Dissidens,

I hate to say it, but this is the exact fundamentalism that eats the mind out and leaves one a babbling fool. I'm sure all five churches in the Ohio Bible Fellowship are good with this statement, but, oh my, what paranoia it suggests!

I'll bet Phil Johnson is shaking like a dog passing a pitch pit over this bit bravado. Yes, sir, the Ohio boys have now taken over the helm of the good ship Separatism and have restored its listing ways.

Unbelievable.

Actually, tjp, I think you took deep delight in saying it.

Well, of all the words we could use to describe that disgrace, one we can’t use is [I]intolerable[/I].

Because it is tolerated.

I'd not be so hard Lilrabbi. It is not something I think people delight in saying. Here are a group of pastors who are saying that when it comes to reaching hearts and minds, those who do it better are their enemies.

When will we have the resolution of repentace for failing to reach hearts and minds for years on end?

This whole resolution thing is preposterous, especially when it involves brothers who are thisclose to your own position. I'm sure Heaven rejoiced over this.

When will we admit that Mk. 9:38-40 is still in the Bible and that a resolution like the one passed by the Ohio Bible Fellowship flies into the teeth of Jesus' injunction?

We could have a lot of fun with the Ohio resolution and Jesus' statement in Mk. 9:38-40. But we spare the sons of thunder the embarrassment.

I'm not being hard. I agree with you. I'm just not sure tjp was being honest when he said, "I hate to say it..."

I agree with tjp, but I'm not sure he hated to say it. I really don't know tjp, but that is just the sense I got from what he said.

Many people delight very much in saying things like that. Perhaps it is that tjp thinks dissidens or me or you (whomever he is addressing) is thisclose to the OBF that made me think he wasn't being forthright with his delights. I dunno.

Well, I think the good man will, and must, take the next step (and of course I cannot take [I]your[/I] next step, so this is not scolding or preaching; this is just thinking).

If you find this objectionable, what can be done to end it? What set of circumstances exist now that encourage this reprehensible attitude and what must change? What [I]ought[/I] to be done? and why isn’t it being done?

I’m not talking about just this Resolution or just the OBF, I’m talking about everything. If the leaders of a movement are smiting the president hip and thigh, or employing the language of threats, or accusing brethren of holding to two-book theories, or suggesting that separation involves long walks on short planks, what stands in the way of a younger generation of prudent separatists repairing the damage of an injudicious fundamentalism?

Can separatism ever stand in the sunlight again?

Most of us are agreed that separatism is a proper and appropriate course. If we believe that that is true, then the worst thing to be done is to cede the field to the intemperate and disagreeable proponents of the idea, to those who discredit the good.

What should be done?

lilrabbi,

Perhaps I should've chosen my words more carefully. Perhaps I should've said, "This is typical of fundamentalism eaten up with its own zeal, of fundamentalism gone hide-hunting."

I'm all for protecting the flock, but not from other faithful shepherds! Discussing the shortcomings of fellow preachers may have its place, but treating them as wolves in sheeps clothing doesn't.

Sadly this is the rhetorical madness that has millstoned the fundamentalist movement (oh, I forgot, it's an idea now) and brought it into contempt even among its followers.

It is curious that now YOU are asking what is going to be done, dissidens.

I ditto unk.

But, unk, this "hearts and minds" language - are you suggesting that a tirade against MacArthur, Piper and D.A. Carson is fundamentalism's own Vietnam?

I know what Bible college students are asking. They are wondering why we separate from those who err on our left but not on our right. Let's not belabor the issue of whether or not these students know the difference between left and right. It seems an honest question to ask why we separate from some things but not from others.

Dissidens,

Personally I think Bauder was onto something, even though one may disagree with his footing and approach. I think he was saying things that needed to be said.

And, quite frankly, what he was saying was resonating with a good many; and for that reason I think he came perilously close to touching off a civil war among fundies, hence, blog closed.

What do you think?

Exlibris,

I don't have any idea what you mean.

I have the notion that the people who have the truth ought to be the ones reaching hearts and minds.

tjp - I agree with you. I'm not sure it matters much how you said it. I was having fun.

Dissidens - didn't these resolutions take place a few months ago? Sorry if I wasn't sober enough about this. I'm not sure if I know anyone from the obf (Chris Anderson?). I'm not very well traveled and I come from the ultra liberal IARBC :)

My name is Chris Anderson, and I am a member of the OBF. I don’t pretend to speak in an official capacity, so I represent only myself. Nor do I pretend to agree with every jot and tittle that the OBF or its individual members may say or do, though I am glad to throw in my hat with likeminded men who have a desire to stand for the truth and against error.

