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

[TylerR]

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.

Tyler,

Don Johnson and Kevin Bauder just acknowledged that there is/was a third group in the middle. Historically and sociologically, it is inconceivable to think that the vast numbers of fundamentalists neatly followed the new evangelical leaders out fundamentalism or followed the advocates of secondary separation. Life just doesn’t work this way. There was no clean split or division. There was movement on the left and a reaction on the right. And then there was the “muddled” middle.

Anyone who takes a step back from the movement and looks at the bigger picture can see that there was a large middle group of fundamentalists who did neither. But because they did neither, they were no longer true fundamentalists in the eyes of those who practiced secondary separation. Kevin Bauder proves this point. He stated that if you don’t practice secondary separation, you can’t be a fundamentalist. It is a defining criteria for him.

Now put this statement back into its historical context. It was a blood bath in the 50s to 70s. If you didn’t answer the question about Billy Graham the right way, you were not a fundamentalists no matter how much you held to the fundamentals and separated from apostates. The wrong answer to the question put you outside of the fundamentalist movement. Conspiracy? No. Hard core name calling and labeling of pastors and churches for not holding the right position on Billy Graham or some application of secondary separation? Yes.

Now if a bunch of your fundamentalist friends start calling a bunch of your other fundamentalist friends “new evangelical,” what do you think is going to happen? That the name callers are backing off and now calling this group “conservative evangelicals” is an improvement. :) However, let’s not kid ourselves, there is still a significant group of fundamentalists who believe NIU is now “new evangelical.” Their charge is that NIU is being deceptive by not acknowledging that they are now a new evangelical institution.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this would be the position of Don Johnson and Lou M.

Blessings,

Don Sailer

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your input concerning the middle position. I found your input very informative. I am concerned about the accuracy of your statement below:

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. (emphasis added)

My concern centers specifically around your last statement @ this middle position “Today it is held by TGC and T4G.” Because I was just listening to D.A. Carson’s 2007 GC presentation: “The Plans and Purposes of the Gospel coalition” (8/28/2007). Carson clearly states that he understands the Gospel Coalition to be in the Evangelical Center of 50-60 years ago represented by C.F.H. Henry, Billy Graham, as he then was, H.J. Ockenga et.al. He further states that the Carl F.H.Henry Center was a major contributor to the beginnings of this movement. In his presentation he specifically names T4G as a cooperative fellowship. In fact, their meetings are on opposite years in oder to promote one another.

Either the Gospel Coalition has moved from its statements by one of its founding leaders, or it is, as it was, an expression of the center of evangelicalism as expressed in the positions of the founding members of neo-evangelicalism.

Have some Fundamentalists moved toward the left, or has the GC moved toward the right, or a little of each?

Joel Sandahl

[Don Sailer]

Now if a bunch of your fundamentalist friends start calling a bunch of your other fundamentalist friends “new evangelical,” what do you think is going to happen? That the name callers are backing off and now calling this group “conservative evangelicals” is an improvement. :) However, let’s not kid ourselves, there is still a significant group of fundamentalists who believe NIU is now “new evangelical.” Their charge is that NIU is being deceptive by not acknowledging that they are now a new evangelical institution.

Don,

I am not sure whether or not there is a significant group of fundamentalists who believe NIU is now “new-evangelical.” Any change in doctrinal or practical position may open up an institution to questioning, censure or, in less mature discussions, name calling.

That being said, there are legitimate reasons for questioning the direction.

The tenets of New Evangelicalism include “a willingness to re-examine beliefs concerning the Work of the Holy Spirit”, “a more tolerant attitude toward varying views of eschatology”, “a shift away from so-called extreme dispensationalism”, and “a reopening of the subject of biblical inspiriation” among others.

In Matt Olson’s statement, NIU’s postional statements in the last years, and their practical position come in contact of each of these tenets. It certainly seems legitimate to question such a position, or even to put such a position into question.

Just in case one questions the inclusion of “a reopening of the subject of biblical inspiriation” in the list … assigning Scriptural statements as “non-essential” always brings one’s view of inspiration into my mind.

Some Bible believers are of the opinion, that there are not non-essential doctrines, whether included in The Fundamentals, or not. Some believers have paid for these truths with their blood.

I am concerned with the direction!

Joel Sandahl

Either the Gospel Coalition has moved from its statements by one of its founding leaders, or it is, as it was, an expression of the center of evangelicalism as expressed in the positions of the founding members of neo-evangelicalism.

Have some Fundamentalists moved toward the left, or has the GC moved toward the right, or a little of each?

