The Future of Fundamentalism: A Forum for Leaders

Kevin,

As I have said before, my disagreements with JM and his ministry have to do with music, speakers, associations, church polity, and previously unwise, over-the-top statements on issues like the blood and the Lordship issue. By the way, I thought your comments on the Lordship issue were very helpful and balanced. Other than those matters, I think JM and company have been very helpful on many doctrinal issues including young earth, cessationism, dispensationalism. JM and company are somewhat in a unique category. However, T4G and GC, as you have wisely pointed out, are very broad when it comes to those kinds of issues, while being militant on covenant theology. The FBFI is not guilty in my opinion, however, of tolerating CCM (the wedding of pop-rock genres to Christian lyrics for worship and edification), being anti-dispensational in any way, tolerating continuationism, dumbing down the gospel, being off on the blood, promoting or encouraging KJV onlyism, or encouraging/tolerating ecumenism. We have had our problems in the distant past with some issues I just mentioned. We have corrected those problems. The IFBF is different than the FBF. It is unfair to load us with their baggage and I think Don gave a reasonable explanation for the IFBF.

I agree with you that there are men outside of fundamentalism who at times take equally conservative or more conservative positions on these issues. I thank God for their work. I benefit from their books and respect them for going against the tide of evangelicalism in regard to those specific subjects. Most of my arguments deal with substance, not mere associations. Nevertheless, associations are still important. Substance–what a man actually believes, teaches, and lives, is more important. Therefore, we have to be very careful when passing broad-brush resolutions and accusing people of fellowshiping with those who deny the cardinal truths of Scripture when there is no substantial evidence that they do. I think your criticism along that line of reasoning is constructive.

… but I’ll try to respond in the morning.

KTB

Don,

Nobody is more aware than me of how limited and situated my perspective is. Truthfully, I would love to welcome your assessment and to agree that I have simply been making unwarranted assumptions. My life would be considerably easier because the universe would be simpler if I could only perceive it in terms of more straightforward contrasts.

Your last post contains so much that I can’t respond to everything, so I’ve chosen to focus upon your rebuke. I’ve tried to swallow my pride and to revisit the whole question related to the IFBF, actually hoping that a more charitable reading of events would result in a change of perspective. Here is my re-assessment.

First, you credit me for having correctly understood that the IFBF calls for separation over the whole counsel of God, and not just the gospel. Evidently we have no disagreement here.

Second, you charge me with assuming that the IFBF does not recognize levels of fellowship and therefore advocates all-or-nothing separation. Actually, I don’t think I assumed that at all. Rather, I simply noted that the IFBF fails to address this question in principle.

What is not clear is whether the IFBF recognizes the distinction between minimal and maximal fellowship, or whether it would recognize any intermediate levels. This is an important question, because separation (as the IFBF envisions it in this resolution) is inversely proportional to fellowship. If there are no levels of fellowship, then there are no levels of separation. If the IFBF does not recognize the existence of levels of fellowship, then the separation for which it calls must be all-or-nothing. In other words, no fellowship of any kind would be possible with any believer who fails in any way to affirm the whole counsel of God.

In the very next paragraph, however, I note that the IFBF does recognize levels of fellowship and separation in practice: “Such draconian separation is certainly not what the IFBF practices.” In other words, nothing is assumed here at all.

Third, you accuse me of charging the IFBF with inconsistency for practicing less-than-complete separation when they (as you suppose I have assumed) affirm all-or-nothing separation. But nowhere does this charge appear in my writing. To be sure, I do think the IFBF is inconsistent, but not in the way that you indicate.

Fourth, you suggest that Dr. Hufhand was not speaking in an official capacity, since (1) he no longer has any official capacity with the IFBF, and (2) his remarks appeared in a document entitled the “Hufhand Report.” It is immaterial whether Dr. Hufhand presently has any official capacity with the IFBF. What matters is that he did then—in fact, he was the official representative for the association. That his remarks appeared in the “Hufhand Report” is also immaterial. Does John Vaughn only speak for the FBFI when he issues an official document? I have re-read Dr. Hufhand’s words: he was making representations about the association, and he was its official representative. While I would like to think that Dr. Hufhand’s remarks did not actually represent the IFBF, I can’t see any reasonable way of reaching that conclusion.

