Kevin Bauder offers a piece entitled “Dialogue?” in his regular series of articles appearing both on Sharper Iron and at the Central Seminary website as well. You can read the full article at either site to get the full context.
I was tipped to the article by Jason Button over at Theosource, where he posted his initial reaction, then we had a bit of a conversation about it. There is an ongoing discussion over at SI which produced some interesting comments. I wonder if anyone commenting really understands what the article is about. It appears that some are disagreeing with it from opposite sides of the fence. [Or maybe I just don’t understand the comments.]
I think the confusion [perhaps just my confusion] comes because the article itself is vague, barely giving enough details to provide some context and certainly not enough specifics to answer the question, “Now what?”
With this post, I’d like to point out where I think some of the confusion arises…
With his first line, Kevin gets the ball rolling:
Fundamentalists are notorious for their refusal to dialogue with other points of view.
Well… certainly designed to catch the eye of the SI groupie, no? It would be one thing for someone who is ‘on the edge’ to make a statement like this, but why is it that some men who are in prominent leadership positions in fundamentalist circles seem to have to throw these kinds of statements out there? Is it mere pandering to young fundamentalist ‘angst’? Is it satirical? Is it what Kevin really thinks of fundamentalism? It really isn’t clear.
And I question whether it is appropriate at all, satirical or no. We do have a problem with young people thinking fundamentalism is a curse word, why would a leader of fundamentalism use a term that could further that notion?
The second point of confusion is the term dialogue itself. Kevin knows it is problematic, and acknowledges it with this statement:
Of course, there is a species of dialogue in which no Christian can rightly participate.
The ‘species of dialogue’ he is talking about, is, of course, the kind that Hegel advocated in his Dialectic, one that is ever pursuing truth by examining thesis and antithesis, finding common ground by synthesizing the best of both points of view, only to be confronted again with a new antithesis to your synthesis, and the process begins all over again [not a slippery slope so much as a gradual absorption into the morasse of meaninglessness]. The process is the darling of the ecumenical set and the word dialogue itself in the religious context is the word of ecumenicalism and the new evangelicalism.
In fact, the word ‘dialogue’ has a multiple of meanings:
di·a·logue noun, verb -logued, -logu·ing.
–noun
1. conversation between two or more persons.
2. the conversation between characters in a novel, drama, etc.
3. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.
4. a literary work in the form of a conversation: a dialogue of Plato.–verb (used without object)
5. to carry on a dialogue; converse.
6. to discuss areas of disagreement frankly in order to resolve them.–verb (used with object)
7. to put into the form of a dialogue.
[dialogue. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dialogue (accessed: August 12, 2008).]
Essentially, Kevin is arguing for (I think) merely meaning number 1, a conversation between two or more persons. He seems to be arguing against meanings 3 and 6. Now, in arguing for number 1, it does seem that he is arguing for a more formal process than two guys talking things over. He seems to be arguing for a ‘skilled conversation’:
Real dialogue does not require the participants to diminish their commitment to their beliefs. On the contrary, a real dialogue provides the opportunity for the most deeply held beliefs to be articulated in their most convincing form. When conducted between skilled and knowledgeable participants, that kind of dialogue can be tremendously instructive.
This does seem to be more than merely a mere conversation. I wonder if he has in mind his own participation in some academic discussion at Beeson University some years ago. Or if he has in mind the upcoming participation of Gerald Priest at Southern Seminary next summer. The idea I get from Kevin’s comment is that if fundamentalists would be more willing to participate in face to face formal public discussions of this sort, it would be educational and a good thing. [If you read me much, you will already know what I think of that.]
I wonder at the appropriateness of advocating for such a theologically charged word. Is it really necessary? And then, on the other hand, I wonder if Kevin is really advocating for the less dangerous form of the word after all… If I am right that he means more than a mere conversation, rather a more formal public discussion as described above, what is the point of such a discussion if not to resolve differences to some extent at least? Is Kevin advocating that we draw closer to non-fundamentalists in order to improve our approach to fundamentalism?
One of the SI commentators made a crack at Kevin that seemed to highlight this confusion:
In other words, never let your opponents change your mind.
