A Period of Inactivity

For all those who cruise by my blog, there will be relatively little activity until after about mid-February. I will be out of country for three weeks in January, teaching a modular course at a Bible college. So right now my days are generously occupied with normal ministry things that are on the plate this time of year and I have been actively trying to get in time to prepare this course. Upon my arrival home in late January, I will be finalizing our annual missions conference that we have in mid-February. Needless to say, life is busy for this blogger right now.
Some are probably rejoicing, "hey, he's not saying anything about what's going on." The day is coming when I shall write again. So, don't grow weary wondering what's up. Blogging has just taken a spot in the baggage area of the bus rather than the back seat.

Is this really authentic?

Dr. Douglas McLachlan has written a two part article for Sharper Iron (can be found here and here) further articulating his thoughts concerning the reclamation of an authentic fundamentalism. I have recently (within the last couple of years) read Dr. McLachlan’s book, Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. I was greatly encouraged and sadden at the same time. Encouraged because what he wrote resonated with me as the right expression of fundamentalism of which I have been a part since my salvation in 1974. I was saddened because as I read I realized that this book had been published originally in 1993 and was therefore readily available during the vocalization of the “young fundamentalists.”

Dr. McLachlan now adds to what he wrote in the book by stating;

That was the intent of the book: to awaken the older generation to what was happening within fundamentalism, and to give the younger generation a reason to remain within it and to make a generational commitment to fixing it. It has taken a long time, but I believe we are in the beginning stages of actually giving birth to an authentic fundamentalism, which is actually nothing other than a 21st century rebirth of historic, mainstream fundamentalism. Leading the way in this birthing are men like Kevin Bauder, Sam Horn, Matt Olson, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Dan Davey, and others like them.

Dr. McLachlan is laying down the claim that these men “and others like them” are bringing about what he wrote in his book. I would disagree. What these and others are doing is what Dr. McLachlan is articulating in his article, not what he articulated in his book. Dr. McLachlan has shifted his criteria for reclamation.

In point 2, “Pursuing the radical center,” Dr. McLachlan uses the imagery of a pathway with ditches on either side. In this imagery, he states, “Far too large a percentage of the evangelical world has descended into the ‘left ditch.’ And doubtless, far too much of the fundamentalist world has descended into the ‘right ditch.’” I believe that his assessment of “who” is on the pathway is incorrect when he implies that there are some evangelicals that are on the pathway when he says, “far too large a percentage of the evangelical world has descended…” He substantiates this claim later in the article where he says, “Confessional or conservative evangelicals aspire to distance themselves from the majority of the evangelical movement that is bolting left.” And, “…it is fair to say that both of these groups (confessional evangelicals and mainstream fundamentalism) seem equally committed to finding the radical center.”

It is a pipedream to think that conservative (or confessional) evangelicals are; first, on the pathway; second, aspiring to distance themselves from the rest of evangelicalism; and third, committed to finding the radical center. Evangelicalism “bolted” from the pathway in their break with authentic, mainstream fundamentalism in the 40’s/50’s, to which all tend to agree did indeed take place. While there is within evangelicalism a more vocal, conservative element, we must admit that there has always been a segment of evangelicalism that has tended to be more conservative. It has been pointed out time and time again that the so-called conservative evangelicals of our day (Dever, Mohler, Piper, Mahaney, MacArthur, et. al) are still evangelicals.

Dr. McLachlan would have us to believe, like Dr. Bauder before him, that these men are moving in our direction. Really? What evidence is there to show us their movement away from the rest of evangelicalism? Dever and Mohler remain in the largest evangelical denomination in the US. Mohler has signed the Manhatten Declaration along with a whole host of evangelicals. Yes, he has made statements seeking to bring clarity to his reason for signing, but the fact still remains his name is on the document with other evangelicals that according to McLachlan he is supposed distancing himself from. Mohler has chaired a Billy Graham crusade in Louisville sitting with evangelicals that he supposedly is distancing himself from. Dever has taught at Gordon-Conwell Seminary a clearly evangelical institution of higher learning from which he is supposedly distancing himself from. Dever was invited and initially accepted to come to The Elephant Room 2 in January 2012 to sit with T. D. Jakes, an evangelical which he is supposedly distancing himself from. Yes, to his credit he has cancelled his involvement but this was after the venting of Thabiti Anyabwile in a couple of blogs against portions of Jakes’ theology. Again, the fact still remains that Dever initially accepted the invitation. Dever’s church remains part of the DC Baptist Association which is evangelical in nature, which he is supposedly distancing himself from. Moving on to Dr. John Piper, we have another conservative evangelical who has no problem keeping ties with those within evangelicalism that Dr. McLachlan has put in the “left ditch.” What ties are those? Oh, for one, Piper remains in Converge Worldwide (formerly Baptist General Conference). He has no problem associating with the evangelical Rick Warren and “shock-jockesque” preacher Mark Driscoll of emergent church notoriety. Are these men really, REALLY, distancing themselves from the majority of evangelicalism?!!!

Need I continue with example after example of these men and their attachments to all things evangelical? Are there some within fundamentalism who are sticking their proverbial heads in the sand, denying the reality that the conservative element of evangelicalism is still evangelical?

To the other side of this issue, Dr. McLachlan noted that there were those within fundamentalism who are seeking a reclamation of authentic, mainstream fundamentalism and we are in the “birthing” process now.

Just what kind of “fundamentalism” are these men “birthing” and is it a rebirth of historic, mainstream fundamentalism? Several instances over the past year or so I believe, should give us cause to question the validity of Dr. McLachlan’s optimism.

