Doran: "The 'no changes' mantra can be worse than a distraction in that it can represent a lack of submission to God’s Word"

If that’s the case, then what kind of changes would be “okay” for Arrowood and others like him?
I do believe that it’s a question of change vs. no change as Doran points out, rather than a matter of certain changes that would be acceptable vs. other changes that are unacceptable. In my experience with this version of fundamentalism, including Pastor Arrowood himself, any change is suspect.

[Glory & Grace] Acting as if there have been no changes in the ecclesiastical landscape over the past 60 years is simply ridiculous. To argue that we keep doing the same thing simply because that is what we’ve always done is unbiblical. It elevates the traditions of men over the Word of God. I genuinely doubt that this is what Pastor Arrowood wants to do, but the core of his argument amounts to that. In one sense, he has served us all well by showing exactly what is at stake—will our ecclesiastical relationships be controlled by man-made traditions (Matt 15:3), or we will apply the word of righteousness to the issues of our day so that we can discern between good and evil (Heb 5:13-14)?

This is spot on. No one is being vilified except for those who don’t agree with Dr. Arrowood. After all, even discussing his “open letter” is apparently “gossip on steroids”. Why should he publish his own set of accusations and opinions on the World Wide Web, but expect no one to respond or question his conclusions?

I don’t want a Christianity that is true to Fundamentalism … I want a Christianity that is true to the Scriptures

”Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est secundu Verbum Dei” - (“the reformed Church must be always reforming according to the Word of God”), which refers to the Protestant position that the church must continually re-examine itself, reconsider its doctrines, and be prepared to accept change, in order to conform more closely to orthodox Christian belief as revealed in the Bible.

The man, church or movement that thinks it has arrived is sadly deceived!

[RPittman] Yeah, this applies to both sides including those claiming a pure, direct heritage in the line of Historic Fundamentalism. Sometimes, the battle seems more staking a claim on Fundamentalism than for truth. Who carried the torch for the cause of Christ before the rise of the historical movement that we call Fundamentalism?

I’m inclined to agree with you on this one, RPittman.

To a certain extent…who actually cares about “Fundamentalism” (the movement)? God doesn’t judge me based on my faithful adherence to preacher so and so from the 1800s. He judges me based on my faithful adherence to the principles and precepts of His Word. I would argue that allegiance to those principles and precepts will lead into Fundamentalism (the idea, not the movement). Yet some seem to have confused being in the Fundy movement with obedience to God’s Word - an error I want no part of.

Will it really honestly matter to anyone in two hundred years if I was a part of the “Fundamentalist movement”? Really? Do we praise Richard Baxter (for an example) because he was a Puritan, or because he wrote thoughtful and helpful books that were filled with Scripture and therefore still being used some 350 years later?

[Jay C.]
Do we praise Richard Baxter (for an example) because he was a Puritan, or because he wrote thoughtful and helpful books that were filled with Scripture and therefore still being used some 350 years later?

Neither. We praise John Owen because he was a Puritan, and in his Puritan-ness taught us to scorn Richard Baxter’s neo-nomian view of justification. Normally I would apologize for such an off-topic remark, but I seriously doubt that this is A Conversation Worth Saving.

[RPittman]… Dr. Doran has no basis for implying that Dr. Arrowood “represent a lack of submission to God’s Word.” In Dr. Arrowood’s view, he is being submissive to the Word. To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent and vilify. The rub comes in that Drs. Doran and Arrowood interpret and apply the Word of God differently. It seems that when another differs from us, we must assign an unfaithful or sinister motive. It’s a fine line between saying they’re wrong and saying they have ulterior motives or sinister purposes.

Bro. Pittman- there have been more than a few unflattering implications going around, so let’s take a gander at a few other things that have been said.

Dr. Arrowood has implied that SI readers and posters are time-wasting gossip mongers, and that SI staff did something underhanded by linking to his open letter. Fact: We do not ask permission before posting ANY Filing. Question: Why be upset about our link when Dr. Arrowood fully supports others linking to his letters?

And what’s with publishing all that anonymous support? Here at SI people sign their names to what they say- why don’t Dr. Arrowood’s brave and intrepid supporters put their names out there like we have? How do I know who wrote those letters unless someone signs their names to them?

Bottom line- I don’t agree with Dr. Arrowood that the sharing of platforms, speaking at conferences, using SG’s music, and adhering to Calvinistic doctrine represents some sort of dangerous slippery slope into apostasy. I don’t see any Biblical support for those specific objections that he has written of being considered grounds for rebuke or separation- in spite of the fact that I’m not Calvinistic, and I’m probably farther to the right on the FundieMeter than even Dr. Arrowood.

