A Thoughtful Conversation on Issues of Baptist Fellowship

For Baptist Fundamentalists, “dual affiliation” is a phrase that has been, historically, charged with tension. The term was significant in the events that led to the birth of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC), as well as the beginnings of the Minnesota Baptist Association (MBA) and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI). Over the years, these organizations have rarely intersected with one another in any formal manner, and for many a sense of suspicion has lingered.

Recently, the matter of dual-affiliation was raised in a new context when First Baptist Church in Marshall, Minnesota (where I serve as pastor) sought and obtained fellowship in GARBC associations while retaining its established fellowship in the MBA.

The resulting gathering

Prompted largely by the Marshall congregation’s actions, over 100 Baptists from Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin gathered September 19 at Fourth Baptist Church (Plymouth, MN) for a panel discussion. The event was billed as “The Future of Baptist Fundamentalism: A Thoughtful Conversation Between Baptist Brothers.”

Panelists included John Greening (GARBC National Representative), Kevin Bauder (Central Seminary Research Professor and RBP author), and Mike Sproul (chaplain, pastor of Tri-City Baptist Church in Chandler, AZ, and FBFI Executive Board member). They were joined by me (as panel organizer), host pastor Matt Morrell (Fourth Baptist Church), Chris Anderson (pastor of Killian Hill Baptist Church in Lilburn, GA), and moderator Brent Belford (of Central Seminary and Fourth Baptist).

Rarely had such a diverse group of Baptist Fundamentalists been assembled. The group included numerous MBA pastors along with leaders from Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary, Iowa Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Minnesota Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches, and New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches. There was a sense of energy and anticipation in the room.

The conversation

In his opening remarks, Kevin Bauder described the current state of Fundamentalism as well as historically discernible categories within it, distinguishing between the non-denominational, Presbyterian, and Baptist categories as well as the Northern and Southern streams within the Baptist category.

John Greening assessed the current state of the GARBC, acknowledging that the number of fellowshipping churches has declined somewhat recently, mostly due to older churches losing vitality and closing their doors. Greening also lamented “embarrassing” historical anecdotes (as described in Bauder and Delnay’s One in Hope & Doctrine, for example) when core principles became side-tracked at the expense of organizational issues. Greening likened Fundamentalism to the man in the parable who buried his talent, warning that,

we may reach the day when we stand before the authority figure and He says, “Tell me, what you did with the investment” and we reply that “I thought you wanted me to protect it all the time.” Obviously, we need to guard truth, but we also have to champion it! We have to leverage the collective “brain trust”—our commitment to the ideas of Fundamentalism—and turn them into something in the context of religious debates. So, we’re speaking to issues, we’re making points, we’re writing books, we’re putting up posts and blogs.

Mike Sproul spoke to the current state of the FBFI. He recounted his memories as a member at Tri-City Baptist (where he now pastors) under his predecessor, Dr. James Singleton. Singleton’s ministry included personal departures from the SBC, GARBC, and BBFI. Sproul summed up the history as “come out, come out, wherever you are!”

Comparing the organizational differences between an association like the GARBC and a pastor’s fellowship like the FBFI, Sproul explained that the platforms of FBF meetings are not the collective voice of the organization. Each speaker is responsible for his own words. He acknowledged that sometimes the political machinations can center on whether you favor a particular personality style or not.

On the “warts” in his corner of Fundamentalism, Sproul observed: “We get to critique people, and not be responsible for anyone else within our own orbit!” He added that young men can sometimes cast a cynical look at the context they were raised in because they see what is “behind the curtain” there, while only seeing the greener grass on the other side of the fence when looking at the conservative evangelicals. Recent problems in those camps (e.g., Mark Driscoll, C. J. Mahaney) remind us that warts exist outside of Fundamentalism, too.

Chris Anderson spoke as a currently unaffiliated pastor. Early in his ministry he viewed separation mostly “alphabetically,” with organizations such as the Ohio Bible Fellowship or the FBFI representing the ideal, organizations such as GARBC and IFCA as “compromised,” and anyone associated with the SBC as “beyond the pale.” During his church planting work in Ohio, Anderson started blogging and interacting with a wider sphere of people (including me, whom he met through SharperIron) and eventually developed a more nuanced view of partnerships based on biblical fidelity. Anderson confessed that in his current ministry he is beginning to see the downside of independence, and the lack of leverage that a church can have when it has no influence in a national organization.

