What Bob Jones was doing forty-six years ago.

For those who lost track, answers the  ridiculous  ACCC charge ACCC warns on the "Danger of Neo-fundamentalism," Kevin Bauder

Note: The ACCC website has changed since the previous filing. New link

And the resolution has been revised as well. 

Sharper Iron still "honorably mentioned"

The neo-fundamentalist call to the convergence of fundamentalists and evangelicals rang loud and clear 
from the Zondervan publication Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 
2011), a book promoted by the managers of the Sharper Iron website.

For Ralph Colas if you read this: Explains why I quit sending the ACCC an annual donation!

Seriously ... the ACCC has lost all  credibility! They as as dead as their old domain name. Into the dustbin of history go you. 

One must put brain in a jar on a shelf to get their logic.

The ACCC is living up to the charge that "Fundamentalism is neither fun, nor mental"

Tell us how you really feel. Also, please tell me how to attach an image to this new SI - I'm too stupid to figure it out.

Now, to real commentary:

I think this was a wonderful article. This is the kind of fundamentalism that is worth saving; one that forcefully and unapologetically engages in the marketplace of theological ideas instead of retreating to the backyard to sulk alone.

For example, I haven't seen any fundamentalist leader say anything about the "Jesus' Wife" fragment. Why not? It's culturally relevant, and it is (or was) trending near the top in FaceBook. People are interested in it. Why haven't fundamentalist leaders written anything in response to it? No, it falls to that dastardly compromiser, Al Mohler, to cover it in his podcast this morning. He did a very good job. I hope nobody separates from me now . . . 

Here is an excellent discussion of this fragment:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/

I just got off the road after a hard days traveling and was joyfully refreshed by this article.  

There are some things that intrigue me:

Why are some fundamentalists are more concerned about taking a stand against those they consider disobedient brethren than anything else. Two cases in point: 1) That fundamentalists must be separate from evangelicals (without any mention of a qualifier and  2) that the FBFI is superior to the ACCC because it's Baptist and the ACCC is inclusive.

Bauder's mention of the historical perspective made me wonder: What would today's fundamentalists do with Bob Jones Sr. when he was trying to take a stand inside an apostate denomination, with Bob Jones Jr. when he was trying to do the same in the National Association of Evangelicals, or Bob Ketcham in his early days in the Northern Baptist Convention? . And are they ever going to say anything positive about what Al Mohler did at Southern?

Thanks for the link. This is the best part:

If a husband were to genetically test his children to determine whether his wife had been faithful, and the tests returned indicating that that the children could not conclusively be proven to not be his, would this assure him of his wife’s fidelity? Could he then, based upon these tests, be confident that he had indeed fathered the children? Karen King has produced no new evidence to authenticate this fragment.  On the contrary, her prior contentions that the GJW fragment was (1) part of a literary codex and (2) was fourth century are now indefensible.  Her method of argumentation was not self-critical or objective, but will doubtlessly be sufficient for those who already want to believe.

Moderator Note: The Jesus "wife" comments ... please refrain from this thread and use this thread. Further Jesus "wife" comments on this thread will be deleted. 

We currently have no leader. If someone is a self appointed leader or for that matter just speaks out, arrows come from all directions. Who needs that? Who has time to write a treaties about a book that is 40 years old and the person involved in writing it died 16 years ago? We are better off not rehashing history but rather build a better future.

Ken Woodard wrote:

We currently have no leader. If someone is a self appointed leader or for that matter just speaks out, arrows come from all directions. Who needs that? Who has time to write a treaties about a book that is 40 years old and the person involved in writing it died 16 years ago? We are better off not rehashing history but rather build a better future.

You missed the point! The book published in 1968 matters because:  Bauder was accused of neo-fundamentalism (whatever that even means (but basically "neo-" prefix means "very bad" not "new") for being 1/4 of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism by non-other than the ACCC. Bauder's reference of the '68 book of which Bob Jones Jr is 1/5 demonstrates that he (Bauder) is mainstream historic fundamentalism! And that the ACCC resolution represents revisionist fundamentalism. 

