"We have not done this perfectly, but we believe we are headed in a biblical direction that is focused on pursuing God’s pleasure."

Steve, I remember listening to O. Talmadge Spence back in the day.

[Steve Davis]

I think Matt can commend particular churches and/or individuals in SGM, T4G, FBF, EFCA, GARBC, etc. without wholesale approval of everything they believe and practice as long as they are not in clear violation of Scripture, which gets us back to disagreement or disobedience.

But that’s not what he is doing. He is allowing a faculty/staff member to join the church and continue in the employ of NIU. Presumably the staff member is supposed to be in agreement with the NIU statement of faith.

[Steve Davis] Anecdotally, when I was at BJ the school had a good relationship with Foundations Bible College and O. Talmadge Spence. It was well known that they were old-line Pentecostal but decried the errors of Neo-Pentecostalism. They believed in speaking in tongues as a prayer language. Before starting the college in 1974 he was connected with Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church. It may be he separated from them to start his own church and college. I don’t know. Likewise I think SGM has some charismatic views but has nothing to do with the wacky movements associated with the movement.

If Spence’s views are as you state them (a prayer language only), then most of us would find him far less problematic than someone who believes in getting a word from God.

If you read the comments in this thread, you should know that SGM is not just holding “some charismatic views”. They believe in ongoing Apostles and have named various leaders as Apostles. They claim to get direct prophecy from God. Their former name was People of Destiny, they are linked directly with the more wacky elements of the movement. There is more, but I’ll stop with that.

I will grant that they are in a state of flux and it is possible there will be no SGM as such within a few years. Their theology appears to keep morphing from one thing to another.

My point, however, is that there is a vast difference between Spence and Mahaney.

[Don Sailer]

With all due respect to Kevin, his statement regarding who has the right to call himself an historic fundamentalist is just plain wrong.

Dear Don,

I’m really, really perplexed by your reply. I called you a new evangelical in the 80s? Huh? I had no idea that you even existed until a month or so ago. So far as I know, I’ve never called you anything! I’m sorry, but this part of your post makes no sense to me.

You seem to want to argue that the idea of fundamentalism does not include any form of secondary separation. As nearly as I can tell, you offer that argument on the basis of your personal experiences and your family’s story. Those things may well be interesting—but neither your own Kämpfen nor the Heilsgeschichten that you heard from your parents are really the same thing as historical research.

Fundamentalism began as an identifiable movement in 1920. From the very beginning, separation was built into the definition. The first fundamentalists seem to have assumed that anyone who believed the gospel would side with them. They received a rude shock when the majority of gospel-blievers turned out to be anti-separatists. By the mid-20s, Machen had identified the anti-separatists as Indifferentists, and he insisted that they were more dangerous than the liberals. When he left Princeton to found Westminster, it was not because liberals had take over, but because Indifferentists had. In other words, Machen implemented secondary separation. That was 84 years ago, less than a decade after the beginning of the fundamentalist movement.

Incidentally, Machen drew upon a long tradition of Reformed ecclesiology. What we now call secondary separation had been defended by Warfield, A. A. Hodge, and especially Charles Hodge. It was well articulated theologically and biblically.

When Fundamentalists began to separate from liberals in the early 30s, they also implemented secondary separation within their fellowships (e.g., the GARBC or the ACCC). That was precisely what set up the contest with the NEA and within the CBA of A (which was about half fundamentalist). In other words, fundamentalism had to make an unavoidable choice: either abandon its principles or truncate some of its associations. It chose fidelity to its principles.

It’s worth noting that fundamentalists didn’t invent the expression “neoevangelical” as a term of opprobrium. Ockenga invented it, and Carnell, Henry, Graham & CO. seized it as they publicly repudiated fundamentalism.

I once met a monophysite who insisted that he was genuinely orthodox because he agreed with the decisions of Nicea. He simply leapfrogged Chalcedon, claiming an obsolete standard of orthodoxy that had not yet opposed certain errors or defined the hypostatic union.

