Doran, Minnick & Bauder Discuss Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism

33 thoughts on “Doran, Minnick & Bauder Discuss Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism”

1. Dr. Minnick said, “I think we have been the initiators in general for that kind of thing. And in those talks there are differences that come out on the principial level. So… when those things are there, even though we in some cases have found we’re pretty close, when it comes to the consistency of application, it breaks down. And puts me, I know, in a position, where I would end up giving a very uncertain sound to the people that God has entrusted some responsibility of example to.”

   The uncertain sound is what Dr. Fred Moritz zeroed in on in his FrontLine article A Certain Sound May/June 2010.

   We have men in IFB circles who claim a heritage in and fidelity to the principles of biblical separatism, yet in application there is an obvious loosening standard of practice when it to comes to the evangelicals.

   Legitimate concerns over what had been tolerated at one time in the extremes of Fundamentalism are rivaled and IMO out done by what is common-place among the evangelicals. Acceptance and tolerance for aberrant theology, egregious ecumenical compromise, CCM/Rock culture, Charismatic theology, amillenialism, a host of issues within the SBC.

   Today, to fellowship, convergence and cooperate with evangelicals these issues are being tolerated, allowed for and/or excused by men who claim to stand without change for militancy in separatism.

   LM

   1. I can see where Minnick is coming from. But I think much of the differences can get overblown. Many evangelicals have to make the same kinds of discernment decisions that other fundamentalists do. Many do a better job than fundamentalists. The decisions aren’t always made in a top-down fashion, though. And people don’t necessarily view themselves as better than others who don’t conclude exactly like they do on every point.

2. For what it’s worth in the discussion. I just happened to read this in my study looking for thoughts on Ecc. 11. Charles Swindoll writes in “Living on the Ragged Edge” p. 329 in his discussion about Enjoying Life Now, Not Later. “After all, if there is anybody who ought to represent authenticity, if there is any realm of work that should model a relaxed refreshing lifestyle, where one truly enjoys rather than endures life, seems to me it ought to be the one in ministry. One of my favorite mentors used to say, ‘It’s okay for us to be fundamentalists at heart, just so we don’t start looking like one!'” This is exactly what I think Minnick & Bauder mean. They really don’t want to be like us, but they have no problem with Fundamentalists being like them.

   1. Not sure who “us” is in the last sentence. Was that on purpose? :^) If you’re saying Minnick and Bauder don’t want to be like evangelicals, but have no problem with Fundamentalists being more like Minnick and Bauder, I’m not exactly following. If you’re saying they don’t want to be like true conservative Fundamentalists (for the us), I’m still not following. I don’t want to jump to conclusions too fast.

      Thanks for commenting though. This discussion is worth having.

      1. Sorry for the confusion. Let me fill in the pronouns with proper antecedents.

         This is exactly what I think Minnick & Bauder mean. Evangelicals really don’t want to be like Fundamentalists, but the Evangelicals have no problem with Fundamentalists being like them.

      2. That makes more sense! Okay, perhaps that’s what they mean. I think that some Evangelicals are more like Fundamentalists than either side really knows.

3. This is really quite an amusing discussion. I was raised in IFB–as crazy as it gets. Our sojourn there ended when the untouchable pastor “borrowed” the entire building fund. My spouse was raised IFB on the other side of the country and encountered a similar gaping want of integrity in her home church. We have in fact ministered together in seven IFB churches from one coast to the other, and the same problems have been in all of them. Of course, I realize that men fall, and I even expect it, but in every case, there was never am action taken, even for criminal behavior.
   But that’s not what’s important here. Every IFB pastor we know has firmly believed that his way was the only right way. That only his followers were worthy. That the IFB was a *big deal.* Imagine our delight, then, when we broke from them, and none of the believers in our new congregation had ever even heard of the IFB. What IS Fundamentalism? they ask, with puzzled frowns.
   So boys, maybe they’re not seeking out your position because they really don’t even know you exist…

   1. As I said over on Sharper Iron, where someone was discussing my article here:

      That brings up a good point. The common complaint among the more conservative fundamentalists (where my roots are), is that you have to add a few qualifiers to the fundamentalist label. As in, “old-fashioned, KJV-only, independent” and all that.

      In the mean time, we only give one additional label for our evangelical opponents. We admit some of them are “conservative evangelicals”.

      Maybe labels just don’t work, as Doran says. We should stick to hearing people out rather than judging them before they get out of the starting blocks.

      My beef with some fundamentalists is they act as if everyone in the world should know that all the battles have been fought already, and should just side with them. Meanwhile, people that are fighting to preserve truth in various associations and denominations today, people that are most likely fairly ignorant of those who jettisoned from the movement several decades prior, those people aren’t given any quarter by fundamentalists. Because they aren’t out, because they haven’t cut ties, because they don’t act like fundamentalists (of whom they’re largely ignorant), they are worthy of scorn and public repudiation. Where’s the mutual encouragement and Christian brotherhood?