First, we have the example of Dr. Tim Jordan and Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He brought in Dr. Mark Dever to speak at the February 2011 Advancing the Church Conference. Also at this conference were Drs. Bauder and Doran. This caused quite the stir in the blogosphere as sides were drawn quickly. Now, not to be outdone by having Dr. Dever; Dr. Jordan scheduled Dr. Timothy Lane of CCEF come to speak at a forum this fall and Dr. Haddon Robinson from Gordon-Conwell Seminary to speak at a forum in the spring. While many sought to establish Dr. Dever clearly as a conservative evangelical and very nearly, almost, and maybe even more militant than most fundamentalists; these two men are clearly entrenched in full orbed evangelicalism. What about Dr. Robinson?* Here is a man who has journeyed out of fundamentalism and into full-blown evangelicalism. He resides at Gordon-Conwell teaching alongside ordained, American Baptist Church USA preacher, Dr. Patricia Batten. Dr. Batten has an M. Div. and a D. Min. from Gordon-Conwell. She spoke at the seminary’s 2008 conference on preaching. A woman preacher…and this is a good thing? How does a man known for his book on preaching, known for his passion for preaching justify a woman preacher? And Calvary wants him to come and speak?

Second, there is the Dr. Olson, Dr. Horn, Dr. McLachlan, Dr. Ollila venture to CA in April 2010 to sit down with Dr. MacArthur which resulted in an invitation for Rick Holland to come and speak in chapel at Northland in October of 2010. Rick Holland heads up the Resolved Conference that Grace oversees. This is a conference of conflicting messages espousing Jonathan Edward’s resolutions but using the medium of a worldly rock concert to deliver that message. And then there is Dr. Bruce Ware teaching in Northland’s D. Min. program this past summer. Dr. Ware is on faculty at Southern Seminary, a Southern Baptist Convention institution.

Third, there was the scheduled meeting of Dr. Larry Pettegrew at Central. Because of health reasons Dr. Pettegrew had to cancel but there is an open invitation to return. Who is Dr. Pettegrew? Like Dr. Robinson, he too has been one on a journey out of fundamentalism and into evangelicalism. He has taught at Pillsbury and at Central before going to The Masters Seminary and is now currently teaching at Shepherds Theological Seminary in Cary, NC.

Sorry, Dr. McLachlan, I do not view the conservative evangelical through the same rose-colored glasses as you and others are doing. Fundamentalism is not in need of a course correction bringing us more in line with the conservative element of evangelicalism. Many lamented the departure of some of the younger generation of fundamentalism into evangelicalism, seeing some of the older men follow that same path is just as tragic. This is not the direction I wish to see fundamentalism take.

* For other information concerning Dr. Robinson  click here
For those wanting a quick link to Dr. Ketchum's article click here
Here is a link to Dr. Ketchum's most recent article click here

This does not bode well

There has been some buzz about Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism since it was first teased that it was about to be released. I debated whether or not I would even get the book. I opted to get the book so that I could see for myself what was being said. Well, it arrived in the mail yesterday. I immediately opened the book and headed for Dr. Kevin Bauder’s opening chapter, desirous to see what he was really going to say. His first two paragraphs and accompanying footnotes floored me. He opens with this;

“Imagine the difficulty of explaining fundamentalism in a book about evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is generally treated like the cryptozoology of the theological world. It need not be argued against. It can simply be dismissed.¹

Part of the fault lies with fundamentalists themselves. For a generation or more, they have produced few sustained expositions of their ideas. Perhaps a certain amount of stereotyping is excusable, and maybe even unavoidable. No fundamentalist has produced a critical history of fundamentalism.² Nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available.³ By virtue of its length, this essay can provide neither. Instead, it offers a very brief introduction to fundamentalism. No one can speak for all fundamentalists. Consequently, this essay reflects my own vision of fundamentalism. I occasionally indicate areas in which I believe most fundamentalist would agree with me.”

Here are the footnotes;

¹While fundamentalists generally consider themselves to be evangelicals, some self-identified evangelicals question whether an evangelical can be a fundamentalist. See Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen, Everything you Know about Evangelicals is Wrong (Well, Almost Everything): An Insider’s Look at Myths and Realities (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 139-140

²Fundamentalist have published two full-length histories. Each makes a modest contribution to fundamentalist historiography, but both are essentially popular works that were written to legitimate one particular version of fundamentalism. The two are George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1973); and David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1986).

³The best expositions of core fundamentalist ideas include Fred Moritz, “Be Ye Holy”: The Call to Christian Separation (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1994); Mark Sidwell, The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1998); Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, 2^nd ed. (Schaumburg, Ill.: Regular Baptist Press, 2008). Each of these discussions has value, but all are written for a popular readership, and none deals adequately with the larger orbit of ecclesiological issues that a thoughtful fundamentalism must face.

To use a phrase from the political realm looks like Dr. Bauder has thrown Dr. Dollar, Dr. Beale, Dr. Moritz, Dr. Sidwell, and Dr. Pickering under the bus. Why didn’t Dr. Bauder also include Dr. Moritz’s book, Contending for the Faith, since it covers the same subject matter of the other three books while he was throwing things under the bus?

I wish to pull a few of his sentences out for examination. Here they are; “No fundamentalist has produced a critical history of fundamentalism. Nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available.” And from the footnotes; “Fundamentalist have published two full-length histories. Each makes a modest contribution to fundamentalist historiography, but both are essentially popular works that were written to legitimate one particular version of fundamentalism.” Also; “Each of these discussions has value, but all are written for a popular readership, and none deals adequately with the larger orbit of ecclesiological issues that a thoughtful fundamentalism must face.” I guess we must ask what does Dr. Bauder mean when he says, “a critical history of fundamentalism” has not been written and “nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available”? And there is also, “but both are essentially popular works” and “written for a popular readership.”

To give full disclosure, I am a Bob Jones University alumnus, having received both a bachelors and masters degree from that university which provided the means for publishing most of the books Dr. Bauder refers to. Also, I sat under Dr. Beale in a class during the time he was writing his book on Fundamentalism and the course syllabus was the outline of the book. And again, my wife worked for BJUP for the first 12 years of our marriage while I finished those degrees and beyond. So yes, I am familiar with the works and have read all but Dr. Sidwell’s book.

