Monday, October 24, 2011

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

80 comments:

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

This is your best yet. A needed response to the new paradigm shift away from the kind of authentic biblical separation for the sake of a pure church. When I read Dr. McLachlan's part one and saw his endorsement of Bauder, Doran, Olson, Jordan brand of compromised separatism for the sake of "community" with non-separatist evangelicals the rest of the read was academic.

More on this later. Again, excellent response.


Lou

Don Johnson said...

Brian, as for Dever, I'd leave off the line about the DC Association. I think that he has severed ties with that organization even though they still list his church on their web-site.

I agree that the other associations are problems, but those who will attack your point will try to quibble on points like this.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

Jim F said...

Brian, thanks for your thoughts on this. I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. I would like to see Dr McLachlan, Dr Bauder, Dr Olson or any others with them in this to prove their case. Why should I believe that fundamentalists should move toward the evangelicals? Why in the world would evangelicals want to move toward us? I don't even agree with this whole premise that fundamentalism is somehow flawed and that it needs a new birth so to speak. Sounds like code language for compromise to me. And since when is it a bad thing for fundamentalists to stand for the whole counsel of God? Compromise with error leads to more compromise and more error, not the other way around. Let's rather stay true to God's Word even if we are unpopular for it.

Jim F

Brian said...

Thanks guys for stopping by and adding to the conversation. This movement we are witnessing by some is not what fundamentalism has been about historically.

Brian said...

Don,
Thanks for bringing that to the forefront. While we can remove that off the table, as you say, there is still much left that leaves us doubtful that Dr. Dever fits the mold that Dr. McLachlan is trying to make for conservative evangelicals being ones to distance themselves from the rest that is evangelicalism.

Anonymous said...

Brian, your whole post looks like a cut and paste from Lou's site.

Fundamentalists like Bauder are not moving toward evangelicals. In his latest SI posting, he made reference to an amill being invited to chapel at his fundamentalist college. Evangelicals are a fractured bunch. The fundamentalism Bauder is advocating has always existed. I think he is trying to solidify a strong base as the predominant fundamentalist viewpoint.

Tony

Lance said...

Brian,

Excellent article!

I am attaching a link to an article I put up on this last week.
http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2011/10/has-god-changed-old-paths-for-new.html

If you think it is inappropriate, just delete this.

If you want to use the link, delete everything else in this comment and just put up the link.

Brian said...

Tony, thanks for stopping by.
I heartily agree with your statements and as I close my article it is not a direction I wish to see fundamentalism take. Sure, evangelicals are a fractured bunch in one sense, yet they are much more interrelated in their fractures than the fractured nature of fundamentalism. Yes, there have always existed those within fundamentalism who on some levels associated with evangelicals. And just because they have been in existence doesn't make what they were/are doing right.
Dr. Bauder's latest article where he articulates some of his background just shows that his current bent has deep roots.
For Dr. McLachlan to say that this is the expression of what mainstream fundamentalism once was and needs to be again is just a false view.
As far as your first comment, well, if you really look, no, I have not copied anything from Lou's site but we are voicing the same concerns with what is going on.

Brian said...

Dr. Ketchum, Thanks for stopping by and linking. Greatly appreciate your article and encourage anyone stoppying by here to head over and read Dr. Ketchum's article.

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

Again, excellent article and a number of good comments by the others in this thread.

Gentlemen, make no mistake about it: The magnetic attraction for the convergence of some men who still circulate in Fundamental circles to the so-called conservative evangelicals is Calvinistic soteriology in the form of Lordship Salvation. T4G, the Gospel Coalition personalities all converge around LS. It is the magnet and the glue for men like Bauder, Doran, Jordan, Olson and MacLachlan with their Calvinistic counterparts in the evangelical sphere. It is for that rallying point that so much that is so wrong in evangelicalism is ignored, tolerated or excused by self-described separatists.


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

To Tony:

Evangelicals are a fractured bunch??” Huh? T4G, Gospel Coalition shows no serious fracture. And the reason why there is no discernible fracture is their open disdain for authentic biblical separation. Which leads me to state emphatically: It is the men who claim a legacy in biblical separation who are changing, who are doing away with the militancy they once articulated and practiced. Isn’t it evident that they compromise fidelity to authentic biblical separation, isn’t it evident they changed to have their convergence with non-separatists in evangelicalism.

I think everyone knows what would happen if Bauder, Jordan, Olson and Doran faithfully and without partiality preached separation from unbelievers and the disobedient among us to the evangelicals, and held them accountable for their numerous doctrinal aberrations, worldliness and ecumenical compromises. The evangelical men would slam the door shut on them.

LM

Lance said...

I agree that "evangelicals are fractured bunch." However, they delight is spending much time writing on each others casts. The fact that they are theologically fractured is often the only thing they "agree to disagree" about. They must work very hard to find some nuance of truth upon which they can formulate their "new center" of fellowship. This theological reductionism is certainly something they have agreed about before hand. It is definitely a "radical new center." How can they say they have not moved when they admit they are pursuing a "radical NEW center"? These guys are no dummies. They know what they are doing.

Don Johnson said...

Lou, is Matt a Calvinist? I am not sure about that one. He is the guy the SI groupies pounded on for his chapel message where he mentioned "No Point" Calvinism - "there's no point in talking about it", he said. I don't think Calvinism is the absolute common denominator you think it is.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Brian said...

