For a good understanding of the analogy, though, one must have some understanding of how maps and compasses work. A much more full description can be found from a chapter of a book, The Backpacker’s Field Manual, excerpted here on the Princeton University site, but I’ll attempt a bit in this post.

I suppose when we think of ‘mapping’ the locations on the ecclesiastical landscape, we probably envision a political map, with nation-states and their boundaries. Such maps seem fairly objective and definite in allocating the bounds of various domains, but they are of limited value for navigation.

What political maps can’t show are the alliances between nations (who can be at some distance from one another). They also cannot show disputed territories that may lie between any two nations – boundaries are not always as clearly defined as they appear on a map. In addition, political maps usually give very little idea of the topographical features of any given territory – the slopes, slippery or otherwise, the heights and the lowlands, very little sense of the direction of the watershed, and so on. Thus, there are things political maps cannot tell us.

For navigation purposes, topographical maps are much more useful. They tell us the relative steepness of slopes and the prominence of various geological features, giving an idea of the easiest way to traverse a particular area of land.

Mapping, both political and topographical, are one thing. Reading maps and compasses are another. One might think getting a compass reading is a simple matter. Look where the needle is pointing, find North on a map, orient it correctly, identify some prominent landmarks, and you’re off.

It isn’t quite that simple. There is north and there is north. That is, there is true north (pointing directly to the north pole) and there is magnetic north (pointing to the north magnetic pole). These two points on the planet are two different things and one of them is constantly changing (albeit relatively slowly). Your compass points directly to the magnetic north pole, but parallel with the lines of magnetic force at your starting point. In order to get your compass set right (and your map oriented properly), you need to know something about where you are starting from and calculate the deviation from true north in that area.

A diagram from the Princeton site might help describe the way the magnetic field lines distort compasses in the United States:

Your compass needle will deviate from true north according to these angles.¹ According to the Princeton site,

You can see that location makes a great deal of difference in where the compass points. The angular difference between true north and magnetic north is known as the declination and is marked in degrees on your map as shown … Depending on where you are, the angle between true north and magnetic north is different. In the U.S., the angle of declination varies from about 20 degrees west in Maine to about 21 degrees east in Washington.

In order to navigate, you have to make allowances for the angle of declination, set your compass accordingly, and then orient and read your map to ascertain position and the next direction you will set out on.

Maps and guidebooks are the fundamental tools both for trip planning … and while you are out on the trail. [emphasis mine]

If you really want to know more about real maps and compasses, you can read all about it at the Princeton site and other places.

Very good, Mr. Badger, now what does this have to do with navigating the ecclesiastical wilderness?

What does this have to do with ecclesiastics and separation? That is a most vital question.

In this discussion, an emphasis is being made in getting biblical principles of separation down so that we can navigate. We could call this ‘orienting our compass’. In discussion elsewhere, we have been told that we also need to get our fixed points – but isn’t ‘fixed points’ the language of maps?²

Having oriented our compass, gotten our fixed points, what should we do next? The next step is to set one’s course through the wilderness. We will need a map to identify the best route along the way. The compass is useful to help us see where we are on the map and determine the direction of travel, but that is all. A compass can do nothing else.

As we traverse the hills and valleys of the ecclesiastical wilderness, no doubt we will make some missteps along the way. We may experience some slips and falls. We may not always see our way clearly – our line of sight may be obscured by overhanging vegetation and obstructions along the way. We might even lose our way. If we don’t have good maps, our compass will be of no use to us on the mishaps of the way.

In my previous post, I was advocating that we need men in the map-making business. You can see that navigating the wilderness is much more involved than you might think. I am sure if I was out in the real wilderness with the best maps and the best compasses, I would soon be lost.

In the ecclesiastical wilderness, I would suggest that we all vary in our skills and wisdom in using the tools the Lord has given us. We need good solid principles to guide us, to be sure. If you will, we need the compass that was given us in recent weeks. But are all of us ever going to be equally proficient with these principles? It is hardly likely.

Do we not need men who will take the time to adjust their compass accurately, who will labour to understand the declinations from true north that there be, who will explain those declinations and their seriousness to the less skilled? There are some men who seem to point north, but they are actually pointing very wide of the mark. The declination of some may not seem so great at first glance, but the declination is serious, and if you attempt to navigate this wilderness without adjusting for their declination, you will miss the mark and land far wide of true north.

