Kevin Bauder’s Eight Characteristics of Hyper-Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton

A new book forthcoming from Zondervan includes a chapter from Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. I won’t talk about the book other than to mention its title, and that it is worth getting! The book is Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Collin Hansen and Andrew Naselli.

I’m still only about half-way through a galley copy of this book, but my eyes lit up when I came across Bauder’s characteristics of hyper-fundamentalism. I think he has captured lightning in a bottle with this list of descriptors, since for a very long time I’ve struggled to pinpoint the cross-over line from reasonable fundamentalism to fundamentalism run wild.

I just have to share Bauder’s eight characteristics of hyper-fundamentalism with you, but I strongly encourage you to get the book and read his entire essay. This quotation is from a pre-published version of the book so it may diverge in part from the final published product.

————————

First, hyper-fundamentalists often understand fundamentalism in terms of loyalty to an organization, movement, or even leader. They equate the defense of the faith with the prosperity of their organization or its leader. Someone who criticizes or contradicts it is subjected to censure or separation.

Second, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes adopt a militant stance regarding some extrabiblical or even antibiblical teaching. [He sites KJV-onlyism as an example.] …When individuals become militant over such nonbiblical teachings, they cross the line into hyper-fundamentalism.

Third, hyper-fundamentlists understand separation in terms of guilt by association. To associate with someone who holds any error constitutes an endorsement of that error….

Fourth, hyper-fundamentalists are marked by an inability to receive criticism. For them, questioning implies weakness or compromise. Any criticism — especially if it is offered publicly — constitutes an attack….

A fifth characteristic of hyper-fundamentalism is anti-intellectualism. Some hyper-fundamentalists view education as detrimental to spiritual well-being…. Colleges, when they exist, are strictly for the purpose of practical training.

Sixth, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes turn nonessentials into tests of fundamentalism. For example, some hyper-fundamentalists assume that only Baptists should be recognized as fundamentalists…. One’s fundamentalist standing may be judged by such criteria as hair length, musical preferences, and whether one allows women to wear trousers.

Seventh, hyper-fundamentalists occasionally treat militant political involvement as a criterion for fundamentalist standing. During the 1960s and 1970s, anticommunism was a definitive factor for some fundamentalists. Its place has now been taken by antiabortion and antihomosexual activism. Most fundamentalists do agree about these issues, but hyper-fundamentalists make militant activism a necessary obligation of the Christian faith.

Eight and last, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes hold a double standard for personal ethics. They see themselves engaged in an ecclesiastical war, and they reason that some things are permissible in a warfare that would not be permissible in ordinary life. They may employ name-calling, half-truths, and innuendo as legitimate weapons. They may excuse broken promises and political backstabbing.

Hyper-fundamentalism takes many forms, including some that I have not listed. Nevertheless, these are the forms that are most frequently encountered. When a version of fundamentalism bears one or more of these marks, it should be viewed as hyper-fundamentalist…

Hyper-fundamentalism is not fundamentalism. It is as a parasite on the fundamentalist movement. For many years it was simply a nuisance, largely ignored by mainstream fundamentalists. Ignoring the problem, however, permitted it to grow. While statistics are not available, hyper-fundamentalists now constitute a significant percentage of self-identified fundamentalists, perhaps even a majority. They have become the noisiest and often the most visible representatives of fundamentalism. They may be the only version of fundamentalism that many people ever see.

–Excerpted from Kevin Bauder’s chapter on Fundamentalism, in Four Views of the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2011).

————————

Let me know what you think. Doesn’t Bauder nail it with this description? I think so.

72 thoughts on “Kevin Bauder’s Eight Characteristics of Hyper-Fundamentalism”

  1. You could throw in list-based sanctification (or legalism) too!

    The scary thing is this: “constitute a significant percentage of self-identified fundamentalists, perhaps even a majority”.

    I think that is is over 75%

    1. Jim Peet and I came from the same group of militant fundamentalists several years ago… It distresses me that we can’t use the fundamentalist title anymore without being connected to those hyper-fundamentalists.

      In our group, # 3 above, referred to as “primary” and “secondary” separation (i.e., guilt by association) was determined to be the sine qua non of fundamentalism.

      1. That certainly is how the separation that I was taught feels. It ends up as guilt by association, and almost any interaction with those on the outside pollutes you and renders you a fundamentalist in name only or worse, a compromiser!

    2. @Jim,
      you say “…can’t use the fundamentalist title anymore without being connected to those hyper-fundamentalists.”

      BINGO!

      1. At the same time, such a connection, as problematic as it might be in some ways, also places you in a certain context. Illustration: being an “American” connects you to mom and apple pie, but it also connects you to Barack Obama and fast food in the perception of the global community. Is the answer to abandon the title? Or does even one’s connection as a citizen to a president with whose agenda we might disagree with on many points actually help to flesh out what it means to be a part of the United States of America?

