ACCC warns on the "Danger of Neo-fundamentalism," Kevin Bauder, Sharper Iron

“Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, a book promoted by the managers of the Sharper Iron website”

• Zondervan has a new book coming out this month: Four Views On The Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Filing on 09/06/2011)
• Evangelical Spectrum: Four Views or Two Views? (Book review by Kevin Mungons on Wed, 11/02/2011)
• Reflections on “The Book” - Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Book review by Jeff Straub on Thu, 11/10/2011)
• Audio interview with Kevin Bauder on “Four Views of the Spectrum of Evangelicalism” (Tue, 02/28/2012)

The review of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, starting on page 6, probably sheds more light on ideas behind the resolution. The author of the review, Kevin Hobi, is the Secretary for the ACCC.

http://www.ibfna.org/v1/attachments/article/95/The%20REVIEW%20March%202013.pdf

…and the Fundamentalist Civil War continues.

edit

Taken from the IFBNA letter:

With blushed face he apologizes for his position’s failure to produce “a critical history of fundamentalism.” Ashamed he admits, “Nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available” (19). The apologies are so sweeping, each requires a footnote explanation that attempts to disallow reasonable exceptions to his claims.

Um…he has to ‘apologize’ because it’s true. I’m not sure what or why this has to be looked on as some sort of ‘disgrace’ or ‘apology’. Bauder isn’t writing to IFB Pastors (although I am sure many will read it). He’s writing primarily to a more academic audience, who would legitimately ask for further reading. It is to our shame that there is no such thing.

And frankly, if there were a ‘sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available’, we might not see a lot of the foolishness that exists in ‘fundamentalist’ (WTMA*) circles. Foolishness like marking Dr. Bauder as someone who is to be warned against or shunned or whatever.

He correctly explains that Roman Catholicism “is a system of religion that mixes faith with works in the application of salvation”
(31), and that confusion created by efforts, like the Manhattan Declaration, is “alarming” (33), but he is careful to temper these critical remarks by admitting, “Traditionally, its [Roman Catholicism’s] view of God and its understanding of the person of Christ are correct” (33).

Again, Dr. Bauder is correct. Look at the Vatican’s website statement on Christ. To admit that they have a correct understand of the person and work of Jesus is fact.

Perhaps the most damaging conclusion to fundamentalism, a theme that runs throughout the contributions of Drs. Bauder and Mohler to the book and is best expressed in the book’s final chapter, is that there should be a convergence of fundamentalists with confessional evangelicals in spite of their differences regarding separation over separation.

I’d be really interested in how a convergence of “fundamentalists” (WTMA*) with “confessional evangelicals” (WTMA*) is a threat to anyone. I’m not saying that we should be undiscerning in our fellowship and efforts, but I really don’t understand this paradigm of them vs. us. I’d love to see a serious treatment of that topic in light of 1 Cor. 1, Eph. 2, and a few other passages.

*WTMA - Whatever that means anymore.

The unintentional juxtaposition of the ACCC and the GARBC resolutions in today’s filings is stunning.

One group (the GARBC) comes across as reasonable and sane AND

The other (the ACCC) as unreasonable!

If memory serves, wasn’t the ACCC a fundamentalist “stream” previously identified as healthy by Dr. B?

Huh.

How much hope is there for a Christian movement that cannot rejoice in an orthodox expression of Trinitarianism when noted alongside serious reservations as to the expressor’s other errors?

I’d say not much, but there is still a Primitive Baptist Church in my town- a good reminder of how tenacious the last strands of a lost/muisguided cause can be.

As a member of the ACCC, I am saddened to see a resolution like this where concerns are addressed by taking pot shots at people. It does not have my support.

I followed the second link, but didn’t really see a response by Dr. Bauder, just an announcement of the resolution on religious affections.

From the IFBNA review of Bauder’s chapter in Four Views: “He condemns utilization of the King James Bible as the only acceptable English version as anti-biblical, whereas fundamentalists with a correct view of preservation have understood historically that misunderstandings in this area are misguided attempts
to defend the inerrancy of scripture.”

