The Future of Fundamentalism: A Forum for Leaders
Welcome to SI’s first Featured Discussion. On January 28, an important conversation about the future of fundamentalism began in response to Kevin Bauder’s “Nick of Time” essay, “An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum.” During the ensuing discussion, an idea emerged: how about if we attempt an extended discussion involving limited participants (and a somewhat narrower topical focus)?
Hence, this post.
What apears below is a much-shortened version of the conversation so far—just as a starting point. We’re hoping Kevin Bauder, Don Johnson and others will continue the conversation here “amongst themselves,” so to speak—somewhat in the vein of a panel discussion.
So, with that as introduction, gentlemen, you have the floor.
Kevin T. Bauder:
Then let me put the ball in your court
Don,
Let me ask you a question. In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?
This is not a trick question. I’ve given you my reasons for doing what I do.
Now, tell me what you think I should do.
Kevin
Don Johnson:
Touche
Kevin Bauder wrote …
Don,
Let me ask you a question. In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?
This is not a trick question. I’ve given you my reasons for doing what I do.
Now, tell me what you think I should do.
Kevin
Man, way to go….
Now the glare of the flashlight is squarely in my eyes! I’ll have to think that over and get back to you on it, but a fair challenge.
I do have to get back to the study for tonight, though.
Don Johnson:
to be or not to be…
Kevin Bauder wrote …
Let me ask you a question. In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?
An interesting question. Really makes me put up or shut up, eh? Criticism is easy, counsel is not so easy.
In a nutshell, I have two problems with the approach so far. First, the interaction with evangelicals gets very close to cooperative ministry with men who are in serious error. I think your term for them is “indifferentists”. Perhaps a Dever isn’t totally indifferent, but he remains in the same convention as Rick Warren, for example. So the first problem is one of unwise cooperation. Obviously, you have felt justified in your participation so far, but my recommendation for you or anyone in a position similar to yours is to keep such interaction on a much less formal and less public stage. I’d love to see Dever persuaded about separation and actually see him come out and separate from the many entanglements that surround his ministry. I doubt that persuasion will come from giving him a public platform, if it will ever come at all. It might come if you or someone like you were able to have private interaction with the fundamentalist idea prevailing after due consideration and leadership of the Holy Spirit. (I say that while conceding that any such opportunities are a judgement call and it is easy to criticize from the sidelines.)
In this regard, I don’t mind so much the book writing. The “four views” concept is a means of having a public debate in a neutral setting, so to speak.
Perhaps the bigger problem is the problem of influence. I think that your influence has tended to make the evangelicals not seem so bad and certainly has made fundamentalists seem like abusive demagogues, except for a select few. What would I counsel you to do here? I would counsel you to to speak more forthrightly about why you are so different from the evangelicals and why you can’t go there to join with them.
For example, you mentioned in one of the posts Al Mohler and his repentance concerning the Manhattan Declaration. His repentance comes from one line in one of the four views books you participated in, correct? Does the whole context of that line bear out the sense of repentance you report? I have not read the book, but I have read reports that make it seem that Mohler is still generally favorable to the MD, even in the context of the quote you cite. Furthermore, the MD web page still lists Mohler as a signatory. Do you know if he has made any effort to “de-list” himself? What about Mohler’s own web pages? Do you know if he has made any public statement there saying that it was an error for him to sign the MD? His justification for signing it still appears on his website with no disclaimer or qualifier.
Do you think that young people should attend Southern Seminary in preparation for ministry in fundamentalist churches?
I would also have you refrain from rehearsing the litany of fundamentalist offenses and excesses whenever you talk about fundamentalism. It is not that we should not be self-critical. But we don’t need to be self-trashical (I know, no such word). The way you talk about fundamentalism reinforces the caricature many disaffected people hold. I simply don’t believe it is an accurate picture of fundamentalism. The errors you mention really did happen, I agree. But that is not all there is to fundamentalism and fundamentalists. For every error you point out, there are faithful fundamentalists laboring outside the spotlight, serving the Lord with integrity and spending their lives building disciples.
Please remember, I am not saying fundamentalists are immune from criticism. But the way the criticism is made has more than one effect, and I would have you encouraging young people to be fundamentalists. That is not because I think fundamentalism as a movement or a label needs to be preserved, but because I believe that fundamentalism is Biblical Christianity.
Mike Harding:
Don, We are friends and
Don,
We are friends and serve together in the FBFI. My evaluation of Kevin’s admonitions to us is that he is endeavoring to help us. His rhetoric is to the point, humorous, logical, and candid. Men such as Kevin are good for fundamentalism. Almost twelve years ago I said publicly at the national FBFI meeting that fundamentalism wasn’t certain as to what the gospel was nor was it certain as to what the Bible was; other than that we were in great shape. I quoted Dr. McCune and said that fundamentalism is bleeding on these issues; let it bleed. King James Onlyism and rampant easy believism characterize a large segment of fundamentalism. You see elements of it in Ketchum’s blog. Those elements are heterodox.