        Yes, some- perhaps even “most”- have corrupted what it means to be a Fundamentalist. But really, all contexts have similar challenges to one degree or another. Al Mohler is in this book. As well-spoken and prominent as he is, his perspectives are not universally indicative of Evangelicalism or even the SBC in its entirety. As successful as the Conservative Resurgence has been, there are still influences and practices that, at the very least, would not be reflective of a “Confessional Evangelical” approach to ministry.

        None of us live in a vacuum. Distancing yourself from a label will not completely de-connect you from the influences and context that helped shape your sensibilities and approach to ministry.

      2. @Greg L
        well, from time to time the Navy (or other vessel owners) will rechristen a ship. You aren’t abandoning ship by putting a fresh placard on the bow (or stern).

  2. Bob,

    This is very insightful. Thanks for printing the list. If Dr. Bauder is correct that hyper-fundamentalism may well represent a majority of self-identified fundamentalists, is there any hope for the movement?

    Warm regards,
    Greg Barkman

  3. Jim Peet mentioned “list-based sanctification (or legalism)” as something to add to the list, and I’d second his motion.

    I also agree with Kevin Bauder’s assessment that the hyper-fundamentalism does represent the majority of fundamentalism. But enrollment in H-F colleges is on the decline (thankfully), and the internet is helping in the demise of the worst kinds of Hyper-fundamentalism (I hope and think).

    It’s scary but things are getting better (I trust).

  4. Re: List-based sanctification- I understand the point, but I think that concern generally overlaps and would be included in Kevin’s 8 points (perhaps most particularly in his sixth as provided here). While I believe I understand the aversion to certain lists, there are places in Scripture where one might find legitimate criteria we can use to evaluate our personal spiritual development, and even to some degree, at least, that of others (say, using scriptural criteria in evaluating the fitness of an individual to serve as a bishop/elder/pastor or deacon).

  5. How can these be ‘characteristic’ if bearing only one of these marks makes you a hyper-fundamentalist? How are these ‘characteristics’ really ‘characteristic’ when the words ‘often’, ‘sometimes’, ‘occasionally’, and ‘some’ are used in 6 out of 8?

    When something is characteristic, you find those characters or a vast majority of those characters always present in the thing you are describing.

    The fact is that there is a group of people of whom 80% or more of these marks are identifiable. That would make them characteristic of that group, whatever you might call it. I am not sure hyper-fundamentalist is the best term. In any case, those to whom the term could apply have all or almost all of these ‘characteristics’. So when Kevin concludes:

    “When a version of fundamentalism bears one or more of these marks, it should be viewed as hyper-fundamentalist…”

    That is just baloney. I suppose that he might call a platypus a duck because it has a bill. It would amount to the same thing as he asserts here, and I suspect he means to include ANYONE who is KJO as a hyper-fundamentalist. To which I would say, baloney.

    Maranatha!
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  6. I suspect he means to include ANYONE who is KJO as a hyper-fundamentalist. To which I would say, baloney.

    Don,

    Okay. Why?

  7. Don,

    He specifically mentions being militant over a non-biblical position. So people who prefer the KJV, even with strong convictions, who nevertheless remain non-militant in their stance on that question and who don’t make one’s view of the KJV as a mark of being a legitimate fundamentalist or not (the 6th characteristic), they would not be hyper-fundamentalist. I know several who are KJV only who would probably not be hyper-fundamentalist.

    Also, one rarely finds just one characteristic in a hyper-fundamentalist, but each of these are so egregious that I would side with Bauder and say just one of these makes you a hyper-fundamentalist.

    1. Just like one never finds all of fundamentalists supposed problems with evangelicalism summed up into one person. People and movements are complex. General statements can be made as long as everyone knows the statements are just that: general. That’s what Dr. Bauder has done here.

      If I wrote several characteristics of dogs. I’m sure the Don Johnson of dogs would come in and point out that cats have four legs and a tail too.

  8. Bob,

    Pre-order book on Kindle, check. There, now you don’t have to feel bad about spoiling it for us and hurting sales 🙂

    I would like to read Mohler’s response to Bauder, but if I were him I’d point out that how can you have Hyper-Fundamentalism distinct from Fundamentalism if the Hyper portion is a majority? I don’t think that a majority of Calvinists are Hyper-Calvinists, do you? Maybe we should call non-Hyper-Fundamentalism something else? I propose “Liberal Fundamentalism” . . . .err . . . we may have to work on that.

    Shayne

  10. Good points, Shayne. And that is why I have no qualms with not keeping the fundamentalist label in reference to myself and the church we are at. I think Bauder and others are trying to distance their wing of fundamentalism from the H-F wing. But will they be successful enough?

    None of the responders really latched onto your argument about the hyper fundies representing the whole movement. That would be an easy argument but it might not be fair. And the exchange was much more pleasant than if Al or one of the other contributors would have taken Kevin to task. They each applauded him for trying to distance himself from the hyper crowd.