      That’s a sad testimony, Evesdropper. I’ve only been part of a few IFB churches, with only a few pastors. And a couple of mine have turned out really bad too. God’s grace steps in and condescends to use sinners, I know. But what is it about the IFB movement, especially the more conservative side, that displays so little grace (sometimes), and harbors such scandals? Is it that the very structure of rules-orientation, stressed-authority, man-of-god-ism, weak-consciences, and we-are-the-holy-(and-only)-remnant-mentality????

4. Hey Bob,
   I wouldn’t be surprised at all if all of these men are closet followers of Conservative Evangelical leaders (such as and maybe especially John MacArthur… guys their age), reading all their commentaries and following thier every move but outwardly speak in judgemental fashion of them based upon music, dress standards, and affiliations. They say their goal is to purify fundamentalism but purity in who’s image? Their own? In their own circles they are name droppers who toot their own horns so that they can get big speaking gigs at their own Bible conferences so that they can lift their names up before other “rising” fundamentalists so that they can drop their names. I am, like you, from a Fundamentalist background (and still consider myself a fundamentalist {small “f”}) but I find that a lot of people who call themselves “Fundamentalist leaders” are pompous and out to proclaim their own greatness. If you are not on their level of aclaim they will speak condescending toward you (refrence Dorans answer to Mark Dever). I don’t really need to know what pompous men exclaiming their pompousness are all about, they will answer to the Savior for their pride (as undoubtedly I will as well on that day to my own shame). The further I go though the more I find that all I need to know is Christ and that he was crucified for me. These men would do better getting back to that point instead of discussing how they differ from the “lower cast” of Christians and from each other. 2 Corinthians 10:12b(ESV)But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.

5. Gentlemen,

   When does it become the resposibility of the individual believer to search for, find, and become involved in, a local church that has true biblical theology and an appropriate philosophy of ministry?

   We all seem to want someone or some group to blame for our poor judgement and willingness to blindly follow a man or group of men. For what its worth, I was saved in a very narrow legalistic type of FBC. It did not take long for me to realize that the local church and the man leading it was a problem. I left there and, after much difficulty, found another FBC that was theologi-cally balanced and had a philosophy of ministry that, while not perfect, was godly. I stayed and worked in that local church for decades. There are such churches but it takes hard work to find them.

   What I think I see and hear of often is a persuit of perfection, in terms of a place for me and mine to worship, without a commitment to the difficulties involved in finding and helping maintain such a place. Maybe I’m wrong.

6. Gentlemen,
   Sorry for the sp. “pursuit” “theologically”

   Art Larson

7. “They really don’t want to be like us, but they have no problem with Fundamentalists being like them.”

   They (evangelicals) don’t want to be like us (Fundamentalism) as in loyalty to the God-given mandates for separatism from the unsaved, the world and the disobedient among us. That is those in Fundamentalism who still obey the principles of biblical separation in application.

   LM

8. “ but the Evangelicals have no problem with Fundamentalists being like them.”

   And that is what we are witnessing in the day and age. Men who have a heritage in Fundamentalism are moving toward becoming like the evangelicals in doctrine and practice. It’s NOT the other way around. If we as Fundamentalists were to call on the evangelicals to live in obedience to God’s commands for separatism, to hold them accountable and respond to their disobedience as the Bible commands us to do, they’d have nothing to do with us as it has pretty much been for 50+ years.

   So, who’s moving and changing to accommodate the other? The answer is obvious- and it ain’t the evangelicals

   LM

   1. If a lot of Fundamentalist churches (not all but a lot) were to hold themselves to their own mandate for separation from sin they would have to separate themselves from their own pastors for his sin of arrogance and self righteous pride. As far as churches go they would have to separate from a whole lot of other churches who also have pastors who are equally guilty of arrogance and self righteous pride. This is a scourge of Fundamentalism.

   2. I’ve read and heard things recently that make me doubt it’s really a huge change. I think there have been fundamentalists all along who are willing to extend fellowship in limited ways with evangelicals. But of late, the last couple decades fundamentalism has been shifting away from that history toward a more enclosed, shut-off-from-everyone reality. That is what Doran and Bauder are turning from, and I say “amen”.

