"As I read the blogs of Dr. Kevin Bauder, I see an attempt to re-write the history of fundamentalism in America."
“Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism?” Pastor Rick Arrowood
- 62 views
Todd, two things real quick:
1. Glenn Beck is a threat to biblical christianity that the CEs would recognize.
2. The foot soldiers I was referring to are not the same as what you are referring to.
1. Glenn Beck is a threat to biblical christianity that the CEs would recognize.
2. The foot soldiers I was referring to are not the same as what you are referring to.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
That would be to follow my logic where it never intended to go. Of course Machen and Ketcham were not wrong. But I get the feeling that even Machen and Ketcham would not be welcome in the pulpit of men like the author of the above article.You are quite right. For instance, not many people realized the deep friendship that Dr. Ketcham had to Warren Wiersbe. Dr. Ketcham frequently spoke at the Moody Memorial church where Wiersbe was pastor for several years. Moreover, right before Ketcham died, Wiersbe would regularly spend time reading scripture and praying with him. Warren Wiersbe was no fundamentalist. He had ties to the broader evangelical movement, yet held to conservative theology. Back 3 or 4 decades ago, Wiersbe was today’s equivalent of a conservative evangelical (Mohler, Dever, etc….), yet Dr. Bob Ketcham fellowshipped with him personally and ecclesiastically. Also, Dr. Ketcham had a few other ties with conservative evangelicals throughout his past, such as speaking at MBI’s Founders week on occasion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I remember my history right, Dr. Jones II had condemned Wiersbe as a compromiser with New Evangelicals in BJU’s “Faith and the Family” periodical, warning those who would associate with him.
Therefore, I believe if there is any revisionist history of fundamentalism, it is the one that Rick Arrowood claims. Even from its beginnings, Fundamentalism hasn’t been unified on the issue of separation. In fact, the association that my church belongs to, the GARBC, many churches have different views of how to apply separation, yet live with this tension. Pastor Arrowood is dismayed by Bauder and Doran sharing pulpits with conservative evangelicals as “a mix that we have never seen until now.” But this has happened with large segments of fundamentalism (GARBC and IFCA) throughout its history. It may be something that He hasn’t seen in his fundamentalist circles, but the fragmented “movement” of fundamentalism is much more diverse than what some groups of people would like to admit.
[Andrew Comings] Good to “see” you again.First, before I get to your comments, I need to note that I was not remembering the time frame of The Fundamentals well. My “LONG before” couldn’t be considered accurate, so maybe a little revisionism on my side for that comment, eh?[Don Johnson] Andrew, The Fundamentals were written LONG before the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. They were early, early days, written well before fundamentalist thinking began to look at the Scriptural mandates for separation.My point is simply this: many of the writers of The Fundamentals (which did indeed serve to define the doctrines over which Machen, Ketcham, etc. separated) would not be allowed to preach in Fundamentalist pulpits today, because of disagreement over some area or another.
Nevertheless, we have to state that the writers of The Fundamentals and the Fundamentalists were clearly not one and the same. For example, one contributor to The Fundamentals was Charles Erdman, a professor at Princeton along with Machen. He was orthodox (and wrote some excellent commentaries, if I recall correctly), but he was a moderate. He refused to leave Princeton and was in conflict with Machen over the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy.
So, yes, it is quite true that many of those who wrote the Fundamentals wouldn’t be welcome in Fundamentalist pulpits today.
But I am not sure that you prove anything by that. There are men who I would acknowledge as Fundamentalists today who I wouldn’t have in my pulpit for one reason or another.
[Andrew Comings] And today, while men like Mohler, MacArthur, et al are standing up for the truth in a dark world, and within their own denominations, the best we Fundamentalists can do is take potshots at them in what amounts to a brilliant fifth-column maneuver. And what is our justification for doing so? For the most part, secondary issues about which good and godly men should be able to agree to disagree.So which is it, primary issues or secondary issues? You said, “for the most part, secondary issues…” If there are primary issues, then we have every justification for refusing fellowship.
Regardless, these men are not fundamentalists. It is surprising that so-called fundamentalists don’t see the difference when they themselves quite clearly do. For their part, from what they have said, I gather that they wouldn’t want to cooperate with fundamentalists unless the fundamentalists made changes. The same is true from the other side of the fence.