We are not talking about men who point south – these men we are observing do point northish.³ But the influence of the southern magnetic field is real. Many of these men are much influenced by their interaction with the southward pull. Accepting their direction without allowing for their declination will lead you astray.

One last quote from the Princeton site:

Navigation in the wilderness means knowing your starting point, your destination, and your route to get there.

Given the unwillingness of some Fundamentalist leaders to make maps for us, how well do you think we are going to keep people pointing to the True North?

1. I was going to boast that in Canada, we tend to be more generally in line with true north, but then I noticed that red line in the middle… it appears that anyone along a line running through eastern Ontario, Wisconsin, Illinois, eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, and even the Florida panhandle (Pensacola??) have no deviation from true north with their compasses. Does that mean these areas are the most clear seeing?
2. Perhaps we have discovered a mixed metaphor?
3. Who points northish? Those who believe the true gospel.

I think we can agree with the point being made to this extent: it is vital that men in the ministry develop their spiritual discernment so that they can wisely guard the flocks the Lord gives them. This includes making decisions about who you might enter into ministry partnership with and who you might recommend as a resource to your people, or why you might give various levels of cautions concerning some resources.

Likewise, men in the ministry need to be able to develop the same kind of discernment in those whom they train for future ministry.

And it is more important to understand the Biblical principles of separation than it is to know exactly where every prominent figure in the current ecclesiastical landscape stands. We need to understand the principles ourselves to make good judgements and evaluations.

However, in the analogy, we are told to dispense with the map and depend upon the compass. We are told that the map is outdated and therefore undependable so our only sure guide is the compass. We are told that depending upon the ecclesiastical map is like attempting to travel through Europe today depending upon a map from the 1850s. We are told that depending on the map is to depend on old labels – we are calling Germans by the name Prussian and no one understands us.

There is something wrong with this analogy. Perhaps the most basic problem is the fact that if you try to navigate the wilderness with only a compass and no map you will most assuredly become lost. Anyone who has hiked the wilderness without a clearly marked trail will tell you that.

Traveling anywhere in the wilderness means determining where you want to go. Maps and guidebooks are the fundamental tools both for trip planning see … and while you are out on the trail. [Source – emphasis mine.]

But there are probably even greater problems with the analogy. First, the ecclesiastical map isn’t all that old nor are its borders so obviously ill-defined, except among those who seem to want to blur the borders. Second, there are many onlookers who simply don’t have the capacity (for want of time, or for want of access to information, or for want of spiritual giftedness, or for want of experience) to discern with precision the particular boundaries or points of danger that may have the most impact on their lives and ministries. Those who are gifted, those who are experienced, those who have the time, those who know the information ought to be ‘map-makers’ or ‘trail-blazers’ for those with less capacity.

To be sure, there have been problems with the old maps. In the distant past, the maps were distorted by deceitful men. From that deceit came the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Following that time, maps were often undependable as some men changed their positions and occupied different ground or, perhaps some maps were poorly drawn – we have had some unskilled cartographers (occasionally loud, sometimes powerful, often intimidating) who may on occasion have led us astray.

But simply because there are problems with old maps, we should therefore discard all maps? Instead, shouldn’t we be in the map making business?

In making new maps, we will need to refer to old maps, to the True Map, and be skilled in using a spiritual compass. With these we will need to blaze trails and carefully construct up to date maps for those who follow.

If we do not, we shall surely become and remain lost in the woods.

In general, I think he is right. For a movement to exist, you have to be moving somewhere.

Given this understanding of movement, it is also correct to say that there is no longer a new-evangelical movement. But it isn’t correct to say there are no new-evangelicals or no new-evangelicalism. The philosophy is alive and well and expressed by many evangelicals repeatedly. It won’t do to say that new-evangelicalism is dead simply because the movement has ceased.

Among fundamentalists, there does seem to be a movement to push fundamentalism into some kind of alliance with evangelicals. We have been calling this movement the ‘young fundamentalists’. Some of us have been resisting this movement. Speaking for myself, my resistance to this movement is largely due to the fact that I don’t think the YFs truly understand either fundamentalism or evangelicalism and the entrenched divisions between them.

