Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

Mr. Pittman,

Thank you for informing us of our motivations. Our faculty might not have known why they drafted and adopted this statement if you had not told us.

Why does there need to be a torpedo? Do you have any idea of the difficulties in trying to accomplish a merger between two institutions?

For the record, this statement represents in almost pristine form the understanding of Fundamentalism and evangelicalism that I was taught as a student at Faith Baptist Bible College and later at Denver Baptist Theological Seminary (which merged into Faith in 1986). George Houghton was the one who supplied his students with the category of “Fundamentalism Plus,” which our Central Seminary document labels “Hyper-Fundamentalism.” Faith and Denver also provided the setting in which I and others were taught that fellowship (and its correlative, separation) between believers is not all-or-nothing. We were clearly taught to consider levels of fellowship and the importance of those doctrines and practices that might hinder fellowship. David Nettleton used to model this principle by featuring speakers from outside of the Fundamental-Baptist-Dispensational orbit. We could hear an amillennialist like Peter Masters or a conservative evangelical like Lehman Strauss.

Even in the 1960s and 1970s, mainstream Fundamentalists were beginning to separate from Hyper-Fundamentalists. Perhaps the quintessential example is the rejection of Carl McIntire’s leadership by the American Council of Christian churches and its fellowshipping denominations. I was able to observe this separation at close-hand when I was a student at both Faith and Denver. Mainstream Fundamentalists have been building walls on the Right for a very long time.

What is surprising is that anyone would think this statement says something new. It is a fair representation of the mainstream Fundamentalism in which I was reared.

I commend the clarity and conviction that the statement by Central conveys. I also applaud the careful step of explaining that some evangelicals are worth cautiously cooperating with. I further applaud a clear delineation of various versions of fundamentalism that you reject.

What is not so clear to me, is how rejecting various fundamentalist or evangelical varieties aligns with a few points made in the paper. First it is said that fellowship is around the fundamentals which relate to the gospel, and leaders who make ties with those repudiating the fundamentals are to be rejected. How do the various fundamentalist wings or even some of the evangelical wings specifically repudiate or deny the fundamentals or align with those that do? Secondly, some fundamentalists are chided for adding “requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship”. I fail to see how aligning with a particular musical style as being the only acceptable one for worship is not also adding to those same requirements.

I think many of the practices of some on the far right are dangerous yes, and less than best. But many individuals are still worth maintaining a gospel fellowship or association with. I understand there are various degrees of separation and fellowship, those degrees don’t seem clear in this paper where it appears they reject the far left and far right equally, and then by implication claim all this “rejecting” going on relates intimately to the gospel.

KJV Onlyists, anti-Calvinists, revivalists and the like — they are not all of one carbon-copy, one-size-fits-all variety. I think separation should be crystal clear on first-level doctrines, and less firm and strong as you move down to second and third level issues which may impact practical cooperation, but shouldn’t be as important as gospel matters.

Just my two cents. It is good to see such documents being put forth as thinking through such matters helps all involved.

[Kevin T. Bauder] What is surprising is that anyone would think this statement says something new. It is a fair representation of the mainstream Fundamentalism in which I was reared.

While I was not raised in Fundamentalism ^*, the statement basically represents the fundamentalism I have always known (since 1969)

^* http://4bya.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/my-testimony-of-faith-in-christ/

This appears to be a fine statement by the faculty of Central Baptist Seminary. It appears to set forth the continuation of their historic position and adapts to present additional circumstances.

I graduated from Central in 1975 at age 35 (almost 36). I had already had experience in ministry and the business world. This statement reflects Fundamentalism as generally understood at that time. Dr. Clearwaters was a militant Fundamentalist as described by that term by George Dollar in his book “The History of Fundamentalism” which came out in 1973. Doc Clearwaters was very focused on the subject of separation due to being through the battles himself.

The book “Which Bible” by David Otis Fuller came out in 1970. The KJVO position was advocated by a Seventh Day Adventist from where David Otis Fuller appears to have obtained most of his arguments. The KJVO position was just becoming a little bit of an issue in the 70s. However, many Fundamentalists still avoided fellowship with those of the Hyles and Falwell style of Fundamentalism. Falwell would move away from Fundamentalism, Hyles would eventually become a KJVO advocate. Since that time the KJVO position has become a major issue among some who use the name Fundamentalist. Since the issue involves the necessity of post apostolic inspiration and / or revelation, it takes those churches and persons who are KJVO outside the realm of Christian epistemology that fits within biblical doctrine and the establishment of biblical facts as historically valid according to normal historiography. This is very serious deviation. It undermines the foundation of historic Christianity. It is probably necessary for the integrity of the Christian faith that other Fundamentalists separate from those holding the KJVO position.

This statement by the Central faculty appears to hold to the traditional historic Fundamentalist position but allow for the necessity of not including those of the KJVO position within that Fundamentalist fellowship. This position would not be liked by KJVO advocates. However, many of them have their own principles of separation that makes them separate from all non KJVO churches and pastors.

We should thank the faculty of Central Baptist Seminary for this Ethos statement and for their Ethos statement regarding salvation and sanctification. They appear very well thought out.

“Because of these differences, we do not believe that complete cooperation with conservative evangelicalism is desirable. Nevertheless, we find that we have much more in common with conservative evangelicals (who are slightly to our Left) than we do with hyper-Fundamentalists (who are considerably to our Right), or even with revivalistic Fundamentalists (who are often in our back yard). In conservative evangelicals we find allies who are willing to challenge not only the compromise of the gospel on the Left, but also the pragmatic approach to Christianity that typifies so many evangelicals and Fundamentalists. For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.”



I have a proposition which may nor may not be true. It is that fundamentalists who engage in “careful, limited forms of fellowship” with conservative evangelicals either A) will likely become conservative evangelicals themselves down the line or B) are already conservative evangelicals whether they acknowledge it and apply the terminology to themselves or not. (I could go on to state that a lot of “conservative evangelicals” are actually “moderate evangelicals” that are skirting the boundaries of what can honestly be called Biblical Christianity … you catch my drift.) So, what can fundamentalists - or more accurately the cause of Christ - gain from this “careful, limited form of fellowship”?

If the conservative evangelical will fellowship with a fundamentalist on Monday, an open theism/theistic evolutionist on Tuesday, and a Roman Catholic on Wednesday (why not go ahead and be consistent and add Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, shintos, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists and Scientologists to the dance card also?) then this “careful, limited fellowship” will serve different purposes for the fundamentalist than it will for the conservative evangelical, who will consider himself very mature for possessing the theological openness to be all things to all people so that he might save some. So why bother? What do conservative evangelicals have that fundamentalists need? (I said “need”, not “want.”)

This is not to say that conservative evangelicals are not Christians, and I understand the problems with refusing to fellowship with other born-again believers. However, the evangelical insistence of “extending Christian fellowship to those who clearly reject fundamental doctrines” is a real spiritual problem. That conservative evangelicals are now setting boundaries is insufficient, likely the result of crossing thresholds that the conservative evangelicals set themselves for their own arbitrary reasons, not Biblical truth, such as deciding that theistic evolution is OK but gay marriage isn’t because of being more comfortable with the former than the latter. It makes the conservative evangelical the arbiter of “acceptable” and “unacceptable”, and allows him to act as the final authority instead of the Bible. How is that different from “some Fundamentalists have attempted to add requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship.?”

