The Great Evangelical Mea Culpa

[Ron Bean]

If we need to separate from someone maybe we need to consider the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, the “physical blood of Jesus in heaven” group, or the inspired, inerrant KJV crowd.

…shouldn’t it be the man who helped lead the early charge on that last issue?
http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/shortarticles/McCune_Inspiration_Preservation_o…

[Greg Linscott]

Ron Bean wrote:

If we need to separate from someone maybe we need to consider the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, the “physical blood of Jesus in heaven” group, or the inspired, inerrant KJV crowd.

…shouldn’t it be the man who helped lead the early charge on that last issue?

http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/shortarticles/McCune_Inspiration_Preservation_of…

….I sure don’t want to leave Brother McCune alone in that endeavor. It can be, of course, somewhat dangerous work. :^) (and I haven’t)

Greg,

I’ll be happy to count anyone who is firing at the real enemies of the faith as a brother, no matter their age or ability. Dr. McCune is certainly in that number!

Now whether or not Dr. McCune wants to count people like Bert, Ron and I in his circle is a different issue… :)

[Bert Perry]

….I sure don’t want to leave Brother McCune alone in that endeavor. It can be, of course, somewhat dangerous work. :^) (and I haven’t)

I’m certainly not intending to put Dr. McCune in some kind of solo position. But one cannot discard the influence that men like him had in the work they did to address inconsistencies within the Baptist Fundamentalist tradition/circle of influence.

Greg, maybe in our haste to address the issues we have seen in ‘our circles’, we have unwittingly refused to acknowledge many of the contributions of those who did go before us. I don’t think that it was done maliciously, but it is probably something that we ‘young fundamentalists/convergents’ need to emphasize more heavily as we talk about ourselves. I know that I am grateful to the work of Drs. McCune, Doran, Bauder, Horn, and Ollila (for starters…there are certainly others that I’m not thinking of right now).

Thanks for the provoking thought. I appreciated it.

I have had some wonderful conversations with CE brethren (call me convergent if you will) as I’ve shared the history of fundamentalism and stories of the battles fought by men like Robert Ketcham and T.T. Shields. They even understood why we didn’t support Billy Graham’s ecumenical evangelism when they learned our history. Not surprisingly, the most often asked follow-up question was something like, “When and why did you start separating from each other?”

Jay, I just noted that you had a David Wells quote. He is someone outside of our typically fundamentalist circles who was contending for truth in earlier years. I read his book, No Place for Truth: or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? about 10 years ago and was very encouraged that someone in evangelicalism was raising many of the same concerns that we as historic fundamentalists have had.

After reading my last line, I am not sure if historic fundamentalist is the right title for me or not. This all gets so very confusing sometimes and I realize that no matter how I identify I will probably offend someone. Am I a very conservative evangelical who identifies as a historic fundamentalist or something that hasn’t even been labeled yet? Am I a convergent or not? I know which bathroom to use, but I am still trying to figure out which conferences I should go to. Sadly for some in fundamentalism which conference we go to seems almost as important as which bathroom we use. :) )

Per Phil Johnson and Greg, here’s the link. It’s a great picture of how we fundamentalists need to be good Bereans in what we are told. I remember a former “pastor” going through the Chick book on the KJV, oblivious to the fact that what Chick was writing totally contradicted the KJVO theories he favored. Sadly, for that gentleman, being on “his side” was enough for him to present it uncritically.

Lesson #2; melodrama is not the Gospel. It is not just Jack Chick that fell into that trap.

…When Fundamentalists make valid points and publish them, Evangelicals take note and even commend them to others. :)

Tyler, I want that T-shirt. As a reformed guy who is still a dispensationalist and cessationist, I figure I would fit right in as I try to explain why I am a calvinistic non calvinist who embraces the doctrines of grace and rejects a man centered approach to ministry while still loving my neighbor and relaying why as a presuppositionalist, I appreciate apologetics. As you can see, I know who I am, I just do not know what I am and if I keep this up I will probably get an interview with the Babylon Bee.

In all seriousness, labels are useful because they help others to know a bit about where we are coming from, but they can also be misused because they carry different connotations to different groups of people depending on their background or bias. Thus I do not necessarily want to be labeled a Mcarthite, even though the t-shirt would probably fit fairly close although I would rather have a Phil Johnson t-shirt with a burning match that was not strange fire.

After reading my last line, I am not sure if historic fundamentalist is the right title for me or not. This all gets so very confusing sometimes and I realize that no matter how I identify I will probably offend someone. Am I a very conservative evangelical who identifies as a historic fundamentalist or something that hasn’t even been labeled yet? Am I a convergent or not? I know which bathroom to use, but I am still trying to figure out which conferences I should go to.

