Let's Get Clear On This

NickOfTime

A variety of electronic periodicals reach my inbox regularly. One that arrives nearly every day is published by a retired seminary professor. Most days I derive a great deal of pleasure and often profit from glancing through his cogitations.

Today’s number, however, evoked a bit of concern. The dear fellow was reprinting some criticisms that he had received. Here is what they said.

The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God. These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist…. Why are you promoting this sort of thing?

While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer?…I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level.

These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.

This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.

Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.

Both mainstream ecumenicals and Left-leaning evangelicals would like to classify these individuals as Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals, however, do not perceive themselves as Fundamentalists. Most Fundamentalists also recognize some differences. While there are similarities between them, enough differences remain that Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals ought to be distinguished from each other.

What are those differences? Anti-dispensationalism seems to be more widely characteristic of conservative evangelicalism than it is of Fundamentalism, though it is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. Toleration of Third-Wave charismatic theology is widely accepted among conservative evangelicals but universally rejected among Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals are willing to accommodate the more contemporary versions of popular culture, while Fundamentalists restrict themselves to older manifestations. Most importantly, Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.

Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy. They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.

The apostle Paul insisted that he was “set for the defense of the gospel.” Fifty years ago, that phrase appeared on nearly every Fundamentalist ordination certificate. Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

Upcoming young leaders are uncertain about the future of Fundamentalism and about their future with it. And no wonder. One Fundamentalist college recently advertized that it does not teach Greek to theology majors. Why? Because the school has an “absolute conviction that the King James Bible is God’s perfect, preserved Word for the English Speaking World.” Contrast that school’s approach with D. A. Carson’s essays in his upcoming book, Collected Writings on Scripture. If young leaders are forced to choose between these two approaches, I have no doubt which choice they will make.

More and more Fundamentalists are coming to the same conclusion. They are not entering into full cooperation with conservative evangelicals, but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Quiet conversations have been occurring between some Fundamentalist leaders and some conservative evangelical leaders for several years. One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.

These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

Even such mild and narrow recognition, however, provokes panic from the Fundamentalist opponents of conservative evangelicals. Like the two critics at the beginning of this essay, these opponents express concern that any level of involvement with conservative evangelicals will constitute a blanket endorsement of their errors. These Fundamentalist critics, however, are seldom willing to express these same concerns over the excesses of the hyper-fundamentalist Right.

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

So let’s get clear on this.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.

Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

Penitentiall Hymns. II.

Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667)

Great God, and just! how canst thou see,
Dear God, our miserie,
And not in mercy set us free?
Poor miserable man! how wert thou born,
Weak as the dewy jewels of the Morn,
Rapt up in tender dust,
Guarded with sins and lust,
Who like Court flatterers waite
To serve themselves in thy unhappy fate.
Wealth is a snare, and poverty brings in
Inlets for theft, paving the way for sin:
Each perfum’d vanity doth gently breath
Sin in thy Soul, and whispers it to Death.
Our faults like ulcerated sores do go
O’re the sound flesh, and do corrupt that too.
Lord, we are sick, spotted with sin,
Thick as a crusty Lepers skin,
Like Naaman, bid us wash, yet let it be
In streams of blood that flow from thee:
Then will we sing,
Touch’d by the heavenly Doves bright wing,
Hallelujahs, Psalms and Praise
To God the Lord of night and dayes;
Ever good, and ever just,
Ever high, who ever must
Thus be sung; is still the same;
Eternal praises crown his Name. Amen.


This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Discussion

Yes, Dr. Bauder, thank you. Now we know.

Growing up within the Hyles regime I couldn’t agree more. I am always amazed at the latitude given those who “look” fundamental (frumpy skirts and tapered haircuts) and the complete opposite attitude towards the conservative evangelicals by some within my circle of fundamentalism. I appreciate Dr. Bauder’s observations here.

Matthew Richards

[Kevin T. Bauder] This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.
Thanks, Dr. Bauder, for speaking with clarity from the courage of conviction. As I have said before about your essays, I wish someone had been speaking this way 20 years ago.

As I read the article, the only clarification I would personally make is that I would put more weight on someone’s theological convictions (or, possibly, his expertise in one particular area) than whether or not he is accepted as a fundamentalist or a conservative evangelical, etc.

