fundamentalists dismiss the very real contributions of conservative evangelicals while magnifying their faults. Some Fundamentalists even repeat falsehoods. Many times when a Fundamentalist does mention the accomplishments of conservative evangelicals, he does it simply to damn with faint praise before getting down to the real business of explaining how very, very wrong conservative evangelicals actually are.

At the same time, some Fundamentalists are diligent to cover their own sins, and they expect their friends to help them. While many recognize that Fundamentalism has “warts” (that’s the usual word for it), few are willing to say or do anything about the real injustices that have been perpetrated in the name of Fundamentalism. Serious public transgressions are sometimes treated, not as sins to be confronted, but as minor flaws to be hushed up and eventually forgotten about. The perpetrators often continue to occupy positions as respected leaders within certain segments of the Fundamentalism.

If you wonder what kind of things I’m talking about, just Google “John MacArthur Blood.” That’s an episode that combines both of the above features: picking away (in this case, dishonestly) at conservative evangelicals while ignoring the public transgressions of Fundamentalists.

As long as we behave like this, nobody has reason to believe us. Nobody even has reason to take us seriously.

By the way, I do credit the FBFI for trying to offer more balanced criticisms in recent years. For example, I recall the explanatory essay that Michael Riley wrote for Frontline about John Piper. I believe that Michael did his best to present fairly both Piper’s virtues and his liabilities. If more Fundamentalists would speak more knowledgeably and truthfully about conservative evangelicals (or less adoringly of abusive Fundamentalists), then I could spend less time setting the record straight.

For the moment, however, I am equal time.

If you can think of some other way to correct the imbalance, I’d be glad to hear it. I’m ready to be convinced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don,

Evidently I touched a nerve by referencing the “blood” controversy. You make it sound as if this controversy is something that occurred in a corner in the distant past, that was dealt with adequately at the time, and that could be resolved by a merely private exchange (though I don’t believe that anything approaching an apology was ever offered to MacArthur). Perhaps the reason that the blood controversy still comes up is because none of these things is true. It has never been dealt with, and it has not gone away.

If you take the trouble to Google® “John MacArthur Blood,” you’ll find that the accusations are still being repeated. You may search all you wish for any public retraction of the accusations: you’ll never find it because it was never done. In fact, the original accuser kept repeating his charges, at least in private. The last word that he said on the subject was, “I believe that the position [MacArthur] has taken in this matter is an heretical position, and all of the correspondence in the world is not going to affect my convictions on that point.” Furthermore, if you look at your old copies of the FBF News Bulletin, you’ll find that the FBF participated in advancing the accusations. Let me quote from the FBF News Bulletin of March, 1989.

The watershed of Fundamentalism is the doctrine of the Blood of Christ. The current imbroglio hinges on whether Christ’s blood was human or divine. A popular radio preacher initiated this recent controversy by stating expressions such as “Nothing in His human blood saves” [footnote to MacArthur]. This concept reflects the coeval thinking of New Evangelicalism. Liberalism has influenced New Evangelicalism in many doctrinal areas, even in the doctrine of the Blood of Christ… . If Christ’s blood was mere human blood it could not save sinners; however, it is unique and it does save sinners and cleanse Christians because it is Divine Blood. [page 4]

Here are more quotations from the FBF News Bulletin of May, 1990.

MacArthur creates an issue that doesn’t exist by seeking to separate the death of Christ from the blood of Christ. On page 237 of his commentary on Hebrews, MacArthur states that is [sic] is “not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf.” In a letter to Mr. Tim Weidlich, dated April 4, 1986, MacArthur writes, “Obviously, it was not the blood of Jesus that saves or He could have bled for us without dying … . Yes, the blood of Christ is precious—but as precious as it is—it could not save.” [page 7]

MacArthur reduces the blood of Christ to a mere symbol of death. In this same letter of Mr. Weidlich he writes, “I admit that because of some traditional hymns there is an emotional attachment to the blood—but that should not pose a problem when one is dealing with theological or textual specificity. I can sing hymns about the blood and rejoice in them—but I understand that reference to be a metonym for His death.” [page 7]

The Scriptures speak again and again about our salvation being accomplished through the shed blood of Christ. Verses such as Romans 5:9 could scarcely be more clear, “… being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” MacArthur is equally clear if we can take his words at face value: “Nothing in His human blood saves. His shed blood represents His sacrificial, physical and spiritual death for us.” (“Grace to You,” 1976) … The Scriptures and MacArthur cannot both be right. [page 7]

Do Fundamentalists need another reminder that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? The cost of compromise is the loss of God’s blessing on our ministries and the eventual removal of our candlesticks from their places of service in God’s work. Why toy with disaster by becoming enamored with a compromiser regardless of how charming he might be? We must fight with tenacity our tendencies to follow gifted and charismatic personalities. [page 8]