The ones who are having difficulty are those who claim to be fundamentalists but want to dismiss the beliefs and behaviours of fundamentalism.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Joel Shaffer]I wanted to comment on this thread, but your post says it so much better than I could. Very good points. Thank you.
Therefore, I believe if there is any revisionist history of fundamentalism, it is the one that Rick Arrowood claims. Even from its beginnings, Fundamentalism hasn’t been unified on the issue of separation. In fact, the association that my church belongs to, the GARBC, many churches have different views of how to apply separation, yet live with this tension. Pastor Arrowood is dismayed by Bauder and Doran sharing pulpits with conservative evangelicals as “a mix that we have never seen until now.” But this has happened with large segments of fundamentalism (GARBC and IFCA) throughout its history. It may be something that He hasn’t seen in his fundamentalist circles, but the fragmented “movement” of fundamentalism is much more diverse than what some groups of people would like to admit.
[Joel Shaffer] Warren Wiersbe was no fundamentalist. He had ties to the broader evangelical movement, yet held to conservative theology. Back 3 or 4 decades ago, Wiersbe was today’s equivalent of a conservative evangelical (Mohler, Dever, etc….) … Jones II had condemned Wiersbe as a compromiser with New Evangelicals in BJU’s “Faith and the Family” periodical, warning those who would associate with him.I can’t comment on the relationship between Ketcham and Weirsbe, don’t know anything about it. But you are making an assertion about Weirsbe that doesn’t seem in accord with the facts.
I gleaned the following from the Wikipedia article on Weirsbe:
[wikipedia]Now, would you say Youth for Christ is an example of a new evangelical institution or not? Not sure where it was exactly between 1957 and 1967, but I would hazard a guess that it was supportive of Graham in the new evangelical controversy of those years.
- From September 1957 to 1961, Wiersbe served as Director of The Literature Division for Youth for Christ International.
- Between August 1979 and March 1982 he wrote bi-weekly for Christianity Today as “Eutychus X”.
Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_W._Wiersbe] here .
How about Christianity Today? A decidedly new evangelical periodical if there ever was one. It was one of the three pillars of new evangelicalism, along with Graham and Fuller Seminary. Yet we see Wiersbe writing regularly for them.
I would say that Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. (not “II”) was correct.
[Joel Shaffer] Therefore, I believe if there is any revisionist history of fundamentalism, it is the one that Rick Arrowood claims. Even from its beginnings, Fundamentalism hasn’t been unified on the issue of separation. In fact, the association that my church belongs to, the GARBC, many churches have different views of how to apply separation, yet live with this tension. Pastor Arrowood is dismayed by Bauder and Doran sharing pulpits with conservative evangelicals as “a mix that we have never seen until now.” But this has happened with large segments of fundamentalism (GARBC and IFCA) throughout its history. It may be something that He hasn’t seen in his fundamentalist circles, but the fragmented “movement” of fundamentalism is much more diverse than what some groups of people would like to admit.The GARBC was not really considered fundamentalist for at least a couple of decades beginning in the mid 80s. Their national leadership publicly stated they had been wrong on separation. The IFCA is so fundamentalist that they changed their name so they wouldn’t have the word “Fundamentalist” as part of it any longer.
It is just this sort of misinformation and revisionism that Pastor Arrowood is complaining of.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
My point was that Wiersbe held to conservative theology, but did not separate when it came to new evangelicals. (isn’t this what you are saying or are you calling him a new evangelical?) Similar to Mohler who holds to conservative theology, but did not separate from the Billy Graham crusade, and etc….
The story about Dr. Ketcham and his relationship with Dr. Wiersbe is not just word of mouth, but documented in Paul Tassel’s book “Quest for Faithfulness.”
