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

Roland, and Frank,
Thanks….I figured i misunderstood!

I just read Doran’s blog post in response to Dr. Arrowood’s open letter. i am really disappointed in Dr. Arrowood. The best you can say about Arrowood’s response about what Doran said is that it was a gross over-simplification. I have more to say about Dr. Arrowood’s letter in general, but that will have to be for another time.

What apostasy, specifically, is Dr. Arrowood concerned about? Are these men who are ‘sharing platforms’ involved in some kind of immorality, unethical or illegal behavior, or promoting heresy? Scripturally speaking, on what grounds do pastors/preachers separate over ‘ministry associations’?

All this is very confusing, because I simply do not see how one could be consistent about it, and while separation from apostasy and unrepentant immorality is clearly called for in Scripture, I don’t understand how the men Dr. Arrowood mentions fit that criteria. They appear to have some differing opinions about the history of Fundamentalism and what separation means. Is that apostasy?

The second letter bothers me- it is much too self congratulatory. I don’t see the spirit of Gal. 6:1 anywhere near this kerfuffle. I think when someone writes for the World Wide Web, they need to take into consideration how many people are going to read it who don’t know them personally.

One of the concerns Pastor Arrowood mentioned in music at Northland. My guess is that Northland sings some newer songs in a conservative way in their services. I just can’t imagine Dr. O and Dr. Olsen are sporting Mohawks and rocking the aisles with the students at Northland. Here is what I don’t get - almost all of the Christian colleges do this. PCC has been doing this for years. I have seen contemporary songs sung conservatively on the websites of Crown College, West Coast Baptist College and a most of the others in fundamentalism. I personally am turned off by a supposed sepratism that targets a specific ministry while ignoring the others. Didn’t Jesus say that it was wrong to pull out motes while ignoring beams? The inconsistencies are glaringly obvious to me.

In my mind, it is the height of disregard for brothers and sisters in Christ to target specific people and ministries for the guillotine over an issue that is common amongst most fundamentalist ministries.

In the 80’s mostly the idea rose to prominence in some circles that biblical separation required not only separating from those who apostasize but also from those who do not separate from those who apostasize. Virtually all agreed—and still do—that separation from disobedient brethren is called for in Scripture, but the conditions and execution are somewhat murky. So should it apply to those who fail to separate?
The experiment of the 80’s was to try to answer that with a yes and consistently practice a “no pulpit/platform connections” policy from
a. Apostates
b. All who do not separate from apostates
c. All who do not separate from those who do not separate from apostates
d. Ad infinitum

“Separate” seemed, at that time, to take on the meaning “Not appear on the same platform with.”

The experiment eventually failed for several reasons. One was that “apostates” took on a much broader meaning among some. Another was that a few powerful leaders became the keepers of the (presumably unwritten) list of who had failed to separate from everyone that ought to be separated from. Nobody could really know what was going on on all platforms everywhere. So who was OK and who was not was determined more or less by a couple of prominent leaders and trickled down from there.

Many never embraced this approach to separation though they believed in separating from apostasy. Others who did embrace this approach eventually came to see that it resulted in forming and breaking ties based on the opinion of key leaders (intramural political alliances) more than on any other basis. Guys were “out” who had solid ministries and guys were “in” who had some major problems with doctrine and practice.

The advent of a handful of outstanding conservative evangelicals further accelerated the imploding of this model.
So now there are very few left attempting it.

I applaud the motives of most who engaged in the experiment. They were, as far as I can tell, serious about doctrinal purity and serious about separation, and it seemed to them that you had to practice this aggressive, unbounded separatism in order to be serious about contending for the faith. But the experiment really did fail. It is increasingly clear that practicing separation this way lacks biblical support and doesn’t actually work either. That is, what really happens does not match the rhetoric.
So something better is clearly needed. I don’t think it has quite arrived yet. We know how to separate from true apostasy. We do not yet know what to do with “other differences,” including what to do about those who fail to separate as we understand it or who retain close ties with others who fail to separate.

