Read this entire article before continuing on to my remarks.
March 5, 2010
Let’s Get Clear On This
Kevin T. Bauder
A variety of electronic periodicals reach my inbox regularly. One that arrives nearly every day is published by a retired seminary professor. Most days I derive a great deal of pleasure and often profit from glancing through his cogitations.
Today’s number, however, evoked a bit of concern. The dear fellow was reprinting some criticisms that he had received. Here is what they said.
The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God. These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist. . . Why are you promoting this sort of thing?
While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer? . . . I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level.
These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.
This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.
Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.
Both mainstream ecumenicals and Left-leaning evangelicals would like to classify these individuals as Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals, however, do not perceive themselves as Fundamentalists. Most Fundamentalists also recognize some differences. While there are similarities between them, enough differences remain that Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals ought to be distinguished from each other.
What are those differences? Anti-dispensationalism seems to be more widely characteristic of conservative evangelicalism than it is of Fundamentalism, though it is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. Toleration of Third-Wave charismatic theology is widely accepted among conservative evangelicals but universally rejected among Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals are willing to accommodate the more contemporary versions of popular culture, while Fundamentalists restrict themselves to older manifestations. Most importantly, Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.
Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.
Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.
Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.
In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.
Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy. They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.
The apostle Paul insisted that he was “set for the defense of the gospel.” Fifty years ago, that phrase appeared on nearly every Fundamentalist ordination certificate. Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.
To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?
Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.
Upcoming young leaders are uncertain about the future of Fundamentalism and about their future with it. And no wonder. One Fundamentalist college recently advertized that it does not teach Greek to theology majors. Why? Because the school has an “absolute conviction that the King James Bible is God’s perfect, preserved Word for the English Speaking World.” Contrast that school’s approach with D. A. Carson’s essays in his upcoming book, Collected Writings on Scripture. If young leaders are forced to choose between these two approaches, I have no doubt which choice they will make.
More and more Fundamentalists are coming to the same conclusion. They are not entering into full cooperation with conservative evangelicals, but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Quiet conversations have been occurring between some Fundamentalist leaders and some conservative evangelical leaders for several years. One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.
These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.
Even such mild and narrow recognition, however, provokes panic from the Fundamentalist opponents of conservative evangelicals. Like the two critics at the beginning of this essay, these opponents express concern that any level of involvement with conservative evangelicals will constitute a blanket endorsement of their errors. These Fundamentalist critics, however, are seldom willing to express these same concerns over the excesses of the hyper-fundamentalist Right.
We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.
If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.
So let’s get clear on this.
Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.
If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.
If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.
Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.
________________________________
Comments From Ken Willis
This article was brought to my attention by a classmate who like it and endorsed on facebook; about one week later, a dear ministry friend sent me a link to the same article expressing his heart-brokenness over it. The stark contrast in opinions left me no choice but to closely examine it for myself.
First of all, I would like to preface this response / review with the fact that I have serious concerns with Bauder’s article and seriously question those feel the same way. I will admit that he does make some valid points–which I will address.
“These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.”
I believe Bauder has made a fatal flaw in saying that generally Fundamentalists view Christians in only two divisions. There are many labels that we as Fundamentalists have to wade through in the true Christian church. I’m afraid this statement was serving his purposes, but not actuality’s.
_____________________________
Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.
Many of these names listed should cause immediate red flags and concerns; Piper, Dever, Mohler, Mahaney, Sproul, and even MacArthur–these men are known for having mostly doctrinally sound content, yet they associate and walk with apostates and liberals. Some of these very men are Charismatic or liberal in theology.
The “Together For The Gospel Coalition”, or TG4 is a perfect example of compromise under the banner of rallying around the Gospel. The Gospel is used as an excuse to join hands with those who are Charismatic, liberal and those who willingly associate and work with apostates.
I seriously am concerned over the assertion–a very bold and presumptuous claim–that Conservative Evangelicals actually defend the Gospel. The Gospel is more than Christ dying on the Cross; it is the life of holiness and separation one lives as a result of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. The Gospel is not simply Christ’s sacrifice, but is the lifestyle that follows a true convert.
_____________________________
Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.
They should agree to denounce them, mark them and separate from them as Scripture teaches. This indecisiveness is part of the problem.
_______________________________
Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.