It is not helpful when fundamentalists try to discredit the evangelistic fruitfulness of Graham’s ministry or when evangelicals use that fruitfulness to justify all of Graham’s associations and actions. Both attempts are rooted in the same false assumption—God can only use those who are perfectly obedient (or close to it). … The evangelical, coming from the opposite angle but with the same assumption, feels compelled to argue that since God used Graham, what Graham was doing can’t be wrong (or, at least, not that bad).

Dave is giving some good analysis in his series of articles, but this paragraph seems to describe precisely the problem I have with the way some fundamentalists talk about their evangelical ‘faves’.

And I have one other point where I want to make a mild objection.

Here it is:

Also, it is important to recognize that some evangelicals disagree with the ecumenical practices of Graham, yet still see him as someone whom God used to spread the gospel to millions around the world.

Isn’t it more supportive than that? Don’t most evangelicals think what Graham and Henry and Ockenga et al did was right? Necessary? A benefit to the church? A proper ‘toning down’ of the craziness that was fundamentalism?

You see, what I hear the evangelicals saying is something like this: “Well, we don’t like the ecumenicalism and the problems it brings, but we sure do appreciate the New Evangelicals marginalizing the fundamentalists like they did.”

Dave sees some evangelicals as ‘developing’ separatists. I don’t actually see that. I hope I’m wrong.

As for Dave’s ‘way forward’, I agree with all of that. I have no problem acknowledging that Billy Graham’s ministry actually brought many into the kingdom. At least one member of our church is the fruit of Graham’s ministry (by watching him on television, no less). I don’t think much is gained by cursing Graham, but we have to constantly teach about his great error and its consequences.

I hope evangelicals will come to see the New Evangelical error for what it is and completely repudiate it.

By the way, I think it is important to keep the New Evangelical term alive in this context. New Evangelicalism is still alive and well in the minds of many, that is why they can’t bring themselves to completely repudiate Graham. They think he did a service. They think New Evangelicalism was a good thing. I think they mostly think the problems came after the ministry of Graham et al – others took things too far. Until they see New Evangelicalism as the problem, there will be no common ground with Fundamentalists.

See this follow up and this one as well. See a response to the original article at 9Marks and one at another blog. Finally, see here Dave’s excellent response (and he says, hopefully, his last word) on the subject. Hear, Hear! Exactly right, Dave.

A little kerfuffle between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals erupting over Dave’s quite reasonable questions illustrates perfectly why we have two groups of men, Fundamentalists on the one hand and Conservative Evangelicals on the other. Fundamentalists don’t get why CEs are willing to be collegial and congratulatory of those who betray the faith. CEs don’t get why Fundies question their respect for their ‘moderates’.

Hence the divide.

This divide is exactly what Mark Minnick was talking about in his message message last Sunday night.

This kerfuffle illustrates the point beautifully. Consider these comments from Greg Gilbert at 9Marks:

I can certainly understand where the concern comes from.  Duke McCall was not a theological conservative. He was a theological moderate who thought that the issues on which the Conservative Resurgence advanced were not worth dividing over.  So he resisted it.  Even in his acceptance remarks at the dedication, McCall talked about how different presidents in the seminary’s history "tacked to port or starboard" as their times demanded, a statement that was met with stony silence by the two or three thousand gathered to hear him.  McCall was and is wrong about that; the Conservative Resurgence was not about tacking to port or starboard.  It was about faithfulness to the inerrant and inspired Word of God, and we can all thank God for raising up Dr. Mohler to return the seminary to that core conviction.

Nevertheless, none of that makes me think that it was wrong to name the pavilion for Dr. McCall.

It is quite clear in recent messages by fundamentalists that there is much to admire about Mohler’s work at Southern. It is also quite clear to me that there are many beneficial things put out by 9Marks and the various men associated with it. Greg Gilbert himself often has a good deal of insightful comments on pastoral theology.

But there is a divide right here at this point, a divide that remains and distinguishes fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. The conservative evangelical side of the divide embraces in general the softer, collegial, tolerant philosophy of new evangelicalism (while perhaps being militant at some points). Fundamentalism, on the other hand, insists on militancy at all points (whether we are successful at consistency or not is of course an open question).

In any case, kudos to Dave for raising the issue and providing a classic example and illustration of the distinction. Kudos for his fundamentalist rationale in the last post cited above as well.