The FBFI has since addressed both of those issues in their resolutions. The FBFI needs to remain militant on the big issues. Dr. Minnick has exhorted us to be harder on ourselves than we are on others. Personally, I keep up my ecclesiastical fences between myself and the evangelical world. However, I know the difference between a departing “brother” (apostasy), a disobedient brother (willful disobedience to the clear dictates of the Word of God), and a disagreeing brother (someone with whom I disagree with enough not to partner with, but nevertheless see a great deal of good in their ministry). When we throw good men like Bauder or Doran under the bus, we are making a horrible mistake. I know these men pretty well (particularly Doran), and I assure you that there is a great deal of truth and ministry that we (myself particularly) can and should emulate. None of us are above evaluation. Nevertheless, maintaining a defensive posture when good men like Doran and Bauder have been admonishing us to be more self-critical than others-critical will not help us be the kind of thoughtful, godly, theologically sound fundamentalists that we ought to be. MacArthur was never heretical on the blood, but some mainline fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heretical on easy believism, but many fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heterodox on inspiration or preservation, but many fundamentalists were and are. Mac certainly had his problems as has been pointed out, but we had much bigger problems. I am strongly favorable in maintaining our ecclesiastical fences between ourselves and the conservative evangelicals. Nevertheless, men like Doran and Bauder are on our side and we need them.
Don Johnson:
Thanks for the note Mike
Mike Harding wrote …
We are friends and serve together in the FBFI.
This is a great blessing and I’m still holding out hope that we could squeeze a little time in your visit to the northwest for Victoria.
Mike Harding wrote …Dr. Minnick has exhorted us to be harder on ourselves than we are on others.
I agree, but that is part of what I am doing with Kevin, no?
Mike Harding wrote …MacArthur was never heretical on the blood, but some mainline fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heretical on easy believism, but many fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heterodox on inspiration or preservation, but many fundamentalists were and are. Mac certainly had his problems as has been pointed out, but we had much bigger problems. I am strongly favorable in maintaining our ecclesiastical fences between ourselves and the conservative evangelicals.
I don’t think I brought up MacArthur in this discussion. I have some problems with MacArthur, but far less than with the Southern Baptists.
It isn’t easy navigating these waters because the men we are criticizing here are brothers who do good work in many ways. There are still serious issues between them and us and I think they preclude cooperative ministry. I’d like Kevin to be more forthright in pointing that out and less inflammatory in his criticism of fundamentalism. Criticism is not the problem, but inflammatory rhetoric is a problem. I have a hard time seeing how that is different from the rhetoric of some of the past, the very ones now being criticized. Surely criticism, when warranted, can be offered without rhetoric.
Kevin T. Bauder:
While I’m thinking…
Don,
I have read through your advice several times. Thank you for putting in the time and thought to write it. While I think you deserve a reply, I want to consider what I intend to say rather more carefully than usual. While you are waiting, however, you might help to crystallize my thoughts if you would answer another question, or (depending on your answer) perhaps two.
I’ll ask the first question in a few different ways, but I see it as all one question. This question presumes that I am disposed to take your advice.
What do you intend to see accomplished if I take your advice? What will changes will occur in evangelicalism and in Fundamentalism? How do you think the change in my approach will affect and be received by younger Fundamentalists, both those that are committed to the idea of Fundamentalism and those that are wavering between Fundamentalism and some version of evangelicalism? How do you think the change will affect and be received by the leadership of the FBFI? Of other Fundamentalist organizations?
Again, these are meant as serious questions and not as debating points.
Kevin
Kevin T. Bauder:
Asking again
Don,
Let me ask the same question in yet other words.
If I follow your advice, in detail as you give it, how will the world be different? In what ways do you imagine that it will be better, and in what ways do you imagine that it will be worse?
Kevin
Don Johnson:
answers to questions
Kevin Bauder wrote … What do you intend to see accomplished if I take your advice? What will changes will occur in evangelicalism and in Fundamentalism? How do you think the change in my approach will affect and be received by younger Fundamentalists, both those that are committed to the idea of Fundamentalism and those that are wavering between Fundamentalism and some version of evangelicalism? How do you think the change will affect and be received by the leadership of the FBFI? Of other Fundamentalist organizations?
As I see it there are roughly four groups that you influence. 1) There are evangelicals who are open/interested in fundamentalism and dissatisfied to disgusted with the evangelical left. 2) There are those from a fundamentalist background who are actively pursuing an evangelical identification/connection. 3) There are those who are dissatisfied with fundamentalism for various reasons and are wondering whether the evangelicals offer a better alternative. 4) There are convinced fundamentalists who are not hyper fundamentalists but are dismayed at the changes being seen in groups 2 and 3.