You are trying to do something like that. Even if you could show that some people during the 1920s claimed to be fundamentalists while questioning secondary separation, that was prior to the defining issue of Indifferentism. Once Indifferentism was a given, they had to respond to it. Only one kind of response was genuinely fundamentalist. It is not the response of those who rejected secondary separation.

Anybody can call himself a fundamentalist. There’s no official registry where you sign up to pass your examinations. But historic fundamentalism was not about coming together for the fundamentals of the faith. It was about recognizing the gospel as the boundary of Christianity, refusing to extend Christian fellowship to any gospel-denier, and refusing to follow gospel-degraders (i.e., Indifferentists) as if they were insightful Christian leaders.

To be clear, I do think that there are plenty of (hyper) fundamentalists who have simply tried to define others out of existence. I also acknowledge that plenty of fundamentalists have done a conspicuously poor job of thinking through and implementing their understanding of secondary separation. Nevertheless, secondary separation is a legitimate concern, specific applications of which are the principal mark that distinguishes fundamentalists from other conservative evangelicals.

—>

[Don Johnson] Jay, what are you talking about? There have been multiple threads on NIU in recent weeks, and several over the last several years. I believe I was one of the first to raise the Charismatic issue with this post. That post was picked up here and discussed at length.

All the issues have been on the table, accumulating over quite a period of time. No one is alleging that the charismatic issue kicked things off, I am not asserting that, it is simply part of a package of what some of us see as problems.

Your comment doesn’t make any sense.

Don,

You’re right - I don’t think I’d seen that P&D post. I was referring to the issue not being raised here at SI (which is where 99% of my information on the NIU thing came from). The SI discussions were primarily around music and recruiting and that kind of stuff until it was brought up in that post I referred to earlier.

In any case, I was wrong, and I’m sorry. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

[Don Sailer]

With all due respect to Kevin, his statement regarding who has the right to call himself an historic fundamentalist is just plain wrong.

Dear Don,

I’m really, really perplexed by your reply. I called you a new evangelical in the 80s? Huh? I had no idea that you even existed until a month or so ago. So far as I know, I’ve never called you anything! I’m sorry, but this part of your post makes no sense to me.

You know that’s not what I meant and for you to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. You are not that dense. The very group that you represent called people like me new evangelicals in the 1980s. You know that, so don’t play dumb and don’t act like I meant you personally. You also know that the group you represent today is calling people like me “conservative evangelicals.”

Now the funny thing is that I have not changed. It was the group that you represent that changed.

In a few more years, perhaps the group you represent will call me an historic fundamentalist!

NIU is now doing that.

Blessings.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

[Don Sailer]

With all due respect to Kevin, his statement regarding who has the right to call himself an historic fundamentalist is just plain wrong.

You seem to want to argue that the idea of fundamentalism does not include any form of secondary separation. As nearly as I can tell, you offer that argument on the basis of your personal experiences and your family’s story. Those things may well be interesting—but neither your own Kämpfen nor the Heilsgeschichten that you heard from your parents are really the same thing as historical research.

Kevin, I know the history of fundamentalism as well as you do. Your own background colors your views just as much as my background colors mine.

There was and is a large group of fundamentalists in the 1950s to 1970s that didn’t buy the argument or rationale of the secondary separationists. That’s an undisputed fact. This group was neither neo-evangelical or whatever name you are now putting on your branch of the movement. This group self-identifed as fundamentalists regardless of what you decide to label them today.

Finally, I never once stated that fundamentalism does not include any form of secondary separation. I said that there were three branches of fundamentalism, one of which didn’t want to fellowship with apostates or separate from brothers and sisters in Christ. This middle group refused to be bullied into separation they believed to be unbiblical. It is this group that I am claiming has the right to the term “historic fundamentalism.” That’s where we disagree. You claimed that secondary separation is a required doctrine of fundamentalism. I have shown from the history of the movement that that is not the case.