    Glad you ordered, I feel guilty giving extended quotes even on a blog sometimes. But it is helping the book gain publicity so I think it’s okay….

    2. So I have the book on Kindle now and am reading through it. It seems that while Mohler doesn’t use the criticism I mentioned, Stackhouse did.

  11. Pingback: KJV Only Debate Blog » Is It Possible to Be King James Only and Not Be Militant about It?

  12. I read Kevin Bauder. I like reading what he writes. He is thought provoking and interesting. I agree with him on a lot. However, based on his own writing, if Bob is accurately representing or quoting him correctly, Kevin Bauder is in fact a hyper-fundamentalist. He only needs to share one of his eight characteristics, and this group here should be honest about their thinking about Kevin Bauder. He is a hyper-fundamentalist based on his own standard. He, therefore, of course, is also a parasite. Yum.

    Why? Read this— http://sharperiron.org/article/reflections-after-encounter-considering-current-situation-of-fundamentalism-and-evangelicali —from Bauder. He writes: “I have come to believe that issues of imagination, affection, and culture are extremely important, even crucial. I think that these issues are amply addressed by biblical principle.” Bauder is asked by Dever if rap music is a sin. He answers, “Yes.”

    Bauder is characterized, therefore, according to most of Bob’s crowd here, and probably a majority at SI, as violating his #2 above, so there’s one, which is enough. Most to almost all here would also call that a non-essential, so he breaks #6 with that. And as far as the ability to handle criticism. Watch Bauder when he is criticized at SI. It almost never goes very well. I mean, I don’t care if he’s the way he is. But he does the things that he mentions in his own eight standards. So in mentioning these eight and breaking three of them, I see Bauder as a hypocrite and a parasite. Ouch! That makes me sound like a fundamentalist. But he says you only have to have ONE of them to by hyper. So Bauder is hyper by his own standard.

    You can’t pick and choose the things that you are going to say are extra biblical and non-essential. We don’t get to make up our own rules. I’m KJVO because I see the Bible does teach perfect preservation and so it is the only logical position I’m left with, the same one that most Christians took for hundreds of years after the printing press. And second, I believe women shouldn’t wear pants because of Deuteronomy 22:5 and my position has a long standing historical basis, much longer than the modern position. Of course, I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist, so I don’t want to be hyper or just ordinary. It doesn’t matter at all to me. But he pins hyper on the ones he wants, like a fundamentalist pope and calls them parasites. I don’t think he should get to do that, even to get along with Al Mohler.

    My take folks. Enjoy.

    1. But he doesn’t place issues of culture as top-order doctrines, so he may not cooperate on some levels, but he wouldn’t withhold all fellowship based on that issue. His stance isn’t “militant” but it is a stand. From my interactions with him he doesn’t claim that fundamentalism lives and dies on his conservative worship ideal. So he doesn’t elevate it to a hard separation issue. I think most at SI will disagree with your take on Bauder’s ability to handle criticism, too.

      You bring up some good points, and I’m sure Bauder considers this too, but at the end of the day there is a wide difference between Bauder’s handling of these issues and how hyper-fundamentalists handle them. Of course this is all an assessment and people are free to disagree with my take and with Bauder’s.

      1. The terminology was “extremely important, even crucial” and a “sin” if you rap or use rap. And then he writes:

        “Nor is the problem simply about music. In a sense, the problem concerns the totality of ways in which we think and speak about God and the world.”

        Bauder connects music to the way we think and speak about God, so it is theological with him. I happen to agree with Bauder on all of this. I would be in almost lock-step with these statements. I and my church actually practice them. This might differentiate me from Bauder, though I agree with what he says, his ideal here.

        I notice that you say “withhold all fellowship.” Well, that depends on what he means by fellowship. And then “all.” Could he sit down and talk with someone who uses rock music in the service? Yes. Could I? Yes. Would they participate in a joint ministry? No. And that’s exactly where I would be. So he does make it a separating issue, and that’s what we’re talking about here. I think you would find that Bauder is militant about this, especially as he would define militant.

        The argument about criticism does show how subjective that is, and yet is included as one of the eight that make one hyper, and it only takes one to be hyper. I’m not going to try to document it here about him, because he doesn’t bother me.

      1. D4,

        My reading of Doran and Bauder running up to Lansdale was that this was officially not fellowship because it was first an academic setting, so different rules applied (ones I didn’t make up), and then, second, it was a necessary “conversation,” not fellowship, because we need a good kind of dialogue to understand the other side. Others argued against it, but they were definitely attempting to differentiate from fellowship or a violation of biblical separation.

        If Lansdale used rock or rap, would Bauder go there? You’re saying, “yes,” it seems.

        MarkO, we’ll make an exception for your wife’s flip-flops. Don’t dig any deeper into her wardrobe though.

