Kevin Bauder interviewed by CT: The History of the Fundamentalists Facing a Massive Abuse Scandal

Tyler asked:

What do ya’ll think about this? My own conception of the distinction between the two camps is that fundamentalists are militant for the core doctrines of the faith; they’ll fight for the Bible against revisionist attempts. They’re aggressive conservatives. On my understanding, separation is a fruit is this, but not the root.

Sometimes it is merely an issue of where people are in the separation spectrum. Conservative evangelicals will usually separate over essentials, but are not as fearful of a little erroneous doctrine if the errors are not about the essentials. Issues like levels of fear, how long a leash to allow, how protective shepherds should be of their sheep, how much leaders trust their people, and guilt by association all come into play. So does the intelligence level of a congregation (even though there is variety within a congregation), and how “chill” leaders are about secondary issues. More mainstream evangelicals (center and left) often do not even understand the concept of separation (although the CT people doing the interview, who don’t separate, do understand where we are coming from, esp. Galli).

All that to say that I think it is unfair to paint conservative evangelicals as non-militant — the difference is often more about what they are militant about and how often they are militant.

Whether you consider MacArthur a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist, he comes across as having a chip on his shoulder and militant, while a Warren Wiersbe would not come across that way, but would stand up to heresy.

Ed wrote:

All that to say that I think it is unfair to paint conservative evangelicals as non-militant — the difference is often more about what they are militant about and how often they are militant.

You’re right. To my own way of thinking, Mohler, MacArthur, Dever (et al) are historic fundamentalists. There are typically two kinds of fundamentalism at play, and you always have to define your terms on this:

• Historic fundamentalism = characterized by militancy against theological revisionism
• Post 1948/1956 (draw whatever line you wish) fundamentalism = characterized by opposition to neo-evangelicals.

I agree with the first category, and don’t much care for the second. So, in my own definition (see previous post), I would consider James White, MacArthur, Dever (et al) as historic fundamentalists, even if they don’t want anything to do with the label. I’m not sure it’s a label worth claiming anymore, to be honest. I would never tell anyone at work I’m a “fundamentalist.” I’d tell them I’m a conservative Christian; an evangelical.

I believe the post 1948/1956 stripe of fundamentalism characterizes much of “Baptist fundamentalism,” and has for a long while. I’m more comfortable with “self-identifying” as a very hard-right evangelical than a fundamentalist.

I listened and appreciated your explanation of the history of fundamentalism. My comments:

1. Fundamentalism has become too binary, meaning
2. Either one is or one is an evangelical who doesn’t believe in separation! What about the CE’s?
3. It’s (fundamentalism) more frequently, it seems, more about this (below) than separation from BG (the past) and the future BGs
   • It’s often about (and you speak of this), the KJVO movement
   • It’s often about list-based sanctification (some call this legalism)
   • It’s often about what I regard as non-essentials: Music, et cetera (perhaps the teetotalism issue)
   • It’s often about “the schools” and what school a preacher has graduated (like a school-based gravitational-pull where the school is the center)
4. There’s been some hypocrisy about separation:
   • Where was the separation when BJ had (thankfully corrected) racist policies?
   • Ditto over semipelagianism? When the Calvinists were excoriated

Since you asked for my opinion, I’ll chime in here. My understanding of historic Fundamentalism includes those who fought vigorously for the fundamentals and against apostasy, but did not always separate from their denominations. W. D. Riley comes readily to mind, who never separated from the Northern Baptist Convention. In today’s climate, that would make him a New Evangelical. In his day, he was a militant Fundamentalist.

So, Bauder’s definition probably fits the past forty years pretty well, but not the whole history of Fundamentalism. In the early years, men like Mac Arthur would have been included in the Fundamentalist camp. I think he should be so included today, but many Fundamentalists disagree. In my opinion, modern Fundamentalists have made separation the ultimate test of fidelity rather than militant defense of the Faith. In their minds, you cannot militantly defend the Faith unless you separate from anything and everything that does not agree 100%. Our Fundamentalist forefathers would not have seen it that way. Many early Fundamentalists were more like today’s courageous conservative evangelicals.

The Southern Baptist Convention of 1971, before BJU decided to separate from all things SBC, was more firmly under control of apostates than the SBC of today. Yet today, Fundamentalists are expected to separate from all elements of the SBC. Consistent? Not hardly. Today’s Fundamentalism is too subjective. I would like to see a return to the principles of historic Fundamentalism.