Cultural Fundamentalism - A Rejoinder

This post is a little old because I just happened to find it in my "drafts", but I thought it was still relevant since it is not really "time-sensitive" in nature. I updated my original thoughts some to account for the time difference between the original writing and now.)


Pastor Larry Rogier over at Stuff Out Loud made some comments a few months ago on "Cultural Fundamentalism."

He starts off the comments by saying that the term "cultural fundamentalism" has recently been used and I seem to remember reading some comments on that term myself recently, but I can't remember where I read it.

Anyway, the heart of Larry's comments is the following:

But what most people ask about is cultural issues, because that is what people think fundamentalism is. Now, one might attempt to make the case that the Bible version is not cultural, but theological. I think that is partially true and partially not true, but I don’t want to deal with that argument here.

You see, they know exactly what a cultural fundamentalist is … It is a fundamentalist who is known first for his stands on cultural issues. He is not known for loving the gospel, sound doctrine, theology, and the church, though he may do all those things. He is known for cultural standards.

Now, there may be some truth to his comments, especially in the minds of some, but I believe as I read his post, he does not really support his position because he bases his comments on some faulty thinking.

(I am not trying to pick on Larry. I generally appreciate much of what he writes at his blog and on SI).

As you read, you find that he supports his assertions regarding fundamentalism being known primarily due to the cultural issues by giving a summary of questions he has been asked recently by Pastors and indicating because most of those questions are culturally based that it means that Fundamentalism is known mostly for the cultural issues instead of about "the gospel, the church, doctrine, ministry fellowship/participation."

I would think, however, that there is at least one other legitimate interpretation of the fact that these are the questions that were asked - in fact, an interpretation that actually speaks well of Fundamentalism rather than negatively of Fundamentalism.

That interpretation has to do with the natural assumptions that come from the term. By declaring that I am a Fundamentalist, I am already stating that I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that every word of it is true. I have already identified the fact that I believe in the Biblical gospel, the importance of the local church, carefulness in fellowship, separation from apostasy and disobedient brothers, etc.

Therefore, because the answer to those questions are already assumed by my previous identification as a Fundamentalist, the subsequent questions are therefore to clarify more specifically where I stand on other more specific issues.

I had a conversation the other day with a rather liberal Methodist preacher while I was working. Due to the location of the conversation (I was working and in a store), we did not get into a lot of details, but his general questions and statements revealed he was coming from a totally different perspective than most of the preachers with whom I deal. Because he was not familiar with Independent Baptists (he has asked what kind of Baptist church I pastored and when I told him it was an Independent Baptist Church, he said "good at least you are not Southern Baptist :)". When it came up that I was generally more conservative than Southern Baptists, he was surprised and wanted to know in what ways that would be the case. He asked about speaking in tongues. He was surprised that I did not think that all churches should just get along and join together and and seemed generally shocked that I believed there was a Biblical responsibility to separate from apostates, rather than support them and their ministry, etc.

My point about this conversation is that because this person was not familiar with where I was coming from, his questions were of a different nature than the questions Larry received - and I generally receive questions a lot closer to Larry's list than this man's questions.

Those familiar with Fundamentalism are going to ask the questions that Larry points to - questions about Bible versions, cultural standards, etc. because they are already know the answers to the "other" questions and are wanting to differentiate between what "type" of Fundamentalist the person.

However, the fact that these questions are asked does not mean that these are the areas for which Fundamentalism is known any more than asking a self-identified "college football fan" about Boise State means that college football fans are primarily known about where they stand on non-AQ schools.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Some Timely Words

Things have been pretty busy with work the last couple of weeks and I apologize for not taking the time to finish my series in regards to the reviews of the BJU Pastors/Wives Fellowship and the discussion of the perceived weaknesses of Fundamentalism that spun off of those reviews.

I hope to get back to work on this soon.

I came across the following quote in my reading a little bit ago:

I sometimes have the distinct impression that the most stringent criticism of evangelicals, oddly enough, come from other evangelicals bent on winning the favor of a nonevangelical audience. By this I mean that some young evangelicals feel that they must criticize their own religious tradition in order to gain acceptance in an academic community hostile to that tradition. Evangelicals should by all means be self-critical - but for the right motivations and with a sense of ownership and compassion.

If you changed the word "evangelical" with "Fundamentalist" I would say that I get the same impression at times.

Just my thoughts,

Frank


BTW, the quote is from the book "Letters Along the Way: A Novel of the Christian Life" written by D. A. Carson and John Woodbrige. It is said by the fictional "Dr. Woodson" in the book as he writes to his young friend Timothy Journeyman.




PS, I am planning on writing a review on this, as well, but it will have to wait until I finish the book, which I have almost completed and until I finish a much more important review that I am currently working on regarding a very cool Bible study software program.

PPS, you can get a free copy of Letters Along the Way as a PDF file here. (HT on the free PDF: Andy Naselli)

Certain Truths in Uncertain Times - A Review of Nathan Crockett's Presentation at the BJU Pastors/Wives Fellowship

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I recently had the privilege of attending a Pastors/Wives Fellowship in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania sponsored by BJU. In my first post on the conference, I made some general comments and introduced the speakers and topics. In my second post on the conference, I reviewed and commented on the first session by Dr. Bob Jones, III.

In today's post, I will review and comment on the second presentation of the day, "Certain Truths in Uncertain Times: Timothys and Pauls working together for the cause of the Gospel" by Nathan Crockett.

I don't believe I have ever heard or met Nathan before, but I believe one of his brothers came to our church (Fellowship Baptist Church of Salisbury) a couple of years ago as the leader of a BJU Ministry Team. I also had the privilege of hearing his father, Dr. Leigh Crockett of Grace Baptist Church of Anderson, Indiana, many years ago when I was a ministerial student at BJU. Some of you may remember Dr. Crockett was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer a few years ago and was cured in such a way that it puzzled the doctors and he was interviewed on Good Morning America at the time - one news story on the situation can be found here.

I appreciated Nathan's workshop very much. His task, it seems, was to basically approach the Paul and Timothy scenario from that of a Timothy. (He is a fairly young man - I would guess no more than 30 at this point.) While he made some introductory comments about Understanding the Times in which we are living, the focus of the session was on the Paul and Timothy relationship.

Nathan was kind enough to send a copy of his entire notes - including the quotes he used and all the references, but I want to take most of my comments here from the notes that I took that day on the handout that was given.

As he began the initial part in regards to Understanding the Times, he made a comment that "Scripture gives examples of changing a method without changing the message" and he used the examples of Paul at Mars Hill and Jesus' approach to different people - Nicodemus (John 3) and the Samaritan woman (John 4).

In the area of Understanding the Times, he discussed understanding the world around us and dealt with a number of the characteristics of the day in which we live (such as Technology- driven, Consumed with the present, Pluralistic, Sensual, Fast-paced, etc.) and understanding the church today - including a consumer mentality in which the "church is full of window shoppers and church hoppers." He discussed some of the errors of the day in the church (both old and new errors) and how that we are seeing the same errors spilling over into Fundamental churches.

He then offered some "Biblical Solutions" towards the situation in the world and in the church - nothing ground-breaking, but true, nevertheless. The five things specifically mentioned were as follows:

1. Expect the world to be worldly
2. Offer people something distinctively different
3. Value eternal souls
4. Speak the truth in love
5. Trust God

After dealing with the times, he dealt with Pauls Understanding Timothys and then Timothys Understanding Pauls.

