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

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.

Frankly, I’m appalled at the kinds of slanders that have been brought against this book by people whose methods of critique, if they were consistently applied to the Bible, would undo it as the Word of God.

Which book? Purpose Driven Life.

Who said it? John Piper … see the video at one of the links above.

When and Where? May 1, 2011, during the Desiring God Regional Conference at Saddleback Church.

During those years, a radio preacher got interested in the theories of Social Credit. He lobbied the government to adopt these policies, but when rebuffed formed the Social Credit party and became Premier of the province in 1935. He was Premier for eight years, but died suddenly, to be replaced by his right hand man.

The preacher’s name was William Aberhart. He was a complicated individual, very insecure as a person in some ways, and very eclectic in his theology, although we would probably think of him as basically orthodox.

When I say eclectic, I mean that he would pick up new theology as he went along, becoming an enthusiast for some new quirk as it came to his attention. He mostly served as a lay preacher, but at one point he led a Baptist church in Calgary to designate him as its “apostle”. Under him, there served a pastor, but he was the “apostle.”

What do you think of that?

What do you think of anyone today who would have such an office?

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit… odd?

Apparently it doesn’t strike some people as odd. Consider this:

Our polity stands upon three principles: plurality among elders, the senior pastor, and partnership with apostolic ministry. We practice plurality of church leadership for the simple but compelling reason that the churches represented in the New Testament were governed by more than one leader. We call this plurality “team ministry.” It is the strength and unity of team ministry that provide the foundation from which elders serve the church and stand accountable for their lives and doctrine. The role of senior pastor is based upon the foundation of plurality, which prevents a drift towards autocracy. The Old Testament offers a gallery of names that remind us of God’s practice of using one to influence many. In the gospels, we are told that Christ chose the Twelve, but ordained Peter to fill a uniquely prominent role. In New Testament times, the Jewish synagogues were ruled by a council of elders, but each council had a chairman, or “ruler of the synagogue.” In like manner, Paul led a growing team of apostolic men. In the Trinity there is a head, in the church there is a head, and in the home there is a head. These examples, and many others, illustrate the notion that biblical leadership, though shared, is most frequently organized and facilitated by a central figure. The senior pastor is therefore called to build a team, not a personal ministry. His effectiveness should be measured by the maturity of his plurality. With regard to the principle of apostolic ministry, we want to be clear that the men identified as apostles within ________ _______ ________ are understood by all to hold a position decidedly and radically inferior to that of the original twelve Apostles. But the label is retained because Scripture appears to offer another type of apostle – one that neither writes Scripture, nor is counted among the twelve. In fact, there appear to be at least eight others, apart from Paul himself, who graced the pages of the New Testament in apostolic ministry. In our view, apostolic ministry can exist today without comparing its authority or impact to Paul or the twelve. Briefly stated, the role of the apostle is to ensure that the gospel is preached and applied in the daily life of the church. Concentrating attention on the writings of Luke and Paul, one might conclude that apostles are devoted to church planting, being set apart for the gospel and sent forth with the gospel, that they might protect the gospel and build with the gospel. They are called to serve churches as spiritual fathers, with primary responsibility during a formative season in a local church (much as earthly fathers do with the formative years of their children), a pattern that eventually transforms into a partnership with mature local churches. [emphasis added]

What do you think about that?

This is another aspect of Sovereign Grace Ministries and C. J. Mahaney that I find astonishing and disturbing, besides the tongues and prophecy.¹

Why would conservative evangelicals, much less fundamentalists, want to enter into ministry partnership with … “apostles”?

1. Section of web page quoted is about half-way down, under the question, “How do you govern your churches?”

In re-reading the article, I think I am a little less enthusiastic about it than I was at initial reading. But on the positive side, let me say that I agree that the King James Only movement is a serious problem, one that hasn’t ever been properly addressed in fundamentalism.

Some of my friends hold that the King James Version is the best version to use for study and preaching. Some might even hold that it is the only version that should be used. But when someone holding those views decides to brand anyone who holds a different view as an heretic or a ‘person of interest’ for the crime of false teaching, well… that is going too far. Such views will inevitably lead to a breach of fellowship. And, I believe, ‘Onlyist’ views of this sort are heretical in themselves, that is, they are an unwarranted and unbiblical source of divisions that ought not to be.

So I agree that the ‘Onlyist’ views are a serious problem, demanding serious rebuke. To the extent that this essay does that, I agree entirely.