I think it’s a little of both. You’ve got quite a few frustrated or troubled younger ‘fundamentalists’ that are seeing problems in the IFB ‘movement’ and the rightward trend in the IFB leadership (the increasing associations with KJVO and other types - separation over things that aren’t discussed in the Scripture), and quite a few frustrated and fed up ‘evangelicals’ that are concerned about the utter lack of doctrine or gospel touchstones in their movement (MacArthur, Johnson) and are trying to bring that movement back to some semblance of orthodoxy.

That’s why a lot of guys, I think, were stunned and pleased to find out about ministries and personalities like MacArthur, Dever, and Mohler were out there, and that’s why they’re increasing popular in our ‘circles’. I can’t speak for everyone out there, but I know that’s what happened to me.

Of course, at the end of the day, there’s only one church anyway. So birds of a feather will flock together because they share the same values, priorities, goals and work, and the same Savior.

[Don Sailer] Kevin Bauder proves this point. He stated that if you don’t practice secondary separation, you can’t be a fundamentalist. It is a defining criteria for him.

I have been associated with Northland since 1981, first as a “staff kid,” later as a student, and since as a ministry leader who has seen several students attend there over the last 17 years. In my opinion, Northland has always emphasized the heart of the believer and Biblical principles over man-made rules and personal preferences. This is not new, maybe new application but not a new “heart.” I feel bad for those critics who still feel compelled to add things to Scripture.

Doctrine is one thing, but all these other preferences are just “extra-Scriptural.” I truly believe all this “I’m of this camp and you’re of this other camp” is pleasing to Satan and harming the mission of the Gospel. Let’s be of Christ and Christ alone!

Doctrine should never change, but other change is going to happen and culture will change. The piano was once a “heathen instrument of the saloons,” Sunday School was once for those poor children unable to attend school due to work demands, Sunday evening services were unheard of due to lack of lighting, and even the King James Version of the Bible was the radical new translation of its time written in the modern tongue of the people.

Again, to reiterate - change happens though the doctrines stay the same. We can even differ in our preferences yet still fellowship as believers in the centerpiece of our faith - Christ!

Go Pioneers!

[Don Sailer]

Don Johnson and Kevin Bauder just acknowledged that there is/was a third group in the middle. Historically and sociologically, it is inconceivable to think that the vast numbers of fundamentalists neatly followed the new evangelical leaders out fundamentalism or followed the advocates of secondary separation. Life just doesn’t work this way. There was no clean split or division. There was movement on the left and a reaction on the right. And then there was the “muddled” middle.

I’d like to be clear in what I am saying on this point. While it took time for things to sort themselves out, the “muddled middle” position was not a permanent or long-lasting position. It was a position of indecision. Most of those in the middle went the new evangelical route eventually. They accepted the leadership of Christianity Today and Billy Graham et al. The current “conservative evangelicals” are not the heirs of the middle, they are a belated and somewhat confused reaction to the excesses of what evangelicalism became. They are moving away from the new evangelicalism, but are studiously not moving toward fundamentalism.

[Don Sailer]

Now put this statement back into its historical context. It was a blood bath in the 50s to 70s. If you didn’t answer the question about Billy Graham the right way, you were not a fundamentalists no matter how much you held to the fundamentals and separated from apostates. The wrong answer to the question put you outside of the fundamentalist movement. Conspiracy? No. Hard core name calling and labeling of pastors and churches for not holding the right position on Billy Graham or some application of secondary separation? Yes.

Blood bath? Right. Talk about rhetoric.

However, your statement demonstrates my point in the paragraph above. The muddled middle primarily accepted the New Evangelical leadership. If you are following Graham, what does that make you?

[Don Sailer] However, let’s not kid ourselves, there is still a significant group of fundamentalists who believe NIU is now “new evangelical.” Their charge is that NIU is being deceptive by not acknowledging that they are now a new evangelical institution.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this would be the position of Don Johnson and Lou M.

I have not charged NIU with being New Evangelical. I’ve just said they have been wrong in what they are currently saying and doing.

I do think NIU has been deceptive in claiming that they have not changed when in fact they have been changing.

If NIU embraces new evangelical tenets as outlined by the new evangelicals themselves, what would that make them? Please note that I am not saying that has happened. The errors that they are making would tend in that direction, but I am not certain they are there yet.

[Jay]

Have some Fundamentalists moved toward the left, or has the GC moved toward the right, or a little of each?

