Both of these sources come at the question from the evangelical side of the spectrum, in the case of Clawson and Olson, it is on the outside of conservative evangelicalism looking in, whereas George and Dockery are more or less on the inside of the movement. Both sources offer some interesting observations of the so-called ‘conservative evangelical’ movement.

Clawson and Olson

The thesis of this piece is that the conservative evangelicals are essentially fundamentalists, albeit a new kind of fundamentalist. They aren’t the same as the original fundamentalists, but are analogous to them.

I contend that this growing concern expressed by MacArthur and many other evangelicals represents a new movement within evangelicalism toward what I have termed neo-fundamentalism.  This is not simply a return to the original Protestant fundamentalism of the early-twentieth century, though it is analogous to it.

The difference between neo-fundamentalism and fundamentalism is those against whom they are reacting. Clawson sees both neo-fundie and fundie as simply reactionary groups. Neo-fundamentalists are reacting to postmodernism in a similar way that fundamentalists reacted to modernism a century ago. Neo-fundamentalism grew out of evangelicalism in the 70s and 80s, according to Clawson, out of a reaction to the massive culture shifts of the 1960s when James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson ‘became increasingly negative towards the culture’. This reaction morphed into neo-fundamentalism as culture itself shifted from humanism/secularism to pluralism/relativism. The new reactionaries “constructed a genuine neo-fundamentalist alternative to any evangelical accommodation with postmodernity.”

All of that seems reasonable enough and it is precisely at this point that the conservative evangelicals become attractive to fundamentalists. The conservative evangelicals are reacting to something that fundamentalists also eschew. Fundamentalists find themselves nodding in agreement at this point of congruence. (And since the dominant culture is now thoroughly post-modern, fundamentalist attention is often focused on this major point of agreement than on points of disagreement.)

Clawson goes on to cite as evidence of his thesis three of the ‘most influential’ leaders of ‘neo-fundamentalism’: John Piper, Albert Mohler, and Mark Driscoll. Driscoll? A reactionary? To post-modernism? Hmm… Even Clawson seems to recognize the weakness of including Driscoll in the list, for he says: “he seems to lack the level of hostility towards secular culture typical of fundamentalists.”

One might therefore assume that Driscoll is not in fact a neo-fundamentalist. And yet Driscoll often shares the stage at national conferences with other neo-fundamentalist leaders. And while many of the older leaders often have gentle criticisms for him (especially in regards to his language choices), Piper and others have made it clear that Driscoll’s doctrine is acceptable to them and that they are unwilling to kick him out of the camp over stylistic differences. Indeed, Driscoll theology is completely in line with the older generation of neo-fundamentalists on everything from gender roles, to biblical inerrancy, penal substitutionary

Driscoll makes the grade for his ‘strong masculinity’ and his alleged hostility to “the deeper ethos of a postmodern culture.”

Well… whatever! Clawson’s thesis makes some interesting points but his examples and the significant cracks in their separatism seem to erode his argument rather than support it.

But please note that Clawson likewise argues for a distinction between fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists (his term for conservative evangelicals).

George and Dockery

In the book, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, James Spivey writes a chapter on “Benajah Harvey Carroll”. In this chapter he makes this observation about Carroll’s theology:

Carroll’s theology was influenced most by other conservative Baptists, especially Boyce, Strong, Spurgeon, and Broadus, whose catechism he recommended highly. To say that he was a conservative evangelical is not adequate. Though the term was not yet in vogue, he could be described as a “Fundamentalist.” His doctrine agreed with the basic tenets of The Fundamentals (1910–15), and he thoroughly disdained modernists as “cuckoos of infidelity.” This antipathy was directed against Northern liberals when he encouraged a group of fundamentalist Illinois Baptists to seek admission to the SBC (1910). Led by Landmarker, W. P. Throgmorton, they had intended to align with Ben Bogard, a sympathizer with Carroll’s nemesis, Samuel Hayden. In spite of strong resistance from some Southern Baptists, they were admitted partly because of Carroll’s support.¹

The reason for highlighting this paragraph is not B. H. Carroll, but the observation Spivey makes about conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. Clearly, Spivey also sees a distinction between the two groups. Spivey implies that conservative evangelicals might not disdain modernists as thoroughly as Carroll did, and certainly not as thoroughly as fundamentalists do. Though there are similarities that might cause an outside observer to confuse the two groups, significant differences remain.