There should be a way to “contend” without separating. Many believe those who have brought the “conservative resurgence” in the SBC are examples of that. Other’s don’t. But I think the time has come to recognize the validity of that option even if we disagree with it rather than lumping it in with apostasy.

OK, that’s my rant for the day I think.

Your theory sounds good to me, Aaron. Although I would go just a bit farther and question the motives of those who manufactured separation issues out of thin air. Sowing discord is a bad thing too.

I think it’s fair to say that some of the hostility directed toward the internet, with its global network of message boards and bloggers and easy access to information, is because of the… global network of message boards and bloggers and easy access to information. IOW, back in the day, if the pastor got up in the pulpit to ‘warn’ the congregation about Dr. So-n-so, the folks had to take him at his word- there was little to no opportunity to verify that information.

But with blogs and books and sermons and podcasts all available at a moment’s notice (unless you have dial-up) it is quite easy for the folks to verify stuff like this. Just as Bro. Doran was able to post his response in its entirety so that people could judge for themselves as to whether or not he was being represented accurately in Dr. Arrowood’s letter, there’s no more slinging mud without some of it getting flung back into one’s face.

Of course, then there’s all that bluster about ‘contending for the faith’ and getting ‘thrown under the bus’ for being the lone voice of truth. Puhlease. Does anyone really buy that line anymore? There’s real persecution going on in the world, like missionaries getting shot and beheaded in Mexico, and claims of imminent martyrdom via the internet belittles the true sacrifices happening every day to our Christian brothers and sisters.

I do not have the time (or the desire) to enter into the blogosphere. Remember, my focus and my responsibility is to be a good pastor to the sheep in the CBC fold. Personally, I am amazed at the amount of time some people give to what Dr. O rightly calls — “gossip on steroids!”

If Arrowood is serious about not wanting to enter the blogosphere, why doesn’t he just take the articles down from his website and email them to his church congregants? That’s what our church does. It’s not like his paper is hosted only on SI and we’re refusing to take it down. If any pastor titles something as an “Open Letter To…” - they should expect it to get around, esp. if they are http://www.fbfi.org/representatives-aboutus-107/board-of-directors-abou…] on the board of the FBFI . Of course, I haven’t been impressed with the FBFI lately, either.

The only thing this really illustrates to me is how fast the world has changed.

[Susan R] back in the day, if the pastor got up in the pulpit to ‘warn’ the congregation about Dr. So-n-so, the folks had to take him at his word- there was little to no opportunity to verify that information.

In defense of Dr. So-n-so…( :

Susan, unless you can think in terms of controlling people through bully tactics and limiting information, you won’t understand what Arrowood was saying. It is the Chicago way.

The strange thing about separation from disobedient brothers don’t include such doctrines as:

baptism
eschatology
soteriology

That frees them up for their more important doctrines like…like…um…being KJVO and stuff.

James….”Chicago way” is getting old… can you come up with a new metaphor?
But these generalizations are not helpful anyway. The fact is, there are many who hold to the “separate from everybody who doesn’t separate from everybody I separate from” model who don’t have a power-hungry-thug bone in their body. I know—I’ve met quite a few and know a few pretty well.

In any case, even if 100% of them were thugs, this would not prove that their position is incorrect. We need to evaluate it in terms of biblical support and—where means to biblical ends are involved—effectiveness.

As for pastor Arrowood, I’ve found his choices in the matter to be a bit confusing—and his case against Bauder et al is not persuasive to anyone who is not already convinced—but I see no reason to attribute base motives to him. In fact, I don’t see how his motives are relevant at all. He’s either correct or he isn’t (or partly correct and partly not).

[Susan] Your theory sounds good to me, Aaron. Although I would go just a bit farther and question the motives of those who manufactured separation issues out of thin air. Sowing discord is a bad thing too.

It is, but I know almost nobody who has manufactured separation issues out of thin air. I’m aware of a few that would seem to describe fairly, but of the “very aggressive separatist” folks I’ve met… 99.9% of them were doing their best to be obedient to Scripture as best they could understand it. I’ve heard a fair number of pretty wrong-headed conclusions over the years, but haven’t personally seen much malice or thuggery.
We can disagree without painting them all a sinister shade of glowing green.
I think it’s easier to clearly see what the real issues are if we don’t do any painting at all…. at least not of the broad brush sort.
(It’s true that some of them are pretty energetic in applying the mile wide evil paint roller, but I’m personally not going to stoop to that sort of thing.)

