John Vaughn (FBFI President/CEO): "one thing is clear: this video ends the fiction that 'Northland has not changed.'”

Kevin, I must admit that I used to think that those who were into CCM chose that music style because they loved their music more than they loved God. Then I realized that they could make the same accusation against me- even thought I was choosing traditional music because of my love for God. My thoughts began to change once I realized that some of the guys who used CCM music in worship, were using it precisely because of their love for God. If we could find a verse to prove that God hated a specific kind of music, I honestly believe that many on both sides of this issue would give up what they preferred if they knew for certain that God did not like it. If someone is committed to a music form because they idolize it (whether that music is traditional or CCM) then we have a good reason for separation.

[Don Johnson]

[JD Miller]

According to this definition it looks like the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is the willingness to take a stand on important issues of orthodox doctrine. In think Don is right on concerning that point. That is why in 1996 I left evangelicalism for fundamentalism. The problem I have with some parts of fundamentalism is that that they want to do battle royal over areas that are not issues of orthodox doctrine. (even Don admits that the New Evangelicals hold orthodox doctrine).

first, let me grant that some men are militant because they like to fight.

But if the New Evangelicals held orthodox doctrine (and they did), why did they oppose the fundamentalists and why did the fundamentalists oppose them?

This is just too simplistic. There was a huge segment of fundamentalism that was tired of the bitterness of the separatists and opposed to the the idea of dialogue with liberals. It is this large group of fundamentalists that are known as “conservative evangelicals” who in reality are carrying the mantel of historic fundamentalism.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

This thread is supposed to be about John Vaughn’s observation RE Northland. So here’s my observation.

In no sense was Vaughn piling on. His comment was actually quite restrained. He was simply pointing people to the facts that answered the questions that many of them had been answering.

Remember, NIU built itself largely upon an FBFI constituency. If anybody has a right to comment, John does.

Why is it that he didn’t address some of the other, more substantial issues, though (like the Charismatic ties, for one)? That one, specifically, is easily established. It seems to me he only addressed one area or fact, and not ones that would perhaps not be as “scandalous,” but would ultimately carry more weight.

Don Sailer, You have a point- I did oversimplify by lumping all evangelicals together. (I really appriciate the conservative evangelicals who have taken a strong stand and I believe many of them are close to being fundamentalists with a small f). But as a whole evangelicals have been more willing to cooperate with those who hold unorthodox positions. Remember I left the EFCA in ‘96 right around the time the Promise Keepers movement was sharing platforms with Mormons and Catholics and the EFCA was strongly promoting it. Northland is nowhere near doing that as far as I can see- of course some are worried about the slippery slope.

Don,

Saying that today’s conservative evangelicals are the historic fundamentalists is like saying that today’s modalists are the historic Trinitarians. It’s the kind of comment that seems plausible only because it skips entire epochs of theological development.

Every theological idea has its defining moment, and that moment almost invariably comes in the midst of controversy. What is inchoate and imprecise is crystalized as a result of the controversy. After the defining point the same imprecision is no longer permissible.

Fundamentalism has had two defining points. The first occured in its conflict with liberalism. Fundamentalists took the position that the gospel (including the fundamentals) constituted the boundary of Christianity. To deny the gospel was to disqualify one’s self from Christian fellowship and especially leadership. Consequently, the first-generation fundamentalists pushed for separation—originally, purge-out separation as they sought to expel the liberals, but subsequently come-out separation as it became clear that the liberals were firmly entrenched.

The neo-evangelicals believed the gospel, including all the fundamentals. Nevertheless, they insisted upon the possibility of Christian mutuality and cooperation with those who denied the gospel. They were neither fundamentalists nor liberals, but indifferentists—they were indifferent to the gospel (including the fundamentals) as the boundary of Christian faith and fellowship.

Fundamentalists rightly perceived that neo-evangelicalism was actually a gospel error. While the new evangelicals did not (at first) deny the gospel, they did demean it. They robbed it of its rightful place as a demarcator between Christianity and non-Christianity. To fundamentalists, this error revealed a shocking lack of biblical discernment. At minimum they felt (rightly!) that they had to reject the leadership of any individual or institution that fell into the neo-evangelical error.

That is precisely why fundamentalists left the CBA of A. It is precisely why they rejected the NAE. It is why even today they look askance at the BGC (which still lists Greg Boyd as part of its fellowship, no?) Given the current controversy, it is worth pointing out that Campus Crusade (now CRU) has been one of the foremost voices for neo-evangelical methodology, and has been consistently rejected by historic fundamentalists.

Denominationalism is not and never has been the issue. Fundamentalists organizations like the ACCC include Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible Churches, and others. Since the early 1940s the debate has been over indifferentism.

Neither the moderate evangelicals of the 1950s-1960s, nor the conservative evangelicals of today, are new evangelicals. They are not indifferentists. Unlike Fundamentalists, however, they have been willing to form ties with and accept leadership from indifferentists. They have been largely unwilling to denounce the error of indifferentism.

There are bridge figures, such as Phil Johnson. But this difference remains the difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. (See my response to Al Mohler in Four Views on the Evangelical Spectrum.)

