"As I read the blogs of Dr. Kevin Bauder, I see an attempt to re-write the history of fundamentalism in America."

Apparently this brother pastor sees change as that which we should fear. This seems to be a recurrent theme in the article.

The problem is that change is only an enemy if we are fine as we are. Clearly, some of us believe we are not.
Such articles are only useful in rallying the troops who already agree with him, but will not persuade anyone.

We must use the Scriptures to answer questions in a thorough fashion.
What is the Biblical basis of separation? What does true Scriptural unity look like? Is music an issue in and of itself, aside from all other related factors? What is the proper view of the Christian’s interactiom with culture?

Many of yesterday’s battles were vital. Seeing what Billy Graham says now, who would argue he chose wisely back in the 50’s?
But a few of those battles were distractions from Biblical truth, built on tenuous ground, inspired by cultural rather than Christian considerations.

I have heard these arguments and concerns before. They were trumpeted from the pulpit of my alma mater again and again as I sat listening. We were warned of the evils that existed on the slippery slopes and how it was better to never get close to the “edge of the cliff” by asking challenging questions. We were told about the great compromises of men in the past and how after they led so many astray after changing their “no pants on women” rule after (fill in the blank years) established by the godly (fill in the blank niche fundamentalist leader). In all honesty, I’m tired of reading about it.

I’m now in my fourth year of my first pastorate in the church which I served as youth leader for ten years. My Bible College no longer exists and I’ve found that I have far less in common with that school than I tried to convince myself of while attending. I’ve read just about everything Dr. Bauder has produced as well as many other writings from many other teachers, pastors, church fathers, and scholars. I’ve even taken the time since graduating to read the creeds of the past which were never even mentioned during our church (Baptist) history class.

I say all of that to say this: That open letter made me feel as if I was sitting through another bible college chapel after the Dean of Students found out someone read a Harry Potter book. I don’t like to think of my time in bible college as wasted, and I’m sure it wasn’t entirely, but letters like this make me feel as though there was a chance it was.

In my increasingly humble opinion, the author needs to read “The Fundamentals”—as close as we Fundamentalists have to a founding document—and take careful note of the names and affiliations of the authors. Then he should ask himself, who is really redefining Fundamentalism?

I was going to write more, but Pastor Glenn expressed my opinion perfectly. I will say this: I find it amazing how the author in one paragraph describes how he removed his church’s financial support from his alma mater, and then in the very next paragraph complains of being “blackballed” by said institution.

Andrew, The Fundamentals were written LONG before the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. They were early, early days, written well before fundamentalist thinking began to look at the Scriptural mandates for separation.

To follow the logic of your claim, those fundamentalists who left the Northern Baptist Convention or the Presbyterian Church (like Machen) would have been the ones redefining fundamentalism. After all, the affiliations of the writers of The Fundamentals didn’t mandate any such separation, did it? Was Machen wrong? Was R. T. Ketcham wrong to leave the NBC?

So please spare us specious arguments based on the affiliations of the writers of The Fundamentals.

Andrew and Don are not reading the article. Fundamentalism existed in the OT and Isaiah was a fundamentalist. ;)

[Roland Pittman] Furthermore, separation may be based on dress, custom, music, etc. The Amish do it to preserve their way of life; what is wrong with Fundamentalist Christians using cultural or human distinctions to steer us clear of a worldly lifestyle and many sinful temptations? Other than the irrational emotional cries of legalism, I have not heard reasonable and persuasive argumentation that separation must be specifically outlined in Scripture. All that we do and say is NOT explicitly outlined or commanded in Scripture but some things are derivative from Scriptural principles.

The Pharisees did it to preserve their way of life and failed miserably. There have been plenty of failings in the Amish community as well. There are also plenty of examples in fundamentalist circles that this way of thinking did not stop immorality, other wrong behaviors, and false teaching.