Of course, there are individuals who don’t fit exactly into any of the four groups – I am pointing at characteristics on a spectrum of ideas.
If you modify your approach along the lines I advocate there could be some changes in the way these groups respond to you. I could see those in group 2, the fundies pursuing an evangelical identification, simply tuning you out. However, I don’t think that would be true of the other groups. Those who are committed fundamentalists would be more willing to hear what you have to say. I can’t speak for the whole of the FBFI, for example, but if you appeared less as an antagonist and more as an ally, it is my opinion that you would get a better hearing amongst them.
I am not omniscient, so there may be other ramifications that I haven’t considered. As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.
Kevin T. Bauder:
Last question for Don (and Mike)
Don,
Thank you for your responses thus far. Before I offer any response, I would like to ask you one further question.
To what extent do you believe that your answers reflect the thinking of the FBFI board and membership as a whole? You’re on the board, right? You’ve been privy to the behind-closed-doors conversations. I’m assuming that you’re in a position to know.
Pastor Harding, if you’re still out there, I would appreciate it if you would also answer this question. I believe that you and Don represent slightly different perspectives. It would be interesting to me to know if the two of you are reading the FBFI in the same way.
My thanks in advance to both of you.
Kevin
Don Johnson:
I can’t speak for the board
The comments I make here are my opinion, the board speaks through Dr. Vaughn and our Polycy and Position statements.
But I will say that this specific question has not been discussed (as far as I can recall) by the board. I have had some correspondence with other preachers since this thread began, one of them a board member. From that correspondence, at least that handful of people appears to agree with me.
But really, does it matter what the board thinks? I think that the kind of thing I am calling for is simply the right thing to do.
Mike Harding:
Kevin, Your question has to
Kevin,
Your question has to do with the overall opinion and disposition of the FBFI board toward the changes we have seen in fundamental seminaries and colleges as well as the aberrant segments of fundamentalism. Kevin Schaal is our current chairman. I find him a knowledgeable and fair minded man. I have known Kevin for 28 years. He is a grad from BJU, Calvary Seminary, and has a D. Min. from IBS (Sproul’s seminary). He and I would favor strongly keeping up our ecclesiastical fences between mainline fundamentalists and the conservative evangelicals, yet recognize their helpful contributions to defending the gospel and fighting certain kinds of error. Personally, I don’t attend or endorse conferences in the evangelical world. I believe I have a stewardship of influence (Mark Minnick’s terminology) over my own staff and many young men in the ministry who observe what I do. I would not have brought in Bruce Ware to speak on Open Theism to impressionable undergrad students. Bruce is a continuationist and a progressive creationist. Would I use some of his writings on the subject of Open Theism with my class? Yes. It is easy to qualify one’s use of a resource. I would not have brought in Holland to speak to my undergrad students in chapel. Holland is reasonably solid theologically, but clearly crosses the orthopathy line at his RESOLVED conference. I wouldn’t advertise at the Desiring God conference either. Piper, for all his good points, is a strong advocate of continuationism and positively interviews people like Rick Warren and Mark Driscoll giving credence to their ministries and philosophies. I certainty wouldn’t take a large segment of my student body to hear a Big Daddy Weave concert or tacitly endorse the CCM world that is filled with theological and ethical problems. My educated guess is that most of the men on the board would be in basic agreement with what I have just written. I thought that your interaction with Dever along with Doran was helpful to clarify our view of church government over against his view. Nor did I object to Minnick being interviewed by Dever regarding questions of where Fundamentalists stood on separation.
Where there is disagreement regards our disposition toward the aberrant segments of Fundamentalism. I have already stated my opposition to the KJVO, easy-believism, anti-intellectual, externally eccentric elements in Fundamentalism. There are some men who are tolerant of those elements. Such toleration is not defensible in my estimation. When good men resign the FBFI board over the toleration of those elements, it makes our job more difficult. We need to hear their voices of theological accuracy and fair-minded judgment. The FBFI board is in better condition today than it was before. We have had our problems internally and have dealt with them honestly. We are a fellowship, not a denomination, and we must resist acting as if we were a denomination. Where we have done wrong (and we have), we as godly men should honestly repent. Nevertheless, overall we are a group of sincere separatists who have signed a very strong doctrinal statement and endeavor to stand against the theological, cultural, and philosophical compromise that appears as a tsunami to engulf biblical Christianity.
Kevin T. Bauder:
Let’s try this again
Don and Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. While I appreciate your replies, I think that I must have failed to communicate clearly what I was asking.
Don, by no means do I want you to speak for the board of the FBFI or to become its voice. We both understand that Dr. Vaughn has that job (though we can both remember one incident in the recent past in which another official assumed the responsibility).
Mike, I largely agree with your assessment of the current condition of Fundamentalism, especially as expressed in the first paragraph. I’m sure there are some small wrinkles of difference, but we both understand that there are times and places in which important aspects of the faith must not be de-emphasized, even for the sake of the gospel. Having said that, as helpful as your evaluation was, it really wasn’t what I was looking for.