However, there are a couple of areas in the essay where I have disagreement.

First, can we equate the ‘Onlyist’ position with the New Evangelical error? Here is a paragraph that gives me pause:

The error of the King James Only movement is opposite but equal to the error of the new evangelicalism. The new evangelicals wanted to remove the fundamentals (i.e., the gospel) as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The King James Only movement wishes to add to the fundamentals (i.e., the gospel) as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neoevangelicalism could be called “sub-fundamentalist,” while the King James Only movement is hyper-fundamentalist.

Opposite but equal? Is that really true?

Even if you accept the simplification¹ of new evangelicalism as “removing the fundamentals as the boundary of Christian fellowship”, is it true that what the KJO movement is doing is “adding to the fundamentals as the boundary of Christian fellowship”?

To me, the new evangelical error is almost on the level of Judas. It is a profound betrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ. We see it repeated again and again in such things as ECT and the Manhattan Declaration. It isn’t simply removing boundaries, it is part and parcel with the human rebellion against God. It isn’t unbelief itself, but it is keeping company with unbelief, toying with unbelief, and making common cause with unbelief.

On the other hand, the KJO view is misguided, but it is only misguided in its zeal for truth, not in its zeal for human approval a la new evangelicalism.

Kevin Bauder criticizes the KJOs as actually being contemptuous of the Word of God.

My second observation is that the attitude displayed by the aforementioned preacher and college is genuinely contemptuous of the Word of God. If I were to declare that the King James Version was not the Word of God, then King James Only advocates would quickly and rightly excoriate me for my contempt of Scripture—regardless of my attitude toward other versions. Yet they themselves refuse to acknowledge the American Standard Version (et al.) as the Word of God.

I wonder what Kevin would say of the New World Translation? Or the Living Bible? Or the Contemporary English Version? Or many others.

Personally, I would describe those versions as corruptions of the Word of God. I wouldn’t recommend them. In fact, I would insist that Christians should only use a select few versions, all others have too many problems. Since I reject all those others, does that make me contemptuous of the Word of God? I don’t think so.

While I don’t think the KJO folks should be so narrow in their views, I find it hard to call this contempt of the Word of God. It is misguided, shortsighted, often ignorant, but not contempt. To criticize them in this way says more about the critic than the ones criticized.

So, in short, I don’t see KJO-ism on a par with new evangelicalism.

However, Kevin’s thesis isn’t really about KJO-ism, it is about playing nice with Conservative Evangelicalism. He is creating this kind of structure:

• New Evangelicals: really really bad
  • Conservative Evangelicals: slightly flawed
  • Mainstream Fundamentalists: slightly flawed in a different direction
• KJO kooks: really really bad

Please note, I am not saying all KJO people are kooks – there are plenty of kooks to go around in every movement! But I am getting a sense of Kevin’s views here, and maybe I am putting words in his mouth by doing so. Also note that both CEs and MFs are slightly flawed since no one is perfect.

In any case, Kevin is building this view of things in order to support his thesis that we mainstream fundamentalists should start playing nice with the conservative evangelicals. Here is some of how he puts it:

Furthermore, not all fundamentalists are hyper-fundamentalists, any more than all evangelicals are (or were) neoevangelicals. Several mediating positions exist. Historic, mainstream fundamentalism has been one of those mediating positions. Conservative evangelicalism is another. …

Conservative evangelicals do not want to be recognized as fundamentalists, and they do not belong in that category. At the same time, they are not guilty of the more serious errors that plagued the new evangelicalism.

I have long disagreed with the notion that there has been a long term conservative evangelical position that is a mediating position between fundamentalism and new evangelicalism. I wrote about it in earlier posts, most recently in “show me the silent majority”. I am doing some reading on new evangelicalism lately and am planning to write something further debunking this notion. I think it is historical revisionism at best.

But beyond that, what errors are conservative evangelicals plagued with that distinguish them from fundamentalism? Well, they do have new evangelical type associations in many cases. Mark Dever’s church is listed as affiliated with both the American Baptist Convention and the Progressive Baptist Convention through its membership in the DC Baptist Association. Mark Dever also maintains his ties with J. I. Packer, noted writer and a mover and shaker behind ECT. Al Mohler is one of the early signatories of the Manhattan Declaration. There is also the entanglement of many of these conservative men with the ministry of Mark Driscoll. There is the music… always the music… And no, music is not a fundamental, but even Kevin Bauder asserts that there is such a thing as orthopraxy as well as orthodoxy – right practice along with right doctrine.