Fifth, you charge me with assuming that Crown College elevates the exclusive acceptance and use of the KJV to the doctrinal level. Again, I would be happy to think otherwise. Nevertheless, here are the exact words from the Crown College “Statement of Faith”:

We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed. The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice.

These words do not appear in a position paper or in some professor’s class notes. They appear in the official doctrinal statement. Crown College begins by affirming belief in the inerrant, infallible, God-breathed Scriptures. It concludes by insisting that the Bible is its sole and final authority for faith and practice. But which Scriptures? What Bible? The answer appears in the middle of the statement. Sandwiched between its affirmation of biblical inspiration and its affirmation of biblical sufficiency, Crown College specifies that it accepts the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, and only the King James Version of the Bible. It’s not simply that these people choose not to use other versions. They do not accept other versions. Accept them as what? If they are saying what they mean, Crown College does not accept other versions as inerrant, infallible, God-breathed Scripture or as the Bible that is sufficient for faith and practice. That is part of their “Statement of Faith.” This is not an assumption, it is a straightforward reading of Crown College’s own confession.

Finally, you suggest that I’ve only assumed that Dr. Hufhand’s naming of the graduates of about half-a-dozen KJVO institutions represents any endorsement of or concession to those institutions. Perhaps (you suggest) those graduates “think differently” from the schools from which they graduated. And I certainly would rejoice if they do. I readily acknowledge that graduates may not reflect the positions of the schools from which they have graduated. I’m actually one of those—at least with respect to the last couple of schools I attended.

Nevertheless, if that is so, then Dr. Hufhand neglected to mention that these pastors had abandoned the ideas that they had been taught. He failed to distance the IFBF from these institutions in any way. In fact, he cited these schools as evidence of the diversity that exists within the IFBF. Furthermore, while a graduate here or there might abandon the teachings of his alma mater, do you really find it plausible that all of the graduates of all of these schools who pastor in the IFBF have done so? To put it as kindly as possible, this suggestion seems overly sanguine.

Also, Dr. Hufhand mentioned no IFBF pastors who are graduates of Master’s, Southern, Southeastern, Cedarville, Cornerstone, Philadelphia, or comparable schools. In fact, he does not even mention graduates of Fundamentalist schools like Central, Calvary, or Detroit. It is not likely that he could have overlooked those schools while remembering the names of half-a-dozen KJVO institutions. What we do know is this: either the fellowship has pastors who have graduated from at least some of these schools, or it does not. If it does not, then we need to ask why not one of the churches in such a diverse fellowship has called any of the graduates of any of these institutions—such a significant omission cannot be accidental. If it does have pastors who are graduates of some of these schools (which is actually the case), then we can legitimately infer that Dr. Hufhand found it more convenient to name KJVO institutions than schools in the other categories I’ve listed. Whichever possibility is true, this list of names is certainly an indication of the kind of people the IFBF is most comfortable including in its fellowship.

None of this constitutes a statement about the personal godliness of the pastors or officers of the IFBF. I do not see them as evil men or conspirators (how could you have suggested such a thing?). I do not question their sincerity. But I do question the judgment of some leaders. To the extent that their resolution and Dr. Hufhand’s interpretation represent the position of the association, I do not believe that they are in a position to offer a credible advice regarding boundaries of fellowship. What is more, to the extent that you commit yourself to defend their perspective, I wonder whether your counsel can be taken without a grain—if not a whole shaker—of salt. That is why I think this conversation is relevant, not only to the third question, but also to the first two.

[Don Johnson] Quite frankly, Kevin, I think you are trying to shift the focus of the discussion. In post # 52844 you started off with this:

[Kevin T. Bauder]
Now it’s time to get to your other word of advice, which is to 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.”

I’m not going to get into a further back and forth about the IFBF (or, by extension the FBFI) at this point in the conversation. We’ve already discussed the idea of dealing with errors of fundamentalism. I don’t know that we can add much more to this discussion.

In answering this objection, you are asking how evangelical error could be more serious than fundamentalist error as a means of answering my suggestions to you. The point, quite frankly, is irrelevant to the question. Let’s posit, for sake of argument that fundamentalist error is as black and serious as can be. Fine. But now let’s deal with my suggestions about moderating your public statements about evangelicals so that young people aren’t influenced in that direction, at least without due consideration of their serious errors. And again, for sake of argument, we can posit that evangelical errors are less serious than ours.