Demanding that a Christian heed what the Bible says about not being yoked with unbelievers as a precondition of fellowship isn’t too much to ask. Evangelicals have decided that it is, and fundamentalists should not assimilate their position. That is my proposal, anyway.

Roland, you seemed to have trouble understanding why Kevin reacted as he did. Perhaps this would help….

[RPittman] it’s the same old spiritual oneupmanship

[RPittman] Is this the torpedo that sank the talks between Faith and Central?

No imagining of anything behind bushes involved.

My only concern w/the statement is that if there is going to be a separation from problem ministries/leaders on the right now in addition to separation from problem ministries/leaders on the left, are we just looking at more splintering? But ultimately people have to stand where they believe it’s right to stand as best they can discern that, regardless of how few join them there. (But it may well be that enough fundamentalists are looking at things this way now that this particular stance won’t be so lonely after all.)

Kevin says there’s nothing new here, and I don’t doubt it represents a long standing way of thinking, but I don’t recall seeing fundamentalist institutions put these kinds of distancing-from-the-far-right statements in writing before as expressions of official direction. So it looks to me like a new level of frankness about these things at the very least.

Edit: it may be that the “separation from the right” I referred to has really already pretty much happened.

Mr. Pittman,

I, too, am sorry that the conversation went awry (and with the very first post!), but here is what you said:

“As far as I can tell, it’s the same old spiritual oneupmanship that has been used since the Corinthian church to gain status and ascendancy.”

Let me repeat the purpose clause in your sentence: “to gain status and ascendancy.” Mr. Pittman, this is a very clear judgment about the intentions and motivations of my colleagues on the faculty at Central Baptist Seminary. It is more than a judgment: it is an accusation in a very public forum. Furthermore, it is false. The men whom you have smeared are about a million miles away from the kind of self-aggrandizement that you impute to them.

As for the putative difference between Faith and Central, I thought that I had answered that matter. Let me put it more clearly. Naturally, I can speak only for Central Seminary and not for Faith Baptist Bible College. If someone at Faith thinks that I have stated things wrongly, then they are free to correct me.

I know of no difference between Central Baptist Theological Seminary and Faith Baptist Bible College over the issue of separation. We are guided by the same principles and we apply them in much the same way. If we diverge at all in application (which I doubt), the difference is no greater than whatever diversity already exists within each of our faculties. It is indeed minuscule, and probably is nonexistent.

The professors from Faith teach regularly at Central and vice versa. The administration at Faith previews and critiques my “Nick of Time” essays, just as our own Central Seminary faculty and staff members do. Some of us at Central Seminary received our education from Faith and Denver, and most of the professors in the seminary at Faith received training from Central. The two seminaries are already cooperating in multiple ways, and we shall continue to do so in the future.

These congruities and others are precisely what led us to believe that a merger might be desirable. These common denominators remain undiminished by the decision that a merger was not in the best interests of both institutions. Far from it—the respect and esteem between our two schools has actually increased. There is absolutely no spirit of recrimination, competition, or (as you put it) one-upmanship. There is not a faculty member or administrator at Faith Baptist Seminary with whom our faculty would not be proud to work.

I personally would be happy to work for Dr. James Maxwell or Dr. John Hartog III. I would be happy to have either of them work for me. I owe my fundamentalists convictions and my interest in historical theology to George Houghton. I owe my interest in systematic theology and my overall theological framework to his brother, Myron. I count Paul Hartog as the brightest rising scholar in Fundamentalism today, and I consider Doug Brown to offer a rare combination of scholarly acumen, humility, and compassion. Ernie Schmidt, John Hartog II, and Alan Cole are all alumni of Central Seminary (so are Doug Brown and John Hartog III), and Tim Little is actually a student at Central Seminary while he teaches at Faith.

A rift between Central Seminary and Faith Baptist Bible College exists only in the minds of gossip-mongers and prevaricators (and, Mr. Pittman, I am NOT including you here). Such individuals are the pus, phlegm, and bile in the body of Fundamentalism. May God stop their mouths, along with unfounded speculations and unsupported assertions that they proliferate.

Between Faith Baptists Bible College and Central Seminary exists only mutual blessing and a firm commitment to strengthening one another. We heartily support and recommend each other’s doctrine, faculty, position, and academic standards. Whoever says that the two institutions are moving in different directions is simply displaying ignorance. No one has heard such things from the administration at Faith. No one will hear any such things from me.

Kevin T. Bauder

P.S. Regarding my “narrow” experience of Fundamentalism—

You are joking, right?

P.P.S. Regarding McIntire, thanks for making my point.

P.P.P.S. Regarding Clearwaters and Dollar. Central today stands very much where Clearwaters stood (perhaps a bit more separatistic), though not so much where Dollar did. When he was at Central, Dollar was denouncing Faith as “moderate” rather than a “militant”. For his part, Clearwaters was willing to lecture at Faith. The break between Clearwaters and Dollar came when Dollar claimed that he had fought New Evangelicalism at Dallas and at Bob Jones, and now he was fighting it at Central Seminary. Doc did not let that pass. Oh, and Clearwaters was crystal clear in his opposition to the King James Only philosophy.

P.P.P.P.S. For your information, Fundamentalism still comprises Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. That is an aspect of Fundamentalism that I applaud. In fact, I have worked as hard as anyone to integrate non-Baptists into mainstream Fundamentalist organizations. You might be interested to listen to my commencement address at Geneva Reformed Seminary from a few years back.

Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.

Does this statement put these seminaries at odds with most fundamental Christian camps in the Country?

Mr. Hayton,

Thank you for your praise, faint as it was.

After reading your post, I am not sure that you are attempting to interact with our statement so much as to use it as an occasion for scoring points that are of interest t you. For example, if you can cite any section of the posted statement that suggests making music a test of Fundamentalism, then I have a thousand dollars that I’ll put in the mail to you tomorrow.

I don’t see how you can question the fact that some evangelicals have made common cause with gospel-deniers, recognizing them as Christians and even pointing to them as Christian leaders. Pick up George Marsden’s “Reforming Fundamentalism,” and look in the index under Graham, Billy. Then read the signatures on Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Then consult the signatories for the Manhattan Declaration. Do you really want to debate any of this?

Such evangelicals do not deny the gospel. What they do, however, is to demean the gospel by demoting it from its proper place as the boundary of Christian fellowship. According to 2 John, they gain a share in the harm that apostates do. While they are not denying the gospel, they are damaging it.

The same is true of hyper-fundamentalists on the Right. They add other things to the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship, which does equal and opposite damage. We do not have liberty to treat just any doctrine or practice as fundamental. To elevate non-fundamentals to the level of essentials is to incorporate them into the gospel itself. This is much the same error that of the social gospel crowd commits—and you KNOW how we feel about that!

On my view, hyper-fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals (or whatever we’d call them now) need to be treated in pretty much the same way. We recognize them as brethren, but we limit our involvement with them very sharply. We certainly do not recognize them as insightful Christian leaders.

