"It is simply unbelievable that you didn’t see a huge negative reaction coming."

[Bob T.] It is difficult to believe that after all that has been written regarding the LSG, especially of the MacArthur hyper LSG, that there are those in Biblical leadership that are indifferent to the errors of such and desire to initiate some fellowship with MacArthur and his church staff.

Bob,

I always appreciate your thought-provoking writings and, as always, you raise many good points.
I cannot possibly respond to you point-by-point, however you are much harder on MacArthur and his teachings than I would be. Yes, he is much more favorable to Reformed theology than I am and there are probably areas of disagreement between us. After years of careful thought, I do believe that much of the Lordship issue is semantics and context — although again there are a spectrum of beliefs and I may have some disagreement, at least with the way that MacArthur phrases things at times.
Regarding the IFCA in general, I have personally interacted with several men in the leadership of the organization. To paint the group as non-fundamentalist, in the true sense of the word, would just be silly.

[Dan Burrell] It’s fascinating how quickly this conversation is shifting to a debate on “music standards” and “Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism”. T

If you meant by that statement my questioning what is changing in their music and what does it mean…and somehow distracting from Don J.’s letter, then so be it. I wasn’t actually accusing NIU of anything—I’m simply wondering what he means. It does raise flags, however, when someone says, “we aren’t changing” but the person in charge of the “thing that isn’t changing” leaves. It kind of sends mixed signals and leaves some of us wondering what’s really going on (which may be nothing).

It is interesting how some people real blog posts. I really didn’t find Don’s post offensive. Maybe I’ve read too many secular ones. :)

[Becky Petersen]

[Dan Burrell] It’s fascinating how quickly this conversation is shifting to a debate on “music standards” and “Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism”. T

If you meant by that statement my questioning what is changing in their music and what does it mean…and somehow distracting from Don J.’s letter, then so be it. I wasn’t actually accusing NIU of anything—I’m simply wondering what he means. It does raise flags, however, when someone says, “we aren’t changing” but the person in charge of the “thing that isn’t changing” leaves. It kind of sends mixed signals and leaves some of us wondering what’s really going on (which may be nothing).

I think it is much ado about nothing. Remember this section from the open letter?

Philosophically, it is unchanged. Let me say it again…unchanged. What we have always been trying to do, and will continue to do into the future, is to make sure Northland’s practice of music (as with every aspect of the Christian life) is built principally on clear teachings from the Bible rather than on reactionary, extra-biblical reasoning that has proven to be troublingly insufficient when exported to cultures beyond American borders. We believe the Bible is sufficient to bring us to right and God-honoring positions regardless of time and culture.

Whether one agrees with CCM or not, it does seem ridiculous (at least to me) to export musical standards to churches planted outside of US culture (which is what NIU is doing via the preparation of men and women for Great Commission living), simply because US culture isn’t the final arbiter of what is and is not musically acceptable. God’s Word provides that instruction, and any attempt to convince people in Japan, for example, of the superiority of SoundForth Music to whatever they have simply because we feel that SoundForth music is better than CCM is both foolish and dangerous. http://sharperiron.org/comment/21766#comment-21766] Andrew K pointed this out very well , and I can tell you that when I was at NBBC, there was a lot of confusion over why what passed and why.

It is far more important that Christians figure out things by themselves through the study of the Scripture and fellowship and prayer than we spoon feed them everything and wonder why they can’t seem to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Becky, I also don’t think it was meant as anything in particular other than, here we go down the music path.

Jay, good points on the music. I have a friend who went to Moody, I believe, and got a degree in ethnomusicology. She has since traveled to a few countries to help local churches create their own music. She had told me of the church in Egypt who had no music of their own, and had actually imported Christian music from another country. She and her professor queried the congregation for musicians, poets, and ‘theologians’. She got them all together and helped them piece together their own music. She said, since then, their church (and other churches in Egypt that have since used the music) have exploded numerically. Perhaps this type of thing is what N is going for globally.

[Bob T.] The IFCA International was formally the “Independent Fundamental Churches of America.” They changed the name to “IFCA International” in order to no longer be openly associated with the term “Fundamental.” They are composed of moderate Evangelicals and conservative Evangelicals. Most all are graduates of Evangelical schools such as Biola, Multnomah, Western Sem, Talbot, Dallas, and Masters.