In the Pauls Understanding Timothys, he commented that he asked some of his other young friends training for ministry what they perceived to be the strengths and weakeness of the previous generations. He mentioned appreciation for many things (such as witnessing zeal, faithfulness, strong convictions, etc.) but focused on the perceived weaknesses - of which he listed the following.

1. Lack of mentoring
2. The rut of tradition
3. Unfair evaluation of certain evangelical ministries
4. Preaching concerns
* issue-oriented (rather than theologically-driven) preaching
* lack of expositional preaching
5. Unnecessary divisions

In addressing the Timothys understanding of Pauls, he encouraged the Timothys to understand five things.

1. The need for loyalty
2. The need for humility
3. The need for dialogue
4. A respect for tradition
5. A respect for age.

As I listened to Nathan, I was encouraged to hear his heart in this area and I think that he overall has gotten a lot of things right in his presentation. The nature of a presentation like this limits the ability to have lengthy discussions about each of these areas, however, I do believe that many of these things are worthy of a longer discussion - and the nature of blogging is that we can have that longer discussion - assuming that some of you folks would like to participate in the discussion.

Before anyone jumps on me (or Nathan) about the list of weaknesses, I would like to note three things. 1. This list is given as "perceived" weaknesses. Whether we would agree that these are truly weaknesses of the older generation, we can at least agree that many young men perceive these things in the older generation of Fundamentalism (no matter where we personally fall in that dynamic of old or young). 2. These are necessarily broad-brushed statements. Surely even those who brought them up to Nathan and Nathan would acknowledge that these things are not true of every one in the previous generation. When you paint with a broad-brush, you usually paint a lot of areas that should not be painted. 3. These are the observations of a number of young men - young men Nathan describes as "cream of the crop" type young guys committed to Fundamentalism - and not Nathan's observations alone. (In fact, some of these areas were not on Nathan's radar - for instance, he had the privilege of being mentored by his father, who was also his pastor and feels that he has received a lot of mentoring.)

While I have some quibbles with some of the things in Nathan's presentations (which I plan on bringing out in the follow-up posts), I appreciate Nathan's tack in this area much better than the bombastic and often bloated sounding criticism of the "older generation" of Fundamentalism offered by some of its critics - including some who still claim to love at least the "idea" of Fundamentalism.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Don't you hate it when ...

(Oops, I did not realize that this got buried behind a number of other posts. Also, note it was [mostly] written before the more recent post that I mention.)

Don't you hate it when... you write an anti-Fundy post that seeks to paint a Fundamentalist Bible college as hypocritical only to have commentators show up and point out that in the one small paragraph of your post you have 1) misrepresented the school's involvement in the one conference as well as 2) misrepresented the school's reaction to the other conference.

Then to top it off, you reveal in the comments that you do not even understand why there is and ought to be a different reaction to the two events.

Our internet friend, Ben, over at Paleoevangelical had that happen to him recently (not sure he realizes it, though) :).

Pretty impressive, Ben.

I tend to like Ben. He has some legitimate concerns at times - including some of the questions he raises in his most recent post, but this post is the type of post that HE would attack if a Fundamentalist made such a post regarding one of the current CE "bigwigs."

Notice this post

You Might Be a Fundamentalist If . . .

. . . you think it's a good idea for a fundamentalist college to send students to an Americans for Prosperity "Defending the American Dream Conference" to "share their faith" by singing the "National Anthem" and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," but a bad idea for a fundamentalist college to give its students permission to attend Together for the Gospel.

As you read the comments, you find out:

1) He has misrepresented the school's involvement in the first conference.

Thankfully, someone who actually knew the situation being mentioned happened to read Ben's blog as well. Consider these comments from Dave Marriot (who, based on the context of other comments, I assume is the son of the President of Maranatha Baptist Bible College):

Ben, perhaps you have mistakenly twisted what the newsletter says?

I quote:
The Third Annual Defending the American Dream Summit will be March 12-13 at Chula Vista Resort in Wisconsin Dells. A men's chorus from Maranatha will open Saturday's session by singing the National Anthem as well as The Battle Hymn of the Republic. This is a unique opportunity for us to share our faith and showcase our college to thousands of politically and economically conservative people who might consider supporting an educational institution that promotes those ideals. Please pray that our men will have a powerful testimony there."

Your article says, "to share their faith by singing the National Anthem..." which makes it sound like the content of the faith is the same as the content of the Anthem or Battle Hymn. The singing of these songs at this event will allow the students an opportunity to be there at all, and thus share their faith with those there and in the organization. I have been to events like this where I was seated next to seemingly powerful people, and have had opportunity to open my mouth boldly and make known the gospel.

As to the charge that Ben misrepresents the school's reaction to the second conference, notice these comments from Jeremy in the same thread.

"It is important to point out that Maranatha has not prohibited attendance at T4G."

As I read through the comments and see Ben's attempt to explain himself, he makes the following statement which seems to be the key to his case:

"Fundamentalists raise the issue of conservative evangelicals and separation and point out that their relationships and alliances can create confusion over the gospel. That knife cuts both ways."

Ben's point is true. Relationship and alliance can create confusion over the gospel - and that applies whether the one with the questionable relationships and alliances is a Fundamentalist or a Conservative Evangelical. All of us ought to be careful in regards to the message that our alliances and relationships. Just having on one label or another does not make us automatically right or automatically wrong in this area.

The problem, however, is that Ben seems to fail to realize that their OUGHT to be a difference in regards to the response to these two types of events. (I am moving out to general principles here rather than necessarily the specific cases.)

The key thing that Ben seems to be missing in this post is that the nature of an alliance makes a huge difference. All of us have various forms of alliances with others - as John Donne wrote, "No man is an island." The issue is not whether every alliance I have is completely void of anyone with whom I have legitimate - and even profound - disagreement with, but what is the nature of that alliance.

If Ben is in a home owner's association with a Catholic Priest and a Muslim Cleric, I don't think anyone would raise an alarm - because the nature of the association is such that it is secular by nature and deals with this specific area of life - their roles as homeowners. The same thing could be said in regards to a membership in AAA, an Eagles Fan Club, or a political party or event - in each case, the area of association is clearly secular in nature. This does not mean that our Christianity is a mute point in those circumstances, but that we are not promoting those things as a Christian or spiritual activity. We are not indicating that the fellow associational members are co-belligerents for the cause of Christ.

However, when one is involved in a conference or activity that is promoted as spiritual or religious in nature, the presence of one who attempts to proclaim the true Gospel alongside of those who reject or twist the true Gospel is a serious concern. In these cases, the one that is right on the Gospel is providing spiritual ground cover for those who corrupt the Gospel. (This is why I have a bigger concern about the more recent conference that Ben has highlighted.)

By the way, this is also why Albert Mohler's recent involvement with the Manhattan Declaration has raised some eyebrows - and not just among Fundamentalists. The religious wording of the Manhattan Declaration makes it clear that this is not just political, but religious.

(BTW, I find it a little odd that apparently Dr. Mohler sometimes "gets it" - at least somewhat - in this area - consider this post, where he states:

I cannot participate in any setting that would confuse the Gospel or the nature of the true Gospel church.

but then he signs The Manhattan Declaration and in doing so violates completely the sentence above.)

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Thank you, Aaron

I know a lot of you have read this already, but in an era where it seems like the only things you hear from "fundamentalists" is how bad "fundamentalists" are, it was nice to read Aaron Blummer's article on SharperIron entitled, "I Learned it from Fundamentalists."