Are these differences still not profound? How can fundamentalists find common cause with men who quite clearly have a problem with their “associational discernment”?

And yet Kevin closes with this:

If we believe in separation, we ought to be separating from hyper-fundamentalists more quickly and more publicly than we do from conservative evangelicals.

Hmmm….

1. I question the simplification because I don’t think it says enough about what new evangelicalism is.

• This silent majority was at first willing to be identified as fundamentalists but had little stomach for the fight the fundamentalists waged against the liberals.
• This silent majority wasn’t new-evangelical, but it sided with the new evangelical forces on the left of the NAE against the fundamentalists. (??)
• The silent majority didn’t approve of Billy Graham’s cooperative evangelicalism, but they didn’t break with Graham over it. (???)

You know, I’d really like to see some evidence of these last two points especially. I see many ‘attaboys’ on SI about it, but really, shouldn’t we demand some evidence and not just rely on Bauder’s say-so?

One bit of evidence he offers is with respect to Dallas Theological Seminary. The critical issue with DTS was Explo 72, an event involving new-evangelicals and, Bauder admits, non-evangelicals. What would ‘non-evangelicals’ be, we wonders? Would it be possible that these would be liberals (a.k.a., modernists)? How much more classically new evangelical can you get if you are cooperating with non-evangelicals? Yet Bauder calls DTS a ‘moderate institution’ and seems to dismiss William Ashbrook’s subsequent identification of them as neoevangelical.

Bauder goes on to say:

By the end of the 1970s, the evangelical majority had staked out a position midway between separatist fundamentalism and neoevangelicalism.

Man, when I hear this I wonder if we are living in parallel universes? In my universe, the evangelical churches were fully supportive of the Graham compromises. Maybe things were different in the USA, I don’t know. But in Canada, every evangelical church in our area bussed people in to hear Billy’s brother-in-law, Leighton Ford. As a high-schooler, I was there. In my own city, not more than 10 or 12 years ago, a member of Billy’s team held meetings in Victoria, BC. I think it was Ralph Bell. NOT ONE evangelical church stood aloof from these meetings. I ask, where is this silent majority?

I am really astonished at two things: I am astonished that Kevin Bauder seems to think there was some huge evangelical majority that really didn’t agree with Billy Graham but just didn’t ‘distance’ themselves from him and the rest of the new evangelicals. And I am astonished that credulous readers of Kevin Bauder seem to swallow this revisionism as if it were entirely accurate.

Kevin seems to be leading us to a conclusion that the conservative evangelicals are good fellows, really, and people whom we should cooperate with. Their heritage isn’t the heritage of compromisers and betrayers of the gospel, it is the noble heritage of the moderate middle.

The moderate middle cost the fundamentalists their denominations, schools, mission boards, etc., in the 1920s and 1930s.

The moderate middle cost the Christian church most of its impact on the culture of our day through the new-evangelical compromise.

What is the moderate middle going to cost us today?

[UPDATE: This post originally posted Oct 20, 2010 @ 14:18.]

Below the press release, links are provided to several ‘ethos statements’, also undated. They provide an interesting glimpse into the state of mind CBTS considers to be its “distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs”. *

In reading these documents, some observations come to mind. First, comparing the “Ethos Statement on Salvation & Sanctification” and the “Ethos Statement on Hermeneutics & Eschatology” with the “Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism”, a curious difference is immediately noticeable. The first two documents are full of phrases like this: “Some of us believe that…” contrasted with “while others believe…” or “while others understand…” The third document contains no expressions like this at all. One has to wonder how much these first two documents really distinguish the character or guiding beliefs of the institution. Some believe one thing, others believe another. Doesn’t sound like a statement of certainty to me. It seems that the third document, the “Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism” is more definitive than the first two.

Second, regarding the “Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism” specifically, my first impression is that it represents something new. It isn’t the way fundamentalists have typically expressed themselves in the last 60 years, but it does seem to be a summary statement of new views of fundamentalism that some have been advocating in recent years. Yet, this statement is perhaps less definitive than it appears because there remain several important unanswered questions.