Our issue here is the efforts by some within fundamentalism to converge with a segment of evangelicalism and their (fundamentalists) attempts at justifying said converging.
Don, while Matt may not be a Calvinist, yet, that soteriology is "a" common denominator when viewing these two group as a whole rather than individually. I would agree it is not necessarily "the" common denominator and the weight of the distinction of those two articles ("a" and "the") is important in this conversation.

d4v34x said...

Lou wrote "I think everyone knows what would happen if Bauder, Jordan, Olson and Doran faithfully and without partiality preached separation from unbelievers and the disobedient among us to the evangelicals, and held them accountable for their numerous doctrinal aberrations, worldliness and ecumenical compromises. The evangelical men would slam the door shut on them."

You must have missed the roundtable audio from ATC in which Bauder and Doran grilled Dever on the Biblicity of his "Plurality of Elders" beliefs as well as the Nick of Time article in which Bauder related Dever's approaching him in private to ask if rap music was sin (Bauder said yes).

There is no wholesale excusing of erroneous beliefs and practices, at least not across the board.

Lou Martuneac said...

Don:

The mantra from the men in fundamental circles has been stated as "gospel driven separation, gospel centric fellowship, it's all about the gospel" and similar statements. IMO, it is irrefutable that the rallying point with the evangelicals for Doran, Bauder, et. al is the gospel. We, furthermore, know that the interpretation of the gospel that the ce men believe, preach is a Calvinistic soteriology in the form of Lordship Salvation. Bauder, Doran know this. Therefore, since the convergence is all about the gospel then we know LS, the Calvinistic interpretation of gospel, is the magnetic attraction. The absolute common denominator, possibly. The primary common denominator, no doubt about it.

Of course you will hear cries of attraction to academia, expository preaching, etc., but hear next to nothing about the compromises of the ce men.

FWIW, my answer to the angry yf belly aching about the preaching in Fundamentalism would be any one of the sermons preached at BWM's 50th anniversary celebration held at my church last week.


Lou

Brian said...

Dave, no one missed those things (at least I didn't) and I would say, based on Dr. Bauder's In the Nick of Time article that he has "cooled his jets" so to speak concerning Dr. Dever, but that hasn't stopped the forward progression of these men. Dr. Pettegrew's invitation to Central is a piece of evidence that this moving is still taking place. Along with the other pieces I mention in the article.

Anonymous said...

Yes Lou, Lance and Brian agreed with that point. Evangelicals truly are a fractured group. The current book that Bauder was part of presented 4 divisions within evangelicalism. The T4G is a tighter group than TGC, which is very minimal in its doctrinal requirements. However, do you not see how much disagreement takes place within evangelicalism over every issue?

Separation is neither the only issue New Evangelicals reacted against nor what Fundamentalism united under.

As to your emphatic statement, you are incorrect. Bauder has said so many times that he is presenting an aspect of fundamentalism that has always existed. It seems like you are trying to define fundamentalism in a rather new way to remove them from the name/movement. So no, it isn't evident.

From everything I have read of Bauder, he has been making the case that authentic separation biblically and historically is exactly what he is doing. Those he has labeled as hyper-fundamentalists are within the realm of disobedient brothers because of their doctrinal aberrations.

I have stated in more than one place that I do not agree with Bauder on many things. I disagree with his "Fundamentalism worth saving" lecture. However, I can follow what he is saying and the case he is making. MacLachlan agrees with him.

By the way, in addition to Olson, I am pretty sure I heard Jordan described as a 2pt calvinist. I am sure that 2pt calvinism is not the rallying cry for him with others who are 5pters. I have seen in the past where you have tried to link LS with regen-before-faith calvinism. 2pters don't do that.

Tony

Mark Mincy said...

I believe that Dr. MacLachlan speaks with wisdom from years of observing the pitfalls on both the right and the left. Beloved, if we can't recognize the pitfalls on our "right" (radical KJV onlyism, radical authoritarianism, numbers driven ministry philosophy, et al) then we are truly blinded by our own prejudices.

Perhaps it would be instructive for us to consider this idea - separation (as most commonly discussed these days) is a "family" affair. In other words, my observation has been that the constant call for separation found within the "independent, fundamental, separatistic" world is a call to separate from brothers in Christ who are deemed to be "disobedient". Wouldn't it be interesting to see the most vociferous voices - the ones constantly calling out and publicly haranguing good brothers in Christ ("family members" if you will) - wouldn't it be interesting to see them apply those same principles to their own "blood" family? You see, many of the most vociferous voices on this issue have family members (their own children, etc.) who they would have to separate from if they were consistent. They would have to call out their own children publicly and viciously like they do their brothers in Christ. Of course, that would never happen because their children are family, right? The question that follows must be why they continue to attack God's family. Maybe if we treated these dear conservative, evangelical brothers and sisters as family (which they are) our attacks would die and our love for them and the gospel would grow.

Lou Martuneac said...

Dave:

Didn't miss a thing. I want to kindly remind you to read thoroughly and comprehend completely what you read.

The public and irrefutable evidence is that in addition to excusing doctrinal aberrationns worldliness and ecumenical compromises- Bauder, Doran, Olson, Jordan allow for, tolerate and/or ignore those things.

As Brian noted nothing to date has given pause to the head long rush to embrace, promote and enter into cooperative ministries with these non-separatist, compromised preachers. Not even Dever on adjunct faculty at the full blown new evangelical Gordon-Conwell.