What Aaron describes is very similar in experience to the Fundamentalism that I have known - a Fundamentalism that certain corners within Fundamentalism seem desirous to ignore in their mad rush to rip or ridicule Fundamentalism by highlighting the crazies that use the term.

Among the points Aaron makes, the following stand out in particular in my experience.

1. Fundamentalism taught me expository preaching

No one told me then that the most persuasive and enduringly powerful preaching I was hearing—and had grown to love—was called “exposition” or “expository preaching.” The Fundamentalist college I attended next taught me that this kind of preaching had a name as well as a long and glorious tradition.

Could a young man learn expository preaching outside of Fundamentalism at the time? Absolutely. But I learned it from Fundamentalists.

3. Fundamentalism taught me to be mindful of doctrine

The attitude that doctrine is extremely important and that believers should expect to put their thinking caps on and wade through it somewhat regularly was an attitude I caught from Fundamentalists.

and

6. Fundamentalism taught me the gospel.

Fundamentalists gave me the gospel in its simplicity, but also later taught me its complexity. Fundamentalists taught me what total depravity meant, what imputation meant, what regeneration meant, even what election meant.

No one is claiming that Fundamentalism is perfect. And surely this Fundamentalist is far from perfect, but it is nice to hear/read something positive for a change.

Thanks, Aaron.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

The answer to the "Who Said This?" and the full quote.

My recent "Who said this?" post was raised to see what type of guesses I would get. I was kind of curious if the automatic assumption by the "Young Fundamentalist" crowd would be that this kind of thing had to have been said by some "mean, old, ‘Type A' Fundamentalist".

However, judging by the response, I would guess the following things to be true:

1. I think I may have lost most of my "Young Fundamentalists" readers. I guess that is what I get for not posting regularly.

2. If I do still have some of them, they were not taking the bait.

3. This type of statement regarding Billy Graham apparently could have been uttered by many. For instance, I found this quote by Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. after Pastor Wagner mentioned him as a possible source for the quote of the "Who Said This?" post.

"For a long time I believed that Billy was doing more harm than any other living man. What a tragedy to see him building the church of Antichrist, masking the wickedness of popery, and providing a sheep's cloak of Christian recognition for the wolves of apostasy."

However, the answer to the question is probably a little difficult because of the relative obscurity of the person who said it - at least relative obscurity until his son chose to write a book about him and bring him to the attention of a lot of people who otherwise would not have heard of him.

The person who made the quote is Pastor Tom Carson, a long-time missionary/pastor in French Quebec. The particular context of the quote reveals the particular damage done by the compromising ministry of BG in relation to his promotion of and failure to separate from the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.

"I heard a priest being interviewed on a French [radio] station at the time of the Billy Graham crusade, and he was asked point-blank why the R. C. authorities did not come out and denounce it as presenting much that could be construed as against Roman Catholic teaching, though not verbally stated. He hemmed and hawed, but said in effect it was better to leave the crusade alone. I could have told them why: because this upright man that is Billy Graham, his personal life beyond reproach, is the Roman Catholic church's best ally, since he welcomed them as evangelicals at his services. Graham is Jehoshophat with Ahab." (Quoted from Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor: The Life and Reflection of Tom Carson by D.A. Carson, p. 142)

I recently finished reading the book, Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor: The Life and Reflection of Tom Carson by D. A. Carson (his son) and found this quote to be interesting. Pastor Don Johnson in Canada (among others) alerted me to the book with his review of the book, here.

I plan on writing a review of the book shortly, but I would like to make a couple of quick comments regarding the quote.

1. I appreciate the insight that Pastor Carson displays. While it is not unusual to hear such denouncements from Fundamentalists, it is refreshing to hear it from someone who was most likely not a Fundamentalist (although I am not really sure, since D. A. Carson does not really explore that issue in the book.)

2. It seems as though a statement like this would be attacked by the "YF" crowd if it were by a self-identifying Fundamentalist. It makes me curious that while I have read a few reviews of Carson's book (including some reviews from non-Fundametnalists), no one has seen fit to bring this out and attack Tom Carson for the comment. I cannot imagine a favorable biography of Dr. Bob, Jr. that included the quote above not garnering criticism in the blogosphere, but maybe I am just cynical. (Witness the multiple pages of posts at SI when the FBF dared to issue a very mildly written warning about Piper.)

3. While I recognize that the day of Billy Graham is essentially past, why do men like Mohler not recognize the issue that is so obvious to those like Pastor Carson, who have served on the front lines and seen the devastating effect of the compromise?

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Who said this? - BG edition

I found this quote in my reading recently and thought it would be an interesting "Who Said This?" for the blog. (If anyone is actually reading anymore.)

Billy Graham ... is the Roman Catholic church's best ally, since he welcomed them as evangelicals at his services. Graham is Jehoshophat with Ahab.

Update:

1. I fixed the title, I actually had accidently titled this post with the title for the follow-up post, so I shortened this one back to an accurate title.

2. I have provided two hints in the comment sections, so far.
1. Don Johnson is correct in that he had read this somewhere else recently (I know, not much of a hint)
2. The person who made this statement is dead.

3. I will add a new hint.
Although the person who made this statement is dead, the statement was only published in 2008.

"God offers love to all, including humanists"

"God offers love to all, including humanists" is the title of an op-ed in a secular newspaper today.

I almost turned this into another "Who Said This?", but I wanted to go ahead and link to the source in this post instead of waiting for responses.

I noticed an op-ed piece published in today's edition of a secular newspaper by a well-known Christian leader. In this editorial, he is apparently responding to something somewhat scornfully wrote against Christians - and against his institution in particular. (I will have to track down the original article later, since I have to leave as soon as I post this.)

Here are a couple of quotes.

Let the humanists grope like blind men for the meaning of human existence. It is their right to judge all things based upon mere human reason if they choose, but the Creator God waits at the end of their way. They can't avoid their Judge forever. If they could only see how small and insignificant mankind is in comparison with the great and eternal God of Heaven, they would bow their hearts in reverence before him rather than lift their arm in defiance against him

later

But the cross of Jesus Christ shows the greatness of God more than all his creation does. His love reaches to humanists, rapists, baby killers, homosexuals -- all who choose to embrace sin and thereby go astray. "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him" (1 John 4:9).

The great Creator God made himself known to us in the person of his Son, Who said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9).

Conclusion:

Any sinner who recognizes the folly of his sinful choices and the futility of succeeding by defying God and then humbles himself at the foot of the cross can be the recipient of the Savior's loving pardon. No sin is too great, and no sinner is too hopeless to be beyond the reach of the great love of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Any guesses? (Scroll down for answer and source)











Dr. Bob Jones, III in the December 6, 2008 version of The Greenville News.

The article is here.

The answer to "Who Said This?"

In my last post, I posted a comment that I had recently read and asked people to guess who was the author. I also asked whether you agree with the comment or not.

The quote was:

"Separation is not isolation, it is contact without contamination."

No one guessed it, although some of the guesses were pretty good. Andy Efting's guess of J. Vernon McGee was pretty good, I thought, as both individuals had significant radio ministries and commentaries on every book and the commentaries from both are more on a "popular" level than on a "deep" level.

A couple of you commented that you would like more context in determining whether you agreed with the statement or not. I think there is wisdom in that, so I will give the context for the three places I found it.

The quote is from Warren Wiersbe and shows up in a discussion on 1 Peter 2, Psalm 1, and in a book entitled God Isn't In a Hurry.