In both cases—whether the hyper-fundamentalist Right or the neo-evangelical Left—the gospel is still the issue. The problem lies in the role that the gospel is expected to perform. Anyone who dethrones the gospel from its position as the borderline of Christian fellowship, whether by addition or deletion, has done damage to it.

More than that, the conduct of individuals on both extremes has brought disrepute upon the gospel. Both seeker evangelicalism and revivalist Fundamentalism engage in manipulative techniques that disgrace (in the proper, literal sense of the term) the gospel. Abusive and manipulative leadership reflects a lack of commitment to the sufficiency and transforming power of the gospel. These are trends that must be rejected, if not for the being of the church, then at least for its wellbeing.

Kevin T. Bauder

Pastor Joe,

It certainly creates no tension with Camp Clearwaters!

Kevin

Kevin,

Outstanding! Thanks for your work. More thoughts later.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Mr. King,

I have a proposition which may or may not be true. It is that Fundamentalists who will not engage in “careful, limited forms of fellowship” with conservative evangelicals (A) will likely become Islamic terrorists themselves down the line, or (B) are already Islamic terrorists whether they acknowledge it and apply the terminology to themselves.

Makes a nice syllogism, doesn’t it? Of course, somebody who has an ounce of sense might point out that it is a complete non sequitur, but why get hung up on details?

Do you personally know of conservative evangelicals who are knowingly extending Christian recognition to open theists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc?

No?

I didn’t think so.

Neither do I.

I do know of evangelicals who do some of these things, but not of conservative evangelicals. The conservative evangelicals I know have fought hard against Open Theism, evangelical feminism, and the New Perspective on Paul. They have cleaned apostates out of seminaries and mission agencies. They have been mocked and abused because of their stand for the truth. They have even had their lives threatened.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to think that an evangelical is an evangelical is an evangelical. But you can’t do theology with a blunt instrument like that. The only thing that blunt instruments are good for is causing mayhem.

Joel,

Now I’m worried!

Straight ahead,

Kevin

Why are fundamentalists so obsessed with the denominational mindset? Why can’t we have independent churches instead of wasting so much effort trying to figure out who is on our team?

Laboring in Minnesota and interacting with the Central men, I can assure you that they are not obsessed with any kind of “denominational mindset.” And I think it is also a mistake to say that they are trying to figure out “who is one their team.” What I see them doing with this (and the other) ethos statement(s) is clarifying their own position and identity- so people know what “their team” stands for. We all know that there are Christian people and institutions who don’t agree with everything said here. What Central has done here is distinguish themselves as an institution. You may not agree with them, and therefore, you are not compelled to support them. I don’t understand, however, why you feel the need to respond as dismissively as you do. If you so value independence, why not allow them the ability to function independently and articulate their identity and guiding principles so that independent churches can be aware of where they stand?

[AndrewSuttles] Why are fundamentalists so obsessed with the denominational mindset? Why can’t we have independent churches instead of wasting so much effort trying to figure out who is on our team?

The reference to denominationalism seems to be introducing a different idea. From the beginning, fundamentalism was not a matter of the denomination to which one was linked. I recognize that some who view themselves as fundamentalists have become excessively focused on denomination, but the implication that this is true of fundamentalists generally lacks foundation.

Moreover, having independent churches does not itself avoid either issue. First, some churches that call themselves “independent” nonetheless have quite a denominational mindset. Second, avoiding the pitfall of whether one is of Peter, Paul, or Apollos (as Paul puts it in I Cor 1 and 3) does not eliminate all “team” issues. At minimum, we always have to recognize the team boundary imposed by the gospel (e.g., Gal 1:8-9; 2 John 10).

…but RPittman should know that Kevin was at one point in his life a member of the church formerly pastored by Jack Hyles in Garland, TX.

Dr. Bauder,

Thanks for your interaction here. It truly is helpful.

You said, “For example, if you can cite any section of the posted statement that suggests making music a test of Fundamentalism, then I have a thousand dollars that I’ll put in the mail to you tomorrow.” Rest assured I’m not looking to cash in on anything :-) I did see the following quotes which got me thinking that way, however.

We also reject the “new-image Fundamentalism” that absorbs the current culture, producing a worldly worship and a pragmatic ministry. These self-professed fundamentalists often follow the latest trends in ministry, disparage theological labels such as Baptist, and aggressively criticize any version of Fundamentalism not following their ministry style.

The marks of a strong Fundamentalism will include the following:

5. An elevation of the importance of ordinate Christian affections, expressed partly by sober worship that is concerned with the exaltation and magnification of God.

I am happy if by this you aren’t “making music a test of Fundamentalism”. Happy to hear it. For my part, I help out our church’s worship “band” where we very much do not want to be offering “worldly worship” and inordinate affections. We do however utilize contemporary music styles as we sing songs that exalt and magnify Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, I do applaud your rejection of aberrant fundamentalism. Everything you object to (although I wonder a bit about Straub’s description of the “new-image camp”) I do too. I just wonder if a clear rejection opens you up to the charge that you are elevating certain Calvinistic tendencies and viewpoints to a level equal with the gospel.

I guess, as I stumble along here, I’m trying to harmonize the list of marks of fundamentalism with the statement that you believe separation should be from those who reject doctrines essential to the gospel or with those who associate with doctrines essential to the gospel.

Truth be told, I walked away from fundamentalism altogether once (at least that is how I viewed it). But interaction with Sharper Iron and with some of your writings has taught me much about a fundamentalism I never really knew. I agree separation over the gospel and the big doctrines are important in fact that is the basic separation doctrine I see in Scripture. To be fair, I’m struggling finding how I can still view the hyper-fundamentalism of my past (which doesn’t explicitly deny such doctrines or hob-nob with those who do) with as much disdain as I once did. I see good people there and so I’m working through these things even now.

I do agree some evangelicals have given party to fundamental-doctrine-deniers. But the conservative evangelical crowd hasn’t exactly done that. I’m a former member of John Piper’s church (for 4 1/2 years), and have been helping a church plant in St. Paul pastored by a fellow who used to be on staff at MacArthur’s church. So I want to let everyone know that in case it makes a difference. That’s my perspective. Our little church isn’t approving of those denying fundamental doctrines, by any stretch.

I’ll quit now as I’m not sure I’m making that much sense. I appreciate the clarity with which you typically write Dr. Bauder. And I see this statement as clear too, but I’m just struggling fitting the first part about the gospel in with everything else.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Roland,

I don’t know why you are so insistent here. I think this kind of approach is over the top and not called for.

Dr. Bauder in what I’ve read of his work, is very aware of other spheres and sectors of fundamentalism. I don’t think he’s necessarily claiming that his views are dominant and the mainstream, but they have been represented in fundamentalism all along. The other crowd appears larger from my vantage point too, and they speak more loudly, but that doesn’t mean they can define what fundamentalism really is. There have always been J. Frank Norris types even as there have been J. Greshem Machen types.

You should also be a bit more humble in addressing an elder statesman. That would be respectful and fitting in a forum like this.