      2. They described it, if I recall as limited fellowship–with which I am fine. My point was he doesn’t strictly separate on disagreements in that arena. It was a form of partnership or joint participation. Lansdale (the church) uses some pop and rock, even if they “tone it down”. I do have to concede that it was a seminary function, not church.

        (Hope this reply shows up in order. Not sure how this system works)

  13. In the wake of the recent public antipathy to “lists,” my wife and I have taken up a mantra at our house, and it is this. “The list is not the problem!” Of course our home is full of lists–the Overly lists. For me to live any differently would be a violiation of my conscience (or my wife’s). Obviously if the lists become my standard for your righteousness this would be wrong (unless you were living in my house), but there is also signifcant spiritual danger in the “no list” crowd. It reminds me a little of the “no creed but the Bible” slogan from years gone by. A little confessionalism has helped rescue more than one church from spiritual disaster–thank the Lord for a few lists anyway.

      1. Actually having the proper context is sorely needed on both sides. I have recently seen people reacting against “the lists” devolving into what amounts to practical antinomianism.

  14. Can part of a movement be a parasite and in the majority? I think someone else alluded to this. Aren’t parasites generally much smaller than their hosts? If in fact hypers are in the majority and no longer really parasites, perhaps they are no longer hyper as mainstream. In that case the term can be abandoned by those who recognize the necessity of biblical unity alongside biblical separation. I have suggested elsewhere that the term be left to the hypers, revivalists, and “revilealists.”

    1. The point you make is understandable. But there are many other labels that people do not surrender because they believe in the idea(s) attached to it, even when others corrupt the attachment. “Baptist” and “Christian” come immediately to mind.

      Kevin believes in the idea. I think his hope, to some degree, is that even in churches where the “parasite” dominates the scene, some believers will understand or recall what genuine Fundamentalism is (and isn’t). It may be hopeless, but I (personally) think the idea remains valid, so I don’t surrender the label to those who would take it but abandon or corrupt the idea- if for no other reason than I haven’t yet found a better way to quickly distinguish and define where I stand in the spectrum.

  15. Maybe there ought to be a “Counterpoints” series on “Evaluating the Spectrum of Fundamentalism.” There may be more than just four views on this though.

  16. Bauder is a provocative writer. I also believe in perfect preservation because I believe the Bible teaches such a position. So, I am a self-declared “hyper” on Bauder’s scale.

    It is interesting that he defines a hyper-fundamentalists as people who “sometimes adopt a militant stance regarding some extrabiblical or even antibiblical teaching” and uses the example of KJVO.

    Not only is Bauder out of step with the majority of current declared Fundamentalists but he is ignoring the history of the Fundamentalist tradition that he comes from. This tradition were militant in their defence of the KJV. For instance, the annual Congress on Fundamentalism held at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on October 22-29, 1978 passed the following resolution signed by FBF President Dr Rod Bell, Dr Gilbert Stenholm of BJU, Dr. Arno Weniger, Jnr. of Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Dr Ian Paisley, and Dr Bob Jones Jr.,

    “That we recommend the use and distribution of only the King James Version of the Bible in English and only those foreign language versions and translations which have been faithfully translated by those committed to the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scripture.”

    The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) that Bauder belongs to used to stand unequivocally against all Bible versions produced by liberals. In their 1984 Resolutions they state,

    “We condemn paraphrases such as The Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man and the products of unbelieving and liberal scholarship such as the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible. We deplore the rash of new versions which add to or delete from the Word of God, such as the New International Version, with special reference to those so-called “revisions” which by footnote additions undermine the text. We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version, providentially preserved by God in the English-speaking world.”

    Bauder is either ignorant of the history of the Fundamentalist tradition he claims to represent or he is deliberately misleading people to earn kudos with the Mohler crowd. It is true that the anti-KJVO wing as made inroads into modern Fundamentalism promoted by men like Bob Jones III and Bauder, but it was not part of the tradition I grew up in. How can Bauder say that KJVO is hyperfundamentalist when the founder of the ICCC Dr Carl McIntire and the joint founder of the World Congress of Fundamentalists, Dr Ian Paisley both hold militantly to a KJVO position. For instance, Ian Paisley argues in his book “My Plea for The Old Sword,”

    “I believe the Authorised Version preserves the Word of God for me in the English tongue and that it contains no errors.”

    “There is no such thing as verbal Revelation without verbal Inspiration and there is no such thing as verbal Inspiration without verbal Preservation. In all cases it is not partial but plenary i.e. full, complete, perfect.”

    Would Bauder regard such statements as “militant?”

    1. PS,

      You need to go back before 1978 to see the fundamentalist history. Schools like Tennessee Temple (Lee Roberson) and Midwestern Baptist College (Tom Malone) were not KJV Only in the 1970s. Hyles-Anderson wasn’t either. They became KJV Only as the movement picked up steam. John R. Rice was never KJV Only and resisted it to his dying day. Fundamentalists used the A.S.V. and they used the R.V., Spurgeon and Torrey did, too.