I had previously asked Don for his recommendation of what he thought I ought to do. Then I asked for his assessment of how the world would be different and better if I were to follow his advice. He gave pretty clear answers to those questions.
Now I am asking each of you to give me your best guess as to the response that the various parties within the FBFI (both the board and the larger constituency) might make to his advice? What percentage do you think is likely to say, “Yes! Don nailed it, and that’s exactly what Bauder needs to do!”
What percentage is likely to say, “Don has some good points, but to make this advice workable it’s going to have to have something added or taken away.”
What percentage do you think will be saying “I sure hope that Bauder ignores Johnson’s advice, because we need him to be doing approximately what he’s doing now?”
Is this more clear?
Neither one of you can speak for the FBFI. But you both have some sense of who the major players are and how my acceptance of Don’s advice would be likely to affect the give-and-take within the organization.
Kevin
Don Johnson:
I’ll get back to you on this
I’ve got to get out the door and make five visits, so my answer will have to be delayed.
Mike Harding:
Kevin, What should you do?
Kevin,
What should you do? First of all, keep writing! Your lengthy posts and current articles are helpful to us. You are an articulate and thoughtful fundamentalist. Our fundamentalist movement, though very fractured, needs well-spoken, articulate, educated, and theologically accurate spokesmen to help navigate the theological, cultural, and philosophical issues that are inundating the average fundamental pastor. Second, please attend our fundamentalist meetings when feasible. This will help good men to get to know you as I do. Third, let some of our brethren who are considering crossing over to the Evangelical world know that the grass may not be nearly as green as it looks. I will not mention any names at this point. Fourth, be careful to maintain clear ecclesiastical fences between healthy fundamentalism and the evangelical world. In my opinion, the good and reasonable men in the FBFI will be open to your constructive criticism. If we are not, then shame on us.
Don Johnson:
percentages?
Kevin Bauder wrote …What percentage do you think is likely to say, “Yes! Don nailed it, and that’s exactly what Bauder needs to do!”
What percentage is likely to say, “Don has some good points, but to make this advice workable it’s going to have to have something added or taken away.”
What percentage do you think will be saying “I sure hope that Bauder ignores Johnson’s advice, because we need him to be doing approximately what he’s doing now?”
I’ve been on the board for just the last two years, so I am not sure how accurate my sense of the whole board might be. The wider FBFI constituency would be even harder to evaluate since I am not as well traveled as some would be. However, let me make an effort at a response.
I think virtually no one would choose door number 3, whether they are “pro-Bauder” presently, or “something-else-Bauder”… No one likes to see division, and I get a sense that almost all of the men in the FBFI room are pro-fundamentalism in the post Graham era sense of the word, if that makes sense.
I suspect there might be some who think they could modify my suggestions. Often I am among that number. However, I think most would warmly receive a changed approach something along the lines I suggested.
I would also like to echo Mike’s suggestions, especially if you could get out to more meetings and get to know the men who support the FBFI’s efforts and values. I realize that isn’t always feasible, given the cost of travel. But it would do you and us good if we could see you more often.
- 262 views
Evidently we’ve changed our residence for the duration of this conversation.
My thanks to Don for taking his best shot at an answer to my last question. My communication with certain FBFI board members indicates that there may be a dynamic at work of which you are unaware. How strong it may be, I am not sure. Something is brewing beneath the surface, however, as the number of recent departures from the board also indicates. But that’s a different discussion, and it probably wouldn’t be useful for us to go down that road yet.
Also, my thanks to Mike. You still did not answer just the question I wanted to ask, which is most likely an indication of my own lack of clarity in asking. You did, however, anticipate another question that really should be addressed. You offered an alternative proposal to Don’s. Actually, I’m very glad that you did. My original question to Don was, “Other than drop off the face of the earth, what should I do… .” I really took Don’s reply to be a way of saying, “Go ahead and drop off the face of the earth.” Perhaps mistakenly, and because he presented no positive agenda, I took Don to be saying the he simply wished that I would cease to trouble the counsels of the FBFI board. You at least have provided an alternative in which I do not simply dry up and blow away.
And now both of you have suggested that things would be better if I would attend more meetings. Well, I did attend several meetings, and was grateful for the fellowship that I experienced. Sadly, some of the people whom I most looked forward to seeing have given up on the FBFI, so I wouldn’t expect to see them there. Having been publicly blasted by several leaders within the FBFI—not to mention misrepresented and even lied about some some members—I think I might be excused for thinking that I am less than welcome at any given meeting. But the real problem is this: I am no longer my own boss. I am a man under authority, and my authority consistently schedules me to teach during the week when the FBFI consistently schedules its national meeting. Perhaps when it is held close to home (as I believe it is this summer) I will be able to find a way to break free and attend a few sessions.