The first place I found this was attributed to Wiersbe in a discussion of 1 Peter 2:5. Unfortunately, there was no context to this use.

After looking it up, I found this quoted in a discussion on Psalm 1:1

The context of the quote in Psalm 1:1:

First, we must be separated from the world (v. 1). The world is anything
that separates us from God or causes us to disobey Him. Separation is not
isolation but contact without contamination. Sin is usually a gradual process.
Notice the gradual decline of the sinner in verse 1. He is walking (Mark 14:54),
standing (John 18:18) and then sitting (Luke 22:55).

The last place I found it was quoted from Warren Wiersbee's book, God Isn't In a Hurry.

A church on the move must confront reality and meet people where they are.
Separation is not isolation--it is contact without contamination. Jesus
was the friend of publicans (tax collectors) and sinners. Many church
members don't have any unsaved friends, or if they do, they keep them at a
distance. Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem, where the crowd was so
cosmopolitan that the inscription on his cross had to be written in three
languages. Many churches today have abandoned the marketplace and spend
their time reminding one another of the gospel. -- Warren Wiersbe, God Isn't in
a Hurry (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 89.

In the lack of context of the first quote, I would have to say that I have concern for the statement without any context.

I would obviously agree with the idea that we can impact the world without being contaminated by the world.

I do wonder about a couple of things regarding the quote, however.

1. The picture of Haggai 2 seems to point out that connecting something holy to that which is unholy does not make the unholy thing holy, but instead makes the holy thing unholy. (The example is of the priest's garment and dead bodies.) This would clearly indicate that the type of contact is definitely in play in regards to this concept.

2. I am not sure that "contact without contamination" is really an accurate description of "separation." While it may be true that we need to have appropriate contact with those that are lost, etc., I really don't see how this relates to separation. In other words, I think by juxtaposing the two ideas "separation" and "contact with contamination", he is bringing into the idea of separation that which is not really relevant.

The NT idea of separation seems to be more restrictive than simply "don't be contaminated." For instance, in 2 Corinthians 6, where we are told to be separate, the same context includes "touch not the unclean thing." And the question of "what fellowship hath light with darkness"?

Anyway, thanks for participating. I may add more later, but I need to get to bed.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Some more reflections - in response to a question

Andy Rupert, a friend and OBF member who blogs over at Isle Kerguelen, made a comment on my post regarding the Pillsbury situation and then followed up his comment with an email request for me to elaborate. Since the comments of old posts often get ignored and since the length of this is really more of a post than a comment, I thought I would go ahead and make this comment a post (as well as including it in the comments of the Reflections post).

Before I do so, I would remind you of two things I said in the post in which Andy's comments are found.

I am saddened to hear of the demise of Pillsbury. It has had a great heritage and I am concerned for the students, faculty, and staff members of the institution. I imagine it is especially difficult for some who have poured their hearts and lives into this ministry and have prayed for them during this time.

and

Historically it has often been the institutions of the movement who have been used of God to propagate, promote, defend and expand the idea. While I recognize that God does not need a particular institution, I believe it would be wise for those of us who hold to the idea of Fundamentalism to seek to do what we can to pray for, encourage, support and strengthen (including providing correction where necessary) those institutions that also hold to the idea.

Now for the comment and the reply.

Andy's comment was the following:

From my quick read through Dr. Bauder's article, I think I agree with his assessment. For instance, when he writes about the idea being greater than what the movement created, I think he has it right. See the following quotation:

"If we are going to talk about saving fundamentalism, then let us be clear that the thing we need to save is the idea. All of our associations, colleges, seminaries, mission agencies, preachers’ fellowships, networks, alignments, and coalitions are of value only to the extent that they maintain and perpetuate the idea. If they are not propagating the idea, then let them perish."

In the follow-up email, he asked about my concerns regarding the Bauder article on Pillsbury Baptist Bible College. Below is my response (with some slight alterations).

Andy,

I think a couple relevant quotes may help here.

From my post: Even though I would agree with Dr. Bauder that the "idea" is more important than the "movement", I think we may be jumping the gun on the movement.

To use the Pillsbury demise as a chance to claim even the "movement" is dead is a stretch that seems unsupportable in light of the three evidences I included in my post.

Also, from my post that I linked to in this post:

I am not arguing for the movement, so much as the idea, as properly understood. I would say, however, and this is important, that those who genuinely subscribe to the idea of Fundamentalism will not find themselves without some fellowship within the "movement" of Fundamentalism (as broadly understood). I would also say that often (not necessarily always) those guys who claim to be retaining the "idea" of Fundamentalism while shedding the "movement" tend to reveal that they have abandoned more than the "movement" when one examines their ministries and considers the associations that they do make.

While Bauder is not an example of this personally, my experience has been that the YFs are eating up the "anti-movement" comments from Bauder and others, while not holding to the idea - resulting in the worst of both worlds.

My initial reading of quotes like the one you gave by Bauder was also favorable, until I begin to think through them more.

It sounds great and elicits an initial "Amen" when Bauder writes, "If we are going to talk about saving fundamentalism, then let us be clear that the thing we need to save is the idea. All of our associations, colleges, seminaries, mission agencies, preachers’ fellowships, networks, alignments, and coalitions are of value only to the extent that they maintain and perpetuate the idea. If they are not propagating the idea, then let them perish."

However, upon further reflection, I think statements like this may actually be part of the problem, because of what it implies and what it leaves out.

First, the implication of the statement:

It implies that Fundamentalists are interested in saving Fundamentalist institutions no matter whether they support the idea of Fundamentalism or not. This seems to be creating an animal that doesn't exist - or at least exists so rarely as to be listed on the endangered species list. Are people in the OBF clamoring for Cedarville to be preserved? Of course not? Fundamentalist are not interested in saving the historically Fundamentalists institutions that are no longer Fundamentalist - either the ones like Cedarville that have headed in the direction of repudiating Biblical separation or the ones like HAC that are off on a KJVO/easy believism tangent. There may be interest in RESCUING them by some, but not just in preserving them in their current wrong direction. I would hope that there is interest amongst those in the OBF of strengthening the OBF and of preserving the Visitor, etc., not because the OBF wants to be "king of the hill of Fundamentalism", but because it recognizes that it has an important role in presenting a united and outspoken voice for Biblical Fundamentalism. No one fits the description that Bauder is arguing against - no one in "mainstream Fundamentalism" is clamoring to save the bad institutions just for the sake of saving them.

Second, the omission of the statement:

While Bauder supports the idea of letting the institutions that don't hold to the idea of Fundamentalism perish, he makes little argument for supporting those institutions that do continue to hold strongly to true Fundamentalism. This omission leaves us with a vacuum. While the internet is starting to change some of this by giving the little guys a voice, the reality is that it has been historically the institutions of Fundamentalism that have had the "bully pulpit" to expound, promote, and encourage others in their understanding of the idea of Fundamentalism. It is the united voice of the OBF - a Fundamentalist institution - allows for this idea to be sounded out with a louder sound than the solo pastor of a small church would be able to sound it out. Historically, it has been those who have had a voice - either because they were representative of something larger than themselves (such as an institution like the OBF, the FFBC, the ACCC, or the mission boards or the various colleges or seminaries) or because their voice was somehow promoted and spread (e.g. Luther and the press - or even Ashbrook and Here I Stand) that have been able to promote the idea of Fundamentalism - or at least to have had effectiveness in doing so. Surely there have been plenty of small church pastors who have preached messages and taught their people the Biblical doctrine of separation, but which of those influenced you or the other young men out there? In general, no one even hears of these warriors and instead it is the ones who are somehow involved with an institution that have been used to articulate the position to a greater audience. I was influenced by Pastor Ashbrook through his writing long before I ever met him in person. I was influenced by Dr. Pickering even though I never met him personally. These men were able to make an influence on me, in part, because they had a voice - and it was, in part, their involvement with the institutions of Fundamentalism that gave them that voice - or at least allowed that voice to be able to be spread where I could hear it. When we make an argument that the institutions are not that important, we should think a little about the implication of such a point. Even Kevin Bauder, who writes much that I generally like and appreciate is being heard because of his role in a Fundamentalist institution.

