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

[rogercarlson] 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.

All my life, liberals have been churches that allow women to wear pants and work outside the home, the boys/men have hair over their ears and collars, and they either use CCM or they don’t use it but they don’t condemn it either.

I think it is much more important and telling to know how people draw their conclusions, sometimes even more so than the conclusion itself, because one person’s actions could be based on knowledge and thus is purposeful, while another’s may be in ignorance.

The focus on these external issues has often been at the expense of sound doctrine and ignoring the fruits of the Spirit. It’s much easier to put on a dress or get a regulation haircut than to be loving, patient, and meek.

Since there has been a bit of confusion about what transpired between SI and pastor Arrowood (mostly in email), here’s a rundown of the sequence of events:

• SI became aware of pastor Arrowood’s post at crosspointeindy.com
  
• The team began discussing whether to post it as a front page article or link to it as a Filings item
  
• I emailed pastor Arrowood, informed him that we were thinking about posting the article in full and asked for permission to do that (we did not discuss linking)
  
• While we awaited his reply, the team agreed that we really didn’t want to front page it after all. I posted the Filings link.
  
• Email from pastor Arrowood arrived indicating that he did not want SI to use the item as an article, that he was aware of the link and that was sufficient
  
• Email arrived from pastor Arrowood a day or so later requesting that we remove the link
  
• I removed the link while the team talked it over (about 20 minutes) then thought better of it and relinked
  
• I emailed pastor Arrowood explaining why we would not be removing the link
  
• A few days later, pastor A’s response article posted at crosspointeindy. As soon as we became aware, we linked to that as well
  

So, there you have it for what it’s worth. We never talked about permission to post the Filings links—either one of them.

Sadly, I have to agree that this smells strongly of an old guard mentality trying to control (and manipulate?) the flow of information. I cannot imagine anyone posting anything on the world wide web in the 21st century and having any expectation of privacy or control over the post.

FWIW, I am thankful SI posted the link. I believe significant lines are currently being drawn in the FBFI. If men like Rick Arrowood are going to be the norm in the FBFI going forward (which increasingly seems to be the case), I can only see myself continuing to personally withdraw from that identity.

Chip,

As the resident representative of old guard mentality, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Bro. Arrowood’s reaction is evidence of a naivete concerning the nature and ethics of on-line communication.

I, for one, have no problem with SI linking Bro. Arrowood’s publicly posted material. He is mistaken in making a complaint about it.

Regardless, his position has value and that is what should be argued. His lack of awareness regarding netiquette is a side issue and really, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Don Johnson] Regardless, his position has value and that is what should be argued. His lack of awareness regarding netiquette is a side issue and really, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I would argue the value attached to his position - that’s the point of the discussion, right? However, I agree with the rest of this statement and tried to make clear this was the main thrust of my thoughts.

I agree with Don (!). I don’t think we can really fault Dr. Arrowood for not anticipating this would go viral. He makes it clear it is intended for his flock, I accept him at that word.

This touches on a weird aspect of the “movement” thing along with the internet. Dr. Arrowood (as apposed to Doran who writes more to fundamentalists in general) does not owe me the first answer about how he warns his folks even if he is an FBF officer or trustee or whatever. He is the pastor of a local church and must conscientiously lead them according to his understanding of scripture. It seems a bit untoward to hold his letter up as something to disect, however illuminating it might be.

Even Doran and Bauder, who write for to fundamentalism in general are only minimally obligated to defend their opinions.

Conversely, I don’t really owe him an explanation as to why I think Bauder and Doran to be reasons for hope within fundamentalism and that certain parties within the movement might better be left behind. He’s not my pastor or a member of my local body. That’s the Baptist distinctive, right? Autonomy of the local church?

This is sort of a weird realm here, and much of what we say escapes the view of those people to whom we are most directly accountable.

It is truly a marvel that someone would think that a publicly posted item would require permission to view. I will refrain from referring to this tactic as the chicago way.

Basically, what you do is have your church members register with your website, then you post content viewable only to registered members.
Just thought I’d pass that on.

As for the procedural thing… though I can understand Dr. A’s surprise at the attention the post got (I don’t know him, but I think I saw a photo somewhere: it is not unusual for men of his generation to be somewhat unclear about how the Web works), if you’re running things, you kind of have to say “Well, I wasn’t fully informed and that was my mistake.”

But Don is right that this is a side issue from the question of where separation issues are going in fundamentalism. Still, it’s hard to extract a clear argument from Arrowood’s “open letter.” So I’m not sure what to say about that part of it. It’s clear that he is against the rethinking that is going on. That’s fine. But many of us are still wondering if there is any reason that we should be against the rethinking that is going on.