I think it’s a little of both. You’ve got quite a few frustrated or troubled younger ‘fundamentalists’ that are seeing problems in the IFB ‘movement’ and the rightward trend in the IFB leadership (the increasing associations with KJVO and other types - separation over things that aren’t discussed in the Scripture), and quite a few frustrated and fed up ‘evangelicals’ that are concerned about the utter lack of doctrine or gospel touchstones in their movement (MacArthur, Johnson) and are trying to bring that movement back to some semblance of orthodoxy.

That’s why a lot of guys, I think, were stunned and pleased to find out about ministries and personalities like MacArthur, Dever, and Mohler were out there, and that’s why they’re increasing popular in our ‘circles’. I can’t speak for everyone out there, but I know that’s what happened to me.

Jay, the problem with that thinking is that there are huge errors in the evangelical world, including a too casual approach to worldliness. When I was your age there were fundamentalist leaders who frustrated me, too. There were popular evangelical speakers then, too. They were attractive for a time, but one could see that following them meant an entirely different sort of ministry. I chose to embrace fundamentalist principles in spite of the fundamentalists who frustrated me. Some of my friends (and family) went the other direction.

The fruit of those decisions make me very satisfied with the choice I made.

I copied the paragraph below from the Ketchum thread, because it is very germane to the issue here:

iKuyper wrote:

When the Gospel is no more the center of a movement, I think frustration and a little Pauline rebuke is natural and warranted. Move on. Do ministry. Fight apostates. Defend and preach the Gospel. It’s easier said than done to avoid the discussion. It actually comes and find you. Matt Olson and Northland, unfortunately, have to defend to the Fundamentalist “public” that they are not going down the slopes of apostasy. That conversation has tracked them down, not the other way around. So yes, a part of me wants to ignore, another cannot.

Nobody is suggesting NIU is going downward into apostasy. Nobody is suggesting evangelicalism as a whole is an apostate movement. What fundamentalists are concerned about is a philosophy of ministry; a mindset about how ministry is done.

Some of us suggest NIU’s stance on music is indicative of a changing philosophy. Others are concerned about charismatic connections in conflict with their doctrinal statement. Some are concerned that their repudiation of secondary separation is wrong. Still others say the rest of us are troublemakers for bringing this up.

I doubt any of us go to church and preach against NIU.

Move on. Do ministry. Fight apostates. Defend and preach the Gospel. It’s easier said than done to avoid the discussion.

Amen! We all do these things. However, SI exists as a forum for fundamentalists to discuss things. Isn’t this worth discussing? I enjoy the different perspectives I get here. It has challenged my own comfort zone. It has made me think. If we just wanted to all get along, we wouldn’t need SI. We could just talk with our own circle of friends, you know - the one’s who all agree with us anyway.

When the Gospel is no more the center of a movement, I think frustration and a little Pauline rebuke is natural and warranted.

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting the Gospel is not the center of Christianity. However, in the context of an inter-movement discussion over a philosophy of ministry, this is not the issue at hand. We’re not talking about whether the Gospel is the center - we’re discussing how to implement God’s word in ministry. I would also point out that a call for unity for the sake of the Gospel above all else is a historic hallmark of the original new evangelicalism.

Chip wrote:

Actually Don, he said secondary separation is core to historic fundamentalism. From the beginning, fundamentalists have been willing to separate from brothers as well as heretics, an historic fact no amount of posturing can change.

This is the whole issue. It is not about doctrine - it is about standing fast for a militant and separatist philosophy of ministry. The point of contention, as Don just pointed out, is that there are grave concerns that NIU is fundamentally changing their approach. This statement by Matt Olson suggests they have changed their approach:

If you are talking about our being willing to separate over “cultural fundamentalism” and its demands to separate over Bible translations, music, dress, methods of ministry, secondary associations, etc., the answer is an equally resolute, “No.” We cannot. Our consciences before God will not allow us to draw artificial lines of separation where God Himself has not drawn them.

This unequivocal statement from Matt Olson, which I appreciate, allows fundamentalists to see where the school stands and make the appropriate decisions according to individual conscience.

[Don Johnson] Jay, the problem with that thinking is that there are huge errors in the evangelical world, including a too casual approach to worldliness. When I was your age there were fundamentalist leaders who frustrated me, too. There were popular evangelical speakers then, too. They were attractive for a time, but one could see that following them meant an entirely different sort of ministry. I chose to embrace fundamentalist principles in spite of the fundamentalists who frustrated me. Some of my friends (and family) went the other direction.

The fruit of those decisions make me very satisfied with the choice I made.

Hey Don-

I agree. I’ve been hard on Driscoll, Bell, Warren and others here on SI, and I want no part of that ‘evangelical’ mess.