Conclusion

The first point I want to stress in conclusion is that evangelicals are able to see a distinction between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, even though many erstwhile fundamentalists seem to have a good deal of difficulty seeing the distinction themselves.

The second point is that if the conservative evangelicals are distinguished by their opposition to postmodernity, they maintain a general new evangelical  friendliness to modernity (but not modernism). Though they see the corruption of the evangelical church in its embrace of all sorts of worldly wisdom, yet they maintain a comfort level with the worldly wisdom of the 50s and 60s that birthed the new evangelical movement in opposition to fundamentalism.

And finally, if evangelicals are confused about the inclusion of Mark Driscoll in the ‘neo-fundamentalist/conservative evangelical’ orb, ought not fundamentalists continue to maintain their distance? The continuing failure of conservative evangelicalism to separate from Driscoll and his errors is an ongoing testament to the failure of neo-fundamentalism to have much of a concept of separatism at all. Praise the Lord that they seem to be seeing the dangers of cooperation with modernists. May they soon see the need to sever ties with hedonists and libertines.

P.S. I recommend the book, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition as a good overview of the progress of Southern Baptist theology. There are a few non SBC men mentioned, but most are SBC. The list of men and their theologies reviewed gives an interesting perspective into the progress of theology in the SBC, at least on the (mostly) conservative side of the scale.

1. Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Timothy George and David S. Dockery)
   - Highlight on Page 177 | Loc. 4641-49 | emphasis mine

I commend to you his recent series of blogs reporting on goings on at the ETS. Very interesting. You might not agree with everything Kent says about it (I don’t disagree with much, if any of it), but if you are interested in the issues we usually address in this space, you will find Kent’s reports quite interesting. Here are the links:

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part one

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part two

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part three

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part four

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part five

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part six

While the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples, propaganda in its original sense was neutral, and could refer to uses that were generally benign or innocuous, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to the police, among others.

Our church is located in an area of Greater Victoria that was once known as ‘the Western Communities’. Some recalcitrant old-timers (read ‘me’) still sometimes use the old term. The term has some negative connotations – our area used to be considered a little bit of ‘hicksville’, or ‘dogpatch’… not the choicest addresses in town.

All that began to change with rapid property development and population growth in our end of town. That’s when the propaganda machine went into effect.

The powers that be decided that a new term was needed so they began to refer to our area as “the Westshore”. The local Chamber of Commerce and our various civic government officials were all behind it. A good deal of the business community got behind it as well, including the local newspapers and such. These folks studiously avoided the old term and sometimes gently (!) corrected the rubes that still used it.

This propaganda effort has been going on for several years. The local mall has been renamed from ‘Canwest Mall’ to ‘Westshore Town Centre’. Our recreation centre was once the ‘Juan de Fuca Recreation Centre’, but now is ‘Westshore Parks and Recreation’. And on it goes. The new term is winning the day and the public image of the ‘Westshore’ is much more sophisticated and upbeat than the ‘armpit’ reputation of the old ‘Western Communities’.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with this, though the curmudgeon in me resists this kind of mumbo jumbo. For business people, I suppose there is a profit motive in upgrading the ‘brand’ of their region, but it all seems a lot of tomfoolery to me.

Words have a good deal of power to influence. Most of my readers know that I am identified as a fundamentalist and that I am not reluctant to wear the label. Now there is a term with baggage! A few years ago, one of my dear friends, Dr. Bob Jones III, floated the idea that we might need a newer and better term to represent a ‘sane’ sort of fundamentalism. He made no suggestions and got some resistance in a few quarters. Nothing much came of that suggestion.