Bauder is nothing if not a relativist. ;)

In other words, RPittman was okay with the rethinking of fundamentalism 50 years ago, but the thought of doing it again is just wrong. The loss of power scares so many.

The present rethinking is hammering away at some of the things that will definitely morph Fundamental Christianity into something else.

If you are referring to Bauder and Doran, it seems as if they are just reiterating the views of other stripes of fundamentalism (such as the GARBC) has held since the beginning with some slight tweaks. Maybe it is rethinking in your particular group, but not for groups such as the GARBC and the IFCA, which constitutes a sizable part of fundamentalism (each of these have over 1000 churches in its membership).

[RPittman] The present rush to change

Why are you calling this a “rush” to change?

OK! LOL! Are we to infer that Detroit and Central are on the same road as Cedarville and Cornerstone (formerly Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College and Seminary)? Ask Doran and Bauder. I doubt that either will want to head in that direction. Their type of thinking and the type of drift and changes of the two aforementioned schools are precisely about what conservative Fundamentalists are raising hue and cry. So, following the same thinking and the same changes will probably lead in the same direction—don’t you think? Thanks, Joel … . .

Ah the fallacy of the slippery slope argument……not a good comparison (nor have I inferred anything, only coming from you) since both Cedarville and Cornerstone have not had ties with the GARBC for several years. For instance, Cornerstone and the GARBC quietly parted ways in the 1990’s because Cornerstone decided to become conservative evangelical with a different stance on separation. The GARBC didn’t change, but a few of the institutions that were connected to them did. My point as you mentioned earlier in #26 that there are many streams of fundamentalism, and they don’t agree with each other on the application of separation nor have they agreed with each other since its inception.

I had asked if there was reason to be opposed to the rethinking that is going on.
RPittman said yes. Added…

The present rethinking is hammering away at some of the things that will definitely morph Fundamental Christianity into something else. This rethinking is heavily influenced by modern culture and world-views, specifically the relativism of a quarter century ago and more recently Post-modernism, that are not compatible with Fundamental Christianity.

This will be a reason to oppose the rethinking that is going on when:
a. we see evidence that the rethinking will “morph fundmental Christianity into something else.”
b. we see evidence that the rethinking is “heaveily influence by [all that stuff] “

So I’m still open to reasons that rethinking our separatism model is a bad idea, but don’t have any yet.

Meanwhile, there are lots of reasons to believe a rethinking is necessary.
a. The old one has proved to be hard to sustain with good quality exegesis
b. The old one (“the separate from everybody who doesn’t separate the way I believe they should” one) has proved to be impossible to consistently implement
c. The old one—due in large part to the problem in item b—has often resulted in a handful of influential leaders basically prescribing the boundaries for everyone.
d. We really have to rethink most things on a fairly regular basis. Why are folks so afraid of going back to the Book and taking a fresh look at it’s meaning and how to obey it in our present setting?

Hi Aaron

I don’t think the more right wing (‘old guard’) fundies are absolutely against change. (Not all of them, anyway.)

However, I do think that there is evidence that the changes advocated by some are intended to change fundamentalism into something that is not fundamentalism. We have seen such advocacy here on SI and other blogs. Our friend Bob Bixby has advocated an ‘emerging middle’ that is not fundamentalism or evangelicalism, at least as I understand it. There are other examples.

I have noted instances where I think KTB is attempting to effect change by redefining history at certain points, as is suggested by the title of this thread. I don’t think DMD does that so much, rather, he seems to have given up on ‘reforming fundamentalism’ and is charting his own new path. This new direction can’t be said to be exactly like evangelicalism, but it does seem to be less like fundamentalism as we move along. I think he would dispute me on that point, but that’s the way it looks to me.

But I really would like to respond to your point’s a, b, c, d above.

a. I agree that we need to at least be better able to articulate the Biblical basis of our positions. I think that we have had some leaders whose articulation of our views has been less than satisfactory in the past. “Because I said so” works for three year olds, but not for thinking adults. So I agree that we need work in this area.

b. To the extent that this has been the actual practice of some fundamentalists, such separatism is unsustainable. However, I believe that it is something of a caricature, most fundamentalists I know have had a bit better rationale than that.

c. I don’t think we can escape being followers of leaders. Denominations are often dominated by a handful of influential leaders, just as fundamentalism (largely a coalition of independents and small denominations) has been. The current tide of dissatisfaction seems to be rising because KTB and DMD, and to a lesser extent Matt O, have become more vocal about a new direction. As they are speaking for their point of view on these issues, the long standing ‘rabble’ have someone to coalesce around. Suppose, instead, that these men had decided to take a more traditional/conservative approach to these issues? The discontented rabble would not feel the strength they do now.

The point I am making here is that people follow leaders. We aren’t going to escape that, no matter how much rethinking we do.

d. Can’t disagree with that one.