October 3, 2011

Are We Forced to Tolerate Evils Within the Community?

In a previous article Is Kevin Bauder the Right Choice to “Argue for Biblical Separartion?” we discussed the selection of Dr. Kevin Bauder’s contribution to an essay in the new book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism.

“Dr. Bauder’s track record in recent years of redefining and/or castigating Fundamentalism with a broad brush would, for many in Fundamental circles, disqualify him from speaking for or on behalf of them. Especially disconcerting would be his speaking on behalf of the fundamentalists’ application of separation principles defined in Scripture. Dr. Bauder has, furthermore, been highly allergic to presenting and especially applying the principles of biblical separation to his new acquaintances in evangelical circles. 

Kevin Bauder is one of a select few men who have introduced and aggressively advocated a redefinition of one of the hallmarks of historic Fundamentalism, which is authentic biblical separation. Dr. Bauder is attempting to influence a paradigm shift away from separation, for the sake of a pure church, long practiced as taught from the Scriptures by balanced Fundamentalists.1 Instead his replacement theology is one of tolerance and accommodation for those who reject in practice the God-given mandates for separation.”
I followed that article with a timely repeat of excerpts from Dr. Ernest Pickering’s classic, The Tragedy of Compromise in, Are We Recognizing the “NEW” New Evangelicalism? For example Dr. Pickering wrote,
The basic problem is this: Many fundamentalists, when speaking of the New Evangelicalism, are referring to the original positions and writings of the early founders of New Evangelicalism such as Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga. They repudiate heartily the thoughts of these earlier leaders, but either in ignorance or willingly they fail to recognize the updated version, the “new” New Evangelicalism. It is always safer to berate the teachings of those historically farther removed than of those who are currently afflicting the church.”
Later I will address a few items that appear in Dr. Kevin Bauder’s article The Book is Out from the In the Nick of Time blog. Today, however, I am going to highlight and discuss a paragraph from another article by Dr. Bauder from the In the Nick of Time blog. The following excerpt is from Kevin Bauder’s On Not Singing (9/19/11).

Still, whenever believers live in community, they find that they are forced to tolerate what they regard as evils within the community. Tolerating a (perceived) evil in another is not the same thing as practicing evil. If we have not a category for tolerable evils, then we shall not be able to live in community at all.”
The article was a good piece right up until that last paragraph. Three times Kevin Bauder calls for tolerance of evil. Bauder is telling us that we need to tolerate what we think to be evil for the sake of fellowship.  Isn’t that exactly the new way of doing separation being advocated by Kevin Bauder these many months now?  Tolerance of evil for the sake of fellowship. This from Kevin Bauder is one of the most clear examples of what Dr. Ernest Pickering warned of from his book The Tragedy of Compromise.  Dr. Pickering warned of, “the subtle drift toward new evangelicalism.” He went on to write, “…there are fundamentalists who are either becoming or already are New Evangelicals. Some are actually adopting New Evangelical philosophies while still proclaiming that they are not New Evangelical.” (p. 159)

From On Not Singing Kevin Bauder essentially calls for men to come up with a category of “tolerable evils” for the sake of fellowship with those who believe, preach, defend and practice what are to be reclassified as “tolerable evil.”  I know of no greater example of new evangelical compromise than that.  In that brief paragraph, Bauder uses the words “tolerate” and “community” in conjunction three times.  Of course, with “community” he means not just expanding fellowship, but cooperative ministerial efforts in the NT church.

In my opinion, the tolerate evil for fellowship statement by Kevin Bauder demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that he is drifting into New Evangelical philosophy for the sake of establishing and influencing others to join him in fellowship with the non-separatist evangelicals.  

This is the new paradigm.  This is the “New” New Evangelicalism. This is the “winding road which ends up in a theological wasteland” and ultimately New Evangelicalism.  Is there any wonder why men cannot accept Kevin Bauder as a legitimate spokesman to “argue for biblical separation” among Fundamentalists?

