"Every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical."

“Jesus I know, and Paul I know…but who are you?”

[RPittman]

[Ron Bean] “Jesus I know, and Paul I know…but who are you?”

Huh, if you know Paul, then you’re very old … . and who are you? String Bean’s cousin? (String Bean was a comedy character, who wore his britches at his knees, on the Grand Ol Opry.)

I understood his point- what’s yours? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused001.gif

[Aaron Blumer] To Dan Burrell’s earlier question… why does Cloud even matter? I had to consider whether or not he does and I think movement fundamentalism is at the point where, sadly, he does. I mean, of course, just as a voice he matters, but more to Dan’s point, the movement no longer has any stand-out leader. It never had a single leader, but it has had a small handful for some periods. Now… it’s really up for grabs. And people are listening to voices they didn’t before. So “a guy with a typewriter” who goes to the trouble to put his thoughts before the world now has real influence (though I’d suggest a guy w/a typewriter who mails a “newsletter” out to thousands has always had influence. The Web makes it cheaper, faster and broader influence)

Aaron….I hear you and understand your reasoning, but I offer a little bit of a “pushback” with the following thoughts….

1. If “fundamentalism is at the point” where Cloud is a significant voice, then I’m afraid we’re worse off than I’ve ever thought (and that’s saying something.)

2. Part of the reason fundamentalism may be in the condition in which we find it today (at least in some segments of fundamentalism) is precisely because we listened to leaders who were rhetorically gifted and substantively deficient. We substituted size (numbers, scope, followers, subscribers, etc…) for thoughtful intellect and substantive thinking. I don’t know of anyone who finds Cloud thoughtful, intellectual, substantive or a thinker.

3. You are correct that in today’s world where the Web can make most anyone appear to be credible (as did published newsletters and newspapers of yesterday’s generation), I think caution is in order lest we inadvertently “puff” the wrong messengers and also feed our own prurient interest in gossipy “tabloidish” muckrakers. I would ask what substantive element of credibility does Cloud bring to the table except his raggish and roguish “newsletter”. Notoriety is a poor substitute for thoughtful discourse and I know of no significant work attached to Cloud other than his newsletter/website which systematically trashes anyone who would dare cross his extremist view of fundamentalism.

I find it “telling” when Bauder’s weighty and substantive front page articles languish with 300-500 reads while this particularly “filing” now approaches 1,500 reads. Perhaps that might give all of us (myself included) cause for a few minutes of reflection.

RPittman….

I’m not sure that comparing the current state of fundamentalism to the “warts” in evangelicalism and proclaiming it not so bad after all is really that great of an idea. That’s sort of like comparing the Buffalo Bills to the Carolina Panthers and drawing a conclusion that the Panther’s really weren’t that bad this year. :-D

As for the alleged “ad hominem” attacks on Cloud, I’m not so sure I’ve seen them in this thread….or at least not to the extent that I’ve seen them in his writings over the years. But, oops….then I’m making a similar comparison similar to the referenced “warts of evangelicalism vs. fundamentalism” there, aren’t I? As someone who once had an entire copyrighted booklet from which I drew royalties republished without permission by Mr. Cloud, I guess that while I don’t know him personally — I can draw enough conclusions to reach a reasonable assessment of the body of his work, tone and ethics. Comparing him with heavyweights like Doran and Bauder would seem more laughable than laudable.

Doran and Bauder both write original content with a thoughtful level of scholarship. Cloud merely offers his slanted commentary to what others have said, preached, written or he’s been told about. I’ve never seen him publish an independent body of his own study or research independent of his own watchdog perspective on “fundamentalism” — but feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken. I’d be interested in reading it.

An interesting take on David Cloud’s “Way of Life” Web Site…..

http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2009/06/fundamentalist-website-of-the-w…

Central recently invited Bill Edmonson, a graduate of the New Evangelical Gordon Conwell Seminary, to lead a workshop in February 2011.

Cloud is running on incomplete research here. http://interglo.org/ Bill Edmondson does have a doctorate from Gordon, yes- but he is also a missionary with http://www.bmm.org/BMM/ChurchRelations/Speakers/bdedmondson.htm Baptist Mid-Missions , his sending church is http://www.tbcnh.org/ Trinity Baptist in Concord, NH (a relationship that goes back to Chuck Phelp’s tenure, and that pesky Gordon degree was pursued and obtained with the full knowledge of Pastor Phelps), and a former instructor at http://www.faith.edu/ Faith Baptist Bible College , where I had him as an instructor in 1996. Ironically enough, he was perhaps the most outspoken separatist I encountered on the faculty at FBBC while I attended there (and that is not to disparage the other men as less than separatists). As far as an SI connection goes, Bill was former SI tech guy Austin Matzko’s pastor for most (if not all) of the time that Austin served here.