[Aaron Blumer]

[Susan] Your theory sounds good to me, Aaron. Although I would go just a bit farther and question the motives of those who manufactured separation issues out of thin air. Sowing discord is a bad thing too.

It is, but I know almost nobody who has manufactured separation issues out of thin air. I’m aware of a few that would seem to describe fairly, but of the “very aggressive separatist” folks I’ve met… 99.9% of them were doing their best to be obedient to Scripture as best they could understand it. I’ve heard a fair number of pretty wrong-headed conclusions over the years, but haven’t personally seen much malice or thuggery.
We can disagree without painting them all a sinister shade of glowing green.
I think it’s easier to clearly see what the real issues are if we don’t do any painting at all…. at least not of the broad brush sort.
(It’s true that some of them are pretty energetic in applying the mile wide evil paint roller, but I’m personally not going to stoop to that sort of thing.)

I don’t believe that motives are usually malice or thuggery, but fear. Fear that people will come to different conclusions, fear that people will make mistakes. What sounds like thuggery can be sincere concern- I mean, if I believe that I know what is best for you, and I withhold information and attempt to intimidate you in order to keep you in line… doesn’t that sound (on the surface) like what parents do with their kids?

But in the context of Christianity, even if we use terms like ‘baby Christian’, we aren’t usually talking about children, but adults. And if we are successful in keeping people on the straight and narrow through manipulative tactics, what good does that really serve? That’s when I start questioning motives- but let’s be clear- questioning someone’s motives doesn’t mean that I’ve drawn conclusions about their motives. I’m seriously wondering what it is they are trying to accomplish.

I think alot of our notions about what the straight and narrow entails is plucked out of the air, because they have no basis in Biblical principle. They are little more than behavior modification and have almost nothing to do with planting the seeds that will result in growth and reproduction of the fruits of the Spirit. It often appears as a desperate attempt to preserve some aspect of church culture- but church culture not founded or reflective of sound doctrine is just a pig wearing a bow tie.

[Aaron Blumer] In the 80’s mostly the idea rose to prominence in some circles that biblical separation required not only separating from those who apostasize but also from those who do not separate from those who apostasize.

A minor quibble on this point: Are you sure that this is an idea from the 80s? I think it goes back at least into the 70s and probably the 60s also.

[Aaron Blumer] The experiment eventually failed for several reasons. One was that “apostates” took on a much broader meaning among some. Another was that a few powerful leaders became the keepers of the (presumably unwritten) list of who had failed to separate from everyone that ought to be separated from. Nobody could really know what was going on on all platforms everywhere. So who was OK and who was not was determined more or less by a couple of prominent leaders and trickled down from there.

Many never embraced this approach to separation though they believed in separating from apostasy. Others who did embrace this approach eventually came to see that it resulted in forming and breaking ties based on the opinion of key leaders (intramural political alliances) more than on any other basis. Guys were “out” who had solid ministries and guys were “in” who had some major problems with doctrine and practice.

I’d like to see these points fleshed out with more than just assertions. Could you write an article on it and give some specific examples?

[Aaron Blumer] As for pastor Arrowood, I’ve found his choices in the matter to be a bit confusing—and his case against Bauder et al is not persuasive to anyone who is not already convinced—but I see no reason to attribute base motives to him. In fact, I don’t see how his motives are relevant at all. He’s either correct or he isn’t (or partly correct and partly not).

This is from a separate post… As to correctness or not, wouldn’t you say that his correctness doesn’t depend on his persuasiveness either? In other words, it is possible to be correct but not be effective in presenting your case. The result is you only convince those who already agree with you.

Aaron, there are two sides to this issue. There are the bully tactics for sure. However, the limiting of information was clearly the more prominent of the two tactics used. I would argue that it had the greater success in accomplishing its goals. The thought was that if you association with B, then A will separate from you and treat you as the disobedient brother.