As for your view of the GARBC, you error by painting it with a broad brush. GARBC churches even among themselves hold generally to the doctrine of separation, but differ in its application. Therefore, you could get one leader stating that they were wrong about how they applied separation, but then the next leader coming in and officially cutting ties with Cedarville like they did in 2006 (which I did not agree with). To imply that it is really isn’t fundamentalist is nonsense. I think you’d be quite in the minority here on Sharper Iron on that opinion……but probably in the majority with churches in the IFB……
As for the IFCA, wiki had this to say: “The shift to the use of initials rather than its original name reflects a rejection of much of what is currently described by the label fundamentalist [1] and a rejection of any nationalist focus rather than a softening of its message.” Quite different than what you imply. More about not wanting to be associated with how the media has associated fundys with the crazies such as the Fred Phelps of the world, not because they don’t believe the fundamentals of the faith or hold to the doctrine of separation. In fact, check their doctrinal statement! They call ecumenicism, ecumenical evangelism, neo-orthodoxy, and neo-evangelicalism as “movements contrary to Faith.” Looks like you broad-brushed the IFCA as well.
I don’t know where I have shown any revisionism or misinformation (except for not getting Bob Jones Jr. right :bigsmile: ) On the contrary, I have shown how diverse fundamentalism has been and still is because of GARBC and IFCA still claims its historical fundamental roots. IFB churches and their history are not the only ones that can claim historical fundamentalism.
My point was that Wiersbe held to conservative theology, but did not separate when it came to new evangelicals. (isn’t this what you are saying or are you calling him a new evangelical?) Similar to Mohler who holds to conservative theology, but did not separate from the Billy Graham crusade, and etc….
The story about Dr. Ketcham and his relationship with Dr. Wiersbe is not just word of mouth, but documented in Paul Tassel’s book “Quest for Faithfulness.”
As for your view of the GARBC, you error by painting it with a broad brush. GARBC churches even among themselves hold generally to the doctrine of separation, but differ in its application. Therefore, you could get one leader stating that they were wrong about how they applied separation, but then the next leader coming in and officially cutting ties with Cedarville like they did in 2006 (which I did not agree with). To imply that it is really isn’t fundamentalist is nonsense. I think you’d be quite in the minority here on Sharper Iron on that opinion……but probably in the majority with churches in the IFB……
As for the IFCA, wiki had this to say: “The shift to the use of initials rather than its original name reflects a rejection of much of what is currently described by the label fundamentalist [1] and a rejection of any nationalist focus rather than a softening of its message.” Quite different than what you imply. More about not wanting to be associated with how the media has associated fundys with the crazies such as the Fred Phelps of the world, not because they don’t believe the fundamentals of the faith or hold to the doctrine of separation. In fact, check their doctrinal statement! They call ecumenicism, ecumenical evangelism, neo-orthodoxy, and neo-evangelicalism as “movements contrary to Faith.” Looks like you broad-brushed the IFCA as well.
I don’t know where I have shown any revisionism or misinformation (except for not getting Bob Jones Jr. right :bigsmile: ) On the contrary, I have shown how diverse fundamentalism has been and still is because of GARBC and IFCA still claims its historical fundamental roots. IFB churches and their history are not the only ones that can claim historical fundamentalism.
I appreciate Dr. Arrowood’s concern over direction. I don’t agree with what he sees as bad but I’ll take the warning that we need to be careful. However, the statement from the article used to get us to get us reading was dealing with revisionist history of fundamentalism that he saw in Dr. Bauder’s series. I saw several anecdotes of disappointments with former ministries and I saw his disagreement with some associations of Dr. Bauder and others but I didn’t see the series lauding any of those guys as being currently great fundamentalists that all of us should emulate. I also didn’t see him cite any points where he thought the historical revision had taken place.
I’d be curious as to what Dr. Arrowood thinks was being revised. Is he saying that acknowledging that there have been changes in methodology over the last 80+ years is inaccurate? Is he saying that Fundamentalists do not change and that Fundamentalists have never been willing to accept brothers who do things differently? (Yes, we’ve gotten that stereptype somewhat deservedly.) If he thinks that Dr. Bauder is purposely trying to water down the militancy of Fundamentalism I’d love to see where he disagrees. Maybe I missed it in the article but I didn’t see him substantiate the statement with evidence. I appreciate his concerns about very popular Conservative Evangelicals. We’ve all seen groups, schools (even mentioned above), etc. that do drift very far away. I’m just not sure that I read any revision or encouragement to revise in Dr. Bauder’s articles. This letter sounds vaguely reminiscent of a “prophetic discourse” given in the NC mountains a year or two ago.