WHO AM I?????

#fundamentalistidentitycrisis :)

​

Sorry to break in anachronistically to the flow of thought but I am going back up the posts a little.

Thanks Greg, Bert, Jay, et al., for the responses to my concerns. They will be good for me to recall when I begin knocking on the pearly gates. Personally it seems to me that the question still comes down to Mark Sidwell’s “dividing line” of separation. I am probably a wee tad bit more moderate than some in my camp. And, surprisingly, so was R.V. Clearwaters, despite his perceived persona. Doc always said to go as far as you conscientiously can with someone looking into fundamentalism with a sincere spirit. I am quite sympathetic to those trying to find their way through the briar patch of ecclesial and other issues of separation.

Our in-house disagreements, as I look at them, seem to have arisen when “platform fellowship” began to be talked about and accepted. I still have a very narrow (if any) place for it than what many are advocating. So did RVC. The problem: Where or when does it become a viable issue? Or what constitutes such a venue where such a decision must be made? [I have observed that some venues have been billed as educational, scholastic, professional or some such conferences when they appeared to be ordinary Bible Conferences as always had been, except for the headliners.] As Dean of Central Seminary and Dean and President of Detroit Seminary I would not invite as a chapel, commencement or banquet speaker someone who had what I considered unacceptable ecclesiastical connections. But for scholastic, educational and similar venues, I was less restrictive. Many fundamentalist educational institutions did similarly.

A few anecdotes will illustrate. I was invited by Dr. Clarence Bass of Bethel Seminary, St. Paul, to lecture to his theology class on the subject of dispensationalism. He was to be out of town. RVC and I both assented to the offer. We both knew that the Baptist General Conference was moving from dispensationalism to the rising “historic (posttribulational) premillennialism,” thanks largely to Bass and Millard Erickson. So I went. The students were divided between the two positions, and I presented my position and sort of jovially played off the two factions theologically and historically against each other. They all “got it.”

A similar occasion occurred when Dr. Erickson invited me to give “The Fundamentalist Position” on tongues, miracles and other such issues to his Pneumatology class. Again, the class was doctrinally mixed but courteous and friendly on the subject, including Dr. Erickson himself who participated in the discussion. One student told me his girl friend had had her teeth fixed with fillings by the Lord in a miracle of healing. I later happened to meet both in the hallway. She was a gracious, friendly and personable Christian lady. (By the bye, I fully restrained myself from meekly asking for a peek at the dental phenomena.)

One time a SS class in a Lutheran church in the suburbs wanted a Central prof to explain the Baptist position on the Bible and church practices. I went with Doc’s encouragement and explained the new birth, baptism, Israel and the church, church membership, and the Christian life. Everyone listened well.

A few years ago when I was teaching a module at Central’s summer school, Dr. Kevin Bauder asked me about his invitation to go to Beeson Divinity School (I think it was) and be a part of a panel of scholars on some issues related to fundamentalism. Except for Dr. Bauder, probably none on the panel had ever been accused of being a fundamentalist. I encouraged him by all means to go and participate. They knew where he stood and had invited him because of it. He went and did a very creditable job for our side of the question. He might have taken some heat for it, but not from me.

In these and other such scenarios I discerned no platform amalgamation or other strings of perceived separational disobedience. I and my colleagues through the years have had no qualms about using the scholastic achievements of non-fundamentalists in various fields. This has never had a whisper of endorsement of the person or connections of the author. Some scholars are notorious for their unbelief of the Bible. These would never be quoted or used in any other light than their comments on the subject. As a matter of fact, I would not speak favorably of the term “Christ event” or some such jargon often used today by those of better (evangelical) faith.

As far as friendships go, there is obviously broad latitude. We all have friends that do not share our Christian beliefs and standards, perhaps not even Christian at all. “Fellowship” as here used pertains more to organizational, ecclesiastical affairs, not personal, private relationships.

First, thank you for the gracious interaction. These personal anecdotes are very intriguing to me. I truly enjoy them.
But to my question: one of the few times I have interacted with you personally face to to face was back in 2005 (I believe it was) at the Annual Conference of the American Council of Christian Churches. There is obviously a lot more doctrinal latitude on matters in that group, even as there is agreement on core doctrines and unity/separation on them. As you reason through that kind of fellowship or interaction, is that similar to your academic settings, or more like what you describe as “platform fellowship”?