Lately, a few fellows are consistently using a new term in their blogging on issues that would typically be considered fundamentalist in their philosophy and position. They seem to be studiously avoiding the term fundamentalist, although at least some of them (I think) would not be shy about accepting the label if someone else described them that way.

But it seems that they are busy in an attempt to rebrand their position. I’m going to provide a few links. They are almost all from the same group blog and I consider some of these fellows to be ‘on-line friends’. One of them is even a Facebook friend, how much closer can you get! Anyway, see if you can pick out the term. Tell me what you think of the effort. Can you think of a major source or influence behind this term?

Some efforts like this will fail because they don’t capture the ‘hearts and minds’ … they just don’t catch on. Time will tell what will become of this effort, if it is an effort.

Here are the links:

• Defending the Gospel (part of a 30 part series)
• Cultural skepticism, the opposite of worldliness (also reposted here)
• Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen
• We hold our worship views firmly, but not as firmly as clear statements from Scripture

Just wondering if anyone else is picking up on this … have you noticed it elsewhere?

Dear Don,

I am glad you commented on your blog on Thabiti Anyabwile’s recent article. I’ve been watching events with great interest, because Pastor Anyabwile is saying many things I was saying and thinking some 22 years ago. While some may think nothing is going to come of this, I’m not so certain.

As a student at Biola University and then at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, I held a position which is virtually identical to many who would today be called “conservative evangelicals”. If I could sum up what I believed back then, it would be thus: “I’ll hold to the truth of God’s Word; I’m absolutely committed to it. I oppose apostasy – but I’m not one of those wacky second degree separatists.”

God’s Word is powerful, and so is obedience. If you obey, you occasionally have those “paradigm shifts” as new areas of obedience open up to you. We might call them the “Hold ON!” moments. That can happen when you realise, “I’m in fellowship with those who are dabbling with heretics!” My “hold ON!” moment came when Biola invited a music minister from the Crystal Cathedral to speak at a music seminar. I couldn’t overlook the fact that he was aiding the propagation of Robert Schuller’s heresy, and Biola thought it was acceptable to bring him in.

I decided to stay within non-separatist evangelicalism, but move to a more “conservative” brand at Western. In my second term, Western provided my second “hold ON” moment by inviting the music minister from the Crystal Cathedral to speak at a music seminar. I concluded that it is untenable to absolutely reject separatism: lines have to be drawn somewhere. I went to the Scriptures, and things began to come clear.

This controversy over T.D. Jakes is providing, for many, a “hold ON” moment. Phil Johnson recently sounded like he had a “hold ON” moment over some things Mark Driscoll said. Phil Johnson/Thabiti Anyabwile (2011) sound just like Jon Gleason (1989). Lines have to be drawn. Conservative evangelicals, for the most part, are serious about Scripture. When you get serious about Scripture, the Word of God starts to straighten out your thinking – including your thinking on separation.

Once you wake up to the fact that associational lines have to be drawn, you realise you need to do exactly what Anyabwile says he hasn’t done – work through and apply a good separation doctrine. To obey the Word, you have to learn and apply what it teaches in this area, too. Many of our non-separatist evangelical brethren, I believe, are being forced (in God’s providence) by the Jakes controversy to think about separation in ways they’ve never had to think about it before.

They’ve already crossed an important bridge – an acknowledged need to draw lines. Next comes the question: what Biblical principles determine those lines? When faced with the implications of those principles, some will decide they’ve crossed a bridge too far, and retreat back across it. Others, maybe only a few, will do what I did – begin to work through where the Scriptures are taking them, and follow, even if it means you have to change your associations.

It’s all been nice and “comfy” for them so far, because we’re “together for the Gospel”, after all. But all it takes is someone to bring the wrong people into your circle, to endorse (Anyabwile’s word, and a good word for it, as you noted) those who aren’t sound, and it gets very much less comfortable. I’m endorsing this man, and just WHO is he endorsing?

