Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

Mr. McAllister,

The label “New Image Fundamentalism” was coined by Jack Keep during the 1980s to refer to individuals and institutions that professed to be Fundamentalist but were characterized by some combination of the following:

(1) They were attracted to the church growth movement, which eventually gave birth to the seeker-sensitive philosophy. [Incidentally, “church growth” and “seeker-sensitive” need to be distinguished from “contemporary.” The first two are almost always the latter, but it is not necessarily the former.]

(2) They rejected in principle any form of “secondary separation,” equating it with guilt-by-association.

(3) They were influenced by those who were allowing social sciences rather than theology to become the organizing point of church activity. They understood counseling in integrationist terms, missiology in anthropological terms, language in terms of linguistics rather than rhetoric, ministry in terms of sociology, etc. This influence could be greater or lesser, depending upon the individual or institution.

(4) A softening or rejection of many of the “traditional taboos” that had been shared by Fundamentalists and the original New Evangelicals.

(5) A new emphasis upon social activity and political involvement as aspects of the mission of the church.

This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but indicative.

In effect, New Image Fundamentalists became indistinguishable from many conservative evangelicals of their day. They only remaining difference was often the name.

Examples of 1980’s New Image Fundamentalists included Jack Van Impe, Edward Dobson, Edward Hindson, and Jerry Falwell. Publications included “Heart Disease in Christ’s Body” by Jack Van Impe, “The Fundamentalist Phenomenon,” edited by Jerry Falwell, and “The Fundamentalist Journal,” edited by Dobson and Hindson. A softened form or the trend became rather influential in the GARBC through the mediation of Paul Dixon, Dan Gelatt, Wendell Kempton, and Paul Tassell. It affected Liberty Baptist College, Grand Rapids Baptist College, Los Angeles Baptist College, and Cedarville College. Ironically, Los Angeles actually became more biblically-focused and conservative when it was turned over to MacArthur and became Master’s College, than it had been when it was supposed to be a Fundamentalist institution.

Mr. Ernsberger,

Should Mohler, Duncan, etc., have signed the Manhattand declaration? Absolutely not! It was a bad mistake, or, if you prefer, a rather serious error. It was, however, rather an isolated error committed by men who had already paid a heavy price for their separatism. While it cannot be overlooked entirely, it must not become the only defining factor with respect to these men’s ministries.

The operative word in my statement was “knowingly.” I do regard the Manhattan Declaration as a compromise of the gospel. Having said that, if we take seriously the words of Mohler himself, he does not believe that it requires him to extend Christian recognition or cooperation to Roman Catholics. The same can be said of other situations, for example Bethlehem Baptist’s ongoing involvement with Converge.

I do take these men seriously. I think they are wrong, but their error is the error of a mistake and not of deliberate disobedience to our Master. Still, it would be more difficult to be involved with a Mohler or a Duncan than it would be with a Dever or a MacArthur. The range of possible fellowship is more restricted.

Kevin

A note from Myron Houghton, chair, theology dept, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, Ankeny, Iowa: [email protected]

I don’t normally read blogs because of time constraints but others have drawn my attention to this discussion so here are my own thoughts:

First, I believe in preaching for decisions, both for unbelievers to be saved and for believers to respond to God’s Word. Second, I regularly give public invitations when I preach. I make it clear that walking an aisle doesn’t save or help to save but it does give us an opportunity to pray and counsel with them. Third, I believe and practice expository preaching as my normal pattern. Fourth, I believe in a one-stage salvation: everything needed to live a life of victory over sin is given to people when they place their trust in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a two-stage salvation: “trust Christ as Savior and then later trust Him as Lord.” But as believers grow, periodically they will be challenged by God through His Word to respond in a decisive and, perhaps, even in a public way. This could happen any number of times in the life of a Christian.

There has been some question about the policy of West Coast Baptist College regarding its graduates’ use of the KJV. Below, I reproduce the statement of Jerry Goddard, the Dean of Administrative Affairs, in response to this issue.

____________________________________________________

Thank you for your recent inquiry into the policies of West Coast Baptist College. I trust the information I am able to give you will answer your questions satisfactorily.

I have listed here a statement which is read at graduation each May. We ask our graduating students to stand as an indication of their agreement with the statement. As you can see, it does not mention church attendance, as the rumor had mentioned.

“As candidates for graduation from West Coast Baptist College, I want to ask you to listen to the following challenge. As your ‘final test’ at this institution, I would like to ask you if you agree with the following:

That the Bible is the fully verbally inspired Word of God, and that God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people.

That there is one God who is Eternal, Self-Existent, Infinite, Immutable, and has revealed Himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of mankind. That He possesses all the attributes of Personality and Deity.

That all men were born with an inherited sin nature received from our common ancestor, Adam. That because of this we are a sinner whose hope of salvation is only in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

That the Local Church is God’s only institution to carry out Christ’s work for today.

That the literal interpretation of the Scriptures is the only correct process to use.

That Christ will return literally to rapture the saints out to be with Him. That those lost will be left behind to face the tribulation period followed by the Second Coming of Christ with His saints to the earth, and that sinners will face God at the Great White Throne Judgment and will ultimately be cast into a literal lake of fire called Hell. That the saved will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ and live forever with God in Heaven.

That you personally have accepted Jesus Christ as your Saviour, and that it is your desire to serve Him with your life until the rapture or death.

That if at any time, as a graduate of West Coast Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.”

Jerry F. Goddard, Ed.D. | Dean of Administrative Affairs

Dr. Bauder,

Thanks for the clarification. I can see now the stream of “fundamentalism” that you are talking about. I’m pretty much antithetical to each of those tenants of New Image Fundamentalism, especially in the political and seeker-sensitive areas. At the same time, I wish there were a stream of fundamentalism that is committed to the cross of Jesus in a way that is clearly distinguished from the excesses of previous fundamentalisms. What could be a good name for that? New Image is taken. Oh well.