What is the goal of ‘legitimate dialogue’, if it is not to seek some resolution to conflicting opinions. I suggest that even putting a more human ‘face’ on the views of an opponent is a modification of one’s own viewpoint – a resolution of conflict to some extent. For example, I suspect that at some seminaries many derisive comments are made concerning Arminianism and especially Finneyism. [And deservedly so, for the most part.] But I wonder if anyone like, oh, I don’t know, Kevin Bauder, has ever had a well-trained articulate defender of such views in for an academic presentation at his institution. I mean, wouldn’t you want to expose all points of view to your student body? [Correct me if I am wrong, but I would be quite surpised if such an event would ever occur.]
In any case, the point is that it is very hard to imagine a real ‘dialogue’ in an academic setting that doesn’t seek to ameliorate the hard edges of one’s point of view. Thus, I think it is very confusing to be advocating for such a suspect term.
I am also wondering about something that I have to call ‘elitism’. What does Bauder mean when he says:
skilled and knowledgeable participants
skilled listeners who are able to grasp and to digest accurately the position of an interlocutor
That skill comes only with maturity. An unguided dialogue is not an activity for the immature.
… and why does he use words like ‘interlocutor’? The whole tenor of the article seems to say that the ‘grown-ups’ should engage in theological dialogue performances for the good of the ignorant masses. Forgive the cynicism!
Now, I do agree with this statement:
Conversation with other points of view may also expose the gaps in one’s own thinking. We have trouble detecting the weaknesses and flaws in the presentation of our own ideas, even when they are very good ideas. We know that we are not infallible, but we often cannot say just where we have gone wrong. We are unaware of the boundaries of our own thinking and argument. By encountering interlocutors who reject our thinking, we gain the opportunity to have our weaknesses pointed out to us. Of course, we shall have to judge whether any particular criticism really does point to a weakness, or whether it simply reflects the bias of the critic. If our critics do expose our weaknesses, we gain the opportunity to correct them. Our ability to present the truth is strengthened.
(… again with the ‘interlocutors’. He’s driving me mad!)
I generally don’t have a problem with conversations. You can even do this, in a way, without even talking to someone. That is, you can read their books. I am currently reading the notoriously liberal, Christ and Culture, by Niebuhr. (I would have to say, not for the faint of heart, or the very sleepy! Niebuhr uses bigger words than Kevin does, and more of them. Very sleep inducing.] I made some comments along these lines over at Jason Button’s blog. I think it can be profitable to have conversations, real or virtual, with points of view that are different from one’s own. But, as I said over there:
Of course there does come a point where there is nothing else to say. Then the conversation is over.
Our goal in having conversations with those who differ should be two-fold. First, if the other person’s error is grievous enough, our purpose should be evangelistic. And second, our goal should be for greater understanding, either to sharpen one’s own views or to better understand how to evangelize those who hold opposing (and grievously erroneous) views. But at some point, the conversation will end. You will have said all that you can say and so will the other person. Hopefully some benefit will derive out of it, but especially when neither party is willing to change views, there will be nothing more to say.
I found it more than a little ironic that Kevin cited Athanasius/Arius and Luther/Leo as examples of the benefits of dialogue, only to say this:
Of course, Athanasius was not dialoguing with Arius, nor Luther with Leo.
Umm… way to make your point!
Well, we could go on, but I guess that is enough.
I think that we have here another example of something that I think of as ‘the disconnect’ [to quote a friend]. We have men in positions of leadership in fundamentalism who seem at times to loyally contend for the faith, but then at other times to give confusing and uncertain sounds. This one, I am afraid, is one of those confusing ones. In the end, I am not entirely sure if I should be cheering this article, or if the young fundies should be. (I kind of suspect it is them, but I am not entirely sure.)
Don,
I hope I don’t hurt your effort by saying that I agree with you. His article was what it was, but I would have enjoyed his attempting to defend this practice from the Bible. I have conversations with people of different views, but when I’m done, no one is questioning whether I am or am not in fellowship with them.
Bro. Don,
I’ve said before your situation is an unhappy one. And now I believe it’s become even unhappier. It appears from Bauder’s comments over at SI that fundies have been carrying on covert conversations with many outside their “circle of convictions.”
Apparently, Doran isn’t the only “errant” brother.