By the way, I have been able to make it to more of the GARBC meetings recently, simply because the GARBC meets on a different week. I’ve also been able to attend the Rockford conference pretty consistently, just because of when it occurs. And I love to see those ex-HACers who show up there!
Let’s review. Don said that I should:
- Avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in “serious error.”
- Perhaps continue to write books (though Don doesn’t say of what sort).
- Stop talking about evangelicals in a way that makes them seem less bad than the FBFI wants them to seem, focusing on my difference with them and explaining why I cannot work with them.
- Stop talking about Fundamentalists in such a way that they seem like abusive demagogues.
- Stop talking about Fundamentalists offenses and excesses.
Have I summarized these correctly?
Mike said that I should:
- Keep writing blog posts and articles.
- Attend Fundamentalist meetings when possible.
- Share my reasons for thinking that evangelicalism has problems that are as serious as Fundamentalist problems.
- Maintain definite fences with evangelicals of all sorts.
I would like to respond to these suggestions. Before I do, however, I want to make sure that I’ve got a clear idea of your agendas. Please feel free to correct the above summaries where you think they are badly stated.
Also, before I begin my response, I want to put the ball in Kevin Mungons’s court. First, Kevin, it would be useful if you would examine my summaries with your editor’s eye. Tell me where they need to be corrected.
Then I’m going to ask you to do this. Suppose I were to follow Don’s agenda just as he proposes it. What do you think would happen? What if I were to follow Mike’s agenda? What would likely happen?
Finally, Kevin, if I were to ask you the same question that I asked Don, how would you answer it? Any differently? I probably have more contact with the GARBC than I do with the FBFI anyway. If it were an individual organization, I’d sign up! So how do you think I might best invest my time and gifts?
[By the way, I assume that you’ve all figured out that the question isn’t just about me.]
[Kevin T. Bauder]Let’s review. Don said that I should:
- Avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in “serious error.”
- Perhaps continue to write books (though Don doesn’t say of what sort).
- Stop talking about evangelicals in a way that makes them seem less bad than the FBFI wants them to seem, focusing on my difference with them and explaining why I cannot work with them.
- Stop talking about Fundamentalists in such a way that they seem like abusive demagogues.
- Stop talking about Fundamentalists offenses and excesses.
Have I summarized these correctly?
For some reason the forum doesn’t appear to show posts under this new format in the Foundry or the New Posts section. Or else I missed it, which is entirely possible.
#1 - close enough
#2 - any sort will do. I don’t have a problem with writing with things like the “Four Views” book, although I might quibble with content of course
#3 - NOT “less bad than the FBFI wants them to seem” but not speaking about them in such a way as to make them seem like an acceptable alternative for wavering fundamentalists. There are good things they do, I don’t mind noting that, but the fact is there are serious problems that preclude ecclesiastical cooperation.
#4 and #5 - no, criticism is fine - it is the rhetoric I object to, as I illustrated in the post #72 in the original thread from which this new start has been drawn.
That’s all for now. If Mike doesn’t reply before Tuesday, I expect to see him in person then. I am sure we will discuss this. (Back room plotting and all that…)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Ok, the forum feature I mentioned in the previous post is all fixed now. Thanks Aaron.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Alright, let’s see whether I can get any closer. I don’t wish to respond to any recommendation that you do not actually intend to make.
1. Avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in “serious error.”
2. Perhaps write books, even books in which the Fundamentalist position is debated with other individuals.
3. Do not talk about conservative evangelicals in any way that is so favorable as to suggest that they might be suitable partners for any kind of ecclesiastical cooperation.
4. When addressing Fundamentalist abuses, offenses, and excesses, use only bland language.
I’ve condensed the previous numbers 4 and 5 into a single point. I’m pretty sure you’re still not going to be happy with the way I’ve worded it, but I’m not sure how else to say this. The net effect of 3 and 4 is that I think you want me to be meaner to conservative evangelicals and nicer to Fundamentalists—but that sounds like a pretty pejorative way to say it. I’m seriously trying to reduce your recommendations to manageable statements that are not front-loaded.
This will be the last thing that I write tonight as my focus turns fully toward the Lord’s day. May God grant you fruitful ministry tomorrow.
Kevin
You can use colorful language all you want - but let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt.
But remember these admonitions:
Jude 1:9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
2 Peter 2:10-11 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
A friend of mine sent me a note about this conversation that put things more succinctly and perhaps more clearly than I have done so far.
What I am after is equal treatment: There are worthy things that evangelicals do. I don’t mind pointing them out and getting benefit from them. The same is true of fundamentalism.
There are also things worth criticizing in both groups. I would just ask for equal treatment. If you want to use ‘colorful’ language about fundamentalist errors, colour the evangelicals to the same degree.