Shayne

As a former member of Mark Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist. I appreciate his view of Lig Duncan. Of his view on paedo-baptism, Dever would say something like “Lig Duncan is a great friend, and helpful preacher of the gospel. I think Lig is in sin on the issue of baptism, but it’s an issue that isn’t crucial to the gospel.” I imagine he would say something like that on the Manhattan Declaration. If someone signs a document, and issues a blog entry or two explaining WHY the signed it, and what the did and did not mean by signing it, I think we have to applaud that kind of carefulness. At the same time we can still point out the downsides and lack of wisdom of those who signed it. Al Mohler has shown an unshakable trajectory towards faithfulness to the gospel, and this decision shouldn’t define him.

For the record, I do not believe that someone who prefers or uses a King James Bible is an extremist. There are people within historic, mainstream Fundamentalism who believe that the Textus Receptus represents the best preservation of the original Greek text of the New Testament. There are people who believe that the King James best preserves and translates the text of both testaments in the English language. Some of these people so delight in the King James that they wish to limit their usage and the usage of their congregations to the King James.

I don’t see any real problem with any of the above. I have no argument with such persons.

The problem arises when someone insists that the King James is the only English version that can be recognized as the Word of God, meaning that a NASB or NIV is not the Word of God. When someone calls the NASB or the NIV a “perversion,” they have crossed the line into contempt for God’s Word. That is not an error that I am minded to overlook. If they further insist that those who use the NIV or the NASB are “sinful hypocrites,” or the “leaven in Fundamentalism,” they are now outside of historic, mainstream Fundamentalism and have clearly transgressed into hyper-fundamentalist territory.

Here is a statement from an independent Baptist college:

“We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, “as it is in truth, the Word of God…” (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God’s preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use.”

This statement is already over the line. By implication it rejects the NIV, ESV, NASV, ASV, etc. and refuses to recognize them as the Word of God. This is already contempt for Scripture.

But another Fundamentalist denounces this college as heretical for not clearly stating that the King James is inspired, preserved, infallible, and inerrant. The college’s president is rebuked because he preached at the “apostate” Bob Jones University [for the record, I am thankful for the direction in leadership that was established at BJU under Bob Jones III and has been continued under Stephen Jones. While Stephen has not made himself a public figure, I believe that he is one of the most exciting young leaders in Fundamentalism.] Even Jack Schaap is denounced as a heretic because of his “weakness” on the KJV. Here is the URL if you don’t believe me.

http://www.amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/subpage640.html

That such Fundamentalists exist is a fact, and there is no way of finessing it. For too long many Fundamentalists have been far too tolerant of outrageous conduct to our Right while taking a bazooka to anything on our Left. If we cannot separate from the nonsense to our our Right, then we lose every shred of moral authority when we complain about the relatively lesser infractions slightly to our Left.

This is not about one-upmanship. If is not about self-promotion. It is about defending biblical Christianity from all detractors. Unfortunately, some of those detractors wear the Fundamentalist label.

Those who still cling to the great fundamentals of the faith, and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals, need to stand together against the nonsense. Increasingly, they are. There are plenty of Fundamentalists whose purpose to love rightly, judge wisely, and lead gently.

[Kevin T. Bauder] That if at any time, as a graduate of West Coast Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.”

Jerry F. Goddard, Ed.D. | Dean of Administrative Affairs

Does the good Doctor Goddard and the institution offer financial remuneration (i.e. institutional costs the student had to pay in full) to those he and the institution insist should return their diploma and “relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it”? Maybe I will take the time to correspond just in case I run into a graduate or two faced with this dilemma. :)

[Kevin T. Bauder] The problem arises when someone insists that the King James is the only English version that can be recognized as the Word of God…they are now outside of historic, mainstream Fundamentalism and have clearly transgressed into hyper-fundamentalist territory.

Is there any way when identifying such groups that the term hyper-fundamentalist might be reconsidered? Maybe aberrant-fundamentalists? The term hyper-fundamentalist seems to carry with it the implication of it simply being an excess of what is fundamentalism when in this case it is not, it is just as you say, “outside of mainstream fundamentalism”. I do understand there probably can be hyper-fundamentalists but it is just a minor thought that such a distinction might be worthwhile when time allows for attendance to such details.

How about a term they would readily claim themselves? Might not be possible, but it’s clearly the ideal. What we call eachother has a huge impact on whether rifts widen or potentially, over time, narrow (which is why, sometimes, it’s a really bad idea to use a “soft” term… narrowing the rift is not desireable. But I don’t think that’s the case here. We’re talking about our brothers). We have “conservative evangelical” for those folks. While many of them might not claim that term, I’m sure they’d own “evangelical” and wouldn’t deny that they are more conservative than many of their colleagues.

But the folks on the right don’t want to be called “hyper” or “aberrant.”

An idea: is it possible to move in the direction of talking about the ideas rather than the groups that are more or less adherents to them? That is, “hyper fundamentalist ideas and practices” rather than “hyperfundamentalists.” The difference is that it fits the reality better. In some cases, of course, we have to talk about groups and trends, but there are so many that hold idea A associated w/”hyper” but reject B, C and D associated with “hyper” and all sorts of variations along those lines, both in belief and in practice.

Sometimes, in expressing principles, it’s necessary to lump. But when dealing with real people, we usually are wiser to find out where they actually stand vs. lumping them in w/a group they seem to be more or less associated with.

Perhaps owning a new label of your own might be better. Gospel-centered fundamentalists or renewed fundamentalists. Or something even grander than that. While this version of fundamentalism has always been present, perhaps rounding the corner on the perspective about the far right and the near left (CEs), mith warrant a new label too.

