Men from our IFB heritage had their moments and no one I am aware of would claim perfection for any of them.

Bauder’s hostility toward those men and their ministries, his besmirching BJU at the FBFI was wrong!

Bauder has, on his own initiative, disqualified himself from any role that he might have played in healing the open fracture in IFB circles. This past summer he has in fact contributed significantly to widening that fracture. Bauder is, just as I stated, a lightning rod for controversy.

Bauder is the friend of the conservative evangelicals. It is widely believed Bauder’s goal is to reshape fundamentalism into what the ce camp is and/or move as many young IFB men over to the ce community.

Kind regards,

Lou

Keith

He’s At it Again? Clearly!

Thanks for raising some legitimate concerns with Bauder’s current series, which Sharper Iron (SI) is featuring. While I share the essence of your concerns I would express them a little differently, less blunt force trauma. In any event…

Fundamentalism, just as any movement and the men that make up movements have their shortcomings. The star personalities of the “conservative” evangelical movement have their particular shortcomings just as some in Fundamentalism do. That said, Bauder published three articles this summer (a reaction to the Sweatts’ message), which SI featured and its moderators, plus Aaron Blumer, vigorously defended, when men like John Himes (Rice’s grandson) objected to elements such as…

Then during the FBFI Annual Fellowship symposium to intended to discuss the “conservative” evangelicals Bauder dodged John Vaughn’s question (on the ce men partly drawn from Dr. Masters’s article, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness) to instead besmirch BJU over their inviting conservative politicians to address the student body during election cycles. Plus Bauder put Dr. Minnick in the hot-seat asking and pressing him twice to comment on the BJU administration’s decision to host these political figures. This was bad!

As far as I can tell from the pulse out there, Bauder’s SI blog series, which targeted J.R. Rice and Jones, Jr. followed by his unwarranted criticism of BJU during the FBFI symposium, turned him (Bauder) into a polarizing figure and a lightning rod for controversy.

FWIW, there are men in the IFB camp who now consider Bauder a Trojan horse in Fundamentalism on behalf of “conservative” evangelicalism. I’m not of that opinion yet, but after the events of this past summer a growing number are coming to that opinion.

What transpired this summer pretty much settled things in regard to Bauder. What confidence in him as a leader or a conduit for helpful discussion to heal rifts in IFB circles can men have when he (Bauder) polarizes the discussion and factions as he has?

LM

Don, you are “begging the question” in your reply. Many would argue that, properly understood, all the items I mentioned do preserve the doctrine of the New Testament. I think you are actually reinforcing Bauder’s point. You have rid yourself of many things that generations of Christians believed to be biblical with the only explanation being — we kept the truth and abandoned the error.

Keith

[Note: I fixed your spelling on toque… it is an odd word that almost no one knows how to spell, even up here. We all say it though.]

Now, Keith, you need to learn your geography better. Where we live it hardly ever snows. Dogsleds get very poor mileage here.

If preserving “historic Christian doctrine” means preserving the errors of the Church Fathers, then I am quite happy to be rid of it. If on the other hand it means preserving the doctrine of the New Testament, then I think that is what we are after and that is what we are doing.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I’ve got a brown paper bag you can breath into for a few minutes to help you calm down. Does FedEx have a few dog sleds for deliveries in the Great White North? (I hope such good natured ribbing is not out of place on a site named Ox Goad).

I think that you aren’t reading Bauder carefully. He means something specific and historical by saying that Fundametalism is only a partial preservation of historic Christian doctrine. He wrote: “Christian Fundamentalist theology is represented in the Christian theology of antiquity, but not all of the older Christian theology has been preserved in fundamentalism.” This seems like an unarguable statement of fact. It also seems like something you would embrace not contest.

I mean, when was the last time your congregation recited the Apostle’s Creed in worship? Do your baptismal candidates renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil? Would your congregants automatically understand and agree the ancient doctrinal declaration that “Christ descended into hell”? How about “One baptism for the remission of sins”?