      The KJV Only position has a great deal of pedigree now, for sure. But it wasn’t always the default position of fundamentalism (as some claim it should be). I find it sad how at Hyles Anderson, you went from Hyles being receptive to joining the NKJV translation committee (until he learned that Falwell would be on the committee), to Hyles dubbing himself as the Defender of the KJV, to the Hyles devotees casting suspicion on Jack Schaap’s true credentials when it comes to the KJV. You just see a group of people becoming ever more extreme in their view of translations.

    2. @PSF
      Did Fundamentalism begin in 1978?

      seems to me I recall a set of books called The Fundamentals published somewhere around 1910ish. ummm, these 1910ish docs don’t affirm the KJV as one of the “5 fundamentals” of Christian doctrine. wonder why?

  17. Not only is Bauder out of step with the majority of current declared Fundamentalists but he is ignoring the history of the Fundamentalist tradition that he comes from.

    Actually, PSFerguson, Bauder’s most immediate roots are in the GARBC. There have been notable KJV proponents in that group, but certainly that has not been definitive of the whole at any point in its history.

    And whatever else you might have as differences in how you and he interpret history, I can assure you that both through his study and personal experience, Kevin Bauder is not ignorant of the Fundamentalist tradition. Also, FWIW, Kevin, when given the opportunity in public ministry, generally chooses to continue to use the KJV. Look his messages up at Sermon Audio and listen to what version he reads from. Fourth Baptist, where he belongs, now uses a modern version (NKJV). That is not what Kevin uses when he teaches or preaches there.

  18. Hi Greg, my point is not what Bauder’s personal conviction is. He may be all that you say. There are many things I agree with him in his writing in areas such as music and separation. He is certainly a talented writer.

    My concern is that he is misrepresenting the historic separatist tradition. I suspect he is doing it deliberately. The Textual question is one that historically divides Neo-Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. Just read the exchanges over the RSV!

    Now, I accept the clear line of demarcation has changed on this issue, as well as others such as music. But lets not rewrite history to suit the agenda of courting friendship with the Al Mohlers of this world.

    1. He is not misrepresenting. I have seen, for example, personal correspondence in Bauder’s possession from David Otis Fuller from his earlier ministry years essentially affirming and endorsing the ASV. The citations you provide in your reply demonstrate that some have made that an important issue, yes- but even the men you cite (such as those in the WCF) have not consistently made it a line of definition and demarcation (BJU’s Greek department, to my knowledge, has been very eclectic for years, as I understand it). Though Fuller was very influential in the GARBC for years, they never adopted an exclusive KJV position, even though some suggested it. History is not being re-written- you’re interpreting details to suit your agenda.

      Kevin isn’t arguing that Fundamentalist churches have not historically employed (by and large) the KJV as their standard text. Essentially (though not a directly major point of his), he is arguing that someone’s affirmation of another version as the Word of God did not disqualify an individual from an accurate Fundamentalist identification.

  19. Greg – No one is disputing that there were not eclectic views lurking around Fundamentalism such as John R. Rice or BJU’s NT Greek Department. However, these were definitely in the minority and not embraced as mainstream Fundamentalism. They were regarded as deviations from the norm – not the commonly held view. Even Bob Jones Jr was happy to put his name to Fundamentalist Congress Resolutions affirming the superiority of the KJV as recently as 1978.

    So any attempt by Bauder to revise history that the KJVO/TR position is a “hyper” position within Fundamentalism is plainly erroneous. In the last century, two main Fundamentalist groupings emerged (I don’t count FBF or GARBC as they were Baptistic only so by definition not truly Fundamentalist). They were the ICCC and the WCF. Of the three founders (ie McIntire. Jone Jr, and Paisley) two out of the three militantly stood for a KJVO position. Bauder may not agree with their views but to attempt to paint them as an extreme aberration from the historic position is mendacious.

    Finally, I do think it is significant that no dared to employ other versions in their pulpits or conferences as their standard text. There was clearly an understanding that any deviation from this constituted an unacceptable shift for many. That is why Bob Jones III’s public endorsement of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man” signalled the break up of historic Fundamentalism in 1999.

    1. The fact that there were, as you say, “eclectic” views demonstrates that the issue has not been a defining characteristic, any more than one could legitimately argue that if you weren’t a white man, you couldn’t legitimately be called a Fundamentalist, or that all Fundamentalists wear ties. The fact that such prominent eclectic examples exist demonstrate that, at the very least, latitude has been extended on this issue, similarly to other issues on which there has been lack of consensus- Calvinism/Arminianism or church polity would be other examples of issues in Fundamentalism where “eclectic” views are present.