In these — perhaps final — days of apostasy in the church, my goal is to find the people who are the most fiercely committed to the exposition of Scripture.

Sadly, I have definitely met some people within “fundamentalism” who do not fall within that category.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.

….

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.
These thoughts are truly precious to me. They describe the thinking that led me away from movement Fundamentalism to confessional Presbyterianism. Obviously, I first and foremost came to believe Presbyterian doctrine, contained in the [URL=http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_contents.htm Westminster Confession of Faith[/URL] as received in my denomination, is true or at least better than any competitor out there. However, I don’t think I gave up any of my separatism when I left. Rather, three things became more and more apparent to me from my time in movement Fundamentalism:

1) It is not true that Fundamentalists practice separatism and others don’t.

2) It is true that there are differences among Christians about what constitutes error and how the church should handle it.

3) Historic confessionalism provides a guideline for handling error, as well as a platform for deep fellowship between institutions and for substantive theological engagement; “Biblicism” and autonomy do not.

Numbers 1 and 2 are really to the point of Bauder’s essay. Something that continually strikes me as amusing is that my “evangelical” denomination (PCA) requires much stricter doctrinal conformity in many areas than did BJU, where I did my undergrad. In a single week at BJU in chapel, I might hear a speaker who was quite obviously anti-Calvinist, followed by one who was clearly a 4- or 5- pointer. I might hear a message on sanctification from a McQuilkin/Ryrie-esque Keswick perspective followed by one that sounded as if it were culled from John Owen. Tuesday speaker sounds like he just got done reading The Gospel According to Jesus, whereas Thursday is on a Zane Hodges kick. However, +90% of them agreed on the pre-trib rapture. My denomination follows our confession in taking a very clear line on all those issues except eschatology, which it leaves rather open-ended. So, the point is, it’s not realistic to think that evangelicals allow all this latitude on doctrine whereas Fundamentalists follow in lock-step. Rather, Fundamentalists and confessional Presbyterians (for example) differ on where they allow doctrinal latitude. It is a difference concerning what constitutes serious error.

This is the real rub, isn’t it? It’s not as if most of these people are saying, “Oh, I know the guy next to me on the stage is spouting shameful heresy, but whatever, we’re best buds.” There are genuine differences not only as to what constitutes error, but as to the relative seriousness of various errors. Now, it is true that some evangelicals have not effectively dealt with theological error in their churches and institutions, but many do. My own denomination, in the last 5 years or so, has waged a mostly successful warfare against a particular aberration, the Federal Vision. This was done through the stated operation of our ecclesiastical courts, including a thorough review of evidence and the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. How is this anything other than Fundamentalism in the best possible sense? In fact, is this not much better than Fundamentalism, which has no method or mechanism for prosecuting error? In a collection of “independent, autonomous” churches and institutions that are not bound by any stated confession or principles of procedure, what method can there be other than influential players leveraging opinion to get a substantial segment to shun another segment?

In conclusion, I believe that in my move to the PCA, I took with me the valuable elements of my Fundamentalist heritage, leaving the silliness behind.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Excellent article. Thanks for writing your thoughts for us to share.

I don’t know if these CE’s are “neo evangelicals” or not. What I do know is that in many places, “neo evangelical” has long meant nothing more than “guys who say and do things I don’t approve of.” I’m not sure it’s really all that helpful to debate what we call them. But maybe that’s the real point of the essay. Let’s not recklessly lump everybody who’s not a fundamentalist under one heading and require disclaimers to accompany any positive reference to them, regardless of whether the heading is “neo evangelicals” or “leo gevannelicals” or whatever.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I too find more and more the taxonomy of Fundy vs Neo to be outdated and unhelpful in discussing the current situation.
[Charlie]
In a collection of “independent, autonomous” churches and institutions that are not bound by any stated confession or principles of procedure, what method can there be other than influential players leveraging opinion to get a substantial segment to shun another segment?
I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the non-denominational approach to the church for this very reason. While denominations have their problems they seem to pale in comparison to everyone doing their own thing with no form of accountability or corrective other than what they voluntarily put themselves under.