What you do when we’re not together impacts how closely I can associate with you when we are together. This principle applies to moral or ethical failures, but it is just as true with ministry endorsements, especially of heretics. No one can reconcile this “Elephant Room” invitation with II John, and Anyabwile and other conservative evangelicals know it.  Jakes does not have the doctrine of the Son, and we should not be giving him a platform to defend his heresy.

Are they separatists? No. I’m not ready to jump on the same ship with them as if we are entirely like-minded. Will some of them end up as separatists? If my personal “journey” is any guide, some of them will. They may never “draw the lines” the same way I would as far as where they will associate. Who cares? I will be thrilled if they begin to engage with the Biblical principles that guide right practice in this area.

Will they ever come out and say, “The separatists were right and the broad evangelicals were wrong?” Maybe, but who cares? That’s a question for those who want to be personally vindicated in the eyes of man. To see them do right would be good enough for me. They aren’t there yet, but they are being confronted with a choice between Scripture and the disaster of evangelical associational fuzziness, and some of them, I believe, will choose Scripture.

Anyabwile wrote truth, and I’m thrilled with it. The disavowals such as “I’m not being a separatist like fundamentalists” shows he knows the import of what he wrote. When I decided to become a separatist, I said I wasn’t a “fighting fundy”, either. I was just going to be Biblical, drawing lines only where I must, with charity and patience. I discovered that more than a few separatists do it exactly that way.

I believe Kevin Bauder is too generous in his thoughts of where these brothers are, but I think he might well be correct in regards to their direction. I have more hopes of someone like Anyabwile, who appears to be moving in the right direction, than I do for a lot of guys who are currently to the “right” of him but moving left. Direction matters a lot more than current position, in my thinking. Once you let the Lord start moving you in the right direction, He may take you further than you thought when you started. That’s what happened to me.

If I could sit down with Thabiti Anyabwile right now, I would point to this comment: “I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines.” I would ask him, “Isn’t it about time you forgot about labels and started studying that doctrine?” The Bible does teach about separation. If you want to keep yourself pure, and if you want to protect the flock entrusted to you, you need to get a handle on which principles determine when and how we separate. Understanding the Biblical teaching on separation doesn’t immediately turn you into an uncharitable thug. It does help you make decisions based on principle rather than shock when someone with whom you’ve associated invites ‘the wrong guy’.

Since he mentioned “endorsement”, I would point him to I Timothy 5:22. This Scripture, after my “hold ON” moments, was very influential in changing my entire view of ministry associations. In it, Paul warns Timothy to avoid incautious ministry endorsements, lest by doing so he partake of the sins of others. He must keep himself pure.

I pray that Anyabwile, and many others like him, will continue to consider what God would have them do. I am cautiously optimistic that, as God worked in my life, so He is working in theirs. The Scriptures forced me to say, “I was wrong,” and change my direction in regard to separation. By God’s grace, we may be seeing the beginning of a movement among at least a few of our non-separatist brethren towards a more Biblical practice and position in this area.

In Him,

Jon

What makes this one interesting is…

• That the author is a pastor in the Harvest Bible Fellowship, James MacDonald’s organization.
• That the author is a graduate of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
• That some of the author’s co-bloggers are also graduates of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. (One is the son of a very close friend from ‘back in the day’.)

Given those connections, the separatistic bent of the blog post makes a bit more sense. (Although it remains to be seen if actual separation will take place.)

Along with making the post make a bit more sense, these facts raise some interesting questions:

• How do graduates of DBTS end up in a Harvest Bible Fellowship church?
• How do graduates of DBTS end up attending Southern Seminary?
• What will these young men do now?

It seems that this incident is a bit of a wake-up call to the Conservative Evangelical wannabes we seem to be producing in fundamentalist schools.

These kinds of associations are the fruit of evangelicalism. If you move into evangelicalism, you will inevitably find yourself in some partnerships that are exceedingly uncomfortable, especially for someone who still holds on to at least some of their fundamentalist instincts instilled by their fundamentalist church backgrounds and schools.