      The fact that leaders you mention held such views prominently does not mean they were not Fundamentalist, or even that their positions were not indicative of a majority within Fundamentalism. However, it also does not mean that those views were the defining basis of fellowship for all Fundamentalists or even for the specific individuals in question. Make sure you understand what Kevin’s list cited here says and doesn’t say. Someone holding to an “extrabiblical teaching” such as a KJV position does not make them “hyper.” Holding it militantly- which I would expect to mean that you fail to extend any level of Christian fellowship with someone who held an “eclectic” view- does.

  20. Change of course, somewhat. I suggest, like Greg Linscott, that list-based sanctification is not always wrong. People may argue about “women in trousers,” but the Bible does teach that women should wear modest clothing (for example). That doesn’t draw the line at “trousers.” It does require the definition of modesty.

    My question is, Who decides what is considered “non essential?”

    Bauder mentions length of hair, but the Bible does address it, right? If we are to teach the whole counsel of God, do we ignore modesty and manhood because they are non-essentials? I would consider gender roles foundational (they do begin in Genesis 1). Are they non-essential?

  21. Perhaps its time for a new identification for those of us who hold to the historic fundamentals of the faith and principles of the reformation… I may start identifying myself as a “cardinalist”.

  22. @Kevin,

    Your point is what a few in the book raise against both Kevin Bauder’s position and Al Mohler’s. Which evangelical magesterium gets to decide these kinds of questions?

    That is a good question and one I’m still mulling over.

  23. The essential doctrine seems to be the most essential doctrine today. If you don’t divide things into essential and non-essential, you’re hyper. And yet, the essential doctrine itself is ambiguous as seen in the criticism of the book. But here is a doctrine that pieced together from vague mentions and then elevated to major doctrine, enough for those who don’t hold it to be hypers and parasites. I think it is all very ironic. Of course, the essential doctrine is essential for the tolerance doctrine, unity based upon tolerance. If someone doesn’t tolerate, he is bad. But does God tolerate? If He doesn’t, is He bad? Of course not, but people who are still tolerant but less tolerant than is necessary on the mysterious list of non-essentials is a hyper and a parasite. So you can be more tolerant than God and be not tolerant enough, and therefore hyper and a parasite, putting you metaphorically out of a parachurch and extra-scriptural, actually non-essential, movement of people.

    Who makes up the list of fundamentals? If we can’t find it in the uninspired books, The Fundamentals, is it now not fundamental? And if we add to their list of fundamentals are we adding a non-essential? If we add a non-essential to the fundamentals are we now also a hyper and a parasite?

    1. I don’t see much difference between actually labeling things primary and secondary or effectively treating them as primary and secondary (i.e. remaining in fellowship with churches on the basis of “God hates divorce” even though your church teaches something different and stricter about what that means than the other church does).

  24. It’s amazing how to some this is so clear and they know God’s Word so much better than others and are so much more obedient. In other words I will separate from everyone over everything that I hold where others have not seen the light. Further I have time to follow the itineraries of those who fellowship with those with whom I can’t fellowship or where I haven’t been invited and analyze their every statement to sniff out compromise.

    One main problem is that disagreement becomes disobedience. You disagree with me on even non-essentials (if there are any) in areas that are important to me and my clique and you are disobeying God. This is one of the most apparent flaws of much of the logic that parades as biblical separation. I think most people see through the bluster of those who are not only right on all the issues but demonstrate a lack of Christian civility in calling godly people hypocrites. Disagree loudly if you must but exercise a bit of humility. For some there are no “weightier matters” and Jesus is the One who called them hypocrites.

    1. Steve,

      I’m not sure anyone disagrees on the fact that there are “weightier matters.” However, there is some question about what makes up these matters. What criteria defines them?

      Example: I, for one, believe that gender differences are “weightier matters” established firmly in the first 3 chapters of Genesis, and which are reinforced throughout Scripture. Others do not consider these distinctions as even relevant.

      Do I make this a point of fellowship?: To some degree, as I believe that it impacts everything else (home, work, government, church).

      Do I think that I have perfect understanding and judge everyone else accordingly? No. I am just convinced that I am right, as far as I understand it correctly. (But I continue to examine and evaluate Scripture and arguments opposed to my understanding.)

      Does one’s belief regarding gender distinction keep them out of heaven? No. Does that make this teaching “light?” (or “less weighty?”). I don’t think so, because of its impact.

      I’m not sure where something becomes an unimportant teaching.

  25. Hi Steve.

    What Jesus called “weightier” (barus) doesn’t refer to “essential” matters, but things that are more difficult. It was easier to tithe on mint and cummin, etc., than to do justice, etc., so they made that easier thing an essential in their own system of essentials and non-essentials. Jesus, of course, said to do both the tithing and the justice. The Pharisees were those who were the reductionists, the left wing legalists, who reduced the law to something that they could keep on their own, starting with the things that they didn’t like the most, the easy ones. I believe this is akin to this situation, because the things that are more difficult today are also often those things left off the list of “essentials” by evangelicals and fundamentalists.