I thought it might be worth clarifying the point somewhat.

I am not suggesting that Campus Crusade is/was the incarnation of evil! Nor would I suggest that local churches couldn’t learn a thing or two from their methodology, especially regarding discipleship (although one has to wonder how a local church can perform one-on-one discipleship functions when its best and brightest are siphoned off to parachurch organizations).

However, when criticism is made of parachurch organizations and their impact on local church ministry, it is Campus Crusade that historically spawned this criticism by its philosophy of ministry. It is important to note that the article I originally linked to, the liberal Christian Century review, also noticed that fact. Remember, it was Christian Century that said:

Despite the merits of helping irreligious students to become intentional followers of Christ, Crusade’s way of doing campus-based church altered young adults’ understandings in such a way that the older denominational congregations now appeared backward and culturally in accessible.

That’s not me… that’s Christian Century, a liberal rag. If the liberals can see it, clearly those who are conservative should see it also, only more so.

Thank the Lord for the spiritual benefits in individual lives, to be sure, but it is to the church and to preaching that God really assigned the task of evangelism and discipleship. The free-agent mentality that exists across the breadth of evangelicalism and fundamentalism is partly attributable to Campus Crusade and its powerful influence. I don’t think we can deny that when liberals notice it also.

The review is well done, and offers insight concerning Bill Bright and his ministry. I’ll highlight two quotes that illuminate the impact Bright had on the shape of modern Christianity. Unfortunately, these impacts plague us today, rather than help us.

On Bill Bright’s theology, or lack of same:

By the time of his death in 2003, Bright was a doctrinal nonpartisan, calling himself not an evangelical but instead a classical or New Testament Christian, and he was on friendly terms with Roman Catholics, Pentecostals and diverse other Christians with whom he had partnered around the world.

On Bill Bright’s attitude toward the church, perhaps the most devastating aspect of his ministry:

As early as the late 1800s, pastors warned that parachurch campus ministries would hinder students’ participation in existing congregations. Turner writes that early in Bright’s career he had little faith in the ability of established churches to effectively disciple their converts. Despite the merits of helping irreligious students to become intentional followers of Christ, Crusade’s way of doing campus-based church altered young adults’ understandings in such a way that the older denominational congregations now appeared backward and culturally in accessible.

Part of the problems we face in trying to build churches in this environment stems from the influence of Campus Crusade and its new-evangelical cohorts.

What does this mean?

Ben Wright thinks it means something. Notice carefully Ben’s headline. Then consider the full schedule of events. Notice the place and prominence given to what Ben calls a "special guest lecturer".

I would suggest, "featured speaker," would be more accurate.

But, dear reader, what do you think it means? I have an opinion. Of course. I’ll share it with you shortly. But I’d like to see if anyone would care to "pontificate", as Ben calls it, before I charm you with my opining.

Several readers have given their opinions:

• Kent thinks "fundamentalism, as you knew it, Don, is essentially gone"
• Jack thinks "they don’t appear to be concerned about being fundamental or baptist"
• Andy thinks "We are definitely in a time of transition" though he wouldn’t look at Calvary seminary as a benchmark

No one who reads me regularly will be surprised to know that I tend to agree with these opinions. It seems to me that Ben, whose post alerted me to this conference, sees the same things I and others are seeing. His headline is "Ed Welch to Speak at CBTS Leadership Conference". He is picking up on the significance of Welch’s participation. He learned of this conference, it seems, over at SI, where the whole article reads this way:

National Leadership Conference To Focus On “Ministering God’s Truth In A Broken World”

by PastorJoeRoof at 5:48 pm January 29, 2009. 82 views. Filed under: Filings

Read here.

To date, there has been no discussion of the link at SI, but it is not too surprising, because they only mention the conference itself, not Welch’s participation. So it hasn’t received much attention over there. But Ben picks up on it. This is a fairly significant event.

Why do I say that?

First of all, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary and Calvary Baptist Church are fairly well known and accepted into Fundamentalist fellowship. Their personnel often speak at other Fundamentalist conferences and prominent Fundamentalists speak at their conference, as they are doing this year.

When a Fundamentalist institution headlines a clearly evangelical teacher (albeit in the less threatening ‘counselling’ genre!) as the main speaker at an erstwhile Fundamentalist conference, that is news. It is a change. It represents something that certainly wouldn’t have happened ten years ago, or even five. Or maybe even last year.