These observations/statements are not meant as insults by me. And, I don’t sense that Bauder meant them as insults. It’s just a matter of fact.

Now, what some of this historical ignorance or disdain leads to is offensive to Bauder — AS A FUNDAMENTALIST it seems to me. It’s at times amusing, at times insulting, at times annoying to me as a non-fundamentalist. But Bauder and I are concerned for different reasons.

Not sure why you can’t see the difference. Is your branch of Christianity really above factual critique?

Peace

Keith

Thanks

tjp
_________________

Jim: [How does a professor going to J-Mac’s school or Northwestern make Central leaning towards C/E?]

tjp: Only in a general sort of way. But it does strike me as odd that faculty at Central would feel just as comfortable, if not more so, at J-Mac’s. But this general feeling is not exclusive to me. If I recall correctly, a number of separatists had expressed similar sentiments in their reviews of Douglas McLachlan’s “Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism,” a book I very much liked.

Don’t misread me, Jim. I’m not criticizing Central. I think there needs to be some level of cooperation with CEs, and perhaps faculty leaving Central for J-Mac’s are saying the same thing. Also, I think Bauder’s continued familiarity with the GARB, not exactly a polestar of separatism, suggests Central is at least considering a broader fellowship than it has historically practiced (I’m thinking of the Clearwaters era here).

Personally, my separatism operates more along the lines of Rice and Jones, Sr. Thus I wouldn’t necessarily object to some level of cooperation with CEs, even though I’m not a J-Mac fan or a cheerleader for the T4G gang or a promoter of the Gospel Coalition or a Dever groupie. I think they have problems worth considering.

I’d like to add to my comments in the article and here in the comment section a link to a very reasonable comment by Ed Vasicek on SI. My impression of Ed is that he would tend to lean towards the more favorable to evangelicals end of fundamentalism than me, so I think that makes his post significant.

He critiques Bauder in a gentler way than I do. It is undoubtedly the more effective and spiritual way to do so.

I will be away from the computer all day, so if you care to make further comments, they will be in the queue until I get back.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

To be as clear: I think we should spend more time contemplating, mentally evaluating, praying (all found in 1 Peter 4:7), comparing claims with scripture (Isaiah 8:20), giving people the benefit of the doubt (1 Corinthians 13:7), being forbearing (Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:13), allowing love to cover the multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8) and then when a leader has clearly sinned (after careful evaluation and clear due process) rebuke him before all so as to warn the rest (1 Timothy 5:19-25) –expecting the cross and the Word to argue the man to confession and repentance (2 Timothy 2:25). Way too much opining (on many fronts) is happening these days and unfortunately we Christians are just as tainted with our opinion as the lost (Proverbs 16:25).

For His glory,
Christian Markle

Anvil

I recognize that some of what Bauder says could be said to characterize some who wear the label of fundamentalism.

My objection to this article is the broad brush approach and the implication that the men Bauder associates with are actually diminishing or distorting historic Christianity. The implication of his piece, it seems to me, is that Moritz, Sidwell, and Beale (named in the article) are guilty of the same. In my view, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship is by and large the most balanced and faithful group in fundamentalism. The FBF is likewise disdained by Bauder.

As for what my church is like, unless I miss my guess, you should have some materials from me that would give you a taste. You can also listen to messages at our website, http://www.gbcvic.org. I recognize that we lack many things but we attempt to faithfully and systematically teach the Bible and build disciples.

Jim

Thanks for the comments. I am always surprised at notice over at SI, given my occasional barbs in that direction. I hope you are correct about Bauder, but I have heard him distort history before (see his lecture series at International Baptist Bible College last year). As a result, I don’t trust his analysis and certainly disagree with the things that he has done in the last few months to stir up controversy in fundamentalism.

Aaron

If Bauder is saying something different from what he appears to be saying, then he should pull his article and reframe it in more clear language. He is a master of indirect insults.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3