Not really sure why I’m addressing this. I just wanted to let you know you can express your disagreement without being so abrasive.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Knowing how busy you are and how ridiculous forum conversations can get when everyone has an equally weighted say, I just wanted to say I appreciate your interaction here. Please keep writing and shining the truth in the darkness.

I think Dr. Bauder represents (at least in part) the positions held by those Fundamental Baptists who came out of the Northern Baptist Movement\Convention. For what it’s worth, many of us do not trace any of our spiritual DNA to or through the SBC. I would think it better to compare J. Frank Norris to W.B. Riley, Richard Clearwaters, Arno Q. Wenigar, Sr., G. Archer Wenigar, or B. Myron Cedarholm. Remember, we Northern Baptists have had any organizational ties to the Southern Baptists since the demise of the Triennial Convention.

Dr. Machen was a Proto-Fundamentalist Presbyterian. He was uncomfortable with the Fundamentalists of the 30s.

[Bob Hayton] Roland,

I don’t know why you are so insistent here. I think this kind of approach is over the top and not called for.

Dr. Bauder in what I’ve read of his work, is very aware of other spheres and sectors of fundamentalism. I don’t think he’s necessarily claiming that his views are dominant and the mainstream, but they have been represented in fundamentalism all along. The other crowd appears larger from my vantage point too, and they speak more loudly, but that doesn’t mean they can define what fundamentalism really is. There have always been J. Frank Norris types even as there have been J. Greshem Machen types.

You should also be a bit more humble in addressing an elder statesman. That would be respectful and fitting in a forum like this.

Not really sure why I’m addressing this. I just wanted to let you know you can express your disagreement without being so abrasive.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Roland,

I appreciate the kind things you’ve said about me and all. I still don’t advocate a “no-holds-barred” approach to interacting with my seniors. It is a sticky issue with blogging and forums and all. But 1 Tim. 5:1 comes to mind, as do several passages in Proverbs about interacting with people. I think we have to take extra care in online venues as the demeanor and manner behind our typing is completely invisible, often.

[Rob Fall] I think Dr. Bauder represents (at least in part) the positions held by those Fundamental Baptists who came out of the Northern Baptist Movement\Convention. For what it’s worth, many of us do not trace any of our spiritual DNA to or through the SBC. I would think it better to compare J. Frank Norris to W.B. Riley, Richard Clearwaters, Arno Q. Wenigar, Sr., G. Archer Wenigar, or B. Myron Cedarholm. Remember, we Northern Baptists have had any organizational ties to the Southern Baptists since the demise of the Triennial Convention.

Dr. Machen was a Proto-Fundamentalist Presbyterian. He was uncomfortable with the Fundamentalists of the 30s.

Thanks, I knew there were other names in the opposite version of Fundamentalism besides Machen. He was all that came to mind at the time though.

I must say, if one is squeamish maybe the exchange between R. Pittman and Dr. Kevin Bauder wasn’t for them but as for me, Roland and Kevin requited themselves very well and much to the benefit of the readers. And I believe that, in interacting here, Kevin Bauder is quite aware that the context is much more pedestrian and the usual formalities of elevated contexts are not as demanded, hence he is appreciated for accepting Roland’s directness and countering without posturing (I say this not because Dr. Bauder would do this but it is often the modus operandi of many here and in theological circles to feign pretentious aghast that someone would approach with such bluntness while, in truth, never actually delivering the kind of blows they are accused of delivering) . Neither strayed from any point and both making the force of their arguments compacted instead of needlessly extended and I appreciate Mr. Pittman sticking to his views (not that I agree or disagree with them, that isn’t the point) and insisting on taking them to their ends while Dr. Bauder’s returns which were perspicacious to say the least.

But this is the least of what I wanted to say. Mainly that it was good to read, as Aaron and Bob T. pointed out (and any others who I may have missed) that there is a clearly articulated rejection of those on the fringe whose exotic (and at times simply condemnable) extremes place them outside the circle of approval and in fact Central willingly used the word “dangerous” to describe them. There is a certain elevated level of responsibility that Central and Dr. Bauder are taking that other institutions would not come close to even admitting in private, that is to be applauded zealously.

A significant amount of time and energy has been invested and this effort, whether one agrees in whole or in part, should give a sense of indebtedness to its readers. It is clear that a protracted process has gone in in the mind of Dr. Bauder, but likely far from only his but with his peers as well it seems, and as a result a very detailed survey and and assessment of Christianity on the right and in the middle and where fundamentalism lies along with its cousin (CE), has resulted. As well and most pertinent, where is fundamentalism headed?

This is critical. While it might be true that fundamentalism is a dynamic to which no one can claim proprietary rights, it appears that many happily will eschew this label (therefore it means something to many) or some will hijack this tag and bring to it types and kinds that render great damage to a legitimate and worthwhile theological identification. So why then cannot it be resuscitated and brought back to a position of strength through the process of reclamation involving the shedding of extremes and re-articulation? And who is to say that it may not be? So while Christian fundamentalism may be a dynamic, it need not be a dynamic left without leadership and expression.

As a former Calvinist and now a non-Calvinist (as distinguished from an Arminian) I personally have no issue with the Calvinistic leanings that one can find at Central and its periphery. They are not excessive or sycophantic. They appear to be Christian first with commitment to grammatico-historical exegesis which allows for recognition of theological schools and arguments, without condescension, from more than one quarter while reasonably defending their own convictions.

RPittman wrote:

As I understand your boundaries, you have left large groups including Pensacola Christian College, Ambassador Baptist College, West Coast Baptist College, the Sword of the Lord , Crown College, Hyles-Anderson College, Heartland Baptist College, Tabernacle Baptist Seminary,

These institutions appear to represent the KJVO position. They were founded in the 1970s. They are historically disconnected from the Fundamentalists of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s by their doctrine of scripture. Further, by their doctrine of scripture they hold to a view of preservation that advocates a kind of continuation of apostolic authority to translators and textual critics. Such continued divine inspiration denies the traditional doctrines of scripture. This denial moves them away from Fundamentalism by basic doctrine. Further, some Fundamentalists believe this doctrine is a dangerous deviation of foundational truth that brings disrepute upon the intellectual integrity of Christianity. While the KJVOers believe and preach the true gospel, they undermine the true basis for discovering and knowing that gospel.

Those advocating the non Fundamental KJVO doctrine appear to come far short of representing the majority who call themselves Fundamentalists. Such groups as the FBFI, GARBC, and other institutions and groups, appear to represent a majority. However, numbers are not relevant to whether the KJVO churches and persons fall within the historic Fundamentalist definition. As one who was a student at Central when the founder, Doc Clearwaters, was still at the helm, let me assure you that this Ethos statement is representative of the Fundamentalism advocated then by Doc and the school. It is representative of the Minnesota Baptist Association. The school was then representative of Fundamentalism of the type that fought the battles in the old Northern Baptist convention. This was a major part of historic Fundamentalism. They would later clearly denounce the new emerging doctrine of the scriptures being promoted by KJVO advocates.

There are some Hyper Fundamentalist bloggers chomping at the bit to attack the Central Ethos statement, and the fact that Central and Faith are not formally merging at this time, into some sort of sign of compromise or disagreement that it does not appear to be. Actually, the statement indicates clearly that Central remains a strong historical Fundamentalist school. It represents what the Founder represented. We should certainly take as true Kevin Bauder’s statement regarding the unity of position and fellowship of Faith and Central.