I do not see conservative evangelicals as the enemy, but as friends and allies. I do not rule out all possibility of limited and carefully-targeted cooperation. Even if such limited cooperation occurs, however, it does not removed the differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, nor does it authorize carte blanche cooperation at every level.

JD,

You’re getting way ahead of the ball. In fact, you’ve strayed out of bounds. The attitudes of CCM advocates are not the question of the moment.The question is the importance of the Greatest Commandment and its juxtapositon to the gospel. That’s where the entire conversation must begin.

How important are ordinate affections?

[For the record, I’ll identify myself at this point as an Augustinian and Edwardsian, if that’s any hint.]

Greg (Linscott),

Actually, I’m not sure that the charismatic issue is as easily established. There’s been a good bit of obfuscation at that point. At any rate, it is not as easily illustrated.

If NIU had put out a video of a staff member speaking in tongues, perhaps Vaughn would have pointed to that.

You know that I’m not shy about criticizing the FBFI when I think they deserve it. But John is well within his rights on this one. And there wasn’t a bit of “I told you so” about it. If I know John, this is a genuine grief to him.

[Don Sailer]

[Don Johnson]

[JD Miller]

According to this definition it looks like the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is the willingness to take a stand on important issues of orthodox doctrine. In think Don is right on concerning that point. That is why in 1996 I left evangelicalism for fundamentalism. The problem I have with some parts of fundamentalism is that that they want to do battle royal over areas that are not issues of orthodox doctrine. (even Don admits that the New Evangelicals hold orthodox doctrine).

first, let me grant that some men are militant because they like to fight.

But if the New Evangelicals held orthodox doctrine (and they did), why did they oppose the fundamentalists and why did the fundamentalists oppose them?

This is just too simplistic. There was a huge segment of fundamentalism that was tired of the bitterness of the separatists and opposed to the the idea of dialogue with liberals. It is this large group of fundamentalists that are known as “conservative evangelicals” who in reality are carrying the mantel of historic fundamentalism.

But in an effort to be substantive and restrain my smart aleck past, I’ll leave you guessing as to what it is.

There may be instances of what you suggest, however almost every evangelical organization that I know of that fit the category “conservative evangelical” will have some examples of new evangelical taint in their history. Nothing was done about it.

I realize that statement is a generalization, but I don’t have time to offer thorough documentation of that point. I will note, though, that one source says of the IFCA (for example) that members of that organization have engaged in dialogue and compromise with no reprisal from the rest of the body. The same is still true for the Southern Baptist Convention, in spite of some recovery credited to the ‘resurgence’.

I don’t think there is much point in coming back and demanding I document this, readers will have to just consider what I say and do their own research if they are interested.

I will take you word on those things, KTB.

FWIW, though, this post on Olson’s blog still stands, and has been up since last summer, so it seems to me there’s one good starting place to connect the dots (though perhaps not as easily if they have taken their doctrinal statement offline)…

But then again, that, to me, would seem another thing to focus on- deception and dishonesty. It may be hard to say graciously, but I would have to say that at this point, “fiction” seems to me somewhat light, and “lying” would not be an inappropriate word to use.

[Kevin T. Bauder] With respect to the present debate, the germane question would be whether NIU even intends to be a fundamentalist institution in the future. Given the dramatic nature of some of these transitions, the willingness of NIU to poke its past constituency in the eye, the sudden departures of key figures very recently, the appearance and disappearance of documents from their web site (most recently, the doctrinal statement has disappeared—though who knows when it may reappear), and the fact that the transitions are not limited to one area, my guess is that there’s a major repositioning going on. If so, then the way in which it is being done is not merely a theological or affective issue, but an ethical one.

Wow…Totally missed that, and Bauder’s right - the website doesn’t display one and a search turned up no hits.

Link:

http://gradschool.ni.edu/about/articles-of-faith/

PDF attached

[Kevin T. Bauder]

Don,

Saying that today’s conservative evangelicals are the historic fundamentalists is like saying that today’s modalists are the historic Trinitarians. It’s the kind of comment that seems plausible only because it skips entire epochs of theological development.

Every theological idea has its defining moment, and that moment almost invariably comes in the midst of controversy. What is inchoate and imprecise is crystalized as a result of the controversy. After the defining point the same imprecision is no longer permissible.

Fundamentalism has had two defining points. The first occured in its conflict with liberalism. Fundamentalists took the position that the gospel (including the fundamentals) constituted the boundary of Christianity. To deny the gospel was to disqualify one’s self from Christian fellowship and especially leadership. Consequently, the first-generation fundamentalists pushed for separation—originally, purge-out separation as they sought to expel the liberals, but subsequently come-out separation as it became clear that the liberals were firmly entrenched.

The neo-evangelicals believed the gospel, including all the fundamentals. Nevertheless, they insisted upon the possibility of Christian mutuality and cooperation with those who denied the gospel. They were neither fundamentalists nor liberals, but indifferentists—they were indifferent to the gospel (including the fundamentals) as the boundary of Christian faith and fellowship.