Now, having said that, please note that I am only supposing these value judgements for the sake of argument. The question of whose errors are more serious is a matter of perspective and one we have been debating in these parts for a long time. I am not sure that we are getting anywhere with that discussion.

If we are talking about the idea of fundamentalism vs. the idea of evangelicalism, I would suggest that the idea of fundamentalism is far superior to that of evangelicalism. My suggestions to you come from the perspective that your promotion of the idea of fundamentalism seems more pro-evangelicalism at some points than not.

One more caveat, then I’m done for now: Your recent articles about TGC and T4G sound the right note in my mind. I think you have done well in those pieces. Give us more of the same.

Don,

Whatever else it is, separation is always a rejection, truncation, or limitation of fellowship. Consequently, a discussion of separation is meaningless unless we have a strong doctrine of church unity and fellowship. Probably the clearest text that discusses church unity and fellowship is the epistle to the Ephesians.

There Paul spends three chapters arguing that all believers have been raised from the same depth, to the same height. The inclusion of Gentiles in these privileges was a mystery that was hidden in the Old Testament, but it has now been revealed through the apostles—especially Paul, to whom was committed an administration of the mystery.

The last half of Eph. 2 strongly emphasizes that unity that the gospel has produced among believers in spite of previous hostility. Jews and Gentiles used to be two nationalities or humanities, opposed to each other and filled with hostility. But Christ has taken some who were Jews and some who were gentiles, and out of these he has fashioned a single new humanity. The new humanity transcends previous categories: in the new humanity a Jew is no longer reckoned as a Jew and a Gentile is no longer reckoned as a Gentile. Both are reckoned as something new.

Not only are they united in one humanity, they have been united in one body. They have been given access to the Father by one Spirit. They are being built into one building, a holy temple (naos). These statements describe a fundamental, overarching unity that the gospel creates between all believers. They describe the Universal Church. It is neither the Fundamentalist church nor the evangelical church, but the Church which is His body.

After a digression personal and doxological in chapter 3, Paul brings the lesson home with force in chapter 4. Having spent three chapters describing our calling, he implores us to walk worthy of it. How do we do that? We do it by humbly, gently, patiently, tolerantly loving each other. We do it by earnestly endeavoring to preserve (not create) the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

The failure to preserve the unity of the Spirit is significant, because unity is actually a gospel issue. The oneness of the new humanity, of the body, of the Spirit, and of the temple is at stake. A failure to recognize, acknowledge, and practice unity where it actually exists is a very serious failure indeed. In some sense, the gospel is at stake.

Consequently, unity and fellowship should always be the “default state” among believers. That is to say, we should be prepared to work with one another unless some other factor gets in the way. That factor might be as simple as geography or chronology (it would be difficult to cooperate personally with Calvin or Wesley right now), it might involve different directions in ministry (e.g, Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15), or it might involve some difference over the meaning of the faith.

In any case, the burden of proof always rests upon the individual who rejects some level of fellowship. Sometimes separations (understood as deliberate limitations of fellowship) are necessary within the household of faith. We cannot justify them, however, simply by stating that another Christian is guilty of serious error. We have some responsibility to show why it is serious and just how serious it is. We must also show how it affects the particular level of fellowship that is under consideration.

External fellowship or cooperation must always rest upon a foundation of internal fellowship or commonality. The requirements for internal commonality will be determined by the level of fellowship that is being attempted. All other things being equal, where the necessary internal commonality is lacking, the attempt to join in external cooperation is contrived, hypocritical, and sinful. On the other hand, where the necessary internal commonality is present, the rejection of participation is also contrived, hypocritical, and sinful.

In order to avoid hypocrisy, we may well have to separate from a brother at one level while participating with him at another. We are going to have to make decisions about fellowship and separation on a case-by-case basis. The level of fellowship will vary. The requirements for fellowship will vary. The potential partners in fellowship will vary. All of these things need to be evaluated in every fellowship decision.

These observations could be qualified in certain ways, but as generalizations I think they hold true. Furthermore, they provide the foundation for a genuinely Fundamentalist theory of separation. They also explain why I do not think that separation (in the sense of complete non-cooperation) from all conservative evangelicals is always necessary at every level, any more than I think that separation from certain kinds of fundamentalists is always necessary at every level.

