"As I read the blogs of Dr. Kevin Bauder, I see an attempt to re-write the history of fundamentalism in America."

Nothing new or original here. IMHO, just more old-guard view that just strengthens the positions of Bauder, Jordan, etc… I never realized that the Indianapolis area was such a hotbed for this stripe of fundyism…very interesting.

Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN

[RPittman] Liberal and conservative do not carry the same connotations, although it has been misapplied in this way, as in political discussions. In politics, liberal or conservative are fairly relative terms and have changed with the times whereas Liberalism in theology is a definite theology brand. Lot of confusion is caused by folks using terms imprecisely.

Well said.
Growing up, I often heard “liberal” attached to any organization that featured men with hair over the tops of their ears. There was some truth in using the term that way. The changes were coming from the cultural left. But it left folks without a word to use when they wanted to talk about those who rejected the miracles, denied the virgin birth, mocked the need for a blood atonement for sin and made the improvement of living conditions their gospel.

How that helps make the document linked in the OP look any better, though, I can’t imagine.

We wouldn’t want to give an unbalanced perspective… here in this open forum where people post with their names on their posts.
So, another p.o.v. …
http://crosspointeindy.com/crosspointe/files/media/file/Open_Letter_Edi…

This might also be a good time to point out…

Filings are links to publicly posted links or articles containing news of interest. SI has never asked permission to link to these things since they are already public. It has long been our practice to link to news items that are of interest to fundamentalists, and Pr. Arrowood’s article fit that description perfectly. It presents a perspective on fundamentalism we want people to be aware of.

Filings are almost always presented without editorial comment. All responses are those of the participants at SI and are not edited or moderated for content unless they violate the site Comment Policy. They do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the publisher or moderators at SI.

So your open filings where people actually have to post their names and stand behind their comments is countered by a long list of anonymous people? I will not be the one to accuse any of them of cowardice.

Matthew, the problem is that in the minds of some, your old guard line gives them a reason to continue fighting. They have been deceived into thinking their concept of fundamentalism is actually the historical one and not the reaction to new evangelicals it actually is. The deception runs deep.

You see them on here constantly trying to “hold the line” against the rising tide of opposition.

The opposition though are those who they cannot control anymore because they cannot control the information.

The truth is, they are not the old guard. They are deceived and don’t know it.

If a proper militarist concept could be used, it would be that they were an occupying force which is being progressively overthrown to restore sanity.

The fault of all that is on those who wanted to fight for the big picture instead of being discerning from the beginning. The KJVO and other fraud movements should have been fought off harder than the liberals because KJVO is just liberal theology cloaked as faith in God.

Here is what Dr. David Doran wrote to Pastor Arrowood - http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/

[Aaron Blumer] using the term that way … left folks without a word to use when they wanted to talk about those who rejected the miracles, denied the virgin birth, mocked the need for a blood atonement for sin and made the improvement of living conditions their gospel.

My point exactly.

[James K] I will not be the one to accuse any of them of cowardice.

Good, because that wouldn’t be nice… even though the blogosphere is nothing but gossip on steroids. Here it can at least be nice gossip on steroids.

It’s another topic, really, but the differences and similarities between the Web and print media seem to be lost on alot of folks. The web is really just really fast, really cheap publishing. So everything that happens on the “blogosphere” also happens with print media, only slower. With one exception: the fact that it’s so fast and so cheap means large numbers of people can publish on a single topic almost all at once, creating a frenzy effect. You can’t do that with print media.
You can do it with conversation, though, and folks have probably been doing it conversationally since Adam and Eve’s first family reunion. The Web just makes it possible for print to act like talk.

[Aaron Blumer] It’s another topic, really, but the differences and similarities between the Web and print media seem to be lost on alot of folks. The web is really just really fast, really cheap publishing. So everything that happens on the “blogosphere” also happens with print media, only slower. With one exception: the fact that it’s so fast and so cheap means large numbers of people can publish on a single topic almost all at once, creating a frenzy effect. You can’t do that with print media.
You can do it with conversation, though, and folks have probably been doing it conversationally since Adam and Eve’s first family reunion. The Web just makes it possible for print to act like talk.