I think of it like being trapped in a firefight - I’ll take shelter with the guys that are firing on the enemy (whether the unsaved that need Christ or the apostate/liberal/hyper) rather than hanging out with ‘my guys’ that keep deliberately shooting at me (or other soldiers/slaves) because we act differently than they do. I’m not much for belonging to any group (YF, Cons. Evang, Fundy) any more.

I never made any of the changes that I made (Bible Version, Music, etc) because I wanted to be accepted by a group. I made the change on Bible Versions because I was getting a lot more out of a newer translation than I was out of my KJV. I made the change on music because that’s where my questions and principles took me. As I noted before, one of those changes cost me…but they were changes I felt I needed to make to best line up with Scripture.

I think that you and I are pretty close on a lot of things doctrinally, but you draw some outworking lines differently than I do on some things, which is your right and duty (thinking of the individual priesthood of believers now). I have different conclusions that I think are better. I’m not going to fight with you on that, although I will try to defend the conclusions that I arrived at (since this is a discussion board) and try to even persuade you to come around to my view or at least understand it a little better.

If you’re ever in the area, shoot me a line and we’ll link up at some point. It would be nice to meet you.

Don Johnson (Jeremiah 33:3 :) ) mentioned the problem of “a too casual approach to worldliness” to JayC a few comments ago. In light of that, I found it interesting to read an entry from old friend Chuck Phelps on Lou Martuneac’s blog this morning. Frame of reference for all this- before Chuck pastored in Concord, NH (not to mention the brief tenure as Marantha’s president), he served as youth pastor alongside Matt Olson, now of NIU.

Chuck objects to the distinction between historic and cultural Fundamentalism, and essentially recognizes those whom are being wrongfully labeled as “cultural Fundamentalists” (and subsequently distanced from by people like Olson/NIU) are simply practicing personal separation. To support his point, he provides a quote by Charles Spurgeon:

“At the present time it is a matter of notoriety that preachers of no mean repute defend the play-house, and do so because they have been seen there. Is it any wonder that church members forget their vows of consecration and run with the unholy in the ways of frivolity, when they hear that persons are tolerated in the pastorate who do the same? … . The fact is that many would like to unite church and stage, cards and prayers, dancing and sacraments. If we are powerless to stem this torrent, we can at least warn men of its existence, and entreat them to keep out of it. When the old faith is gone, and enthusiasm for the gospel is extinct, it is no wonder that people seek something else in the way of delight. Lacking bread, they feed on ashes; rejecting the way of the Lord, they run greedily in the path of folly.” (The Sword and the Trowel, 1887)

Now, I understand the need for personal separation. It seems to me, however, that the quote, while demonstrating that Christians do make specific applications, those applications do change over time- which would seem to me to actually support NIU/Olson’s position more.

• I’ve attended conferences at Phelps’ church in NH where elaborate skits were part of the program and performed at the pulpit/platform/stage (essentially for comic relief).
• Chuck’s current church in Indianapolis prominently features a youth ministry (Youth EDGE) that invites teens to “Come to have a blast by playing games, watching skits, and eating food (sometimes).”

Just those two applications alone would seem to fit categories of expression that Spurgeon would not have recognized as legitimate and would have warned others about. Yet Chuck observes:

Beware of those who belittle personal separation by attacking “cultural fundamentalism.” To belittle separatism is to belittle Scripture and to ignore what it means to live a life of consecration. It’s not about “cultural fundamentalism,” it never has been. It’s about living a consecrated life of personal separation to please a holy God.

Don, as a fellow FBFI member and BJU grad with Chuck, maybe you can help me out here. How can we determine which elements should be personally separated from, and when the statute of limitations runs out and it becomes acceptable to incorporate methods into our ministry approach? Is JayC or NIU/Olson’s problem that he just hasn’t waited long enough? Because though we need to personally separate, it seems evident that we don’t need to separate to the extent Spurgeon did, at least from Chuck’s perspective.

[Greg Linscott]

Don, as a fellow FBFI member and BJU grad with Chuck, maybe you can help me out here. How can we determine which elements should be personally separated from, and when the statute of limitations runs out and it becomes acceptable to incorporate methods into our ministry approach? Is JayC or NIU/Olson’s problem that he just hasn’t waited long enough? Because though we need to personally separate, it seems evident that we don’t need to separate to the extent Spurgeon did, at least from Chuck’s perspective.

Well, Chuck will have to speak for himself, but I would venture to guess that what Spurgeon meant by a playhouse was quite different from skits in a church youth group today. I think it is pretty fruitless speculation to try to determine what Spurgeon might think of that.

