Friday, September 09, 2011

Anybody Surprised? Just Curious . . .

Jonathan Leeman interviews Andy Naselli and Collin Hansen on their forthcoming book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. Leeman asks, "Did anything surprise you when reading the answers and rejoinders of these four authors?"

Hansen replies:
I was surprised to see the close resemblance between Mohler's confessional evangelical position and the fundamentalist view, at least as described by Kevin Bauder. John Stackhouse and Roger Olson respond with alarm as they point out this similarity.

56 comments:

Larry said...

Doesn't that just prove that Bauder isn't a real fundamentalist? I think that's the line we are supposed to adopt here, isn't it?

Jim Peet said...

Perhaps it proves that Mohler is a real fundamentalist

Anonymous said...

Okay, so I'll toss in the third option: Perhaps it proves nothing.

DMD

Ben said...

And just for fun, the fourth option would be that Larry and Jim are BOTH right.

d4v34x said...

I think it proves that presupposition colors perception.

Steve Davis said...

I am a little surprised by the choice of Bauder. If I were to choose someone who was to the right of Mohler I would pick Bob Jones III or someone like him more recognized nationally as representative of fundamentalism (although I can't come up with other names right now). I haven't read how the categories were defined so this is not a criticism and I look forward to reading the book.

Lou Martuneac said...

Ben:

There are scores upon scores of Fundamentalists who do not appreciate and do not accept or recognize Kevin Bauder as an appropriate spokesman for genuine, balanced, Bible based separatist Fundamentalism.

And it is because little difference can be discerned between Bauder and an obvious non-separatist Al Mohler that Bauder does not speak for or on behalf of Fundamentalism.

Don't forget that Kevin Bauder first ignored and later excused Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration along side Roman Catholic priests and apostates.

It is any wonder then that the editor (s) sensed a great deal of similarity between Bauder and Mohler?


LM

Ben said...

Lou, would you and those scores and scores of others appreciate and recognize Roger Olson as a spokesman for the biblical soteriology? I'd be curious know after you read Bauder and Mohler's critique of his views on evangelicalism, and after you read Olson's new book that you're pretty excited about.

Joel said...

Yeah, I was really surprised that Lou Martuneac wasn't picked to enter that dialogue.

Anonymous said...

"genuine, balanced, Bible based separatist Fundamentalism."

Which part does Bauder not possess? Is he not a GENUINE fundy? Is he not a BALANCED fundy? Is he not a BIBLE BASED fundy? Or is he just not quite SEPARATIST enough?

And, how many of these adjectives must one possess to be accepted as a spokesman for fundamentalism?

If one must possess all three, Lou, well . . . I'm not seeing a lot of BALANCE in your responses to this book.

I mean I saw you being all nice and respectful with Roger Olson on his blog -- calling him Brother and stuff. Olson's ok, but Bauder's not? Wow. A new high in fundamentalist standards!

I'd understand (disagree but understand) if you thought they were both wolves in sheep's clothing. Or even if you thought that they were both disobedient brothers. But to play nice with Olson while treating Bauder as the enemy is incoherent and not even close to balance.

Keith

Lou Martuneac said...

Deal with the substance gentlemen . I posted several comments at Olson's and (more at Justin Taylors blog) and you men have a melt down over my being cordial to a man who at that time I had never heard of and no inkling on his left lean and open theism. Yet most of you defend and stand by Piper and his "good books" even though he year after year maintains fellowship with open theists through their association (name of which I don't recall).


The About Calvinism book. C'mon fellas, you wouldn't care who writes a book critical of Calvinism you'd skewer anyone who might appreciate it. Just like some of you did over a tiny paragraph in the first edition of my book where I gave a positive comment about Dave Hunt's book. 290 pages, and one paragraph about Hunt's book, and most Calvinists couldn't get over it.

On Bauder let me reiterate: See my comment above... What an odd choice if one goal of this book was to provide a clear contrast between all four views, especially Mohler.

Btw, does anyone know who picked Bauder? Andy Nasseli, maybe? Try to find out for us, Ben and post it here.

FWIW, I like Steve suggesting Bob Jones III. There's no possibility he would be somewhat indiscernable from a non-separatist like Mohler.