The shift away from biblical separation for the sake of a pure church is unmistakable. Their denial of the obvious is the inexplicable


LM

Jim F said...

All,

As far Olson's view on MacArthur, he explained it this way to me, "On MacArthur's view of salvation - I did not like the tone of the first publication of "The Gospel According to Jesus". But, in talking to him and reading what he is writing today, I do not have a problem with his views. I think people have taken a lot of what he has said and put it out of context. In my view you do not need to make Jesus Lord of your life to be saved - but on the other hand I cannot see that a person could refuse His Lordship and at the same time accept Him as Savior. I would see that as a conflict in understanding the Gospel." From this I would have to assume that others with him may not be too far from this view. It seems to me that many self proclaimed four point Calvinists within Fundamentalism are gravitating toward this kind of position. I could certainly see how Calvinism is one of the major rallying points.

Jim F

Anonymous said...

The gospel is THE issue. It is what motivated the original fundamentalist fight. It is what motivated the SBC fundamentalist fight. The gospel has to be primary because that is God's dividing line. From those who agree on the gospel, then comes the other issues. What you see in T4G and TGC (things I disagree with btw) are efforts to clearly lay out the gospel. On that fundamental issue, agreement will hopefully be broad.

I have not seen ecclessiastical support of these CEs by the Fundies always mentioned. I don't see them rushing to join the SBC because of Mohler and Dever. If Bauder's view was no different than Mohler's, then he never would have written a portion in that comparison book.

Tony

Brian said...

To All, I have posted several comments as each has reacted to the other, so as to retain a continuity here, but let's move on from the cries of one's position of Calvinism. While I agree it is a piece of the pie, it is not "the" piece, so again, let's move on.
To Mark, and Tony, you bring up what has been brought up already, and I have not disagreed but do agree with you, that yes, what Bauder and now McLachlan are laying out has existed in fundamentalism; my issue is that this is now being touted as what was and should now be "mainstream" fundamentalism. That just is not the case. Dr. Bauder's current article where he mentions that FBBC&S brought in Peter Masters and Lehman Strauss, does not in any indicate that this was indicative of mainstream fundamentalism at the time. This was one college within one arm of fundamentalism (the GARBC).

d4v34x said...

Lou, what I comprehend is that calling something sin, or excess, or an error, or bad judgement is that none of those are excuses for wrongdoing. In fact, they are expressly calling the "perp" on that wrongdoing.

I further comprehend that some of these wrongdoings may not preclude limited forms of cooperation.

This, please comprehend, is not the same thing as a wholesale convergence.

Lance said...

The difficulty many fundamentalists are having with Jordan, Bauder, Doran, McLachlan, and Olson is the broad "bear swipe" they take at extreme or hyper-fundamentalists. Yes, we all agree they exist, but this broad "bear swipe" of admitted reactionism (in both McLachlan's and Bauder's recent articles) is ambiguous and lacks the qualities of theological definitives. By this broad "bear swipe" they have included people that are not that much different them in theology while including others that are radically different from them in theology. This they need to correct. Their practice radically distorts their professed positions. Almost all true Baptist fundamentalists are having major problems with their new associations, and rightly so. If this is going to be their new practice of separation it is essentially a contradiction against separation. Certainly, the issues of the practices of biblical separation in Scriptures are far more definitive than merely the Gospel (although even in that there is considerable ambiguity in those they are associating with as to what that really is).

d4v34x said...

Brian, I am inclined, based on personal experience, to agree with you that what Bauder/M describes as mainstream fundamentalism was not the main (read: largest) stream through the 70s and 80s.

I think, however, 'twas the better stream.

Brian said...

Dave, then we shall agree to disagree on this point. As I stated in the article, I don't believe that this is way we should take.

Lou Martuneac said...

Dave,

The Bauder originated "limited form" hasn't revealed any limit yet, has it.

The comprehend thing I mentioned is that with virtually every issue with the ce men Bauder, Doran et. al have in one way or in some combination have tolerated, allowed for, ignored or excused the issue.

Lou Martuneac said...

Dr. Ketchum:

"The bear claw," Another excellent observation, which many of us have raised with Bauder. Over two years ago he swung the bear claw in an article that generated a great deal of reaction because of it. Apparently,to date, he is no mood to be more precise.

Brian said...

Some have brought up the “Gospel” as it is the rallying point for many, especially for conservative evangelicals and now a growing number of fundamentalists with this cry for Gospel-centeredness. And that the Gospel defines our position. Dr. Ketchum addresses some of this in his article which I have linked to, that this is a reductionist position. Scriptures are clear, yes, we are to separate from those who bring “another” gospel (Galatians 1:6-10); but to my knowledge this is the only separation passage where the issue is the Gospel. The other passages separation passages speak of doctrine, tradition, this epistle (Romans 16:17; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15; for examples). When Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus it is most interesting that not once is the Gospel mentioned, as important as it is; but doctrine is brought front and center and is mentioned 16 times. From “the doctrine” to “good doctrine” to “sound doctrine” this is driven home by the Apostle Paul to these “young” preachers. Paul does not reduce, or categorize which doctrines but states often, “the doctrine” the whole body of truth. We do ourselves, our churches, the body of Christ, fundamentalism a great disservice to reduce “the doctrine” down to “the Gospel.”