Personally, given your stated convictions, I can’t see how you can remain in fellowship with such “compromisers” and still maintain your integrity. Perhaps you’re now feeling some of the awkwardness the early fundies felt as they struggled with similar questions. And perhaps, when it’s all said and done, you’ll see the wisdom in the Rice-Jones, Sr. position.
Surely, now that you know your separatist hipmates have been secretly selling you out for a mess of intellectual pottage, this raises the ante for you, no? So how long will you straddle the fence? Has your alma mater made a decision on Detroit, or is it involved in the sell-out too?
As I’ve told you before Don, I don’t count what separatists (Detroit and others) are doing as a bad thing. But I must lament their methods. If I read Bauder’s statement correctly, the separatist big bugs are doing privately what they condemn (or have condemned) publicly. And they are doing so precisely because, as Bauder implies, they can’t trust their constituency to appreciate the importance of academic engagement–hence, the secrecy.
I’m a little puzzled, actually, why hardened separatists aren’t crying aloud over Bauder’s remarks. If they are truly reflective of what’s happening in fundamentalist academia, separatism is on its way out–WHICH IS A GOOD THING–and a careful fundamentalism, one that doesn’t eat every brother who fails to see how 2 Thess. 3:6-11 demands the public pillory every Regular Baptist or Southern Baptist, looks to replace it.
Ironically, Don, what’s gloom for you is glory for me. I pray for the day when a clear-headed, large-hearted, gospel-oriented, spiritually-gifted, and intellectually-talented fundamentalism regains the day (I believe it once had it, or nearly so, under Rice-Jones, Sr.). While I look with favor upon those separatists who are seeking to tweak the radicalism of Jones, Jr. and Jones the III, yet I’m saddened by their secret maneuvering. Perhaps it’s time for separatists to square up with their brethren. Enough secret trysts, enough secret rendezvous.
Hi Tracy, you haven’t engaged further our comments on Dr. Bob Sr. I still maintain that you misunderstand him. Perhaps wilfully so.
With respect to these goings on, it appears that some are getting somewhat less covert, at least if you know the codes. However, I wonder why you would glory in such action as the question of integrity has to be raised about such tactics.
It may be that no one will raise public objections. That will mean the end of fundamentalism, if so. But I am willing to give it time, while attempting to expose error where I see it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Bro. Don,
I presented evidence that B. J. Sr. practiced a form of biblical separation for most of his public ministry that is NOW condemned by many as fility, wicked, and ungodly. You can dice it anyway you like. But the facts are what they are.
Perhaps later on I’ll share a few more tidbits with you to show that Jones, Sr. and JOHN MACARTHUR’S FATHER, shared the same identical views on separation, views that many godly men have always held. And their SIGNED agreement took place in the late ’50s, before B. J. Jr., wrested his father’s the long-practiced separation doctrine to his own embarrassment.
But I digress.
I think you’ve misread my remarks. I glory in the “tweaking” of radical separatism, not in the sly methods of achieving it, which I made clear.
Wow! You’re “willing to give time.” Yet, while your’re giving time, you remain yoked with compromise and ungodliness, at least that’s the conclusion I draw, given your convictions on separation.
Oddly enough, your attitude is exactly the attitude of the blessed Rice-Jones fundamentalism, an attitude that gives other godly men the benefit of the doubt on “doubtful matters” and even carries on a guarded relationship with them while admonishing their actions.
Don, my friend, I believe in some ways you’re coming kicking and screaming over to a balanced fundamentalism, the fundamentalism of our fathers.
By the way, I would be interested in knowing if your alma mater has spoken ex-cathrada on the Detroit affair. It appears you may have some issues there, as well. But don’t come out too strongly against the World’s Most Unusual University, they may boot your kids.
Have a good one.
Tracy, you haven’t proven anything. ALL fundamentalists had the same practice in the early 50s. When the Graham compromise occurred, everyone had to rethink and decide which direction to go.
It did take time to sort out directions and some would choose later than others, some going one way, others another way.
As for a yoke, what yoke of partnership do I have with any of these I have criticized? I don’t see how we are linked.
It may mean that further changes are coming, I don’t deny it. But it does take time to sort things out.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Bro. Don,
I’ve stated on several occasions that B. J., Sr., conducted that vast majority of his ministry under a view of separation that is now condemned by his own offspring and educational institution.