Secondly, for well known Fundamentalists to participate in such a conference, well, that too is a change. Wasn’t it just a couple of years ago that Dr. Olilla withdrew from a Pro-Teens conference because John MacArthur’s youth pastor was one of the speakers? (Ken Holland was the name if I remember correctly.) Yet here we have the list of speakers at Calvary:

• Dan Anderson – President, Appalachian Bible College, Bradley, West Virginia
• George Coon – Professor, Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale, Pennsylvania
• Dave Doran – Pastor, Inter-City Baptist Church, President & Professor, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Allen Park, Michigan
• Tim Jordan – Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church, Chancellor, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Lansdale, Pennsylvania
• Bill Park – Professor, Calvary Baptist Seminary Lansdale, Pennsylvania
• Jerry Thacker – Ministry Marketing Researcher, Strategic Consultant, and HIV/AIDS Educator
• Ed Welch – Psychologist & Faculty Member, Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation, Glenside, Pennsylvania

Fundamentalists, I should say, but one. And then there are the speakers for the Workshops… I won’t give you the whole list, but here are a few highlights:

• Greg Mazak – Bob Jones University
• Bruce Meyer – Maranatha Baptist Bible College
• Rob Campbell – Pastor Bethel Baptist Church, Sellersville, PA and host of last years national Fundamental Baptist Fellowship meeting

These lists are representative of the "branch" of Fundamentalism with which I have been associated throughout my ministry. I have spoken in one of the churches on this list. I graduated from BJU and am a Life Member of the Alumni Association. I say this to simply illustrate that this has been "my crowd", and to then testify that in my training years at BJU, this kind of association would not have happened. As I said earlier, it wouldn’t have happened even a few years ago.

Why is that? Is Welch an "untouchable", some kind of doctrinal deviant from whom all must be warned?

No, hardly. One can quibble over some of his positions and teachings, but as far as I can tell (and I have read most of his books), he is thoroughly orthodox. I think he has a fine Christian testimony and does a lot of good for the Lord.

The younger set seems to be asking why we would bother to maintain a distance if these things are true.

I have listened to countless sermons by Mark Minnick. I think in his Romans series, on the "separation verses" in Rm 15, he comments on the desire to see conservative evangelicals to take a more separated stance (and he is hopeful that they will). Those messages were preached some time ago, but I have heard him repeat similar sentiments in several other messages. One thing he has said that sticks with me goes like this [my paraphrase]: "For there to be closer cooperation between us, the evangelicals are going to have to admit that the Fundamentalists were right in the 1950s." (Or words to that effect.) As late as last summer, he personally and publicly assured me that there remain barriers where he could not speak in an evangelical pulpit like Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist (where Ben Wright is a member, I believe) and that he could not invite someone like Dever to Mount Calvary.

In this very blog, again last summer, Dave Doran also publicly stated that he could not have a Dever preach in his pulpit in the current circumstances. Why? Significant barriers remain.

This fall, in his lectures at International Baptist Bible College, Kevin Bauder stated that significant barriers remain. But he did add that some level of cooperation was possible.

I guess this represents that some level, eh?

But it also represents a change.

In the past, some leaders in Fundamentalism would have roundly denounced this kind of association if anyone dared to suggest it. (Am I not right?) Of course, we can dismiss these dead dinosaurs as relics of the past who fought an old fight that isn’t going on anymore and it is time to move on.

Ok, so what are we moving on to?

I have nothing against Welch, per se. A lot of what he says is valuable. But these evangelical guys are much more open to associations and fellowships that I am just not comfortable with. For example, I have been quite critical of the cussing pastor from Seattle in these pages. Many of the conservative evangelicals are quite willing to assist him, promote him, put him on their platforms and say favorable things about him. Are we moving on to a closer relationship with him?

One of Welch’s associates, another well-respected counselling teacher, is headlined on Steve Camp’s blog this way: ____ ____-ING – HE REALLY LIKES TO SAY THE "S" WORD …has Piper lost his mind or just forgotten his Bible? (Be warned, there is a video here you might not want your children to hear.) This same associate appeared with the Seattle Cusser at John Piper’s Desiring God conference last fall. Are we moving on to a closer relationship with him?