Anonymous said...

Brian, do you mean the word "gospel" is not referred to in the pastorals? I see it referenced by content throughout the books.

I agree about doctrinal reductionism. I am very opposed to it and do not agree with a gospel only approach. I think unity needs to include the whole counsel of God.

Tony

Brian said...

Yes, Tony, I was specifically referring to the word "Gospel." Should have been a bit clearer on that in my statement.

Ed said...

A couple of points.

First, regarding Lou's statement about limited form of fellowship. You argue that the fellowship has not shown any limit. But the only fellowship you have pointed to is speaking at conferences/sharing pulpits/guest teachers. Thus, there has been no formal or ongoing cooperation. None of the groups has joined an evangelical institution or has begun planting churches together. None of the have begun supporting mission agencies. None of them has planned joint evangelistic endeavors. So the fellowship has been limited (maybe not as limited as you would prefer, but limited nonetheless).

Second, some questions for Brian. If Christians are to separate over "the whole body of truth" does that include views of baptism? Is BJU wrong to allow paedobaptist? Should people separate over head coverings on women? Should they seaparte over translations? What is to be included in this "whole body of truth"?

Ed

Brian said...

Ed, thanks for stopping by. I do not wish to sidestep your question but it is getting away from the topic at hand. I brought up the "doctrine" issue because the cry from many as others and I have noted, has been it's all about the Gospel, to the exclusion, for the most part, of the rest of the body of truth and that is not what is given to us in the Scriptures.

Lou Martuneac said...

Ed:

In the last three years has the form(s) of fellowship expanded, held steady or retreated? The obvious answer is expanded. What fits or qualifies as limited forms of fellowship is very fluid.

How do you know that Bauder, Doran, Olson, Jordan won't personally or move their schools into increasing forms of fellowship and cooperative efforts?

When I was writing about Dever at Lansdale with Jordan, Bauder and Doran I said this is only the first of this kind of expanding cooperative ministry. Not even a year later Jordan (Calvary) is hosting a new evangelical, Haddon Robinson, from Gordon-Conwell a new evangelical seminary. And anyone who thinks this is the limit is mistaken.

Btw, it would be very interesting to know if Bauder and Doran (Olson, MacLachlan) plan to participate in and/or support Calvary’s conference with Robinson; wouldn't it?

Maybe they think they can trod the pathway of compromise, just the way Jerry Falwell did, but are much stronger and brighter than Falwell to let their outreach to non-separatists turn them into non-separatists themselves.


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

If I am drifting here feel free to delete. Although you have addressed Tony on the gospel issue I feel the need to deal with it myself.

Tony, you said, "the gospel is THE issue."

I already noted as did Brian that the gospel is not the only issue. I do, however, want to acknowledge the primacy of the gospel in the current craze to holds hands with the evangelicals.

The magnetic attraction is not simply Calvinism. Since the mantra is "gospel centric" fellowship we must recognize that virtually to a man in evangelicalism the gospel message they "believe, preach and defend" is Lordship Salvation (LS). Their, the LS interpretation of the gospel is widely rejected in fundamental circles.

You know Tony, that IS the first and primary issue for many of us who recognize that LS is a false, non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal 2:21) and corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).

There are a number of legitimate concerns with the evangelicals, some of which are non-starters for fellowship. Chief among them, however, is Lordship Salvation. The right and loving response to evangelicals who advocate LS is to " admonish, withdraw from, mark and avoid."


LM

Jim F said...

Brian,

One statement that gives me some insight into Dr. Olson's thinking on this was, "There are a lot of people who would call MacArthur a separatist. In many ways I think he is. Maybe not like me or like you.... He may apply things in a different way, but I know few men who take a stronger stand on the substantive issues of the Gospel or in their personal lives."

It is interesting that some would call MacArthur a separatist. The fact is that there will always be some within Fundamental circles that will want to go along with men like MacArthur. I think what is alarming is how much things have shifted by the way of many leaders within Fundamentalism especially those tied into higher learning. Along with Calvinism, I believe that academic prestige and being part of the "in" club are also motivations for this compromise. They want bigger constituencies and a broader pool from which to try to attract students. I say the price to be paid is way too high for that.



Jim F

Lou Martuneac said...

Jim:

Interesting considerations. Last week I heard from a former NIU staffer who mentioned that his understanding is that NIU suffered a 20% drop in enrollment over the summer. If accurate then there are many who do not agree with the changes at NIU and the administration's embrace of evangelicals like JMac, Rick Holland and Bruce Ware. Furthermore, I was wondering why a young person would choose to bury himself in the Northwoods when he can get the same loose standards and compromised separatism at Masters in sunny California.

LM

Anonymous said...

Brian, I hope you will indulge this as it relates to where MacLachlan stands with Bauder.

Lou, I thought I made it clear that by saying the gospel is THE issue is recognizing that it is where God draws the line between His people and unbelievers. I further went on to say that I do not agree with gospel reductionism. However, people must start with the gospel. The gospel is far too unclear in the minds of many with both groups. On this issue, Christians must stand united against the world. The official position of Christians must be the truth of the gospel. It isn't limited to that, but it must be that.

You seem to be in agreement then with all the CEs and Bauderlike fundies who want the gospel first. That was my point. We must start there. Your opinion of LS is another matter.