The music issue

When Belford directed the attention of the panel to the topic of music, Greening observed that a diversity of worship styles is tolerated in the GARBC, a tolerance that can become a tension when the congregations convene in meetings. However, as the congregations function together, they have learned not to “push the edge of the envelope,” choosing selections that will be acceptable to the group as whole. Greening concluded that substantive music, true and consistent with Scripture, is a collective priority of the Association.

Sproul explained that the churches represented in the FBFI have a limited range of music styles, using worship that is “hymnal-based.” In clarifying the range of diversity within his fellowship, Sproul described a resolution presented to the FBFI board rejecting music such as that produced by Sovereign Grace Ministries or Keith and Kristyn Getty. The resolution did not ultimately receive the support of the board. While rejection of the performance style employed by these artists would be a point of unity within the fellowship, many see the benefit of incorporating a few of these songs accompanied by more traditional instrumentation.

Bauder observed that the spectrum of music in the two associations in Minnesota was virtually identical. He added that music, apart from lyrics, is a language capable of conveying meaning and that a church’s position and practice in this area can be just as important as their position on the Virgin Birth. At the same time, Bauder noted, not every departure from strict truth constitutes an apostasy. Even with the definite convictions he holds personally, there must be allowance for different conclusions, or even perceived “disobedience” in a limited sense.

Anderson, whose ministry includes authoring hymns through churchworksmedia.com, added that “fundamentalists have placed too much weight on the music issue.” Anderson spoke of a pastors’ conference he attended where the speaker mishandled the Scriptures to such an extent that Anderson felt compelled to leave. Later, Anderson expressed his concerns to the host pastor. The host pastor conceded Anderson’s point, but ultimately defended the speaker by saying that “he took a good stand” in regards to music and separation. Anderson observed:

For some fundamentalists…we allow people to deny the necessity of repentance, we can allow people to be borderline heretical on their bibliology, but if they don’t have music we agree with, that is worth fighting over…. I think, as we triage where we can differ and where we can give each other some space, there has to be a border somewhere. But…what is really more vital? A stout expositional ministry and doctrinal integrity, or the fact that somebody is to my left musically?

Relating to the SBC

Belford asked the panel to consider a final matter: the relationship of Fundamental Baptists to brethren in the Southern Baptist Convention. Matt Morrell, pastor at Fourth Baptist, admitted that he struggled with application in this area. He related how a few years ago, the staff at Fourth Baptist and faculty of Central Seminary had lunch with SBC pastor Mark Dever and some of his 9 Marks staff and interns. The meeting provided many causes for rejoicing in commonly held beliefs and principles, but the meeting also drew attention to some of the substantial differences between the groups. Morrell felt more persuaded than ever of his separatist, Fundamentalist convictions. Greening supported Morell’s observation, noting the theological principles of a dispensational hermeneutic will lead to very different methodologies and goals for the church than a Reformed system will.

On the other hand, Greening affirmed the conservative direction of many SBC congregations, noting that a significant percentage of those churches use RBP materials. Sproul related that common points, from affirmation of the gospel to principles of personal holiness, led him to think of evangelicals as people he could be drawn to for a measure of Christian fellowship in the setting of military chaplaincy. At the same time, he was quick to assert that significant disagreements on issues like ecumenical evangelism set hard limits on how far those relationships could extend.

Bauder observed that while substantial differences remain between separatists and the SBC, it is inaccurate to accuse the SBC of being “liberal.” The leadership of the Convention is clearly in the hands of conservative individuals. One unusual matter Bauder pointed to is the current state of Cedarville University. Under its current SBC influence, the institution has actually taken a more conservative direction than the latter days in which it was a Regular Baptist agency.

John Greening reminded everyone of the urgency of matters with which we are confronted today, emphasizing the authority of Scripture, gospel definition, eschatology, and hermeneutics as areas of increasing importance. He cautioned,

[W]e must not allow ourselves to just chase rabbit trails or talk about issues that are not as vitally important while the world is on its way to Hell. We need to be out there addressing things, the whole moral and ethical arena, which is increasingly becoming a battlefield that requires our voice speaking up, which will probably result in persecution and suffering because of our commitment to biblical authority.