You still haven’t answered my question about Mohler - don’t have the post number handy, but you say that his apology, confession, what have you is evidence of his “seeing the light” on the subject. Why then does his justification still appears on his web-site, with no apparent contradiction or update? What is the context of his apology, reversal, whatever… in the four views book? Does it display real change of mind?
So I am looking for equal treatment, as hard as you are on Fundamentalists, are you equally hard on evangelicals? As complimentary as you are to evangelicals, are you equally complimentary to fundamentalists?
When the compliments or hard words are earned and deserved, of course.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Kevin T. Bauder]How should Kevin Bauder best invest his time and gifts?
Let’s start with the easy answer. Everyone seems to agree he should keep writing.
[Insider alert: Regular Baptist Press is publishing a new history of Northern Baptists, coauthored by Kevin Bauder and Robert Delnay. And, we’ve discussed publishing a collection of Bauder’s essays on fundamentalism. Ah, but which to work on first?]
Sure, we’d be happy if Kevin could crank out a book a year with us, while keeping up his weekly blog essays, and perhaps contributing to other projects with mainstream publishers. Oh, and everyone would like him to continue his teaching ministry. And speaking engagements. Lots of those, making sure he gets to every conference in the fundamentalist orbit.
And I’m glad that Debbie is 400 miles away as I type this. She would be kicking me under the table right about now, except she’s too nice to do such a thing. Yes, all of this is too much. Part of Kevin’s original question is motivated by the obvious problem: his time is limited.
So here’s hoping that—whatever else Kevin is able to accomplish in his remaining days—he is able to make a substantive contribution to our literature. If he agrees to this “write more” goal, we’ll all need to help him. He’ll need administrative support, research support, editorial support. And he’ll need financial donors willing to fund important projects that wouldn’t otherwise get off the ground.
Anyone?
[Kevin T. Bauder]How should Kevin Bauder best invest his time and gifts?
By continuing to build relationships with conservative evangelicals such as Mark Dever, Al Mohler, and John MacArthur, including more of the “public conversations” that have been criticized by some in fundamentalism.
Yes, my advice to Kevin is directly opposite to the advice he is hearing in his other ear. [Best wishes on sorting that out, buddy!]
Here’s why. The matter of “public conversations” (or “sharing the platform” or “building relationships”) has always been a controversial application of separation. The fundamentalists were able to reach consensus on five basic doctrines, and were able to agree (conceptually, at least) on the importance of militancy and separation.
But when it came to exact applications, the fundamentalists were not able to agree. Among Regular Baptists, for example, the leaders modeled more than one answer. As a decentralized movement where churches could join but individuals could not, Regular Baptists did not insist on a singular “toe the line” answer to every question. Separation was important and mandatory—but it was always expressed as a range of ideas.
Meanwhile, other fundamentalists came to express their application of separation as if it was not a range of ideas, more like a pinpoint dot on the map (say, Greenville).
Is it fair to make Bauder toe the line on this question when fundamentalism itself has never been able to reach a consensus?
If the 2011 Lansdale Conference or the recent Spectrum of Evangelicalism book is the model for “public conversations,” I’m suggesting we look for ways to continue.
Don,
I’m going to keep trying to frame (4) in the list above until I get it worded concisely, but in a way that you’re happy with. There is absolutely no sense in my responding to a point that you weren’t trying to make. So let’s try this one:
(4) Speak no more negatively about Fundamentalists than about conservative evangelicals, and speak no more positively about conservative evangelicals than about Fundamentalists.
After reading your last reply, it seems to me that what you’re really doing is bringing the “equal time” factor into play.
Are you really sure that you want to bring Jude 9 and 2 Peter 2:1-10 into play here? Several questions occur to me.
(1) In what sense do you think that have I ever published denunciations of anyone who was one of my authorities? For that matter, what manner of biblical authority do people like editors, bloggers, publishers, agency presidents, institutional board members, etc., actually exercise (except over their own employees)? How far does a pastor’s authority extend beyond his own congregation, and to what extent are outsiders bound to show him respect when he lapses into public error or (equally seriously) public stupidity? How respectful do you expect us all to be of Fred Phelps?
(2) Are you equally prepared to bring this principle to bear on Fundamentalist pronouncements against conservative evangelicals, neo-evangelicals, and even liberal churchmen? Are you willing to hold other Fundamentalists as accountable for their speech toward these figures as you are willing to hold me for my speech about Fundamentalist figures?
(3) Specifically, what shall we say about those Fundamentalists who have uttered vicious attacks against other Fundamentalists such as Doran, Jordan, etc? Some of these seem to think that you have sided with them. What are you personally willing to do to distance yourself from them? What are you willing to do to bring them to account?
Kevin,
I laughed out loud when you wrote me privately about us voting you off the island. I’m pretty sure that a few people will now think that you are at least off the reservation!