Here is the SoF for TGC. Which portion of it is LS?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/who

Tony

Ed said...

Thanks for the responses. I would like to respond back.

Lou, you ask how I would know if these men will not go further in their cooperation. The obvious answer is I don't, but the same is true for you: you don't know they will go further. You may speculate, but you don't know. As for Jordan inviting Robinson, that is not an expanded form of fellowship. It's the same form (that's what I was trying to point out in my comment. The forms of fellowship have been limited. The occurrences may have increased, but the forms have not).

To Brian, The reason I asked the question is because my impression from many arguing for a gospel-centered approach to fellowship and separation are saying that things like "the faith" in Jude is referring to the same thing as "the gospel." It is referring to the central truths of Christianity without which one cannot be a believer. You may disagree, but they are at least setting parameters for what they believe the body of doctrine that requires separation is. When you argue that they are excluding the "rest of the body of truth" I think it is legitimate to question what that entails. IOW, what comprises the "body of truth"? Their answer is "the things that are essential to the gospel: e.g., the person and work of Christ, justification by faith, etc." You may disagree with their standard, but they are attempting a clear standard.

However, I'm not sure what standard you are proposing. That's why I ask "what is included in the body of truth?" I don't think it's a side issue, b/c it must be important for fundamentalists to know what requires defense and separation and what does not.

Thanks,

Ed

Brian said...

Tony, I have posted your comments for the sake of some balance and fairness, but as I have already stated, let's get back to the issue of McLachlan's statement. I would encourage you Tony, to get Lou's book. SoF typically don't show LS, leastwise, not ones that I have seen that are of places that readily acknowledge they are LS. You hear it in the preaching, you see it in print as they flesh out their SoF. Lou, may wish to address it further but after that we will move on. I will not post further comments desiring to delve further into LS. That can be for another time.

Ed said...

One more comment on the issue of gospel separation vs. whole body of truth.

I don't know if you've finished reading Bauder's chapter in the new book on evangelicalism, but I'm curious if you found any agreement with his distinction between minimal fellowship (i.e., agreement on the gospel means we are both Christians, and have a unity in Christ) and maximal fellowship (the more we agree on the closer in fellowship we can be, and we should be striving for maximal agreement on all issues of doctrine--though that is ultimately impossible). It seems he is at least addressing your concern for defending the whole body of truth, but is also arguing the the gospel is foundational in that.

Ed

Lou Martuneac said...

Tony:

Thanks for the reply. My opinion of LS IS THE MATTER. La is a false gospel, it is being propagated by nearly every one of the so-called "conservative" evangelicals, and I mean well beyond the star personalities. We, therefore, need go no further trying to determine whether or not fellowship is possible with men who (quoting Bauder) "believe, preach and defend" LS.

I do want to also reiterate that determining fellowship and cooperation among believers involves more than one's stand on the Gospel. Clearly Bauder, Doran, Olson accept LS or they would never open their respective ministries to preachers of LS. But what ecumenical compromise, worldliness, aberrant doctrines. There are issues there that our self described separatists have tolerated, allowed for, ignored or excused.

Last to get down to the nitty-gritty on LS you have look at confessional statements like the one you linked to and ask the authors to define their terms. I would ask them to define, "faith, believe and repentance." I have already done that, which you can read in my book. I will encourage you to do the heavy lifting on this one, contact T4G ask who drafted the statement. Then call him/them and ask them to define the three terms above. Then you can share those responses and we'll know. OK?


LM

Brian said...

Ed, I am currently wading through Dr. Bauder's chapter. It's been rather hit and miss, so I will probably go back and try to read through it more consistently, so I am not ready to put to print my impressions/thoughts to what Dr. Bauder is articulating with the maximal/minimal. I would say this though in regards to the doctrine. I think far too many have sought to pigeonhole doctrines and not give room for their interconnectedness. Yes, I would agree, that that is what Dr. Bauder is moving away from to some extent, but as I said I have not read him completely yet.
I agree we must articulate what the Gospel is and in one respect it is a starting point and as you study the Scriptures you find that all doctrines are interconnected and when you alter one here it affects another there.

Brian said...

Dave, I will not post your recent comment. As I have already noted on a couple of occasions now, we are moving afield a bit too much from the topic at hand. To answer a bit of your question posed to Lou because I too am an FBFI member. While you may well be stating fact about FBFI members holding to an LS position, if I don't know who holds to this doctrine (or any other false teaching for that matter) then there is no way I could not fellowship/associate with them.
Enough said, let's move back to the subject at hand.

d4v34x said...

Brian, I failed to read the posts subsequent to the one I was responding to. I should have and had I, I would have not forced you to re-redirect this discussion. I apologize.

Brian said...

Thanks Dave, no apology was necessary, just trying to keep us on track with this thread.

Steve Davis said...

Brian:

I think you ask a legitimate question: “Just what kind of ‘fundamentalism’ are these men ‘birthing’ and is it a rebirth of historic, mainstream fundamentalism?” Personally I do not think this is really a rebirth of anything. I don’t see any reason or any way to return to historic, mainstream fundamentalism. Few can even agree what that is although the few who do are quick to tell us what they think it was and should be. I also don’t think many of the guys opposing McLachlan, Bauder, Doran, Olson, Jordan, etc. would recognize a return since they have filled it with so many of their own issues. But you and others (including Lou for once) are right in that these men have modified their views on separation. Their views needed modification and I for one am thankful that they accept to fellowship with those with whom God fellowships.