I do agree with you that when there are differences of interpretation, it isn’t charitable to skip straight to sinister motives unless the evidence of malignancy is compelling.

[Susan R] Bottom line- I don’t agree with Dr. Arrowood that the sharing of platforms, speaking at conferences, using SG’s music, and adhering to Calvinistic doctrine represents some sort of dangerous slippery slope into apostasy.

I’ll have to go back and read that letter again… later… when I have some time. Are you sure that was what he was arguing? Wasn’t the impression I got. But I’ll have to have a gander at the letter again.

Ok, I went back and read again both open letters… I don’t see any reference to ‘apostasy’ in either one of them.

So… while it is quite clear that pastor Arrowood doesn’t agree with the platform sharing, SG music, and Calvinism, I don’t see where he says it is a slippery slope to apostasy.

Perhaps you are reading something into his arguments?

[Susan R] And what’s with publishing all that anonymous support? Here at SI people sign their names to what they say- why don’t Dr. Arrowood’s brave and intrepid supporters put their names out there like we have? How do I know who wrote those letters unless someone signs their names to them?

In fairness, I’m sure SI carried the Nick of Time post in which Dr. Bauder included excerpts of emails but identified the senders only generally, similarly to what Dr. Arrowood has done. On the other hand, he included both support and criticism.

Of course, if one can’t guess who the “Christian businessman” is …

[Don Johnson] Ok, I went back and read again both open letters… I don’t see any reference to ‘apostasy’ in either one of them.

So… while it is quite clear that pastor Arrowood doesn’t agree with the platform sharing, SG music, and Calvinism, I don’t see where he says it is a slippery slope to apostasy.

Perhaps you are reading something into his arguments?

I’m trying not to read into his arguments- it’s difficult at times not to interpret things through the lens of one’s own experiences and preconceived notions. I seriously do not want to do that. I am thinking along the lines of what constitutes Biblical grounds for public rebuke and separation. Those issues (sharing platforms, Calvinism, SG music) seem to be the ones Dr. Arrowood is most concerned about, so he’s admonishing Drs. Bauder and Doran… and Northland U… and he does mention separation quite a few times, so why talk about separation if that’s not where you are headed?

Of course, all of this is in the context of warning his congregation, but he published it online for the world to read. I’m trying to put all this together as far as what he is hoping to accomplish. Grounds for separation in Scripture is limited to unrepentant sin and heresy, right? So even though I’m not a Calvinist and my music choices are ultra-conservative, I don’t see Calvinistic doctrine as heresy or SG music as immoral and separation worthy.

Ministries may choose not to actively cooperate with each other because some of these differences may be problematic, but does Dr. Arrowood’s church have connections with Drs. Bauder and Doran that will need to be severed if they continue to rub shoulders with Mark Dever, who rubs shoulders with other ‘unacceptable’ pastors and teachers like CJ Mahaney? Will he find it necessary to tell the young people of his church not to attend Northland? Again- what exactly is the goal here? Is Dr. Arrowood just warning his congregation, or was he trying to send a message to Drs. Bauder and Doran?

Personally, I think when we make these kinds of things ‘separation’ issues, we weaken and trivialize an important Scriptural principle. And I’d admit I am very put off by his second letter, insinuating that SI did something wrong by posting a link where we are allowing comments from people who are not anonymous, while another blog posts links to the letter, doesn’t allow comments, but publishes emails from anonymous supporters. There’s just not enough coffee in the world for that one to make sense to me. Maybe a bagel would help. Because if your arguments are unassailable, why not allow them to be challenged so you can bring out all your concrete arguments and help the folks out?

I definitely need that bagel.

[DavidO]

[Susan R] And what’s with publishing all that anonymous support? Here at SI people sign their names to what they say- why don’t Dr. Arrowood’s brave and intrepid supporters put their names out there like we have? How do I know who wrote those letters unless someone signs their names to them?

In fairness, I’m sure SI carried the Nick of Time post in which Dr. Bauder included excerpts of emails but identified the senders only generally, similarly to what Dr. Arrowood has done. On the other hand, he included both support and criticism.