The freedom of thought and encouraged thinking ideals which Dr. Bauder expressed above are not typical of those in some wings of fundamentalism. I’m a bit taken aback at your statement here:

[RPittman] Why would a student choose West Coast for four years if he or she was not willing to buy into these ideals? It seems to me analogous to taking out the student loan and signing the agreement but then balking at making the payments after four years. Alex, do you have a problem with the loyalty to a cause concept? :-)

Why? You can’t understand why? Many kids are raised in a closed environment where they don’t even know other positions besides KJVO exist! Seriously. And Bible College is seen as tantamount to a Christian duty. Many a freshman would enter WCBC or similar schools, without much backbone and conviction of his or her own. The thinking student is often rare. The one who is totally getting the program and the plan, and who is truly signing on the dotted line to serve the cause (that we-are-the-last-standing-battalion-of-fundamentalism), is the one who’s rare.

Wow - why this thread reminds me of the early days here at SI - you young ones won’t remember, but in the early days we used to get “at it” like this. Yeeeehaw!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Does owning the label make you more spiritual? Does it please God and increase your standing with Him?

That isn’t really the point. An appropriate label is a handle on a concept and if people are going to think about a concept, it needs a handle. It’s really nothing more than that. Well, almost nothing more. Because the handle can be shaped, so to speak, so that it prejudices thinking about its object in a particular way. This is why pro-life folks want to refer to pro-abortion policies as “pro-death,” for example, but the pro-aborts want to call it “pro-choice.”

The handles tilt you toward viewing the subject a particular way before you even really look at it.

In the case of the handles Bob suggested, well, if you can claim one that is both accurate and likely to predispose folks to respond positively to your ideas, it’s just putting your best foot forward. But I’m pretty sure nobody here has any delusions about some label impacting their standing with God!

Edit… about the whole West Coast thing… I don’t agree with their views on the translation issue, but I can’t see how it should be a surprise to anybody who goes to school there. I don’t see why a school can’t require anything it pleases as long as it’s up front about it and so students know what they’re getting into.

“Here, all students must wear Waldo style red and white stocking caps at all times, and pledge to never eat tuna on Thursdays for the rest of their lives.” Fine with me. Those who don’t like it can go elsewhere. I don’t get what the fuss is about on that one.

Edit: unofficial (so far) topic nudge: let’s not make this completely a KJVO debate thread, please. Insofar as it relates to the boundaries of fundamentalism issue, it’s relevant but going into pros and cons for that position really belongs in another thread.

[dr.m.houghton] A note from Myron Houghton, chair, theology dept, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, Ankeny, Iowa: [email protected]

I don’t normally read blogs because of time constraints but others have drawn my attention to this discussion so here are my own thoughts:

First, I believe in preaching for decisions, both for unbelievers to be saved and for believers to respond to God’s Word. Second, I regularly give public invitations when I preach. I make it clear that walking an aisle doesn’t save or help to save but it does give us an opportunity to pray and counsel with them. Third, I believe and practice expository preaching as my normal pattern. Fourth, I believe in a one-stage salvation: everything needed to live a life of victory over sin is given to people when they place their trust in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a two-stage salvation: “trust Christ as Savior and then later trust Him as Lord.” But as believers grow, periodically they will be challenged by God through His Word to respond in a decisive and, perhaps, even in a public way. This could happen any number of times in the life of a Christian.

I know my style of writing will never be confused with the style of my brilliant wife, but nonetheless, this post is coming from Matt Herbster, not Julie.

Thanks for this statement Dr. Houghton. It helps a little to clarify Central’s statement. I really wish there could be more description given to some of these labels. (revivalistic, decisionistic …) I was with Joe Roof in wondering if every camp and evangelist was being lumped together under these (revivalistic, decisionistic) labels.

Mr. Pittman:

:D But I prefer a shotgun because the aim is more forgiving … Let me take another shot. :bigsmile:

A Christian may hold to a KJVO position sincerely but ignorantly and still be godly provided they are not strident

No one can be quarrelsome and be considered godly no matter what position one holds. Many, many KJVO types fit this sad description. I have been in on too many meeting where this is sadly the case. FWIW, I have been around this position for years (35 to be exact) and have felt the sting of being on the wrong side. It was tremendously divisive in Canada where my early ministry was. I have no—ZERO—tolerance for this any more. Discussing it is a real waste of time. There are so many more important things to discuss than the KJV.

I really think that most KJVO types fail to really understand that they do not hold to the 1611 and to advertise that they do, when in fact they do not, is deceitful or ignorant. You pick.

“Well, someday you and I will have to discuss the premise that the KJV so influenced and molded the English language so that English itself carried theological content, which would give the KJV priority over any translation from a variable, eclectic text translated with a dynamic equivocal view influenced by Post-modern deconstructionist theory.”

This is … well silly at best and well, absurd to argue that modern translations are “influenced by Post-modern deconstructionist theory.” But I must say. This is an innovative new argument that I have not heard marshaled before! So I’d give you a E for effort.

What “old guys” who preferred the KJV over the RSV are you talking about? Did you know that John R Rice actually promoted it in the Sword?

Of course you don’t buy my arguments … I don’t really care if you do. Use the KJV to your heart’s content. But let me use the translation I prefer with naming me a heretic or worse.

Jeff

Sorry all. I have been gone all day…trying to catch up.

Becky,

I didn’t mean to be over the top. Let me take another crack at what I meant. A person can exclusviely use the KJV and be Godly. I think they can be KJVO as long as they are not quarolsome. I think it is impossible to believe that a translation corrects the originals and be Godly. I have many family members too who are KJV only and preferred that are Godly. We do strongly disagree though.

Rowland,

I dont think i smeared Westcoast. Even reading the statement posted it seems to me that if a graduate of said institution comes to a conviction that allows him to use a modern translation that they would expect the degree back. Maybe it is tongue and cheek. Maybe they believe there is some wiggle room. But If i am wrong, I will recant. I have no problem with loyalty, its a great trait! But I think a more wise action would be similar to BJU. Making them sign on to the Fundamentals. That was not part of the Fundamentals. I remind everyone again that John R Rice was not KJVO.

I know a little Greek, he’s my barber. As for a little Hebrew, he runs a deli near the school.

http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/images/09_08/deadhorsebeat_2…]

[Jeff Straub] I know a little Greek, he’s my barber. As for a little Hebrew, he runs a deli near the school.