And there is still the issues of the new-evangelical compromise. Oh, yes, perhaps Welch, Dever, Piper, et al are not exactly new-evangelicals. But they sure love the new-evangelicals and think they saved the church from fundamentalism. In fact, they are quite willing to join in the publication of books with new-evangelicals and will not break ties with them. Are we moving on to a closer relationship with them?

Let’s start a pool!

How long do you think it will be before one of these prominent new evangelicals is the featured speaker in the pulpit of a leading Fundamentalist church or institution?

How long do you think it will be before a leading Fundamentalist speaks in the pulpit of one of these leading new evangelicals?

How long do you think it will be before a Fundamentalist is added to the roster of the Togetherness boys? (Maybe longer for that one. One of us will have to write a best-selling book that gets the kudos of the evangelical crowd. I don’t think any of us can write well enough… gotta give up those crayons!)

How long do you think it will be for a prominent Fundamentalist pastor or leader of one of our institutions to say, ‘Hey, that’s not right’?

[Don't hold your breath on that last one!]

Kent said he thinks Fundamentalism is done. I am afraid so. Unless…

Unless…

Just maybe…

One or two of our leaders start raising a bit of a stink and say we aren’t ready to cooperate if these guys won’t give up their cussing buddies and their new-evangelical mentors.

Any takers?

I reacted in particular to this paragraph:

A generation of believers is wrestling with fundamentalism. Many have completely forsaken the truth of the gospel itself because of hypocrisy and poor theology within the movement. Others still have a relationship with Christ, but have completely compromised theology. Still others, myself, and I believe Bob and Joel, are desperately trying to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The original principles of fundamentalism are sound, but the application and traditions have weakened the message over time.

The highlighted sentence particularly stirred me up.

This was my response:

Coach C, that is just baloney. Or do you actually believe people can lose their salvation?

Bitter lost people blame the “hypocrisy” of Christians for all sorts of decisions they make. Whether the alleged Christians are hypocritical or not, their wrong decisions come from one place only, their unbelieving heart.

That, of course, is not an excuse for any Christian to be hypocritical or have poor theology. But your statement is a little over the top, don’t you think?

The fact is that fundamentalism is plagued with a problem. The problem is the people who are fundamentalists – ALL of them. They won’t stop sinning. So they unfortunately bring shame to the Lord they say they want to glorify.

And then along come some other sinners who “are desperately trying to not throw the baby out with the bathwater” who apparently expect perfection out of other sinners. It is quite an amazingly naive point of view!

While I do think we need to try to improve fundamentalism and fundamentalists, I think the critics from within probably need to be a little more committed to the essential cause if they really want to stay in. Otherwise how can those whom they criticise really take their “constructive criticism” credibly?

Coach C responded well, you can read his complete post on Pensees (you’ll have to scroll down a ways, it’s a long thread). I’d like to highlight a few things in his response and then add my comments:

I certainly belief that once saved, always saved, however, my comment had in mind the young people who grow up in fundamentalism. Many of them have learned to outwardly “walk the walk”, some even participate in soul-winning and all the ministries of the church – yet they end up rejecting Christ later in life. I would surmize that these individuals were never believers in the first place. I believe that weak theology has contributed to their never being confronted with the truth of their standing before God.

Paul and Christ both mention the idea of a “stumbling block”. That was the idea that I was getting at. I think that many young people within fundamentalism have been discouraged in their faith because of “theological hypocrisy”.

…

To summarize, fundamentalism has taught our children from the youngest ages that “drinking, smoking, chewing, dancing, listening to rock music, stealing, and going to movies ” are among the worst sins possible. These children grow up without doing anything on “the list” and sometime around jr high, they start to trust in their works as a means to salvation. They completely miss the idea of having a relationship with Christ or daily sacrifice or growing in the fruit of the Spirit. Furthermore, because they don’t do anything on the list, they are never confronted and discipled in a biblical way. They learn that gluttony is not a sin, that meekness is great for everyone but the head pastor, that love is not really that important and that holiness just includes the things on the list.