Now back to my thoughts, Dr. Bauder used the term “critical” in reference to the lack of a “critical history of fundamentalism.” I suppose he is using this meaning of the word critical, “characterized by careful analysis and judgment.” And he defines the word “popular” as, “appealing to or intended for the general public.” (definitions taken from, Webster’s New College Dictionary, 2005) So, he is saying that the two histories of fundamentalism are not careful in their analysis and judgment!? Really?!! And what is so wrong with writing to the masses? They ARE the ones who make up fundamentalism, not academia.

A common mantra coming from the evangelical and liberal communities for decades has been that fundamentalists are not “scholars” or that they do not produce “scholarly” works. Looks like Dr. Bauder has followed their lead in his assessment of these five works. I find it interesting that his assessment of these authors and their books is done in this venue rather than within the realm of fundamentalism. When Dr. Bauder wrote a couple of series on the history of fundamentalism, he did not bring up this lack of “careful analysis and judgment” when he referenced these previous works. Kind of looks like he wanted to get outside of the fort before taking pot shots at fellow fundamentalists.

To help shed some light on this idea, let’s look at the two histories mentioned. In Dr. Dollar’s book, he covers his topic in 289 pages. From pages 299 to 395 he included a biographical index of 77 pages, a glossary of 9 pages, and a selective bibliography of 9 pages, all in relatively small font. In those 289 pages he has footnoted his work a total of 524 times.

Dr. Beale’s book covers some 356 pages, plus another 82 pages of reference only, appendixes, and bibliography. He has 536 footnotes in those 356 pages plus another 35 in the reference only section. Now I readily concede that these statistics do not qualitatively nor quantitatively tell us that these two works rise to the level of being called “critical” works on the history of fundamentalism but I do call into question Dr. Bauder’s use of this term against these two works. The history of fundamentalism is of necessity a history of personages and as such it is almost impossible to do an exhaustive book recounting the influences of every single person. With that said though, these two works have put before us a credible look into fundamentalism and in my own opinion rate far better than this poor assessment by Dr. Bauder.

Dr. Bauder goes on and states that, “nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available” when referencing the books primarily dealing with the doctrine of separation. So these books are neither scholarly nor theological in their dealing with this doctrine? Are The Fundamentals also to be included in his list of non-scholarly, non-theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas as well? At what point does a work become a “critical” “scholarly” piece of literature? X number of footnotes? Or quoting past theologians in original language used like Latin, French, German, etc. as is often the case in works done by men of the 19^th century (systematic theologies come immediately to mind by Hodge and Strong)? What is the distinction between a “critical” work and a “popular” work?

Another concern I have is with, “Part of the fault lies with fundamentalists themselves. For a generation or more, they have produced few sustained expositions of their ideas. Perhaps a certain amount of stereotyping is excusable, and maybe even unavoidable.” Fundamentalism is not an “option” on the smorgasbord of philosophies/belief systems that are available to the world at large. We are not to be out there “hawking our wares,” touting the magnificent benefits of our way against others. Ours is the presentation, in Word and deed, of the life changing grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ. Period, end of story. He seems to give the impression that somehow there is this need to voice to the world and particularly to others along this spectrum of Christianity what our ideas are so as to avoid these caricatures of fundamentalism. Really, would that have helped people to understand fundamentalism? For the most part those who have misrepresented fundamentalism have been purposeful in their misrepresentation. They understood clearly and wanted nothing to do with fundamentalism or its increase.

Admittedly, I have not read Dr. Bauder’s contribution in its entirety but this initial reading does not give me hope that he is actually presenting fundamentalism properly and then defending its historic position. My initial reaction is that here is a man seeking to find common ground, acceptance with evangelicals by this disparaging of fundamentalism. Another reaction I have, should I be using his criteria for examining his own works which he has posted at his blog?

I know there are those out there that may say, well who are you to speak? I am just a pastor of a small church who gets out into cyberspace and reads articles and comments on them. Sure, there are those professors who think my kind (pastors of small churches) should be seen (maybe) and (definitely) not heard out in cyberspace, while they pontificate and rant on. But then they are cloistered in the halls of academia away from the real world of ministry within the local church setting so I take their thoughts with a pinch. My concern is with these men articulating these words about fundamentalism in such ways that instead of moving the cause of Christ further they hinder, they disparage the work instead. I am part of the warp and woof that is fundamentalism and do not care to see it misrepresented by those without or those within.

I will be reading this book in the coming days and may well do more articles giving my assessment but right now I am not impressed with the initial effort of the so-called fundamentalist author articulating the fundamentalist view.

One Year Later…

Well, it was just over a year ago that I took the plunge and started this blog. That year has gone by quickly and much has happened within fundamentalism, my own ministry, and in my personal life.

I’ve have touched on a few of the things that have happened within fundamentalism with my blog articles and linked to other blogs for yet more stuff.

My own ministry as a pastor I have not spoken of here since that is not the purpose of this blog. I serve as pastor of an independent, fundamental Baptist church in the great Pacific Northwest. I have ministered here just over three years and have been in the Pac NW since 1998. Having moved here from the southeast part of our country some thought I was going to a different country. In many respects it’s almost as if I had considering the striking contrasts between the southeast and northwest.

On the personal side, again it is not the nature of this blog to elaborate on that aspect of my life. Suffice it say, that some milestones have come this year. My oldest child graduated from college, oh so hard to believe! I crossed the great divide! I am now a quinquagenarian (a fifty year old) again, so hard to believe…until I see that gray/white headed man in the mirror! As a result of these milestones, I have been a little more reflective in my thinking as I realize that in all probability the majority of my life on this earth is behind instead of possibly in front of me. This has been at times a bit disturbing to ponder but it is the reality that is before me. What seemed important 10, 20, 30 years ago now looks so irrelevant and the ministry of impacting lives for Christ is so much more brought to the forefront.

I am looking forward to another year of blogging. I have several articles “on the back burner” simmering, waiting for the proper time to finish and then post them. I trust that some of you lurkers, and you regulars, out there will put your fingers to the keyboard and post your thoughts and interact.

Thanks to all who have interacted and stopped by this past year.

Arrogant?!