It’s got to be a bit of a shocker for these young fellows. I’ll be interested to see if they do what they must do – break fellowship with James MacDonald.

Money quote:

 And we kid ourselves if we think the Elephant Room invitation itself isn’t an endorsement of sorts.  We can’t downplay the associations by calling for people to suspend judgment and responding ad hominem against “discernment bloggers.”  We certainly can’t do that while simultaneously pointing to our association at The Gospel Coalition as a happy certification of orthodoxy and good practice, as Driscoll seems to do here with MacDonald. [emphasis added]

What a blessing it would be if men like Thabiti and the more conservative evangelicals would finally see that this is the crux of the fundamentalist-evangelical divide, and then get on the right side of it.

Modalism maintains that there is one God who manifests Himself successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but who is not contemporaneously all three. [Believer's Study Bible, electronic ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), Glossary.]

The ESV Study Bible expands on this with this paragraph:

One of the most fundamental ways to misunderstand the Trinity is tritheism, which overemphasizes the distinction between the persons of the Trinity and ends up with three gods. This view neglects the oneness of the natures of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At the other end of the spectrum is the heresy of modalism (also known as Sabellianism, named after its earliest proponent, Sabellius, 3rd century), which loses the distinctions between the persons and claims that God is only one person. In this view, the appearance of the three persons is merely three modes of existence of the one God. For instance, God reveals himself as Father when he is creating and giving the law, as Son in redemption, and as Spirit in the church age. A contemporary version of modalism is found in the teaching of Oneness Pentecostalism. [Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2514-15.]

Sabellius, the man usually credited as the earliest proponent of the view was excommunicated by the Bishop of Alexandria in 260 or 261. The Sabellians appealed to Rome (the church in Rome played an early leading role, but there was as yet no papacy). In 262, the Bishop of Rome held a council and condemned Sabellius and his modalism along with tri-theism and subordinationism (an early variant of what would become Arianism).

False doctrines like modalism were condemned by the church in the third and fourth centuries. That settles the question, right?

Wrong! Heresies are persistent. They crop up, sometimes in modified forms, throughout church history. Sometimes orthodox men may mistakenly embrace a heretical view at some point of their theology. An example would be the Bishop of Alexandria mentioned above. He excommunicated Sabellius for modalism, but in doing so committed the error of subordinationism (Jesus less than fully God). When the Bishop of Rome also rejected Sabellius, the Bishop of Alexandria “The bishop of Alexandria very cheerfully yielded, and retracted his assertion of the creaturely inferiority of the Son in favor of the orthodox homo-ousios.”¹

Since that time, modalism, or some form of it, has been taught by a variety of erring teachers. Karl Barth is a most prominent example as the founder of Neo-Orthodoxy.² On a far less erudite portion of the ecclesiastical matrix, we find modalists in the heretical Oneness Pentecostal (United Pentecostals) movement. A most prominent representative of that movement is the popular teacher, T. D. Jakes.

T.D. Jakes is pastor of The Potter’s House, a church in Dallas, TX.³ The link above takes you to the doctrinal statement of The Potter’s House where you will find this point regarding the Trinity:

There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

At best, this is a very imprecise theological statement. The statement says in the second point:

Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He died on the cross, the complete and final sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

One can see some wriggle room here, for the statement on the face of it sounds orthodox enough. If Jesus is now at the right hand of the Majesty on High, he may be considered to be distinct from said Majesty.

In an essay critical of Jakes, Ryan Turner says this about Jakes’ apparent ambiguity:

Even as a result of various criticisms, Jakes will not affirm the orthodox position on the Trinity.  Instead, he skirts the issue and continues using the “manifestation” terminology.⁴ In one interview on a Los Angeles radio station, he even implicitly denies the Trinity and advocates a Oneness Theology view of God: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/februaryweb-only/13.0b.html.