I expect better from you, Kevin. I expect you to represent other people’s words and statements correctly. Go back and read what I wrote.

Blessings.

You wrote:

There was and is a large group of fundamentalists in the 1950s to 1970s that didn’t buy the argument or rationale of the secondary separationists. That’s an undisputed fact. This group was neither neo-evangelical or whatever name you are now putting on your branch of the movement. This group self-identifed as fundamentalists regardless of what you decide to label them today.

I am genuinely curious - who were these people? How were they distinguished from new evangelicals? Did contemporary evangelicals and fundamentalists recognize and acknowledge these men were charting a middle course?

I’m asking for historical information to back up your claim. I am honestly intrigued, because I’ve never heard of these folks before. That doesn’t mean anything, of course, but I suspect many other folks are wondering the same thing.

[TylerR]

You wrote:

There was and is a large group of fundamentalists in the 1950s to 1970s that didn’t buy the argument or rationale of the secondary separationists. That’s an undisputed fact. This group was neither neo-evangelical or whatever name you are now putting on your branch of the movement. This group self-identifed as fundamentalists regardless of what you decide to label them today.

I am genuinely curious - who were these people? How were they distinguished from new evangelicals? Did contemporary evangelicals and fundamentalists recognize and acknowledge these men were charting a middle course?

I’m asking for historical information to back up your claim. I am honestly intrigued, because I’ve never heard of these folks before. That doesn’t mean anything, of course, but I suspect many other folks are wondering the same thing.

CBA, Campus Crusade for Christ, numerous independent Baptist churches that pulled out of the American Baptist Convention, Grace Brethren Churches, Free Methodists, etc.

Groups that were largely untouched by the fundamentalist/modernist controvery such as the EFCA and BGC.

The “leaders” of the neo evangelical movement went one way. The “leaders” of the secondary separationists who opposed the neo evangelicals went another way. And then there was the huge middle group fof fundamentalists that didn’t follow either group of leaders. This group emerged through the 50s to the 80s and have become known as “conservative evangelicals” by the secondary separationists. Most people in this middle group simply called themselves Bible-believing. They believed in the fundamentals of the faith, were willing to separate over them, and sought to live holy lives according to the scriptures.

[TylerR]

I am genuinely curious - who were these people? How were they distinguished from new evangelicals? Did contemporary evangelicals and fundamentalists recognize and acknowledge these men were charting a middle course?

I’m asking for historical information to back up your claim. I am honestly intrigued, because I’ve never heard of these folks before. That doesn’t mean anything, of course, but I suspect many other folks are wondering the same thing.

Tyler,

There was indeed a middle group, neither neoevangelical nor fundamentalist. If you wish, you can find documentation in John Hannah’s history of Dallas Seminary. John does a pretty good job of showing how neoevangelicalism broke up fundamentalism. One of his poster-boys for the fundamentalist side is Ernest Pickering, and Hannah includes correspondence that shows the stress and then fracture between Pickering and Walvoord.

Dallas remained in this position until 1972 (neither fellowshipping with liberals nor separating from neoevangelicals). During that time there were still fundamentalists on the faculty—George Houghton, for example. But in 1972, Dallas took the step of participating in Explo 72, which involved the school in direct fellowship with unbelievers. That’s when the fundamentalists finally left (secondary separation).

During the mid-90s I was doing a PhD class at Dallas on the development of evangelical theology. The class was using the founding of Fuller Seminary as a lens into early neoevangelicalism (1947), and comparing it with Bernard Ramm’s article, “Welcome, Green Grass Evangelicals,” which was one of the early statements of the Evangelical Left. One of my colleagues asked the professor (who shall remain unnamed) where he thought that Dallas Seminary should be located in the evangelical spectrum. The professor turned to me and said, “Kevin, what do you think?”

I replied, “It seems to me that Dallas has now crossed every one of the lines that characterized early neoevangelicalism. I’d say DTS is in 1947.”