I was disappointed to see such a scathing rebuke in such a public forum. It is careless and ill-informed. I was even more disappointed to read the grossly inaccurate portrayal of the OBF by one who should know better, Joel.

First, regarding the resolution, I question what is so reprehensible or anti-intellectual about it? It does not call for the burning of books or of conservative evangelical authors. It does not even call for the censure of such books and authors. Rather, it urges fundamentalists to use caution when reading literature from brethren with whom we have significant disagreements. It urges pastors to warn their flock of these dangers. Since you asked for examples, I will give a few from my own life and ministry.

I am currently taking in much of what Mark Dever has read and spoken. I have benefited much from him, especially his instructions regarding the local church. I have quoted from him positively on my blog. This very morning, before learning of this post, I listened to two of his messages: one on planning a worship service and one on Proverbs 1:1-7. I appreciated both of them.

However, I read Dever with caution: I am—to use the word of the OBF resolution which you apparently find so offensive—“guarded” when I read him. Why? Because there are important areas in which I disagree with him. I cannot understand why he tolerates and continues union with error in his SBC. I strongly disagree with his denial that the Bible teaches separation from disobedient brethren outside of the local church context (per a conversation I had with him two months ago). I disagree with his alliances and cooperative relationships. So I may or may not feel comfortable recommending his writings to the congregation which I pastor. But what difference does that make to you? Why does that earn your scorn?

I could say the same thing about MacArthur, Piper or others. I read them and benefit from them, but I do so “guardedly.” And the OBF does the same, though to different degrees. For example, we have studied Iain Murray’s Revival and Revivalism at an OBF Pastor’s Conference. We learned much from it. We found it to be tremendously helpful for our ministries. However, we read Murray “guardedly.” Is practicing and urging such discernment and caution really so very comical? Why would this site—of all places!—Take exception with such carefully chosen words as “unguarded use” and “warn”…especially when you shrilly respond with such words as “spite-scribble” and “bravado” and “disgrace” and “preposterous” and “madness”? The irony is thick! Why would participants at this site stoop to mocking some of the relatively few remaining men who are conscientiously trying to stand against the blatant and perpetual compromises of the day?

I am sorry that the concept is so abhorrent to you, but I believe that the resolution—though not perfect—is calling for necessary and common sense carefulness. And even if you disagree, it certainly is not worthy of such a condescending and caustic reproof.

Concerning Joel’s slanderous and broad-brushed indictment of OBF men and churches:

Joel, you may take exception with these “men and churches” for whatever reasons. But on what basis do you indict them for “failing to reach hearts and minds for years on end?” From what superior ministerial position, experience or effectiveness do you call these men to repentance? What pompous statements for anyone—much less a student and one who has benefited personally from the financial support of these men and churches—to make in a public forum!

The OBF and its affiliates have been used of the Lord to minister to a large number of men who are currently serving in pastorates or on the mission field. The fellowship and its close friends have no less than 25 young men currently training for the ministry in various institutions around the country. God is using these churches, despite your statements to the contrary. Though God alone deserves glory for such a thing (Psalm 115:1), it is far from accurate to say that these ministries are not reaching men’s hearts and minds.

Beyond the training of pastors and missionaries, the OBF’s men and churches are being used of the Lord to extend the gospel: four of the newest members of the OBF are church planters. People are coming to Christ and to Christlikeness in these and other churches. Most of the members—old and new—hold advanced degrees and take very seriously the handling of the Word in a conscientious manner. They are not “babbling fools.”

Perhaps you were unaware of these things. Either way, perhaps you should have spoken more—dare I say it?—“guardedly.”

The criticisms of those posting on this thread are filled with irony. I suggest that you consider your own words in light of your “shoot-from-the-hip” bashing of the OBF:

* Dissidens: “This can not be good for the church of Jesus Christ.”

* TJP: “I'm sure Heaven rejoiced over this.”

* TJP: “I'm all for protecting the flock, but not from other faithful shepherds! Discussing the shortcomings of fellow preachers may have its place, but treating them as wolves in sheep’s clothing doesn't.”

Indeed.

unk:

Well, to be a bit more precise, I’m not really asking what should be done; I’m asking others to think about what they should do.

I am trying to be sensitive to 1. my own conscience, and 2. the conscience of our readers.