Now that I have rambled, let me get back to my specifics in regards to the Pillsbury article.

I believe that Bauder's whole premise in the article is fatally flawed. Dr. Bauder wrote, "Pillsbury Baptist Bible College is a microcasm of what is happening within institutional fundamentalism everywhere." Really? He does not support this idea at all in his article, he just lays it out there as though it is self-evident. The problem with that is that ignores the facts right in Pillsbury's "back yard" - Maranatha and Northland have grown incredibly during the same time that Pillsbury has dwindled. Rather than use the Pillsbury situation to address the real issues with Pillsbury, it was used as an evidence that "the mainstream of historic fundamentalism is dwindling."

I don't have a problem with him not going after the issues that seem to have led to Pillsbury's demise - I probably would not have touched on them if I had been in his situation and would not have commented here or at SI if it were not for Dr. Bauder's article. I do have a problem with using that demise as an evidence for something that it is not.

If we were to see a similar pattern at the other schools, he may be able to make the case he tried to make. But as it stands, I think his premise is way off.

BTW, I seriously meant what I wrote about praying for the folks at Pillsbury. One of my groomsmen was a former teacher there and I believe the later presidents really tried to do a good job of turning the ship back around. Clearly there were multiple reasons for the demise of Pillsbury. I think Dr. McCune (or was it his son) is correct that part of the problem was probably the vacuum of leadership created by Clearwaters' departure. I think a large part of it was the alienation of its support base due to the (at least perceived) leftward lurch under Potter (which is not all on Potter, btw, it also raises questions about the board in general in selecting him). I am sure part of it was the fact that there was healthy competition nearby. I imagine some of it may have been due to various financial pressures - especially with the upkeep of a campus that was as old as Pillsbury.

For those who have tried to deny the effect of the leftward lurch, I think they need to recognize that this did play a key role. If we as a church gave out copies of The Visitor and then all of the sudden Chris started using it to espouse Open Theism, I would not put out copies of The Visitor anymore and I would be very wary of ordering it again unless I had complete confidence that Chris had gotten the axe and someone I really knew I could trust (e.g. Pastor Ashbrook himself) was back at the helm.

The same principle works the other way, btw. Notice the Democrats response to Joe Liberman. Eight years ago, he was their Vice Presidential nominee. Two years ago he was defeated in his own party's primary because he did not agree with the Dems radical anti-war sentiment. Now that he spoke at the Republican Convention and has campaigned for McCain, they are talking about putting him out of the caucus (unless they need his vote to prevent a filibuster). What do you think the chances would be of him speaking at the Democratic Convention in four years? Let alone being their Presidential or Vice Presidential Nominee.

Anyway, I have probably said too much. I hope this clarifies. Feel free to ask me if I did not answer part of what you were asking.

In Christ,

Frank Sansone

Reflections upon reading the Reflections

Last week I read the news that Pillsbury Baptist Bible College in Owatonna, Minnesota announced that it will "cease academic activities" at the end of this calendar year.

Pillsbury Baptist Bible College has served as a strong Fundamentalist institution over the years. In the early days, Pillsbury had such presidents as Dr. Monroe Parker, Dr. Richard Clearwaters and Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm. There have been some unfortunate times of difficulty over the years, including a disagreement between between Drs. Clearwaters and Cedarholm (which is discussed in a 1999 article in Frontline Magazine entitled, "The Cedarholm/Clearwaters Conflict.")

I was saddened to hear of the demise of Pillsbury. It has had a great heritage and I am concerned for the students, faculty, and staff members of the institution. I imagine it is especially difficult for some who have poured their hearts and lives into this ministry and have prayed for them during this time.

The day after I heard of this, I was able to pray with the president of a sister school and was told that the schools were likely going to make an exception for Pillsbury students that would allow them to transfer their credits to the schools even though Pillsbury was accredited as a Bible Institute rather than a College. CORRECTION: Pillsbury is accredited by AHBE as a four-year Bible college, but apparently this accreditation is different than the accreditation that the particular school usually accepted - thank you, Professor David McGuire for the correction. I appreciated the desire of this president and the other schools to try to help out these students in a very difficult time.

Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minnesota, who I have referred to in a number of articles here at A Thinking Man's Thoughts and of whose ministry I have appreciation, has written an article on the Pillsbury situation in his newsletter In the Nick of Time and that has been recently published at ShaperIron and generated some discussion - here.

While I appreciate some of the things Dr. Bauder has said, I do wonder, however, if the premise of this article by Dr. Bauder and the subsequent comments may be going a little too far and I wonder if we should ask those who are busy chiseling on the marble to think a little bit further before they finish making the tombstone.

Even though I would agree with Dr. Bauder that the "idea" is more important than the "movement", I think we may be jumping the gun on the movement - or at least the use of Pillsbury as indicative of the movement seems to be a bit of a stretch.

(For some of my further thought on the "Idea" and "Movement" of Fundamentalism, see my post, The Best and the Brightest - The Idea of Fundamentalism and the Movement of Fundamentalism.)

While I am not an expert on Pillsbury by any stretch, I question whether the case can accurately be made that the collapse of Pillsbury is merely a microcosm of a greater collapse of Fundamentalism. The reasons I question this include the following:

1. The decline of Pillsbury occurred at the same time when at least two of the neighboring Fundamental Colleges were experiencing a time of increase. While I do not have the figures, I am pretty sure that both Maranatha and Northland are significantly larger today than they were in 1990. (Faith may be as well, but I am less familiar with Faith.) I do not have the numbers, but I would guess the combined attendance at the three schools (Pillsbury, Maranatha, and Northland) is greater now than it was then - even with Pillsbury's decline.

2. The decline of Pillsbury did not occur without some issues being present at the school. As even Dr. Bauder has alluded, "Pillsbury nearly closed in the mid-1990s when it experienced multiple turnovers of administration and a purge of the faculty. This was not the first controversial period in the history of the college." The numerous changes in leadership and the changes in philosophy that some of those changes included would make most institutions unstable. (Although perhaps there is some question regarding cause and effect.)

3. Pillsbury experienced a change of leadership and focus at one point that seems to have resulted in the alienation of both alumni and other constituents due to a left-ward shift (or, so as not to get sidetracked, a perceived left-ward shift). I appreciated the efforts of some to try to "right the ship" in subsequent years, but damage like this is difficult to undo. It puts questions in the minds of folks who may be influential in helping to recruit students to a school or support the school in other ways. I know that while I was a youth pastor, we took college trips up to MBBC and NBBC from New Jersey and later added FBBC, but we were in a "wait and see" mode when it came to PBBC and never actually included it in our list of schools to visit when we took our "Northern College Trips". While we were not a huge church (at the time we probably had between 50-70 in our youth groups, I think), we did have students that attended each of the other schools we visited, and if other churches also were cautious about PBBC because of the earlier changes, this could have had a definite effect on their enrollment and ultimate survival.