In with the new…

The ‘gospel’ as the grounds of separation

It has been pointed out elsewhere, but I think it is worth noting here that “the gospel” isn’t the central focus of fundamentalist separation. For example, consider a series of articles on the Bob Jones University website on separation. The introduction defines ecclesiastical separation this way:

Ecclesiastical separation involves, positively, identification with groups faithful to the truth of God’s Word. Negatively, it is the refusal to be identified with any teacher, church, denomination, or other religious organization that does not hold to and contend for those fundamentals of the Faith concerning the Bible, Christ, and salvation.

Note that this is much more comprehensive than simply separation over the ‘boundaries of the gospel’, the defining edge of the separation the Central ethos statement repeatedly asserts. For example, see it’s second sentence:

To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines.

I would suggest that the statement from the BJU article represents a more accurate and more historic expression of the fundamentalist ethos than the Central statement. In this sense, then, the Central statement is a new approach.

Repudiation of ‘revivalistic Fundamentalism’

The Central article clearly repudiates what it calls ‘revivalistic Fundamentalism’. While the article acknowledges that this ‘version’ of Fundamentalism has ‘always been a significant aspect of the movement,’¹ the Central article calls it a ‘threat to biblical Christianity’.

Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.

“Significant aspect of the movement”??? One could make a case, I think, that the historic fundamentalists (those pre-1940 who were the ‘pure laine’ fundamentalists) were by and large ‘revivalistic’. Scan the authors of The Fundamentals. Consider the position of the general editor, R. A. Torrey. Examine the philosophy of many of those in the Northern Baptist Convention who went through the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Fundamentalism owes an incredible debt to revivalism.

While I am no defendant of the excesses of revivalism as such, I don’t look at it with scorn as the self-named ‘historic fundamentalists’ of today do. If one is to be an ‘historic fundamentalist’, it could be argued that you must be a revivalist.²

In any case, this disdain of the ‘revivalist aspect’ of fundamentalism is new. The early fundamentalists were largely revivalists. Many, if not most, of the institutions that remained in the fundamentalist camp after the new evangelical defection were built by revivalists and ministered through successful revivalist practices. The historical reality is that non-revivalists cooperated with revivalists as fundamentalists for the cause of a pure church (at least as pure as men can make it).

My point is that this disdain of revivalism is an innovation. It is new. Certainly some revivalist practices need correction. Some of its practices have been overdone and have caused spiritual harm. But there are godly men of a revivalist persuasion, preaching the true gospel, who ought to be encouraged and appreciated, not cast aside.

The new attitude towards a certain segment of evangelicalism

It is true that a certain segment of evangelicalism has made significant changes in their stance. They have tightened up their fellowship in some aspects of a generally open attitude towards aberration. The new-evangelicals swayed most of the Bible-believing church into a new attitude of cooperation and toleration of egregious spiritual error. This robbed the church of almost all of its moral authority in our society in the last 60 years. A certain segment of evangelicalism is now aware that the new evangelicalism went too far.

This segment is called the “Conservative Evangelicals”. They are indeed making strong statements about certain kinds of gospel-compromising errors. Talk, however, is cheap. I have noted many times in the past that these men will speak up against such things as Open Theism, but retain denominational bonds with them. They will speak out against such things as ECT³ yet maintain their cooperative relationships with its signatories. They will even, in some cases, sign on to such ecumenical efforts as the Manhattan Declaration, another vehicle of cooperation between evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox ‘Christians’. There is no need to go on listing their continued compromises, I have mentioned them many times in these pages.

The Central statement, in spite of these kinds of ecumenical errors, says:

Nevertheless, we find that we have much more in common with conservative evangelicals (who are slightly to our Left) than we do with hyper-Fundamentalists (who are considerably to our Right), or even with revivalistic Fundamentalists (who are often in our back yard). In conservative evangelicals we find allies who are willing to challenge not only the compromise of the gospel on the Left, but also the pragmatic approach to Christianity that typifies so many evangelicals and Fundamentalists. For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.⁴

By fellowship, let it be said, this new ethos means to say that some kind of cooperative efforts are now possible. That is to say, though the Conservative Evangelicals are still guilty of serious ecumenical errors, it is now suggested that fundamentalists can cooperate with them in some ways.