He added that we must learn to communicate truth in a manner that is gracious and “extends the mercy of God to people.”

Bauder encouraged members of the panel to consider convening a Fundamental Baptist Congress. Before closing in prayer, I challenged those present to continue such conversations in their local contexts, and to pursue the investment of associating with one another, especially across organizational lines established over the decades. As those assembled departed, I couldn’t help but sense a feeling of hopefulness and promise for the future—as if I was leaving with more friends than I’d arrived with.

(Related: Can Fundamental Baptists Find Greater Unity? and, at GARBC.org, A Thoughtful Conversation Between Baptist Brothers)

11463 reads

There are 19 Comments

Rob Fall's picture

For the well rounded report.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

JohnBrian's picture

Quote:
John Greening reminded everyone of the urgency of matters with which we are confronted today, emphasizing the authority of Scripture, gospel definition, eschatology, and hermeneutics as areas of increasing importance.

I agree with all of the above except eschatology. For me personally, I don't view eschatology as important as the other items he mentions. Since it focuses on that which is to come, rather than that which is past, I do not make it as issue for fellowship or partnership.

I am disp. not of conviction, but of heritage. I am not convinced it is right, but also not convinced it is wrong, so for me it is further down the list of important doctrines than "the authority of Scripture, gospel definition, and hermeneutics."

As far as music goes, I view lyrics as of greater importance than style. I don't have much toleration for non-scriptural, man-focused words, but great toleration for sound words no matter the style. My soteriology dictates what lyrics I reject and eliminates many songs in our hymnbook. I'll continue to sing "It Is Well" even though the author was "a false prophet, a charismatic and a cult leader." I will not however, sing "The Old Ship of Zion." as I disagree with the soteriology inherent in the lyrics. But that's just me and I don't wish to make this thread about music (or soteriology).

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

While I agree that eschatology as a stand-alone topic is less important than other topics on the list, I thin it's importance is seen as rising because it is a natural outflow of one's hermeneutics, which is a crucial topic.

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

Ron Bean's picture

I want to say that I appreciate Greg Linscott's efforts in instigating this meeting and for his excellent overview of what was accomplished.

I've seen variations of the "dual affiliation" over the years. My initial encounter was when I was told that one of the differences between the GARBC and the CBA in their early years was that the CBA allowed its members to also be affiliated with the liberal ABC (formerly NBC). This aversion to dual affiliation morphed into something else when I had dual affiliation in both the GARBC and the FBF, making me suspect in both groups. It appears that kind of suspicion may be disappearing.

Mike Sproul's description of the FBFI was spot on. I'm praying that the mirror he held up will be put to use.

Here's to the promise of unity among separatists!

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Belford asked the panel to consider a final matter: the relationship of Fundamental Baptists to brethren in the Southern Baptist Convention. Matt Morrell, pastor at Fourth Baptist, admitted that he struggled with application in this area. He related how a few years ago, the staff at Fourth Baptist and faculty of Central Seminary had lunch with SBC pastor Mark Dever and some of his 9 Marks staff and interns. The meeting provided many causes for rejoicing in commonly held beliefs and principles, but the meeting also drew attention to some of the substantial differences between the groups. Morrell felt more persuaded than ever of his separatist, Fundamentalist convictions. Greening supported Morell’s observation, noting the theological principles of a dispensational hermeneutic will lead to very different methodologies and goals for the church than a Reformed system will.

This paragraph struck me as eerily familiar. Words have meaning, but when those meanings are disregarded or altered the conversation is hopelessly lost. Here the speaker uses the umbrella "Reformed" to jump from people who are Calvanistic in their soteriology but dispensational in their hermeneutic to those who are covenantal. Technically, the word reformed really only applies to the latter group. I agree with the last sentence of the quote, that "the theological principles of a dispensational hermeneutic will lead to very different methodologies and goals for the church than a Reformed system will" if we are talking about covenantalism. The problem these men have is figuring out what they are going to do with the "reformed" dispensationalists in the room, people who hold to a Calvanistic soteriology and a dispensational hermeneutic. 