Some have objected to this idea that the "left-ward leer" of a college President over a decade ago can have that much affect. I understand this objection, but I think it is misinformed. I also don't think it is necessarily a Fundamental/New Evangelical issue. In fact, I would imagine this were true even in the secular arena.

Imagine a similar scenario. A new president is selected at a well-known conservative educational institution, but the new presidents announces that he is supportive of Obama and Pelosi and the rest of the liberals in politics of the day. Even if subsequent presidents attempt a return to traditional conservative issues, unless a major mea culpa with sackcloth and ashes and comes from those involved in the hiring of the left-leaning president, many conservatives are going to be wary of recommending and supporting the institution - and wisely so. (BTW, the same would be true of a liberal institution that suddenly came out as conservative on some major issues - look what happened to Joe Liberman.)

I further question the wording of Dr. Bauder where he says the following:

The question is not whether fundamentalism is collapsing. The question is how we should respond to the collapse. More fundamentally, the question is how we should even be thinking about these events.

Is Fundamentalism collapsing? It seems that is a foregone conclusion to Dr. Bauder, even though he admits it is difficult to know the real state of Fundamentalism. I hear what seems to be almost a glee in some circles (certainly not Dr. Bauder) in that apparent collapse, but I question whether those who are celebrating should think through the bigger picture more clearly.

In 1925, Harvard liberal Kirsopp Lake wrote regarding Fundamentalism in The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow

“It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the…survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians….The Fundamentalist may be wrong: I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church is on the Fundamentalist side”

I recognize that the this applies to the idea more than the movement, but historically it has often been the movements who have been used of God to propagate, promote, defend and expand the idea. While I recognize that God does not need a particular institution, I believe it would be wise for those of us who hold to the idea of Fundamentalism to seek to do what we can to pray for, encourage, support and strengthen (including providing correction where necessary) those institutions that also hold to the idea.

Just my thoughts,

Frank Sansone

Pickering Books Available for Free Downloadng

Dr. Ernest Pickering was one of the outstanding spokesmen for Fundamentalism in former days. He was instrumental in helping many have a better understanding of the doctrine of separation and had such a knowledge of Scripture and love for the ministry, that even after he became blind, he continued to preach at churches and conferences.

Dr. Pickering wrote a number of books and it has been great that Regular Baptist Press has been active in putting many of these books back into print recently. I picked up an updated copy of Charismatic Confusion at the National Leadership Conference in Lansdale, Pennsylvania earlier this year, and I am especially looking forward to holding in my hands one of the new, updated copies of Pickering's classic - Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church which has been updated recently by Dr. Myron Houghton of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary.

I noticed today (HT: SI) that Regular Baptist Press is providing a couple of Pickering's booklets as Free .pdf downloads from their site - here.

The first of these books is The Fruit of Compromise: The New and Young Evangelicals. (link to .pdf). This book was written by Dr. Pickering in 1980 and it should be an interesting read. I don't think I have ever read it, so it will be interesting to read it in light of the current state of evangelicalism.

Looking over the table of contents, I notice that the last section of this short, 44 page book gives "Direction for Fundamental Christians" and gives some great sub-headings that I will hopefully read soon for the meat - "Courageous Leadership is Needed", "Proper, Balanced Instruction Must Be Given", "Enlightening Information Must Be Made Available", and "Decisive Action Must Be Taken".

The second of the books is The Theology of Evangelism (link to .pdf).
Regular Baptist Press describes this book by saying that this 68 page booklet:

"describes the theological framework of New Testament evangelism with an emphasis on a balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. They author also address practical matters such as evangelistic methodology and compares current issues to the methods used in the early church."

I hope these comments whet you appetite and that you download and read these two booklets.

Also, for further reading on Biblical Separation, see Kevin's article The Making of Biblical Separation.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Chris Anderson's take on the Minnick Interview

Pastor-blogger extraordinaire Chris Anderson has posted his thoughts on the 9 Marks interview of Mark Dever interview of Mark Minnick in a post entitled, "2Marks on 9Marks." (Don't you like the clever title?)

I tend to agree with much of what Chris has written. (Don't count that against Chris!)

As usual, it is much clearer and shorter than my thoughts on the same topic.

Just his thoughts,

Frank

Mark Dever's Interview of Mark Minnick - Part 1

In a previous post, I highlighted the 9 Marks interview of Dr. Mark Minnick by Dr. Mark Dever on the subject of Fundamentalism and the Doctrine of Separation.

While I have only known of Dr. Dever's ministry for the last couple of years, I appreciate a lot that I have read and heard coming out of the ministry in D.C., although I agree with Dr. Dever that he would not be considered a Fundamentalist in the way that I understand Fundamentalism.

I had the privilege of attending Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville for a couple of years during Dr. Minnick's early years as the Sr. Pastor of the church. I also had Dr. Minnick for a few classes at Bob Jones University and consider him a very gifted preacher and godly man.

What I would like to do in this post is to kind of give a "lay of the land" in regards to the interview, with my comments interspersed. I want to do this so that those who have not had a chance to listen to the interview can at least attempt to follow along.

The interview apparently took place in February at Capitol Hill Baptist Church and was, in part, the result of an earlier get-together between Dr. Dever and some Fundamentalist Pastors in the Greenville area. The interview does not indicate who, other than Minnick, was at that meeting, although some of the names have been indicated in other places in the blogosphere.

In the beginning of the interview, Dr. Dever seeks to start by introducing the topic - Fundamentalism and separation - and introducing the interviewee - Dr. Minnick. If you are familiar with Dr. Minnick, there is not a lot in this first section to draw attention to other than a couple of quick things.

1. Dever made it clear very early in the interview (1:25) that there was a clear area of difference between Minnick (and the other Pastors at that meeting) and himself was over the issue of "how we associate with other Christians - how we decide to do that" (i.e. separation). It seemed to me that early on Dr. Dever was wanting to get at the core of the issue. I appreciated that and felt that he kept trying to do this over and over throughout the interview.

It must have been a little frustrating to him that Dr. Minnick seemed to have been more interested in making sure that Dr. Dever understand the areas of agreement - and to recognize that Fundamentalism was not some weird unorthodox monster hiding in the corner like some Evangelical leaders try to portray it. (See the recent Evangelical Manifesto or Rick Warren's comments on Fundamentalism for a couple of examples of this.)

In a large way, it was very frustrating to me as well. However, as I reflected on this a little more, I think that I may not have given Dr. Minnick enough credit in my initial thoughts regarding this. Dr. Minnick was not on his "home turf" and the reality is that while guys like Don, Greg, Andy, Chris, Ben, Bob and others in the "Fundamentalist Blogosphere" - including most of those who will read this and many who discuss these things at SI - have been discussing exactly the point of tension that Dr. Dever was asking about, Dr. Minnick undoubtedly realized that the audience of the 9Marks interview goes beyond this small group of people - and was probably therefore more careful that I would have been about making sure people get a better "big picture" of Fundamentalism. In other words, this is not Dr. Doran in the comments section of Chris or Ben's blog discussing the finer points of these issues (something that appeals to people like me who are intimately concerned with these issues), but rather a broader audience that, in general, is pretty ignorant of Fundamentalism - and whose ignorance of Fundamentalism is often fueled by the very unbalanced and uneducated critiques of Fundamentalism that I mentioned earlier. So, while I would have loved for Dr. Minnick to just have delved into the issue of Fundamentalism and separatism strongly from the beginning, I recognize that his approach in this area, while not as satisfying to guys like me, was probably the wiser approach, as it helped to correct some of the common mischaracterizations about Fundamentalism before hitting on the more minute points. (I also wonder if there is an aspect of still wanting to "go as far on the right road" as you can, so emphasizing the areas of agreement at this point may have been viewed as more helpful in that attempt.)