On the other hand, the response to the latest efforts by NIU in promoting their new praise band shows that even those who are not as conservative as me or Chuck are seeing something wrong with the picture. I would say that rather than merely not waiting long enough that Matt has stepped well into the methods and mannerisms of the world which invariably incorporates bits of the world’s philosophy as well. If it were not so plain, there would be far less reaction to it than we are currently seeing.

As evidence, I point to some of the other ‘cultural’ things that have been done at NIU over the last year or so. There were some things done around a campfire or something, some questionable rap bits or something like that. People from my side of the spectrum raised concerns over it, but they were barely discussed here at all. This time, we have seen how many threads discussing this? Fiver or six by now? Several of these have gone over 100 posts. We’re still talking about it. Some of the folks here on SI who could be described as somewhat to the “left” of me on questions like this are saying “hold on, that’s too far.”

So now Chuck Phelps is writing for Lou’s blog?

Oy.

For whatever it’s worth, I use ‘cultural fundamentalist’ because I can’t seem to come up with a better term (one that is not perjorative but does accurately portray the view they espouse). If Dr. Phelps wants to supply one that he doesn’t feel is as objectionable, he’s got an open invitation to do so…as long as someone tells me what he wants to use.

Seriously, though - I wanted to interact with something that Spurgeon said:

The fact is that many would like to unite church and stage, cards and prayers, dancing and sacraments. If we are powerless to stem this torrent, we can at least warn men of its existence, and entreat them to keep out of it.

It seems to me that a lot of the arguments made - for music or whatever - are made as though people like myself are subversives, who are suspecting, now that we are in ‘positions of power’ (although I’m not) to introduce pop culture into churches because that’s been our whole interest and goal.

It strikes me as both disingenuous and uncharitable to argue this point, especially since several people on this site have stepped out to say that this was never the ‘goal’ in worship - and yes, I know Spurgeon wasn’t addressing SI users (which would be some SERIOUS forum blur ;) ). The position on music was where I was forced to as I evaluated what I believed and why. Those people (us people?) ought to be treated as confused or erring brothers, if we’re wrong, not as malicious false teachers, as so many would argue. Of course, it’s less fun to attack confused believers than it is to attack the ‘enemy’.

I’d also like to interact with something that Phelps said. I was curious, so I looked up culture in Dictionary.com. Here’s what it lists:

cul·ture

[kuhl-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, cul·tured, cul·tur·ing.

noun

1. The quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.

2. That which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.

3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.

4. development or improvement of the mind by education or training.

5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.

Now, here’s what Phelps said that I disagree with:

To belittle separatism is to belittle Scripture and to ignore what it means to live a life of consecration. It’s not about “cultural fundamentalism,” it never has been. It’s about living a consecrated life of personal separation to please a holy God.

And what he views as a consecrated life of personal separation is exactly what I call it - a culture that he chooses to enmesh himself in because he feels that it is ‘a life of personal separation’. Phelps errs when he argues that is he is not ‘cultural’. Culture isn’t just what tens of thousands of people do. It’s a style of living adopted by any group of people (as Dictionary.com notes, and as I correctly suspected). So it is disingenous to argue that ‘separation does not equal culture’ and then turn around and argue that ‘lack of separation is a result of ungodly culture’. Just say that my culture is more godly than your culture, which seems to be Aniol’s argument.

If you’re going to argue about culture, then at least realize that you do have one, whether you define it as ‘a consecrated life of personal separation’ or a ‘culture’, or as something else.

I would venture to guess that what Spurgeon meant by a playhouse was quite different from skits in a church youth group today.

I understand, Don. And yet, the churches Spurgeon warned of were not likely incorporating methods that would cause someone to mistake them for a playhouse of his day, anymore than Redeemed would be confused for, say, Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga.

I’m not defending NIU, by the way. Just questioning “our” reasoning… Not to mention that the behavior of Fundamentalism as a whole does seem to support the accusation that we’re simply 10-20 years behind the trends… Look, for example, at how many Fundamentalist schools are allowing women to wear pants… And I’m not trying to make a low blow. There was a day where if schools or churches would have allowed women to wear pants, the “guilty parties” would have been charged by many with worldliness (at least). Even today, the changes in that trend are pretty recent innovations in many of our schools (at least in respect to classroom dress), and some have probably not made the change, even- though if they did, it wouldn’t attract the attention it would have, say, 10 years ago.

I think it is pretty fruitless speculation to try to determine what Spurgeon might think of that.

I don’t know, I think his word “frivolity” pretty much makes it clear.