But hey, anything you can do to for a cheap guilt-by-association tactic… what difference do the facts make?

This year Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist has used his blog to praise “conservative evangelicals” such as Southern Baptist Seminary head Al Mohler, John MacArthur, John Piper, D.A. Carson, and R. C. Sproul. Central recently invited Bill Edmonson, a graduate of the New Evangelical Gordon Conwell Seminary, to lead a workshop in February 2011. Central graduate David Sorenson observes: “Dr. Clearwaters, the founder of Central, would roll over in his grave if he knew this. They are becoming new-evangelicals in fundamentalist clothing. They want the support of both the northern fundamentalist movement as well as that of what Bauder calls ‘conservative evangelicals’ (i.e. new-evangelicals). They are kind of like the guy in the civil war who wore gray pants and a blue jacket. He won the support of neither side. But nevertheless, that is what Central is trying to do.”

RPittman,

The surrounding context indicates pretty clearly that Cloud (and Sorenson, whom Cloud references and relies on as a source for Edmondson’s appearance at Central) intends to lump the Gordon-Conwell graduate ideologically with “Al Mohler, John MacArthur, John Piper, D.A. Carson, and R. C. Sproul” for the purposes of discrediting Central and her president. I don’t need to ask David Cloud, because Cloud has provided his own words, and the intent is rather clear. I daresay that Bill has done little otherwise to have alerted either Cloud or Sorenson to the finer points of his views on much of anything, including ecclesiastical separation. Bill simply doesn’t have any significant published works or a prominent public platform where they could become familiar with Bill’s views. If they had, it would be apparent that Bill remains firmly entrenched in the separatist mindset. If he were not, he would not be serving as he does with Baptist Mid-Missions or sent out by Trinity Baptist Church.

Probably can’t catch up w/this thread at this point.
But FWIW…
To RPittman on asnwering Cloud’s assertions head on. Since Cloud did not support them with evidence, there is no need to say more than “where’s the evidence?” He claims Bauder’s definition of new evangelicalism is defective. So he should prove it. Since he hasn’t, pointing that out is taking them head on.

[Dan Burrell] I find it “telling” when Bauder’s weighty and substantive front page articles languish with 300-500 reads while this particularly “filing” now approaches 1,500 reads. Perhaps that might give all of us (myself included) cause for a few minutes of reflection

.
It seems that controversy is often what gets people going. But it also makes a difference when people post in a thread. Some of Bauder’s less controversial essays are not the one’s you’re putting comments on. See what I mean?
But there are temptations involved in web publishing… sometimes you see something and think “That’ll get folks clicking.” But then have to think, “Should it get folks clicking?”

If you decide to do it, it can be hard to tell if you’re rationalizing or thinking clearly. In this case, I think what Cloud is saying echo’s a segment of the fundamentalist universe. Witness the fact that he has some almost-defenders in this thread and he also quotes a pastor in his essay.

But the question of “Who is David Cloud” and does his voice matter…. This is a tougher one that it seems. What is it that makes a voice matter or not matter? I’m inclined to think that when Mr. I. M. Nobody writes a post and makes a compelling case for assertions it makes no difference he’s Nobody or Einstein (or maybe, in theology, more like Augustine or Calvin).

And what is it that makes somebody Somebody worth listening to? If we say it’s achievement, how do we measure that? Are we getting back to the size of their ministry or the number of ministries they’ve lead or started or been involved in? Academic degrees? Books published?
If I’m looking for answers and I have a long line of people to go ask, of course I look for someone who is accomplished. But if I happen to hear an opinion from Mr. Nobody on the way or at random, I think: well, has he got a point or not? Makes no difference to me who he is.

But this thread was not meant as Cloud-roast so let’s not do any more of that, please.

[Aaron Blumer]
And what is it that makes somebody Somebody worth listening to? If we say it’s achievement, how do we measure that? Are we getting back to the size of their ministry or the number of ministries they’ve lead or started or been involved in? Academic degrees? Books published?
If I’m looking for answers and I have a long line of people to go ask, of course I look for someone who is accomplished. But if I happen to hear an opinion from Mr. Nobody on the way or at random, I think: well, has he got a point or not? Makes no difference to me who he is.

I agree completely.

Having participated in internet discussions for about 23 years now (of course, back then, the discussions took place in what were known as “newsgroups”) and on Bulletin Board Systems even further back, I can say that when you start to participate, almost everyone is a “Mr. Nobody” when you read them. What makes them worth listening to is consistently good answers, posts, argumentation, etc. After which, if you become one of the regulars on that group, BBS, forum, blog, whatever, even if you don’t know a thing about “Mr Nobody,” he has gained a certain amount of respect (or “cred”) among the participants. To those of us “raised” on that sort of egalitarian model, credibility has never been dependent on outside credentials. The internet has made it very easy to see if what is being claimed is true or not.