Bob,

I know that you think of Lordship as a dangerous heresy (and I disagree with you), so let’s pass over that. I’m quoting, word for word, http://www.ifca.org/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140009342&sec_id=140001498&…] the IFCA International Doctrinal Statement . Can you please tell me where they are either:

1. in error theologically (again, aside from the LS position)
OR
2. holding to a position that you disagree with?

Thanks.

Articles of Biblical Faith
Each and every person, church, or organization, in order to become or remain a member of IFCA International, shall be required to subscribe to the following articles of faith:

(1) The Holy Scriptures - We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally inspired Word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible and God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Matthew 5:18; John 16:12-13).

(2) The Godhead - We believe in one Triune God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - co-eternal in being, co-identical in nature, co-equal in power and glory, and having the same attributes and perfections (Deuteronomy 6:4; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

(3) The Person and Work of Christ

a. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man, without ceasing to be God, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, in order that he might reveal God and redeem sinful men (John 1:1-2,14; Luke 1:35).

b. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind as a representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice, and that the sufficiency of this atoning sacrifice to accomplish the redemption and justification of all who trust in him is assured by his literal, physical resurrection from the dead (Romans 3:24-25; Romans 4:25; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Timothy 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1 Peter 2:24 and 2 Peter 2:1).

c. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, and is now exalted at the right hand of God, where, as our high priest, he fulfills the ministry of representative, intercessor, and advocate (Acts 1:9-10; Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 7:25; Romans 8:34; 1 John 2:1-2).

(4) The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit

a. We believe that the Holy Spirit is a person who convicts the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; and, that he is the supernatural agent in regeneration, baptizing all believers into the body of Christ, indwelling and sealing them unto the day of redemption (John 16:8-11; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13-14).

b. We believe that he is the divine teacher who guides believers into all truth; and, that it is the privilege and duty of all the saved to be filled with the Spirit (John 16:13; 1 John 2:20, 27; Ephesians 5:18).

(5) The Total Depravity of Man - We believe that man was created in the image and likeness of God, but that in Adam’s sin the race fell, inherited a sinful nature, and became alienated from God; and, that man is totally depraved, and, of himself, utterly unable to remedy his lost condition (Genesis 1:26-27; Romans 3:22-23; Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:1-3,12).

(6) Salvation - We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose precious blood was shed on Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins (Ephesians 2:8-10; John 1:12; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19).

(7) The Eternal Security and Assurance of Believers

a. We believe that all the redeemed, once saved, are kept by God’s power and are thus secure in Christ forever (John 6:37-40; John 10:27-30; Romans 8:1,38-39; 1 Corinthians 1:4-8; 1 Peter 1:5).

b. We believe that it is the privilege of believers to rejoice in the assurance of their salvation through the testimony of God’s Word; which, however, clearly forbids the use of Christian liberty as an occasion to the flesh (Romans 13:13-14; Galatians 5:13; Titus 2:11-15).

(8) The Two Natures of the Believer - We believe that every saved person possesses two natures, with provision made for victory of the new nature over the old nature through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit; and, that all claims to the eradication of the old nature in this life are unscriptural (Romans 6:13; Romans 8:12-13; Galatians 5:16-25; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:14-16; 1 John 3:5-9).

(9) Separation - We believe that all the saved should live in such a manner as not to bring reproach upon their Savior and Lord; and, that separation from all religious apostasy, all worldly and sinful pleasures, practices and associations is commanded of God (2Timothy 3:1-5; Romans 12:1-2; Romans 14:13; John 2:15-17; 2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1).

(10) Missions - We believe that it is the obligation of the saved to witness by life and by word to the truths of Holy Scripture and to seek to proclaim the gospel to all mankind (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8; 2 Corinthians 5:19-20).

(11) The Ministry and Spiritual Gifts

a. We believe that God is sovereign in the bestowment of all his gifts; and, that the gifts of evangelists, pastors, and teachers are sufficient for the perfecting of the saints today; and, that speaking in tongues and the working of sign miracles gradually ceased as the New Testament Scriptures were completed and their authority became established (1 Corinthians 12:4-11; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 4:7-12).

b. We believe that God does hear and answer the prayer of faith, in accord with his own will, for the sick and afflicted (John 15:7; 1 John 5:14-15).