    And we’re all subject to potential hypocrisy, including me, which is why Jesus said to even disciples in Luke 12, beware of the leaven of hypocrisy. Anyone can be influenced (leaven) by hypocrisy. You too, Steve, can be a hypocrite. Perhaps you don’t do anything or mention anything that you do well in order to be seen of men. I’ve done that and that’s part of what it is to be hypocrite.

  26. I think that Kevin Bauder may have answered my point, and said that my observation about him was wrong. He seems to see musical styles as a Rom 14 issue. He is ambiguous enough with his essay that I might be wrong about being wrong, but I think I am. I wanted to write it here, since this is where I wrote it.

    http://sharperiron.org/article/not-singing

    By the way, I think it’s too bad that I’m wrong. I wish I was right.

  27. Actually the issue of the original “Fundamentals” book is a red herring that is wheeled out whenever issues like Bible Versions and CCM is brought up. The tradition that Bauder purports to represent is separatist fundamentalism that emerged in the late 1940’s. That tradition was generally opposed to modern Versions and CCM. Just read the resolutions of their various groupings. It is intellectual dishonesty and revisionism to claim that those who were KJVO are “hyper.”

    I do disagree with Kent on the non-essentials/essentials point. We have debated this point on his blog. He jumps on verses like Romans 16:7 but does not separate from local churches and within his local church on “didache” issues such as “sons of God” in Genesis 6. Here is my reply to him there:

    “You challenge me to establish a biblical case that fellowship can be maintained on the basis of non-unanimity of doctrine. Firstly, I don’t have to do so as the Bible makes no case for your position. You are the one that positively asserts it so you must prove it. Secondly, the Bible does rank doctrines by emphasising that certain doctrinal statements are conditional upon salvation. Others like baptism/head covering clearly are not regarded in the same light (1 Cor. 1:17; 11:16). Thirdly, the Bible makes it clear there are things that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Finally, the Bible teaches that there are things that can only be grasped as milk but as a person matures they will be able to deal with the deeper meat of the word.

    So put all this together, then we should be able to parse doctrinal differences and work it out which ones are the ones that are fundamental for salvation and fundamental for the efficacy and defence of the gospel. The latter category is not monolithic but is dependant on the context e.g. a Baptist can never ordain a Presbyterian but they should be able to have an open air together to preach against a sodomite parade in California. Other factors should be considered. There are things that true believers have never agreed on for centuries e.g. immersion baptism which is suggestive that they are not so clear as to cut all fellowship links over. Also, providence has stamped His seal of blessing and honour on those who differ on many of these interpretations which is further suggestive that these differences should not mean an absolute barrier to fellowship.”

    1. PSF- Again, I don’t think Kevin would even deny (though I could be wrong) that an exclusive KJV postion (at least as far as practice) was a general norm. However, I don’ think that you could argue that it was argued strenuously as a defining characteristic as it so often is today. Tools like The Amplified Bible and even the Living Letters (ultimately comprised into the Living Bible) found receptivity amongst Fundamentalists. The GARBC, especially in the 1940s, had a prominent place in that segment of Fundamentalism of which you speak (Ketcham serving in the leadership of the ACCC as one example). For that matter, the KJV issue was not particularly a unifying point- David Otis Fuller, the prominent voice whose circle of influence was based in the GARBC, had public falling-out with BJU, for example, and remained on the board of Wheaton for a long period of time. BJ Jr, if I recall, was an early identifier with the NAE. All that to say that things are not as streamlined as you seem to be making them out to be. Bauder isn’t observing these positions may not have been generally held, only how these positions were not exclusively required.

      1. Greg – I agree with much of what you say. However, that is not Bauder’s position as he is arguing that KJVO is some kind of anomaly and historical aberration from mainstream fundamentalism. That is patently false. I even prove on the paper on my blog that the exclusive TR-only position is the position adopted as far back as the Reformation. That is why the Confessional positions of both Reformed Presbyterians and Baptists refer to 1 John 5:7 and the TR as the “authentical text” in counterpoint to the Critical Text under the Vulgate which the Council of Trent declared was the “authentic text.”

        You are right that the KJVO position was not an issue because no one from the CT position dared to make it an issue. Even BJU kept its head down until 1999 on this.

  29. I think I’m retracting my retraction. Kevin Bauder commented on his own blogpost and he is saying that he does separate over musical styles, perhaps not just like I would, but he that he will.

    http://sharperiron.org/comment/35635#comment-35635

    Two sentences indicate that he brings music into a separation category.

    First, “At the same time, you aren’t obligated to separate from everything that you believe is wrong.”

    So he believes we are obligated to separate from some over music.

    Second, “Whether or not they should be tolerated depends, not only on the gravity of the evil, but also upon the degree of complicity that any particular situation implies.”

    That opens us up a little more to his view.

    I wish he were clearer. I don’t know why he isn’t. I believe that people like that about him, that he isn’t quite clear. They see it as nuanced. But it is clear enough for me to retract. Someone else that knows his position better than I has told me that he does separate over it, after I wrote my last comment.