While I’m told in so many words that his day was different, I fail to see the difference. Even before the late 50’s, the spirit of Billy Graham was alive and well among Southern Baptists and Methodists, the very ones with whom John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Sr., often conducted revival compaigns.
Although it’s sometimes implied that B. J., Sr., was a “secondary separationist,” he wasn’t. His life and ministry argue the contrary, as I’ve said before. That he sometimes took strong stands against serious compromise by some believers (such as Billy Graham) is certainly true; but he never fell into the noisome error of immediately separating from every good man or church simply because they may have held some modified relationship with unbelief. If he did, it came long after his public ministry and was perhaps instigated by B. J., Jr., who was, unfortunately, carried away with the errors of Woodbridge.
I’m posting for you the Hamilton Hotel Resolution. It was written and adopted in 1958, and it reflects the longstanding position of many fundamentalists at that time. It shows, for instance, that fundies (John R. Rice, Bob Jones, Jr., and even John MacArthur’s father) practiced a form of separation that was simple and Biblical. In short, it demanded separation from all that God directly required and from all that wisdom and prudence saw fitting.
You will notice as you read through the Resolution that there’s no reference in 2 Thess. 3 (a key secondary separation text), even though there’s reference to many other separation texts. That passage, along with the unhealthy and exaggerated teaching built on it by Woodbridge and Jones, Jr., came later. You will also notice that lurking beneath the surface of Hamilton is the idea that believers must exercise wisdom in discretion toward the activities and connections of other believers especially where Scripture is silent concerning such issues. That’s the pattern balanced fundies followed. They never turned questions of wisdom and prudence in the matters of separation INTO AN INFLEXIBLE DOCTRINE OF SECONDARY SEPARATION (later repackaged by Bob Jones, Jr., as PRIMARY SEPARATION). That was the error of Bob Jones University.
Again, read the resolution. Notice how interestingly things are worded and, yes, read through the list of signers.
Have a good one.
P.S. At the end of the resolution, I’ve encluded an e-mail I received in 2005 from Robert Sumner who addresses some questions I put to him about Rice and Jones. I think you’ll find it interesting. While I can’t state this for certain, and connecting the dots in some of these situations is terribly difficult, I believe shortly after the Hamilton Hotel Resolution, Bob Jones, Jr., began pushing in earnest his false doctrine of “secondary separation,” a teaching that has caused enormous harm among conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists.
____________________
THE HAMILTON HOTEL RESOLUTION
We, evangelists, pastor-evangelists, and educators of soul-winners assembled in Chicago, December 26-27 [1958], facing our responsibility to God and Christian people for scriptural leadership in evangelism, hereby adopt and publish the following resolution.
I. Whereas; America needs an old-time Bible revival with hard-hitting, Holy Spirit empowered, true-to-the-Bible preaching, living, and witnessing, to meet the wide-spread breakdown of morality and Christianity which is evidenced by overwhelming sins of divorce, drunkenness, crime, juvenile delinquency, adultery among the people; with shocking unbelief, worldliness, and cold formalism in the churches.
II. Whereas; We solemnly believe any evangelism which does not deal honestly and scripturally with the sin and the unbelief and disloyalty to the Bible prevalent in religious circles cannot bring about the true scriptural revival America and the world needs.
III. Whereas; We agree in believing, proclaiming, and contending for certain basic Bible doctrines as essential to the Christian faith. As do all major creeds of Christianity, and as orthodox Christians have unitedly agreed since the apostles, we affirm that without these fundamental truths, any religion is not the historic Christian religion, the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ. These absolute essentials are, we believe:
1. The verbal inspiration, the absolute authority, and infallible accuracy of the Bible as God’s Word in original manuscripts.
2. The deity, the virgin birth, the vicarious atoning death, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and His return.
3. In the fallen nature of man, the absolute need for regeneration, in salvation by grace through faith in Christ, and in the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to every creature.
IV. Whereas; We believe that with brotherly love, Christians, as individuals, may properly cooperate with all who (1) claim and evidence in life saving faith in Christ, as Saviour, (2) firmly believe and profess the above essentials of the faith, and (3) though they may differ on lesser matters of faith, do not make “doubtful disputations.”