We don't need A Leader. Fundamentalism (and conservative evangelicalism for that matter) needs many leaders. 

Jim wrote:

We don't need A Leader. Fundamentalism (and conservative evangelicalism for that matter) needs many leaders. 

While claiming independency and autonomy, there still is a form of leadership and organization in fundamentalism. When a mission agency hires someone with contacts within conservative evangelicalism and fundamental churches are encouraged by one or two leaders (?) to stop supporting said agency------there's leadership and organization. When a missionary get help on the field associates with Southern Baptists and finds that the fundamental churches that support him are being encouraged to stop supporting him----there's leadership and organization.

Hang on.  As Baptists - we believe in the priesthood of every believer.   Should we not be seeking to see Jesus increase and our 'profile' decrease?   Remember when 'Israel' sought an earthly King, God gave it to them but also warned them of the rod they were creating for their own back.   

JC wrote:

Hang on.  As Baptists - we believe in the priesthood of every believer.   Should we not be seeking to see Jesus increase and our 'profile' decrease?   Remember when 'Israel' sought an earthly King, God gave it to them but also warned them of the rod they were creating for their own back.   

I agree whole heartedly! This is the ideal. Sadly, in too many cases, it's not the reality.

JC wrote:

Hang on.  As Baptists - we believe in the priesthood of every believer.   Should we not be seeking to see Jesus increase and our 'profile' decrease?   Remember when 'Israel' sought an earthly King, God gave it to them but also warned them of the rod they were creating for their own back.   

JC, what do you do with 1 Cor. 11:1? "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 

Is there no place for human leadership?

Jim,

While I appreciate the fact that you have defended me, I have to say that I do not share your assessment of the ACCC. I believe that the organization still has an important mission and is worthy of support.

As far as I know, the ACCC is the only multi-denominational organization that is in a position to help fundamentalist Christians in a number of areas. For example, they are a snowplow organization for a number of small church groups in matters like endorsing military chaplains. These groups simply would not be able to get chaplains into the military if not for the work of the ACCC.

Also, as far as I know, the ACCC is the only fundamentalist organization that provides news coverage of the principal evangelical and ecumenical organizations such as the NAE, the NCC, and the WCC. Normally an ACCC official will attend the major meetings with press credentials and will release a full report. These reports include information that simply cannot be found elsewhere. They have proven invaluable for many years.

As for the leadership, they are men of principle whose character and position I respect. I was once an assistant pastor with Ralph Colas’ successor at South Holly Baptist Church. In that position, I saw first-hand the kind of ministry that he built. It was a good one. Furthermore, I pray that God allows me to serve him as faithfully and as long as Dr. Colas, who is now nearing the end of his race. He is a man whom I genuinely admire.

Officers include John McKnight, who once identified himself to me as a “Whitefieldian Methodist,” and David Mook of the Free Presbyterian Church. I love the kind of fellowship that these men represent. I want to see it increase.

The secretary of the ACCC is Kevin Hobi, pastor of New Boston Baptist Church in New Boston, New Hampshire. While I do not know Pastor Hobi well, people whose judgment I trust tell me that he is a good pastor whose ministry God is using to produce in His people the character of His Son. While Pastor Hobi and I disagree about a few things, our agreements are far greater than our differences, and far greater than my agreements with any of the conservative evangelical crowd. We are not enemies, we are friends and co-laborers. I do not want to weaken his hand in the important work that God has given him to do.

Yes, the ACCC took the liberty of disagreeing with me about a few things. I think that those disagreements were based largely upon a misunderstanding. The fact that the resolution has been revised probably indicates that the ACCC is trying to bring its utterances into line with the actual situation. Whether or not that is so, disagreements—even when publicly expressed—do not have to make us enemies. I value the ACCC, its people, and its ministry far too highly to be shaken by a little difference of opinion.

All of us are wrong sometimes. I have been plenty of times, and I will be again. If we just destroy each other every time one of us is wrong, then pretty soon none of us will be left. In fact, that’s one of the things that has hurt fundamentalism—the Young Left no less than the Old Right.

