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.