I will qualify this by saying that since this was a letter to his church we may not have all the context. He may have used this as the end of a series or in response to an ongoing discussion in this area. I’d like to think more information has been made available for the immediate audience. But, as it stands here by itself, I need to disagree and say that Fundamentalism is broader than Dr. Arrowood is portraying it to be.
I’d be curious as to what Dr. Arrowood thinks was being revised. Is he saying that acknowledging that there have been changes in methodology over the last 80+ years is inaccurate? Is he saying that Fundamentalists do not change and that Fundamentalists have never been willing to accept brothers who do things differently? (Yes, we’ve gotten that stereptype somewhat deservedly.) If he thinks that Dr. Bauder is purposely trying to water down the militancy of Fundamentalism I’d love to see where he disagrees. Maybe I missed it in the article but I didn’t see him substantiate the statement with evidence. I appreciate his concerns about very popular Conservative Evangelicals. We’ve all seen groups, schools (even mentioned above), etc. that do drift very far away. I’m just not sure that I read any revision or encouragement to revise in Dr. Bauder’s articles. This letter sounds vaguely reminiscent of a “prophetic discourse” given in the NC mountains a year or two ago.
I will qualify this by saying that since this was a letter to his church we may not have all the context. He may have used this as the end of a series or in response to an ongoing discussion in this area. I’d like to think more information has been made available for the immediate audience. But, as it stands here by itself, I need to disagree and say that Fundamentalism is broader than Dr. Arrowood is portraying it to be.
#2 and satisfied http://satisfied2nd.wordpress.com/
[RPittman] Jay, you are astute enough to realize that Fundamentalism as a movement is relative to time. As the situations developed, the face of Fundamentalism changed. The first generation Fundamentalism of Riley, Shields, et. al. differed from the later Fundamentalism of those opposing Billy Graham. It was the result of development and changing situations. Fundamentalism in the South was different from the northern brand. It is a mistake, I believe, to speak of Fundamentalism, sometimes called Historical Fundamentalism, as if it was a static thing. It was not. Fundamentalism was very diverse and changed with time, place, and circumstances.
There were many contemporary with the publication of The Fundamentals, who generally agreed with the concepts, but they never became identified with the Fundamentalist movement. These included the Orthodox (i.e. Machen, et. al.) and the Old Evangelicals. The line of demarcation, IMHO, was eventual separation, although all did not immediately separate.
OK, that makes sense and I agree with you.
I suppose that the Fundamentalist movement has always - to me - been about one thing / concept that I can understand, but you are right in that the original goals/movement did have separate and very specific aims that have since had to change since the early 1900’s because of new threats/theories. So thanks for the reminder.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Don Johnson] The GARBC was not really considered fundamentalist for at least a couple of decades beginning in the mid 80s. Their national leadership publicly stated they had been wrong on separation.
Don, I’m not sure I fully agree with your summary here. While the GARBC had disagreements over the meaning and extent of secondary separation in the 1980s, none of the GARBC’s leaders ever repudiated the position articulated in our constitution (“…to raise a standard of Biblical separation from worldliness, modernism and apostasy; to emphasize the Biblical teaching that a breakdown of divinely established lines between Bible believers and apostates is unscriptural and to be a voice repudiating cooperation with movements which attempt to unite true Bible believers and apostates in evangelistic and other cooperative spiritual efforts.”)
If a person were to evaluate the GARBC on the basis of what we printed during the era—say, Ernest Pickering’s Biblical Separation and a boatload of toe-the-line Baptist Bulletin articles—one would at least ask if your statement lacks balance.
Yes, the GARBC leaders disagreed over the meaning of secondary separation—and I’ll offer a further opinion that the debate was marred by power struggles and chest-thumping personality conflicts. But be honest—isn’t that a description of Baptist Fundamentalism in the 1980s?
[Joel’s example of Warren Wiersbe is a good test case. Wiersbe was ordained by a GARBC church and was frequently invited as a guest speaker in GARBC churches. The GARBC Council of Eighteen invited him as the featured speaker at the 1995 GARBC Conference, though he did not embrace or practice secondary separation. Some thought it was a good idea, some didn’t. All of us bought his books.]