I would also have suggested Dr. Fred Moritz. His history with and as a Fundamentalist, his scholarship, his ministerial resume are impeccable.

Anyway, gents whine all you want about the Calvinism book, bottom line- Kevin Bauder to speak for and on behalf of Fundamentalism? In the current climate of trying to redefine and/or besmirch Fundamentalism with the broad brush his choice for the book smells political. Smells more like his pattern and practices of trying to blur the lines of distinction to facilitate the convergence with the star personalities of the so called "conservative Evangelicals." (Dever at Lansdale being fresh in mind)

LM

Steve Davis said...

Imagine that - Lou likes something I write :-) I don't think anyone will mistake my "surprise" at Bauder as choice with Lou's reasons why Bauder does not represent Fundamentalism.

Lou Martuneac said...

Hey Ben:

How about going to settings in blogger and enable your blog for those who visit with a smart phone?

Ben said...

Lou, to your last question, I'm probably not smart enough. Hoping my phone can figure out how to do it for me eventually.

To the previous discussion (and as Howard Dean might say), Lou, you represent the fundamentalist wing of the fundamentalist party. That is, the sort of mindset and convictions and exegesis lots of us lived in during the 80s and 90s. Whether Bauder is the appropriate spokesman for that wing is of no consequence to me. That era isn't the basis for my epistemology. But as much as I disagree with you, really I do have a certain sort of appreciation for your dogged adherence to the former location of the ancient landmarks, even as so many reposition their own.

If you write your own chapter for the book and respond to the various contributors, you might even get a response to yours from Olson. Just a thought.

nate said...

If they wanted a true representative of fundamentalism, they would have chosen Jack Schaap...seriously. The reasonable fundies like Bauder are not representative of the whole. If you look at sheer volume, the KJV-Hyles-West Coast Baptist crowd dominate. I guess this sort of puts me in an unenviable position of being on the same side of this as Lou...I feel a little dirty

Lou Martuneac said...

Nate:

"Feeling dirty?" Yes, you should when you behave badly as you just did with trying to equate someone to an extremist sect that the individual has nothing to do with, no affiliation with or support for and rejects entirely. Your intentional lapse of integrity should leave you feeling dirty, because you just made yourself dirty in doing it.

Bauder, "reasonable fundamentalist?" I know of no reasonable Fundamentalist who will excuse Al Mohler's ecumenical compromises (and there is history of them with Mohler) as Bauder does.


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Ben:

It is through your blogger setting you can set it up to have a cleaner look for this who look inform their smart/mobile devices.

FWIW, I do my best to position myself where the Bible does whether it be in doctrine or practice. I do not concern myself with whether or not my choices to obey the Scriptures align me with or pits me against a fellowship, sect, group or cult. Where I believe the Bible would have me stand, preach, guide me to contend, admonish, withdraw, mark, separate is where my "dogged adherence" is.

Finally, I really would like to know who chose the four contributors, Bauder in particular. If you don't know who chose Bauder, whom do we ask to find out?


LM

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
d4v34x said...

Ah, the inevitable propaganda link. I have to admit, though, it came several hours after I expected it to appear.

Just out of curiosity, Lou, do you have Google alerts turned on for Bauder and Doran so when someone as remote from our circles as Olson blogs about them you can go there and . . . do what you do?

Ben said...

By the way Lou, Moritz would have made an articulate contribution. That's a good idea.

I'm deleting your link though. Feel free to delete any links I post on your blog.

Nate, in my judgment the "dirty" comment isn't helpful to the aroma of the conversation.

nate said...

So Lou, since you consider Jack Schaap and the Hyles crowd an extremist sect, you would understand the doctrine of biblical separation to require you to separate from anyone who associates with them? Biblical separation would also require you to separate from anyone who does not separate from the Hyles crowd, correct?

nate said...

I think I wrote the same thing twice...I meant to say...

Biblical separation would require you to separate from those who fail to seperate from those who associate with the Hyles crowd?

You can see how confusing this secondary separation stuff is!

by the way Ben, feel free to delete the "dirty" comment if you want

Anonymous said...

