My Take on Bauder’s Article

An article by Central Seminary’s Kevin Bauder provoked some response, both reasoned and unreasoned. Some thoughtfully interacted with what he actually said, such as Dave Doran (here and here). Others had a seemingly kneejerk reaction that Dr. Bauder used the words “conservative evangelical” in his article. They don’t appear to have interacted with what he actually said.

I have read Bauder’s article. Several times. Here’s my take, after several weeks of letting it simmer.

Dr. Bauder never calls for fellowship with conservative evangelicals anywhere that I can see. Ironically, he actually appears to be calling for the strengthening of fundamentalism so that young men have a real alternative to conservative evangelicalism. His point, in part, seems to be that if we fundamentalists will take doctrine seriously, we will not have such a struggle “keeping” our young fundamentalists. You can’t claim to take doctrine seriously and believe what some people believe about the Bible and the blood of Jesus. Young men know that. Why don’t some of the older men? Bauder is certainly right: When young men are given a choice, they will choose those who teach the Bible more, even when it involves unwise allegiances. So fundamentalism needs to be giving young men a serious alternative by taking doctrine seriously.

Dr. Bauder rightly points out some serious errors within fundamentalism. He clearly says that not all fundamentalists hold to these doctrinal errors. He points out that many fundamentalists reject them. That can hardly be legitimately described as an attack on fundamentalism. It is merely reality: some believe this; other believe that. What he said is the truth. To quote Paul, “Have I become your enemy by telling you the truth” (Galatians 4:16). Fundamentalism needs a universal return to a serious consideration of bibliology, Christology, and soteriology, and a host of other doctrines. (And by that, I don’t mean using only modern versions or being a Calvinist. I mean what I said: “Give serious consideration.”)

Several weeks ago I interacted with a number of people outside the fundamentalist world. When people found out I was a fundamentalist, I was asked about the KJVO issue, whether our church still had “Baptist” in the name (it does) and legalism (and ironically, only those three things). Why? Because fundamentalism is known for not believing that God’s Word should be translated into the language that we speak, and for communicating that rules are more important than anything else. Is that fair? Probably not, but that’s the reality.

Dr. Bauder rightly notes that there are still clear differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. I don’t know anyone who disagrees with that. However, some would like to pretend Dr. Bauder did not say that. Why? Because most of their ranting cannot be made if you consider what he actually said.

In fact, I don’t know for sure, but I imagine that Dr. Bauder may be one of the few fundamentalists who has sat down face to face with John Piper and addressed some of these differences with him.

Dr. Bauder rightly notes that some fundamentalists are doctrinally closer to conservative evangelicals than to other fundamentalists because of their allegiance to the Scripture. Again, that’s not really debatable. It is a matter of fact. A person who holds to the biblical doctrine of Scripture is much closer to John MacArthur than to Peter Ruckman or D. A. Waite. A person who holds to the biblical gospel is much closer to John Piper than to Jack Schaap or Bob Gray, even if they are not Calvinistic.

So what’s Dr. Bauder’s big sin? He actually says that these conservative evangelicals, though different than fundamentalists in some substantive ways, are not our enemies.

How in the name of anything is that debatable?

Sure, we can debate whether they are actually “new evangelicals” in the historic sense of the word. That term means something, and it does not merely mean “those who differ from us.” Like all terms, it has morphed over the years. That, in my view, is a relatively minor point of his argument. Are they new evangelicals? I would say yes. But if someone disagrees, I am okay with that.

And it is indisputable that there are major doctrinal and practical errors with some of these men that preclude fellowship and participation.

But our enemies? Hardly.

Dr. Bauder says that conservative evangelicals are fighting doctrinal fights. Does anyone actually disagree with that? Does anyone recall a fundamentalists taking on open theists publicly, to their face, in front of a large group? I don’t.

Does anyone recall fundamentalists firing non-inerrantists from a seminary faculty? I don’t.

Is any fundamentalists speaking out about the new atheism? Not that I know of.

Now we can claim that we don’t have these problems in our group. And that is true, to a large degree (though I think open theism may not be as far off as some think, and bibliology is certainly having some issues in fundamentalism in some ways, I think). But the reality is that these conservative evangelicals are taking on doctrine in the public square and going face to face with those who deny it. Not consistently, to be sure. And there are still many problems. But they fight the battles.