True- but my thoughts on that are the emails were posted for difference purposes. The identity of the responders to Dr. Bauder’s article wasn’t important- he was providing a sampling of responses, not attempting to bolster his position. Dr. Arrowood is trying to support his argument with these anonymous emails, and the other blog that I know of that linked to the letters isn’t allowing comments. There’s just something about that that crawls under my skin and makes me itchy.

I’ll just go ahead and put a finer point on it. As a regular ol’ congregant, I’m in the position of being required to trust leadership. But leadership needs to prove themselves trustworthy. The “Take my word for it” just doesn’t cut it, and there’s nothing in Scripture that leads me to believe that I’m to lay myself on the doorstep of church leadership or executive directors of denominational fellowships or Christian university presidents and not be responsible to study and verify what is being presented as truth that I am to act on. And if we are not being called to draw conclusions and act on them, then what exactly was the point of all this?

Now for that bagel.

[Susan R] And if we are not being called to draw conclusions and act on them, then what exactly was the point of all this?

I think it was primarily intended for his congregants. Yeah, he posted it “open,” but I’m not sure they thought all that through.

[DavidO]

[Susan R] And if we are not being called to draw conclusions and act on them, then what exactly was the point of all this?

I think it was primarily intended for his congregants. Yeah, he posted it “open,” but I’m not sure they thought all that through.

Let’s assume that the worse thing Dr. Arrowood is ‘guilty’ of is being naive about the nature of the internet. What do you think he was expecting from his congregation? Do they have ministry ties with Dr. Bauder and Doran, or Central or Northland U, or the conferences where these men are speakers? Do his people read their books/blogs, listen to their messages, or go to these conferences?

I guess I’m asking for a better context for the letter- why did he need to warn his congregation? And is the basis for his warning Scriptural?

[Susan R]

[Don Johnson] Ok, I went back and read again both open letters… I don’t see any reference to ‘apostasy’ in either one of them.

So… while it is quite clear that pastor Arrowood doesn’t agree with the platform sharing, SG music, and Calvinism, I don’t see where he says it is a slippery slope to apostasy.

Perhaps you are reading something into his arguments?

I’m trying not to read into his arguments- it’s difficult at times not to interpret things through the lens of one’s own experiences and preconceived notions.

Well, all I can say is that it looks like that’s what you’re doing from this corner.

[Susan R] Grounds for separation in Scripture is limited to unrepentant sin and heresy, right?

No, not right. Separation, as we loosely use the term, encompasses a good deal more than this. Bauder talks about levels of separation, saying it is not a black and white, on and off issue. It’s not ‘binary’, he would say. It seems like that’s the way you are taking it here. There is such a thing as breaking fellowship and not walking together. Paul and Barnabas would be an example. And they had a sharp contention with one another. The Scripture doesn’t rebuke either of them.

[Susan R] Ministries may choose not to actively cooperate with each other because some of these differences may be problematic, but does Dr. Arrowood’s church have connections with Drs. Bauder and Doran that will need to be severed if they continue to rub shoulders with Mark Dever, who rubs shoulders with other ‘unacceptable’ pastors and teachers like CJ Mahaney? Will he find it necessary to tell the young people of his church not to attend Northland? Again- what exactly is the goal here? Is Dr. Arrowood just warning his congregation, or was he trying to send a message to Drs. Bauder and Doran?

Are you judging motives? Pastor Arrowood has a ministry wider than his own church and is concerned about the direction of erstwhile compatriots. He may have more direct connections with some of these ministries than you realize. Regardless, does he not have the right to speak up if he thinks something is wrong, whether he has direct connections or not? If we were to go through your posts here on SI, it is possible we might find you criticizing something you don’t have any connection with, correct?

[Susan R] And I’d admit I am very put off by his second letter, insinuating that SI did something wrong by posting a link where we are allowing comments from people who are not anonymous, while another blog posts links to the letter, doesn’t allow comments, but publishes emails from anonymous supporters.

Is it the fact that he doesn’t like SI that has you steamed? If so, I’d say just get over it! There are lots of folks who don’t like SI. I agree that he should not protest about a link. It appears he doesn’t have a firm grasp of netiquette. What does it matter in the long run?

I am in agreement with his concerns. I think his letters are not that articulate, but I share his point of view. And I think he has the perfect right (and responsibility) to express his concerns. I hope more men of like mind will decide to do the same.

[Susan R]…why did he need to warn his congregation? And is the basis for his warning Scriptural?

He thinks there’s a problem based on his understanding of Scripture, the situation, and history. Pastors do this every Sunday, even if they don’t hang it on the internet for the world to see.