My two cents...If Lou can snatch isolated comments and weave them into his sound bite attacks on men, then it is fair game to snatch his cordial endorsement of an open theist and show his hypocrisy.

The closest parallel I see to Lou's approach is campaign attack ads that hammer home a distorted view of a person's position through the repetition of the same taglines ad nauseum.

But, so that this doesn't simply drag on, here's a proposal--someone should ask Fred Moritz to critique Bauder's chapter in the book to see if there is a substantive difference between what Kevin writes and what Fred would have written. In fact, I'll extend the invitation myself. Maybe even I'll broaden it out so we can get a real picture of who best represents fundamentalist thinking these days.
But, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what scores and scores of people think. There is only One whose view of this matters.
DMD

Lou Martuneac said...

Ben:

That’s OK deleting the link. Understood. I submitted that comment with the link as a stand alone in case you wanted to delete it.

No one I can think of would have objected to Fred Moritz writing on behalf of Fundamentalism. Back to my original question on choice of Bauder- do you know who selected him to write the section? Were the four chosen by Nasseli and Hansen? And were any other men/Fundamentalists approached in addition or prior to Bauder?

Would you please contact Andy and ask him these questions? Surely he will have the answers.


Lou

Ben said...

Lou, you should check out Bauder's "Nick of Time" installment from yesterday. Actually, you might even find some benefit in subscribing. It's free.

d4v34x said...

In the article linked above Dr. Bauder wrote: Fundamentalism is suffering from a kind of ennui today, partly because we have been content to talk only to ourselves.

Man, if that doesn't explain a whole host of issues; everything from the sideshow stuff that ends up on SFL to Milltown Pride.

You know, the stuff that causes people to be surprised when they hear a thoughtful, Biblical articulation of Fundamentalism.

nate said...

d4v34x,

I guess that's my point...I don't think that stuff (SFL & Hyles) is the "sideshow" of fundamentalism. Bauder can articulate a thoughtful fundamentalism and I'm all for it, but guys like him and the others he mentioned as possible authors for the 4 views book are not the majority claiming the title fundamentalist. They might be the best representation of it and the type of fundamentalist we would all love to see more of...but I can't seem to figure out why everyone thinks they are the majority...

Jim Peet said...

Hey Lou,

Why did you "lavish praise" on Roger Olson?

Lou Martuneac said...

Jim:

If you are going to be a liar, at least don't be so obvious.

Later I will have something for Dave Doran to reflect upon.


LM

Steve Davis said...

Although I think there is some merit in asking if Bauder was the best representative for Fundamentalism, he does not claim to speak for all Fundamentalists. Frankly his “idea” of Fundamentalism is among the most articulate and biblically defensible. I concur with much of his “idea” although I do think he is in the minority of those still using the label and no longer use it for myself. The “idea” is great. The reality is something else. I say let the hypers, decisionists, labelists, and revivalists have the label.

It would be interesting for someone like Fred Moritz to comment on what differences exist between what Kevin wrote and what he would write.

I don’t know Lou but if he represents genuine, balanced, biblical Fundamentalism then he has his own dictionary for definitions. There may be scores and scores who think like him – so maybe that’s like threescore and ten. May their numbers decrease!

Lou Martuneac said...

Steve:

If there is merit in asking then we should expect an answer; right?

The problem is that his being chosen to represent Fundamentalism in this volume makes Bauder the voice of Fundamentalism. This is especially disconcerting to many present day IFB men when we consider the doctrine of separation its principles and practice.

You know, for over four year I have been asking/encouraging men in IFB circles, who are recognized widely, with outstanding reputations and credentials, who are not part of and do not appreciate the new movement afoot to redefine biblical separation for the sake of forging ties with non-separatists in evangelicalism. Most for various reasons will not enter the debate in any venue, especial in the blogs. I am certain they would do much good to stem the tide of compromising influences men like Bauder, Doran, Matt Olson are having with the next generation.

They would do a much better job of it than I can. I know my shortcomings. But until some of these find their voice and motivation to engage the issues in an open format I will do what I can, the best that I can to expose, warn and admonished.


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Sorry about some grammar issues. I am using my Android from a remote location.