Hmmmm…I have been called this term a couple of times now over the last few weeks from different people and in different internet settings. Going to Webster’s New College Dictionary (copyright 2005) I find that “arrogant” means: “full of or due to unwarranted pride and self-importance; overbearing; haughty” Quite the word, and quite the charge! As I mention in my profile, “I am simply a poor sinner saved by God’s wondrous grace.”

In both cases the parties who claim I am arrogant gave no specific evidence to back such a claim. Both individuals just tossed out this term instead of actually engaging the conversation of the various issues I was addressing. In the case of my blog article (Can independent, critical thinking exist within Reformed circles?), I have put together pieces of information and formed a conclusion. I am greatly puzzled as I have read and reread my article to find where I have “unwarranted pride” or “self-importance” been “overbearing” or “haughty.” Or is it just because I posted such an article? Maybe one of my lurkers out there who read my articles would like to weigh in and post.

This kind of approach (name calling instead of addressing the issues) is typically called an ad hominem. Appealing to Webster’s New College Dictionary again, its second definition of “ad hominem” states: “attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds.” In the realm of Christian conduct, to resort to these kinds of tactics are most unchristian. They have no place in debating issues amongst believers. If you cannot stick to the issues at hand and clearly articulate your position then you should keep silent instead of lowering yourself to the dregs of human behavior by bringing in an ad hominem attack.

I guess I am once again being “arrogant” by making such a statement as I have. I do not hold in high regard any man or woman who would stoop to such lows when debating issues.

Am I angered or upset over being called arrogant? No, it comes with the territory. I am reminded of a pastor I heard in my college days. He told us preacher boys to have a hide tough like a rhino but a heart tender for God. This pastor has since entered Heaven’s glory but his ministry continues. I have sought to have such skin and heart. But in desiring a heart tender for God it bothers me still when those attacks are by fellow believers instead of the lost from whom you expect such behavior.

Is it live or is it Memorex? Or is it a Christian gathering or a worldly gathering?

In the 1970’s Memorex ran TV commercials promoting their high quality audio cassettes by having a singer break a crystal glass with her singing and then asking the question; “Is it live or is it Memorex?” Implying that their cassettes were so good that you could record such singing and then by playing just the tape a glass could be broken.

Much ink has been spilled recently concerning worldliness, some good some not so good. It is not my intention to spill more but to pose my own comparison and get us thinking. If you will go to Don Johnson’s blog, you will find a well written series of blogs critiquing C. J. Mahaney’s book on Worldliness (start the series here). You can also go to Lou Martuneac’s blog and find more information in regards to Peter Master’s cry against worldliness in Evangelicalism several years ago (click here).

Below are two photos. Here is my question I pose to you, which is a Christian gathering and which is the lost world gathering? No cheating, by going to Lou Martuneac's site first.

So, which is which?

 
Christ in His prayer recorded for us in John 17 our relationship as believers to the world. Especially, verses 11 through 21 which read as follows;

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (emphasis mine)

Christ so clearly teaches us that as believers we are in the world, yes, but we are not of the world, that we have been sanctified (set apart) by truth, THE WORD OF GOD.

We also, have James’s teaching in James 4:4 “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God”;  and John’s in I John 2:15-17 “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”

Bob Hayton, at his blog (click here) has recently written a blog encouraging this continued romance of the church with the world’s music by following the common line that music is amoral (his statement, “In my opinion, and I’ve read a lot on this issue but don’t confess to being an expert, there is no objective standard by which you can judge music as to its morality.” The blindness, lack of discernment, disregard for those older, qualified men who have written on the subject of music is just amazing to me. For those of us who grew up immersed in rock n roll and later came out, it is nightmarish to think that there exist people who think that they can bring that music into the church without any problems. Hayton’s argument, “Just hearing Tchaikovsky or music like that, doesn’t bring sensuous thoughts into my mind or most other people’s. Neither does listening to most rock and roll that’s played in the dentist’s office, either.” Thankfully, he (Bob Hayton) had a family that kept him from being in immersed and thereby being adversely affected by rock music. I do agree, a casual encounter with some things that are wrong does not necessitate that we have been greatly tainted. However, that initial contact, if not isolated and placed in check, would lead to a harmful relationship between the believer and the world through the music. To bring this music into the church, even in moderation, starts the believer down the road toward acceptance of what the world offers. Indeed, that desire for loosening of constraints which is inherent in the rock n roll genre and its offshoots is already evident in the ministries that are seeking the world’s stuff to promote God and His church. This is just outrageous!

For those who desire some information about music, I encourage you to find copies of, The Battle for Christian Music, by Tim Fisher, published by Sacred Music Services and the booklet, Gospel Music: Blessing or Blight?, by Evangelist Ken Lynch. The principles that constitute good music do not change over time.

Sadly, today there is less and less difference between believers and the lost world around us. More and more believers are blending into the world. The light is being dimmed and the salt is losing its saltiness. In Luke 18:8, Christ poses a question, “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” The implied answer is NO. The moods, efforts, pushing we are seeing today are hastening the fulfillment of this passage.

Believer, read again these words from Paul to the believers at Colosse, “That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins”

For those still curious about the pictures; the left one is a rock concert in Brazil, the right one is of a Passion conference in Atlanta. Just can’t tell the difference, sad, utterly sad.

Can independent, critical thinking exist within Reformed circles?

Alex Guggenheim has been commenting at SI and his own blog concerning the debacle that is ongoing at SGM. He, that is Alex, has written recently about the need for critical, independent thinking that is for our own spiritual development and maturity. His articulation of the need is well put (you will find his article here).

 
This begs the question that is the title to my article, can this kind of thinking exist in the Reformed arena? I answer with a no. I will explain why I answer negatively.