I have one more comment from Coach C that I’d like to interact with, but let’s deal with these paragraphs first. First, I’ll try to summarize what I think Coach C is saying:

1. Many young people raised in fundamentalist churches depart from the faith in part because they were never confronted with strong theology.
2. Theological hypocrisy in fundamentalist churches is a stumbling block that discourages the faith of some.
3. Young people begin to trust in works for salvation because of fundamentalist emphasis on the "do’s and don’ts" and are never personally confronted because of their conformity to the list.

I hope that is an accurate enough summary, please correct me, Coach C, if I have misstated your position.

These charges are common among those who complain about fundamentalism and fundamentalist churches. I agree that there are some churches and pastors who have made serious enough errors that there is some value in the criticisms. I would suggest, however, that these criticisms are more true of broader evangelicalism (although the list of do’s and don’ts there is much less restrictive).

With respect to young people who abandon the faith, I lay the blame first of all on parents who fail to evangelize their children. (The blame will reach to pastors who fail to properly disciple parents, but the blame must first of all rest here.)

There is a culture in independent Baptist churches that I call "delayed infant baptism". This culture is observed in the intense desire of parents to see their children "saved" (a worthy motive, but a flawed environment and methodology ensues). Little children, those most desiring to please mom and dad, are regularly taught about salvation, about ‘going to heaven when you die’, about their need to pray in order to be saved, etc. When the little child prays for salvation, then parents rejoice that the child is saved, announcements are made to all and sundry, and the pastor is urged to accept the child as a candidate for baptism. Yet all this time, the little child has no understanding of personal guilt of sin, no real understanding of his need for a Saviour, and no true faith and repentance. He is glad that he is "saved", though.

I believe that pastors are complicit in this failure at this point. They all too often are all too ready to baptize the child and add him to the church roll because now he is "saved".  (Or they succumb to parental pressure…)

Children like this have various paths in the future:

1. Some have a crisis experience later in their life where they understand their need of a Saviour from sin, so they "make sure" of their salvation.
2. Others, having trusted the work of a prayer continue on in a legalistic mindset and assume they are Christians because "I prayed the prayer." Works salvation – but usually without the accompanying ‘works of salvation’, i.e., the fruit of the Spirit. Our churches are full of people like this.
3. Still others throw off the restrictions of their religion, love the appeal of the world, and deny their former professions. Some in this category excuse their rebellion by the legalism and hypocrisy seen in their homes and/or churches. Of course, Christians being only redeemed sinners, there are plenty of examples to go around.

The problem is not the strictures of fundamentalism. The problem is easy-believism and "delayed infant baptism" and unbelief.

In blaming the ‘dos and don’ts’ of fundamentalism, Coach C mentions "drinking, smoking, chewing, dancing, listening to rock music, stealing, and going to movies" as examples that children in fundamentalist churches are taught are among the "worst sins possible". Now, with respect to music, I will concede that there are varying standards. I will grant that to some extent we do need to allow soul liberty and local church autonomy to come into play here. But…

But, Coach C, are you going to argue that a Spirit-filled Christian is going to really engage on the things on this list? Let’s even leave music off the list since it is so vigorously debated. In fact, leave stealing off the list, since Scripture is pretty explicit about that. Would you want someone teaching Sunday School in your church who was drinking, smoking, chewing, dancing, and going to movies? Surely you think the church should have something to say about these practices, don’t you? I doubt that you are saying none of these things matter.  But the church should have something to say about these things and should seek to lead its people away from these practices, shouldn’t they? And let’s concede that each church may have a sliding scale on things like movies and so on.

The point is that the standards of the church are not the problem. The problem is rooted in unbelief and the willingness to grant approval to dubious professions of salvation. Many people criticise the Hyles crowd for what David Cloud calls "easy prayer-ism", and rightly so. But many many many much more theologically and practically acceptable homes and churches are guilty of the same thing because of delayed infant baptism.

One last comment that I’d like to deal with:

It is true that people are responsible for their own spiritual choices, but sound truth can’t hurt. This is why men of my age are bolting away from fundamentalism – because the first time that they were exposed to the theological meat of the Word – it was by reading Piper, MacArthur, or another man who the pastor always called a “new evangelical” or “liberal”. Then they start to think, “well maybe the liberals have it right after all” . . . For me, some of the best theologies that I have read were written by Presbyterians. I am a fully convinced Baptist, but when I struggle to find deep of theology in my own faith tradition, why wouldn’t I look elsewhere?