This is new. If we put a time-frame on the fundamentalist movement as such, one could argue that modern fundamentalism really began to form in the late 1890s. Fundamentalism was rocked in the late 1950s by the new evangelical compromise. One could argue that the fundamentalists of its first half-century were never really confronted with ecumenical error, but they were forced by the circumstances of the battle to part company with moderates in their old denominations, men who claimed to hold to the fundamentals but would not separate over them. The fundamentalists of its second half century were of course confronted with ecumenicalism amongst their erstwhile brethren and had to make a choice concerning them – and we all know which way that choice went.

Now we are being told something new. We have conservative men who have taken some strong stands against some errors, but continue to entangle themselves in ecumenical compromises. These men are still ‘anti-separatist’. Yet now we are told that ‘historic’ fundamentalists have ‘more in common’ with them than with other fundamentalists, even those ‘in our own backyard’. Incredible! Shall moderation win? Can anyone deny that this is a new position for fundamentalists to take?

Remaining questions…

Besides innovations, the Central ethos statement fails to define all that it is saying. Many questions remain and it is unclear exactly what is meant in all that it purports to advocate.

1. What is meant by terms like ‘subvert the Christian faith’ and ‘this is not Biblical Christianity’ as applied to ‘some fundamentalists’?

Do these terms mean that, say, men who hold to a King James Only position are not Christians? What about the ‘revivalist fundamentalist’? Is he subverting the Christian faith? Is he outside the bounds of the gospel?

This is very strong language. It should not be uttered loosely and the folks at Central who stand behind this ethos statement should very clearly define just who they are talking about and exactly what they mean. It isn’t sufficient to raise innuendos about ‘many versions of professing Fundamentalism’ and leave it at that. Fundamentalists who differ with Central’s innovations ought to demand an answer to this question.

2. What are these ‘careful, limited forms of fellowship’ that Central now thinks are possible?

How do you stop separating from anti-separatists and not get entangled in their anti-separatist errors? Why is the Central ethos so much couched in generalities, if an ethos is “the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution?” *

Until those espousing this new careful, limited form of fellowship are plain in their speech and open about what they mean, the rest of fundamentalism remains in an unsettled turmoil, uncertain what this means and undecided how it should respond. Fundamentalists deserve an answer to this question, one that does not equivocate with waffling weasel words, but one that is clear and straightforward.

3. What is intended by the terms ‘refine’ and ‘restate’ when it comes to Biblical fundamentalism?

If the Central ethos is the historic Fundamentalist position, what is left to refine and restate? If it is not the historic Fundamentalist position, what is it? Is it a new kind of Fundamentalism? Is it Fundamentalism at all?

These questions remain unclear. Fundamentalists deserve a much more clear answer to these questions than have so far been proffered. What do the men standing behind the Central ethos have in mind? Should the rest of us fall into step behind them? How can we make such decisions without clear answers to these questions?

Conclusion

I appreciate the arrival of this document. It does help to clarify some of the new direction that some want to take fundamentalism. Some objectives appear to be plainly stated.

Nevertheless, significant questions yet remain. Until they are answered, the rest of fundamentalism is restless. Agitators for similar positions (sometimes just as loosely and vaguely defined) continue to make noise for change. Some of us express alarm at these proposed changes. But so far, a lot remains unclear. And we wait for other leaders of Fundamentalism to stand up and answer the challenges being made to the whole movement. Still only the advocates of change are speaking, albeit not with an entirely certain sound.

I asked the question, in my subject line, “a new-fundamentalist manifesto?” How do we answer? A manifesto? Not yet. It is an uncertain sound, but getting clearer.

* “ethos”, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary., Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).

1. hey, I thought the movement was dead? But I digress…
2. By the way, if the new fundamentalism is to eschew the ‘revivalist rump’, there won’t be much of anything left, even with the rise of ‘historic’ fellows who also are enamored of ‘reformed theology’.
3. Evangelicals and Catholics Together
4. Emphasis mine.

While I will put this post in the ‘book reviews’ category, this article isn’t really a book review. I do recommend this book and think it will be worth your while to read if you are interested in Van Til at all.

One of the things that I learned from this book is that Van Til was definitely a separatist. But he wasn’t your fundamentalist type of separatist. He had his own branch of separatism, making himself distinct from both evangelicalism and fundamentalism.