2. Dr. Dever also commented during this point, that while Dr. Dever sometimes refers to himself as a "fundamentalist" he is not a Fundamentalist in the way that Dr. Minnick would mean the term. Dr. Minnick's answer here was "I think we are [agreed] in our instincts and I think we are agreed in terms of Biblical principle - its probably the extension of them that would be where the difference comes."

This is one of those points where I would have loved to have heard more elaboration from Dr. Minnick. Perhaps some more had been said in the Greenville discussion that clarified this for these two men, but I wonder about the agreement in terms of Biblical principle. Perhaps someone from CHBC can fill me in here: Does Dr. Dever believe that it is ever necessary (outside of the context of a local church) to separate from professing believers? It may be - after all, perhaps that is part of what the de-funding of the D.C. Convention was about - but I am not sure I have heard him articulate this position and would find this a significant shift from the arguments that Evangelicals were making regarding this concept as little as 10 years ago. (When the mantra often seemed to be - "No. That only applies to laziness.")

3. It is also during this part of the interview that Dr. Minnick is given the opportunity to define Fundamentalism and gives the definition that I mentioned on my last post:

A Fundamentalist is a person who believes the essentials of the Christian faith and believes that they are also the essentials for fellowship and cooperation - particularly spiritual cooperation.

I appreciated this definition from Dr. Minnick. While I may have opted for a little more militancy in my definition of Fundamentalism (perhaps more along the lines of Curtis Lee Laws' - "those who hold to the great fundamentals and mean to do battle royal for the faith." ), I like the fact that this definition keeps a focus on two of the key aspects of Fundamentalism - the insistence on orthodoxy and the importance of limiting fellowship to those who are also orthodox.

4. It is also during this first section where Dr. Dever comments that Dr. Minnick is advocate of "what we might call a ‘deliberate Christian' or ‘deliberate cooperation'" (a play off of Dr. Dever's book The Deliberate Church.

5. Dr. Dever also mentions that he had read Dr. McCune's book - Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism - and found himself agreeing with much of his critique of Evangelicalism. He also stated he found himself only in "mixed agreement" with what Dr. McCune positively advocated. I would love to have seen some follow-up at that point - what areas of what Dr. McCune advocated was he in agreement with and what areas was he in disagreement with and what areas was he unsure. (Again, perhaps this will be covered in a follow-up interview with Dr. McCune :) ).

6. Dr. Dever then asked for a "quick tour" of Fundamentalism as a whole, since listeners will know "different parts of the elephant." While Dr. Minnick was correct in identifying the fact that Fundamentalism is not monolithic, I felt that this is one of the areas where he could have been much more clear in indicating that much of what he called "sectarian Fundamentalism" is repudiated by mainstream Fundamentalism and has ceased to be "Fundamentalism" due to its leaving of orthodoxy on issues such as its pragmatic soteriology and radical views on inspiration.

7. In this section, Dr. Minnick also responds (in response to a question regarding Hyles, etc.):

The fact is that in terms of the practicalities of cooperation and association they just don't intersect much. In some cases it isn't really a studied issue where they came to a definite determination at this point in time we no longer will interact with each other.

While there is probably truth to that for some Fundamentalists. The problem with this is that there SHOULD BE a definite determination that we will no longer interact with this type of "so-called" fundamentalist.

8. In the end of this section, Dr. Minnick points out that the question is laid out in the title of a book by Iain Murray based on a sermon that was preached at Grace Community Church - "Unresolved Controversy - Unity with Non-Evangelicals."

Dr. Minnick comments that

That was the issue that divided the Evangelical world 60 years ago. The Fundamentalism that I am familiar with took the position that that controversy is resolved in the Bible and "No. You ought not for spiritual purpose fellowship with and cooperate with non-evangelicals."

Since I see that this is getting long, I will stop here for tonight. (Besides it is past my bed time.)

Anyway, these are just some thoughts,

Frank

Some quick thoughts on the Minnick interview

I finally got a good chance to actually listen to the 9Marks interview of Dr. Mark Minnick by Dr. Mark Dever. My home computer had some difficulty playing the file and I had not had a chance to download it on to my laptop so that I could listen to the interview properly.

I am working on more specific comments and evaluation, but I will make a couple of quick ones to start off.

First, I think that the conversation between Don Johnson, Greg Linscott and Andy Efting over at an oxgoad, eh is worth the read because I agree with part of what each of these guys have said.

I recognize that being in a situation of being interviewed like this is probably an uncomfortable situation. I know that I would probably feel uncomfortable and as I listened to the interview, I felt that Dr. Minnick was a little uncomfortable as well - especially for the first half-hour or so.

I also agree with Andy that the interview got cut off at the time that it was finally getting interesting.

I thought Minnick's definition of Fundamentalism was pretty good. "A Fundamentalist is a person who believes the essentials of the Christian faith and believes that they are also the essentials for fellowship and cooperation."

I think that Dr. Minnick did a pretty good job with the Galatians 2 passage, but I am not sure how much of it Dr. Dever understood.

I would have liked for the distinctions to be drawn more clearly. Although both men were clear there were differences, it seemed to me that the differences were negligible - even though I know that the are real differences between the positions of the two men.

I thought it was interesting how little Dr. Dever knew about Fundamentalism. He seems to be genuinely interested in learning about Fundamentalism - as though he has very little interaction with it or thoughts about it until recently.

I hope to have a more detailed analysis tomorrow.

One last thing. I wanted to create a transcript of the interview - or at least of relevant parts - so that I could think through it and analyze it more accurately. In order to do so, I used Express Scribe and at times reduced the speed pretty strongly so that I could type without having to rewind as much. The effect of doing that was that at times it sounded like two drunks discussing theology - it struck me as kind of funny.

Just my (initial) thoughts,

Frank

Mark Minnick Interview available at 9Marks

Many of my readers will be familiar with both Dr. Mark Minnick and Dr. Mark Dever. The latest audio from Mark Dever's 9Marks ministry features an interview by Dr. Dever of Dr. Minnick.

The audio can be found here.

The Audio is titled "Fundamentalism and Separation with Mark Minnick" with a note that reads "Pastor and Bob Jones University professor Mark Minnick presents the case for the Fundamentalist doctrine of separation."

I have only listened to the first few moments so far, but early on Dr. Dever comments on that while there is a lot of agreement on many aspects, there is a clear disagreement over the issue of separation. I am looking forward to listening to this and seeing how Dr. Minnick presents the case for separation.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the individuals in question, here is a quick bio.

Dr. Mark Minnick is the Pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina. He is also a professor at Bob Jones University. I had Dr. Minnick for a few classes during my days at BJU and I also attended Mt. Calvary for a couple of years while I was an undergraduate student.

Dr. Mark Dever is the Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.. He is also the author of a book entitled "9 Marks of a Healthy Church" and a few other books. He is a leader in the conservative branch of the S.B.C. - having lead the fight to de-fund the D.C. Convention due to its liberalness.