V. Whereas; We believe it unscriptural and wrong to yoke up with unbelievers and thus put unsaved men or enemies of the historic Christian faith in partial control of, or influential in any kind of Christian work, whether in evangelism or Christian schools or denominational work or ministerial associations or local churches. We rejoice in the Gospel, whoever preaches it, and in souls saved, however won. But we believe that any evangelist who calls unbelievers Christians, who has enemies of the Bible lead in prayer, or who sends new converts or inquires to churches which do not believe and preach the Bible as the perfectly revealed Word of God, and where their faith is likely to be destroyed, does wrong , whether his motives are good or bad. By so doing, we believe one violates the plain command of God in 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 5:11; 2 Jo. 7-11, and Gal. 1:8,9.
Thus to receive to our pulpits or platforms and to give Christian recognition to men who “do not abide in the doctrine of Christ” is to “bid them Godspeed” and to “be a partaker of their evil deeds,” as 2 Jo. 7-11, plainly forbids. to help erase the line between those who believe the Bible is the Word of God, and those who believe the Bible may or may not CONTAIN the Word of God along with uninspired material is forbidden in the Bible. Even though the Gospel is preached, any occasion when modernists and unbelievers are made more popular and influential and Bible-believing preachers are left in reproach, it is wrong.
The Bible Says, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful” (Ps. 1:1). The Bible is as clear on the question of bad company, of wrong associations, of spiritual compromise, as on the gospel message itself, or on the fundamental doctrines accepted by all Bible-believing, orthodox Christians. It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right.
We believe it right to preach to all sinners. We believe it is never right to put lost men; enemies of the Bible, in places to partially control or sponsor a revival campaign, a local church, a ministerial association or a denomination or religious institution.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
1. That we reaffirm our whole-hearted loyalty to these truths–the verbal inspiration and authority of the Bible, the deity, virgin birth, vicarious blood atonement, bodily resurrection, and second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. That we, with humble confession of our failures and weaknesses, earnestly dedicate ourselves anew with holy zeal to soul winning and evangelism at home and abroad, in obedience to Christ’s Great Commission, and as the main thing Jesus died for.
3. That we humbly ask God to make us worthy of the reproach of Christ, and to make us willing to suffer for the holy faith, as have prophets, apostles and martyrs and saints who were true to Christ in all ages. Since this is the age for crosses, not crowns; since we are commanded to go outside the gate with Christ instead of staying in with the majorities of this, we humbly ask God to give us grace to stand fast, suffering, if need be, for Christ.
4. We solemnly resolved that we will not knowingly support, with gifts, or influence or labor, any religious program or institution or man which denies or contradicts or perverts any of the essentials of the faith mentioned above. By God’s help we undertake to match our holy convictions with our living and giving.
5. We solemnly resolve that we will not knowingly give Christian recognition to those who are unconverted or who deny any of the basic essentials of the Christian faith; that we will not knowingly work under the sponsorship of these unbelievers, nor join them in sponsorship of any religious program, whether evangelistic campaign, ministerial association, denominational or local church programs. We resolve not to disobey the plain commands of the Bible in order to get a chance to preach the Gospel.
6. We solemnly resolve that we will endeavor to go anywhere God leads, for revival and soulwinning, as He opens the doors and makes His will clear by the Holy Spirit, whether opportunities appear great or small, and as the opportunities conform to the requirements for cooperation or sponsorship.
7. We declare our intention to promote and pray for cooperation in evangelism with true Christians on a scriptural basis, while we also earnestly promote local church and individual evangelism.
THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE WAS COMPOSED OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. Dr. John R. Rice (chairman), evangelist, and editor and publisher of the THE SWORD OF THE LORD, Wheaton, Illinois.
2. Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., president of Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina.
3. Rev. Joe Boyd, moderator, Southern Baptist Fellowship, and pastor, The Open Door Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas
4. Dr. Horace Dean, president, Christ for America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
5. Dr. W.O.H. Garman, president, Associated Gospel Churches, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania.
6. Dr. Harry McCormick Lintz, director, Victory Crusade Evangelistic Association, Redlands, California.
7. Rev. Henry P. Lovik, general director, Conservative Baptist Association of Illinois, Oak Lawn, Illinois.
8. Dr. Ernest Pickering, national executive secretary, Independent Fundamental churches of America, Chicago, Illinois.
9. Rev. Harold Sightler, past moderator, Southern Baptist Fellowship, and pastor, Tabernacle Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina.
