There was a time when shoot-from-the-hip criticisms (of Calvinism, or Evangelicals, or versions, or non-Baptists, or people with varying standards) were all the rage in fundamentalism. Facts weren’t necessary. Nor was grace. It was sufficient to speak loudly and confidently, and hearers would nod in agreement. That day is passing.
Criticisms can (and must) still be leveled at doctrinal error and personal compromise, obviously. But a new generation demands facts—that the criticism be grounded in truth, the errors documentable, and the suggested remedy (not to mention the spirit) be biblically sound. There are a number of reasons for this, I imagine. Increased emphasis on education in recent years. Books. Conferences. The radio. The internet. An independent streak in younger men that can be dangerous, to be sure, but can also be healthy. So careless criticisms, doctrinal fumbles, and off-the-mark messages often meet a rebuttal or a critique, especially when they occur in public. Sure, the objection may be relatively small and the objector may be dismissed as a crank, but at least there is a sense of accountability, even if those who chime in are essentially unknown and alone—perhaps even excessive, at times.
I wonder, though, if things have finally reached the tipping point—if not only a few young cranks are saying “enough,” but an entire movement (regardless of age) is weary of tolerating error within even as it proudly exposes error (sometimes far less grievous error) without. I hope so. And Dr. Kevin Bauder’s timely article published today makes me think so. Give “Time to Speak Up” a read. It’s not just about Calvinism or the slander of hostorical figures and conservative evangelicals. It’s not really about Pastor Sweatt (who I’ve appreciated for years) or this one message. It’s about a change of culture; a raising of the bar; a commitment to self-policing; a refusal to ignore silliness for the sake of “unity” or “the cause” or “the movement.”
Perhaps this is indeed a tipping point—a historical one. Perhaps it marks a change of eras and attitude. Perhaps, to borrow from Reagan’s 1984 ad (at the risk of being melodramatic), “It’s morning again in fundamentalism.” I hope so.
Thank you, Dr. Bauder. “In the nick of time,” indeed.
Filed under: Fundamentalism Tagged: | Fundamentalism, In the Nick of Time, Kevin Bauder, Time to Speak Up
Yes, it has been so tragic that the preceding generations were a pack of deluded fools.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I didn’t say that, Don. But I’ve heard this sort of message in the past without any sort of critique being issued. I’m guessing you have, too. And I think this generation is less tolerant of it than previous generations.
I could note that your sarcasm isn’t very becoming, but I won’t. :)
Like, would that have been one from er, um, one HT Spence, Chris? :-) It would be funny if it wasn’t so bad.
I am as happy as you are that Kevin spoke up, but face it, I think the new morning began a couple of years ago when some young pastors who were always being labeled as “young fundamentalists” decided that they were, in fact, fundamentalists with unwavering convictions despite the pejorative label of “young” tacked on to them by the establishment and despite the fact that they were marginalized by the political power-brokers. And they started speaking their mind without regard to rank and status. And they did it by blogging. Yep, I think blogging began the new morning in fundamentalism. A new era of accountability had started when any Tom, Dick, or Harry could critique a message or at least google the facts to see if the pontificating preacher was right. Kevin is doing the FBFI a huge favor here (if they realize it), but one has to wonder if it would have been written if the story had not been highlighted on blogs.
I was just thinking about that, Mike. I thought it was bad when he said Patch Goes to Space was teaching levitation and when he said he wanted to tell white teen boys not to act like “Wiggers.” Mercy. But when he taught courtship from the Tabernacle, finishing with the High Priest “penetrating the veil” and “sprinkling blood” as a picture of marriage, well, I had to walk out. Literally. Only time I’ve walked out on a preacher in my life. I wanted to get out of the building before lightning struck.
But hey, he’s a good separatist, and that’s the main thing.
Sorry Chris, couldn’t resist. But you started it. Delete if you must.
Nice. And another that could have theological implications. :)
This could go on . . . and on . . . and on . . .
Now if you up the ante on “a time for choosing” with an “evil empire” video, I’m going to insist on an explanation of the allegory.
[...] My Two Cents: Kevin Bauder Chimes In [...]
[...] Chris Anderson 1 2 [...]
Chris and Bob, you could be right here. I hope you’re right. The blogosphere has allowed countless little pockets of people or individuals who had some serious concerns to realize that they’re not alone. “Am I the only one who noticed that?” has been followed by “Ok, so I’m not crazy, and it isn’t just me.”
Chris,
Just for clarity sake, who are you talking about when you refer to levitation, wiggers and the tabernacle marriage analogy? Is this Sweatt?
No, that wasn’t Pastor Sweatt.
H. T. Spence
[...] the south by Dr. Dan Sweatt; and the responses (Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. David Doran, FBFI, Bob Bixby, Chris Anderson) from several concerning that message. I would like to blog several posts about fundamentalism and [...]
I do think there is ,much going on and quite a few of us have had enought. My personal story is when leaving highschool into the world, I left pentacostalism and then into Independent Baptist Fundamentalism. Fortunately those who discipled me(did not get a lot from Pentacostalism) happened to be MacArthur fans. As in a new relationship within Baptist circles-I read both Ryrie’s book and MacArthur on Lordship Salvation and saw LS as more biblical as with all the occasions of commitments to abstain from sin is actually my own salvation testimony.