It seems to me that McLachlan and company are trying to return to the New Testament and want to enjoy God-honoring fellowship found in the gospel. I am not an advocate of either so-called Lordship Salvation or Calvinism (two major issues for many it seems). Neither will I separate over them. Disagree? Fine! Separate? No scriptural warrant. And for those who want to continue needless squabbling over who really represents fundamentalism, I say let them have the scraps. Thanks for letting me share.

Steve Davis

Brian said...

Steve, thanks for stopping and adding to the conversation. I do appreciate your willingness to acknowledge the obvious even though we disagree as to whether it is a good thing or no.

Anonymous said...

So Dever IS a separatist--just not the right KIND of separatist? So, we know FOR SURE--WITH A CLEAR STATEMENT from Mark why he withdrew? What if Mark withdrew from the other stuff? Since we're speculating about other's motivations--here's one: many of us look at what is going in in some calling themselves fundamentalist, and as we try to be fundamentalist separatist Christians ourselves, we get the sense about some of them, that if Dever, Mohler etc. pulled away from much of what they are involved in, some Fs would still be unhappy. And if they pulled back to a position that looked a lot like some of these calling themselves Fundamentalists, it wouldn't be enough. In fact, the sense some of us have is that for some, NOTHING will be enough to satisfy some who call themselves Fundamentalists. Elements of this article seem to reveal such.

Sam Hendrickson

Brian said...

Thanks for stopping by Sam, but I'm not sure what you are driving at. You say, "elements of this article seem to reveal such." What "elements" and just what are they revealing?

Anonymous said...

Given the associations he kept (GARBC) and the influence he has had on McLachlan and Bauder, I would probably say that Dr. Ernest Pickering would have sided with them as well.

Michael

Brian said...

Michael, here is an excerpt from Dr. Pickering’s book on separation. I would suggest that you read his book and look at Dr. Pickering’s life experiences and I believe you would not come to your current conclusion.
“Some leaders operate on the principle that they will use speakers who are well-known even though they may be shaky in their convictions in some areas-because they have special abilities that are helpful and thus can be a blessing to their congregations. The wisdom, however, of following this course of action is very doubtful. For instance, the president of a separatist school may be asked to consider using some outstanding Bible preacher in his chapel or Bible conference. The man may have expertise in the Scriptures, be fundamental in doctrine and possess a tremendous gift of communication. He may also be one who goes everywhere, evidencing little discernment in the choice of places he ministers, speaking one week at the separatist college and perhaps the next at a Bible conference controlled by new evangelicals or their sympathizers. Some see no harm in using such a man. They look only at the messages he delivers from the platform which, in themselves, may be without fault.
But a man is more than his pulpit message. He brings to the pulpit a lifetime of associations, actions and perhaps writings. He comes as a total person. Is he in his total ministry the type of person you would want the young people at the separatist college to emulate? Perhaps you, as an adult, mature believer, could make the necessary adjustments in thinking and divorce what he is from what he says. Most of the youth would not be able to do that. The same would be true of most church members. They would be influenced by the man’s example as well as by his preaching. If he is a compromiser, his example would be harmful, and the college president would be at fault for setting him up as such. The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non-separatists.” (Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Implementing Separatist Convictions, Whom to Invite to Your Platform, p. 229.)

Lou Martuneac said...

Michael:

Read Dr. Pickering's "The Tragedy of Compromise," and you quickly recognize that he would not and could not join in the compromises of Bauder, Doran, Olson, McLachlan and Jordan.

The irony here is that you read various publications by Dr. Pickering from 20+ years ago and you would think he wrote those things this week because Bauder, Doran, McLachlan, Olson, Jordan are doing the very things (compromises) today that were being done the 20+ years ago that Pickering was addressing then.


LM

Anonymous said...

I am not so sure. I have read that before and remain convinced. Pickering might have stood against New Evangelicals. Most CE do not fall under what New Evangelicals were and stood for.

Ultimately I think this is where and why so much confusion exists. Those in the CE realm do NOT neatly fall into categories built in the 50s. We are after all nearly 60 years later. Most fundies recognize that the category shifted when the NE left. The same should happen with Evangelicals who do not pursue the same ideals as the NE did.

Michael

Brian said...

Michael, another place to look would be to google "Should Fundamentalists and Evangelicals seek closer ties?" This is Dr. Pickering's review of the 1985 Edward Dobson's book, In Search of Unity: An Appeal to Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. Again, looking at the evidence that Dr. Pickering left us, I believe, leaves us no doubt about Dr. Pickering's position.

Anonymous said...

Lou, 20+ years ago didn't have a CE movement like we see today. Many of the most influential personalities within CE do not hold to the same ideas as what the NE did back in the 50s.

Michael

Brian said...

Michael, the term conservative evangelical has been around for decades and has been used for those evangelicals (formerly known as New Evangelicals) who were obviously more conservative in their views than others within evangelicalism. Dr. Robert Lightner refers to the term in his book, Neo-Evangelicalism, 2nd edition dated 1965 (the first edition was 1959).
What we didn't have in years gone by is a more structured CE that seems true enough, but there has always been CE's within evangelicalsim.

Anonymous said...