Anyway, the ACCC has my full support. I would encourage fundamentalists to attend its conferences and to consider joining as individual members. Come to think of it, I probably ought to drop them a check this week.

pvawter wrote:

 

JC wrote:

 

Hang on.  As Baptists - we believe in the priesthood of every believer.   Should we not be seeking to see Jesus increase and our 'profile' decrease?   Remember when 'Israel' sought an earthly King, God gave it to them but also warned them of the rod they were creating for their own back.   

 

 

JC, what do you do with 1 Cor. 11:1? "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 

Is there no place for human leadership?

Yes, I don't want to swing the pendulum too far and say that human leadership is intrinsically wrong.  A case can be made for a limited and low profile leadership in Christian organisations.   And often leaders are sought by the masses, not the leaders themselves. Yet, true Christian leadership will not seek status or fame for itself.

It is worth considering whether CEO brand, human leadership is even necessary for Christian organisations.  The elder-rule, brethren church model has some good safe-guards against today's celebrity, twitter-verse leadership culture.   

pvawter wrote:

 

 

JC wrote:

 

Hang on.  As Baptists - we believe in the priesthood of every believer.   Should we not be seeking to see Jesus increase and our 'profile' decrease?   Remember when 'Israel' sought an earthly King, God gave it to them but also warned them of the rod they were creating for their own back.   

 

 

JC, what do you do with 1 Cor. 11:1? "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 

Is there no place for human leadership?

 

Yes, I don't want to swing the pendulum too far and say that human leadership is intrinsically wrong.  A case can be made for a limited and low profile leadership in Christian organisations.   And often leaders are sought by the masses, not the leaders themselves. Yet, true Christian leadership will not seek status or fame for itself.

It is worth considering whether CEO brand, human leadership is even necessary for Christian organisations.  The elder-rule, brethren church model has some good safe-guards against today's celebrity, twitter-verse leadership culture.   

Regarding Paul:  Yes, he instructed others to imitate him (with the caveat of following Christ).   Paul was an apostle.  I am wary of any 'Christian' making apostolic leadership claims today.

Friends.....one and all,

I have been a member of the FBF. I am a member of the IFCA. My family came from the GARBC and then later a combination of the Sword/BBF and then BJ world. While I don't agree with everything written in the mentioned ACCC article, I'm with Kevin about the good the ACCC has done past and present.  I think maybe I'll secretly join all the groups and then just take over the historic fundamentalist world.

Yep - it's time........ to combine!

Worry not everyone - help is on the way!

Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - I'm just joking friends......

I have always appreciated Kevin's grace under criticism and while I considered Dr. Colas' initial response unfortunate, it reminded me at the time of the "sniping" at good brethren that is a blemish on fundamentalism.

I always admired the good things about the ACCC but it was intimated to me by a number of brethren that, were I to join the ACCC, it would not be looked upon well by some of my acquaintances because the ACCC was not exclusively Baptist. As I look back at those days the groups with which I was familiar (GARBC, FBF, NRBFC, ACCC, IFCA) were independent and distanced themselves from each other and only a favored few could enjoy fellowship with more than one and nobody could be welcome in them all. Is it still that way?

(Note: The NRBFC is the Northeast Regular Baptist Fellowship of Churches)

JC wrote:

Yes, I don't want to swing the pendulum too far and say that human leadership is intrinsically wrong.  A case can be made for a limited and low profile leadership in Christian organisations.   And often leaders are sought by the masses, not the leaders themselves. Yet, true Christian leadership will not seek status or fame for itself.

It is worth considering whether CEO brand, human leadership is even necessary for Christian organisations.  The elder-rule, brethren church model has some good safe-guards against today's celebrity, twitter-verse leadership culture.   

 

Regarding Paul:  Yes, he instructed others to imitate him (with the caveat of following Christ).   Paul was an apostle.  I am wary of any 'Christian' making apostolic leadership claims today.