His response: “Oh, no. I disagree. Dallas Seminary is not in 1947, it’s in 1974. We’ve accepted every one of Ramm’s positions except his denial of inerrancy.”

I was floored, but in retrospect, I think he was probably right. The whole evangelical spectrum has shifted dramatically to the Left since the 1970s.

At any rate, there definitely was (and is) a middle position between fundamentalism and Indifferentism. During the 50s through the 70s, this ground was occupied by institutions like Moody, Philadelphia College of the Bible, and Dallas Seminary. Today it is held by TGC and T4G. Not strictly fundamentalist, but certainly not neoevangelical.

Campus Crusade, however, was certainly a neoevangelical organization. And a coalition of neo- and moderate evangelicals managed to force the fundamentalists out of leadership in the CBA of A by about 1965 (can anybody really deny that Vernon Grounds was a neoevangelical?).

Keep in mind, however, that the lines between these camps are not always clear and distinct. Organized groups could include people representing a variety of positions. The IFCA tended to straddle the line between moderate evangelicalism and fundamentalism—which is why the OBF finally pulled out. The GARBC included (and probably still does include) individuals all the way from a rather centrist evangelicalism into hyper-fundamentalism. The FBFI and the NTAIBC have included both mainstream (historic) fundamentalists and hyper-fundamentalists. Institutions represent spectra upon the evangelical spectrum.

For what it’s worth, I think that Northland is still a fundamentalist institution. Whatever Matt says about secondary separation, he still believes it and practices it to some degree. I can’t imagine that NIU would knowingly permit an Indifferentist in a leadership position on their campus, even temporarily. No one is obligated to approve its practice just because it is fundamentalist, though. But as Northland continues not to change, we don’t really know what it isn’t changing into.

[TylerR]

You wrote:

There was and is a large group of fundamentalists in the 1950s to 1970s that didn’t buy the argument or rationale of the secondary separationists. That’s an undisputed fact. This group was neither neo-evangelical or whatever name you are now putting on your branch of the movement. This group self-identifed as fundamentalists regardless of what you decide to label them today.

I am genuinely curious - who were these people? How were they distinguished from new evangelicals? Did contemporary evangelicals and fundamentalists recognize and acknowledge these men were charting a middle course?

I’m asking for historical information to back up your claim. I am honestly intrigued, because I’ve never heard of these folks before. That doesn’t mean anything, of course, but I suspect many other folks are wondering the same thing.

Tyler,

In the 50s, those practicing secondary separation saw only three categories: apostates/liberals, neo evangelicals, and fundamentalists. If a fundamentalist fellowshipped with a neo evangelical and refused to separate, the secondary separationists labeled his fundamentalist brother a new evangelical.

Don Johnson can vouch for this.

The fundamentalists who refused to separate from neo evangelicals still viewed themselves as fundamentalists. But as the rhetoric was ratcheted up, they didn’t see much value in being abused over a term. So they went about their business of preaching the Gospel without worrying about the label. By the 70s and even 80s, these same people could be heard saying things like, “I believe in the fundamentals of the faith, it’s the ‘ist’ part that I have a problem with.” What they meant by this is that the pejorative, incessant name calling was not for them and they wanted no part of it.

We are seeing this play out again with the Young Fundamentalists today (90s to 2010s). They are fundamentalists but they are tired of the “ist.” They are searching for fellowships and denominations that focus on the fundamentals of the faith and doctrine over personalities and secondary separation. That’s why you see them serving in the EFCA, BGC, CBA, SBC, PCA, etc.

And many fundamentalists are calling these Young Fundamentalists “new evangelicals.” Again, Don Johnson can vouch for this.

Some fundamentalists, however, now recognize a fourth group and are labeling them “conservative evangelicals.” But as pointed out in my other emails, many of these people are really in the stream of historic fundamentalism. But, as in most movements, the most vocal contingent often gets away with defining who is and who isn’t in the movement.

If you were to renounce me and refuse to fellowship with me because I joined an EFCA church, how long do you think I would enjoy identifiying with the label of your group?