When someone new arrives, of course, they don’t have the same knowledge, and at first, they sometimes believe they have no reason to listen. Also, when those more used to more traditional “rules” of whom to listen to and respect come to a forum, they don’t really understand. If they have “real-world” credentials, they expect to be listened-to, and they don’t always listen to those with the “cred” in this “new world.” In a sense, the actual credibility is the same — it must be earned. The difference is, it doesn’t require a bunch of elites who designate who is credible and who isn’t. The large and open nature of the internet does a pretty good job of making fairly certain that those who are completely wrong or are just demagogues don’t last long, or at least aren’t listened to by many.

I much prefer just listening for a while to determine who is credible and who isn’t, rather than have somebody declare to me that they must be listened to because of a row of degrees that may or may not have any bearing on what is being discussed, and even when they do, doesn’t mean the one who holds them will use them well, and the closed nature of academia makes it pretty difficult (though not impossible) for just anyone to determine whether those credentials are real or not. Judging by the actual contents of what is said is much easier and more verifiable.

I would imagine it was much easier for Cloud and those like him when it was paper publications with not much opportunity for the average church member to verify or challenge the information presented.

[RPittman] Greg, I think you are wrong in assuming that anyone sent out by Baptist Mid or Trinity is holding a separatists position. If you are arguing against vilifying Mr. Edmondson by association with Gordon-Conwell, then you cannot sanctify him by association with Baptist Mid and Trinity. There are Baptist Mid missionaries that I would not call separatists. I don’t know about Trinity.

BTW, I don’t know why Cloud objects to Edmondson. It’s not specifically stated and clear from the context. There may be unstated reasons. It’s only clear if you make assumptions.

RPittman,

I make my case, not only by assumption, but by personal experience and relationship. I am not an intimate acquaintance with Bill, but I do feel comfortable calling him up for advice or information, and he would know me not only as a former student, but as a friend and co-laborer. I know Trinity by reputation, having interacted with them for four years when I pastored in Maine, including having their pastoral staff members speak for me on several occasions for several functions. I know that Bill had specific discussions with Trinity about issues related tp this when Trinity became his sending church when he came to Boston. I know BMM- and I do know that they have requirements for their missionaries that they maintain, including a separatist statement- certainly more than G-C would. Whatever else you can say, I am not making assumptions. I raise the points of association for other’s benefits, not mine.

Whatever the case about who Bill Edmondson is and where he stands (I have no idea and had never heard of him until now), Cloud did not tell the whole truth about him. He picked out one thing (a graduate degree from GCTS) and ignored the rest. Why? Presumably because the rest of the facts undermines or at least confuses the point Cloud wants to make, which seems essentially to be that CBTS is headed new-evangelical by having this guy in from GCTS.

If Cloud says, “CBTS is having Bill Edmondson, a Baptist Mid-Mission missionary who is sent out by Trinity Baptist Church and who is also a former faculty member at Faith Baptist Bible College” that line reads a whole lot differently.

And this is Cloud’s MO. Much of what he says is true. But he tells partial truths that mislead the reader, perhaps in hopes that the reader will not do any fact checking. But as has been pointed out many times, the days of the internet mean that the ability to say this type of stuff is over. Too many people don’t mind using google, and emailing a few friends. Cloud is a great example of the old adage that you can never trust someone who tells the truth only half the time because you don’t know which half to trust.

[RPittman] Any way you slice it, you’re avoiding the issue by refusing to interact with Cloud’s assertions. Either tell me that I’m wrong about Ashbrook, Woodbridge, and Dollar or admit that Cloud is arguing the traditional Fundamentalist view.

Here’s a quote from the link posted above that reveals, from Cloud’s own mouth [pen] , that he’s not completely arguing from a fundamentalist position:

[David Cloud]
That is the “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty” philosophy. To say that it was the position of “historic fundamentalism” is true, but that does not make it right.

He claims fundamentalism when it suits him, but he has obviously redefined it to meet what he believes.

If I can find one conservative Southern Baptist who is not a new-evangelical, is David Cloud a liar?

[Ron Bean] If I can find one conservative Southern Baptist who is not a new-evangelical, is David Cloud a liar?

Hi, My name is JohnBrian, and I am a Southern Baptist who is not a new-evangelical.

p.s. how does one shake hands across the internet?

[JohnBrian]

[Ron Bean] If I can find one conservative Southern Baptist who is not a new-evangelical, is David Cloud a liar?

Hi, My name is JohnBrian, and I am a Southern Baptist who is not a new-evangelical.

p.s. how does one shake hands across the internet?

Glad to meet you as well. (Shaking your hand electronically.)

I hope you’re ready to be accused of being in denial.