To get this done with less words-I have believed LS for almost as long as I have been a Baptist(20 yrs). For whatever reason, it seemed most times either the pastor/church agreed or if disagreed was not so much a doctrinal heresy.
As I was also an Armenian and challanged by the Lord to accept Calvinism in the least likliest places to study and then accept Calvinism-Pacific Coast Baptist Bible Clollege(now Heartland)-a very Armenian understanding of salvation. Took me years to connect these two togethe, not only in the college-Baptist churches-my own home church-and almost anyone I would meet-there is this one thing that was the most prevailing ideal-flesh, flesh, and some more flesh. Not so much as say fornication but how we live sanctified as a point of self reliance-we sanctify ourselves which I later come to understand as sin. I eventually went into a way different direction soiritually when some saw me as decieved for joining a cult despite most often I can put any movement and compare with scriptures and show where something is wrong or even why certain movements tread this pathas quite often-it would take a certain amount of deception to fool me as I think-you start seeing how easy it is to spot a deception-not to sound egotistical-frankly in everything, I would spoot it very easily.
The point of this is when it seemed the Lord granted me mercy in putting me in a place where they honestly taught what sprituality is which I later learned was the same conception of sanctification as MacArthur and quite a few other mainline preachers i.e. Jerry Bridges another which hit so clearly the problems of fleshly fundamentalism. Still it would take many years before finally given an understanding of truth in understanding all my righteousness are as filthy rags and salvation did not change this as I began seeing saved by grace and sanctified by grace-that faith which saves also sanctifies. I never hear one Baptist fundamentalist teach on how to combat the power of sin and how to deal with the desire to sin.
Of course I should mention is it seemed the Lord drew me to the same passages Mac Arthur uses for LS as is judged as discipleship but not salvation or4 sanctification as a dichotomy from salvation.(not sure if speaking correctly).
As not all gets hit at one time in understanding-I actually began seeing my own belief as pleasing the flesh. Not so much my belief was wrong but almost everytime those who believe this act in the flesh and very sinful. It is not because I think this belief is heresy but those who teach it are the heretical as they teach and act in the power of the flesh. This is where I disagree with James White a bit on his book on King James onlyism.
For me, the ideal formulated long before this is, is God more concerned which version you use or how you allow which ever version of the bible transform you by the Spirit of God?
I am not saying I have abandoned my own position but has become very low on my list of things I think is dangerous to Christianity. I still nhave problems with modern ible versions, but what gives God the most glory-certainly this tumbled even faster and lower.
With what this blog brought out is critical thinking and what do nwe use for evidances-and how do we percieve those we disagree with.
The easiest one to see is when you read Alexanderia was indeed sacked and the scriptures hid and had nothing to do with some making a judgement that these were corrupt.
Now a similar thing happened as the Roman emporer(before Constatine) put an idict out only Roman Pantheism is the true religion and all others will have their works of scriptures burned and destroyed as this happened quite a bit in the Byzantine empire. This does not give an evidance of the Byzantine family pretty much because I think much was destroyed and also caused these text families to flee and scatter. It is a probable explanation to me. Why does all this matter? I do not see any in the Baptist KJV onlyism attempting to find out much of this as it takes work and a certain type of intellect because you must approach quite a few different ideas. On the same note, I often wander why no one ever brings up the fact that we believe the bible by faith and so we cannot prove the bible as then faith becomes fact and there is some really hard problems with this-same thing about proving God. I always saw onlyism as trying to justify a viewpoint based on reasoning-though I would say a very bad type of reasoning.
Ultimately, nthough I dosagree with White, I do enjoy his other books on Calvinism and his teaching and debate videos on youtube. Eventually when admiotting this(the truth is something we should never be ashamed of) as I began to see many because of being in the flesh-seeing quite a few in sin I had this conception that many will devour each other and if I want to preach Christ-I better find a different group to associate with.
I never saw Calvinism as heresy though I disagreed and when I became a Calvinist-I hold the same view for non Calvinists. Yet seeing many erroneously accusing Calvin of originating TULIP when I come to find out he was dead about 64 yrs when this started happening and actually King James polayed a bigger role then any other king/ruler. For all the defense of King James being gay and other defenses-I just wander if most KJV advocates against Calvinism is aware if it was not for King James-TULIP would never have been created in the first place.
Now I get accused of manythings, heresy being the most fatal charge as I just decide to embrace whatever I am accused of. Yes, I preach another gospel because of Lordship Salvation-my gospel-the gospel of Christ saves and sanctifies so if Christ is seen as preaching another gospel by teaching faith sanctifies-then you better go back to the bible and study if the words of Christ and the New Testament are seen as heresy.
Of course I hear and see some very funny expressins as I then ask, so you believe when someone gets saved by grace through faith-Christ does not become your God? Go ask this to a fundamentalist Baptist and I think most times-they just do not know how to think.