Let’s not play games with the precious doctrines of God’s Word. There are no good reasons to tamper with truth. I was saved by the blood of the Crucified One. We need no other message. [page 8]

This edition of the FBF News Bulletin was issued in the summer of 1990. That is fourteen years after MacArthur’s church bulletin printed his original comments about the blood. It is also four years after Bob Jones III told MacArthur, “John, let me assure you that neither I nor anyone else has any desire to misrepresent you or anyone else. We would shudder to think of participating in an effort to malign, gossip, or slander. That is just not the way we do things. I am sure Dad will be happy to print excerpts of your letter in order to let your statements speak for themselves… . We never want to shoot someone who is fighting in faithfulness on the same side we are.” (June 20, 1986)

About a year after the publication of the article in the FBF New Bulletin, Jones III wrote again to MacArthur, “We felt that yours was an extremely dangerous and liberal position; but once you published in your own paper an article stating that the blood was “efficacious and meritorious,” we have never said another word about it. The issue was resolved at that point; and it has been our joy to tell people who continue to be concerned that they can be at ease, and refer them to your own published statements as evidence.” (July3, 1991)

Evidently the FBF didn’t get the memo. It jumped on the bandwagon of those who were assaulting MacArthur over the blood of Christ. At the time, more than a few people were accusing MacArthur of being heretical and liberal. Not only did the FBF fail to defend MacArthur from those false accusations, it actually piled on and repeated them.

So let me ask you several questions.

Did the leadership of the FBF sin when it joined in the attack instead of defending MacArthur against false accusations?

When a member of your church transgresses in a very public way, how do you counsel that person? Does public transgression require public acknowledgement, or is private confession sufficient?

Has the FBF ever issued any public statement acknowledging that its attack upon MacArthur was sinful? Has it ever even publicly expressed regret that the attack took place?

Are any of the people who were board members or other leaders of the FBF in 1990 still in positions of respect and leadership within the FBFI?

Do you think that a statement from the FBFI would help to put to rest the continuing rumors and accusations that MacArthur takes a heretical view of the blood?

You’re right that John is not asking for an apology or even a retraction or clarification. He quit asking after 1987, because it had become embarrassingly clear that he was not going to get one. The last word on the subject was, “I believe that the position [MacArthur] has taken in this matter is an heretical position, and all of the correspondence in the world is not going to affect my convictions on that point.”

You’re right—you didn’t do these things. But you are now in a position of responsibility in at least one of the organizations that did. I agree that you can’t apologize for a sin you didn’t commit, but you can (1) distance yourself from the accusations by publicly acknowledging them to be false, (2) publicly acknowledge that it was a sin for the FBF to level these accusations in the first place, and (3) express regret to John MacArthur that the accusations were ever made.

If this has ever been done by the FBFI, I would love to hear about it. My respect would skyrocket.

If the FBFI leadership, acting in concert, would do these things, what would happen?

First, the episode would be taken off the table. While it would still be a matter of historical record, the FBFI could no longer be accused of covering up the sin.

Second, while MacArthur is not asking for an apology, I think that he would receive such an expression of acknowledgement and regret as a sweet breeze out of paradise. It would finally lay to rest an unnecessary and sinful cause of division.

Third, the FBFI would be more believable when it discussed the differences that still remain between it and MacArthur. People would have greater assurance that we weren’t just making it up, eh?

Fourth, this kind of humility would go far toward removing one of the perceived impediments that dampen the enthusiasm of young men for organizations like the FBFI.

Fifth, if my reading of the New Testament is anywhere near correct, then the Lord would be pleased.

So how about it?

Kevin

P.S. Yes, I am guilty of Adam’s sin. I was there in him committing it with him. I acknowledge it to be sin, and I offer no excuse or alibi. Had it not have been for the cross of Christ my Savior, my sin in Adam would have been sufficient by itself to condemn me to an eternal hell.

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

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

The FBF appreciates John MacArthur’s expositional ministry of the Bible, but believes that his trumpet would give a more certain sound if he separated himself from speaking in places such as Moody Bible Institute, which has given support to past Billy Graham crusades and puts its stamp of approval on an upcoming Luis Palau crusade, and at Southern Baptist meetings in which he is on the same platform as Charles Colson, whose leadership in the movement known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together represents a betrayal of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. We differ with the evaluation made by James Stitzinger, faculty member at Master’s Seminary, in a recent book Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry, in which he portrays MacArthur as being in the tradition of a Charles Spurgeon in the Downgrade Controversy since in an article written in 1888 as to why he separated from the compromising London Baptist Association the “prince of preachers” contended that the only complete protest was separation. While contending for the truth MacArthur continues to associate with those who by their actions and associations aid those who dilute and destroy the truth. We believe that those who follow the MacArthur line of reasoning and practice will produce a second generation of New Evangelicals.