In a book titled, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, Dr. Mal Couch does an excellent job researching and expounding a literal, historical, grammatical approach to interpreting the Scriptures (i.e. Dispensationalism). I would encourage you to find a copy and add it to your library. In chapter 8, titled, The Allegorists Who Undermined the Normal Interpretation of Scripture (pp. 96, 97), he writes,

“With allegory the antics of the gods were purified, but who determined the allegorical interpretations? By whose authority were words and concepts changed? If there were no ‘guidelines’ as to the meaning of the ‘new’ message, how did readers know the authors’ intentions? These problems consistently overshadow allegorical interpretation…

The personality most cited for the change to allegorical interpretation is Philo (ca. 20 B.C.-A.D. 54), ‘A philosophical Jew who possessed both reverence for the Mosaic revelation and fondness for Grecian metaphysics, [who] aimed to explore the mystical depths of significances allegedly concealed beneath the Old Testament Scripture.

Philo taught that the milk of Scripture was the literal but the meat was allegory. Thus, there was hidden meaning. The Word of God had two levels: the literal was on the surface, but the allegorical represented the deeper, more spiritual meaning. Therefore, anyone who simply interpreted the Bible on its most natural, normal way was simple and missing the great meanings of the Scriptures. Ramm writes,

Philo did not think that the literal meaning was useless, but it represented the immature level of understanding. The literal sense was the body of Scripture, and the allegorical sense its soul. Accordingly the literal was for the immature, and the allegorical for the mature.

To reiterate, allegorical interpretation creates meaning through the interpreter. Accordingly, allegorist believes the average person may be reading and interpreting wrongly without the help of a scholar or, in the case of Scripture, a wise, well-trained theologian. Often, even today, allegorists look down their noses at those who take the Bible at face value with a normal, literal hermeneutic.” (emphasis mine)

Since this system of interpretation (which is the basis for Reformed theology) requires “a wise, well-trained theologian” to give the fuller, deeper understanding of the Scriptures, then those who are confessedly not a theologian must locate someone who they believe is and place themselves at his or her feet for further instruction. This leaves them at the mercy of the “theologian” for spiritual growth/maturity rather than where the Scriptures places that responsibility which is on the individual (II Peter 3:18 for starters). I think we can see part of the “why” for the problems within SGM.

History is replete with these independent, critical thinkers who then found themselves on the adversarial side of various reformed men. Take Felix Manz, George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel, and Balthazar Hubmaer, who at one time were friends and co-workers with Ulrich Zwingli. However, as they continued their study of the Word of God found themselves removed from that fellowship and eventually hunted down and persecuted. Manz was drowned in Lake Zurich for his beliefs. Hubmaer and Blaurock were burned at the stake. Grebel may have died from the plague.

Our own American history is full of others who sought to be independent, critical thinkers and wound up persecuted by those of the Reformed persuasion. Roger Williams comes to mind, who was let go in the dead of winter banished from the Massachusetts Bay colony. The list goes on, just pick up the three volumes of, This Day in Baptist History and you can read for yourself of those men and women of bygone days who sought for their own spiritual maturity in the Book of books only to be persecuted by others who held to different religious views.

No, I don’t believe it is possible to be an independent, critical thinker and remain Reformed. These are two mutually exclusive concepts that cannot peacefully coexist, our Baptist history, I believe confirms this.

Is there a “good old boys club" outside of fundamentalism land after all?

Many have blasted fundamentalists as being a “good old boys” club and allowing, excusing, covering up each other’s sins. Well, I would agree that in pockets of fundamentalism this is true but it is not indicative of all fundamentalists. There have been those who have said they left fundamentalism because of the abuses that this kind of club produced. Again, no disagreement here; abuses, when known should be exposed, confronted and corrected. If there are those who are unrepentant and unwilling to change then, sure, it’s time to move on. Now many have moved on to the more conservative segment of evangelicalism and have touted their “openness,” their “biblicalness” in addressing those wrongs that they saw in fundamentalism. Now we have the revelation that C. J. Mahaney and others within the hierarchy of SGM had created their own “good old boys” club and had operated this way for decades. In the midst of this demagoguery C. J. Mahaney writes a book about humility. Something which, we now know, he was not even being exhibiting in his own life during the writing of the book.
Immediately below are comments made by fellow evangelicals, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan about Mahaney and his book on humility (these comments are found in the book). Farther down are links to comments these same men have made in recent days about the revelations of C. J. Mahaney’s conduct which have brought about his stepping down from SGM. There is also an excerpt from Mahaney’s statement about what led to his stepping down.

 “This is the right book from the right man at the right time. More than any other man I have known , C. J. Mahaney has taught me what humility really is. This a man whose humility is a gift to the entire church. He knows that humility is strength, and that God uses the humble in a powerful way. He understands the danger of pride and calls all to aspire to a legacy of greatness—a greatness that shows the entire world the glory of God. He points us to a cross-centered worldview that will transform every dimension of life”  R. Albert Mohler Jr. Pres. SBTS

 “In Humility: True Greatness, C. J. Mahaney provides a clear and helpful battlefield manual for the believer’s ongoing growth, the fight against pride, and the cultivation of humility. C. J. is no dry-land sailor in this conflict. He and his dear congregation manifest the Spirit’s sovereign grace-work in both their personal and corporate humility and in their seriousness about dealing with pride. A ‘proud Christian’ is an oxymoron. May the Lord of Glory, who humbled himself unto death, use this book to slay pride in you, and to form in you the true greatness of servanthood and self-denial.” J. Ligon Duncan senior minister, First Presbyterian Church

Mahaney’s book, Humility was copyrighted in 2005.

Next piece taken from SGM website, 7.13.11 (here)

In it Mahaney states:

“A few years ago I started to realize that there were a number of former SGM pastors who had offenses with SGM and/or me. So I began to pursue some of them for the purpose of reconciliation. In January of 2010 I sent Brent Detwiler an email asking if he had any offense with me, communicating my desire to meet with him and hear him out. In 2009 Brent had been pastoring a church in North Carolina and left SGM.

When Brent responded to my email, he informed me that he was not willing to meet with me but that he would interact with me through email and written documents. Two months later I received a 130-page document from him outlining his perspective about my sins and failures as a leader in SGM.