Spoken like the school historian… :)

[RPittman]

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Kevin T. Bauder] That if at any time, as a graduate of West Coast Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.”

Jerry F. Goddard, Ed.D. | Dean of Administrative Affairs

Does the good Doctor Goddard and the institution offer financial remuneration (i.e. institutional costs the student had to pay in full) to those he and the institution insist should return their diploma and “relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it”? Maybe I will take the time to correspond just in case I run into a graduate or two faced with this dilemma. :)

Seems as if West Coast still holds some old fashioned ideals about loyalty to a principle and truth over self-will. This seems to be more a matter of commitment and honor than an enforcible revocation of the diploma. Why would a student choose West Coast for four years if he or she was not willing to buy into these ideals? It seems to me analogous to taking out the student loan and signing the agreement but then balking at making the payments after four years. Alex, do you have a problem with the loyalty to a cause concept? :-)

It is quite possible that after graduation and further enlightenment in their studies a graduate may come to a differing belief even if while attending they did agree with teachings or convictions of the college. But as to the problem with the concept of loyalty to a cause, I have no problem with that concept but I do have problems with misuse of such virtues through over-extension.

But never minding that since my position is that if the institution wishes to make this an expressed desire for their graduates so be it. My question then is, do you have a problem with the expectation that if an institution is going to insist on a return of diplomas that it be insisted they refund such cooperating students all monies paid to the school and its satellite business for their education? When someone wants something back which another paid for it appears that the only biblical position is that person be willing to give them their money back to gain that for which another has paid. I do not see this institution eagerly offering this in their insistence that diplomas be returned.

And this might explain why institutions considered to be on the fringe are so for more than one reason. It seems there are multiple exotic and extra-ordinary practices and views that accompany these kinds. But if this singular issue is straying too far off topic then forgive me.

[Alex Guggenheim] But never minding that since my position is that if the institution wishes to make this an expressed desire for their graduates so be it. My question then is, do you have a problem with the expectation that if an institution is going to insist on a return of diplomas that it be insisted they refund such cooperating students all monies paid to the school and its satellite business for their education? When someone wants something back which another paid for it appears that the only biblical position is that person be willing to give them their money back to gain that for which another has paid. I do not see this institution eagerly offering this in their insistence that diplomas be returned.

The don’t have to refund the tuition because the student has violated the terms of the warranty. ;) It’s a slightly different scenario, but this reminds me of families where the parents view any practices they disapprove of by their grown or married children as a betrayal of some sort. Family tradition, regardless of its foundation or meaning, is sacred.

…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.

This reflects my personal experiences, and it sounds reasonable to me.

If they are indeed trying to promote loyalty, this is a poor way to go about it. It seems more similar to a process of disbarring a lawyer- which sets the school in a position that seems inconsistent with their articulated position on the primacy of the local (as not rooted to a specific location in California) church. Rather than being loyal to a cause, I would describe it as attempting to enforce or legislate allegiance to an institution, which is not necessarily the same thing.

BTW, RPittman- as much as you are making a big deal about the label issue- you are the one who keeps this discussion going, and protesting that there is a segment being marginalized or forsaken or what ever. What exactly are you wanting to take place? There are people whose conclusions are leading them in decidedly different directions. Those people are not willing to surrender their conclusions. Differing conclusions are informing and leading to different practices that make involvement with one another increasingly difficult.

Again, what Central has done in this stement is articulate, not necessarily what Fundamentalism is or even should be, but what kind of Fundamentalism they would work with and lend support to. The point here seems to me that doctrine (ideals and principles) and practice (those principles applied) will dictate the bounds of their fellowship and interaction, rather than people who identify with a label they have historically.

The question I pose to you, RPittman, is why do you see that as such a problem? I am certain that institutions like WCBC and Ambassador (to cite two you’ve mentioned) are not any more eager to identify with Central than Central might be with them on many of the issues being discussed. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish in this conversation?

In California religious schools have a conditional exemption from state approval and may grant religious degrees as allowed by law. The normal contract laws still apply. Under those laws, a company or institution originating and making a contract has the responsibility to make the terms clear to the other party. The contract will be interpreted liberally in favor of the inferior party not originating the contract. Unless WCBC makes it clear to applying students, and entering students, that such a post graduation requirement will be made, then such a requirement would be most likely unenforceable. The school would be under obligation to give notice of graduation, diploma received, and send transcripts for th non compliant graduate as with all other graduates. The post graduate denial of their doctrinal statement by a graduate most likely would not relieve them of their normal obligations. Such a prior warning would probably need to be evidenced by a clear signed agreement with the student before entering the school. A graduate could bring legal action and possibly prevail. Since this would be an action against an institution operating under state laws and not a church it may be in order. Also, unless such a clear prior agreement has been made by WCBC with a graduate, it is under a clear moral obligation to not enforce such a post graduate requirement.

There are both moral and legal obligations upon WCBC. This school has obviously taken its extremist unscriptural KJVO position to arrogant and sinful excesses. This is one of the many manifestations of “ungodly” attitudes by those holding the KJVO position.

There are several other unscriptural doctrines taught at this school including the doctrine of the required divine nature of the blood of Christ.

[RPittman]

[Jay C.] 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.

Jay, I am almost in agreement with you. I would shade your statement slightly by asserting that it represents what he wants it to look like or where he is trying to nudge it toward. And there is nothing wrong with this. The flip side is that there are others, such as myself, who envision a different design and we are trying to nudge Fundamentalism in that direction.

Of course, Jay, I would challenge you on your use of “real Fundamentalism.” It seems that everyone is claiming that his side is the “real Fundamentalism” and this is what I call “spiritual oneupmanship.” It’s like the folks who always call their personal opinions the “Biblical view.” Somehow, they think it elevates their opinions beyond critique and questioning.