No question they existed. Dallas Seminary is an example of conservative evangelicals. Pickering got his doctorate from there if I remember. Why would it be okay to attend the school and sit under nonfundy professors and at the same time teach that separation from them must be absolute, even in academic settings?

I don't believe that is what he meant at all. His target was NE, not what we see in CE today.

Michael

Lou Martuneac said...

Michael:

I encourage you to read again Pickering's works. Many times he was speaking of and/or to fundamentalists of that era. I am on my smart phone so can't do a hyperlink to my blog for examples. If you go to my blog, scroll down the left column to LABELS and then click on the name "Ernest Pickering," you can read some compelling examples from his various works.

Just above Brian referenced one of Pickering's pamphlets I cite in an article, "Should Fundamentalists and Evangelicals... "

You wrote, "ce do not fall under what ne... "

There are examples of how some of the high profile ce are becoming ne in practice. Piper with Rick Warren, Mohler/Duncan signed the Manhattan Declaration, Dever teaches at the ne Gordon-Conwell, etc. And I haven't even touched on the aberrant theology that is rife among them.

There is plenty of good reason to admonish and stay withdrawn from the compromisers in the ce camp.

What is happening instead is MacLachlan, Doran, Jordan, Bauder and Olson are bringing non-separatists from the ce camp and putting them in the college classrooms, college chapel and church pulpits. That is an outward and clear endorsement of a man, his ministry, his doctrine and his methods. It is giving people, impressionable college students the wrong message?


LM

Lance said...

New article on this subject:
http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2011/10/crossing-guards-for-doctrine-of.html

Brian said...

Michael, First as far as Dr. Pickering (or anyone from years gone by) going to a more conservative evangelical seminary, that was about all there was. Many of these men went with the intention of getting as much good as possible to then come back to fundamental institutions and work on having our own seminaries. Well, we have them now, the "need" to go to CE seminaries is pretty much non-existent today.
Secondly, sure on some specific points the CE of today is not the same as the NE of the 50's; instead they are the offspring, 2nd and 3rd generation. I readily admit that evangelicalism is not static, never has been, of their own they have at times lamented this. But the fact still remains and both in my article and elsewhere the ties have been shown that this crop of CE men will engage with others to their left without much concern; just like they always have.

Brian said...

Dr. Ketchum, I will put a hyper-link at the of the article to make it easier to get to it from here. Appreciate your thoughts expressed in this recent one.

Lance said...

Gentlemen,

I knew Dr. Pickering personally. He wrote the recommendation for my book Handbook For Discipleship back in 1992. I have had him preach in a church I pastored on numerous occasions.

I assure you, he was warning about these very issues we see in the CE's in his second book -The Tragedy of Compromise.

His two books on separation were the outcome of his own battles within the GARBC and the Conservative Baptist Convention. He was viewed as a radical separatist regarding ecclesiastical separation and paid dearly for maintaining his position within these organizations. Before that, he was involved in the leadership of the IFCA and left that organization over the same issues.

Brian said...

Thanks Dr. Ketchum for adding to the conversation. I have been looking for a copy of Dr. Pickering's words as he recounted the battles he was in when he was with these various groups. He was also ousted from Northwest Baptist Seminary (which was here in my neck of the woods) for his stand on separation in 1987 after being president for a year.
Indeed his life was one of constant battle against the inroads of compromise, he is missed.

Lou Martuneac said...

Dr. Ketchum:

Thanks for the added first hand details. I also knew Dr. Pickering personally through my association with him as a missionary at BWM in the 90's. As you say "The Tragedy of Compromise" makes it abundantly clear he would not hold hands with the new breed who seek their fellowship and cooperative ministry with compromised, non-separatist evangelicals.

On the IFCA, George Zeller and a significant number of men left over a number of issues one of the chief being John MacArthur and his "eternal sonship" flap.


Lou

Lance said...

This Wikipedia link gives some of Dr. Pickering's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Pickering

Brian said...

Thanks for the info. I heard Dr. Pickering once, I believe it was after he went blind, he was a Bible Conference speaker at BJ, if my memory serves me correctly.

Anonymous said...

It is a contrary position to state that you can attend a CE school but not have CE speakers at your school. Ryrie is no fundamentalist but I would guess some even on here would not object to him being invited.

The NE repudiated separatism. Some of the CE personalities brought up actually do practice some form of separation. From all that I have read about Pickering and his own words and who he was targetting, I remain convinced he would have sided with McLachlan. I know some will disagree, but Ernest is in heaven. Besides, his opinion is still just that. I only brought it up as an observation.

Michael

Steve Davis said...

Brian:

One thing I find interesting in many of the comments is how all the categories are set in order to label compromise and identify non-separatists (which means they are not as separated as the real separatists).

Here’s the thing: I don’t find the kind of separation many are calling for in the Bible. And for some there seems to be axes to grind and mini-popery. At the end of the day why does anyone care so much if Lansdale invites Dever and Robinson, Northland invites, Ware, Central invites Pettegrew? Some may not think it wise, consistent, faithful to the founders, etc. Okay. That’s opinion, not reasons to disrupt scriptural unity and break fellowship.

I was on staff at Calvary Lansdale for ten years, there when the discussion began about having Dever in to speak, and supported it. I do find myself surprised at the Haddon Robinson invitation but I do not consider an invitation to speak an endorsement of everything in a person’s life and ministry and look forward to hearing him in a seminary setting.