Turner makes this conclusion about Jakes:

While one does not have to positively affirm the Trinity to be saved, if one denies it he or she is in serious biblical error and should not be teaching on major television networks like TBN.  Furthermore, it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully comprehensible by humans, but it is problematical when people like Jakes deny this orthodox teaching of Scripture even after numerous warnings and specific clarification.

I certainly agree with that conclusion, but probably would go further. It is one thing for a Christian to slip into an error of thought or speech on a subject like this through ignorance or lack of education. On admonition, a true believer ought to correct himself on such errors. If someone will not correct such errors when confronted with them, one has to wonder about the validity of the Christian testimony.

Jakes is no ignoramus. He is not untaught. He has been corrected and he persists in his errors.

Well, according to James MacDonald, Jakes is a ‘brother’:

I do not agree that T.D. Jakes is a Modalist. 
I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture.  I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced.  I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque.  Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might.  His website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations.  I am looking forward to hearing him explain what he means by that.  I am also excited to hear him state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world.  I believe T.D. Jakes shows immense humility by being willing to step outside his own circles to interact with brothers in Christ who may see certain things differently.  Getting brothers together who believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone but normally don’t interact, is what the Elephant Room is all about.  Talking about issues that separate with grace and truth is what the Elephant Room is all about.  We are greatly honored that T.D. Jakes has agreed to participate.

I would have to say that MacDonald himself is squishy on the Trinity in this statement.

Why bring this all up? The subject came to my attention via Sharper Iron. There has been some discussion there, but most of it is skirting around a significant point for fundamentalists. (MacDonald clearly separates himself from a fundamentalist testimony in his blog. “I grew up with this separatist centerpiece of fundamentalist thinking, and I rejected it many years ago.” I don’t recall MacDonald’s background, other than that he is from Canada, I believe.)

The significance for fundamentalists isn’t just that James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll are teaming up to host T. D. Jakes at their conference, The Elephant Room. No, it also involves the participation of conservative evangelicals like Mark Dever.

Part of the controversy among fundamentalists these days involves the question of separation like this: “We agree that we need to be separate from apostates, but we don’t agree that we should separate from brothers like the conservative evangelicals – after all, they are separatists too… just not so separate as us.”

Well…

I wonder what some fundamentalists are thinking about this? Some of our fellow fundamentalists joined with Mark Dever in a recent conference. He is seen to be a “separatist, just not quite like us.” Is he?

Most fundamentalists would agree that T. D. Jakes should be kept at a distance. I don’t think we would be affirming him as a ‘brother’, would we? At best we would be expressing a good deal of uncertainty and doubt. We would say he shouldn’t be given prominent platforms, along with Ryan Turner, quoted above.

Well… what are Driscoll, MacDonald, and Dever doing?

Should fundamentalists join in common ecclesiastical cause with non-separatists who persist in “preaching the gospel” at events that include at best very questionable people, if not out and out heretics?

Before anyone gets hysterical, let me be clear on something: I don’t think Dever is the same as Jakes. I don’t think he is the same as MacDonald and Driscoll. But I think he is demonstrating that he doesn’t have any concept of separation that is remotely close to that of most self-professing fundamentalists, even those who are on the ‘leftish’ side of fundamentalism. The distinction between Dever (and men like him) and fundamentalists is very marked.

Yet there is a clamor on the ‘leftish’ side that we should join with the Conservatives. They are not so different from us, it is said. What? Why is it that Dever shows up at so many Driscoll events?

What should fundamentalists say about the trend towards wider cooperation?

1. Philip Schaff, vol. 2, History of the Christian Church (Galaxie Software, 2002; 2002) 12:152.
2. “Although Barth rejects modalism by name (p. 196), the shades of modalism, more complex than in its third and fourth century forms, are present throughout his thought.” Fred H. Klooster, “Karl Barth’s Doctrine Of Reconciliation
   A Review Article”, Westminster Theological Journal Volume 20, 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1957), 182.
3. His wife, interestingly, is listed as the “First Lady” of the church… whatever that means.
4. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/february7/5.58.html.