RPittman-

I’ve got no problem with you having a different design for Fundamentalism, but I think that it’s only fair to ask what your concept of Fundamentalism is before I jump in and agree with you whole heartedly. ;) So often we argue over the term Fundamentalist without describing what we actually hold to. I am a Fundamentalist, for example, but I don’t think that you have to use only a KJV in order to be a Fundy. There are others, including possibly some on this site, who wouldn’t have any kind of fellowship with me just because of that. My challenge to you is to be able to clearly articulate what those Fundamenal beliefs are rather than just disagreeing with everyone else. Basically, being a naysayer - even if you’re right - doesn’t advance the conversation.

I’m at the point now, to be honest, where I don’t think I can ‘take’ any label and really make it mine because everything has been so corrupted and warped by people on each side - those to the Left and to the Right. So I’m not even sure there’s a point to being a “Fundamentalist” anymore.

From time to time, I’ll ask people on this site what the Fundamentals really are…and I do that for two reasons. First, I do it because I think that the old 4 volume set NEEDS to be updated, and secondly, because if we can’t come to some kind of agreement on what doctrines are Fundamental, then what’s the point in being a Fundamentalist? It seems like there’s 40 differing opinions on Fundamentalists and yet there’s 30 people in the discussion!

So rather than articulate all the problems with Bauder’s vision, give me something constructive. You can even http://sharperiron.org/writing-for-sharperiron] submit it to be published on the site , if you want!

I am among many in IFB circles who will NEVER agree with or follow the lead and influence of Bauder and Doran to increase fellowship and cooperation with these so-called “conservative” evangelicals. The first and primary reason is that they propagate a false gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation. All other considerations, and there are several, for separation from them are secondary to that one.

I addressed this in the previous article when I challenged Bauder to stop the gross misrepresentation that there is unanimity across Fundamentalism with the evangelicals on the Gospel. Hundreds of evangelists, pastors and teachers in Fundamentalism do NOT “believe, preach and defend the [LS] Gospel” of the evangelicals. We resist it as fervently as we would Roman Catholicism.

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/08/cogitations-stemming-f… Source

This illustrates that it is not only Central drawing lines.

[RPittman]

Greg, I think your post needs only one answer. This thread ought to be about ideas and issues, not individuals. So, why is your post all about me and my motives? Nuff said.

I don’t agree. This thread is about the statement Central made. In it, they conclude:

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.

The issue at this point is not necessarily what constitutes Fundamentalism, but what constitutes the kind of Fundamentalists Central will work with. That’s why I am unsure what you are trying to accomplish.

[RPittman]

Greg, I don’t hardly see how this is germane to the discussion because no one is contesting the idea of Biblical separation (i.e. drawing lines). Unless you are going to take an Interfaith point-of-view, every religious perspective has boundaries. The question under debate here is where the lines ought to be drawn for Bible-believing Fundamentalism.

That is my point. There are those who are as opposed to what Central is saying and doing as they are to Roman Catholicism. Those are pretty strong words. I don’t think the person in question would equate Roman Catholicism with “Bible-believing Fundamentalism.”

[RPittman] However, let’s not make that non-cooperation or separation a matter of relegating those Fundamentalists to second class status or non-Fundamentalists. They don’t need reviling on SI.

What does that mean to you, exactly- this “second class status”? If there are those whom one will not cooperate, for whatever reason, how can that lack of cooperation be expressed in terms that would not leave someone with the impression that they were not relegated to some sort of “second class”?

As for your motives overall- that is not my point. I am just trying to figure out what you are hoping to accomplish in this conversation. I don’t suspect you of ulterior motives or anything like that. I am just working from the presumption that this is what Central (and others who may be likely to follow their lead) have decided to do. I’m wondering what your best case scenario is for Central, then, given the apparent fervor with which you have pursued this thread. That’s what I mean when I ask what you’re trying to accomplish.

[RPittman] Greg, let’s be accurate. The unnamed writer of the second quote did not equate Roman Catholicism with Central. He is opposed to Central’s openness to the CE Gospel view. He said that he would “resist it as fervently as [he] would Roman Catholicism. [emphasis added] ” There is a difference. Also, you must allow a writer some freedom of expression or you have boring stuff. The writer is simply emphasizing how strongly opposed he is to the other position. Now, you must put this in context. Both quotes are referring to the defining of the Gospel. Apparently the views are significantly different as articulated by both sides. If so, then this is a big, big issue amounting to the size of the issues separating us from Roman Catholicism. Allowing for differences in style, the quotes are saying the same from opposite viewpoints. You can’t criticize one without taking the other to task, Greg.

Resisting at that level has implications. Roman Catholicism’s view of the gospel is not sufficient to save- it is not of grace. This is not the same as resisting a Presbyterian view of baptism, or a Pentecostal view of the work of the Spirit, or even an Arminian capability of losing salvation. I resist those fervently, yet recognize that people can hold to these errors and may still be regenerate. I maintain a strong disagreement, but I do not see those I listed as candidate for evangelism in the same way I would a Roman Catholic.

That said, my main point was that there are those opposite of Central who apparently feel the same way that Central does, if not more so. Again, it seems that you are opposing Central’s justification of their position, when I am observing that it seems to be a far bigger issue than just Central at this juncture. There is a gap, and it is widening.

RPittman stated:

Bro. Bob, with your legal training, you ought not have overlooked the word “should.” The statement reads: “you should return your diploma and relinquish.” This makes clear that the act is voluntary based on an ethical argument and grounds of loyalty. This is a legitimate voluntary appeal, IMHO. Even a layman, such as myself, can understand the clear sense of the statement that West Coast is simply setting forth the purpose and expectations of its training.

You are right, even a layman can understand the meaning - provided they excersize some common sense. The clause reads:

you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.”

The word “should” has a range of meanings. One meaning is to indicate “an obligation or duty.” The clause indicates they are requested to “relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors.” Thus it is an effort to place an obligation regarding rights upon the graduate. The word “should” is interpreted in contract law as requiring an obligation. This is more than a suggestion. The problem would come if a graduate did change doctrine and it was well known so the school would refuse to release transcripts or to confirm their graduation to another institution or a church and thus impair the graduate.