(12) The Church

a. We believe that the Church, which is the body and the espoused bride of Christ, is a spiritual organism made up of all born-again persons of this present age (Ephesians 1:22-23; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14; 2 Corinthians 11:2).

b. We believe that the establishment and continuance of local churches is clearly taught and defined in the New Testament Scriptures (Acts 14:27; Acts 20:17, 28-32; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-11).

c. We believe in the autonomy of the local church free of any external authority or control (Acts 13:1-4; Acts 15:19-31; Acts 20:28; Romans 16:1,4; 1 Corinthians 3:9,16; 1 Corinthians 5:4-7,13; 1 Peter 5:1-4).

d. We believe in the ordinances of believer’s water baptism and the Lord’s supper as scriptural means of testimony for the church age (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:41-42; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

(13) Dispensationalism - We believe that the Scriptures interpreted in their natural, literal sense reveal divinely determined dispensations or rules of life which define man’s responsibilities in successive ages. These dispensations are not ways of salvation, but rather divinely ordered stewardships by which God directs man according to his purpose. Three of these - the age of law, the age of the Church, and the age of the millennial kingdom - are the subjects of detailed revelation in Scripture (John 1:17; 1 Corinthians 9:17; 2 Corinthians 3:9-18; Galatians 3:13-25; Ephesians 1:10; Ephesians 3:2-10; Colossians 1:24-25; Hebrews 7:19; Revelation 20:2-6).

(14) The Personality of Satan - We believe that Satan is a person, the author of sin and the cause of the fall; that he is the open and declared enemy of God and man; and, that he shall be eternally punished in the Lake of Fire (Job 1:6-7; Isaiah 14:12-17; Matthew 4:2-11; Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

(15) The Second Advent of Christ - We believe in that “Blessed Hope,” the personal, imminent, pre-tribulation and pre-millennial coming of the Lord Jesus Christ for his redeemed ones; and in his subsequent return to earth, with his saints, to establish his millennial kingdom (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Zechariah 14:4-11; Revelation 19:11-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Revelation 3:10).

(16) The Eternal State

a. We believe in the bodily resurrection of all men, the saved to eternal life, and the unsaved to judgment and everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46; John 5:28-29; John 11:25-26; Revelation 20:5-6,12-13).

b. We believe that the souls of the redeemed are, at death, absent from the body and present with the Lord, where in conscious bliss they await the first resurrection, when spirit, soul and body are reunited to be glorified forever with the Lord (Luke 23:43; Revelation+20:4-6; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23; Philippians 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

c. We believe that the souls of unbelievers remain, after death, in conscious misery until the second resurrection, when with soul and body reunited they shall appear at the Great White Throne Judgment, and shall be cast into the Lake of Fire, not to be annihilated, but to suffer everlasting conscious punishment (Luke 16:19-26; Matthew 25:41-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Jude 1:6-7; Mark 9:43-48; Revelation 20:11-15).

Movements Contrary to Faith

(1) Ecumenism - Ecumenism is that movement which seeks the organizational unity of all Christianity and ultimately of all religions. Its principal advocates are the World Council of Churches and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

(2) Ecumenical Evangelism - Ecumenical Evangelism is that effort to promote the gospel by bringing fundamentalists into an unequal yoke with theological liberals and/or Roman Catholics and other divergent groups.

(3) Neo-Orthodoxy - Neo-Orthodoxy is that theological movement which affirms: the transcendence of God, the finiteness and sinfulness of man, and the necessity of supernatural divine revelation of truth; but, while using evangelical terminology, seriously departs from orthodoxy: in accepting the views of destructive higher criticism, in denying the inerrancy of the Bible as historic revelation, in accepting religious experience as the criterion of truth, and in abandoning important fundamentals of the Christian faith.

(4) New Evangelicalism (Neo-Evangelicalism, New Conservatism) - These terms refer to that movement within evangelicalism characterized by a toleration of and a dialogue with theological liberalism. Its essence is seen in an emphasis upon the social application of the gospel and weak or unclear doctrines of: the inspiration of Scripture, biblical creationism, eschatology, dispensationalism, and separation. It is further characterized by an attempt to accommodate biblical Christianity and make it acceptable to the modern mind. We believe that these movements are out of harmony with the Word of God and the official doctrine and position of IFCA International and are inimical to the work of God.

Covenant of Faith
In subscribing to these articles of faith, we by no means set aside, or undervalue, any of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; but we deem the knowledge, belief and acceptance of the truth as set forth in our doctrinal statement, to be essential to sound faith and fruitful practice, and therefore requisite for Christian fellowship in IFCA International

[Dan Burrell] It’s fascinating how quickly this conversation is shifting to a debate on “music standards” and “Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism”. Thankfully, Matthew referenced the KJVO issue as well and so the triumvirate of controversies is now intact. I teach hundreds of young seminary students from myriad evangelical backgrounds, many of whom are already in ministry, and I can testify that these three issues are dividing churches well beyond the small Independent Fundamental Baptist world into much of the rest of the conservative Christian universe.