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

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

My point is:

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

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

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

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

Don,

Sometimes our recollection of an event or exchange does not match the reality. At an early stage of this conversation, I said this:

“People like me are the last and best hope for Old Fundamentalist institutions like the FBFI. The trouble is that most of my kind have just given up. They don’t think it’s worth the effort, because they are convinced that the house is beyond cleaning.”

Your crack about the Great White Hope indicates that you are understanding me to say that I personally am the hope of Fundamentalism.

“Seriously, you’ve got to stop referring to your self that way. The only hope of Christians is Jesus Christ.”

Well, I am a Christian and I cherish a hope (among other things) for supper tonight. If supper arrives, I shall certainly thank the Lord. Still, I hardly believe that Jesus is going to supply my supper without the mediation of secondary causes and the agency of human actors.

Admittedly, I am a proud, vain person. But even I am not so conceited as to suppose that I can save Fundamentalism single-handedly. Or at all, for that matter. I question whether anybody can.

What I do mean is that Fundamentalism will not go forward without people who are willing to do what I do. And that is not to become Doc. We do not need Doc. We never needed Doc. What we need (among other things) is people who will tell the truth about Doc. Of course, we need a good bit more than that. If we don’t have at least that, however, then Fundamentalism is not worth saving.

[NOTICE TO READERS: “Doc” is a label for a category of Fundamentalist leadership. All Docs appearing in this post are fictitious. Any resemblance to real Docs, living, dead, or (in the case of Zombie or Vampire Docs) undead is purely coincidental. Please do not write long posts defending the reputation or expatiating upon the virtues of whichever Doc you may personally admire. If you are a resident of North America, and you hold the copyright to any Doc-related materials appearing in this posting, you may contact the author to request their removal. Doc must be taken in recommended dosages. Excessive exposure to Doc may result in rash, hypertension, difficulty in breathing, or unemployment. Side effects of Doc may include nausea, vomiting, heartburn, dry mouth and wet pants. Author specifically disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including without limitation warranties of the fitness or usability of Doc. When handling Doc, the manufacturer recommends the use of kid gloves.]

[Kevin T. Bauder]

“People like me are the last and best hope for Old Fundamentalist institutions like the FBFI. The trouble is that most of my kind have just given up. They don’t think it’s worth the effort, because they are convinced that the house is beyond cleaning.”

Your crack about the Great White Hope indicates that you are understanding me to say that I personally am the hope of Fundamentalism.

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

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

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

Don,

Well, I’ve seen a job that needs to be done. Nobody else seems to be interested in doing it. So I will.

You were handed a golden opportunity to provide a balanced perspective on the Great John MacArthur Scandal. I asked you specific questions. All you had to do was to answer them. I think that your answers might have carried some weight. The fact that you refused to answer them is the reason that somebody within Fundamentalism needs to be equal time.

Tell me, what is the biblical statute of limitations on character assassination? I must’ve missed that verse in my study.

It’s not just old news. Here is a web site that is still attacking MacArthur over this issue. Here is another. And another. And yet another. This book is still out there. This guy calls MacArthur a “bloodless cult.” This one also uses cult language. Beginning to get the idea? It hardly seems worthwhile to keep going. But there’s more. And more. But I tire of this sport.

This one, however, is one to look at. It reproduces verbatim the very same article that appeared in the FBF News Bulletin in 1990. The article is still out there, still doing damage. It hardly seems defensible to suggest that this sin can be relegated to the distant past when it is so clearly exerting its effects at this moment.

Don, I genuinely wish that you would reconsider your answer. You could use your influence to get the FBFI to do something official about this. It is a shameful chapter in Fundamentalist history—and the problem is that the chapter has never really been closed. That is why people keep bringing it up.

As a member of the FBFI, I certainly want people to know that these past statements of the fellowship do not reflect my perspective. I believe that they were sinful then and they are sinful now. Like you, I cannot apologize for a sin that I did not commit, but I can do what lies in my power to stop the damage that the injustice is still doing. I do regret that these statements were ever published, and I am appalled that they are still affecting the ministry of a man of God. I sincerely wish that you—and the rest of the FBFI board—would join me in getting this episode off the table once for all.

Part of your fear is that other sins of the past might be raised. My response is, Let them! Where comparable wrongs were done (official acts that constituted pubic injustices), they can be addressed in the same way. Get the skeletons out of the closet. Dig up grandpa from the basement and given him a decent burial.

In fact, this is the very first and most important point in my counsel to the FBFI. You want to go forward? It really starts here.

By the way, in a separate post I am going to reproduce what Rolland McCune says about the blood of Christ in his impressive Systematic Theology. Then, as far as I am concerned, I have said all that I plan to say on this subject. I would love to hear that the FBFI board has made this a topic for one of its position and policy statements.

Kevin