I must admit that this point is one that Bauder is correct on. Fundamentalists need to get off the KJV debate and focus on the depth of Scripture and doctrinal issues. I am a profound lover of the KJV, but to preach that it is the only acceptable version is neither correct or wise. It is a safe, trusted, proven version, yet we must remember that it is God’s Word preserved. To assert that the KJV is the only version God can use is lie–not to mention an abominable logical fallacy. However, I will agree that we as Fundamentalists need preachers who dig deeper and expound the great doctrines of Scripture. If we knew our doctrines better, we would solve many of our problems with shallowness.
_________________________________
In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.
The Conservative Evangelicals may have promoted the core of the Gospel–Christ’s death on the Cross for salvation. They leave off the application(s) of the Gospel. Calvinists in particular, preach the Gospel in part, but fail to make Scriptural application to the listener. If Conservative Evangelicals went all the way with the Gospel, I would have no quarrel, yet the fact remains that they do not and have not.
_______________
They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.
Hopefully so. Piper is a neo-evangelical, charismatic, neo-Calvinistic leader with drastic effectiveness on his listeners. He is one who preaches the half-Gospel as I have described above. His Calvinistic doctrines are extra-Biblical and are descendant from Calvin–who got them from Augustine, who in turn got them from the Roman Catholic Church–and therefore should be preached against and silenced as much as possible.
_______________________
Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.
This is unfortunately true, but perhaps not in the way Bauder meant it. Fundamentalists do lack men and is increasing in the lack of men who will defend the whole Gospel. We need more men who will preach the message of salvation and in correlation, preach the holiness and separation that follows the conversion of a sinner’s heart.
_____________________
Many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?
This is another point that I agree with. KJV onlyism is a fallacy and a lie; arrogance and egotism is wrong; doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship is a problem; manipulative Revivalism is a false hope. We need to turn to God in humble prayer and seek for Him to pour out His power and Spirit upon our congregations and not try to create this false power and emotion ourselves. We cannot manipulate revival; true revival is of God and can only be prepared for and prayed for.
________________________
They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.
I am astonished that Bauder could actually come to such a conclusion.
___________________
To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.
The value of what they do? These men are promoting a half-Gospel that teaches people to not be concerned with separation and true holiness and basically live as their conscience directs. “They are elect of God and free from the law.” They equate holiness with legalism and the result is all around us. Just take a look at reformed congregations. The dress is often lax, the standards are often loose and the lifestyle is not that distinct from the world. Sovereign Grace has worked on the music–encouraging believers to worship as the world does. Their music is so close to the world’s party music, it is quite difficult to even distinguish between the two.
We do not agree in the areas of holiness and separation, therefore we cannot cooperate with these men; we can only rebuke them in love and fight their flawed methodology with Scripture.
______________________________
If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.
If the Conservative Evangelicals have furthered the cause of Christ, it has been in spite of their separation standards and their half-gospel message; NOT because of it.
The Fundamentalists have stood hard and long; and receive bombastic criticism from the Conservative Evangelicals for doing so.
_____________________________________
Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.
They have not even preached the whole Gospel, therefore they are not allies and therefore are not friends of those who do. They preach a partial gospel, which is in effect, another gospel.
_____________________________
If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.
This statement blows my mind. (I prefer not to rant, but I am not perfect.) If we preach against those who are not preaching the true Gospel, we are certainly not preaching against friends of the Gospel.
_________________
Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.
I have no personal hard feelings of malice or ill-will for these men, but as one who tries to preach the WHOLE Gospel, I am not grateful for these men, for they are doing far more harm than good.
Closing Remarks:
I conclude the essay by summarizing the fact that Bauder does make some legitimate points, but his overall assertions are flawed, wrong, and skewed. I think he is in the wrong camp personally. If he has such a twisted view of Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals, he ought to simply join them openly.
We need to purge out these Evangelical – presences in our camp. We must preach the whole Gospel and defend it from the partial gospel.
May God grant us strong, bold men who will resist the seduction of the partial gospel and preach the whole-counsel of God. Amen.
“Why Revival Tarries” is, I believe and so do many others, Leonard Ravenhill’s greatest work. Although brother Ravenhill has gone on to be with his Savior in 1994, his life is still touching hearts and preaching on as it were. He reminds of the passage where the dead Israelite was cast into Elisha’s grave, touched Elisha’s bones and revived. This man of God’s ministry has definetly reached beyond the grave.