I am a Baptist, but at some levels I would just as soon work with some Presbyterians as with some Baptists. Indeed, for some things I would rather work with most Presbyterians than with most Baptists.

By the same token, I am a fundamentalist, but at some levels I would just as soon work with some conservative evangelicals than with some fundamentalists. Indeed, for some things I would rather work with many conservative evangelicals than with many fundamentalists.

In both cases the decisions should be made carefully and targeted to the level at which fellowship is intended.

Don,

In response to your request that I “focus,” let me point you to the title of this conversation. It is not “The Future of Kevin Bauder.” It is “The Future of Fundamentalism.” Of course, my own future is tied to that of fundamentalism, but we are discussing the larger topic. Indeed, you may recall that I interrupted a planned presentation (I think you said you were looking forward to it) on what the FBFI could do to increase its chances of an effective future. I’ve already given you my first, and hinted at my second, recommendation.

It is impossible to conduct a useful conversation about the future of fundamentalism without paying attention to some of its past and present faults. In discussing those faults, I believe that we ought to be at least as frank about ourselves as we are about our opponents. Our unwillingness to subject ourselves to blunt self-criticism accounts for a great deal of the skepticism with which younger fundamentalists regard our generation of leadership (or at least my generation—I believe you may be a bit younger than me).

Blunt discussions of faults are not the same as attacks. I know that you believe this—you advertise your own blog as “fundamentalism by blunt instrument.” You’re certainly not afraid of tackling issues and naming names, even to the point of telling parents and pastors (bluntly!) “Don’t send your kids to Northland.” While I know that decisions of Northland International University have provoked controversy, I don’t think that anyone has decided that that NIU is no longer a fundamentalist institution—and I don’t believe that you perceive yourself as attacking them.

In view of the foregoing, I am going to have to decline your ultimatum. If conversation with you comes at the cost of being able to speak frankly (bluntly?) about the disasters that fundamentalists create for themselves, then the price is too high. I would hate to see you bow out, however, because I believe this could become an important conversation. On my view, you ought to stick around for it. You wouldn’t want to miss the rest of the recommendations, would you? Still, you know your own business best.

Mike,

I actually agree with you about most of what the FBFI isn’t guilty of and most of what they’ve corrected. I’m not sure it’s as clean-cut as you’re perceiving it, but perhaps that’s because you’re in the inside where you can see nuances that I can’t. But I am willing to accept your assurances, as much as I’m willing to accept anybody’s.

There may be some parallel between MacArthur’s initial statements on the blood and on Lordship Salvation. As I understand it, in both cases his words were edited by staff members who may not have represented his view exactly. The difference would be this: his statements on Lordship Salvation appeared in a book that was released by a major publisher, while his statements on the blood appeared in a decade-old church bulletin, long forgotten, that somebody dug up and used against him. And I actually don’t think that there was that much lack of clarity in the bulletin.

Anyway, I’m interested in your thoughts about using MacArthur’s people in the areas where they are most like us. Do I recall that Doran has had Vlach in to talk about dispensationalism? Our administration just had Bill Barrick lecture on young-earth creationism. The program committee of the Minnesota Baptist Association has arranged for Phil Johnson to speak at the annual meeting this year. I’m interested in your perception of these associations. Are they sufficiently careful? Are they giving away too much? Is there some difference between these venues that ought to be taken into account?

This is simply a request for your thinking on these matters. The door between the two camps is open just a crack. What principles should guide us as we consider different levels of participation?

Kevin

Kevin,

As I said before, I think JM and company are in a unique category. Doctrinally we line up in most areas. They are sound on the gospel, the blood, dispensational, Calvinistic (not Hyper), Baptistic (not Baptist per se), conservative in deportment, and evangelistic. The Master’s seminary is very conservative theologically. They are cessationist, young-earth creationists, and have been willing to stand against Romanism, Charismaticism, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll, modern Christian Psychology and a host of other religious ills. They have pulled back from T4G and GC on account of celebrity-hero worship and speakers. Those are the strong points. The overall ministry is weak on music (particularly college and youth ministry), maintains a broader level of associations and speakers that I would not be comfortable with, aggressively advocates elder rule. I also think JM falsely accuses of legalism those churches and schools who maintain institutional and personal standards. Actual legalism in Galatians is apostasy. Looking at the big picture I would not personally bring them in to speak.