9. A few quick thoughts:
   (1) how dreadful to see in printed form how filled with clutter my speech is! Every ah and choked off sentence is a pain to read. (BTW, I believe it should be mat, not map in the comment above, i.e., we have not gone to the mat as in been willing to fight.)
   (2) Joshua C, I think you read your own condenscension into my answer to Mark Dever regarding the invitation. Mark did not think it was and, if you knew him or me, you’d know that open, direct conversation is greatly appreciated by both of us. If I may be blunt, it is really pretty arrogant for you to come on here and think that you can know the hearts of a bunch of people you don’t even know. I don’t think I know a more humble man than Mark Minnick. If you would read the stuff I’ve written regardin these subjects you’d know that I’ve argued that we must not try to force everybody into one particular mold.
   (3) The ultimate issue here is what God’s Word says, not out tradition or heritage supposedly demands. If we are bound by the Bible to withhold or withdraw from fellowship, then we must. If we are not, then the discussion moves the level of permissible vs. impermissible to the level of wise vs. unwise (and the bases for making those decisions involves a lot of factors). Demanding that men follow the tradition of the elders over the Word of God is a serious spiritual failure and a great danger to the health of our churches.

   1. Dr. Doran,

      My brother spent time at your church as an intern (maybe 9 years ago or so) and has great things to say of you. Thanks for dropping by.

      I’ll fix the “map””mat” thing. Sorry for keeping the pauses and “um”s, it doesn’t sound that bad. I just didn’t know where to edit and where not to!

      I agree with what you said in your points 2 and 3 above here. Like my former pastor, John Piper, I think evangelicalism needs fundamentalism and needs to learn from them/us. I still consider myself a fundamentalist although I find myself outside the “movement” currently. Standing for truth happens among many who don’t take the name fundamentalist. I really appreciated your Romans 16 message that I listened to from the Preserving the Truth Conference, too.

      Blessings in Christ,

      Bob Hayton

   2. Dr. Doran,
      In general my experience within Fundamentalism (Bible Conferences, at Christian College, even in Evangelistic meetings) is that the people who are in leadership, hold degrees and advanced degrees from “acceptable” institutions, and are movers and shakers are often condescending toward those who are not. This is not only the case with the leaders however; I have found that this spirit of condescension is even rampant with people educated in Fundamentalist institutions. Even among current undergrad students from “acceptable” institutions there is a definite and palpable condescension. (I have experience it, I know what I am talking about) Perhaps that burr in my saddle was in the back of my mind when reading the panel discussion.

      As for my Arrogance, The Lord knows I struggle with pride in my life andit is a life long struggle that the Lord is dealing with me on. I fight to subdue this sin and one day I will answer for this before the Lord for my actions. Just for a clarification on my part, in my second comment above, I was speaking less toward the men or the matter of the panel discussion but instead in response to the previous comment by Lou Martuneac. There is a level of pride in Fundamentalism that is frightening. Perhaps my arrogance makes me a hypocrite in speaking against pride.(a shoemaker recognizes shoes).

      I apologize for reading condescension into your answer. This was wrong of me thank you for clarifying that there is an understanding. I don’t know your heart or your relationship to Rev Dever, and as such I spoke hastily.

      1. Joshua,

         Thank you for a gracious response. I don’t disagree with you that pride drives a lot of what happens within any particular grouping of people. As I told a friend of mine who is being regularly vilified by some folks (even “present company”), my view of depravity inclines me to think that we’re all only a step away from making serious mistakes, so we ought all to be very careful. I suppose for the semi-pelagian among us, a certain arrogance and self-confidence comes with (causes?) the false doctrine!

         Of to spend some time with my wife while my youngest two sons are away at winter camp. You all have fun and play nice!

10. “Demanding that men follow the tradition of the elders over the Word of God is a serious spiritual failure and a great danger to the health of our churches.”

    Yes, it is! And when men who claim to be loyal and militant toward the biblical separatism found in the Word of God will allow for, tolerate and excuse ecumenical compromise, aberrant theology and CCM/Rock culture all of which is highly evident among evangelicals, including the so-called “conservatives,” that is likewise a “serious spiritual failure and great danger to the health of our churches,” college and seminaries whose leadership reaches out to, hosts and puts these same evangelicals in the pulpit of a separatist church/school.

    LM

11. revising above to, “…whose leadership reaches out to, hosts and puts these same non-separatist evangelicals in the pulpit of a separatist church/school.”

    LM

12. Just getting back from a Bible Study this morning. A lot to respond to. First off, Joshua C. I’d beware of judging the motives of these men. I am happy to see a willingness to explore new boundaries and judge people on different categories. I see positive growth in many sectors of fundamentalism. Yes there may be a pride there, but it is as easy to be found in us, too. I do think these men take their responsibility seriously when it comes to their being called to shepherd their own local churches. This little section I quoted doesn’t show the whole picture, and I think all the men involved here are models of humble Christian, thinking fundamentalists, who carefully shepherd their flocks. That’s not to say I agree with all their choices and decisions, but I respect what I know of them.

13. Art said: “There are such churches but it takes hard work to find them.”

    Yes! And I want to be careful to say, the answer for people trying to “reform fundamentalism”, is not necessarily to jump ship. Sometimes that is warranted, but often staying where you are and working for growth and change is a better solution. You have to wait on God for the answer for how to respond in your own case.