Ben said...

Lou, you obviously have every right to criticize the choice of contributors all you want. And as you well know, you also have every right to publish your own book and pick whoever you want to say whatever you want.

But you really need to grasp the obvious reality that this genre can't represent every permutation of the various families of views. Even if you got Moritz into it, the Schaap crowd is out. Is that fair? Is he an extremist just because you stipulate it?

I'm guessing a guy in a fully confessional denomination—say, Carl Trueman, might prefer some other representative for CE than Mohler. And surely there are all sorts of variations of "generic evangelicals" and "post-conservative evangelicals," whatever those things are.

Lou, I suspect that the past century or so of fundamentalists AND evangelicals will go down in history for our inability to distinguish between the differences that are *really* important and the ones that are less so. I suppose that has something to do with ignorance and something to do with obstinate allegiance to movements, right or wrong. And we need look no further for an example than your instinctive (uninformed? reckless? naïve?) affinity for Roger Olson's anti-Calvinist position.

Anonymous said...

Looks like I'm really late to the party, but I've got to at least briefly respond to Lou's response to my last comment:

"Deal with the substance gentlemen."

I was/am.

"I posted several comments at Olson's and (more at Justin Taylors blog) and you men have a melt down over my being cordial to a man who at that time I had never heard of and no inkling on his left lean and open theism."

I had no melt down. I noted that you felt free to call Olson "brother" while you are known for your vendetta against Bauder and Doran.

Personally, I don't really line up with any of those guys, but would gladly call all of them brother. You on the other hand . . .

Furthermore, if you can't forgive Mohler's signing the dread Manhattan Declaration (oh the horror), what should we do with your public declaration of brotherhood with Olson -- shall we call it the Olson Declaration or the Brotherhood Declaration?

If separatism is so important, shouldn't you maybe look into who you are sharing blog platforms with before you give them the right hand of fellowship?

I don't have a problem with Piper's association with open theists through shared membership in a denomination (in which church discipline can actually be practiced with more effective tools than the ALL CAPS watch blogging of independents). And, I don't have a problem with calling Olson brother. I'm just asking why YOU think one is wrong and the other right?

As far as the Calvinism book and all the rest of what you wrote goes -- well, I don't have a problem if you like a book that critiques Calvinism. Like away. I'm faily sure that I'd disagree with you about said book, but none of my comments had anything to do with your anti-calvinism obsession. Better men than me have been non-calvinists -- nobodies right about everything.

Keith

Anonymous said...

Lou says: "I do my best to position myself where the Bible does whether it be in doctrine or practice. I do not concern myself with whether or not my choices to obey the Scriptures align me with or pits me against a fellowship, sect, group or cult. Where I believe the Bible would have me stand, preach, guide me to contend, admonish, withdraw, mark, separate is where my "dogged adherence" is."

Every other name mentioned in this discussion would say the same thing - every one: Olson, Bauder, Mohler, Doran, Piper . . . did I miss anyone?

That's the whole point -- can one present a convincing argument for his understanding of Scripture? Begging the question and attacking those who differ are not arguments.

Keith

Lou Martuneac said...

Ben:

Just now saw your link to and read Bauder's article. Thanks, we now have the chain of events and names.

However, this from KB on Mohler got my attention, "a shift in Mohler's attitude?"
Unless it appears elsewhere in the book Mohler does not apologize for or repent of signing the MANHATTAN DECLARATION. He expressed some attitude change, but has he requested his name be removed from it? Does he call on the young evangelicals he may have influenced or encouraged to sign the MD to repent and disavow it?

It is fresh in mind how Bauder ignored the MD signing for months to finally excuse Mohler for a "single episode" of job nobbing with the enemies of the cross of Christ. And we know that was not Mohler's only episode. Likewise, I recall Dave Doran, after many words, ultimately dismissing Mohler signing the Manhattan as merely, "a wrong decision based on bad judgment." And even with the new commentary on the ND by Mohler, still nothing from Bauder to address a raw ecumenical compromise.

Those things are not representative separatist Fundamentalism. That is why many of us cannot take Bauder's inclusion seriously and find some offense with it , especially if as noted, he is going to speak to separation.