I state the above but probably have a much more cautious view of the CEs than some Fundamentalists at Central. I am very familiar with the MacArthurism LS gospel and Masters College and Seminary. There are many more problems involved here than many are willing to recognize. There are a multitude of doctrinal deviations, exaggerations, misrepresentation of opponents positions, and harsh militant attitudes, that need to be addressed. There is often an imperious elitism that does harm within and to churches.

He accused me of judging motivation. I did not. I boldly challenged his position but I attached no stigma to his or Central’s motivation. Let me define “spiritual oneupmanship.” This is when one group defines the issues, history, or positions of a larger movement so that this one group is the quintessential (Dr. B’s term but I like it) body of the larger. IMHO, this is precisely what Dr. Bauder and Central were doing by his definition of historic, mainstream Fundamentalism to lie within their sphere meanwhile excluding a larger and different representation of the so-called far right wing. They marginalized the larger portion of Fundamentalism to make their own position mainstream. This is not judging motives but it is a critique of their statement.

Roland, You defined “spiritual oneupmanship,” but you didn’t define “to gain status and ascendancy.” Generally, the word “to” as used in that sentence is understood as “in order to,” meaning purpose or intended result, which sounds a lot like motivation: They did this because they were motivated to do that. The implication seems to be that they did this “in order to gain status and ascendancy.” You can probably see how easily that could be confused with attributing a motivation to them.

Therefore, I wonder if “to” might have been the word you should have defined to show how it was not a statement about motivations.

I also think it would be incumbent on you to show how gaining status and ascendancy is somehow wrong. You liken it to the Corinthian church, but why not liken it to Paul in the Corinthian church, where Paul asserts his status and ascendancy over the false apostles? If someone is right, their view should gain status and ascendancy (such as Paul over the false apostles). Consider yourself: You think you are right and so you spend time here (and probably other places) trying to gain “status and ascendancy” for your view. And you object strongly when someone disagrees with it, which you did here and that is certainly fine; I don’t think that’s wrong. If it stems from pride, of course it’s wrong. If it stems from a desire to love and honor the truth, it is not wrong. If CBTS’ statement seems to be a desire to love and honor the truth, and if it in fact does so, then it is hard to argue that gaining status and ascendancy for it is wrong.

At the risk of appearing to defend Dr. Bauder (which some have strangely and incorrectly attributed to me), I think Dr. Bauder’s grasp on fundamentalism is broad enough to include the groups you mention, and that is precisely why he wants to “restate, refine, and strengthen biblical Fundamentalism.” He believes, and many would say with good reason, that certain forms are fundamentalism are deficient and should be repudiated, or at least refined and strengthened. His whole argument (here with the CBTS faculty and elsewhere with his own comments) seems to stem from his knowledge of broader fundamentalism and his concern with it. If everyone he knew about or had experience with agreed with him (i.e., his “narrow slice”), there would be no need for him to argue for a different type of fundamentalism worth saving. The only reason he says fundamentalism needs saving is because he is aware of the things you mention, and considers them to be a fundamentalism not worth saving. Complain about his point if you will, or disagree with it; but realize that his comments are made because he knows them, not because he doesn’t.

I would add most of the schools which Brother Pittman cites come out of the former\ex SBC side of the family.

Clarification: My statement above should read, “we Northern Baptists have not had any organizational ties to the Southern Baptists since the demise of the Triennial Convention.”

[Bob T.] RPittman wrote:

As I understand your boundaries, you have left large groups including Pensacola Christian College, Ambassador Baptist College, West Coast Baptist College, the Sword of the Lord , Crown College, Hyles-Anderson College, Heartland Baptist College, Tabernacle Baptist Seminary,

These institutions appear to represent the KJVO position. They were founded in the 1970s. They are historically disconnected from the Fundamentalists of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s by their doctrine of scripture. Further, by their doctrine of scripture they hold to a view of preservation that advocates a kind of continuation of apostolic authority to translators and textual critics. Such continued divine inspiration denies the traditional doctrines of scripture. This denial moves them away from Fundamentalism by basic doctrine. Further, some Fundamentalists believe this doctrine is a dangerous deviation of foundational truth that brings disrepute upon the intellectual integrity of Christianity. While the KJVOers believe and preach the true gospel, they undermine the true basis for discovering and knowing that gospel.

Those advocating the non Fundamental KJVO doctrine appear to come far short of representing the majority who call themselves Fundamentalists. Such groups as the FBFI, GARBC, and other institutions and groups, appear to represent a majority. However, numbers are not relevant to whether the KJVO churches and persons fall within the historic Fundamentalist definition. As one who was a student at Central when the founder, Doc Clearwaters, was still at the helm, let me assure you that this Ethos statement is representative of the Fundamentalism advocated then by Doc and the school. It is representative of the Minnesota Baptist Association. The school was then representative of Fundamentalism of the type that fought the battles in the old Northern Baptist convention. This was a major part of historic Fundamentalism. They would later clearly denounce the new emerging doctrine of the scriptures being promoted by KJVO advocates.

There are some Hyper Fundamentalist bloggers chomping at the bit to attack the Central Ethos statement, and the fact that Central and Faith are not formally merging at this time, into some sort of sign of compromise or disagreement that it does not appear to be. Actually, the statement indicates clearly that Central remains a strong historical Fundamentalist school. It represents what the Founder represented. We should certainly take as true Kevin Bauder’s statement regarding the unity of position and fellowship of Faith and Central.

I state the above but probably have a much more cautious view of the CEs than some Fundamentalists at Central. I am very familiar with the MacArthurism LS gospel and Masters College and Seminary. There are many more problems involved here than many are willing to recognize. There are a multitude of doctrinal deviations, exaggerations, misrepresentation of opponents positions, and harsh militant attitudes, that need to be addressed. There is often an imperious elitism that does harm within and to churches.

I think, based on what I’m reading of Bauder, that he’s articulating a design for what real Fundamentalism should look like, not trying to paint a portrait of what it currently is. If you look at some of his other writings - the lecture to the AACS jumps to mind - that’s a little more obvious.

Mr. Hayton,

Drop me an email and let’s grab a Coke some time (or coffee if you prefer—I can’t stand the stuff). These are questions well worth discussing.

I do personally think that music is a very important issue, and I am willing to argue for its importance elsewhere.

Having said that, I recognize that it is not the issue that distinguishes Fundamentalists from other evangelicals. Our faculty and students represent a whole spectrum of views on this subject. It’s one of those things that we can talk about seriously without having to get upset or break fellowship.

That’s really the core of our ethos. We are a fellowship of learning, in which professors and students challenge one another to think. Our classrooms are not full of profs imparting unchangeable wisdom and students carefully copying it into their notebooks (though we are not ashamed of holding to unchangeable truths). Rather, our modus operandi is constant conversation, both in the classroom and out of it.

We expect our students to question us. We expect them to argue with us. We expect them to push us to the limits of our understanding. How else will they ever know where those limits are?