JC,

I don't think Paul was claiming apostolic authority in making that statement. Nevertheless, it is not the only such statement in Scripture. Consider 1 Thessalonians 1:6-8 where Paul commends the Thessalonian believers for being an example to the believers in Philippi and Corinth. And, of course, Paul instructed Timothy to be an example to those under his pastoral care in 1 Timothy 4:12. Peter gave specific instruction for pastors to lead by example in 1 Peter 5:2-4.

I think there is ample evidence in the NT that apostolic authority is not necessary for pastors to say to their flock, "Imitate me, even as I imitate Christ." This doesn't mean blind follow-ship, but the wise use of discretion and judgment to follow a man insofar as he follows Christ. I consider my role as an example to the flock to be quite treacherous, because I know that some will follow without discernment and will be led into error if I, myself, do not follow Christ. I do not fear for myself but for those who would follow my example, and so I pray for God's grace to overcome my own weakness.

Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

 

As far as I know, the ACCC is the only multi-denominational organization that is in a position to help fundamentalist Christians in a number of areas. For example, they are a snowplow organization for a number of small church groups in matters like endorsing military chaplains. These groups simply would not be able to get chaplains into the military if not for the work of the ACCC.

I am surprised by this statement.  I neither endorse nor condemn the ACCC, but I am puzzled by this statement.  Do we really feel that the ACCC is so critical to God's work and His plan that He has no other way to get a chaplain into the military but through a parachurch organization?  I continue to be befuddled as a Christian as to the fascination, discussion, arguments over all of these organizations.  They just come and go and we continue to argue and debate over these same things in relation to the organization.

I have no desire to join organizations that come and go.  They sprout from one debate/or division, do some good, deviate and go a different way and then everyone must separate again and another offshoot is formed.  I am glad that my confidence resides in the fact that God can and will accomplish His entire plan through His Church.

Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

Jim,

While I appreciate the fact that you have defended me, I have to say that I do not share your assessment of the ACCC. I believe that the organization still has an important mission and is worthy of support.

• Both you and I have a Ralph Colas connection. You were his youth pastor at South Holly
• I followed him as Pastor at South Holly - perhaps 4 or 5 years later
• I admire Ralph and am sorry to hear that he has health needs.
• I have admired the ACCC and it's ministry and have supported them with a small donation annually for a number of years

I am defending myself (and Sharper Iron) over this charge (from their resolution) : "The neo-fundamentalist call to the convergence of fundamentalists and evangelicals rang loud and clear from the Zondervan publication Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), a book promoted by the managers of the Sharper Iron website."

Aaron responded to that charge here: "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."

The ACCC resolution is illogical (represented in the image above of pickled brains in jars). I'm in the position where I no longer need to be politically correct. They lost me and they lost my support. I did communicate with Ralph Colas about my views back then. 

On the dissolution of the term "Fundamentalist". And I write this because the ACCC resolution cited "neo-fundamentalist". 

There are more "Fundamentalist-sub-types" than Linux Distros 

It seems that many Fundamentalists look at the other kinds and says in essence "You are not a true Fundamentalist"

I documented some of that here. There are (apparently):

• Hyper-Fundamentalists
• Old-Time Fundamentalists
• Authentic Fundamentalists
• Historic Fundamentalists
• Balanced Fundamentalists
• Moderate Fundamentalists (generally means they compromise!)
• Militant Fundamentalists
• Pseudo-Fundamentalists
• Baptist-Fundamentalists
• Nondenominational Fundamentalists
• FINO = Fundamentalists in Name Only
• KJV-Fundamentalists
• Hard-shelled Fundamentlists (probably aways used in a disparaging / derisive way - who wants to call oneself "hard-shelled"?!
• Imperial Fundamentalists (the guy who has the mega-church with the CDS, the college and the seminary)
• Cultural Fundamentalists
• Heart-fundamentalists
• Post-Fundamentalists
• Neo (or new)-Fundamentalists

Fundamentalists are more adept at creating prefixes than writing theologies. Here's what I've learned from working 20 years in the secular world (after 16 years of vocational ministry). The term "fundamentalist" does not convey much (if anything) positively where I live and work. Where I worship ... it means something. Where I live and work ... nada. Here's my contribution to prefixes: That ACCC resolution was written by and approved by  half-shell fundamentalists.  