I need to tell you up front that after reading this document and ones that followed, I don’t agree with a number of Brent’s charges and conclusions, nor the manner with which he has presented his offenses. However, my purpose this evening is not to criticize Brent or defend myself, but to inform you about various ways I have sinned and failed at different points in my ministry.

The central focus of Brent’s initial document was how I processed, responded to, and led through a relational conflict we had in 2003-2004. This conflict began when Brent and Dave Harvey brought to me correction related to certain character deficiencies and deficiencies in my leadership of the team. Rather than humbly listening to their critique and examining my heart, I reacted sinfully to what I perceived as their deficient manner of presentation, and this began a season where I was resistant to their correction.

Here is what they experienced from me:

·         I was difficult to entreat.

·         I sinfully judged their motives.
·         I was arrogantly confident in my perception.
·         I compared myself favorably to them.
·         I was offended by what I thought to be a lack of appreciation from them for all I had done for them, and a lack of care for me in a season of trials.

And though we continued to work together, I gradually withdrew from them in my soul. And added to this I arrogantly dismissed their critique and did not inform others of their critique even after I agreed to do so. So I was in effect confirming the accuracy of their correction by how I was behaving.”

Here is what Ligon Duncan has to say (here) 

Here is what Al Mohler has to say (here)

I trust that the glowing inconsistency is evident to you with these aforementioned statements. Were Mohler and Duncan blind to all this in Mahaney when cooperating together with him through those years? Were they aware but unwilling to confront their friend and fellow believer?

Why bring this up? Why bring out dirty laundry for all to see? Because we must objectively examine men, messages, methods, etc. by the lens of the Word of God. If you scan the internet you will see hypocrisy running rampant amongst those who are willing to allow for a circling of the wagons around Mahaney and trying to make him out to be a victim or better yet a hero for having the humility and courage to come forward in light of these revelations. What nonsense! Many of these same people who are favorable to Mahaney were/are quick to judge, condemn this very same kind of behavior when found in fundamentalism (again, I am not condoning such unbiblical behavior with my statements here, just highlighting the inconsistency of some). This is hypocrisy. This is partiality, both of which are condemned by God. The darlings of evangelicalism are not so darling after all.

Hopefully, some are starting to understand, all (“all” means “all, everyone, no one excluded” here) Christians have retained their old, sinful nature and it doesn’t matter where you live, where you go to church, it has the potential rear its ugly head in any and all of us, regardless of our position.

As we live by God’s Word, with its Author residing within, “he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13), we will be changed, molded into Christ-likeness (Rom. 8:28, 29). There is ever within the nature of things today to push for a man centered world. Whether we look at lost mankind and its headlong push toward what we have described for us in the book of the Revelation and the rise of a one-world system, or whether it be within “Christianity” with its push of men to be listened to for one reason or another. We lift up different men and show them off and say, “follow him,” “he’s got the answers you need.” No, God’s Book has the answers you need and men are only as good as they echo what God says in His Book.

As I have already noted in an earlier article, we need to get back to reading the Bible for ourselves and stop this eating of regurgitated food from other men who have supposed read the Bible and then write about it. I am not saying get rid of your books, please read that article, I will not repost it here, but our energies must be expended in the reading OF the Book rather than the reading ABOUT the Book.

Is it a “Converging”? Or is it really a “Departure”?

Over the past five to six years the internet has been abuzz with various self-identified fundamentalists decrying various “problems” within fundamentalism, past and present, perceived and real, and casting a pleasant look over the fence at evangelicals, particularly those closer to the fence. Allusions have been made that a “converging” of fundamentalists and these “conservative” evangelicals would be a good and necessary corrective to those above mentioned “problems.” Those who have articulated on this vein have been really rather quiet about the real doctrinal differences with those on the other side of the fence (see Dr. Bauder’s series starting here, warning there are 24 parts in this series; for full disclosure, Dr. Bauder does seem to retreat a bit here). Instead they have sought to downplay those doctrines and seemingly relegate them to some “step-child,” insubordinate status in things Biblical. Now we have some who are indeed actually calling for a “converging” of these two groups as recently posted at SI (link here). Still others have taken the plunge and engaged having evangelicals into their institution (links here and here and here and here).

But is this really a “converging”? Since the fundamentalist/new evangelical split of the 40’s and 50’s, the pronounced marker for their differences has been the fundamentalist’s militant adherence to the doctrine of separation and the evangelical’s repudiation of said doctrine or at best inconsistent application. With that said, this is not a “converging” but a “departure.” Those fundamentalists who wish to engage these evangelicals on an equal plain are not “converging” but “departing” from historic fundamentalism and a clear, Biblical view of the doctrine of separation just like the original new evangelicals of a generation ago did.

To those who desire to “depart,” I say, bye. It is time for some “house cleaning.” It is time for some robust trumpet notes of a certain sound. Will this be pleasant? By no means! Like the previous departure, friend will be leaving friend, partnerships will be severed, fellowships will be torn. This is necessary, though it may be hard. Paul told Timothy in II Timothy 4 to “preach the Word” and then tells him that there will be those who “will not endure sound doctrine.” This departing from sound doctrine has been ongoing since Paul’s day and has particularly raged and ravaged the church since the 1800’s.

For those who may wonder about “historic fundamentalism” and “the doctrine of separation,” I refer you to several books which form the basis for my understanding. First, and foremost, the Bible, then; Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, by Dr. Ernest Pickering; Contending for the Faith, by Dr. Fred Moritz; Be ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation, by Dr. Fred Moritz. For the historical context, A History of Fundamentalism in America, by Dr. George W. Dollar; In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, by Dr. David Beale; The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, by Dr. Ernest Pickering, and Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism, by Dr. Rolland McCune.

From Who's fount are you drinking?