It is common practice in the blogosphere to link to other blogs or articles online. This is part of the ‘netiquette’ of blogging, especially when you are writing a contrary opinion. The link provides context, your readers can go to your online ‘opponent’ to see what they said in context in order to decide whether they will agree with you or him or neither.

It is also common practice to link to news items of interest with a brief comment suggesting why the link was interesting to you.

I have occasionally linked to Christianity Today when I see articles of interest there, or when I wish to take issue with something said there. Some of my fellow fundamentalists have commented when I have done that without much of a disclaimer. I guess I don’t think a disclaimer is all that necessary when I am critiquing an article. It is pretty clear that I am not agreeing!  (Does anyone think I am ambiguous when I disagree?) And I don’t think a disclaimer is always necessary when I am just passing along a link to say: look at this, it’s interesting.

But what if I was writing an article listing a whole host of sites as “good resources for church planting” or “good resources for spiritual growth” or “good resources for theology”?

Suppose in writing such an article I listed exclusively evangelical sources with virtually no disclaimers of any kind. And suppose I wrote fairly positive mini-reviews of these sites, implying that these fellows are good brothers doing good work. Suppose that I wrote in a different post a generic disclaimer to my readers that “I don’t endorse everything I link to.”

I think I have a fairly well-known fundamentalist reputation. Ben Wright tells me I represent the fundamentalist wing of fundamentalism. (Thanks, Ben, I guess!) So if I were to write an article full of positive comments about the usual evangelical suspects with no disclaimers in that article itself… what would you think?

Would you wonder if my position had changed? Would you consider my ‘fundamentalist reputation’ maybe not as hard-line as you had earlier thought?

Fundamentalists are agreed that the way we are careful about fellowship is especially in the area of ministry cooperation – shared platforms, cooperative ministry opportunities and the like. We are apparently not so clearly agreed about internet endorsements.

The argument could be made that we will use books by evangelicals (or even others further ‘left’) in our seminaries without much of a disclaimer and a recommendation on the internet is very similar. And we see books by evangelicals in some of our Christian bookstores (like those at our Fundamentalist colleges).

So my question is this: when is a link not a link? When is it an endorsement? Or when is it perceived as an endorsement?

With the turmoil in fundamentalism over the apparent love affair many ‘young fundamentalists’ have with all things Calvin and all things evangelical, should we pause before we make what appear to be endorsements of popular evangelical ministries? What do we communicate when we make such links? Does the internet change our view of Christian cooperation? Is it limited only to active/physical cooperation in some kind of joint endeavour? Or can we give tacit approval to evangelicalism by the links we make?

A while back, I had a much longer blogroll in my side-bar. Some of the sites I listed were friends who weren’t necessarily so fundamentalist anymore. I still have a couple of links to blogs that are definitely not fundamentalist but are particularly interesting to me. But I did purge a lot of the links I used to have. I decided I didn’t want to promote them anymore – even though some of them were personal friends.

So what do you think? Am I merely a paranoid fundamentalist? (Keith, we already know that you will say ‘yes’.) Or is there some cause for caution and concern in the kinds of things we endorse?

I found a copy of the text online and converted it to the Kindle. I’m about half way through. I’m hoping to do some blogging about the ideas in it sometime soon (when life slows down… Hah!). In the meantime, I’d like to urge you to read it if you have never done so.

It is available online here. There is a Kindle version here, it’s 1.99 for that version. I found a free one somewhere, but it was poorly scanned, so I formatted my own from the website I linked to first.

One last item: Tim Challies just completed a group reading of Christianity and Liberalism. The blog series begins here, with links to each of the subsequent blogs at the bottom of the article. Challies is an interesting guy. He and some of his readers might be getting Machen’s point a bit, but most of them don’t seem to realize that if you are going to oppose liberalism as aggressively as Machen did, you will either be forced out as Machen was or you will realize you have to come out. You can’t take Machen’s stand and remain in fellowship with apostasy.