I am not implying that these topics are not worthy of discussion, I just question why they are such a cause for division. These are not doctrinal (in most cases) and the debate for two of the three matters is centuries old. All of them, taken to an extreme (that is rarely found though most of us could probably agree does exist) can be heretical. Matters of discussion? Yes. Matters of civil debate? Yes. Matters worthy of division? Hardly.

Until fundamentalism deals with the tone, political posturing and dogmatic enforcement of our discourse, we are consigned to the cheap seats at the banquet where little input is noticed or frankly, desired.

I only bring up the KJVO issue when people begin to question someone else’s fundamentalist credentials. Many within the old guard of fundyism will embrace separatists who are unorthodox on their view of the Holy Scriptures while deriding those who may not share in their separatism but are orthodox on the Scriptures. I agree that the version debate has nothing at all to do with the original post…

Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN

[Matthew Richards]

Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN

Matt…I knew that was what you were doing. We share some common “heritage.” (Oh my!) Your injection of the topic was timely and appropriate in that these truly are the three “big issues” I see weekly in papers from my students. And while many of us have settled these issues in our hearts and minds long ago, the firestorm that they are capable of producing in a church setting is simply amazing. Yet we fiddle while Rome burns….

Dan

It is interesting to see the wide variety of responses in this thread, talking about things havning nothing to do with what I said in my post.

My point in the post is this: It is astonishing that Matt didn’t anticipate a negative reaction to these two invitations.

Especially in the matter of Rick Holland, Les Olila experienced a firestorm with respect to joint ministry with him in 2005. Is that so long ago that he and Matt forgot? Did they think fundamentalists have changed their views on that point, pro and con?

So to suggest, as Matt does, that he didn’t anticipate the reaction is extremely unbelievable.

Matt goes on to say that if he had expected the reaction, he would have ‘planned differently’ but he doesn’t tell us how so. Does Matt now see these invitations as problems? Then why doesn’t he come out and say so? Why doesn’t he tell us how he would have planned differently?

He later says in his letter:

Sometimes I have to smile when I think about the politics in college ministry. Early on I found that I had to just keep it simple: do the right thing, keep a right spirit, communicate the best I can, and leave the results to God.

How is this letter not playing politics? He isn’t straightforward. He doesn’t say, on the one hand, “We messed up, we shouldn’t have done it.” On the other hand, he doesn’t say, “We stand by what we are doing, you critics can take a hike.” Instead he tries to find some kind of quasi-queasy middle position. He seems to be trying to pacify critics while maintaining his position. Is that not politics?

You may argue the merits or demerits of Matt’s position all you like. That is not what I am addressing. I am addressing the political wishy-washiness of this letter that simply strains credulity.

[Don Johnson] It is interesting to see the wide variety of responses in this thread, talking about things havning nothing to do with what I said in my post.

My point in the post is this: It is astonishing that Matt didn’t anticipate a negative reaction to these two invitations.

…You may argue the merits or demerits of Matt’s position all you like. That is not what I am addressing. I am addressing the political wishy-washiness of this letter that simply strains credulity.

Don, unfortunately because we mostly end up discussing only the items we disagree on, I don’t ever get to express my admiration for what I perceive as your character and commitment to Christ, as well as your faithful labors in the Great White North. Please know I entreat you as a father.

The point you make is only salient because fundamentalism is now a place where everyone within the movement (for lack of better nomenclature) should just be saying, according to you, “Well, duh!” This is why he feels (or may feel) the need to play politics. But if the Baptists had not participated with the Presbys or the Anglicans or the Episcos (whom I can never spell properly) we wouldn’t be having a discussion of this sort.

Sure there are probably some greater differences between those other denominations and “us” now, but the differences that existed between them back in the day surely exceeded the differences between “us” and John MacArthur.

In other words, your point, clear as it is, seems to me to confirm an unhealthy parochialism in fundamentalism.

Hi DavidO

If the issues were about interdenominational cooperation, you might have a bit of a point. Last I knew, however, I was still in some fellowship with Presbyterians and at least one Methodist.

But the issues here are not about denominational distinctives, but about the essence of fundamentalism.

There is one definition of fundamentalism that says, “hey, I believe the fundamentals, so I’m a fundamentalist”.