14. Bob, Sorry for muddling up your comment section.

    1. No problem, Joshua. That problem certainly exists. And it is a tendency but it can be larger than just a fundamentalist tendency. The guys in this particular panel aren’t really that type, however, in my humble opinion. And I struggle with pride like anyone.

       I’m going to be celebrating my middle child’s fifth birthday today, so I won’t be checking back as often either.

       Blessing to all,

       Bob

15. Pingback: True Fundamentalists and the Pretenders « Fundamentally Reformed
16. Pingback: True Fundamentalists and the Pretenders | re:Fundamentals

17. Josh C & all,

    I’m very late to the party here and don’t have much to contribute, but I want to say that I was in the room when the conversation between DMD and MD took place, and there was not a hint of condescension on DMD’s part. I’d characterize it as thoughtful, principled, and perhaps even a bit reluctant. I’ll let DMD distance himself from the reluctance if he wants. 😉

    Josh, I’ve experienced the condescension of which you speak. If you are who I think you are, we’ve brushed shoulders with it, and I know I’ve heard it in various audio pieces posted on SI over the years. Good grief, I’ve brought far too much of that condescension to the table myself! But it’s certainly not unique to the world from which we’ve come. A certain video conversation posted at the Gospel Coalition site comes immediately to mind, as do a couple other evangelical encounters from my years in the middle of that world. Still, those were very few and far between. I could make a list as long as my arm of my experiences to the contrary. Familiar names. DMD may wish I wouldn’t say this, but he has far more in common with them on many levels than with the folks you have in mind.

18. @b.w., Not sure if I am who you think I am but I am certain from your comment that you understand my frustration with the condescention and arrogance. Dr Doran probably did say it best in his statement, “…my view of depravity inclines me to think that we’re all only a step away from making serious mistakes, so we ought all to be very careful. I suppose for the semi-pelagian among us, a certain arrogance and self-confidence comes with (causes?) the false doctrine!” The Bible is clear on the matter, 1 Corinthians 10:12(KJV) “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Fundamentalists who stand injudgement should take the words of James 5:9 (KJV) “Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.”

19. Pingback: Conservative Evangelicals by Kevin Bauder « DRTIMWHITE.COM

20. I really appreciated these postings. I frankly feel that the movement of Fundamentalism is dead, though its foundational principles of separation are both biblical and very alive in our day.

    Obviously, many Conservative Evangelicals are wondering what to do in some of the circumstances in which they find themselves. What is the proper response to mixed and confused stances. Just look at the postings after Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration for evidence on that. Let us pray for one another for the sake of Christ.

    I also think that Dever’s refusal to remove himself after all of the discussion and arguments over his church’s association is telling. To say that it is not theologically supporting the group seems to me a bit odd, seeing that this group is not a social club; it is an ecclesiastical group, isn’t it?

    Also, I do find that they want to tie Fundamentalism directly the skirts of Dispensationalism. For example, I have been to more than one conference where they make dispensationalism to be almost a hallmark of Fundamentalism. For example, Dr. Snoeberger’s postulation that the postponed kingdom theory is “a Raison d’etre.” Really, this is fundamentalism’s reason for continuing to exist? Good riddance,then!

    And for another thing, which I hope that others did not find tripe, they will allow for two gospels. For example, Mike Harding presented the old dispensational view of two gospels: the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the New Covenant…oops forgot one can’t say that, for it is only to Israel. I find that these ideas are rank, and I hope that they are shed soon.

    This is nothing personal. I think highly of both of these men mentioned above. But if this continues, regardless of the eloquence of men like Bauder, Minnick, or Doran, the ranks of Fundamentalism will shrink, and it will not be solely due to encroachments of Conservative Evangelicalism.

    Having said all of that, I am in essential agreement with Doran on many issues. I like his reasoning, and I think that there is much wisdom is trying to see where things are at and not look to old labels that may or may not have lost their meaning.

    Thank you. And I hope that I have not offended too many. That is not what I want.

    1. Timothy,

       Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You bring up some great points. It is a difficult matter isn’t it? It requires discernment and judgement. And a right spirit too. The “you’re not one of us” mantra just doesn’t cut it anymore.

       I too feel that the best segments of fundamentalism today are too pro-dispensationalism (especially of the Ryrie variety), to my liking. It seems you don’t have to label the movement fundamentalism, if you’re just all about being the last group to advocate for a more classical variety of dispensationalism…..

       Feel welcome to participate around here without fear of offending people. I think the more input the better for all involved.

       Blessings in Christ,

       Bob Hayton

21. Pingback: Excerpts from David C. Bennett, “The Fundamentalist & Biblical Separation” « Christians United Against Apostasy

Comments are closed.