Blessings.

[Don Sailer]

Blessings.

Don,

Thank you for your kind wishes. But I’m still perplexed. I have no idea what you mean when you say, “… whatever name you are now putting on your branch of the movement.” So far, you have given no evidence of even knowing what “my” branch of the movement is. Who do you think I am?

As for the “large group” of fundamentalists who “didn’t buy the argument” for secondary separation—how can this possibly be an undisputed fact when it is precisely what we are disputing?

Here’s what we agree on: what had been a single fundamentalist movement up until the 1950s split dramatically over the question of what to do about Indifferentists. We also agree that the centrist group (the group that was willing to look to Indifferentists for leadership) stopped calling itself fundamentalist.

We disagree over two points. The first is whether both positions represent a faithful implementation of the original fundamentalist idea. You think they do. I think that only the [later] fundamentalist position stands in continuity with the core principles of fundamentalism in the 1920s and 1930s. Second, you seem to think that the middle group stopped calling itself fundamentalist because of some conspiracy to drive them from the movement. Actually, it was the other way ‘round. The middle group chose to embrace the leadership of the Indifferentists (the neoevangelicals), and part of the price for being accepted was a willingness to distance themselves from their fundamentalist ethos and background.

In either case, my version of fundamentalism has not accused the middle group of being neoevangelicals. From my earliest training in ministry I was taught otherwise, and I have vigorously argued otherwise in public and in print. No games here, Don. Don’t expect me to read your mind. I never called you (or anyone in the middle group) a neoevangelical. In fact, I have defended the middle group from that charge.

Do you seriously want us to believe that Dever, Moher, Mahaney, Carson, Piper, MacArthur, etc., are waiting in line, hoping to be recognized as good fundamentalists? Is it not rather the case that they tend to distance themselves from the label whenever it is applied to them? Haven’t they chosen to call themselves evangelicals rather than fundamentalists? And isn’t conservative about as good a way of differentiating them from other evangelicals as can be found?

But all of this is, in a sense, a secondary issue. As an historian, it is an issue that interests me greatly, but it is still secondary. The primary issue is not “what is fundamentalistic,” but “what is right (biblical)?”

So let me ask you the $64K question. Actually, two questions. (1) Do you sincerely believe that Les Ollila diverted Northland Baptist Bible College from the founder’s intended mission?, and (2) Do you sincerely believe that Les Ollila took Northland Baptist Bible College away from biblical truth? ‘Cause I gotta tell you, I see it exactly the other way.

Kevin Bauder probably has answered you better than I can (though I will quibble somewhat with his descriptions).

[Don Sailer]

In the 50s, those practicing secondary separation saw only three categories: apostates/liberals, neo evangelicals, and fundamentalists. If a fundamentalist fellowshipped with a neo evangelical and refused to separate, the secondary separationists labeled his fundamentalist brother a new evangelical.

Don Johnson can vouch for this.

This is not true. Not in the 1950s at any rate. Perhaps this became the scenario somewhat in the 1960s and 70s.

The fight with the new evangelicals was brewing in the mid 50s, but it really wasn’t until 1957 that the battle lines were clearly drawn, as I recall. That was the occasion of Graham’s New York Crusade (or was it 1956? Going by memory…) At any rate, a big break between Graham, Henry, Christianity Today, Youth for Christ, and the NEA on one side and the Jones, John R. Rice, The Sword of the Lord and others on the other side. Of course there was a muddled middle. They were sorting out which side, if any, they belonged on.

By the 1970s, most of the dust had settled. I would think that at that point you could say that separatists saw only the three categories. But it took some time to get there.

[Don Sailer] We are seeing this play out again with the Young Fundamentalists today (90s to 2010s). They are fundamentalists but they are tired of the “ist.” They are searching for fellowships and denominations that focus on the fundamentals of the faith and doctrine over personalities and secondary separation. That’s why you see them serving in the EFCA, BGC, CBA, SBC, PCA, etc.