Are there any fundamentalists who are on national TV speaking the gospel of Jesus Christ in debates with Deepak Chopra, Jewish rabbis, Muslim imams, atheists, and p0rnographers? No. In fact, when fundamentalists are on national TV it is to defend why a pastor with decades of s*x abuse charges was still a pastor until the police showed up. Or they go on national TV to change a dating policy. Now, I am glad the dating policy was changed. I am just not sure that national TV is the right venue for that, but perhaps it was. And whatever it is, it really isn’t fighting great doctrinal battles for the faith once for all handed down and the souls of dying men and women. No, we go on TV to talk about who abusive pastors and which believers we can marry. And I love the institution that I refer to and the man that was on national TV. I owe a great debt to that institution (not literally) in more ways that most of you. I love the time I spent (which was a long time). I think it is still the premier fundamentalist school in the country, if not the world. It’s not perfect, but it is good. It’s graduates are usually well-prepared to face life. So don’t paint me as against them, because I am not.

What do fundamentalists do? We (actually they) write letters from dead people to complain that someone told the truth. And we use a dead person because we know our own authority is wanting, and our only hope is that conscripting a dead guy will cause people to listen to something they won’t otherwise listen to. And we don’t bother to show that the dead guy actually agrees. We just drop his name and pretend like it’s okay.

What do fundamentalists do? We (actually they) refute things that were never said to begin with. And we do it with great bombast.

What do fundamentalists do? We (actually they) fight about whether or not the president of a fundamentalist seminary should be allowed to speak at a national conference because he publicly disagreed with someone who said some rather intemperate things about a clearly orthodox view of Scripture’s teaching on salvation. That’s not exactly cross-centered battle there. In fact, it’s rather embarrassing on a number of levels.

And I could go on. 

Think of the irony: Conservative evangelicals fight open theists and non-inerrantists. Fundamentalists fight gospel preachers who think that we should be careful about how we address differences.

And then these fundamentalists wonder why the young men of this generation who love the gospel and the Bible are going after the conservative evangelicals. 

Now, I think by and large that most fundamentalists believe in preaching the gospel to people. Many are active in personal evangelism and believe strongly in personal holiness. All of which is good. But I think the battles we choose to fight are sometimes battles that reveal a pettiness about doctrine and the gospel that we preach.

It may be that fundamentalists have just done a bad job of teaching people to read and think at the same time.

Or maybe fundamentalists have too well taught people to read and think, and when they read the Bible and think about it, they see that fundamentalism is lacking in a number of areas.

Is fundamentalism irredeemable? I don’t know. And to be honest, I am not sure I care. Why? Because I am unconvinced that the people in my city are helped by anything in “movement fundamentalism” (whether it exists or not).

I am a fundamentalist, but not one of those kind (as I have said before). It just doesn’t matter to me. If you guys want to enlist dead guys to join you in opposing those who are preaching the gospel, have at it, I guess.

I will participate with those with whom there is enough doctrinal and practical agreement. I will teach against error and false doctrine, and name names where it is necessary and helpful.

But I won’t be a part of the nonsense.

Here’s My Take on Duke and Butler

It was a good game in some ways. But let’s dispense with the notion that it was a Cinderella, small school, “Hoosiers,” David-n-Goliath kind of event. Butler was a top ten team for most of the year. They were, in fact, a good team (with a coach that looks like he is in high school. I wonder how hard it was to get time off from Algebra class, and if his parents got charged under the truancy statutes).

Of course, I am joking. He looks like a great coach.

And speaking of coaching, why in the world did Zoubek miss the last free throw on purpose? That was a horrible decision because it brought a loss into play (and it was way too close). If Zoubek makes that free throw, the best Butler can do is tie on a desperation heave. When he missed it, he gave them a possibility to win.

With less than two seconds, you might miss in order to get the clock started and leave Butler disorganized. Or if your Butler, down by two, you miss and try to get the put back to tie.

But you don’t miss intentionally when you are up by two with that much time left, when you know the only shot they can get off is a three-pointer.

Coach K is easily one of the top basketball coaches in the world. He has a few national championships and a couple of gold medals from the Olympics.

I am a dumb shmuck sitting in a recliner.

But that was a boneheaded move, Coach K. Take my word for it. You almost lost.

Here’s My Take on Tiger Woods

I may be the last person in the world to comment on Tiger Woods publically. I know I am late to the party, but here’s my take.

This morning, for the first time, he spoke publicly about the disaster that is his life. Most disasters this big receive money from FEMA. He actually lost money, but somehow I think he will manage to scrape a life together out of what’s leftover.

So here I go:

First, the guy is an amazing golfer. He is the best of his generation. Best of all time? Before declaring that, I would like to see him play in the era of Nicklaus, Watson, Palmer, and the fellows … with their equipment and their balls. But you can’t sneeze at fourteen majors and more than seventy wins.

Second, the guy is a world-class jerk. I am not talking about his marriage (yet). I am talking about him. The media paints it as mental toughness, devotion to winning, desire to dominate, and a host of other things. I call it being an idiot, lacking class. The better of an athlete you are, the less you should need the “game face.” In my view, the “game face” is for people who don’t have the game without the face.