On the other side, I have gone to hear Michael Vlach on dispensationalism. Vlach is outstanding on the subject of dispensationalism and is an expert in the field. There are no significant doctrinal flaws or weaknesses with him that I am aware of. If an educational institution used a man such as Vlach for such a purpose, personally I have no problem with it.

Mike,

You’re actually bringing up a new topic—legalism. That may be worth exploring on its own. Maybe the Site Administrator would start us a new topic dealing with it.

I think we’re in about the same place on MacArthur. It’s probably worth noting that at least two of his profs are (or were, last I knew) in a GARBC church. Maybe Kevin could comment on whether that tells us more about MacArthur or about the GARBC—or neither. I do know, however, that in certain areas Barrick is more conservative than many or most fundamentalist scholars. I think that Thomas probably is as well.

On the other hand, I think you may be giving MacArthur too much credit for being Baptistic. Believer immersion is not our only distinctive. Congregational polity is somewhere near the top of the list—and MacArthur definitely doesn’t like that. In fact, when it comes to issues of church order, I’d take Dever over MacArthur any day. Which raises a question: who do you think are the best Fundamentalist figures to whom we can point young men for an understanding of New Testament church order or (to use the trendy phrase) healthy churches? I grew up in the Regular Baptist movement, where Robert T. Ketcham and Paul R. Jackson had a pretty good vision of what it meant to be a Baptist. Sadly, they are little known today. Who would you suggest?

Kevin

Soon joining our conversation will be Reginald C. Kimbro. I’m working from memory here, but I believe that Reg is Minister of the Word at Grace Free Presbyterian Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He also teaches at Geneva Reformed Seminary and is moderator of the American version of the Free Presbyterian Church. He is a convicted fundamentalist who has published a volume refuting dispensationalism.

It may take Reg a while to get caught up on the conversation. When he chooses to participate, however, he will bring a different perspective to the table.

Welcome, Reg (or do you prefer Reggie? Or the Rev. Kimbro?)

Kevin

My week has suddenly been filled up with the passing of a long time church member. The funeral is Friday at 1pm. So lots of extra duties this week. Our dear brother was 91.

just to let you know I’m not running away, just busy.

Don,

Understood. What we are doing here is a very tangential hobby. What you are doing as a pastor is reality. There’s no hurry. I’ll be asking the Lord to open doors of ministry to the gentleman’s family and friends.

I’ve got distractions of my own. A theft over the weekend is requiring Debbie and I to close and reopen all financial accounts. It’s a distraction, but the Lord has so far graciously protected us from any severe loss.

By the way, I had a call today from an FBF pastor (you would know the name) asking about plural eldership. I take the view that the New Testament requires only a single pastor/bishop/elder for each congregation, though a church is clearly permitted to have more than one. It might be interesting to talk about that subject at some point—it definitely plays into the future of fundamentalism. Can you think of anyone who would be willing to make the case for plurality of elders as a norm?

Of course, I’m pretty sure that brother Kimbro is persuaded of plural eldership! But I mean a Baptist.

Kevin

[Kevin T. Bauder]

(…to Mike….) It’s probably worth noting that at least two of [MacArthur’s] profs are (or were, last I knew) in a GARBC church. Maybe Kevin could comment on whether that tells us more about MacArthur or about the GARBC—or neither. I do know, however, that in certain areas Barrick is more conservative than many or most fundamentalist scholars.

Kevin Bauder already understands my response here—I just wanted to say it again to answer his question. As an association of churches, the GARBC defines fellowship at a church level. I’m a “member” of the GARBC because I’m a member of a church in fellowship with the GARBC (not because of my current job title).

For outsiders who are not as familiar with this model, it sure makes for some fun ironies. Bill Barrick (a respected OT scholar who teaches at The Master’s Seminary) is an elder at a GARBC church. Paul Plew (a gifted choral conductor and music department chair at The Master’s College) is worship pastor at a GARBC church. Daniel Estes (distinguished professor of OT at Cedarville) is a member of a GARBC church. Michael Wittmer (professor of systematic theology at Grand Rapids Seminary and best-selling Zondervan author) is a member of a GARBC church. Over the years, noted GARBC church members have served at any number of institutions (Radio Bible Class, Back to the Bible, Moody Bible Institute, Grand Rapids School of the Bible and Music, Davis College, the Cleveland Browns). And yes, my use of parenthesis is deliberate here, indicating which relationship we considered to be the most important!

