Entries Tagged 'New Evangelicalism' ↓

Is there a more defining evangelical organization than the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS)? Some might say that the quintessential Evangelical organization would be the National Association of Evangelicals, but would that really be true? One key area of comparison is the doctrinal standards of each organization. The NAE requires members to affirm their statement of faith. The ETS requires members to hold to their doctrinal basis. (Of course, the ETS requires a level of scholarly attainment for membership as well, due to its differing nature. We are not comparing that aspect of these organizations.)

Now, which organization requires the more exclusive standard of doctrinal agreement as its foundational basis?

Continue reading →

We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 7. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine
2. indifferentists defined
3. not indifferent, but not allies
4. how should we proceed
5. the danger of theological drift
6. NE is dead, long live NE

In concluding this series, I am first going to discuss one remaining point of philosophical difference that may or may not be important. After that discussion, I’d like to add a few summary thoughts.

~~~

I have no clips to play for you for this post. I am just going to quote a statement made frequently throughout the lecture series, almost as a defining mantra:

“Unity is a function of that which unites; fellowship is a function of that which is held in common.”

Are unity and fellowship really synonymous terms, as the statement (and much of the lecture series) implies?

Continue reading →

We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 6. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine
2. indifferentists defined
3. not indifferent, but not allies
4. how should we proceed
5. the danger of theological drift

My last two posts (including this one) concern what may seem to be niggling points of difference.These differences are perhaps minor — only semantics? Nevertheless, they seem significant enough to me. They reflect what may well be deeper philosophical differences between the Dr. and me. Since Bauder holds the position he holds, and carries the amount of influence he does, his philosophy has the potential to have a fairly wide impact on the fundamentalist world at large. So the differences that may seem niggling may in fact speak to very serious issues concerning the future of fundamentalism. Continue reading →

I just want to highlight an update to the third article in my current series. I added a link to the article not indifferent, but not allies in this paragraph:

The next clip, [36:38] New Evangelicalism is Evangelicalism is Indifferentism, describes this equation: Old New Evangelicalism = Mainstream Evangelicals = Indifferentists. The mainstream Evangelical institutions are unable to break their ties with some who are apostates. Bauder cites the Evangelical Theological Society, for example, who are unable to oust the Open Theists, essentially because of Indifferentism. (It is interesting to hear him cite this example when Fundamentalists continue to hold memberships and publish papers in the ETS. But that is another post!) In this clip, Bauder is asserting that Indifferentism has become the Evangelical mainstream.

It is worth thinking about, this connection of Fundamentalists with the ETS. Is this kind of activity a step forward for Fundamentalism? I don’t think it affects the average pastor, who may be barely aware of the ETS and what goes on there.

But how does this affect the next generation of Fundamentalist (hopefully) pastors in training under the leadership of these professors? Surely they are aware that their professor is away at ETS. Surely they are aware that he is publishing a paper.

What are they to think?

What are they to think especially when their seminary president identifies the ETS as an Indifferentist (New Evangelical) institution?

Are we supposed to now be Indifferent to Indifferentists?

We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 5. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine
2. indifferentists defined
3. not indifferent, but not allies
4. how should we proceed

We come now to my fifth post on Bauder’s tenth lecture [having fun with numbers, aren’t we? – ed.] I’ve given this one the heading “the danger of theological drift”. When I was learning to drive, my dad taught me that when approaching an oncoming vehicle on the highway at night I should keep my eyes on the white line at the shoulder on my side of the road. The idea was that you tend to steer in the direction your eyes are looking. If you become transfixed with the oncoming lights on the other side of the road… well, let’s just say it is better to watch your own side of the road!

In this post, I will replay two previous clips from previous posts and add one more. These clips raise the concern of theological drift. This is a concern for the CE crowd and their upcoming generations and it is also a concern for our own Fundie crowd.

Continue reading →

We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 4. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine
2. indifferentists defined
3. not indifferent, but not allies

This is my fourth post considering Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture at International Baptist College. This post is entitled: ‘how should we proceed‘.

Our analysis of the situation is essentially similar (see especially post #2 and post #3). The New Evangelical Indifferentism that now characterizes the majority of evangelicalism is a travesty that demeans the gospel. The Conservative Evangelicals are not Indifferentists, but they remain closely connected to Indifferentists and even see themselves as ‘indebted’ to them. They are willing to endorse Indifferentists. This attitude constitutes a significant difference between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals. It precludes unfettered fellowship between them.

Nevertheless, Bauder is going to suggest that some fellowship with Conservative Evangelicals (CEs) is possible for Fundamentalists (Fundies). I will let Bauder speak for himself, but it is here where his viewpoint and mine begin to diverge.

Continue reading →