Bauder’s recent statement seems quite seminal.  It does, however, show a mindset that is probably foundational to his willingness to excuse Al Mohler’s signing of the Manhattan Declaration and ignoring Mohler’s leading a Billy Graham crusade. (See Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration, which will be discussed in a future article with Mohler having briefly mentioned of his signing the MD in this new book.)

It is increasingly obvious that Dr. Kevin Bauder has morphed into some kind of evangelical hybrid.  Clearly he is bent on breaking down the barriers that preclude a true biblical separatist from heaping lavish praise on, embracing and working in cooperation with non-separatists, who hold to aberrant doctrine, practices worldliness in ministry and are known ecumenical compromisers.


LM

16 comments:

  1. Lou,

    Your refusal to read Kevin's comment in its context is as appalling as it is unsurprising.

    Does anybody in your church ever do anything that you consider to be wrong? Does the leadership of your church ever make a decision that you think is wrong? Do you feel compelled to break off all fellowship with them if they do choose something wrong?

    Certainly, there are wrongs such that, if they are chosen, we must break fellowship. These are intolerable evils. However, if you remain in fellowship with a body even when you believe it has chosen anything that you think is wrong, from the slightest difference in interpretation on, you have a category of "tolerable evils."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael:

    I appreciate your concern.

    The quote is complete, in context, easily understood and it, while not unexpected, is appalling.

    Bauder's track record is to tolerate, allow for, excuse or ignore (repetitive and on-going) evils of the so-called "conservative" evangelicals.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael:

    I trust you have read Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room by Thabiti Anyabwile.

    In that single brief article Anyabwile has written more pointedly and powerfully and with conviction on the “evil” of compromise of his fellow evangelical (MacDonald and the flap over T. D. Jakes) than in all of what Kevin Bauder has written combined in dozens of articles including, but not limited to his series to allegedly point out the Differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.

    I do not in any way endorse Anyabwile and/or The Gospel Coalition, but whether or not Anyabwile goes the full length of conviction he writes about in that article he got this one right where Bauder has long since, on similar evils from evangelicals, gone missing.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  4. Earlier today I had a helpful e-mail exchange with a pastor I’ve known for over 15 years. His reaction to a portion of the article by Kevin Bauder follows, which I share with his permission.


    Lou: I read your blog article.  I think that the key to maintaining the argument stands in one’s definition of “evil.”  Should one “tolerate EVIL?”   Bauder is a brilliant wordsmith.  He knows that words frame ideas, yet, he deliberately chose to use the word “evil.”  While it is true that he modified the word with the thought that you consider it to be evil, yet - - - he’s speaking of EVIL. Had his argument been, “we need a category in which we are able to tolerate our differences,” I’d have been OK.  That’s not what he said.  He said – “We need to know how to deal with what we perceive to be evil through toleration.”

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lou, help me out here. I read the article and his subsequent responses to different people. As I understand him, he is talking about things that we differ on that will just exist right now while we are in a fallen state.

    I did not pick up on him advocating a toleration of wickedness. All wrongness is a product of evil though, some deliberate, others though ignorance.

    This is what Rom 14 is about though. It was technically evil that some still held to a wrong view of days or foods. However, Paul did not advocate a complete removal of the weaker brother nor a bulldozer to run him over.

    That is how I understood the article. I think your article here is communicating that Bauder is for the toleration of wickedness (false doctrine and immorality). Frankly, I don't see how Pickerings words have any connection to what Bauder was saying. Fundamentalism was a movement that tolerated much evil just to fight the greater evil. There is nothing New Evangelical about it.

    I could be wrong and am willing to be corrected on that.

    Josh Lucas

    ReplyDelete
  6. Josh:

    You wrote, “I did not pick up on him advocating a toleration of wickedness.”

    Dr. Bauder wrote, “Still, whenever believers live in community, they find that they are forced to tolerate what they regard as evils within the community. Tolerating a (perceived) evil in another is not the same thing as practicing evil. If we have not a category for tolerable evils, then we shall not be able to live in community at all.”