There are really two parts to this complaint. One relates to pastoral practices and the marketplace. The other relates to a failure to understand the nature of the fundamentalist/evangelical divide.

In the first place, it is true that many men in pulpits all over the continent are weak in theological training and/or are not gifted teachers of theology themselves. There has been too much of an emphasis on pragmatic pabulum in preaching. People will comment approvingly about someone who is "so practical" in his preaching, meaning he is sort of like a "counsellor-in-chief" who spends his time in the pulpit emphasizing how to have a happy home, a good marriage, a successful life, etc., but isn’t really preaching the whole counsel of the Word. This is a problem.

But let’s be honest and admit that it isn’t exclusively a fundamentalist problem. There are average pastors in evangelical churches who are no theological stars. They cater to the wants of the people for "practical" preaching as well. They fill the pulpits of churches large and small. Their eager young people likewise look to the ‘stars’ of the preaching world for their ‘deep theology’ as well.

The difference is that the sheer numbers of evangelical churches enable more star power (and more book sales) so that the works of the Pipers and MacArthurs etc. can be published. No one in fundamentalist pulpits have the resources or the reach that these men have. (But is it "reach" that we are after?)

In the second place, the divide between evangelicals and fundamentalists is not theological, it is philosophical. We largely agree with evangelical theology. Since evangelicals have the publication houses, and since they produce reasonably good books (for the most part), we are happy to use these resources in our ministries and in our schools.

Where we disagree is on philosophy, especially the philosophy of militancy.¹ When we call an evangelical a "new evangelical" or even a "liberal", we are speaking primarily about a philosophy of non-belligerence over fundamental issues. That does not mean that conservative evangelicals never do battle for doctrine, but they are willing to be soft on men who are making serious errors. Piper will maintain his membership in a denomination that includes Open Theists. MacArthur will write in Billy Graham’s magazine or speak at Billy Graham’s training center. And so on… (I just cite these two examples because Coach C mentioned them above.)

The fundamentalist philosophy finds these practices unacceptable, but doesn’t find these men unacceptable theologically (other than the usual differences one might have over polity, or some points of soteriology, etc.).

What is really going on in the discontent of the young, it seems to me, is that many younger men have become enamoured of Calvinist theology. A significant portion of older men in fundamentalist churches are not Calvinists. Hence they don’t have "deep theology", and are dismissed by the young who have drunk from the font of all wisdom and knowledge.

Is it possible to be a thoroughly biblical and theological preacher if you are not a Calvinist?

I think so. I think there must be room in fundamentalism for men who happen to be Calvinistic in their theology or who happen to be non-Calvinist, and even those who are Arminian in theology. The issue is, and has always been, militancy for the fundamentals, not militancy for Calvinism.

~~~

In the end, there is no room for hypocrisy in the ministry. We do need a certain militancy with ourselves as individuals, first of all.² We need vigorous churches.³ And we need clear militant leadership and continuing ecclesiastical militancy on a larger stage, the platforms of fundamentalist fellowships and denominations.

And we could do with a little less sneering dismissal of the old by the young and the young by the old, eh?

P.S. This post is a bit of a ramble… we are having a blog conversation and trying to turn it into a post. And I am using a few terms that might seem a little strident. I am especially thinking of the term "sneering" in my last sentence above. I don’t categorizes Coach C or his comments like that, but we both know that it is all too easy for both young and old to look down on one another. I hope that in my zeal for my position, I am not guilty!

1. See Bauder’s lectures at International Baptist Bible College last fall, and my posts on the subject for more thorough discussion of this.
2. See my sermon on The Violent Christian.
3. See this article on my church web site.

The commentator in question is Tom Schreiner, and the commentary his fairly hefty tome on Romans. He is big on letting you know he has read all the opinions out there. Why do we need to wade through all that verbiage? Put it in the footnotes if you must. And then all the tentative, hesitant conclusions. Give me a man’s commentator, like Charles Hodge, or William R. Newell. There are a few other excellent ones out there also, like Herman Hoyt’s little jewel on Romans.

But the thing that made me put Schreiner on the shelf was a footnote on Rm 3.4, where Paul quotes Ps 51. The footnote says something to this effect: "It doesn’t matter whether David was actually the author of Ps 51 or not." What??? Do we need this???

So I’ve put him on the shelf. I don’t care if I never open him again.