I am a conservative, both viscerally and intellectually: I don’t counsel revolution, radical change, foment, insurgency, or rebellion. I am constitutionally put off by activists and provocateurs. Even well-intentioned reformation has unintended consequences. I suspect activism and I distrust reformers.

I find myself where I am as a matter of last resort. And this has been determined by my own experience of the movement, the behavior of its leaders and my own beliefs about what is right. Since these cannot be shared by all of you, and since there certainly is discomfort about the state of affairs, I am trying to frame the discussion in a way that does violence to no one.

I know what [I]my[/I] response has to be; I do not presume that it can be the response of others. I think to do that would be to indulge in the inflexibility of conscience we despise.

There may well be people in the movement with clear consciences on these matters, I cannot tell them what their response should be. I know there are angry and alienated people out there, and I don’t want to encourage thoughtless reaction in them either. I don’t want to be telling people to get over it and I don’t want to encourage continued resentment.

If the movement wants the benefit of thinking people, it will have to produce them. Fundamentalism has exceeded its quota of catspaws, and I don’t want to encourage any more.

No Chris Anderson, my remarks were sufficiently guarded. The resolution itself bears it out. Would you have to protect their hearts and minds from Dever and Iain Murray (Iain Murray!) if you were reaching them yourself, if the people trusted you and asked you about what they were reading? Just if what you told them about it made sense in their heart and minds? Shouldn’t those who are right be able to reach minds and hearts better, having the truth?

This is the OBF bashing itself.

Isn’t the next logical step for god-fearing men to repent of failing and try to reach hearts and minds better? Somehow it is slander to suggest it.

lilrabbi:

Yes, this is not up-to-the-minute reporting.


tjp:

You are asking if it’s possible Bauder was saying what he believed and this idea-not-movement rose up and squelched his rebel voice? that his last post was not sufficient explanation for the end of the blog?

I would have to give that interpretation a lot of very tense thinking.

Chris, your post reminds me of when I stumbled through the door at Unk's blog inebriated from drinking too long at the Orange River. Remember that, Unk? Although, I must say, you make a lot more sense than I did, I'm sure of it! The only difference is that you're actually a member of the OBF, and I only thought I was a member of the Young Fundamentalist Movement. lol

I hope everyone can see that I'm a bit of a neutral observer. I don't have the attachment (willingly or unwillingly) that many of you have with the OBF and others like them. I've neither been hurt nore helped in any observable way by the OBF. I really don't know much about them except what I know of you, Chris.

If anyone cares, I thought it kind of funny that people have to be warned about books. Luther disagreed with Calvin about important things but nonetheless called him, reverently, The Theologian. Shouldn't we read everything with our thinking caps on? I guess I see this one like Joel does.

Chris - do you warn your people against Sword of the Lord and all that rot? I'm not being antogonistic, I'm genuinely curious. Have their been resolutions passed against the truly disgusting things that have come out of 'fundamentalism'? I really don't know, that is why I ask.

Then I shall put to you, Pastor Anderson, the unanswered question I put to the Ohio Guard:

Dear info:

I was just given a copy of your [I]Resolution On The Unguarded Use of New Evangelical Authors[/I] and am curious to know two things:

1. What constitutes in your minds “unguarded use”?
2. Can you give a representative list of the sort of neo-evangelical authors you have in mind?

Thanks for any clarification you might offer.

Sincerely,

You seek to characterize this action as a concern for God’s people. Yet the grounds for your resolution look eerily schismatic.

You vaguely warn against “unguarded use” of some unnamed new evangelicals on the grounds that their position is very close to your own and therefore constitutes your greatest peril, that there is a predominance of their works, that it is effective and winsome.

I’m not quite sure I see the threat here. I asked but I got no answer. Maybe you can help me. Would you be happier if new evangelicals were as ineffective and as unappealing as fundamentalists? Would the saints be safer if your enemy published fewer books? Or would you be more comfortable if their position were not so similar to yours?

After all we have heard about the special sanctity of the separatist platform, your resolution extends your unspecified censure to the effective writings of other servants of Christ. What exactly does [I]separation[/I] mean to the OBF?

You plant the notion in readers’ minds that to read and profit from helpful books by new evangelicals results in the harmful influence of friendships prohibited by Solomon and St. Paul. This could use some clarification.

How so? If the problem is so serious, wouldn’t it help to give some examples of “inappropriate promotion”?