We do not expect them simply to parrot what we believe. We want them to own their beliefs, and that means thinking through the problems for themselves. Our profs are more like coaches than like oracles (though we do proclaim the oracles of God). Our goal is not to give our students all the answers, but to give them a box full of tools that they can use to get answers for themselves.

It’s all a long way from stuffy, egg-headed, ivory-tower intellectualism. Most of all, its about ministry. While some seminaries try to train their students in techniques, we prefer to teach them to think, all the while seeking to shape their affections.

It bothers me when people who don’t know us put us into an IFB stereotype. It also bothers me when people think that we are just about bright minds. We are also about skillful hands—but more than that, we are about devout hearts. We believe that it is sinful to set these things in opposition to each other.

Now I’M the one who is using our exchange as an excuse to talk about what is important to me. Sorry to derail the conversation! But do send me that email. I’m good for lunch.

Kevin

Thanks, Dr. Bauder. I’ll be sending that email soon.

It’s refreshing to hear that perspective on seminary education. I would have loved such an environment, but often took flak for being the one to ask questions in the IFB Bible College and Seminary where I went to school….

I’m not lopping anything off. Nor am I condemning any one to purgatory. Add to the Faith-Central sphere MBBC, Northland, Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) and International Baptist College. It’s a large enough grouping for Dr. Bauder to enunciate positions peculiar to it. IOW, what he writes may only be applicable to that sphere. I tend to think of the whole matter in astronomical terms. In the Christian universe, there are various sectors and sub-sectors. The Fundamental Baptist sub-sector has many further historical and cultural natural divisions.

As for learning from the inside, I think many here are more than familiar with men in your position. I would remind you Jack Hyles spoke for many year at MBBC’s Fall Soul Winning and Missionary Conference. I would posit it’s my southern brethren reared on the Sword of the Lord who need to understand the historical differences. I leave here so I don’t go into personalities. One factor contributing to the lack of understanding is we northerners didn’t/don’t have a non-associational publication like the SoL. So, many perceive(d) the SoL as speaking for Fundamental Baptists as a whole. When, in fact it didn’t/doesn’t..

As for “our northern brethren find more in common with the conservative Evangelicals,” it’s probably due to the fact that many of them came through the CBA.

[RPittman]

[Rob Fall] I would add most of the schools which Brother Pittman cites come out of the former\ex SBC side of the family.

Clarification: My statement above should read, “we Northern Baptists have not had any organizational ties to the Southern Baptists since the demise of the Triennial Convention.”

Rob, you are right. Thank you for making this point. And I think it is important and germane point in order to understand my position. My argument has run that Fundamentalism is much larger and more diverse than the Faith-Central sphere of influence. I have respect for these guys but don’t lop off the other arm. From this perspective, it appears that our northern brethren find more in common with the conservative Evangelicals than other self-identified Fundamentalists. My challenge is to learn more about us from the inside before condemning us to purgatory.

Rowland,

Bob and I do not always agree, but I think on this he is right. My heritage is more southern fundamentalism, eventhough I am a Northerner. My uncle left Michigan to go to Bob Jones and spent his entire ministry in the South. Our family was greatly influenced by Southern fundamentalism. I often felt growing up that I was settling for being in a church in the North because they weren’t as good.

But the KJVO position that Bob is speaking of his diametically opposed to our movement. John R. Rice was not KJVO. I have a relative that also remembers hearing Dr. Sightler preach from the old ASV! Later, the SOL and Tabernacle people became more KJVO, but only after swallowing the Fuller, Riplinger pills. I have no problem fellowshiping with someone who only uses the KJV. Many in my church only use it. But the quasi-Ruckman people are just a dangerous as the Ruckamites, maybe even worse. Or to put it this way, an institution that says, “if you change your KJVO position, you will turn in your degree” is not really part of the latter Fundamentalist movement that John R Rice was apart of.

RPittman,

In this developing discussion, I can see this developing into a game show where the announcer says, “Welcome to Who Gets to Wear the Label?” (notice my tongue in cheek)

If all this is boils down to a battle of labels…as far as I’m concerned, you can have it.

Appreciated the article Dr. Bauder!

I spend a day away from my computer, and the discussions on Central blows through the roof!

I pray that this discourse will have the net result of bringing well-deserved attention and interest (especially from prospective students) to both Central and Faith, who will each continue on separately but cooperatively.

I am sure that there are people involved in this discussion who probably have not thought about Faith — particularly its seminary — for a long time. May God use it in His way to attract students who He would lead to both schools.

First just a thought. Quoting previous comments is usually most helpful when you don’t quote the other guy’s entire post, but rather a small portion. Also, sarcasm is fair game. Jesus did it. Paul did it, and Bauder does it pretty well. It drives a point home well, and usually the only people who are offended at it are either those in the wrong, or those who don’t get the joke.

End lecture.

Question to Dr. Bauder. Can you give me an example of “New Image Fundamentalism?” In which kind of circles would this occur? I think a lot of people, including you, would want a new image for fundamentalism. For example, I told a Buddhist client of mine today that I was a fundamentalist Christian, and here eyes popped out of her head. I’m in an area where suits, organ music, and other stylistic expressions just aren’t helpful to our membership, where a guitar and Starbucks coffee might be. I love other fundamentalists, and Baptists, and I don’t think I’m all that pragmatic. Am I still a New Image Fundamentalist? Is it a matter of attitude on all counts as you described them, or is it a more stylistic thing. I know you’re generalizing in the statement, but could you be more specific?

Thanks.

Shayne McAllister

When a godly fundamentalist like Dr. Bauder is willing to make the observation that some conservative evangelicals are more tolerable than some fundamentalists, it stings. Unfortunately, Dr. Bauder is not the only godly man making such an observation.

Brian, Two quick questions.

First, I wonder what the “cooperative effort” was in the MD. So far as I recall, nothing was actually done, was it? There was no effort of any type. Perhaps I missed something. I think it was just a statement of common concern about three main cultural issues.

Second, I wonder what you make of http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-decla… these words from Mohler himself . They seem fairly clearly to contradict your thoughts about Mohler’s position. Perhaps you weren’t aware of these comments from Mohler where it sounds to me like he removes all doubt about his position on the “gospel” of Catholicism. (I know some people who talk a lot don’t always tell the whole truth, and so these comments are not as repeated as perhaps they should be.) He seems to plainly state that Catholicism is irreconcilable with the biblical gospel, but I wonder how you understand these comments.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues — the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

To be clear, I think Mohler should not have signed the MD, and I have said so. I think it sent a mixed message because it failed to distinguish clearly between biblical and cultural Christianity, and it accomplished virtually nothing precisely because there was nothing done, no “cooperative effort” at all. So any suggestion that I am “running interference” for anyone or excusing abberant doctrine or practice is a flat out lie and is inexcusable. I think Mohler was wrong to do this.

But these statements from Mohler seem pretty clear to me that he does hold a biblical gospel and does not compromise it. So I am wondering where you think the confusion in them is.