The beloved apostle John wrote to Gaius in his third epistle, “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” There truly is no greater joy than to see fellow believers following the imperative in II Peter, “grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

This walk, this growing, this maturing, that comprises what the believer is to be doing in this present life, is only accomplished through the reading and application of what is read of the Word of God. Solomon well wrote several millennia ago, “of making many books there is no end.” What would he say today? The library of Alexandria, as great as it was in its day, pales in comparison to what we have available today. It greatly saddens me that so many today who name the name of Christ are not getting their proper nourishment from the Word of God but instead are drinking at the fountain of other men’s thoughts about the Word of God. It matters not whether these men are early church fathers, reformers, or contemporaries, when we accept the words of others as truth instead of seeing the truth for ourselves that is the Word of God, we are slowly and systematically starving ourselves. It would be akin to drinking skim milk instead of whole milk, all the while thinking that we were getting the full nutritional value of whole milk when we drank the skim. That just isn’t going to happen.

I am nearing the half century mark of physical life and will be celebrating 37 years of spiritual life soon and have heard countless times of believer’s going off and following the thoughts of men about the Word of God (all the while thinking that they are actually following the Word of God) and then see the shipwreck of their lives a few years down the road. Now I am not against having books, even ones of a Biblical nature. Quite the contrary, I have a small library of my own and wish to continue to add volumes. The possessing of books, the reading of books is not the issue I am at odds with here in this article. It is what many are doing with the information gained from those reading books.

Whatever I believe as a Christian, as a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, must come from my own reading, searching, studying of the Word of God. Not what I may hear a preacher say from the pulpit, not what someone may write in a book, but what does God say in His Book. The sieve is the Word of God by which all that enters our minds as acceptable must pass through. It is not by my personal reasoning skills that everything is subjected to, but by “thus saith the Lord.” By precept and principle everything we need for growing, for walking in this Christian life is found in the Word of God. Books can be helpful but only when they echo the words of that which God has given to us in the Word of God.

I would encourage and challenge any and all who read this article to be systematically reading through the Word of God every year. This is a start to growing. Far too many Christians are not even doing this, “brethren, these things ought not to be!” If you would like a reading schedule contact me, I have compiled one that has been a source of great joy to several others and myself through the years.

Dead Man's Curve

Dead man’s curve, it seems that every community has one. As we travel the back roads we come across that sharp curve and we find there on the shoulder those markers of remembrance. Crosses, wreaths, flowers, stuff animals mark the spot where a friend or a loved one crashed their vehicle. Usually they are young people and when the full details are revealed we find that they were driving too fast for that section of road. Curves made to be taken at 35 mph are not usually negotiated at a speed of say 70 mph.  Sad as one accident is the sadder thing is that there are usually multiple markers showing multiple accidents. For some strange reason individuals think that they can succeed doing the same thing that others have failed in doing. They think, “just because so-and-so didn’t make the curve at 70 doesn’t mean that I can’t.” So foolishly they try, maybe they make it farther through the turn but they too are not able to stay on the road and they too crash and become another fatality. They failed to learn the lesson of the markers of remembrance.

We see this same kind of failure in the realm of Christianity. Specifically, I am referring to the failure of some to see that others have “crashed” when trying to negotiate a convergence between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. I cite one example. Let’s look at Dr. Jerry Falwell. In his early days he was considered a Fundamentalist. He was identified clearly within the Fundamentalist’s ranks. Then he started making efforts at “fellowshipping” with Evangelicals. I commend to you, Evangelist Dave Sproul’s, An Open Letter to Jerry Falwell, written October 15, 1979. It was published by Fundamental Press of Tempe, AZ. Bro. Sproul well documents the case against Falwell. Now, as we have come down through the corridor of time, would any Fundamental pastor recommend sending their young people to Liberty? No, those ministries crashed with their departure from Fundamentalism and its separatist position. Another example would be Jack Van Impe, and there are scores of lesser known men and ministries (the Pac NW is dotted with casualties) that have followed the same road to the same fate.

With that said, we have some today who wish to repeat the effort. Do they expect a different outcome? This coming week Dr. Tim Jordan of Calvary Baptist Church and Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA, is hosting a conference titled, Advancing the Church. The keynote speaker is Dr. Mark Dever, pastor of Capital Heights Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., a Southern Baptist pastor. For a bit of a critique of Pastor Dever I commend to you a few articles (here and here and here). Alongside of him will be Drs. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran. Do these Fundamentalists expect to succeed with their, “careful, limited forms of fellowship” where others have failed? Do these men think that their ministries will not end up where Falwell’s are now? How foolish.

To change metaphors, these men have started on the slippery slope of compromise with Evangelicalism. Doing so removes them from the firm, level ground of Biblical separation. All who have stepped over have moved from their original position. For those who would try to make the case that what the conservatives did within the SBC goes counter to the claim of slippery slopes, I would say, where the SBC is at currently is nowhere near where they once were before the separatists started their exodus. So while I would concede that some things within the SBC may have moved up the slope some, they are still a far cry from the firm, level ground of Biblical separation. I am using separation as the reference point since it is its repudiation primarily that moved the New Evangelicals out from Fundamentalism.

Back to the original metaphor, how many more crashes must we witness before men will take the warnings that the markers of remembrance give us? Obey the posted speed signs. In this case, obey the Biblical admonitions, Rom. 16:17; II Cor. 6:14-18; II Thess. 3:6, 14, 15; I John 2:15-17, to name a few.

The Folly of “The Fortress” or a pitfall of the allegory

Dr. Kevin Bauder has recently posted an article (you may find it on your own, I care not to link to it) which is at certain levels a bit entertaining. He has chosen to write this article in an allegorical style. This is the style which John Bunyan used when he wrote, The Pilgrim’s Progress. An allegorical approach to writing can be quite picturesque, as Dr. Bauder has shown in his article. It is quite easy to conjure up a mental picture as you read his article.

There is a pitfall, though, to writing allegory. The author must clearly articulate the meaning of the characters. An “apology” must be written so that the readers have a proper understanding of what the author is intending to convey in the allegory. Otherwise, the reader is left to his own devices to give understanding to what is written. This is very much like the chaos that the Israelites had during the period of the Judges when, “everyone did that which was right in his own eyes.” Going back to Bunyan’s work, he wrote a poetic apology for The Pilgrim’s Progress, and it usually forms kind of a preface to the book. If a reader reads the book for the first time without having read the apology, he is left with a mind full of questions as to the intent of Bunyan for a host of events and people portrayed.