The grace of God teaching us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts so that we can live soberly righteously, and godly in this present world (see Titus 2:11-12)is the way to teach people to be right before God.

[Don] Andrew, The Fundamentals were written LONG before the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. They were early, early days, written well before fundamentalist thinking began to look at the Scriptural mandates for separation.

Don, I thought that they were concurrent as well. Wikipedia has these dates and articles:

The Fundamentals tracts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals] were printed from 1910 to 1915 .

The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_Controver…] was from (roughly) 1920-1930, although it had roots in the 1800’s . Is that what you were referring to when you say that Andrew was wrong?

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not sure what incident/incidents would be the basis for your definition of the F-M Controversy.

Roland,

You said:

Many who believed The Fundamentals never became Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists were identified at some point by separation.

So are you saying - and I’m asking because I’m not sure, not to bait a trap - that Fundamentalists and the Fundamentalist ‘movement’ are distinctly different from the set of Fundamentals books and that the two streams are different? If so, what are the historical roots for the ‘Fundamentalist movement’ that you describe above?

I have more questions, but I want to be sure I understand the underlying premise first.

I have just two questions for you. Were the stories true of the men on the slippery slopes of ruin? Are men replicating those same errors today?

As for your Bible college, they were not necessarily wrong in their position but they should have taught you to think instead of simply following leadership as you continue to do today—just different leadership… . .

To answer your first question it depends on your definition of ruin. If you believe that allowing changing the pants policy in your church is the equivalent of allowing Satan in the front door of your church the answer is yes, the stories are true and 5000 churches close down every year because the Devil is in the details. Specifically the Devil is in the details of whatever cultural phenomenon is disliked by the pastor (and sometimes this is not a bad thing). Does Faithful Ways Baptist Church (I’m making this name up) now sing from a new hymnbook that includes something other than hymns? Ruin. Does the current pastor use, own, or reference a version of the bible other than the KJV? Ruin. Woman in pants (again)? Ruin. Do they use stringed instruments that are not placed on the shoulder? Ruin. I’m not making this up nor am I exaggerating. I am also not

The second question should be answered by the first.

As for the position of my school I do not believe they were wrong for maintaining the beliefs or convictions. While attending school I agreed to adhere to whatever was written in the school manual. I do not begrudge them for holding those standards and was aware of them when I signed up. However teaching us to think is where they fell very, very short. Again, thinking was akin to wasting time as I was told (and I understand I am quoting him and not referencing context).

You ask what use my comment is to you and I’ll answer: Perhaps nothing. I was just expressing my thought on an open letter. You are right in saying that it is my own personal experience expressed from my personal perspective. Please understand however that what you refer to as bedazzling is more in line with my overall experience as a person and pastor than a growing perspective gained post-college. While you are correct in stating the reality of current academic Christian political correctness not all current academic Christianity is to be categorically avoided.

Good to “see” you again.

[Don Johnson] Andrew, The Fundamentals were written LONG before the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. They were early, early days, written well before fundamentalist thinking began to look at the Scriptural mandates for separation.

My point is simply this: many of the writers of The Fundamentals (which did indeed serve to define the doctrines over which Machen, Ketcham, etc. separated) would not be allowed to preach in Fundamentalist pulpits today, because of disagreement over some area or another.

[Don Johnson] To follow the logic of your claim, those fundamentalists who left the Northern Baptist Convention or the Presbyterian Church (like Machen) would have been the ones redefining fundamentalism. After all, the affiliations of the writers of The Fundamentals didn’t mandate any such separation, did it? Was Machen wrong? Was R. T. Ketcham wrong to leave the NBC?

That would be to follow my logic where it never intended to go. Of course Machen and Ketcham were not wrong. But I get the feeling that even Machen and Ketcham would not be welcome in the pulpit of men like the author of the above article. And today, while men like Mohler, MacArthur, et al are standing up for the truth in a dark world, and within their own denominations, the best we Fundamentalists can do is take potshots at them in what amounts to a brilliant fifth-column maneuver. And what is our justification for doing so? For the most part, secondary issues about which good and godly men should be able to agree to disagree.