Thanks

[Shaynus] Question to Dr. Bauder. Can you give me an example of “New Image Fundamentalism?” In which kind of circles would this occur? I think a lot of people, including you, would want a new image for fundamentalism…. and I don’t think I’m all that pragmatic. Am I still a New Image Fundamentalist? Is it a matter of attitude on all counts as you described them, or is it a more stylistic thing. I know you’re generalizing in the statement, but could you be more specific?

Some previous articles shared on SI and elsewhere may help. I’m with you on wondering about the label “new image fundamentalist”. I suspect I’m labeled as one, or else I’ve gone beyond that now…. But the motivations expressed really don’t match up with my own situation. These links may help.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22115897/Bauders-Taxonomy] Bauder’s own taxonomy (with a column of descriptions about New Image Fundamentalism)

http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/reference/fund_taxonomy_char…] Jeff Straub’s taxonomy of fundamentalist varieties

http://sharperiron.org/article/fundamentalist-challenge-for-21st-centur…] Jeff Straub discussing New Image Fundamentalism, part 1 (scroll to the bottom)

http://sharperiron.org/article/fundamentalist-challenge-for-21st-centur…] Jeff Straub discussing New Image Fundamentalism, part 2

Jeff teaches at Bauder’s seminary.

I have it on pretty good authority that the following is official policy for an unnamed Bible college:

As candidates for graduation from –– Baptist College, I want to ask you to listen to the following challenge. As your “final test” at this institution, I would like to ask you if you agree with the following:

That the Bible is the fully verbally inspired Word of God, and that God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people…..

That if at any time, as a graduate of ––- Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.

There does seem to be wiggle room, such that for myself, I could claim that God has preserved His Word in the KJV as well as in other versions like the ESV too. But their intent may well be to encourage that their graduates remain KJVO. Graduates must affirm a variety of beliefs this being one of them. It does not specifically rule out using other versions, though.

---

Edited to removed second reference to college name… since the first was removed, I’m guessing Bob’s intent was to remove both. -Aaron

I really hesitate jumping in to this discussion …

I once said to a friend regarding a man at Southern that I had the privilege of studying under that this dear brother was one of the finest men I knew—a superb blend of godliness and erudition. To which my friend balked. How could a non-separatist be godly? He after all missed an important biblical doctrine.

Well, in fact, this dear man is a separatist, just not a IFB separatist. For instance, he was no supporter of Billy Graham when he came to Louisville in 2002. Oh, to be sure, he wasn’t “militant,” but neither did he compromise his convictions in this matter.

Godly men are always reasonable men. If this is the case, few if any KJVO men can be by definition “godly.” I am fully aware that I will get severely chided for this assertion. Nevertheless, the KJVO movement, among them schools that Mr. Pittman mentioned, promote a position that cannot be sustained by truth. The evidence against KJVOnlyism is indisputable to any one willing to consider the case on its own merits. Moreover, as I have contended elsewhere, the KJVO movement is utterly unbaptistic. Baptists have historically wanted the Scriptures in the language of the common man, which the KJV 1611 is not. Languages change. But this is ultimately beside the point.

I am happy to allow my KJV friend to use the KJV if he feels that before God this is the text for him. Would it surprise anyone to know that Kevin Bauder preached in chapel today from the KJV. He regularly does in fact. I give Kevin the liberty to use the KJV and he gives me the liberty to use the ESV. Kevin is a reasonable man. In fact, we here at Central disagree on a number of minor issues—translations among them. We disagree charitably. But KJVO men, most with little or know knowledge or Greek or Hebrew, cannot give me this liberty. Nor can they be engaged in a reasonable discussion on the debate. Many, many are ultimately disingenuous. No one today uses the 1611! No one! The modern KJV versions (Oxford and Cambridge) are 18th century texts with minor variations from the 1611. Anyone who advertises that their church is “KJV 1611” is deceitful or ignorant.

The KJVO crowd—please note I am only talking about the KJVO crowd—cannot be godly unless they are ignorant of reality and sincerely but naively hold to the KJV. Most who promote the KJV do not fit this description, sadly. Few among them are godly. Many, many are strident and schismatic—not qualities of a godly man (1 Tim. 3:3 - “not quarrelsome”)

As a former TR-only advocate myself, I appreciate the problems that KJV onlyism has. There are several varieties among that position and some hold to it less stridently than others. I personally would prefer to see the Fall as contributing to this whole mess. Intellectually we are fallen, and some people are stubborn minded or ignorant and don’t know of what they speak. They are sincere and faithful and think they are following what’s right.

That being said, many are strident, schismatic, closed minded, and basically write off non-KJVOs as forcefully and more than Central does. For me it’s a little difficult. I can’t agree that everyone who is KJV Only or even the crowd in general is “not godly”. I think they have a big blindspot. Then again, in the http://kjvonlydebate.com/ KJV Only Debate group blog I’ve been running for a couple years now, we’ve had our fair share of fanatics that we’ve had to ban. But there are those that are ignorant too. Speaking this forcefully may draw boundaries but harm some of God’s sheep who may as yet come to their senses about the error that is KJV Onlyism. This error has dug in hard and deep in far too many fundamentalist churches. These kinds of drawing the line statements may in the end add fuel to the KJV only fire, unfortunately. But I can see wisdom in speaking out against it too. So I guess it’s a catch 22. I think separation would have to be done on an individual, case by case level, ultimately with regard to this issue. But that’s my thoughts.

[RPittman] I do not believe West Coast requires one to pledge turning his or her degree if the KJVO position is abandoned.

Sorry Rowland, but it is absolutely true. I sat in the 2003 graduation and heard this heresy first hand. I was attending the graduation of a former student and had to apologize to her parents after the graduation for ever recommending the school to them in the first place. Heresy such as this does not need compassionate understanding but militant rebuttal.

[rogercarlson] Or to put it this way, an institution that says, “if you change your KJVO position, you will turn in your degree” is not really part of the latter Fundamentalist movement that John R Rice was apart of.

What title should it be given since they themselves claim to be fundamental? Said school was invited to a Harvest Rally in IN several years ago and my daughter attended. From that time til she left for college, she got literature from them. They are ardently “fundamental”. At least as far as they claim.

To claim all who believe the KJV as the only Bible that should be used by English speakers as “not godly” seems over-the-top to me. Maybe because I have family represented on this side of the “spiritual family tree” or because I have friends here, it seems simply too strong. Some of them appear to be more godly than some who stand where we stand (IMO). (I say that because for someone else to declare someone else ‘godly’ or not seems funny. I’ve heard various people described this way to me when I’ve known a whole different side of them so that with restraint I refrained from comment as the gusher was telling me about the “great man of God” that I knew quite differently.)

I think that most of us don’t really believe that most of them are “rabid” about the subject. Maybe because I believe that most secretly “professed KJV only advocates” will buy calendars with the NIV on it, t-shirts, forward emails, etc., we don’t see their belief that the KJV is the ONLY one that can be used as as strong as a few of the vocal proponents. IOW, it appears to be about as sincere for many of those who are farther away from their own pulpit as those of us who click “I agree” when we say we’ve read all the fine print before we install a new program on our computer.

I’ve read the interaction with interest between Pittman and Bauder. It’s been interesting.