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

Mike Harding's picture

Greg,

Thanks for the report.  Very helpful. 

Pastor Mike Harding

jhorneck3723's picture

I have several observations from reading this. For context, I'm a 29-year old pastor who grew up on the conservative side of fundamentalism. Right now, I would still identify as a fundamentalist, but also accept that many fundamentalists would be uncomfortable with where I am on some of the key issues that seem to define much of Fundamentalism (music, Bible versions, Calvinism).

1. At this point, it's inexcusable that fundamental publishers aren't embracing Kindle editions. I would like to read Bauder's history of Fundamentalism but primarily focus on digital editions of books for sake of availability, portability, and searchability.

2. The FBFI guys have got to take responsibility for their platform. They will hold Southern to account for the name of a gazebo, but will include anemic theology and schismatic speech on their platform, then try to hide behind it being a personal fellowship. Ridiculous.

3. I’m very undecided on Bauder’s facial hair, but give him a great deal of respect on the accomplishment. I only wish my baby face would allow me to take on such an endeavor.

4. Totally on board with Anderson seeing the downsides of independence. Along with a close friend, I might say that I see the downsides of isolation more than independence. I think it would be possible to fix isolationism without forgoing independence.

5. The music issue is not a test of orthodoxy, but I still feel like even the more progressive Fundamentalists like Bauder are unable to recognize it. A church’s position and practice on music are of equal importance to the virgin birth? That has to be a misquote, right? In my opinion, the position that many fundamentalists have adopted is a huge deal because it does damage to the sufficiency of Scripture. Until they can recognize that it should be a non-issue, I’m going to be on the fringes and so are the rest of the guys who are the future of Fundamentalism. Anderson’s quote is golden. Purely anecdotal, but I shared the quote on Facebook this afternoon. 15 people liked it. 8 were pastors or future pastors under the age of 35 who would still identify with Fundamentalism on some level. Most of these guys are not the type that are looking to leave Fundamentalism, but instead are hoping to stay in a healthy fundamentalism.

6. The SBC is primarily dispensational. In fact, it often tends toward cooky dispensational. Greening provided a good example of treating the SBC like some monolithic movement where everyone is amillenial just because Dever is amillenial.

7. There’s a lot of talk about how the ramifications of CT/DT are practically insurmountable for ministry. I just don’t see it. I’m convinced that I’m pre mil. I don’t doubt that I’m pre trib. I see distinction between the church and Israel. I don’t see how any of those would prevent cooperation with many who come from a covenental perspective. Maybe we couldn’t pastor in the same church. That’s it. Even then it would all depend on the degree to which we emphasized our positions. This would be particularly true of historic premillenials. It seems to me like dispensationalism is becoming a cop out for not limited cooperation with conservative evangelicals who are far closer healthy fundamental theology than many on the right fringe of fundamentalism. Music used to be that issue. It was assumed that “bad” music was bad and that created a nice black and white line between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Now that the line is getting fuzzier, dispensationalism is replacing it.
 

Shaynus's picture

Having moved to a new city from a fundamentalist-ish church (Ron Bean above is my pastor) I attended a membership class yesterday for an SBC church plant. When talking about the SBC, the pastor was very clear that the entire reason we were affiliated with the SBC was the International MIssion Board that he saw as the true genius of the SBC. He was clear that "the SBC doesn't speak for us and we don't speak for them. What happens downtown [Nashville, where we are] doesn't really effect us or apply to us in any binding way." It was an interesting take on a denominational identity. The SBC seems to be loose on purpose. Thus I can tolerate a certain amount of diversity in the convention.

I wonder if fundamentalism could learn from that kind of spirit. Could fundamentalism unite around a particular purpose and allow for diversity on a lot of things? Would that make it stronger? 

Incidentally would several hundred fundamentalist baptist churches sending messengers to the SBC next year make a huge impact? Might it be worth it to set the course for the "genius of the SBC?"
 