LM

BE said...

At the risk of beating a dead horse, a couple of quick comments:

"I posted several comments at Olson's and (more at Justin Taylors blog) and you men have a melt down over my being cordial to a man who at that time I had never heard of and no inkling on his left lean and open theism."

Lou, this just proves Doran's point about lack of discernment (and failure to actually pay attention to details before making judgments.) First, the fact that Olson was the representative of post-conservative evangelicalism didn't tip you off to his "left lean"? Second, he had just talked about his defense of the open theists in the ETS when others were trying to push them out in the comment section that you were engaging in. That's why it's ironic that you condemn Bauder every chance you get but sing praise to Olson about a book you've only seen the title of and hope it will go against Calvinism. Thus, the charge of lack of discernment.

Also, if you'd read the link in the OP, you may have noticed that Mohler has qualified his endorsement of the Manhattan Declaration: "in light of subsequent statements, I came to believe that The Manhattan Declaration had also crossed the line into an unwarranted and unbiblical recognition of the Roman Catholic Church." So, maybe Bauder was right in his assessment of Mohler after all since Mohler eventually came to regret his choice...

Lou Martuneac said...

BE:

Have you ever heard of "post conservative evangelicalism" and a definition of it before this week? I haven't and if I read Bauder's article right it appears the editors coined the term for the book.

One other note for all, from this point forward- if you want or expect me to consider and/or reply to your comments sign off with your full name.


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Ben:

We have before us the whole counsel of God. Although some of my friends may see it differently I believe there are areas for disagreement and still enjoy fellowship.

Fidelity to the God given mandates for separation from unbelievers and the disobedient among us are not debatable. The evangelicals are non separatists, some hostile to separatism. They are not going to move toward obeying God in this area. Men like Bauder and Doran do not admonish the ce toward obedience. Instead they accommodate the ce's doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises and worldliness
for the sake of increasing fellowship and cooperative efforts with them. That is yet again why a choice like Bauder and Doran since he was approached is repugnant if they are tasked with representing Fundamentalist separation.

efeeBtw, anytime you're ready you can cease from inaccurately suggesting my allegiance is to any movement. Some less discerning might believe you.

Thanks,


Lou

Larry said...

1. Is anyone here not trying to live in "dogged adherence" to what we believe the Bible teaches, Dr. Bauder included (even though he's not here)? Even Dr. Mohler? Isn't it true that people simply differ on how what the Bible teaches applies to our situations? It doesn't seem to be a matter of loyalty to the Bible, but of different understandings of Bible application. Surely we can allow some room for difference among those who profess the same principles can we not?

1a. Just as a sidenote, it is interesting that one of the unqualified links on a particular blog (that won't link to fundamental seminaries) is apparently to a SBC church ministry in open affiliation with Al Mohler and the SBC. (The blog claims to be maintained by an SBC ordained pastor, under the oversight of an SBC church, who is listed on the SBC website). So it seems that "dogged adherence" to separatism may allow more flexibility for some than it does for others, though I am not sure why. I am actually fine with it, but I wonder how others can be fine with it.

2. I wonder if perhaps this shows that Mohler is more of a separatist than some seem to think he is. I believe he has turned down speaking engagements before based on who he would be there with. Perhaps the reason why there is "not much difference" between Bauder and Mohler is because Mohler is more separatistic and principle driven than some think he is, though he draws the line in different places than others do, including Bauder (as Bauder pointed out with his line about primary and secondary separation). I think the conclusion of Olson, and Andy and Collin is that there is a continental divide because two of them believe in separation to at least some degree, and two do not (apparently). That is the big difference.

3. The fact that there are scores and scores (which by my count is at least 80) of people who don't think Bauder represents fundamentalism seems irrelevant. Remember, the rightness of a position is not determined by how many scores of people agree with it. There are scores and scores who think that Jack Hyles or Jack Schaap or Paul Chappel or John MacArthur or Mark Dever or Al Mohler do represent fundamentalism. There is always going to be some who disagree. There is no "fundamentalism" per se.