[Don Johnson] So please spare us specious arguments based on the affiliations of the writers of The Fundamentals.

When I think of one I will refrain from using it! ;-)

It is absurd to thnk that Bauder is attempting to “re-write the history of fundamentalism in America.” I suggest that we totally disregard brother Arrowood’s “open” letter. That’s all I have to say about it.

Roland, regarding your “Different Perspective”, all I can say is one of us is having a bad day. Either I’m not communicating clearly, or you’re not understanding well. I hope it’s not me.

Much of what you say doesn’t seem to match what I thought I was saying.

Oh well. No problem. Others are saying what I was trying to say much better.

I read SharperIron articles to gain perspective and ponder the weight of different perspectives.
Too often it ends up in fruitless arguments. Having been through the same background and
having been in close contact with Tennessee Temple, Cedarville, Cornerstone (formerly Grand
Rapids Baptist College), I observed changes. Some were good and some were not. Some may have
led in directions unforeseen and unintended and regreted. Who can claim a perfect track record, except those who were too afraid to question or change ANYTHING! Still, I listened to those who were concerned. I attended
the GARBC conferences, Southwide Baptist Fellowship Conferences, Northland’s Heart Conferences,
the first annual conference of the split off of the GARBC—the IFBNA, “Men For Christ”, conferences
at Detroit Seminary, etc. I’ve listened to countless stories of fundamentalist brethern who are tired
of those who make “tests of fellowship” based on insignificant and non-biblical issues. It’s obvious that those who agree with Dr. Bauder are a growing, healthy, no-axe-to-grind group who don’t reject fundamentalism or separatism. They (and I) wholeheartedly reject the reasonings and conclusions of this writer. I do not consider him an enemy!

I like Bauder’s articles and his openness to your challenge and inquiry. You can disagree with him and not be considered a heretic.

His writings stimulate my own spiritual growth in the fundamentals of the faith and a love for church history. Most importantly greater love for God. The poetic devotional writings at the end of his articles sharpen my affections for the Holy Lord God of all.

Hoping that Bauder has more time carved out to pursue more ministry in writing (some of this stuff needs to get into book form for even better scrutiny of ideas),
et

Something that is demonstrated time and again on this site is that fundamentalism has failed. It has crashed and burned.

Books are written talking about how evangelicals failed in there antiseparatism, but so has fundamentalism. Well, what fundamentalism became.

First it was the fundamentals.

Then it was the Fundy-Modernism controversy where the fundies lost and had to withdraw. Their goal was not to separate. Their goal was to purge.

Then there were the various factions who leeched on the separatists.

Then you have the separation from the new evangelicals and fundamentalism is morphed into yet another aspect.

Then we see the SBC go through their own Fundy-Modernist battle and surprisingly, the Fundies (historically speaking of course) won. They didn’t have to leave. The liberals did. In a way they became a Fundy Baptist Convention. The SBC to the FBC.

And now we see article after article of the various splinter groups of fundamentalism that never really came together prior to the New Evangelicals are still positioning for power.

This open letter is nothing more than sour grapes. He is upset people just aren’t listening to the message of separation for the purpose of separation. The open letter serves as marching orders to the foot-soldiers to continue the kneecapping.

Mod note: removed one objectionable line after discussion with poster. -Jay C.

My concern is not Bauder’s writings but things like the latest popular book on the shelf, published by Glenn Beck and his psychiatrist friend - The Seven: 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life.

This is “common sense” American spirituality that is seeking to tear at the foundations of the fundamentals of the faith:

http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/the-7-seven-wonders-t…

James K. - not all foot soldiers in the trenches have their eyes on an Arrowood vs. Bauder controversy. That is just a side curiosity. Their main attention is on the bombs exploding right in front of them.