Greg Linscott's picture

jhorneck3723... May I call you JH3? jhorneck3723 seems so rigid and formal... Wink

  1. Regarding Kindle editions, contact David Gunn at Regular Baptist Press- dgunn@garbc.org I'm with you, personally.
  2. In discussing this concern with some in the FBFI, they dismiss this as part of their culture, and everyone is friends at the end. Well, if that is the case, that isn't the appearance to those paying attention. You need to take note of JH3's observation if you want to think about the impressions you are leaving and what other's perception of you is.
  3. Whatever else, I would take Bauder over Paul Tripp (http://www.urbanfieldnotes.com/2012/11/philadelphia-street-style-paul-br...)
  4. As a pastor of a church in several associations, I will just say that affiliation in no way makes a church any less independent.  We fellowship with one another, and retain our autonomy and self-governance under Christ. We own our property, have no requirements to give money or support any programs... In fact, truth be told, there are many congregations whose names appear on the rolls of these various groups who aren't particularly active and participating in association life. But if you want a place where music is a non-issue (and I am speaking as a musical conservative who has many Regular Baptist conservative friends), operating in the GARBC is a good example of how that looks.
  5. Bauder spoke as an individual. Without getting uncomfortably detailed, you need to understand that for Kevin, almost everyone else is musically progressive in comparison. Kevin has learned to work with a great deal of people whose musical principles and practice he could not affirm. He speaks in many settings where this is true. He has a personal system of distinguishing between what he calls "tolerable evils" and "intolerable evils." I actually think that this is a very honorable and admirable way to articulate what he believes and practices. He is never going to say that music doesn't matter. I might not be able to say that music is as important as the Virgin Birth... but even I could not say that it is always a non-issue, and I don't really think you could, either- even if you don't find it elevated to the level of doctrine. Maybe it becomes an obstacle to feeling comfortable in a cultural sense (whether we are talking extremes like ""Christian" death metal or something like this), but it is going to eventually affect fellowship at some level. It's inevitable.
  6. and 7. The SBC may be primarily dispensational, but the GARBC is exclusively so, as is the FBFI, the NTAIBC, the Minnesota Baptist Association, Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches... Greening's comments came after Chris mentioned interacting with Al Mohler over his participation in a conference entitled "Reclaiming America For Christ" (see http://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/al-mohler-explains-why-he-wit...). Chris was talking about separation... Greening used the opportunity to illustrate that a Dispensationalist perspective does not see reclaiming any nation for Christ- America or otherwise-  as the mission of the church. I don't think Greening would say that there is no room for any fellowship with those who have a covenantal position. That certainly isn't the GARBC's historical position. David Otis Fuller, a longtime editor of the Baptist Bulletin and a prominent figure in GARBC history (yes, the KJV proponent, too...),  was lifelong friends with J. Gresham Machen, and had Machen stand with him at his wedding as his best man. Robert Ketcham not only served as the GARBC National Representative, but also as president of the American Council of Christian Churches. In more recent times, Kevin Bauder and Michael PV Barrett have developed a very close friendship. Faith Baptist Bible College had Paul S. Jones from Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia in to speak on music. BJU was long a place where such cooperation was evident (though I've heard that is less true than it once was). Taking a strong position at your church or church association level doesn't mean that you cannot or should not have any cooperation with people who have a different position than yours. I certainly don't believe that.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Greg Linscott's picture

Shaynus wrote:

Having moved to a new city from a fundamentalist-ish church (Ron Bean above is my pastor) I attended a membership class yesterday for an SBC church plant. When talking about the SBC, the pastor was very clear that the entire reason we were affiliated with the SBC was the International MIssion Board that he saw as the true genius of the SBC. He was clear that "the SBC doesn't speak for us and we don't speak for them. What happens downtown [Nashville, where we are] doesn't really effect us or apply to us in any binding way." 

Shayne,

Except that what your pastor said isn't always true. Here's a good example: http://www.bpnews.net/43416/third-way-church-disfellowshipped-from-sbc 

As far as the IMB, I've heard that from others in the SBC, too. As much as I don't like many things about the way we do missions as Baptist Fundamentalists (I just had a single woman missionary in to speak who is struggling to find churches to speak in, much less take her on for support, because though she is a skilled Bible translator, she is also a single woman, and not raised in this country), I don't think that the IMB is a perfect arrangement, either, especially if things like planting a church that has some specific emphases like dispensationalism or cessationism is a priority. Things may have improved on the cessationism in the IMB, but the arrangement makes it harder for the churches to monitor- they rely on the institution to do that. For a lot of us, local church oversight of missions is a big deal.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Shaynus's picture

Yep. I can allow more diversity but not total diversity, and the move by the SBC executive committee was a good thing. Also a good thing (I think) was that the SBC cannot take away the property of an individual church. All it can do is remove affiliation. This makes the SBC a hydra. A head can be cut off and the rest of the organism can keep going. 