You wrote:

Do we really feel that the ACCC is so critical to God's work and His plan that He has no other way to get a chaplain into the military but through a parachurch organization? 

The only way to be a chaplain in the military is to receive an endorsement from a DoD-approved parachurch organization such as the FBFI or ACCC (among lots of others).

TylerR wrote:

The only way to be a chaplain in the military is to receive an endorsement from a DoD-approved parachurch organization such as the FBFI or ACCC (among lots of others).

Also the GARBC. There would still be chaplains without the ACCC. And actually the ACCC is very minor player in fundamentalism anymore. Wiki has a list of member groups. Probably any of those member organizations (such as the FFBC) could sponsor chaplains. 

Honestly Kevin, I'm surprised you don't take offense at the resolution:

http://www.accc4truth.org/images/Resolution_on_Neo-Fundamentalism_-_Fall...

The neo-fundamentalist call to the convergence of fundamentalists and evangelicals rang loud and clear from the Zondervan publication Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), a book promoted by the managers of the Sharper Iron website. The neo-fundamentalist tolerance for men who neglect or repudiate separatist convictions has spread to the campuses of former citadels of fundamentalism, like Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA (scheduled to cease academic operations at the end of the 2013-14 academic year) and Northland International University in Dunbar, WI. We are deeply grieved by these developments.

Therefore, the American Council of Christian Churches, at its annual convention, October 22-24, 2013, at Hardingville Bible Church, Monroeville, NJ, resolves to be faithful to the responsibility of Christ’s under-shepherds, “to take heed to themselves and to the flock of God,” fully aware that it is from among ourselves that men may arise speaking perverse things and drawing others after them. We determine to humbly and lovingly warn one another and all professing fundamentalists of the serious error of neo-fundamentalism as our fathers did for their day, and we exhort our brothers to repentance and to a full embrace of militant separatist convictions, so that God, whose blood was shed to purchase His flock and who called us to be faithful overseers of it, might be obeyed fully and thoroughly pleased.

... Because they seem to be mentioning you (and me): "from among ourselves that men may arise speaking perverse things and drawing others after them"

Update: A very uncharitable kick-em-while-they-are-down to friends at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary! (in resolution)

TylerR wrote:

You wrote:

Do we really feel that the ACCC is so critical to God's work and His plan that He has no other way to get a chaplain into the military but through a parachurch organization? 

The only way to be a chaplain in the military is to receive an endorsement from a DoD-approved parachurch organization such as the FBFI or ACCC (among lots of others).

That is not true.  They must receive an endorsement from a Religious Organization that meets the requirements in DOD 1304.28.  One of which it must be a tax exempt "church" as listed in E3.1.3.1.  While it may be a bit tougher for a church to obtain this it is not impossible and nowhere does the DoD requirements state it needs to be a parachurch organization.  This is the fallacy that many get into.  We need an organization to get chaplains approved, we need an organization to have missionaries, we need to have an organization for camps, for schools, for colleges....  And then once we spend all of this energy creating the organization to fit exactly what we are looking for, people come into it and ruin the whole thing eventually and then we need to split from that group to now create another one that addresses what these people have done to the one that we have loved for so long.  With all of that aside, do we really feel that God's plan is derailed because of a DoD approved document.

Does the ACCC regard Sharper Iron a neo-fundamentalist organization / website for posting a review of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism ? I ask because we are mentioned in the ACCC resolution  On the Dangers of NeoFundamentalism

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

----------------------

I'll report back

You're right. I read the entire instruction. From what I see from the Armed Forces Chaplain Board Endorsements, the endorsing bodies seem to be denominations or organizations. You are right to say that a single independent church can  submit a request to be an endorser, though I'm not so sure it would ever be approved. I stand corrected