And many fundamentalists are calling these Young Fundamentalists “new evangelicals.” Again, Don Johnson can vouch for this.

On this point I would say that some fundamentalists use the term new evangelical to describe these people. I would say that many of these people exhibit some very marked similarities with new evangelicals, so it is not as if the term doesn’t loosely fit on them. Perhaps the only difference is that this new group isn’t advocating open fellowship with theological liberals for the sake of evangelism. But many of the other characteristics of NE are espoused by them. As a result, the term ‘loosely fits’ and so some use it. Perhaps we should call them NE-Lite. (Joke)

It is on the use of the term that I somewhat differ from Kevin’s descriptions. He wouldn’t call the group in the middle from about the 50s to early 70s “New Evangelicals”. I would. Most of them were not very separatistic at all, at least in my experience. I grew up in an evangelical church. There was a good deal of cooperation with all comers in various issues in the community as well as on a broader basis, when Graham or Leighton Ford crusades came into the area. But perhaps my experience was due to where I grew up. I am suspicious of the real size of the mushy middle. I don’t think there were as many in the middle as you seem to think.

FWIW

Don Johnson wrote:

Of course there was a muddled middle. They were sorting out which side, if any, they belonged on.

This encapsulates my thoughts on the issue. I had considered Dallas and Moody (and places like them) hard right evangelicals. I hadn’t considered whether there really was a third category for a time. Even now, I am not convinced there was a sure-fire third group.

Of course, I’ve only read about these battles and some of you have been around for a lot longer than me! My initial reaction was that we’re creating a neat third category where one didn’t actually exist. Perhaps I was wrong.

Don Johnson wrote:

He wouldn’t call the group in the middle from about the 50s to early 70s “New Evangelicals”. I would. Most of them were not very separatistic at all, at least in my experience.

This goes along with what I was taught. I have also read as much in McCune and Pickering. Different perspectives, however, are good.

Appreciate it.

[Don Johnson]

Kevin Bauder probably has answered you better than I can (though I will quibble somewhat with his descriptions).

[Don Sailer]

In the 50s, those practicing secondary separation saw only three categories: apostates/liberals, neo evangelicals, and fundamentalists. If a fundamentalist fellowshipped with a neo evangelical and refused to separate, the secondary separationists labeled his fundamentalist brother a new evangelical.

Don Johnson can vouch for this.

This is not true. Not in the 1950s at any rate. Perhaps this became the scenario somewhat in the 1960s and 70s.

The fight with the new evangelicals was brewing in the mid 50s, but it really wasn’t until 1957 that the battle lines were clearly drawn, as I recall. That was the occasion of Graham’s New York Crusade (or was it 1956? Going by memory…) At any rate, a big break between Graham, Henry, Christianity Today, Youth for Christ, and the NEA on one side and the Jones, John R. Rice, The Sword of the Lord and others on the other side. Of course there was a muddled middle. They were sorting out which side, if any, they belonged on.

By the 1970s, most of the dust had settled. I would think that at that point you could say that separatists saw only the three categories. But it took some time to get there.

[Don Sailer] We are seeing this play out again with the Young Fundamentalists today (90s to 2010s). They are fundamentalists but they are tired of the “ist.” They are searching for fellowships and denominations that focus on the fundamentals of the faith and doctrine over personalities and secondary separation. That’s why you see them serving in the EFCA, BGC, CBA, SBC, PCA, etc.

And many fundamentalists are calling these Young Fundamentalists “new evangelicals.” Again, Don Johnson can vouch for this.