Greg Linscott's picture

...this also shows that the SBC isn't as loose as you might say, at least in some senses. Don't get me wrong, I think they made the right move... but sometimes it does matter what Nashville says. Smile

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Shaynus's picture

Crucially it only matters what Nashville says in the sense of whatever church's cooperation, not for what that church believes or practices. I get what you're saying, but do you get what I'm saying? Smile

Greg Linscott's picture

I do. Smile

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Daniel.Viezbicke's picture

I'd be interested to hear if there was any followup to Kevin Bauder's statement that he would never join the SBC due to lack of doctrinal enforcement. One of the attendees challenged Kevin on this point. Are there other material reasons that Kevin presented for why the SBC shouldn't be joined (or should be held at arms length) that came at the end of the conversation? I had to leave 5-10 minutes before the end. 

jhorneck3723's picture

Greg,

You can call me whatever you want, but Jeremy works just fine.

I agree that we can associate without limiting autonomy. Even the SBC has a great deal of autonomy. Part of seeing improvement in this area is the continuing development of robust separatism. If we can stop separating over minor issues and start defining non-alphabetical separation (I like how Chris Anderson phrased that) and dealing with the practical ramifications of separating, we can grow in unity. We just refreshed and reemphasized our church's covenant. The center of my argument for a clear, enforceable covenant was unity. When we have expressed what we agree on, we can agree well. As we get better at charitably expressing agreement and disagreement and triaging the importance of areas of agreement and disagreement, we can move away from isolation. GARBC does intrigue me. I've not been a great lover of their Sunday School curriculum, and that has been the extent of my engagement with them up to this point.

No, music is not a non-issue. I would definitely fall on the progressive side personally, while still being on the more traditional side congregationally, but I do get frustrated by the fact that my church's use of an acoustic guitar is a red flag to many people who would otherwise be comfortable with all of our theology. I'm sure with context I wouldn't be as frustrated by Bauder's statement as I was.

Thanks for the additional context on the Dispensational issue. If we can move forward with varying levels of separation, I think we can make a great deal of progress.

Greg Linscott's picture

 GARBC does intrigue me. I've not been a great lover of their Sunday School curriculum, and that has been the extent of my engagement with them up to this point.

Jeremy,

I would say that RBP is only one facet... and that not even all GARBC churches use RBP materials exclusively or consistently. At the same time, RBP and the Baptist Bulletin does provide another way for people willing to contribute with writing an opportunity to serve. I've got two articles in the latest edition coming out, and have begun contributing to the GARBC's commentary section of their website. I would encourage you to take a closer look. It's a somewhat diverse group when it come to methods (though I would say that a majority would tend to the traditional/conservative end), but has made clear actions in articulating and re-establishing their doctrinal parameters in the last 5-10 years. I have felt very comfortable in the larger environment, and have been very encouraged what I have heard in preaching from their national platform.  I think you and many others would be, generally, as well: http://garbcconference.org/category/audio/

Regarding music- well, if an acoustic guitar makes you progressive, I guess maybe I'm not as conservative as I thought I was... Smile

I do think that we have similar work to do encouraging better interaction between Fundamentalists on a broader scale- between denominational and theological distinctives and such. But from where I sit, we need to take one step at a time... Smile

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Jason Janz's picture

"Obviously, we need to guard truth, but we also have to champion it! We have to leverage the collective “brain trust”—our commitment to the ideas of Fundamentalism—and turn them into something in the context of religious debates. So, we’re speaking to issues, we’re making points, we’re writing books, we’re putting up posts and blogs."

 

We can all be encouraged by change. The older generation finally publicly sprinkled holy water on blogs! 

But it had to come from that left-leaning GARBC guy. 

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.