But what is of greater concern is the arrogant attempt to get all graduates to continue in the heresy that is involved in their view of the word of God. There is no doubt that if some of their graduates continue in further study or more formal education they will change and denounce the KJVO position. This has already been the case. This school is but 12 miles from my house. I have interacted with a couple graduates who have renounced the KJVO position and the school. They regret having gone there.

Your attempt to defend this school on this point has no merit. May I also suggest that your attempts to interact on this thread have indicated that you are merely attempting to defend the KJVO position, which you personally advocate. One poster,Jeff Straub, on here indicated that he did not consider it very possible for a KJVO advocate to also meet the criteria of being “godly.” I understand what he means by the term but do not like to use it as just as Jesus indicated “there are none good but God.” We may also say there are none truly Godly but God himself. We are called to Holy as God is Holy (relative sense), but we shall not attain such in this life. I prefer to use the term “spiritual.” The signs of a spiritual person, and the contrasting fleshly person, are seen in such passages as Gal.5:16-26. Unfortunately, there appear to be very few Pastors and leaders who hold the KJVO position who manifest true Spirituality. Many manifest fleshly characteristics. They will often go to any convoluted argument or twisting of facts to defend their position. They often lack in personal learning or formal education but manifest extreme arrogance and are unteachable to the extreme. There is every reason to separate from them.

Rowland,

My intention was not to smear the position of WCBC. Bob’s recent post does clear up “should” a little bit. But even giving them the benefit of the doubt with it as you have done, there is a problem. A know of a KJVO missionary who was there at graduation. He heard what was said and he took it to mean exactly how I did. He even thought that it was over the top. It is their right to be KJVO. I think it is unwise for them to make such a statement. Such a position is equating this issue to the Deity of Christ and I truly believe that is a dangerous thing to do and it will only lead to God not being glorified. I think someone can be strongly KJV preferred and still have good fellowship with those who are not. I have many friends in that category.

What, for the purposes of this discussion, do we mean by “fellowship” and “cooperation”? I think some are being a bit disingenuous on this topic. After all, are we not all in cahoots to a certain extent with many, many Bible-rejectors and apostates? Or am I the only one who shops at Kroger and WalMart and has watched a George Lucas movie… or two? It seems that for some, any sort of acknowledgment that Dr. Samuel J. Snodgrass or Bro. John Jacob Jingle Hymer Smith has done or said something good is tantamount to an epic betrayal of the Gospel. So… if I recommend any resource whose author is not 100% in line with mine or someone else’s view of what is pure and right, I might as well be a Roman Catholic? I’m sorry, but that’s patently ridiculous and not an argument worthy of consideration. Hyperbole much?

Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that Bauder or Doran are attempting to influence anyone to ‘cooperate’ with any person who advocates Lordship Salvation. This is a common accusation flung here and there and everywhere without proper foundation. We are not to level accusations against the brethren, particularly elders, without witnesses. If someone can present some evidence of this malfeasance that hasn’t been put through and blender and strained through a colander in order to cut&paste together a few unrelated scraps to try to build a case, then there’d be something to discuss along those lines. Otherwise it’s just gossip and rumor-mongering.

The abuse of the doctrine of separation has done more to promote bigoted blowhards to positions of power and influence (at least in their own minds, anyway) than any other element of Fundamentalism. Instead of its proper use, which is humble correction and restoration, it is wielded like an axe to manipulate, dominate, and control the vulnerable. In elementary school we call these people ‘bullies’, for those of you in Rio Linda.

I see what Central is doing as a repudiation of these harmful practices, whether they have ever been guilty of them or not. And to that I say “Hallelujah!” Even as a KJVO (or KJVP or whatever tag you want to stick to my forehead) I can see the damage that is done when an application (that one has reached in good conscience before God) is elevated to doctrine and becomes a steam roller which with to squoosh people who haven’t reached that conclusion (in good conscience before God). I personally don’t appreciate comments that imply that because I believe in preservation, I am either ignorant, unGodly, or both. It’s just the exact same bullying tactic turned around because in certain company folks know they’ll get a big “Amen” if they bash a certain ‘crowd’. The problem isn’t holding to a conviction, but elevating that conviction to an undeserved status and then using it as a weapon against others who dare to disagree. You can do it with KJV preservation, or homeschooling, or movie watching, or choosing music, or clothing and hair, or having a Christmas tree. Just choose your poison.

[Bob Hayton] Perhaps owning a new label of your own might be better.

I like Evangelical Fundamentalism myself. I thank Dr Bauder for giving me “permission” to wear it.

[RPittman]

[Central Ethos Statement] We regard both of these extremes as equally dangerous…. 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…. we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity..[emphasis added]

[Lou Martuneac (via Greg Linscott)] I am among many in IFB circles who will NEVER agree with or follow the lead and influence of Bauder and Doran to increase fellowship and cooperation with these so-called “conservative” evangelicals. The first and primary reason is that they propagate a false gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation…. Hundreds of evangelists, pastors and teachers in Fundamentalism do NOT “believe, preach and defend the [LS] Gospel” of the evangelicals. We resist it as fervently as we would Roman Catholicism.

( http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/08/cogitations-stemming-f…] Source )

These two quotes are from opposite sides of the present debate. Both quotes say pretty much the same thing allowing for difference in style and expression. Each side considers the other dangerous. Greg Linscott found fault with the second but he apparently accepts the first.

I think you are obstinately refusing to listen to those you are interacting with Roland. You are finding fault with the first quote here, saying they shouldn’t write off parts of fundamentalism as being “second class” or whatever. Then Greg brings to your attention, some of those on the other side being excluded in the Central statement. They are obviously excluding Central and assigning them to a “second class” status or even worse. But they get a pass in your book? If Central is in the wrong here, certainly Lou and his boys are too. Earlier WCBC was brought up as an example of the other side drawing firm lines in the sand, and you excuse them too. It seems you are being a bit bullheaded here. The WCBC and now this example by Lou Martuneac, are clear examples of the other side of Fundamentalism already drawing firm distinctions with Central’s position. So in a sense, they’re just returning the favor. At least that could easily be understood.