Throw all of these people together in the same room and what do you get? A whole bunch of people who have very similar ideas about what a church should be. Framing the relationship as a logical extension of church fellowship seems brutally simple. It only gets complicated later, when one starts to reflect on the differences among the (parenthetical) organizations.

Yes, other corners of Baptist fundamentalism were organized as a “preacher’s fellowship,” but to be honest, their functional ties came as fellow alumni of regional educational institutions. Because these pastors were unified around a single university, they had trouble understanding movements that were glued together with something other than alumni loyalty.

While some might complain that the GARBC’s “enforcement mechanism” seemed too loose at times, the same was true of the “preacher’s fellowship” model, where a person could retain membership by merely signing a doctrinal statement and paying annual dues. The real power of excommunication came from the Alumni Association!

Now, before the charge is leveled, let me plead guilty ahead of time for offering a badly truncated summary. If all of these groups were on Facebook and had to post their relationship status, they’d be clicking on “It’s Complicated.”

Kevin B,

No argument on the “ic” regarding baptistic. This is why I cited one of my disagreements with JM on elder rule. Which churches today are good role models? Mount Calvary comes to my mind. He has congregational rule with a plurality of elders. Practically, however, no one disputes who is THE pastor of that church. Inter-City Baptist Church is an excellent church with good theology, proper church government, excellent preaching, a great sense of mission, conservative in deportment and music, militant on major doctrinal issues. I think Pastor Dave Whitcomb at Community Baptist in Greer, SC also serves as a tremendous example of a healthy church. Ken Endean has an outstanding church in Scarborough, Maine. Like Ken, the church is just about perfect. Guys like him make me sick! Steve Thomas at Huron Baptist also has an outstanding work. I would like to reference our own church, but I am afraid I would be struck by lightning.

I read Kimbro’s book years ago. We spoke together after a service at BJU. Nice guy and solid on the gospel. I have always appreciated the Free Pres guys. I traveled with Paisley’s son to Chile many years ago. We had a great time. I am not a Presbyterian; however, at a World Congress of Fundamentalists where the parameters for such a meeting were laid out similar to the ACCC, I had no problem participating with him in such a meeting. Different levels of fellowship are in order based on the parameters and purposes for the meeting. For my own church pulpit the parameters are more narrow.

Mike,

Since you’re probably not going to say it, I think I’d add First Baptist of Troy, MI to the list of churches that provide good models. Of the churches that you mention, I’m probably best acquainted with Inter-City, and I agree that it provides a good model. Steve Thomas’s insight on church discipline is exceptional. From what I know of Endean and Minnick, I would expect their congregations to be exemplary. I don’t recall that I know Dave Whitcomb or Community Baptist, but I’ll take your word for that ministry as well.

How are these guys trying to communicate Baptist order and polity to younger pastors? I know that Doran deals with it piece-by-piece at his conferences. How are the rest of the guys getting the word out? (I suppose my question was geared more toward the written word, though I didn’t make that clear. Both Ketcham and Jackson wrote constantly on aspects of Baptist church order, particularly about Baptist associationalism.)

It seems to me that in the areas where Dever is strongest (i.e., his discussions of church health), he is not saying anything that is not typically practiced by the better churches among us. I think that he would admit he’s not saying anything new. I once heard him refer to himself as something like “an ambassador from your grandparents.”

On the matter of platform appearances, you’ve made me curious—you hint that you wouldn’t have a Presbyterian in your pulpit. How about a strong, amillennial covenant Baptist like Peter Masters? This is not entirely an academic question. When I was a student at Faith, David Nettleton invited Masters to preach to the college. It raised some eyebrows (and some hackles).

One final question: to what extent do you believe that New Testament polity should be reflected in Baptist organization that extends beyond the church? Kevin Mungons pointed out the difference between associations and preacher’s fellowships. There are other models that Baptists have used. Is it possible to make a principled decision about which, if any, is superior?

I’d also like to hear Don’s response to these questions when he is able to get back to us.

Kevin