I am thinking of some further writing, not directly related to the ETS specifically, but to the essential mood of fundamentalism. Just as New Evangelicalism could be characterized as a mood, so to can Fundamentalism. It seems to me that:

1. The militant mood permeates the fundamentalist mindset, applying to one’s personal life, one’s local church life, and extending to every other association of life.

2. The militant mood manifests itself when the fundamentalist encounters error deviating from the fundamentals. I have a few examples in mind.

3. The militant mood is not belligerence (though tempers are too often strained, at least, and the flesh is ever present, alas). Rather, the mood is one that is ready to confront and expose error as vigorously as necessary for each instance of it, and often that necessitates public censure and exposure.

Last, the militant mood is always surrounded by a suffocating crowd of men-pleasers who attempt to stifle the militants as only a few ‘wing-nuts’ on the fringes.

Well, more later…

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

At the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit this summer, Bauder gave a paper that makes these points:

1. He posed the question whether participation in academic societies (which are not fundamentalist in nature) violates ecclesiastical separation.
2. Acknowledging the argument that separation applies to churches, he defined ecclesiastical separation as recognizing “someone as a Christian (a member of the church universal)” who denies the gospel. He insists that separation thus applies to more than just local churches, and that indifferentists should be separated from.
3. He argues that participation in the ETS, as a society which “claim[s] to be Christian” necessarily requires an implied fellowship with Open Theists (for example) as believers. This analysis makes him “personally uncomfortable with membership in the ETS.”

This was all said long before the ETS leadership controversy, but I think it refines the argument a bit.

One last thing… Bauder noted that his evaluation depends on tricky judgment calls where “our perspectives and decisions may differ.” In other words, he anticipates the argument that we had here.

Hope that helps… I’m not going to argue for Bauder, but it seemed to me that this discussion could have profited from a clearer statement of what he meant.

I am not quite sure what you mean by your question. I am somewhat conflicted about fundamentalists attending new-evangelical (or would it be better to say, “Indifferentist” schools). It seems inevitable that such decisions make profound impact on personalities. Very few men have the internal strength to maintain a consistent fundamentalist philosophy after immersing themselves in such an environment, it seems.

However, I do recognize that academically speaking there may be a rationale for training outside the “fundie bubble”.

One of the differences with the BJU of today (for example) with the BJU of my era and earlier is that most of those professors who had been educated in secular or liberal or indifferentist schools had been educated there first, then come to BJU as their final destination. Now it seems the BA is from the fundie school, then advanced degrees are taken in other schools, then individuals sometimes come back to fundie schools as profs. Some of these people may be weaker fundamentalists in the end, I think.

But, as I say, I can see some benefits for getting other perspectives in education. It is a very dangerous path to follow, though, so perhaps the benefits are very marginal at best.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Moritz doesn’t mention “ETS” specifically even as, like I think you would already know, he doesn’t list every single organization from which to separate from. And, it isn’t what I said in my comment. I said, “the error of this kind of association.” Quotes on pp. 74 and 83 apply, however.

On p. 74, Moritz quotes a book on separation by the Bob Jones faculty, entitled Biblical Separation:
“[S]eparation may be necessary: from a church member who persists in worldly living, from a brother who follows a false teacher, from a ‘Christian leader who refuses to take action against those who have been disobedient.'”

Then on p. 83, he writes two statements applicable, especially in conjunction with the quote on p. 74: “Churches, pastors, and other leaders will need to apply these principles to situations of cooperation and fellowship between churches, or between churches and service organizations. . . . Associations of churches, mission agencies, publishing houses, Christian colleges and seminaries, and other such organizations are also responsible to be consistent in obedience to the principles delineated in Scripture.”

There is plenty in the two books that Ernest Pickering wrote as well.

I’ve been alive long enough to know that an appearance with the ETS is something new for fundamentalists that goes out of what they have done. If it is something that is now right, why was it wrong before?