Dr. Bauder has left us to speculation with his allegory. Now maybe this is on purpose, so that he has plausible deniability when readers start placing their own interpretations to the characters and events portrayed. He can quickly say “no” to any number of interpretations and all interpretations, since he has not articulated what the real interpretation is. Or maybe it is for his own enjoyment, when people bring their own meanings to it and blast away because of their perceived ideas as to what he means. He can sit back and enjoy the fireworks display. Which brings me to calling this whole thing a folly (a lack of understanding, sense, or rational conduct), since we have not the real meaning presented to us, then we really have no meaning being given to us.

Now, I have sent a message to Dr. Bauder requesting that he give an apology for his article. We will have to wait to see if he is so inclined to do so. My own reading of the article and understanding of it is a bit disturbing. I see a continued effort by the writer to distort, redefine, and revise the history of Fundamentalism as he has done in a couple of series of articles recently. But then, who am I to properly understand his allegorical method? To use a phrase from one of his fellow professors at the seminary of which Dr. Bauder is the president, I am just a “pastor of a pretty small church.” I could very well have missed the mark in my interpretation of his article. Since I could be off in my understanding, I am left to neither condemn outright nor condone the message of the article. I do, in one sense, condemn the article because it is a useless piece of writing without its apology to properly understand what the writer wishes to articulate. It is somewhat like what Paul speaks of to the Corinthian church about speaking a foreign language in church. If no one there understands the language spoken and there is no one to interpret, then it is of no profit to the congregation.

For those who stop by and read my articles, I trust that you will read with discernment. We could jump to conclusions about Dr. Bauder and this article which are not founded upon the truth he wishes to express in the article, so I would encourage you not to engage with comments concerning those conclusions jumped to since we don’t really know what he means.

Does This Sound Familiar?

Here is a quote from a great warrior for the Faith, a Fundamentalist who stood when it was not popular to stand. His assessment sounds all too familiar in today’s Fundamentalism.

There is a serious effort today to redefine Fundamentalism to make it more acceptable to the “New Evangelicals” and religious compromisers. This effort really goes beyond redefining Fundamentalism to reshaping Fundamentalism. To do this requires rewriting history, ignoring facts, and sacrificing truth. The result of all this, if successful, would be the obliteration of biblical Fundamentalism and the substitution of “New Evangelicalism”—under the name of Fundamentalism—to take its place. This is being promoted largely by those who desire the support and influence of the “New Evangelicals” and, at the same time, recognition as leaders among Fundamentalists. Such a goal is unrealistic and unobtainable. Those who by conviction are biblical Fundamentalists are independents and separatists and will not be caught up in such union. Others who are nominally Fundamentalist and involved with movements heretofore considered Fundamentalist will be turned to the “New Evangelical” position. These will be men unaware of the issues, untaught on scriptural principles, or weak and unwilling to pay the price of standing for an unpopular cause. They are not men who are Fundamentalists at heart; but some of them, except for the pressures being put upon them, might have become convinced Fundamentalists eventually. As far as the Fundamentalist cause is concerned, they will not be a great loss, for such men are not likely ever to become aggressive, unwavering, and forceful. They love the parade ground but dread the battlefield. They would swell the numbers of Fundamentalism but would not ever be likely to strengthen its ranks.

I am burdened for my brethren, and I am grieved for the cause. If the Lord tarries another twenty years, I daresay there are going to be few places left that take a really biblically stand. I think this is what the Lord means when He asks if He will find faith on the earth upon His return.

Somebody has to hold the line. Somebody has to raise up the banners and mark out the frontiers. It is not a pleasant task. To be misunderstood and misjudged, not by the Liberals and open compromisers (men for whose opinion I have no regard whatsoever) but by friends of long standing, is not an easy thing. To be accused of being bitter and of hating men, of being unloving and unbrotherly and unkind is not pleasant. But Christians must remember that these painful experiences do not matter now and will eventually bring a reward.

Are we not commanded when men speak all manner of evil against us falsely for Christ’s sake to “rejoice and be exceeding glad,” for great is our reward in heaven? The godliest men I have known had weaknesses, sometimes petty vanities, and even little jealousies or prejudices, but they were not weaklings or traitors.

Dr. Bob Jones Jr. penned these words in 1985 in his book, Cornbread and Caviar: Reminiscences and Reflections. They are just as true today as when he penned them 26 years ago. Dr. Bob noted, “There is a serious effort today to redefine Fundamentalism to make it more acceptable to the “New Evangelicals” and religious compromisers. This effort really goes beyond redefining Fundamentalism to reshaping Fundamentalism. To do this requires rewriting history, ignoring facts, and sacrificing truth.” We are seeing this played out before our eyes as represented by Dr. Kevin Bauder’s articles over the past two years or so. Dr. Bauder’s articles on Proto-Fundamentalism and his more recently ended series on the differences between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals demonstrate the effort that is afoot to “reshape Fundamentalism.” Far too many Fundamentalists have the vain notion that a course correction for Fundamentalism which makes Evangelicalism acceptable is the right course correction. History has shown repeatedly, that those who have taken this tack in the past have ALL capitulated and have gone into full blown Evangelicalism (insert here, Falwell and his ministries, Jack Van Impe as two of the more well known examples). It is foolish indeed, that anyone would try to think that somehow this will not happen to them if they take the same course. In navigation, if you leave point A on a certain heading (say 90 degrees) to get to point B, then everyone else leaving point A heading 90 degrees will also get to point B. These Fundamentalists who desire a course correction are leaving point A heading to point B and want us to think that really we are heading to point C which is actually on another compass heading. Are there course corrections to make? Sure there are, but not with a heading toward openness and acceptance of Evangelicalism.

Fundamentalist, whether young or old, we must hold the ground that men who have gone before us have sacrificed to claim. We are standing on that hallowed ground and must continue to stand for the faith once delivered to the saints, earnestly contending.