Read this article, then scroll down for my analysis of the central problem with Flanders' thinking.
I don't know if you agreed or disagreed with Flanders' point. Frankly, I'm not very concerned whether people prefer the Majority or the Eclectic Greek Text. Besides, that whole debate completely ignores the Old Testament, which is rather frightening. But I digress.
So let me ask you one question. What, if anything, troubles you most about that article?
My greatest concern has nothing whatsoever to do with the text/translation arguments. Rather, I am grieved over the fact that Flanders identifies "most fundamentalist leaders" as "heads of influential institutions" and "the directors or presidents of the following organizations."
One of the great ironies I have observed in Baptist fundamentalism is that the people who speak most forcefully for the primacy and autonomy of the local church are also the people who look to evangelists and para-church ministries for leadership. Does anyone else see the problem? Like the old "new evangelicalism," we have abandoned our ecclesiology.
Maybe I should not blame Flanders' for his definition of the leaders of fundamentalism. After all, he does refer later to pastors as among the leaders of fundamentalism. Perhaps his primary reference to institutional leaders is simply a reflection of the reality that they are the de facto leaders. When you read the article, did it ever occur to you that seeing institutional leaders as the leadership of an ecclesiastical movement is problematic? Or perhaps he is simply identifying these leaders because it is easier to count institutions than churches. (Of course, that strategic approach would argue for the TR over the MT, but I digress again.)
Regardless, my sense is that fundamentalists—laypeople and pastors alike—often think of the people at the helm of the grand institutions as the leaders of the movement. I simply think that is a dangerously flawed ecclesiology.