Fundamentalists rightly perceived that neo-evangelicalism was actually a gospel error. While the new evangelicals did not (at first) deny the gospel, they did demean it. They robbed it of its rightful place as a demarcator between Christianity and non-Christianity. To fundamentalists, this error revealed a shocking lack of biblical discernment. At minimum they felt (rightly!) that they had to reject the leadership of any individual or institution that fell into the neo-evangelical error.

That is precisely why fundamentalists left the CBA of A. It is precisely why they rejected the NAE. It is why even today they look askance at the BGC (which still lists Greg Boyd as part of its fellowship, no?) Given the current controversy, it is worth pointing out that Campus Crusade (now CRU) has been one of the foremost voices for neo-evangelical methodology, and has been consistently rejected by historic fundamentalists.

Denominationalism is not and never has been the issue. Fundamentalists organizations like the ACCC include Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible Churches, and others. Since the early 1940s the debate has been over indifferentism.

Neither the moderate evangelicals of the 1950s-1960s, nor the conservative evangelicals of today, are new evangelicals. They are not indifferentists. Unlike Fundamentalists, however, they have been willing to form ties with and accept leadership from indifferentists. They have been largely unwilling to denounce the error of indifferentism.

There are bridge figures, such as Phil Johnson. But this difference remains the difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. (See my response to Al Mohler in Four Views on the Evangelical Spectrum.)

I do not see conservative evangelicals as the enemy, but as friends and allies. I do not rule out all possibility of limited and carefully-targeted cooperation. Even if such limited cooperation occurs, however, it does not removed the differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, nor does it authorize carte blanche cooperation at every level.

Thanks Kevin.

And we are right back to secondary separation. The “moderate evangelicals of the 1950s-1960s” were my parents! They called themselves fundamentalists. Their relatives served as missionaries in the CBA. My parents are representatives of that broad group of fundamentalists who were not hyper-separatists and who did not dialogue with liberals. They can trace their historic, Christian lineage directly back to the fundamentalists who left the Northern Baptist/American Baptist denomination. It is funny how only the “separatistic” fundamentalists think they have the right to the term fundamentalist. When my generation saw what was going on in “fundamentalism” with regard to the bitter and hysterical application of separation, we just walked away. We gave up the term without giving up our beliefs.

But a rose is a rose by any other name. Today’s conservative evangelicals are the fundamentalists who chose not to follow the bitterness of the hyper-separatist branch of fundamentalism. They aren’t new evangelicals even though they were called that by people in the FBFI. And even though most conservative evangelicals wouldn’t want to be called a fundamentalist today, they are the direct descendants of those fundamentalists who chose not to separate over non-biblical reasons. Conservative evangelicals do separate from liberals and apostates. Conservative evangelicals do hold to the fundamentals of the faith. And conservative evangelicals unite together just like their grandparents did in the 1920s-1940s.

Only one of the three branches of fundamentalism practiced secondary separation. And it is that branch that calls itself “fundamentalism” today. The middle branch was reclassified right out of the movement and didn’t fight it and are known today as conservative evangelicals. The third branch called themselves new-evangelicals.

Well, that’s my story, and I’m sticking by it.

Blessings.

[Greg Linscott]

I will take you word on those things, KTB.

FWIW, though, this post on Olson’s blog still stands, and has been up since last summer, so it seems to me there’s one good starting place to connect the dots (though perhaps not as easily if they have taken their doctrinal statement offline)…

But then again, that, to me, would seem another thing to focus on- deception and dishonesty. It may be hard to say graciously, but I would have to say that at this point, “fiction” seems to me somewhat light, and “lying” would not be an inappropriate word to use.

Do you know why the doctrinal statement is offline? Maybe they are doing exactly what you are calling on them to do. Maybe they are changing it. I don’t know. I’m just saying.

But be careful of the “L” word. We have had known presidents of colleges do the “L” thing and anyone who pointed it out was silenced. So be careful.

[Jim]

Link:

http://gradschool.ni.edu/about/articles-of-faith/

PDF attached

From the doctrinal statement:

We believe God has called believers to live a life characterized by personal, ecclesiastical, and even familial separation. [bold face for emphasis]

Who was that targeted at? Good grief.

Now there’s a statement that I would like changed. :)

Blessings.

[TylerR]

Briefly, they preferred infiltration and reformation from within, not separation. Surely you must grant this historical reality …

But both reformation from within and separation from are both methods the original fundamentalists used. And there wasn’t a hard line at all that finally determined, en masse, when some determined that fighting from within was a lost battle. It was a gradual thing. You’re rewriting history to claim that the real fundamentalists separated — when that decision came well after the fundamentalists began fighting for in the beginning all of them fought from within.

Now Kevin might call them both forms of separation (i.e. separation by kicking out those in error), but who could possible dispute that that’s precisely what’s happened even this much later at, oh, say, SBTS where the liberals have left because the conservatives won the fight! Both leaving and fighting from within are valid forms of fighting. And one might reasonable argue that the ones fighting from within have actually done more of the actual fighting.