[DavidO]

[Bob Hayton] Perhaps owning a new label of your own might be better.

I like Evangelical Fundamentalism myself. I thank Dr Bauder for giving me “permission” to wear it.

Looks good! Maybe it will catch on… :)

Hey, maybe we all finally found a term we can agree with. Does this mean we can finally sit around a campfire and roast marshmellows in peace?

RPittman, take all the time you need. I’m in no rush :)

I was talking with friends yesterday, and I said something to the effect of “I’d rather be known what I’m standing FOR some time rather than what I’m standing AGAINST all of the time.” If you want to work on doing that, or even work with me on putting together something like that, I’ll be happy to work with you, provided we can. If, for example, we find that I want dispenationalism to be a Fundamental (which I don’t) and you don’t want it to be one, then there’s not much we can do..

Dark chocolate or milk chocolate for the ‘smores? That’s something still worth fighting for, right? ;)

Dark or milk is fine, as long as it’s Hershey’s. You have to watch out for perverted offerings based on the Nestle… ;-)

That was really good, Greg. I can’t think of a come back. Nestle, yes…. definitely worth separating over…

[SusanR] I see what Central is doing as a repudiation of these harmful practices, whether they have ever been guilty of them or not. And to that I say “Hallelujah!” Even as a KJVO (or KJVP or whatever tag you want to stick to my forehead) I can see the damage that is done when an application (that one has reached in good conscience before God) is elevated to doctrine and becomes a steam roller which with to squoosh people who haven’t reached that conclusion (in good conscience before God). I personally don’t appreciate comments that imply that because I believe in preservation, I am either ignorant, unGodly, or both. It’s just the exact same bullying tactic turned around because in certain company folks know they’ll get a big “Amen” if they bash a certain ‘crowd’. The problem isn’t holding to a conviction, but elevating that conviction to an undeserved status and then using it as a weapon against others who dare to disagree. You can do it with KJV preservation, or homeschooling, or movie watching, or choosing music, or clothing and hair, or having a Christmas tree. Just choose your poison.

To Bob T and some others… can we please be more precise in the use of the word heresy? It is not heresy to believe “I think I the KJV is best and so it’s all I’m going to use.” It’s not even heresy to believe “The TR is the purest text.” People start approaching heresy when they start tampering with inspiration to freight it with a connection to a single translation in some way that implies a second act of inspiration or ongoing inspiration or something along those lines.

But there is a second factor. Heresy, as I understand it has a doctrinal factor and then a posture factor. There’s your notions on one hand and then how you wield them on the other. So a mildly erroneous idea can be employed in a highly divisive way and become “heresy” in that sense. But if we use the term that way, we need to be careful not to lump in folks who hold to the same alleged error but are not factious about it.

(Bear in mind, please, that is coming from a guy who does not use the KJV except in study to prepare to explain things for the KJV users among my listeners.)

I think those who are more openly denouncing excesses “on the right” now might be well served to make some more careful distinctions on these points also.

I alluded to the Allies of WW2. I can see it was not understood. My point was and is General De Gaulle was a fervent French patriot. As head of the Free French government, he viewed himself as the equal of Churchill and Roosevelt on the one hand. As commander of the Free French Armed Forces, he viewed himself as Eisenhower’s equal. In dealing with him, Eisenhower and Churchill sometimes weren’t sure which war he was fighting. Was le General fighting the current war against the Germans? Or was he re-fighting the Hundred Years War against the Anglophones?

[Greg Linscott] Dark or milk is fine, as long as it’s Hershey’s. You have to watch out for perverted offerings based on the Nestle… ;-)

Switzerland is known for their great chocolate! :)

Becky,

No two brand of Swiss chocolate compare perfectly in texture, flavor, or quality. Besides, Hershey’s has been, without question, the preeminent chocolate brand since it was introduced. Furthermore, we shouldn’t have to go to Switzerland to get chocolate for s’mores- Hershey’s is available and accessible to the common man. You can have you elitist Euro-chocolate. As for me, if it was good enough for Milton, it’s good enough for me!

ROTFLOL!

[Aaron Blumer] To Bob T and some others… can we please be more precise in the use of the word heresy? It is not heresy to believe “I think I the KJV is best and so it’s all I’m going to use.” It’s not even heresy to believe “The TR is the purest text.” People start approaching heresy when they start tampering with inspiration to freight it with a connection to a single translation in some way that implies a second act of inspiration or ongoing inspiration or something along those lines.

But there is a second factor. Heresy, as I understand it has a doctrinal factor and then a posture factor. There’s your notions on one hand and then how you wield them on the other. So a mildly erroneous idea can be employed in a highly divisive way and become “heresy” in that sense. But if we use the term that way, we need to be careful not to lump in folks who hold to the same alleged error but are not factious about it.

Since I was one of the people using the term in this thread, I guess I’m one of the “some others.” I don’t think I misused the term in the context of the conversation. WCBC acclaims the KJV as the only English version of God’s Word. This is doctrinal heresy. Furthermore, their schismatic and abrasive approach to believers who might disagree is postural heresy. If this falls outside of the distinctions you have tried to make Aaron, please help me see where. In the meantime, I fully agree with the Central ethos statement that these heretical (sadly in far more than just KJVO positions) extreme, right wing, self described fundamentalists are more dangerous to the church than the conservative evangelicals are.

P.S. - not clear what you mean by approaching heresy here. Where exactly would you draw the line if this is not doctrinal heresy?

[RPittman] I faulted Greg because he faulted one and not the other; I did not contest his choice.

In reference to this ( http://sharperiron.org/article/ethos-statement-fundamentalism-evangelic…] post 101 ), all I said was

This illustrates that it is not only Central drawing lines.

How is that faulting one and not another? Central draws lines, the individual quoted (and those who identify with him) draws lines. If I am “faulting” anyone, it’s equal opportunity (though I do think the language is a little more incendiary- a cheap shot, if you will- in the quote I provided).