10. Rev. Charles A. Thigpen, moderator and chairman of the general board, National Association of Free Will Baptists, Nashville, Tennessee.
11. Dr. James A. Franklin, business manager, Westminster College and Bible Institute, Tehuacana, Texas.
12. Rev. Dan H. Graham, president, Graham Bible Institute and Bible College, and pastor, Walnut Hill Presbyterian Church, Bristol, Tennessee.
13. Dr. Henry Grube, president, Greystone Christian School, and pastor, The Tabernacle, Mobile, Alabama.
14. Dr. Linton C. Johnson, president, Free Will Baptist Bible College, Nashville, Tennessee.
15. Dr. Allan MacRae, president, Faith Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
16. Dr. Tom Malone, chairman of the board and president, Midwestern Baptist Seminary, and pastor, Emmanuel Baptist Church, Pontiac, Michigan.
17. Dr. John Murray, president, Shelton College, Ringwood, New Jersey, and pastor, Church of the Open Door, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
18. Dr. Monroe Parker, president, Pillsbury Conservative Baptist Bible College, Owatonna, Minnesota.
19. Dr. Lee Roberson, president, Tennessee Temple Schools, and pastor, Highland Park Baptist Church, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
20. Rev. G. Beauchamp Vick, president, Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, and pastor, Temple Baptist Church, Detroit, Michigan.
21. Dr. G. Archer Weniger, chairman of the board, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, San Francisco, California, and pastor Foothills Boulevard Baptist Church, Oakland, California.
22. Rev. W.B. Bedford, pastor, Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, Greensboro, North Carolina.
23. Dr. James E. Bennett, counselor-at-law, New York, New York.
24. Rev. Kenton Beshore, pastor, First Baptist church, Oceanside, California.
25. Dr. Fred Garland, evangelist, Roanoke, Virginia.
26. Rev. Robert C. Gray, Jr., editor, THE BAPTIST BEACON, treasure, The Southern Baptist Fellowship, and pastor, Trinity Baptist church, Jacksonville, Florida.
27. Evangelist Oliver B. Greene, director, “The Gospel Hour,” Greenville, South Carolina.
28. Rev. Jack Hyles, pastor, Miller Road Baptist Church, Garland, Texas.
29. Dr. John F. MacArthur, pastor, MacArthur Memorial Bible Church, Glendale, California.
30. Rev. Ford Porter, president, Berean Gospel Distributors, Inc., and pastor, Berean Gospel Temple, Indianapolis, Indiana.
31. Dr. Bill Rice, president, Cumberwood Christian Retreat, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
32. Dr. William H. Lee Spratt, pastor, Grace Baptist Church, Decatur, Alabama.
33. Dr. William McCarrell, pastor-emeritus of Cicero Bible Church, Cicero, Illinois.
[Attached Sumner e-mail deleted by Don Johnson for these reasons: 1. It’s my blog. 2. It’s irrelevant.]
Hi Tracy,
I posted your lengthy reply, but I deleted the Sumner e-mail for reasons stated above. I also bolded sections in the Hamilton Hotel Resolution which actually demonstrate that you are not reading the resolution correctly. It argues against your own interpretation of it.
It is amazing to me that you cite this as an example of Dr. Bob Sr.’s practice when it is Dr. Bob Jr. that signed it.
The document is clearly a response to Billy Graham and the 1957 New York Crusade.
And last, I have not said “times were different” but that Dr. Bob Sr followed a fundamentalist philosophy from beginning to end. His philosophy led to different applications when confronted with the new realities of changing circumstances.
The Billy Graham/New Evangelical compromise clearly was a brand new circumstance facing the church. It took some time to develop (basically mid-1940s to 1957) and reached a crisis point at the BG New York Crusade of 1957.
That watershed event led to the Hamilton Hotel resolution. There is nothing in that resolution which is inconsistent with the doctrine of separation from modernists AND separation from those who WRONGLY cooperate with modernists. You are misreading it badly, and you are willfully ignorant concerning the facts of history.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
A note for Tracy:
Tracy, I’m not continuing this conversation. You keep saying the same things, I keep saying the same things. What is the point?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3