Van Til first made this distinction clear in a 1957 address to new students at Westminster Theological Seminary at the beginning of the school year, warning them “of voices they would encounter who would challenge their confidence in the Word of God.”¹ In May 1961, he gave an address called “New Evangelicalism” to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Ministerial Institute. “The result of this presentation was a seventy-five-page syllabus in which he observed that the fundamentalist-modernist battle had evolved into a neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical dialogue.”² This work was never published, but Carl Henry wrote Van Til about it. Muether says he felt ‘stung’ by the criticisms.

This sets up the quote that I want to highlight:

The goal behind Van Til’s dissent was to highlight the distinctiveness of the Reformed faith that yielded not only a Reformed system of doctrine but also a Reformed doctrine of Scripture and a Reformed defense of the faith. These were of a whole cloth; they were not exchangeable features, and thus Van Til would accept no substitutes. Hence Van Til would not concede that separatism belonged to the fundamentalists. There was a Reformed separatism that was grounded in Kuyper’s doctrine of the antithesis, and it was modeled courageously by Machen.³

Van Til viewed Fundamentalists as not separated enough. J. Gresham Machen, Van Til’s mentor, likely saw things in the same way. Machen, we have been told, was not comfortable with the Fundamentalists of his day (he died in 1937). Some have suggested he thought the Fundamentalists were uncultured hicks.⁴ The book on Van Til doesn’t make Machen’s views entirely clear, but it seems that he saw the Fundamentalists as co-belligerents against the modernists, but also as being found wanting in terms of their theology and ecclesiology as well. Certainly this was Van Til’s view.

Notice also the emphasis on Reformed doctrine and Reformed apologetics. One thing this book makes clear is that Van Til was a champion of Reformed thinking. He likely would find many who claim to be his followers in apologetics to be thoroughly wanting, not being Reformed in their entire outlook.

It seems to me that the current trends of our day are heading in a similar direction with the revival of Reformed dogma seemingly everywhere. The most publicized movement in conservative Christianity today is the ‘neo-Calvinist’ movement. Van Til would probably not be entirely comfortable with it because it isn’t thoroughly Reformed. But he would likely appreciate the spirit tending toward Reformed thinking that lies behind the neo-Calvinism.

This neo-Calvinism is transcending evangelical and fundamentalist divides. I would say that it is behind the complete willingness of some to give the benefit of the doubt to the serious errors of neo-Calvinisms ‘stars’ because the new movement is centered on the Reformed theology (although not completely embracing every aspect of Reformed thought). The old paradigms that defined the divide between evangelicals and fundamentalists aren’t working any more, at least for some, because the Reformed doctrine is the new paradigm, the new center. The old paradigms centered on opposition to or support for cooperative evangelism which itself was essentially a repudiation of the older paradigm of antagonism to modernism that defined conservative Christianity in opposition to liberalism.

Why don’t the old paradigms work anymore? I would suggest that it is because the ‘Conservative Evangelicals’ have largely repudiated the most egregious forms of cooperative evangelism. They haven’t repudiated all of the new evangelical philosophy, but one of the biggest of the divides between fundamentalism and the new evangelicalism was the issue of cooperative evangelism. This, coupled with a misplaced center on Reformed theology, is causing some to minimize the differences and promote a new movement centered on the new-Calvinism.

The book on Van Til makes it clear why he didn’t consider himself a fundamentalist (though he likely agreed with some of the issues Fundamentalism raised). His ‘center of separation’ was Reformed theology, not Christian Fundamentalism. I think we are seeing a similar thing repeated in the current movements of our day.

1. Muether, p. 182.
2. Muether, p. 183.
3. Muether, pp. 186-187, emphasis mine.
4. This may have been true of some. Certainly it is true of some today! But they are our hicks!

For a good understanding of the analogy, though, one must have some understanding of how maps and compasses work. A much more full description can be found from a chapter of a book, The Backpacker’s Field Manual, excerpted here on the Princeton University site, but I’ll attempt a bit in this post.

I suppose when we think of ‘mapping’ the locations on the ecclesiastical landscape, we probably envision a political map, with nation-states and their boundaries. Such maps seem fairly objective and definite in allocating the bounds of various domains, but they are of limited value for navigation.

What political maps can’t show are the alliances between nations (who can be at some distance from one another). They also cannot show disputed territories that may lie between any two nations – boundaries are not always as clearly defined as they appear on a map. In addition, political maps usually give very little idea of the topographical features of any given territory – the slopes, slippery or otherwise, the heights and the lowlands, very little sense of the direction of the watershed, and so on. Thus, there are things political maps cannot tell us.