Jon Bell Bucksport, ME "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

I can’t convince myself that the solution to the ills of Fundamentalism is to abandon local church autonomy…. not that I’ve tried very hard. :)

But it strikes me as an overreaction to problems that leads to an equal (or greater?) number of slightly different problems.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Charlie,

Post #5 is very interesting, and you make a number of good points. I guess we have taken opposite paths — I went from a strong, centralized denomination (Lutheran in my case) to fundamentalism.

I cannot fully give an educated comparison of my Lutheran denomination to the PCA. However, I think most people who have ever been part of a strong denomination would definitely say that it offers some tangible advantages.

However, for me the question on that issue would be, Is denominationalism taught in Scripture? (Obviously, a side question in this case would be, Is Presbyterianism taught in Scripture?)

I know those are big, big questions which would take this thread in a whole new direction, so I am not looking for detailed answers — just reminding us that you are not offering an easy solution.

I am glad for you that you have found contentment in the PCA. Perhaps those of us who still believe in, or at least work among, “independent, autonomous churches and institutions” could gain quite a bit of food for thought from your post. Specifically, how can our associations and groups of churches implement some of the best examples of what a group like the PCA might have to offer?

I also agree, Charlie, that fundamentalism at its worst can resemble a self-selecting “good ol’ boys club” where “who’s in” relates more to personalities (I think the proper term is “constituencies”) than to doctrinal fidelity.

As has been hashed out thoroughly on SI in times past, one of the problems with the movement of fundamentalism — perhaps the reason we are seeing it splinter apart now — is that it is difficult (impossible?) to build a movement on a negative (“what people are not doing,” i.e., associating with new evangelicals). One obvious downside to it is that it allows for oddballs — people we might no more want to associate with than the man on the moon — to become bona fide, influential members of the “movement” as long as they do not run with new evangelicals. Thus, we end up trying to somehow distinguish ourselves (Type A, B, C; “historic fundamentalist,” militant, moderate, modified). But the average person in our churches hasn’t a clue what any of that means.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

[Aaron Blumer] I don’t know if these CE’s are “neo evangelicals” or not. What I do know is that in many places, “neo evangelical” has long meant nothing more than “guys who say and do things I don’t approve of.”
Aaron, I really, really, really, REALLY don’t want to get into this debate.

But I will urge readers to read Dave Doran’s response to this article on his blog, Glory & Grace. I agree with what Dave wrote there, and he can’t stand it. He disagrees with me disagreeing with him. Amazing.

But I urge that people read Dave’s response and compare it to Bauder’s article. Dave points out that several of the men Bauder names do exhibit several characteristics that are typical of new evangelical philosophy. (At least, I think that is what Dave is saying. Dave disagrees with me agreeing with him, so please take that into consideration.)

For my part, I think that these men may not be exactly like the new evangelicals. I think that they see some of the problems that new evangelicalism caused. However, I think that what they are trying to do is preserve the best of new evangelicalism. Some of them are willing to admit that the fundamentalists had a point in the initial controversy, but they also defend the basic premise that fundamentalism was the wrong answer to the question. As a result, they typically will say these kinds of things:

- We think new evangelicalism went too far

- However, we appreciate the corrective new evangelicalism provided to fundamentalism

- And we want to build on the best aspects of new evangelical thought

If you read these fellows enough, you will find remarks to that effect.

That’s why I used the term ‘neo-neo-evangelicals’ in my header. It’s kind of a joke, but only kind of. The conservative evangelicals, in my opinion, are trying to conserve the best parts of neo-evangelicalism while avoiding its errors and excesses. I think the neo-evangelical is hopelessly flawed and the conservative evangelicals will be unable to maintain their ‘conservativism’ beyond a generation. That is, when Piper, et al, pass off the scene, their heirs in their ministries will flounder just as the old neo-evangelicals did.

That’s my opinion, anyway.

I expect this thread will continue on in its merry way in an explosion of comments in the next few days, but I think I will mostly leave it alone.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

This is an article and response that has too many generalities and inaccuracies.