Don,

I think a major reason for this is something that Ernest Pickering talked about in his The Tragedy of Compromise, that being the trouble of fundamentalists attending new-evangelical schools. If you are going to attend their schools, then being in their societies does not matter. What is being overlooked in doing this?

Since I haven’t told my Dad what I have to say either, I probably will have to keep it a “secret” tomorrow at church. :) I promise I will get back to this next week, though. Unfortunately, I have just a bit too much going on today :)

The way your last comment showed up on my computer screen, I saw your three quotes but not your conclusion. When I read those, I thought, “Yes, they are very different in purpose and participation is not the same.” Then I scrolled down to see your take on it and it was the exact opposite of mine. So, we may be at an impasse.

Kent, I couldn’t find anything in Moritz that was directly applicable. Do you have a page number? If he does make an argument against ETS, I would like to read it.

From the ETS site we find this:

About the ETS

Founded in 1949, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is a group of scholars, teachers, pastors, students, and others dedicated to the oral exchange and written expression of theological thought and research. The ETS is devoted to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Society publishes a quarterly journal, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), an academic periodical featuring peer reviewed articles, as well as extended book reviews, in the biblical and theological disciplines. The ETS also holds national and regional meetings across the United States.

And this:

Purpose Statement

The Evangelical Theological Society was formed in 1949 to accomplish the following purpose: “To foster conservative Biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.” (Constitution, Article II.

On the other hand, we have this from the NAE:

Mission Statement

The mission of the National Association of Evangelicals is to extend the kingdom of God through a fellowship of member denominations, churches, organizations, and individuals, demonstrating the unity of the body of Christ by standing for biblical truth, speaking with a representative voice, and serving the evangelical community through united action, cooperative ministry, and strategic planning.

I guess what we are arguing is if ETS partnership in publishing JETS is equivalent to “cooperative ministry” as in the NAE.

I obviously don’t see a lot of difference between the two efforts.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

From my perspective, I don’t think it is wrong to go to the ETS to speak as long as the person speaking presents something that confronts the sin and false theology of the ETS, as opposed to joining and getting along as a colleague. I would call that “fellowshipping” and, therefore, violating Scripture. Read Fred Moritz’s books on separation—he applies the appropriate separation passages to point out the error of this kind of association. No one that I know of in fundamentalism blinked when Moritz wrote what he did in his books.

Thanks again for your interaction. I am in major catch-up mode today, so have to beat it over to the office and have at least one appointment with church folks today, so I will have to beg off on an answer until later in the day.

My angio “vacation” is over!

Will get back to you soon, though.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

You wrote, “As I understand it, membership in the ETS allows you to submit papers and, if approved, present them. The presented papers are published in JETS. So your partnership in the ETS links you in a cooperative effort to further the Evangelical cause.”

I guess I don’t see ETS as designed to further any cause, either evangelical or fundamental. I see it as an academic tool to further Biblical understanding and to sharpen our understanding of complex theological issues. If there was an agenda to promote a particular Indifferentist viewpoint (like the NAE and CT specifically does), then I could see your point but I don’t think that is the case. ETS is evangelical in the sense that it intends to address theological topics from an evangelical (i.e., Christian) standpoint. Now, there will be a flavor to its discussion that is Indifferent because of the majority of its participants, but is it really furthering the *cause* of Indifferentism? I have access to all the JETS articles online through the Emory library system. Just browsing through some of the journal articles I would say that most don’t have anything to do with promoting any cause. Sure, there are articles promoting academic mumbo-jumbo and positions that neither of us would support but there are lots of “response to” articles that present “our” side, too.

I keep going back to the parallel I see with the online discussion forums. The reason I began to participate on BB was to help prepare for a SS series I was starting on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. I sought to interact with people who did not take a YEC viewpoint on those chapters because I wanted to see their arguments and how they would respond to my arguments. I wanted to find potential weaknesses in my presentation before I got up and taught the material to my class. If I was a credentialed scholar, I would consider doing the same type of thing within an organization such as ETS. I find JETS helpful and why shouldn’t fundamentalists participate in scholarly discussion?