I guess that leaves BJU’s revered Dr. Panosian outside the group of “fundamentalists with a correct view of preservation.” I recall from an upper level history/philosophy class his one-word summation of the KJVO position: “bibliolatry.”

I know it’s an ongoing struggle to define fundamentalism properly, but if Hobi’s definition is the correct one, he can have fundamentalism. It’s dead, even if he doesn’t know it yet. I certainly hope Hobi is, or turns out to be, completely wrong.

I guess should comment? The resolution says we “promoted” the four views book. … but it’s four views. Which view did we promote? Clearly, somebody is not clear on the concept of a multi-view book or on what makes books valuable in general. There does not need to be any agreement with a book at all to find it valuable or to recommend it. But certainly a multi-view book is a study of themes and positions and not an endorsement of any one of them.

I should be past surprise by now, but—I still find it amazing to see people identify open discussion of opposing ideas as some kind of compromise.

[Aaron Blumer] Clearly, somebody is not clear on … what makes books valuable in general.

That’s the scary part!

The next ACCC resolution will be against the ACCC, because there are clearly men with whom it disagrees within its ranks, and therefore it cannot be trusted as a bastion of pure fundamentalism. Come out and be separate…from…er…us.

The question is no longer whether one practices separation from apostasy and false doctrine.

The question is no longer separation from brethren who don’t practice separation from apostasy and false doctrine.

It seems to be that we should practice separation from brethren who aren’t as separated as we are.

Fundamentalism was originally a movement primarily marked by separation from false doctrine.

Then it became a movement primarily marked by separation from Christians who had contact with those who held false doctrine.

Now it seems that fundamentalism is separating from itself and becoming the “fractured fundamentalism” I heard predicted at a Bible Conference at BJU in 1976.

And, as Aaron said, I should be past surprise by now, but—I still find it amazing to see people identify open discussion of opposing ideas as some kind of compromise.

Some consider any contact with those outside The Village compromise.

Two thoughts

1) It wasn’t Bauder who promoted a convergence of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the book - that was more Mohler and the editors of the book: Colin Hansen (a conservative evangelical) and Andrew Naselli (who is now teaching at a conservative evangelical institution but has fundamentalist roots). So they should really mark and avoid Naselli not Bauder.

2) Someone mentioned that GARBC is better than the ACC because its resolutions are more sane. The implication is that they don’t attack others. I was a bit disappointed to see them come after the “redemptive historical” hermeneutic as a grievous error in their resolution on biblical hermeneutics. That seems in step with the fundamentalist mentality of painting other views as black as possible and promoting their own position with a remnant-mentality that all other groups are wrong. If you read Graemesworthy or some of the material from Dennis Johnson or Edmund Clowney, from Westminster Theological Seminary (on either coast), you would see a careful, literal approach to hermeneutics that just differs on some of the interpretations of prophecy and that does find more typology in the OT - very much like the NT writers did. They espouse a literal hermeneutic that is actually grammatical and historical - emphasizing the study of history to learn what genres were used and how they functioned as we apply that to our literal hermeneutical efforts.

* Link to Religious Affections has gone dead. But in it Dr Bauder mentioned that he is both a member of the ACCC and an ACCC chaplain.

The ACCC process on membership

http://www.amcouncilcc.org/aboutus.html

Section 5. Expulsion from Membership: Expulsion from membership may occur when a Constituent Body, local church or individual member does not maintain a separatist position in harmony with the ACCC doctrine and practice. Expulsion will require prior notification of the proposed action followed by a three-fourths vote of the Executive Committee and majority approval of the Council Members at an Annual Meeting.

Expulsion of Dr Bauder would be incredibly short sighted!

To find the original material usually using google and going to the cached version works.

I copied the original URL from above into google search. Google retrieved a link to the article and the first 10 words or so. There is a little green mark to the right of the text. Click on the little green mark and a small popup shows cached and share. Click on cached and there is the article which was deleted (or whatever Religious Affections did to it).