4. As for who was chosen, in Bauder's NOT yesterday he named some of the others who were considered. I would imagine the final determination was made by the editors and the publishers.

5. As for the term "post conservative evangelical," it's not new at all. Olson wrote an article on it in 1995. I think the term existed before then. There have been other books and articles on it as well. It strikes me as "big tent evangelicalism," a term that Olson has used quite a bit, even prior to this book. Which leads me to say this, that many times we think something is new or strange because we live in a small world. The idea that Bauder doesn't represent fundamentalist separatism is a "small world" kind of view. I imagine he was chosen over others due to his reputation as a fundamentalist in distinction from the others and his connections.

6. In conclusion, and perhaps un-fundamentalistically, maybe we should wait until the book has been read by someone before passing judgment on it. I know that takes a lot of fun out of life in the blogosphere, but even in this conversation, we have seen some things said that are simply the result of being uninformed by something written as recently as yesterday, and something written as far back as a decade and a half. Does anyone actually know what Bauder said?

BE said...

Lou,

Actually, I had heard of post-conservative evangelicalism before this week, but that's mainly because I've known about this book for several months. I could be wrong, but I think Olson may have coined the term with another of his books from 2007: "Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology"

However, not having heard the term before is not a great excuse for claiming ignorance about his position. The term itself should tip you off that he would not be conservative. Further, in the blog post you were commenting on, he states that Bauder and Mohler are on one side and he on the other...wouldn't that also tip you off that he would be to the left?

But the reality is this: you don't read things carefully or really take the time to try to understand what is being said. You simply hear what you want to hear and continue on your crusade.

For example, you can read Mohler's statement "in light of subsequent statements, I came to believe that The Manhattan Declaration had also crossed the line into an unwarranted and unbiblical recognition of the Roman Catholic Church" and turn around and say "Mohler does not apologize for or repent of signing the MANHATTAN DECLARATION" Really? Calling something unwarranted and unbiblical is not admitting that it was wrong to sign it?

Finally, I don't have great concern for whether or not you "to consider and/or reply to" my comment, so I feel no obligation to sign off with my full name. Gaining approved interaction from someone who is well-known for creating ungodly division in the body of Christ is not high on my wish list anyway.

(CLARIFICATION: I could be wrong, but I think many who interact regularly on this blog know who I am b/c I've posted my name before, so I'm not trying to hide or be anonymous by not including my name. I just don't have any desire to capitulate to the kid threatening that he will take his ball and leave if I don't do things the way he wants.)

Lou Martuneac said...

I just remembered- At the 2009 FBFI annual fellowship (I was there) during the final day symposium on the ce's it was Mark Minnick who noted and gestured with his hands the close proximity of Fundamentalists and evangelicals, but that the great divide between is biblical separation. The symposium was recorded, well worth the listen.

In the same symposium Kevin Bauder, without warning and without provocation, publicly attacked and besmirched BJU. He was asked a question about the ce and separation specifically and he (Bauder) ignored the question entirely to go after BJU.

Again, with that kind of brazen hostility toward a Fundamentalist school, can you appreciate why there are legitimate concerns with Bauder speaking for and on behalf of separatism of Fundamentalism?


LM

BE said...

(I tried to post this earlier but it didn't show up, so sorry if this posts twice)

Lou,

Actually, I had heard of post-conservative evangelicalism before this week, but that's mainly because I've known about this book for several months. I could be wrong, but I think Olson may have coined the term with another of his books from 2007: "Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology"

However, not having heard the term before is not a great excuse for claiming ignorance about his position. The term itself should tip you off that he would not be conservative. Further, in the blog post you were commenting on, he states that Bauder and Mohler are on one side and he on the other...wouldn't that also tip you off that he would be to the left?

But the reality is this: you don't read things carefully or really take the time to try to understand what is being said. You simply hear what you want to hear and continue on your crusade.

For example, you can read Mohler's statement "in light of subsequent statements, I came to believe that The Manhattan Declaration had also crossed the line into an unwarranted and unbiblical recognition of the Roman Catholic Church" and turn around and say "Mohler does not apologize for or repent of signing the MANHATTAN DECLARATION" Really? Calling something unwarranted and unbiblical is not admitting that it was wrong to sign it?