We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 3. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine
2. indifferentists defined

This is the third in my series of posts concerning Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture. The clips in this section are going to mark out a distinction between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. In the last post, we defined indifferentism, the attitude of New Evangelicalism, which thinks it is just fine for true Christians to cooperate with people who deny the essential doctrines of Christianity and to accredit them as ‘our Christian brothers’. Bro. Bauder says the activities of Indifferentists are very serious and very damaging to Christianity itself. I agree with him!

The next point, and the subject of this post, describes the distinctions between the Indifferentists (formerly known as New Evangelicals), Conservative Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists.

I appreciate one aspect of these clips in particular. Bauder makes it clear that there is a distinct difference between Conservative Evangelicals (CEs) and Fundamentalists. He will say that this difference amounts to an insurmountable barrier which precludes almost all fellowship. I agree in the main, but likely see the barrier as larger and the opportunities for fellowship as much, much smaller. Continue reading →

We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 2. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine

The term ‘indifferentist’ is revived by Kevin Bauder in his discussion of Biblical Separation. The term comes from J. Gresham Machen, a warrior in the 1930s for the orthodox cause. He is a man much admired by fundamentalists, though he himself didn’t like the label. My impression is that he was somewhat embarrassed by the shenanigans of some purported fundamentalists. We share his embarrassment, but don’t share his eschewing of the label.

What is an ‘indifferentist’? An indifferentist is a Christian who holds to orthodox doctrines, but is quite willing to work with professing Christians who deny those same doctrines. In other words, though an indifferentist is ‘in the circle’ of Christianity, he is willing to work with some of those who are clearly ‘outside the circle’, and is even willing to call them good Christian brothers.

In order to understand the term more fully, I have assembled a series of clips from Kevin Bauder’s lecture. I’ll summarize Bauder’s argument, then offer a few comments. You will find me generally in agreement with this portion of Bauder’s argument. Continue reading →

The September/October issue of Frontline magazine features the second instalment in a series of articles by Mark Minnick on the subject, “What’s an Evangelical to Do?”

The question is asking what is the appropriate response for any evangelical Christian to the false teaching of alleged evangelical Christians. N. T. Wright is offered as the exemplary false teacher. John Piper is offered as a typical evangelical in response to Wright’s false teaching. The article concludes with these words:

This is the first thing Evangelicals ought to do. They ought to require that any organization to which they belong for Christian endeavor or any professing Christian theologian with whom they enter into any spiritual cooperation whatsoever give unfeigned, unqualified, dogmatic assent to every single Fundamental of the Christian (that is, “Evangelical”) faith.

If, after repeated appeals, an organization or individual refuses to do so, those who are truly Evangelical ought to withhold Christian recognition and avoid him (Rom 16.17), and for the love of the Truth and the safety of Christ’s flock, cry “wolf!” Interminable, deferential, academic fencing will not do. There’s no Scriptural paradigm for it whatsoever. Well-intentioned or not, it’s a betrayal of Christ and the gospel. [bolded words my emphasis]

This advice is exactly what ought to be done, but it is exactly what many Evangelicals will not do. Take for example

Continue reading →

In my scanning of various blogs, I come across a few articles I’d like to pass along. No one has enough time, but perhaps some of these are worth your time.

From Lighthouse Trails

Why We Say Beth Moore is a Contemplative Advocate

• Advocate: one that defends or maintains a cause (Webster’s Dictionary) In our recent article, “Rick Warren Points Network Followers to the Contemplative ‘Sabbath’”, we state that Beth Moore is a “contemplative advocate.” Some people have a hard time with this statement. Why do we say she is advocating contemplative spirituality?

Should Christians Expose Error?

• “Exposing Error: Is It Worthwhile?” By Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951) Objection is often raised even by some sound in the faith-regarding the exposure of error as being entirely negative and of no real edification. Of late, the hue and cry has been against any and all negative teaching. But the …
• a key quote:

Exposing error is most unpopular work. But from every true standpoint it is worthwhile work. To our Savior, it means that He receives from us, His blood-bought ones, the loyalty that is His due. To ourselves, if we consider “the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt,” it ensures future reward, a thousand-fold. And to souls “caught in the snare of the fowler”-how many of them God only knows-it may mean light and life, abundant and everlasting.

“Servant Leadership” … A Christian Idea … Not Exactly

• LTRP Note: Today, there is much talk about teaching people to become good leaders. In reality, what is happening is people are being taught to be good followers. The term (and the concept) Servant Leadership, used by many of the most prolific Christian authors and teachers today, did not originate …

The Mid-America Conference on Preaching

A review/summation by Scott Aniol:

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – Dave Doran’s First General Session
Part 3 – Horn and Conley’s General Sessions
Part 4 – Dawson on Culture
Part 5 – Snoeberger on Culture
Part 6 – Doran’s Second General Session
Part 7 – McCune on Mars Hill
Part 8 – Snoeberger on Carson

From Brian Collins:

AP Definition of Fundamentalism
Neuhaus on the new New Evangelicals
ICC Commentaries for Free Download

Just a few things that interest me, in case you don’t follow the same blogs I do.