I was thinking about this yesterday, because my mom is always having me check out stuff for her on the internet, even though she often fears for my soul because she’s heard so many horror stories about it. I’ve told her that it’s little more than a really-really-really-really-really big backyard fence, and it means we get to look incredibly smart or incredibly stupid at about 54 Mbps. And by-the-by, anyone who posts on the internet should keep in mind that the www stands for World Wide Web. Like, duh?

As for this open letter, I like what Bro. Durning said way back at the start-

We must use the Scriptures to answer questions in a thorough fashion.
What is the Biblical basis of separation? What does true Scriptural unity look like? Is music an issue in and of itself, aside from all other related factors? What is the proper view of the Christian’s interaction with culture?

Many of yesterday’s battles were vital. Seeing what Billy Graham says now, who would argue he chose wisely back in the 50’s?
But a few of those battles were distractions from Biblical truth, built on tenuous ground, inspired by cultural rather than Christian considerations.

I agree that some battles have little to do with Biblical truth and everything to do with obtaining and preserving a power base, using intimidation to manipulate and dominate their little corner of the world. What’s spiritual about that? God’s Word doesn’t need bodyguards and hit men.

Billy Graham’s http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/januaryweb-only/qabillygraham…] thoughts on what he’d do different -

If you could, would you go back and do anything differently?

Yes, of course. I’d spend more time at home with my family, and I’d study more and preach less. I wouldn’t have taken so many speaking engagements, including some of the things I did over the years that I probably didn’t really need to do—weddings and funerals and building dedications, things like that. Whenever I counsel someone who feels called to be an evangelist, I always urge them to guard their time and not feel like they have to do everything.

I also would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.

RPittman, if you are having trouble understanding my post, I would suggest you go back and read some history of fundamentalism, why it came into existence as a movement, and the various ways it evolved since its inception.

There is no need to get so upset by this. It is better to seek understand and learn from the past mistakes. My last paragraph mentions one of the most glaring mistakes of fundamentalism. The strange thing about deception is that most just don’t know they are deceived. You don’t have to stay that way though.

I want to encourage you to study the issues more than you apparently have, and then maybe contribute something besides an angry response.

Roland,

“Their theology would be described as orthodox but their associations were un-Scriptural.”

This was the first line in one of your post describing theological Liberalism? Did I misunderstand or are you saying that Theological Liberals’ theology is described as othrodox?

Mod Note-fixed coding. -JC

Roger,

I believe you are misunderstand Roland. He is answering Don’s question:

“Would you describe the theology of Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, Billy Graham [especially in the 50s/60s] et al as conservative or liberal?”

Aaron & Roland,

I am pretty sure you guys are misunderstanding Don’s use of the word “liberal”. He is using it correctly - as theological liberalism. He is asking if Henry, Ockenga, Graham (especially the 50/60s version of Graham) were theologically conservative or theologically liberal - and the correct and expected answer to his question is that these guys were conservative (not liberals).

However, in the context of his post, the purpose for asking that is to point out it was not their theology (in the main), but their associations that made them new evangelical. That has always been the case.

Just trying to help.

Frank

I asked the question about conservative/liberal theology in response to Joel Shaffer’s assertion that Warren Wiersbe was not a new evangelical because he had conservative theology.

My point is that the issue with new evangelicals was NOT their theology, but their philosophy and ministry associations. Their theology was conservative, to use Joel’s term, or orthodox, to use Roland’s term.

I think that this misunderstanding of new evangelical theology is a serious problem for us in understanding what we should do with respect to the so-called conservative evangelicals. Those of us who think we should still keep our distance from them are not doing so because we have theological issues with them.

[Aaron Blumer] even though the blogosphere is nothing but gossip on steroids. Here it can at least be nice gossip on steroids.

propositions, ideas is what interests me not gossip. the web facilitates information. its more about how one uses it.

I just wanted to get my post off to a good start by using a dismissive interjection for the title.
It is kind of fun. I don’t think I’ll make a habit of it though.

Anyway, Alex, I agree. I was going for a little irony there earlier. We’re aiming for ideas and thinking here (with a little fun now and then I hope) rather than the gossip that is indeed common on the Web.
(Note to self: do some writing some day on what it is that makes gossip gossip)