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

[Don Johnson]
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.

Spiritual leaders generally have a hard time with this one. Why? Because the more the people they lead actually take their advice, read their Bibles, study, think, reflect, meditate, read some more (ad infinitum), the less they act like dumb sheep, and the more possible it becomes to realize that some things proclaimed by the leader as strongly as “Thus saith the Lord” simply don’t have that weight of scripture behind them. As a result, although leaders want the people they lead to read the scriptures, it’s often as if it’s only in a devotional sense, but not in any way that could lead to any challenge of or disagreement with ideas.

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.

Granted that may be true. However, even when the rationale has strong scriptural evidence (although it may require a lot of digging, understanding of difficult concepts, etc.) that rationale is not always (and sometimes not even usually) passed on to those listening, maybe because of the difficulties, and so those listening still feel as if they are being treated as 3-year-olds, and are being told “just trust me.” Of course, some pew-sitters prefer it that way (sadly), but as our society becomes more educated (generally good), more skeptical (not necessarily good), and affected by post-modern thinking (mostly bad), the declaration of truth (and especially principle and application) will require good evidence and a willingness to get all the reasoning across.

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.

Of course people will need leaders. The difference is that leaders need to demonstrate why they should be followed, rather than simply demand that they be. It’s no accident that Paul said to be followers of him even as he also was of Christ. The Berean believers are also pertinent to this discussion. They knew the authority came from God, and that anyone claiming biblical authority would be in line with Scriptures. They held Paul to the Bible as a standard, and our spiritual leaders should expect this, and even then, they are to be followed, not lionized or idolized. What they proclaim is subject to biblical scrutiny. Some of the new leaders are doing a good job of explaining why they are changing. It doesn’t help the old leaders to simply proclaim that the old ways are best.

Dave, I think we are mostly in agreement. I do think we need to improve our ability to articulate the biblical philosophy of fundamentalism.

Improved communication, patient instruction, and so on, is still no guarantee that those infected with the spirit of this age will hear our teaching, however.

[dcbii] Some of the new leaders are doing a good job of explaining why they are changing. It doesn’t help the old leaders to simply proclaim that the old ways are best.

I agree that it doesn’t help to simply say the old ways are best. However, I am not convinced that the new leaders are doing a good job explaining why they are changing. I have been asking for clarity from them for a long time and haven’t been getting much of it. We are only now getting a little bit of clarity as to what they mean by ‘limited cooperation’. Even so, that has yet to be fully fleshed out and a fully biblical rationale to be offered.

[Don] 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.

Encouraging to hear you say this.

[Don] 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.

Well, yes, but they tended to be called “pseudo…” or “neo fundamentalist” or just “compromiser.” Because ultimately there are only two choices I think:

• either we separate from everybody who doesn’t separate from everybody we separate from, or…
  
• we apply principles to determine when separation is appropriate in response to brothers and what kind of separation is called for
  

The second option will result in people making different judgment calls. No way around it. This is all DMD and KTB and MO are recommending. Option 2. Principle driven, differences in execution expected, and differences in execution respected. It means we don’t sep. from guys who disagree with us about which brethren have to be separated from and in what ways (and we know “apostate” doesn’t enter the picture at all here. That’s not in dispute.)

[Don] c. I don’t think we can escape being followers of leaders. …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.

First part: agreed. But there is a difference (as point a. shows—which you agreed with) between enforcing a separation paradigm versus teaching one. The former will never survive from one generation to the next.
Last part… not sure what you mean by discontented rabble. Would this be the ones who want to rethink or the ones who are hot and bothered about the ones who want to rethink? It doesn’t really fit either group.

[Aaron Blumer] The second option will result in people making different judgment calls. No way around it. This is all DMD and KTB and MO are recommending. Option 2. Principle driven, differences in execution expected, and differences in execution respected. It means we don’t sep. from guys who disagree with us about which brethren have to be separated from and in what ways (and we know “apostate” doesn’t enter the picture at all here. That’s not in dispute.)

Granted, we aren’t all going to land in the same place in every instance. However, patterns will emerge, no? If one follows a fundamentalist philosophy (let’s not quibble on defining it), one will tend to make decisions in the same direction.

What would that look like? Well, I’d say that fundamentalists would tend to have problems with working with people whose associations are questionable. They would also have problems working with people who don’t tend to distance themselves from the world.

But when you say “differences in execution respected”, I wonder what you mean by that. I have some limited associations with King James Only people. I strongly disagree with their views, but we are able to work together in some ways. How much respect do I get from the Detroit/Central crowd for those differences in execution?

And surely you would agree that at some point differences in execution become so egregious that we can’t practically work together any longer, wouldn’t you?

[Aaron Blumer]

[Don] c. I don’t think we can escape being followers of leaders. …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.

First part: agreed. But there is a difference (as point a. shows—which you agreed with) between enforcing a separation paradigm versus teaching one. The former will never survive from one generation to the next.
Last part… not sure what you mean by discontented rabble. Would this be the ones who want to rethink or the ones who are hot and bothered about the ones who want to rethink? It doesn’t really fit either group.

Well, by ‘discontented rabble’, I mean ‘little guys’ like me who chatter on blogs. We aren’t usually considered leaders of the movement, opinion-makers, or really all that influential in any way. There has been a cadre of folks who have been ‘in the fundamentalist camp’ for years who are nevertheless sore about the direction of leadership, disgruntled about fundamentalism and how some leaders have led, etc. Before blogs we met them at fellowship meetings. I will grant that some of the complaints are legitimate. But in the main, it is just discontented chatter until an influence maker comes along to say the same thing. If KTB and/or DMD were instead saying things counter to the general trend of the discontented, the situation would be quite different.

But when you say “differences in execution respected”, I wonder what you mean by that. I have some limited associations with King James Only people. I strongly disagree with their views, but we are able to work together in some ways. How much respect do I get from the Detroit/Central crowd for those differences in execution?

I’m not in a place to know. I guess by “respect” I mean mostly absence of disrespect—specifically in the form of calling it “repudiation of separation” and similar terms.

What do you think of my assertion that there are really only two options (lump and dump vs. thoughtful/principled)? I’m oversimplifying a bit in my parenthetical summary there because I believe both approaches are “principled,” but in different ways. The categorical/acronym approach to separation began with mostly the same principles but from there moved toward applying separation in groups/categories rather than applying principles on a case by case basis.
So you had acronym separation:

• SBC out
  
• FBF in
  
• MBBC, BJU, NBBC, PCC in
  
• (NIU out now?)
  
• GARBC (well, that one was never really settled, was it… there were outers and inners!)
  
• ACCC in
  
• IFCA out
  

This is much easier than looking at actual people and finding out where they stand.
And, as I’ve pointed out before, in practice the categorical approach proved to be impossible to consistently practice once the idea of indirect association was added in…

• SBC - out
  
• Anyone who appears on platform with anyone in SBC - out
  
• Anyone who appears with anyone who appeared on platform with anyone in SBC - out
  
• etc.
  

Most would say, “Well, you obviously can only take that so far.” But no principle was articulated for how far “so far” was supposed to be. So the reality was “Leader X says Preacher A is out and Preacher B is in. So Preacher A is out and Preacher B is in.” (Usually, in more colorful language… Leader A is a Pseudo…Neo…etc.)
This is clearly not biblical separatism.