Honestly, this is the kind of difference that I believe needs to be expressed. Too many people have a tendency to think that the FBFI and its kindred organizations are and speak for Fundamentalism. This is especially true of people who have grown up in those circles. As you know, however, they are rather a small minority within the overall Fundamentalist landscape,
One of the things that we need to do is to get at least one voice from both the BBF and the WBF into this conversation. I know a couple of really sane guys who are in those movements—perhaps they’ll be willing to contribute.
Furthermore, I think that even the FBFI/BJU/Wilds orbit is much more fragmented than Don seems to realize. Indeed, their end of Fundamentalism seems to be hemorrhaging more badly than about any other right now. I think that’s too bad, because I really do think that on balance the bulk of these people hold a pretty defensible position. Their orbit definitely doesn’t stand where it used to back in the 1970s and 1980s (that is not a criticism—just a statement of fact).
As for your specific recommendations, I’ll get around to responding to some of those.
Kevin
By that I refer to the fact that I am running on very little sleep, caught a red-eye flight out of SeaTac to get to Greenville for the FBFI board meeting. Came a day early to celebrate one of my daughters birthday at a great Mexican restaurant. So I’m fed up (not hungry anymore) and a bit sleepy.
That is meant to offer a lame excuse for any misstatements or misspeaks that occur in what follows…
[Kevin T. Bauder](4) Speak no more negatively about Fundamentalists than about conservative evangelicals, and speak no more positively about conservative evangelicals than about Fundamentalists.
After reading your last reply, it seems to me that what you’re really doing is bringing the “equal time” factor into play.
Close enough, I am mainly not wanting you to alienate fundamentalists you profess to be wanting to help and not encourage the bitterness/discontent of the wavering or disgruntled.
[Kevin T. Bauder] Are you really sure that you want to bring Jude 9 and 2 Peter 2:1-10 into play here? Several questions occur to me.(1) In what sense do you think that have I ever published denunciations of anyone who was one of my authorities?
I was referencing the angels who are careful what they say against the demons… did I miss verse 11 in my citation above? No, I didn’t… went back and checked. So don’t miss my point. My point is that if angels are careful about what they say about demons, how much more ought we to be careful about what we say about one another.
[Kevin T. Bauder] For that matter, what manner of biblical authority do people like editors, bloggers, publishers, agency presidents, institutional board members, etc., actually exercise (except over their own employees)? How far does a pastor’s authority extend beyond his own congregation, and to what extent are outsiders bound to show him respect when he lapses into public error or (equally seriously) public stupidity? How respectful do you expect us all to be of Fred Phelps?(2) Are you equally prepared to bring this principle to bear on Fundamentalist pronouncements against conservative evangelicals, neo-evangelicals, and even liberal churchmen? Are you willing to hold other Fundamentalists as accountable for their speech toward these figures as you are willing to hold me for my speech about Fundamentalist figures?
(3) Specifically, what shall we say about those Fundamentalists who have uttered vicious attacks against other Fundamentalists such as Doran, Jordan, etc? Some of these seem to think that you have sided with them. What are you personally willing to do to distance yourself from them? What are you willing to do to bring them to account?
These points are good questions, but I will point out that in the conversation we are having you asked me what you should do, not what others should do. I didn’t volunteer my suggestions without your promptings. So it does seem that these questions, while fair questions will only serve to distract us from the subject at hand at this time. Perhaps we could deal with them in depth later.
However, lest anyone think I am simply dodging the questions, let me say this about what I am personally doing. (1) I am trying to reform my own practices and be more careful about what I say and how I say it. (2) Sometimes others comment on my own blog in ways that I think cross the line. I often delete these comments out of hand. I sometimes will publish them and then try to rebuke them (and I am sure that I have let some go through that I shouldn’t have). (3) I think it is a worthy question that we should address regularly and publicly: how to disagree with brothers. Let’s leave the works of the flesh out of our disagreements. Unanimity of opinion seems impossible, but we would all do well to have less sarcasm and rumour and inuendo flying around the internet. I will pledge to take some proactive roles in countering this in the future (after I get some sleep!)
Last thing I’d like to comment on is Kevin M’s ideas of the differences of GARB style and other styles of fundamentalism. I think this might be an important point in understanding the differences among fundamentalists. Too tired to work on this now, and I think it will take us off our topic as well. But, as someone - maybe it was you? - said, it’s not fundamentalism but fundamentalisms. Differing approaches to the same problem. It might help explain some of the frustration various parties within broader fundamentalism have with one another.
Ok, more later. I’ve got to crash.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Sounds like we’re getting there. Let me try one more revision.
(3) Do not speak either so positively about conservative evangelicals or so negatively about Fundamentalists that I either (a) alienate the Fundamentalists whom I wish to help, or else (b) encourage the discontent of wavering and disgruntled Fundamentalists.
Am I finally saying this in about the way you would like it to be said?