For navigation purposes, topographical maps are much more useful. They tell us the relative steepness of slopes and the prominence of various geological features, giving an idea of the easiest way to traverse a particular area of land.

Mapping, both political and topographical, are one thing. Reading maps and compasses are another. One might think getting a compass reading is a simple matter. Look where the needle is pointing, find North on a map, orient it correctly, identify some prominent landmarks, and you’re off.

It isn’t quite that simple. There is north and there is north. That is, there is true north (pointing directly to the north pole) and there is magnetic north (pointing to the north magnetic pole). These two points on the planet are two different things and one of them is constantly changing (albeit relatively slowly). Your compass points directly to the magnetic north pole, but parallel with the lines of magnetic force at your starting point. In order to get your compass set right (and your map oriented properly), you need to know something about where you are starting from and calculate the deviation from true north in that area.

A diagram from the Princeton site might help describe the way the magnetic field lines distort compasses in the United States:

Your compass needle will deviate from true north according to these angles.¹ According to the Princeton site,

You can see that location makes a great deal of difference in where the compass points. The angular difference between true north and magnetic north is known as the declination and is marked in degrees on your map as shown … Depending on where you are, the angle between true north and magnetic north is different. In the U.S., the angle of declination varies from about 20 degrees west in Maine to about 21 degrees east in Washington.

In order to navigate, you have to make allowances for the angle of declination, set your compass accordingly, and then orient and read your map to ascertain position and the next direction you will set out on.

Maps and guidebooks are the fundamental tools both for trip planning … and while you are out on the trail. [emphasis mine]

If you really want to know more about real maps and compasses, you can read all about it at the Princeton site and other places.

Very good, Mr. Badger, now what does this have to do with navigating the ecclesiastical wilderness?

What does this have to do with ecclesiastics and separation? That is a most vital question.

In this discussion, an emphasis is being made in getting biblical principles of separation down so that we can navigate. We could call this ‘orienting our compass’. In discussion elsewhere, we have been told that we also need to get our fixed points – but isn’t ‘fixed points’ the language of maps?²

Having oriented our compass, gotten our fixed points, what should we do next? The next step is to set one’s course through the wilderness. We will need a map to identify the best route along the way. The compass is useful to help us see where we are on the map and determine the direction of travel, but that is all. A compass can do nothing else.

As we traverse the hills and valleys of the ecclesiastical wilderness, no doubt we will make some missteps along the way. We may experience some slips and falls. We may not always see our way clearly – our line of sight may be obscured by overhanging vegetation and obstructions along the way. We might even lose our way. If we don’t have good maps, our compass will be of no use to us on the mishaps of the way.

In my previous post, I was advocating that we need men in the map-making business. You can see that navigating the wilderness is much more involved than you might think. I am sure if I was out in the real wilderness with the best maps and the best compasses, I would soon be lost.

In the ecclesiastical wilderness, I would suggest that we all vary in our skills and wisdom in using the tools the Lord has given us. We need good solid principles to guide us, to be sure. If you will, we need the compass that was given us in recent weeks. But are all of us ever going to be equally proficient with these principles? It is hardly likely.

Do we not need men who will take the time to adjust their compass accurately, who will labour to understand the declinations from true north that there be, who will explain those declinations and their seriousness to the less skilled? There are some men who seem to point north, but they are actually pointing very wide of the mark. The declination of some may not seem so great at first glance, but the declination is serious, and if you attempt to navigate this wilderness without adjusting for their declination, you will miss the mark and land far wide of true north.

We are not talking about men who point south – these men we are observing do point northish.³ But the influence of the southern magnetic field is real. Many of these men are much influenced by their interaction with the southward pull. Accepting their direction without allowing for their declination will lead you astray.

One last quote from the Princeton site:

Navigation in the wilderness means knowing your starting point, your destination, and your route to get there.

Given the unwillingness of some Fundamentalist leaders to make maps for us, how well do you think we are going to keep people pointing to the True North?

1. I was going to boast that in Canada, we tend to be more generally in line with true north, but then I noticed that red line in the middle… it appears that anyone along a line running through eastern Ontario, Wisconsin, Illinois, eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, and even the Florida panhandle (Pensacola??) have no deviation from true north with their compasses. Does that mean these areas are the most clear seeing?
2. Perhaps we have discovered a mixed metaphor?
3. Who points northish? Those who believe the true gospel.