The other definition insists on the “battle royal” part of the mantra: it is orthodoxy plus militancy against error (both theological and practical).

When an institution that has insisted on the battle royal part of the definition seems to be chucking that in favor of doctrinal compatibility alone, controversy ensues.

That is what is happening now.

J

ay C. stated:

Bob,

I know that you think of Lordship as a dangerous heresy (and I disagree with you), so let’s pass over that. I’m quoting, word for word, the IFCA International Doctrinal Statement. Can you please tell me where they are either:

1. in error theologically (again, aside from the LS position)
OR
2. holding to a position that you disagree with?

I am in agreement with their statement. The problem is most in the IFCA are not in agreement with some of it.

This point is IMO beyond argument. The official history of the IFCA is a book titled “For Such A Time As This’ by J.O Henry. 1983, IFCA Press. This was authorized by the National Board and speaks for itself. I knew J.O. Henry very well. Had numerous conversations with him as a student and later at IFCA meetings . He was one of my History Professors as a student at Biola. He was a promoter of Keynesian economics, the Democratic party, and a classic New Evangelical. He was in charge of the IFCA Chaplaincy, and on the National committee more than once. The book tells the story of the IFCA Fundamentalist battles from the stand point of the New Evangelicals who won the battles causing the more Fundamentalist elements to leave. The final battle was at 1979 (PP. 195 to 199). The natural progression continued until the late 1980s and in about 1990 they dropped the name “Fundamental” and adopted the acrostic “IFCA” with “International” as the official name. I was active in the IFCA for 10 years. I know many, many members. Most all that I know are Conservative Evangelical. Many members are more moderate Evangelical. In the 1970s many of their churches quietly supported Billy Graham crusades. The large church, Alderwood Manor Community Church, in the Seattle area, then Pastored by two time IFCA national president Lowell Wendt, ran several busses to the BG Seattle Crusade in 1975. He told several of the IFCA pastors that he was doing this and announced it at the North West Regional meeting in Roseburg Oregon. I was there. There were no protests, only support for his “loving” attitude and position.

As you most probably know there are many churches and organizations who have, and are, going through the changes that involve a doctrinal and position statement on paper that they in practice do not any longer endorse. One example in the IFCA statement is this:

(

8) The Two Natures of the Believer - We believe that every saved person possesses two natures, with provision made for victory of the new nature over the old nature through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit; and, that all claims to the eradication of the old nature in this life are unscriptural (Romans 6:13; Romans 8:12-13; Galatians 5:16-25; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:14-16; 1 John 3:5-9).

John MacArthur holds to the Reformed view that does not espouse two natures as do several in the IFCA who agree with the Reformed view and/or “Needham” in his book on God’s will. This is well known yet these are allowed to stay in the IFCA.

If you took the trouble to get the IFCA statement off their website you probably also read their statement on the “Nature of Saving Faith.”This is their official position agreed to by 93% of the members. It is obviously contrary to the MacArthurism gospel and those who are MacArthurites. John even has had his hyper LSG made a part of the Grace Community church official position.
The result is that many members in the IFCA, particularly the Master Seminary graduates coming into the IFCA, do disagree with the IFCA position of saving faith. By the way, I call MacArthur’s LSG as hyper as it is more extreme than the LSG as set forth by Michael Horton and most Reformed theologians.

The evidence is clear that IFCA International does not practice, or most members hold to,Keynesian the classic Fundamentalist view on separation. They do not enforce and/or practice their statement of faith and positions. Their own book on their history reveals this. It has become increasingly so in the last ten years.

The evidence is clear that John MacArthur is not associated with a group that practices Biblical separation and that he himself does not consistently practice Biblical separation.

The evidence is also available from local churches and from many actual graduates of Masters Seminary that there are serious problems with the fruit of John MacArthur’s ministry. These include a militant Reformed Calvinism that splits churches and the fact that most do not practice Biblical separation. I have been directly told by Masters graduates who are active in the IFCA that they are out to change the IFCA even further. They do not mean to be more Fundamentalist.

Matt Olson, Les Ollilla, Doug McLachlan, and others must be naive as to the real ministry results and consequences of some of John MacArthur’s beliefs and ministry, as seen by those here in Southern California and the West coast. He has a good ministry in many respects but the increasing negative consequences is a concern to many. Why do these classic Fundamentalists feel a need to have association with this ministry? Why travel to Grace Community for a meeting? Mac Arthur may be viewed as a big name and influential preacher in some circles. However, the concerns increase as you cross the Rockies and with those more familiar with all aspects of the ministry and results.