I'm not sure my response will be satisfying to you. I am sure that I'm not looking for a drawn-out discussion. This will very likely be my last post on the subject.

Jesse,
I certainly warn against errors to my right as well as to my left. Indeed, I warn against the mistakes to which I believe even balanced fundamentalists are prone (externalism, pride, etc.). I do so often.
_______

Dissidens,
I have given the illustration of Dever, while also mentioning Piper and MacArthur. These men are not my enemies. I have learned much from them. I genuinely appreciate most of what they've written and spoken. However, when I come across something that I believe is harmful (such as the mocking of separatism on Dever's interview with Mohler, Mahaney and Duncan), I suppose I could accurately say that I am "guarded." Another example: I recently passed out a brief version of Dever's "9 Marks" to the leaders in our church. In so doing, I explained that there is much from which they and our church will profit. However, I expressed my disagreement with Dever's affiliations, understanding of separation, etc. That's guarded use. I compare it to eating fish: swallow the meat and spit the bones. I'm surprised that it is so controversial.

I'm imagining that the "greatest peril" statement is one that raises questions. Although I didn't write it, might have expressed it a little differently and wasn't even present to vote on it, I don't believe that it is all that difficult to understand what it was intended to communicate. The point is simply that most fundamentalists do not leave a separatist understanding of the Scriptures to follow after Benny Hinn. They do so to follow after John Piper, for example. That doesn't make Piper an enemy; it certainly doesn't make him more of a threat to the gospel or to the church. It does, however, make him more of a threat to the separatist position.

Do I believe that an inappropriate infatuation for these authors could be harmful? Yes. For me, that concern doesn't mean that I don't use them or even commend their use to others, on occasion. It means that I do so in a "guarded" way, perhaps with a disclaimer. It means that I teach the people here to discern, neither throwing out their entire libraries nor reading uncritically. On the other hand, when dealing with someone whose teaching is more problematic but who is still particularly "winsome" (say, Swindoll), I would provide a stronger warning.

Do I wish evangelical authors were less effective in their communication? I wouldn't say that. I wish they were more careful in their treatment of issues I believe to be important. I wish they realized how their affiliations can compromise their good messages. I wish Christian readers were more discerning in their determination of whether what they read is Scriptural. I wish Christians were less prone to follow prominent men into error. And I would say that to teach that kind of discernment, warnings such as the one the OBF put out can be useful.

Again, I speak only for myself.
_______

Joel,
I am sorry that this conversation has become personal. I am offended, however, by your broadbrushed comments regarding (a) the OBF and (b) the relationships and impact that these pastors (most of whom you have never met) have on the people to whom they minister (most of whom you have never met).

Well, at least he knew that answer would not be satisfying to me. Perhaps that could be a place for the conscience to start.

No Chris Anderson. I actually think I know most of the pastors in the OBF, some pretty well from BIO, but I don't think that is the point. That is turning away from the point. This isn't about one person, it is about an OBF resolution.

When I read this resolution what it means very clearly is that those reaching hearts and minds must be prevented from doing so. And all I asked was, why isn't it a resolution to reach hearts and minds? And why isn't it a resolution that because there is a chance that those who are in error might reach hearts and minds (and in fact they are) we must make sure we reach hearts and minds more effectively, having the truth, but instead it is something else?

It might be because, as somebody pointed out a year or so ago, we don't have a fundamentalism that is worth saving. We ought not to be angry about that. Ought we not to repent?

Yikes!

The problem here reminds me of the confusion we seem to find in many of the laity within fundamentalism. They can't seem to understand the concept of critical reading . During my first year in the library, I received a call from a lady in a local church. She asked if we had a particular author in our lbrary. I told her that we did,whereupon she verbally assumed that we somehow endorsed the author. From whence cometh such imbeciles?

Children say what parents believe.

Really.

If your people come and ask you about Open Theism, what book are you going to give them if not a conservative New Evangelical book?

If you want to combat the New Perspective on Paul, where else can you find the resources if you exclude conservative New Evangelicals.

If a young student of the Word wants to develop his hermeneutics, what books can you give him which match those produced by conservative New Evangelicals?

If you want to read a systematic theology, which book written by an Independent, Fundamental Baptist will suffice?

The problem is not that New Evangelicals have winsome personalities. The reason New Evangelicals are admired and not Fundamentalists is because they actually write the books that address the issues. Fundamentalists have to read New Evangelicals just to see what the issues are.

"Fundamentalists have to read New Evangelicals just to see what the issues are."

Or make up issues, eh?