What I would look for is something that biblically disqualified someone on the basis of disobedience to Scripture not on the basis of he signed this documents, spoke at this venue, wrote this twenty years ago. I consider men like Dever, Ware, and Robinson servants of God who are walking as far as they know in obedience to the Word of God. Their actions with which some may disagree do not constitute a basis for separation.

Steve Davis

Lou Martuneac said...

Michael, I have to type this excerpt from Dr. Pickering into my phone. It is from his pamphlet, "Should Fundamentalists and Evangelicals United?" The excerpt appeared in a previous article at my blog and will be in the new article next week on McLachlan's article. Pickering follows here:

The new evangelical movement began years ago with what one astute observer aptly called a "mood." Moods are difficult to define sometimes, but they nonetheless can be real and potent forces. Theirs was a mood of toleration, an acceptance of widely varying theological concepts - a mood of "broadmindedness." We fear such moods since we have seen, in our lifetime, their final outcome - a full blown movement steeped in compromise. We believe we sense such a mood abroad today among those who, in all sincerity no doubt, think we should broaden our bases and reshape our image."

If you objectively consider the "mood" among the men who currently circulate in FB circles we have discussed here maybe now you can see that what Dr. Pickering wrote above is applicable today as it was the day he penned it.


Lou

Lou Martuneac said...

Michael:

"The NE repudiated separatism."

Example after example can be given of so-called “conservative" evangelicals repudiating separatism by their actions. And the response of MacLachlan, Doran, Olson, Jordan, Bauder is to tolerate, allow for, excuse or ignore. That is the "mood" they are in, the mood of broadmindedness.


LM

Anonymous said...

There is a difference between repudiating separation and not practicing separation as strict as I think they should.

Regarding Ernest, again, he is in heaven. I think you are misapplying his words to a different group of people than what he was addressing.

Michael

Brian said...

Steve, "mini-popery" not here, not by those that have posted here. "Some may not think it wise, consistent, faithful to the founders, etc. Okay. That’s opinion, not reasons to disrupt scriptural unity and break fellowship. " Granted the first statement is opinion, but that is not the issues being raised here. As to the second, I will disagree and note that I am not of the thought that it is unity of the church over purity of the church, which you may be alluding to and others are espousing taking their que from Augustine and the later reformers.
I am concerned about who our institutions of higher learning are bringing in to teach the pool of men who will be our future preachers, because they will be the ones that will be coming after me.

Brian said...

Michael, we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue then and move on to other things.

Brian said...

To Sam,
Your previous post left me wondering what you were driving at and your current effort leaves me even more bewildered. Address issues here in either McLachlan's article or mine. That is what this post is about.

Brian said...

Sam, yes, it is my blog and as I note elsewhere on my blog I am its "benevolent dictator." I daresay you may complain but I will not post your comments. You accuse me of "divining" motives, being guilty of the same in regards to my writing. I have done nothing of the sort. In regards to Dever/Thabiti/Elephant Room, it is to be noted that Dever was the #3 speaker and accepted on Sept. 14; Jakes was noted as speaker #4 on Sept. 26; Thabiti blogs on Oct. 1 on the TGC blogsite; Dever is then missing from the ER website mid-October. I have written of my observations and from those observations my concerns. Obviously you disagree with my concerns, to which you are entitled.

Lou Martuneac said...

Michael:

You wrote, "I think you are misapplying his [Dr. Pickering] words to a different group of people than what he was addressing."

It is a different group of “people” today that are making the same tragic compromises through tolerance and broadmindedness that the group did he was addressing then. Hence, the book title, The Tragedy of Compromise. We have today the same compromises that he was addressing then, only the names have changed.

May I suggest you read this article, Should Fundamentalists and Evangelicals Seek Closer Ties? I excerpt an extended and closing portion from Dr. Pickering’s full article. Read it and see if you are not recognizing similarities of compromise among the men in FB circles today who are forging alliances and cooperative ministries with non-separatist evangelicals.

Here is a sample,

Many of our friends probably would number themselves among those “new image fundamentalists.” While not agreeing with their position, we nevertheless seek to maintain our friendship and respect them as Christian brothers. Many of them pastor sizable churches, head Christian schools or organizations, and are articulate, winsome and influential. We thank God for all the good things about them. It is hard for us to disagree with them, to take an opposite position, and to risk lifelong friendships and much misunderstanding by doing so. We do not enjoy it. We shrink from it. But we must be true to the Word of God and to our own consciences. We do not take our stand against our Christian brethren carelessly or with a frivolous spirit. We do it with grief and struggle and, yes, even tears.


LM

Anonymous said...

Something that has been pointed out repeatedly Lou is that some of those you are calling out actually are separatists. They do not separate in the same way you think they should, but that isn't the same as a total lack of separation.

The current crop of CE do not fit into any nice little category.

Tony

Brian said...

Tony, if you will look back through the thread you will see, I believe, that no one has there is "a total lack of separation" on the part of anyone.
As to your second statement, not sure what bearing it has on the subject at hand.
This has been a lively interaction and for the most part without personal attacks to which I do commend you. The issues at hand are far more important than any one person. The steps taken now by all of us not only affect this current generation but generations to come as our Lord tarries. We will in all likelihood disagree on any number of things in this life and thankfully there is coming a day when we will be in our Lord's presence and there will be complete purity and unity.
Thanks again to all. I will be closing comments as this thread looks to have run its course.