Take the whole blood issue by Bob Jones vs MacArthur. An issue was literally fabricated out of thin air. It was completely made up. When information was provided to demonstrate BJ was wrong, the response was to bunker down and fight against the apostasy instead of retracting the error. Now, was this one example of many a bully tactic or the limiting of information? It was actually both.

In fact, it was so important to BJ that at their World Congress of Fundamentalists, they had to revisit this: http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2010/12/i-repent.html here

Maybe another metaphor is in order, but the history of the new fundamentalism as set forth by some even on this thread is full of these examples.

Arrowood and the others who complain about a failure to separate from disobedient brothers just pick and choose which doctrines are important and due to their recklessness slander the character of many men. Like I said before though, the actual important doctrines are ignored.

[Don Johnson]

[Aaron Blumer] In the 80’s mostly the idea rose to prominence in some circles that biblical separation required not only separating from those who apostasize but also from those who do not separate from those who apostasize.

A minor quibble on this point: Are you sure that this is an idea from the 80s? I think it goes back at least into the 70s and probably the 60s also.

[Aaron Blumer] The experiment eventually failed for several reasons. One was that “apostates” took on a much broader meaning among some. Another was that a few powerful leaders became the keepers of the (presumably unwritten) list of who had failed to separate from everyone that ought to be separated from. Nobody could really know what was going on on all platforms everywhere. So who was OK and who was not was determined more or less by a couple of prominent leaders and trickled down from there.

Many never embraced this approach to separation though they believed in separating from apostasy. Others who did embrace this approach eventually came to see that it resulted in forming and breaking ties based on the opinion of key leaders (intramural political alliances) more than on any other basis. Guys were “out” who had solid ministries and guys were “in” who had some major problems with doctrine and practice.

I’d like to see these points fleshed out with more than just assertions. Could you write an article on it and give some specific examples?

[Aaron Blumer] As for pastor Arrowood, I’ve found his choices in the matter to be a bit confusing—and his case against Bauder et al is not persuasive to anyone who is not already convinced—but I see no reason to attribute base motives to him. In fact, I don’t see how his motives are relevant at all. He’s either correct or he isn’t (or partly correct and partly not).

This is from a separate post… As to correctness or not, wouldn’t you say that his correctness doesn’t depend on his persuasiveness either? In other words, it is possible to be correct but not be effective in presenting your case. The result is you only convince those who already agree with you.

First question: “80’s mostly” … I’m sure it was slowly gaining ground from the 50’s on, but late 70’s to 80’s seems to be when it really picked up steam.

Second question: specific examples… well, I doubt I could. All I can really say about that is that mixing “apostate” and “neo evangelical” recklessly was routine among speakers I heard in the 80’s. They didn’t all do it, but it was so common I stopped paying much attention. Kind of like birds flying overhead. And as use of “neo evangelical” for those not quite the same as “us” grew ever more expansive (if you liked Sandi Patti or went to a movie theater you were a neo evangelical), “apostate” did as well.
This is just what I remember. But I’m pretty sure many could corroborate.
(But I don’t want to describe my experience in that period in binary terms. I also heard many very articulate, thoughtful, godly and humble men.)

Third: correct but not persuasive… yes, it is possible to make a poor case for something that is true. I could argue that because my left sock has a hole, the sky is blue. But when we make a poor case for a correct conclusion we don’t really give anybody any reason to agree with us. They have no way of knowing the conclusion is correct.
In this case, I have reason to believe the conclusion is quite incorrect.

I’ve said it before… when you are applying unchanging principles to changing conditions, you cannot always do everything the same way and be right. You have to change to stay the same.

Don,
I can attest to what Aaron said. I saw confusing “new Evangelicals,” with “apostates,” or “liberals” all the time. I recall a lady at the church I was a youth pastor at saying that a kid in our school came from a church that, “didn’t have any standards” because that church didnt have a problem with ladies wearing pants. I remember several pastors saying this church or that church was liberal because of music, dress, etc. Aarons assertion is consisent with my experience as well.