Third, the guy owned his problems today. Good. He did not blame anyone else. Good. Hopefully, he means it.

Fourth, he owes nobody anything except his wife, his family, and his employers (i.e., sponsors). Listening to people rant about how the fans need an apology is stupid. Listen to radio personalities and columnists whine about him not taking any questions is also stupid. He owes you no answers to your dumb questions. He owes me, nor anyone else out here, anything.

Fifth, he is returning to his childhood faith, Buddhism. He hopes this will help him center his life and live according to his values. Good, I guess. If you are going to live in this world, you should do something and believe something that will make you a better person.  Hopefully he will do that.

The truth is that Buddhism probably will help him get what he wants because he appears to want his life back, meaning his wife and kids, his sponsors, and his golf.

However, Buddhism won’t help in the long run because it does nothing to address the real problems of his life, which is the fact that he stands under the judgment of the one true and living God. Buddhism can’t fix that. Buddhism can’t atone for his sins (and he can’t either). Buddhism might help him live better but it won’t help die well. Only Jesus can do that.

Sixth, listening to one of the many side flings complain about not deserving what she got is perhaps the highlight of the whole sordid affair (no pun intended). Here, a former p0rn star actress complains that a guy carries on a sexual relationship with her and then walks away from it. Wow, never experienced that before? She complains he lied to her. What did she expect? He’s committing adultery. Of course he is lying.

She thinks she deserves an apology. She says she would take one over the phone but she thinks it should be face to face. The cynical side of me says that she owes him a cut of her royalties since very few people would have heard of her if not for this, and the money she makes off of stories is only because of him.

The other side of me says she should be too embarrassed to be seen in public. Just go away.

In fact, I wish the whole story would go away. It pure voyeurism.

So here’s my conclusion:

Remember the cross. Jesus died to save your from the power of sinful fantasies and dangerous relationships. Jesus died for the sin that you think you can’t live without. He died to give you something bigger to live for than the next sexual high. So act like it. Cry over it. Rejoice in it. Run to the cross.

Guard your heart. As this story reminds us, having an trophy wife won’t keep you from looking elsewhere. So men, if you think your problem in your marriage is that your wife doesn’t look a certain way, you’re lying to yourself. Stop it now. Repent of it.

Guard your marriage, whether you have money or not. Do not let outside influences in, even in the recesses of your mind. You can think things and no one will know … for a while … perhaps for a long while. But you’re playing with fire. And more often than not, fire will burn you. Don’t hide things in your life. Be transparent. Be open. Be communicating. And be loving God more than your spouse or your marriage.

Live in a constant state of avoiding sin (not just turning from it). Don’t put yourself in unnecessarily dangerous situations. It’s not worth it, not because you will lose millions of dollars from sponsors. It will cost your far more than that.

Here’s My Take – The Manhattan Declaration

Much has been said about the Manhattan Declaration (MD). For those who don’t know, MD is a declaration of “Christian conscience” about abortion, marriage, and religious liberty authored largely by Timothy George (Beeson Divinity School), Robert George (Princeton), and Chuck Colson.

As of this moment, there are 273842 signers, including some very prominent people. You can go elsewhere for a fuller analysis of it, such as John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, or Dave Doran, or R. C. Sproul.

Here’s the simple point, as I see it: the document uses the term “Christian” for people who believe very different things about the gospel of Jesus Christ that brings salvation. In other words, they use the term “Christian” for people who believe very different things about what a “Christian” is. 

Therefore, it is misleading and confusing at best. (That’s my attempt to be charitable). It is closer to a compromise on the very nature of the gospel, and the people who signed this should know it. There is no reason for people like Al Mohler (perhaps the most visible evangelical to sign) to even tacitly suggest that the signers of this document are all Christian in the historic, biblical-theological sense of the term. That is disappointing, to say the least. He knows better, and led a fight a Southern to cleanse of the school of people like this (who in some cases were probably closer to Christian orthodoxy than some of these signers).

If the document were designated as the concerns of “concerned citizens” or “religious leaders,” it would be an entirely different issue.

I probably still wouldn’t sign it because 1) no one knows me and no one would know that I even signed it, and 2) I think these types of things are generally a lot more about show than substance.

The Christian position on these issues of abortion, marriage, and religious liberty is well known. Calling it that “Manhattan Declaration” won’t increase the visibility of it, and certainly won’t cause people of power and influence to do anything differently.

Change won’t come because a quarter of a million people add their names on a document that most people don’t even know exists.

But for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of the souls of men and women all around the world, let us not create confusion by pretending that the word “Christian” can describe all those people.

It doesn’t. And it is dishonest to say that it does.