First John Piper would not be classified as a Conservative Evangelical. He is a classic Neo evangelical. Unlike MacArthur and some others he remains in a left of center evangelical denomination. The Baptist General Conference (now Converge Worldwide) has refused to rebuke or censure the doctrine of open theism. They accept the ordination of women, the possible errancy of scripture, and several other practices and doctrines contrary to scripture. Piper also is repeatedly involved in associations and practices that indicate a lack of discernment in protecting the flock. Also, he endorses Puritan oriented Calvinism that includes a false doctrine of assurance and Justification that must be proven by works before Christ. In light of the overall practices and doctrines that Piper has endorsed or become associated with, he fits the classic historical description of the Fuller Seminary 1947 self described Neo Evangelical. Since Piper was the sole subject of the responses conveyed in the article, it only clouds the subject to make such a broad response.

I do agree that the complaints may be unwarranted as one need not issue a disclaimer every time they are quoting or referring to a person that has some questionable doctrine.

Second, John MacArthur has propagated an errant Gospel which defines saving faith as including submission and obedience and places our assurance of Justification on our self examination of our own lives rather than focusing on Christ.

Both Piper and MacArthur promote doctrines regarding Soteriology that are contrary to the Reformers and mainstream Reformed faith today while claiming to be appealing to the Reformed faith. The best analysis of this subject is presented in the book “Christ The Lord,” edited by Michael Horton and with chapters written by all Reformed Calvinist Theologians. They take apart MacArthur’s Gospel and claims that it is that of the Reformers or most contemporary Reformed theologians.

Also, the graduates of Masters Seminary are not Of Fundamentalist orientation. Some go into churches of moderate and left evangelical orientation. Some go into the the IFCA, which on the West coast is not even Conservative Evangelical. The one common thread in most (but not all) Masters graduates is a Militant, on your sleeve, Calvinism.

It seems that Bauder is hastily rushing to castigate Fundamentalism without giving due consideration that discernment needs to be exercised in what he labels as “conservative evangelicalism.” There has been a hasty acceptance by frustrated young fundamentalists of some doctrines and emphasis that have been taught by Piper and MacArthur.

MacArthur could be classified as a conservative evangelical because of his stand for 6 day creation, cessationism, inerrancy, and male headship in the family and church. He also has some discernment on relationships, though very inconsistent. However, there must be a warning about his errant Gospel and militant Calvinism. Piper is simply not a conservative evangelical at all. We may think some throw around the label of ” New evangelical” too hastily. However, Piper fits the old 1947 label perfectly.

Third, it a hasty generalization to say “conservative evangelicals” are not our enemies. Some here on the west coast have become wary of Masters Seminary graduates and some of the convictions and attitudes they bring to ministry. This growing awareness of problems goes to the ministry of John MacArthur and his personal ministry and influence. John Piper has written some good things. But they come with baggage that must be unpacked carefully. These ministries may have good things, but they do not past the friendship test.

The label Fundamentalist is now taken by many that are a detriment to sound premise for faith and bibilical Christianity. The KJVO movement brings a false epistemology to Christianity. Nouthetic Counseling has caught on among some Fundamentalists and Masters Seminary and college and Westminster seminary. This brings a false approach to biblical anthropology, science, and wrong application of the sufficiency of scripture. Fundamentalism has many problems and some Fundamental schools amy have a problem sustaining a viable student body.

Some have enthusiastically received this article. I believe more thought and discernment is needed before accepting all that was written.

Thanks, Dr. Bauder. A great article.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Thank you Dr. Bauder!

For some time, I have thought that there are differences between conservative evangelicals and new evangelicals. I have even asked questions about this here at SI.

Finally, your article brought some answers to my questions.

Thanks again.

What I do know is that in many places, “neo evangelical” has long meant nothing more than “guys who say and do things I don’t approve of.”
I’ve seen this daffynition used repeatedly in some circles. I’m not referring to those who would labeling as neo-evangelical those who who use translations other than the KJV or those who are Calvinists. I’ve heard the neo-evangelical label applied to those who:

- participated in charity efforts like disaster relief

- used any form of CCM

- used music from the WILDS and SoundForth

- pursued advanced theological degrees.

Historically, neo-evangelicalism sought to unite theological liberalism and conservatism and I don’t see MacArthur and the rest embracing that kind of unification.

Personally, I appreciate what Dr. Bauder has written.

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