On this point I would say that some fundamentalists use the term new evangelical to describe these people. I would say that many of these people exhibit some very marked similarities with new evangelicals, so it is not as if the term doesn’t loosely fit on them. Perhaps the only difference is that this new group isn’t advocating open fellowship with theological liberals for the sake of evangelism. But many of the other characteristics of NE are espoused by them. As a result, the term ‘loosely fits’ and so some use it. Perhaps we should call them NE-Lite. (Joke)

It is on the use of the term that I somewhat differ from Kevin’s descriptions. He wouldn’t call the group in the middle from about the 50s to early 70s “New Evangelicals”. I would. Most of them were not very separatistic at all, at least in my experience. I grew up in an evangelical church. There was a good deal of cooperation with all comers in various issues in the community as well as on a broader basis, when Graham or Leighton Ford crusades came into the area. But perhaps my experience was due to where I grew up. I am suspicious of the real size of the mushy middle. I don’t think there were as many in the middle as you seem to think.

FWIW

Thank you, Don Johnson. You confirmed for the most part what I am saying. I knew that you would and respect you for it.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

[Don Sailer]

Blessings.

Don,

Thank you for your kind wishes. But I’m still perplexed. I have no idea what you mean when you say, “… whatever name you are now putting on your branch of the movement.” So far, you have given no evidence of even knowing what “my” branch of the movement is. Who do you think I am?

As for the “large group” of fundamentalists who “didn’t buy the argument” for secondary separation—how can this possibly be an undisputed fact when it is precisely what we are disputing?

Here’s what we agree on: what had been a single fundamentalist movement up until the 1950s split dramatically over the question of what to do about Indifferentists. We also agree that the centrist group (the group that was willing to look to Indifferentists for leadership) stopped calling itself fundamentalist.

We disagree over two points. The first is whether both positions represent a faithful implementation of the original fundamentalist idea. You think they do. I think that only the [later] fundamentalist position stands in continuity with the core principles of fundamentalism in the 1920s and 1930s. Second, you seem to think that the middle group stopped calling itself fundamentalist because of some conspiracy to drive them from the movement. Actually, it was the other way ‘round. The middle group chose to embrace the leadership of the Indifferentists (the neoevangelicals), and part of the price for being accepted was a willingness to distance themselves from their fundamentalist ethos and background.

In either case, my version of fundamentalism has not accused the middle group of being neoevangelicals. From my earliest training in ministry I was taught otherwise, and I have vigorously argued otherwise in public and in print. No games here, Don. Don’t expect me to read your mind. I never called you (or anyone in the middle group) a neoevangelical. In fact, I have defended the middle group from that charge.

Do you seriously want us to believe that Dever, Moher, Mahaney, Carson, Piper, MacArthur, etc., are waiting in line, hoping to be recognized as good fundamentalists? Is it not rather the case that they tend to distance themselves from the label whenever it is applied to them? Haven’t they chosen to call themselves evangelicals rather than fundamentalists? And isn’t conservative about as good a way of differentiating them from other evangelicals as can be found?

But all of this is, in a sense, a secondary issue. As an historian, it is an issue that interests me greatly, but it is still secondary. The primary issue is not “what is fundamentalistic,” but “what is right (biblical)?”

So let me ask you the $64K question. Actually, two questions. (1) Do you sincerely believe that Les Ollila diverted Northland Baptist Bible College from the founder’s intended mission?, and (2) Do you sincerely believe that Les Ollila took Northland Baptist Bible College away from biblical truth? ‘Cause I gotta tell you, I see it exactly the other way.

Hi Kevin,

What group do I think that you are in? Fundamentalism.

By the way, you can have the term. You can define fundamentalism any way you want to.

That’s why I am staking my ground on the term “historic fundamentalism.” I am differentiating your fundamentalism and the way you view it from “historic fundamentalism.”

It was your brand of fundamentalism (Northland, Central, Maranatha, etc.) that labeled people like me in the 1980s “new evangelicals.” If I had a dollar for every time I heard that term thrown around I would be a rich man. Don Johnson has confirmed that many in fundamentalism considered people like me to be “new evangelicals.”

It’s nice to know that you don’t consider pastors in the EFCA, BGC, IFCA, etc. to be new evangelicals. But that wasn’t the position of the fundamentalists I knew in the 1980s.

Blessings,

Don Sailer