BTW, I listened to that panel discussion from the FBF conference, and Bauder did not attack nor besmirch BJU. In response to a question, he asked if it was ok for BJU to have a certain speaker in, and when someone else replied yes b/c it was a political speech, Bauder said he would tend to agree. So, either you are slander Bauder, or again illustrating your inability (refusal?) to understand communication.

Finally, I don't have great concern for whether or not you "consider and/or reply to" my comment, so I feel no obligation to sign off with my full name. Gaining approved interaction from someone who is well-known for creating ungodly division in the body of Christ is not high on my wish list anyway.

(CLARIFICATION: I could be wrong, but I think many who interact regularly on this blog know who I am b/c I've posted my name before, so I'm not trying to hide or be anonymous by not including my name. I just don't have any desire to capitulate to the kid threatening that he will take his ball and leave if I don't play his way.)

Ben said...

Well everybody, it's been fun. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that no one's really expressed whether they're surprised by Hansen's observation. I'm not. Seems like Lou isn't (I think). I'm inclined to shut down comments at this point, but I'll leave them open ONLY for comments that address that particular issue.

I will add that I was surprised that Mohler admitted personal surprise that some used the Manhattan Declaration as leverage towards ecumenical unity. I vaguely remember a conversation back at the time (not sure who with or who said it . . . maybe it was all in my head). Someone said, "If you're surprised by the fact that Colson et al would use the MD to that end, you just haven't been paying attention for the past 20 years." I thought it was true at the time. But I'd have thought Mohler's kinda THE guy who's been paying attention for the past 20 years, and he seemed surprised. So I guess I was wrong.

Lou Martuneac said...

Ben:

Thanks for hosting this discussion. You would be correct in assuming I was not surprised with the selection of Kevin Bauder. That was right after I saw who the editors are and aware of the current climate to redefine and repackage separatism for reasons that I have expressed earlier.

Btw, I do have a reply for Dave Doran, but as I am in a remote area using a phone I was not able to complete and submit it. I am hopeful you will allow it to appear when I submit it late tonight.


LM

BE said...

I've found it interesting that both Olson and Stackhouse lumped Mohler and Bauder together. However, it's going to be difficult to know for certain whether or not Bauder and Mohler are articulating the same idea until we can read their positions.

But as a good evangelical/fundamentalist, I will make this pronouncement before reading the book. I imagine there are some distinctions between the two views (Olson says that Bauder is more strict/separtistic).

I don't find it too surprising that Hansen was surprised. He's probably had little interaction with Bauder and the surprise may be that the "fundy" position is close to Mohler (rather than the other way around).

In the end, it's probably to be expected that Mohler's CE and Bauder's fundyism would get lumped together within the broader spectrum of evangelicalism. The issue is whether or not those who are more immersed in these positions will see a distinction. My guess is they will.

BE said...

Ben,

I know this comment is not on topic, so feel free to delete it (or not post it). But I thought it might be good to not let Lou's unfounded attack go by w/out correction.

I listened to the FBF panel back in '09 (you probably did to) and Bauder never attacked or besmirched BJU. In discussing separation from apostates, he asked if it was ok for BJU to have a certain politician speak who was Catholic or Mormon (in order to illustrate his point). When someone stated that it was ok b/c it was political in nature, Bauder said he would tend to agree (I'm not quoting, but I think that was the gist of it.)

So, unless my memory is way off, it's not Bauder who's doing the "besmirching." Wanted to make sure that was clear.

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Larry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Kime said...

I am not really sure why there was surprise on Hansen's part. Bauder has tried to educate many on what historic, authentic fundamentalism actually is for some time now. It can't be all that different from confessional evangelicalism, as they were both one at one point. That Bauder's position is even included demonstrates just how far off base so much of what is called fundamentalism actually is.

For those loyal to authentic Fundamentalism, several stages throughout the century can be observed:

1. being birthed from evangelicalism
2. being the know it all teenager
3. being thoughtful about what the issues really were

I would imagine the surpise and/or disdain would be on the side of those who want fundamentalism to remain controlled by a few. Not that that point is hard to prove.

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.