I’ve thought since the beginning that SI ignored the far right—at least for the first couple of years. I had never heard of the people who were talked about here before reading here (Mohler, and others from the conservative SB), but had heard of all of the “hyper” guys who weren’t being listed or articles being posted. I thought I was in the middle somewhere and considered myself “normal” fundamental. :) I think we all do. We somehow perceive ourselves where the right balance is. Since my heritage is a bit of GARB, Hyles, BBF and BJU, I thought I was familiar with it all.

A few years ago, Joel did his famous taxonomy of the fundamentalist and they (the far right) got their share of time! :) Thanks, Joel, as he acknowledged them as part of the group—at least in name. He received a lot of flak for his taxonomy, but I thought it not bad at all—in his attempts to more or less broadly define a group that varies dramatically.

This discussion has been one of the more lively ones I’ve seen here on SI. I applaud the statement given. I could sign it myself, but nobody’s asking.

The discussion here is a little strange though. The statement authors did not cast anyone out of Fundamentalism (as if they could/I wish they could), despite all the discussion of “who gets to keep the label” going on here in the threads. They called all the other strains Fundamentalists too. They just affirmed more in common with some outside the movement than with some inside it — a statement I can relate to.

The problem of American Fundamentalism is an unwarranted extra-biblical separatistic/isolationist spirit. Everyone not like me is suspect. Within Fundamentalism, everyone to the left of me is a liberal, and everyone to the right of me is a lunatic. It’s true. I feel that way about you, perhaps, depending on where you stand. It makes it a little hard to build movement unity, though.

Formerly, we have seen people trying to affirm that the “thinking wing of Fundamentalism” (whichever part I am in this week) and the CE’s are really pretty much the same thing. That has stirred some angry reaction. The unique claim of this document is that it says “I will refuse to fellowship with the Fundamentalist to my right and left, but will reach (with some limits) to the Conservative Evangelicals — who are not Fundamentalists at all.”

For anyone interested in why discussions like this happen, or how they work, I would recommend http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Disciplines-Andrew-Abbott/dp/0226001016/ Andrew Abbott’s Chaos of Disciplines .

Just a recommendation for anyone interested. If you read the book, you’ll see the relevance.

**** Forum Director ***

Added link to book.

********************

With B. Myron Cederholm and Richard Weeks as my mentors, I pretty much take a local church only position on the meaning of ekklesia. So, I am comfortable with looking at my southern brethren in Christ as allies. That’s allies with as many differences as De Gaulle and Eisenhower. As long as we keep shooting at our common enemy, I have no problems. However, the road forked too long ago for us (IMO) not to have serious differences.

Rob, I like the idea of viewing these good men not just as brothers but as allies. In World War I - European leaders were related to other leaders that they were at war with. Can you imagine what the family reunions were like after the end of World War I? After how many millions of European men were killed? Clearly with a real war against an “anti-gospel” it dosn’t make sense to spend much time at all over the differences between a Central-grad leading a Baptist congregation and a Master’s-grad leading a Bible Church congregation, who minister within two miles of each other. To do so would be nuts! from heaven’s perspective (I am most positive on this conviction!).

Kevin, I thought about adding after the last post, that I hope my public agreement with you didn’t add an extra burden to you.

I appreciate the statements being made here. It is the result of careful Biblical thinking. I agree “big-time” with Jeff on the group I call A+ fundamentalism. I’ve been encouraging the more careful wing of the separatist movement to note that “many” within the more militant branch of conservative evangelicalism (Mac, Dever, etc…..) are frankly far closer to us than the “Bus Wing” or “Finney-types” of the IFB movement. The reason this statement from Central is refreshing is that it officially states that while Central may be slower than others of us (like me for instance) to extend a hand of cooperation to a John MacArthur type of evangelical - they are not ruling it out! In other words just as there is an “other-worldly” difference between Central Seminary and Hyles-Anderson, there is a similar type of difference between Grace Community Church and the Crystal Cathedral. Our schools IMO have been slow to make that point clear - and so Central’s leadership is thrilling.

This has been the view held by the majority of fundamentalists over the last century - especially the guys in the trenches. That is the average pastor of the average separatist church will have “some” connection with other Godly men of churches in his town - even if the minor doctoral differences preclude from regular and total koinonia. Most guys in the pulpits, leading fellowships do not have an “all or nothing” approach to fellowship in their towns. Our one brother is saying that in his experience (I think a Southern context) that fundamentalism is known for its KJV only, and not fellowshipping with others who are not KJV only. Some of us are saying we want that to be viewed as it has for the majority of the movement’s history - not part of the sine-qua-non of the movement, and not healthy. The KJV is a beautiful translation of the Bible. I love it and use it from time to time. Where fundamentalism has adopted a KJVO as a part of the sine-qua-non - it is sick. And we say that for Biblical, theological and exegetical reasons listed in other places. That illness means that those of us who believe Biblical/theological health is important, we have to limit our people’s exposure to such thinking. Usually KJVO leads to more bad theology. Bad theology is toxic because it directly or indirectly undermines the gospel. That’s why it’s much healthier for our church to participate at Shepherd’s Conference each year than to reach out to the Hyles gang. My hope is that leadership in other groups (like the FBF) and other schools (name them) will follow Kevin’s and Central’s lead.

Once again, Central Seminary demonstrates why it has been the “Grand-daddy” of all the historical fundamentalist grad and post-grad institutions. Somebody has to lead. Straight Ahead Central! Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - this glowing endorsement in no way, shape or form makes Central Seminary culpable for any stated or written view past or current by me. (I’m finding it necesary to add this little disclaimer any time I comment on any policy by a former institution….not sure what’s up with that. I love them all! - Shalom!)

I discovered SI a few months ago reading the Dead Right responses of Doran and Johnson which were excellent-I so appreciate your back log of discussions- I had been reading many of Dr. Bauder’s articles at http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/132-nick-archives then realized they are often posted here with discussion. I’ve enjoyed reading on SI search engine about certain subjects. THANKS TO ALL WHO OUT OF A LABOR OF LOVE MAKE THIS WONDERFUL SITE AVAILABLE. I am an older (70 years old) preacher who is loving all available for Biblical research on the internet. It takes awhile to find the right sources out of such a huge number.

[Brian Ernsberger] Does Dr. Bauder have short term memory loss? He answered a question given, with this statement earlier in the thread,

On April 27, 2010 at the Foundations Conference Kevin Bauder had dismissed Al Mohler’s signing the MD as merely an “occasional inconsistency…single episode.”

Statements like these from Kevin Bauder is how fidelity to biblical separatism, the hallmark of Fundamentalism, is slain for the sake of fellowship with full-blown ecumenical (ce) compromisers. The ethos statement saying, “that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible,” is the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent. The aberrant doctrine of the CE men I want nothing of in my tent.

Like Jeff Straub stated for himself, I also hesitate to jump into this discussion but many of the comments and charges have been so outrageous (of which the quote above is one example) that I felt compelled to speak up. I confess upfront that I am a friend of Drs. Bauder and Straub, and of Central. To call CE men “full-blown ecumenical compromisers” is preposterous and displays hubris and ignorance of these men and of biblical separation. And to speak of the “aberrant doctrine of CE men” would be silly and laughable if it were not so sad and especially untrue.

Steve Davis