  30. Well, anyone reading now know clearly that Kevin Bauder does separate over musical styles, because he said so unequivocally in his last comment at the above link, just click on it again and scroll down. He wrote this:

    “To be clear, I would definitely leave a church over music–some music. I would leave the leadership sooner than I would leave the membership–it entails a different level of complicity. And I have certainly made this one of the most important questions in determining what church I will join. Before I came to Fourth Baptist and Central Seminary I spent hours of time and pages of text making sure that the leadership knew exactly what I believed and would do. They knew what they were getting!

    Not all evils are tolerable evils. Sometimes we do separate, even over music. On the other hand, not every musical error merits separation. And you are quite correct that you and I will draw those lines in different places.”

    I’m happy to hear it, but it does bring us back to the original point, that is, people here would themselves say that is hyper. So it is a matter of what someone deems is the non-essential and the minor teaching that makes one hyper and a parasite.

  31. Hmm. I see what you are saying, Kent, and yet I think that Kevin, though he would feel strongly enough about the issue at a local church level, nevertheless would not hold to even that issue strongly enough to remove all fellowship- as would the “hyper” he refers to. I know for sure that there are people in the seminary who tolerate and employ music Kevin would not (maybe even on the faculty there). He evidently believes he can identify to some degree with people (and even therefore, it would seem, speak on their common behalf) while being unable to belong to the same congregation as some of them. In other words, they can have at the same time significant common ground and significant differences. The common ground allows for limited cooperation and identification. The differences necessitate separation at precise levels.

      1. Bauder separates over music. Separation is militancy. Fundamentalism by definition is militant. That term goes back to the Curtis Laws quote, which is why it is even used. So you separate over music, Bob? Or is someone who is an enemy to your enemy a friend? The latter is how it reads actually.

  33. Bob,

    Doesn’t ‘hyper’ mean to go beyond? And as a recovering fundamentalist – aren’t you (and I) trying to go *beyond fundamentalism to reformed theology?

    ;*)

    Seriously though – first of all the “hyper” generalizations as they are usually employed are not helpful. A ‘hyper’ is not a strict theological definition – but rather it is someone who believes something I disagree with. Supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists, and so is John MacArthur, and Charles Spurgeon (he did say Calvinism is the gospel).

    🙂

    Secondly the list is not clear:

    1. “often understand fundamentalism in terms of loyalty to an organization, movement, or even leader” Like Jesus? He is the way, the truth and the life. Is trying to promote the prosperity of your local church, or elders really ‘hyper-fundamentalism?

    2. Militant over non biblical, extra biblical or anti biblical teaching – I’m sure that no one of those who Bauder would consider hyper would consider their teaching non biblical, extra biblical or anti biblical teaching. Unless Bauder has given up dispensationalism, I could lump him in with non biblical, extra biblical or anti biblical teaching too.

    3. “To associate with someone who holds any error constitutes an endorsement of that error” – sometimes it very well could. Define ‘association’ – should we have unbelievers preach sermons at our church to prevent becoming hyper?

    4.”Any criticism — especially if it is offered publicly — constitutes an attack….” Not all criticism is created equal – but trying to squelch criticism isn’t uniquely ‘hyper’ anything.

    5. “hyper-fundamentalists view education as detrimental to spiritual well-being” – I’d like to see serious modern examples of this

    6. “One’s fundamentalist standing may be judged by such criteria as hair length, musical preferences, and whether one allows women to wear trousers.” – yes and seminaries like Central have had speakers criticize all of the above

    7. “militant activism a necessary obligation of the Christian faith” – so if they do this for liberal causes are they ‘hyper liberal’?

    8. “They may employ name-calling, half-truths, and innuendo as legitimate weapons. They may excuse broken promises and political backstabbing.” – like coming up with terms like hyper-fillintheblank to marginalize people they disagree with?

    Now some of what I said is said in jest – however I still find it hard to believe what gets printed sometimes.

    Hope you are doing well – maybe I will see you around sometime soon.

    – Bernie

    1. Thanks, Bernie. You make some good points. Describing movements adequately and fairly sometimes is like catching lightning in a bottle. Still I think most of his points are right on, when understood in the way he’s meaning them to be taken.

  34. Bob,

    Agreed- and obviously there are nut jobs that Bauder is nowhere near. However merely coming up with a list which easily could be misinderstood to try to escape the tar brush – while still holding some of the same root errors will only serve to persuade the choir- it doesn’t deal with the core issues with fundamentalism

  35. That sounds like an IFB church. It’s Fundamentalists like that that give Fundamentalists like me a bad name.

  36. Pingback: The 12 Days Before Christmas Book Giveaway: Day 8 :: Fundamentally Reformed
  37. Pingback: Quora
  38. Pingback: Bob’s Best Books of 2011 :: Fundamentally Reformed

Comments are closed.