As convictions erode and institutions change, it is never clear cut denials and open change of practices. It is always gradual undercover change and a gradual minimizing of convictions without any direct assertions. It is here a little and there a little until all of a sudden a there is realization that there has been a real change that has taken place. Some Fundamentalists are not Paranoid just experienced.

As to the endorsing of KJVO and some considered Hyper Fundamentalists. Just don’t do it!! That has no bearing on the right or wrong of other endorsements and associations.

As for the calling statements by Don johnson as arrogant and condensending. NONSENSE! That was the old continued accusations of the Neo Evangelicals whenever such issues were raised. By contrast they hoped to be seen as loving and humble as they advocated their compromise. I have lived through some of that.

Rick Holland is not only on the staff at Grace Community church, he is the driving and organizing leadership behind the ResolveConference for youth and young adults. This is a conference that pushes Reformed theology conviction within the context of extreme hard driving music imported from our contemporary amoral youth culture.

What was said to the students of a college or university when he is invited to speak in chapel?

[Don Johnson]

The other definition insists on the “battle royal” part of the mantra: it is orthodoxy plus militancy against error (both theological and practical).

When an institution that has insisted on the battle royal part of the definition seems to be chucking that in favor of doctrinal compatibility alone, controversy ensues.

That is what is happening now.

Don…

Few of us who don’t define “fundamentalism” the way that you do would have a problem with “militancy”. It’s the stridency with which we take exception. And cleverly, in your parenthetical expansion, you redefined historical fundamentalism away from the theological to include the nebulous world of “practical error.” And who gets to determine what constitutes “practical error”? I think most of us know the answer as least as it relates to whom “thinks” they get to determine practical error. Indeed debates on practical application of theology should be embraced and encouraged — but must it constantly become an issue of fellowship? I see no “practical” benefit in publicly calling out Olson for your perception that he is disingenuous.

Frankly, if you are going to question Olson’s motivations and naivete in how he addressed his clarification, I think yours are worthy of examination as well. One does not get to lob a grenade toward a brother and then get to hide in generalized obfuscation claiming that you don’t buy his motivation without some connection to the fact that you obviously disagree with his position as well. In fact, I could say that I sincerely doubt that you would have launched a similar missile at someone who sees things like you do and was defending a position to have someone like Ian Paisley in to speak at their chapel…..but then, would that have been fair?

I would also state my firmly held belief that the whole reason your blog article was posted under filings in the first place was to “counter” Olson’s statement when it received front page SI billing.

But then, these are exactly the kind of tactics that have driven so many into the arms of the mainstream evangelicalism or worse. And then there are some of us who are just too ornery to be forced out be those who want to try and redefine us out.

Now to go prep my turkey with blessings toward all….

[Dan Burrell] And cleverly, in your parenthetical expansion, you redefined historical fundamentalism away from the theological to include the nebulous world of “practical error.”

Well, Kevin Bauder should get some credit for that portion of the definition. See his lectures at International Baptist Bible College a couple of years ago. You’ll have to work through a long series of lectures including some misinformation, but his term is ‘orthopraxy’.

[Dan Burrell] In fact, I could say that I sincerely doubt that you would have launched a similar missile at someone who sees things like you do and was defending a position to have someone like Ian Paisley in to speak at their chapel…..but then, would that have been fair?

What a weird question. Why would I have an objection to having someone like Paisley speak? Who would question his fundamentalism?

[Dan Burrell] I would also state my firmly held belief that the whole reason your blog article was posted under filings in the first place was to “counter” Olson’s statement when it received front page SI billing.

You can hold your firm belief all you want, but I believe the link to my post came first.

[Dan Burrell] But then, these are exactly the kind of tactics that have driven so many into the arms of the mainstream evangelicalism or worse. And then there are some of us who are just too ornery to be forced out be those who want to try and redefine us out.

There is a Hebrew word for that…

What would be “worse” than driving someone into the arms of mainstream evangelicalism? Why would fundamentalists want to retain people who were comfortable with mainstream evangelicalism or “worse”?

Not logical, captain.

I got the email from Matt Olson last night, and posted the contents in the mod. forum. Later on, I contacted NIU and asked for permission to repost, which they graciously granted 20 minutes later. Aaron then decided to run it, sometime late last night, on the front page today, after some other back and forth. I think anything that posts to the front page with a midnight timestamp is actually loaded by the computers at that time, but I don’t know.

We move quickly in these here parts of the cyberworld ;)