I have not forgotten your question about Mohler, but I’m trying to get this straight first. I promise to come back to it. Remind me again if I don’t.
And yes, I do think you’re right about multiple Fundamentalisms. Having said that, I do not see the GARBC and the FBFI belonging to radically different camps, as witnessed by the location of the FBFI meetings this summer. If you (the FBFI board) can pick a good topic and put up a good slate of speakers, I’ll do my best to encourage the pastors and people of the Iowa Association of Regular Baptist Churches to come and hear them. I think they’ll be pleased. Maybe we can even truck a few folks down from Minnesota. My first FBFI meeting reminded me very much of some GARBC meetings that I attended 30 years or so ago.
Kevin
Don,
I just looked up the docket for the conference in June. Wow! On balance, this is a terrific lineup, and a topic that certainly needs to be addressed. You’ve probably got some of the best expertise anywhere to address it.
Because of my teaching schedule, I still do not know if I can make it. What I do know is that the conference should be well worth attending.
Kevin
The whole schedule is not set yet, but it is shaping up to be a great conference. BTW, I sat in chapel at BJU today. Dr Bob III gave a great message and mentioned Faith and their recent decision. Good to hear.
And yes, I would say you have stated my suggestion quite well now.
And last… spent some time with Mike Harding tonight. He will join in this discussion as he is able, but doesn’t travel with a computer. See, he’s older than me so obviously a dinosaur. Only has one computer?? Man!!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
If we’re agreed on the wording for the last item, I think we can put your recommendations in final form. Since you are ambivalent about my writing books—it’s OK with you, but not really important—it seems that your recommendations are really two in number.
- Avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in “serious error.”
- Do not speak either so positively about conservative evangelicals or so negatively about Fundamentalists that I either (a) alienate the Fundamentalists whom I wish to help, or else (b) encourage the discontent of wavering and disgruntled Fundamentalists.
If you agree that these to points represent a fair summation of your counsel to me, then we are now in a position to the discuss them. I think that something can be said about each recommendation individually, and I think that something more can be said about them taken together. I’m prepared to do that if you see no further modifications that need to be made to the summary.
In the meanwhile, back to your question about Mohler. Yes, I take his change of mind about the Manhattan Declaration quite seriously. In the Spectrum book, all four authors were asked to apply their principles to ECT and the MD (among other things). By this time, Mohler had already tried to defend his actions in public, and he had already received significant criticism from other evangelicals. The book was really his opportunity to double down (which is what I really expected him to do) or to reverse course entirely. To nearly everyone’s surprise, he did the latter.
In the book, Mohler reiterates his reasons for originally signing the MD—reasons that I believe are actually grounded in legitimate concerns. While those concerns had not changed, something else had. Mohler now recognized that the MD “crossed the line into an unwarranted and unbiblical recognition of the Roman Catholic Church.”
In the context of the book, Mohler’s reversal on this issue could not have been more clear. I still remember gaping with astonishment when I first saw the draft of his chapter. It is pretty rare for a major leader within evangelicalism to make this kind of reversal, or to express this kind of repentance, in such a public forum. Almost as rare as within Fundamentalism.
Furthermore, Mohler did not simply express his change of view quietly and privately. This is a major volume issued by one of the most significant evangelical publishers. It is not an obscure work form some vanity press. The book is likely to be around long after the web sites have been taken down. If Mohler wanted to announce his change of position in a public, durable way, then he chose the best possible way of doing it. It would be one thing if Mohler repented in the virtual reality of the Internet, but he has actually done it in the real world.
Why does Mohler’s defense of the MD still appear? Why hasn’t he tried to remove his name from the MD? Why hasn’t his change of mind been more widely circulated? Well, I can’t really speak for Mohler on all of these points. As a rule, however, public people recognize the futility of trying to alter the past. Whatever is public stays public, sometimes unfortunately. It often cannot be eliminated, and so there is little use in trying. What you can do—and what Mohler has done—is to state where you now stand as opposed to where you once stood.
Remember when Joe Zichterman decided to ditch Fundamentalism a few years ago? He wrote to us at Central Seminary and asked us to remove all references to a lecture series that he had done for us at one point. I remember thinking at the time that his request was just goofy—the whole world (or as much of it as cared about him) already knew his change of position. He had told us. Who you are may not be who you were, but you can’t erase who you were, either.
If you think that Mohler’s repentance should be more widely circulated, then I invite you to circulate it. He has given you his own words. I can think of no reason that he would be reluctant for his statements to be as widely distributed as possible. Here’s what I would suggest. Buy a case of Spectrum. Highlight the section in which Mohler deals with the Manhattan Declaration. Then, every time people ask you whether he has really changed his mind, give them a copy of the book.
In fact, you might even try reading it yourself! If nothing else, it has a pretty good chapter on Fundamentalism.
At the end of the day, I think that Al was as serious as a heart attack in his turnaround.
Kevin
Discussion