As I have already indicated. They differ on the issue of separation and they know they differ on this issue, so I am looking forward to a good discussion of the issue from these two men.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

HT: Andy Naselli

Prayer Request

In much of Fundamentalism (including the church where I serve as Pastor), tonight - Wednesday night - is prayer meeting. I should have posted this earlier so that it could be included in prayer bulletins, since many of those have already been printed by now (depending on where you are located).

Pastor Mark Franklin, who is the Pastor of Hardingville Bible Church in Monroeville, New Jersey, is undergoing lung surgery tomorrow (Thursday, May 15) to remove a cancerous mass in his lung (among other things). Pastor Franklin is a friend and mentor of mine and a great asset to Christianity and Fundamentalism. I had the privilege of serving as his assistant for over five years and I learned much from him.

I would appreciate your prayers for Pastor Franklin and his family as he prepares for and undergoes this surgery tomorrow. (I am sure Pastor Franklin and his family would appreciate the prayers as well.)

Just my request,

Frank

Really??

This is a little bit old, but I think it is still relevant. I started writing it in March, but it got saved in draft mode and never finished.

In March, 9 Marks published an e-journal in which the question was asked, "What can we learn from Fundamentalists?"

There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding the articles in that journal and I have basically just watched from afar. (A dear and faithful lady in our church had a very serious stroke around the time the articles came out and we had a number of other things going on at the time of the publishing of the journal.)

At the time, however, I noticed a comment by Ben Wright (aka Paleoevangelical) that I wanted to address, but never completed my post.

Ben wrote an article over at Paleoevanglical regarding Dr. Dave Doran's article in the 9 Marks e-journal.

In the comments on this thread, Ben comments to Bruce:

So Doran seems to be arguing that we can disagree on issues that are not directly tied to the gospel (music, head coverings, the Rapture, etc.) and still have some meaningful level of fellowship together for the gospel. I think that's different from what you (and I) might be used to.

I probably live in an isolated world, but one of the things that I have seen repeatedly running around the internet in the last few years is a memory of some regarding Fundamentalism that just seems strangely distant from the memories of Fundamentalism that I have. I recognize that there are some different streams of Fundamentalism, but I seem to find these divergent memories even from those who are mainly from the same general stream.

For instance, I don't know much regarding paleo ben's background, by my assumption has been that he spent some time at (or even perhaps graduated from) my alma mater or at least from one of its "sister schools" (NBBC, MBBC, etc.). I know that he also was involved in a youth ministry/publishing ministry that I found to be profitable when I was a youth pastor - and whose Leadership Training Course I used and adapted for training our youth leaders. While I do not agree with everything that organization did (and remember my wife and I getting up and leaving at one event that the leader was "performing" at a camp that I like a lot), I think it has been one of the better youth ministry sources available.

However, when I think of those things, it makes it hard to imagine how the statement that I put in block quotes could be accurate. (In fact, it reminds me in some ways of the faulty memories of the Israelites who started to long for the "fleshpots" back in Egypt when things went a little difficult in the wilderness - they "misremembered" the conditions that existed in Egypt before the exodus.)

Mainstream Fundamantalism has always allowed for disagreement on issues not directly tied to the Gospel. For instance, Ben uses the example of head coverings. Come on, Ben. Surely, you are not ignorant of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church where Dr. Mark Minnick serves as Pastor (and where Jesse Boyd, Rod Bell, and Les Olilla served before him) or the Free Presbyterian Church or even BJU up until a decade or so ago. To try to indicate that up until recently Fundamentalism would have viewed head coverings as something to be separated over is implausible and irresponsible.

Are there wacko fringe groups that refer to themselves as Fundamentalist that might make such a thing a matter of separation? Sure. But this discussion was not that it was different from the fringe, but that it was different from the Fundamentalism that Ben and Bruce (Countryman?) were used to.

Therefore, I ask - Really?

Just my thoughts,

Frank

2008 National Leadership Conference

For a number of years, I have attended the National Leadership Conference hosted by Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. I just got back today from the 2008 edition of the National Leadership Conference.

As my normal practice, I plan on writing some articles over the next week or so regarding the NLC, including an overall evaluation and some specific workshops.

However, I am going to start this edition a little bit differently.

I did not get up to the NLC until Wednesday this year, so I asked fellow Pastor and friend Matt Jury to write a report of the opening session for me.

So, without further ado, I present a guest-blog report of the opening session by Pastor Matt Jury.

Tim Jordan preached the opening message of the conference. In his inimitable, fresh, and transparent style, Tim set the tone for the entire conference. His text was Deuteronomy 29.29 and 30.11-14. What follows is a very brief synopsis of the message.

There are many things about God that we do not know. We are often more concerned about the things which God does not reveal than that things which he clearly reveals. We would squabble and separate from each other under the banner of fundamentalism and under the guise of separation. We are more concerned about our labels, which are sometimes misapplied, than we are about the central theme of God's Word, which is what God has chosen to reveal clearly about Himself. Furthermore, we would be
embarrassed to take upon ourselves (ironically in the ministry of Christ) the very label which was applied to Christ. Christ was completely orthodox in His doctrine and teachings, yet the only label which could be placed on Him was that of compromiser because He went where the sinners were to do the Father's will.
Are we willing to be considered a compromiser in the same way?

We ought not be concerned about labels. We ought not be concerned with the preservation of fundamentalism, which is essentially a movement, and all movements are man-made. If we are to live a life that is true, we do not have to go to great
lengths or to the end of the world to determine God's heart and mind. God's Word is truth, and we can do nothing to preserve God's Word. You may rest assured that God will preserve His truth. He will take care of the things which are secret, and He
will take care of the things that He has revealed.

What must we do to preserve truth if God is already preserving His truth? God gave us His Word not so that we would preserve it through defense but through obedience. The only genuine preservation of truth that God desires from us is simply to obey
what He has revealed!

If you purchase only one message or workshop from the entire week, I unreservedly recommend the opening message. I also recommend for those who read this synopsis who are preachers to study this passage and preach it to your congregation or audience at some point in the near future. I intentionally did not include the outline of the message so that you could develop your own thoughts as the Holy Spirit's illumination works in your heart and mind.

May the Lord richly bless the reading of His Word.
Laus Deo (Praise be to God!)
Matt Jury

Thank you, Pastor Jury for your contribution.

Just someone else's thoughts,

Frank

National Leadership Conference 2008 is quickly approaching

As many of you are aware, I try to make it up to the National Leadership Conference hosted by Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary every year and then write up some reports from the conference.

This year's National Leadership Conference is February 26-29 and I finally made my reservations today. It is my intention to follow my normal planning of doing reports from the general sessions and workshops as I have done over the last few years.

I noticed a couple things on the schedule that seem to be an improvement.

1. I like the fact that all of the Ladies Session are being held on one day. This will hopefully allow my wife to be able to come up for the Ladies Sessions on Thursday for the first time. (I usually try to buy the tapes/CDs of the Ladies Sessions for her, but it is not the same as being there - and besides, last year's didn't record properly:) ).

2. I like the fact that they are repeating some of the sessions. I would like to see more of this, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

If you happen to be attending the National Leadership Conference at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, Pennsylvania this year, as well, please look me up. I would love to meet with you.

Oh, yeah. If you would like to look at some my previous reports from past National Leadership Conferences, I think you can find most of them under "Conferences"


Just my thoughts,

Frank