[Joel Shaffer] My point was that Wiersbe held to conservative theology, but did not separate when it came to new evangelicals. (isn’t this what you are saying or are you calling him a new evangelical?) Similar to Mohler who holds to conservative theology, but did not separate from the Billy Graham crusade, and etc….What does it take to be a new evangelical?
What was wrong with the theology of new evangelicals, other than repudiating separation from apostasy?
Was Christianity Today separated from apostasy, yes or no?
Would you describe the theology of Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, Billy Graham [especially in the 50s/60s] et al as conservative or liberal?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I have known Rick for many years. I share some of his concerns. What I object to is the broad inclusion of Doran and Bauder into anti-fundamentalist terms. Doran clearly identifies himself as an orthodox biblical separatist who holds strongly to secondary separation, and the term “fundamental” is all over his seminary literature and website.
Recently, Doran publicly declared that he declined an invitation to speak for Mark Dever at Capitol Hill on account of some of Dever’s affiliations. Doran has militantly stood against unbiblical ideas and practices on a very wide range of issues. Any perusal of the MACP conference over the last 15 years offers boatloads of evidence to substantiate that fact.
Bauder is to the right of many so-called fundamentalists when it comes to music, worship, preaching, cultural-adaptation. Bauder does not come out of the BJU orbit and I think some people are overly sensitive to that fact. I say that as a graduate and board member of that great institution. Bauder and Doran have the guts to point out some of the glaring problems that have been tolerated in Fundamentalism such as KJVO, easy believism, dumbed-down preaching, bad theology, and in the case of Hyles and Schaap rank heresy.
Recently, Doran pointed out publicly that Fundamentalists had invited Hyles to preach at their major conferences after he had publicly declared the eternal humanity of Christ, not to mention his other problems. Doran believes that the labels have become too muddled and that decisions of fellowship have to be based on true orthodoxy and biblical separatism.
In my opinion the labels are still important— very important; however, we have to work on defining them accurately based on the current ecclesiastical scene. The “conservative evangelicals” differ from one another substantially. One has to evaluate them individually based on doctrine, separation, affiliations, and their view of culture. I think there is a big difference between John Mac and Mark Driscoll for instance.
.
Pastor Mike Harding
[KevinM]Kevin, I am primarily thinking of Paul Tassell from about 1986 on through the rest of his tenure. The result was a period of confusion and less than robust sense of separation. Recent decisions are encouraging, but apparently, according to Joel, the GARB is still a mixed bag when it comes to a fundamentalist posture.[Don Johnson] The GARBC was not really considered fundamentalist for at least a couple of decades beginning in the mid 80s. Their national leadership publicly stated they had been wrong on separation.
Don, I’m not sure I fully agree with your summary here. While the GARBC had disagreements over the meaning and extent of secondary separation in the 1980s, none of the GARBC’s leaders ever repudiated the position articulated in our constitution (“…to raise a standard of Biblical separation from worldliness, modernism and apostasy; to emphasize the Biblical teaching that a breakdown of divinely established lines between Bible believers and apostates is unscriptural and to be a voice repudiating cooperation with movements which attempt to unite true Bible believers and apostates in evangelistic and other cooperative spiritual efforts.”)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[MarkClements] I’d be curious as to what Dr. Arrowood thinks was being revised.Mark, I don’t know what Rick Arrowood is pointing at, but I have thought Kevin’s statements concerning the ‘silent majority’ of evangelicals were not neo-evangelical is just not accurate. He cited Dallas Seminary as an example, then spoke of their involvement in Explo 72, which included, http://centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/266-now-about-those-d…] according to KTB , “neoevangelicals and (as it eventually turned out) even some non-evangelicals.” Yet, despite Dallas’ involvement with ‘non-evangelicals’, he says they are not neo-evangelical themselves… How much more neo-evangelical can you be if you are cooperating with non-evangelicals?
FWIW
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Isn’t the FBF a mixed bag, too? :)
Just imagine me and Lou in the same fellowship (chuckling).
et
Just imagine me and Lou in the same fellowship (chuckling).
et
[Don Johnson] Would you describe the theology of Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, Billy Graham [especially in the 50s/60s] et al as conservative or liberal?Can you define liberal for the purposes of this discussion?
Discussion