Aaron stated:

“I think I the KJV is best and so it’s all I’m going to use.” It’s not even heresy to believe “The TR is the purest text.” People start approaching heresy when they start tampering with inspiration to freight it with a connection to a single translation in some way that implies a second act of inspiration or ongoing inspiration or something along those lines.

So what is the problem? The WCBC statement of faith indicates they do believe the KJVO position that implies continued inspiration of critical text selection and translation. Their press has also published a book explaining this. As you know,those holding this doctrine claim statements from the scriptures regarding preservation gives them authority to expect a pure, perfect, and preserved word of God. They claim to have found such a perfect preserved word in the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts. Some then extend that to translation in the King James Version. Those who claim such are claiming post Apostolic inspiration. The Central Seminary Ethos statement labels such within a Fundamentalism as dangerous to Christianity. Both Kevin Bauder and Jeff Straub have at times called this position heresy. They have posted very strong statements on this thread. It is doctrinal heresy. RPittman who has been posting on here holds to such a KJVO position. You know this because of his interaction with you on your articles on preservation.

Also, in your post you are giving a quote from Susan R, your site administrator. She appears to be offended by the word heresy in this regard and some other statements. According to her statement on another thread a few months ago, she holds to the KJVO position and attends a KJVO church (not KJV preferred). However, she then claims that the use by others of other than the KJV does not bother her and that her church allows it. That’s nice but is it not very inconsistent? If her church still teaches the KJVO position then they are dangerous to the foundation of Christian truth according to the Central Ethos statement. Also, stronger statements regarding those in this movement were posted by both Bauder and Straub. You should name them before naming me. One should not seek to continue in doctrine many consider false and dangerous and then claim to be offended by some who point out the error and the nature of some leaders and others involved. I do believe both Bauder and Straub made stronger statements on this then I did.

Aaron, I and others have in the past differentiated the difference between the genuine KJV preferred opinion as opposed to the KJVO doctrinal position. The one is opinion and personal preference. The other is doctrine with demand upon all. I know you are fully aware of the issues and am surprised you raised that issue here as we have obviously been dealing with the KJVO doctrinal issue that does involve inspiration here. Stronger statements than mine have been made about the KJVO position by faculty of Central Seminary, Detroit seminary, and others in prominence. That includes statements on this thread.

In light of all that has been said on this thread, I don’t think I or some others have improperly used the word heresy. If anyone was offended I am truly sorry. But wouldn’t they also be more offended by the very Ethos statement of Central as it calls such a Fundamentalist position as dangerous to Christianity? Is it improper to call a belief that is dangerous to Christianity a heresy?

This is doctrinal heresy. Furthermore, their schismatic and abrasive approach to believers who might disagree is postural heresy. If this falls outside of the distinctions you have tried to make Aaron, please help me see where. In the meantime, I fully agree with the Central ethos statement that these heretical (sadly in far more than just KJVO positions) extreme, right wing, self described fundamentalists are more dangerous to the church than the conservative evangelicals are.

P.S. - not clear what you mean by approaching heresy here. Where exactly would you draw the line if this is not doctrinal heresy?

Need a thread on “what is heresy?” I think.

Good questions, though. I’m thinking you commit doctrinal heresy when your assertion contradicts established fundamental doctrine. For example you could teach that God created another woman to be Cain’s wife (and avoid the whole incest problem) and not be a heretic on the doctrinal level. But you could try to form a church or non-profit or something called the Created Wifers and be heretical because you’re pulling folks away from doctrinally sound churches into your doctrinally peculiar splinter group.

So with the idea that the KJV is the only true Bible in English or whatever it says, this certainly appears to be an inaccurate statement but what fundamental of the faith does it reject? And you have an institution that includes this idea along with all the others, it’s not necessarily schismatic to say, hey if you choose to attend here, this is a commitment we expect you to make and keep to. Not a strategy I’d recommend, but I don’t see that as schismatic.

I wouldn’t want to financially support a ministry personally that is taking that position, or visibly participate with them in something, but I wouldn’t call that kind of non-cooperation ecclesiastical separation. Wouldn’t be warranted as far as I can tell.

But the “what is heresy?” question is an interesting one that deserves another thread. Or maybe an article or two.

One of the reasons I’m averse to using the term is that it carries alot of emotional freight. It’s a bit of a scare word, due to overuse. Personally, I prefer to keep it tucked away like my 9 mil. Glock, for very special occasions (I don’t actually have a 9 mil Glock, but wish I did). That way, when bad guys see it, it really is scary.

Not so powerful if I’m waving it around constantly.

[BobT] position that implies continued inspiration of critical text selection and translation. Their press has also published a book explaining this.

I missed where it implies that. Not saying it isn’t there, but maybe you can quote that part and help me see it.

Bob, you keep referring to “the KJVO position” as though everyone who uses the KJV exclusively had the same view on all particulars. This is not the case. Susan, for example, does not believe that any ongoing or additional inspiration is involved in the creation of the KJV.

None of the KJVOs I know personally believe that.

[Bob T] However, she then claims that the use by others of other than the KJV does not bother her and that her church allows it. That’s nice but is it not very inconsistent?

Only if you view all KJVO positions as being the same. It’s actually a case in point of what I’m talking about. Not all who believe in exclusive use of the KJV are in favor of denigrating those who do otherwise as sinning or disobedient or being in doctrinal error. They recognize the complexity of the subject and grant liberty, but have arrived at a conviction themselves that compels them to use KJV exclusively.

This is not the same as groups that latch on that idea, declare it to be The One True Christian Belief, obsess on it, and devote a great deal of energy to breeding fear and loathing toward all use something else.

But I think we’re into the KJV issue too far at this point. We should drop it an let folks interested in the main ideas of the article carry on. I suppose there is still some relevance because if we grasp the premise that “not all KJVOs are thinking the same way” it has some impact on how we talk about distancing/separating from problems on “the right” within fundamentalism.

I’m just calling for giving due attention to all important distinctions here.