    “Tolerate/Evil” in conjunction three times in three short sentences. Pretty clear! He adds a qualifier which is the Teflon he smoothes over it. He’s good at that as my pastor friend noted above on Bauder’s wordsmithing. The aberrant theology, ecumenical compromises, worldliness, cultural relativism and disobeying God’s commands for separatism are being done by men who are highly trained in the Scriptures. Their actions, which are unbiblical and anti-biblical are done on purpose with a purpose, not due to the ignorance of a novice. And Kevin Kauder has tolerated, allowed for excused and/or ignored all of it one way or another. Why?

    Furthermore, we can arrive at meaning through what he does and will not do. His dismissal and excusing Al Mohler for cooperating with RCC priests and apostates through the Manhattan Declaration is VERY Clear! That ecumenical compromise was EVIL. It was wrong and inexcusable. Yet, Bauder excused it away and so did Dave Doran who dismissed the signing as merely, “a wrong decision based on bad judgment.

    Mohler sitting as chair for the Billy Graham crusade was a betrayal of the cross of Christ. Bauder and Doran say nothing about it nor about the T4G men who excuse these egregious betrayals of God’s Word.

    Josh, it is all very clear to any objective observer.

    God bless you,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  7. The article is on singing of hymns not on tolerating evil. It seems pretty clear to me based on the context of the entire article that he is referring to tolerating a brother or sister singing when we are not comfortable doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lou, I know what Bauder said. I am disagreeing with how you are understanding it.

    I am married and have to tolerate that my wife still sins. She doesn't have to experience that problem though (just kidding). In church I have to tolerate immaturity and sin as well. All wrong beliefs and actions are in fact evil. Yet at some level the only way to interact with each other is to accept that until glory, we will all participate in, cause, and put up with evil.

    Saying this is not the same as saying that it is okay to cheat on your wife, get drunk, etc. My understanding of his article is that he was explaining what is inevitable.

    I am curious about something. Do you know of any cases were Bauder hs worked with Mohler on anything except this book?

    Josh Lucas

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nick:

    I have to disagree. The closing paragraph is completely open ended. Furthermore, as is well known, Kevin Bauder is on record in print and in practice tolerating, excusing and ignoring things that are far more serious than musical forms.

    However, I want to be clear that it is a serious matter to bring the world's antiGod culture in the form of CCM, Rap, Hip hop into the NT church. That is exactly what Mark Dever has done and this to was ignored by and "tolerable" for Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran for the sake of "community" cooperative ministry at Lansdale earlier this year.

    I trust you are recognizing the pattern of tolerance for evil across a broad spectrum?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lou,

    I think some of Michael's questions are pertinent, and would love to see your answers to them.

    Let's think this through the following (assuming for the moment that I agree entirely with his thesis on not singing).

    1. I think the gospel song "I come to the garden alone . . . etc." is evil in that it misrepresents the way we ought to feel about God.

    2. I would not sing along if sung congregationally at our church.

    3. I would not leave the church if they continued to sing it. Well, I might eventually if they persisted and the rest of the music was in the same vein, but at any rate, I'd tolerate it for a while.

    This is the kind of toleration of evil Bauder is talking about.

    David Oestreich

    ReplyDelete
  11. Josh/Dave:

    I appreciate your comments, but I will reiterate once more-

    There is a clear recognizable pattern with Kevin Bauder of tolerating (excusing and ignoring) a broad spectrum of evils beyond styles of music.

    LM

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now I am really confused by your article. I disagree with your interpretation of what Bauder meant. Others have pointed out the same thing. It seems like you are using his quote as an opportunity to go after him on things you have said many times over.

    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  13. Josh:

    The best response I can think of is to repeat myself.

    Kevin Bauder wrote, “Still, whenever believers live in community, they find that they are forced to tolerate what they regard as evils within the community. Tolerating a (perceived) evil in another is not the same thing as practicing evil. If we have not a category for tolerable evils, then we shall not be able to live in community at all.”

    “Tolerate/Evil” in conjunction three times in three short sentences. Pretty clear! He adds a qualifier which is the Teflon he smoothes over it. He’s good at that as my pastor friend noted above on Bauder’s wordsmithing. The aberrant theology, ecumenical compromises, worldliness, cultural relativism and disobeying God’s commands for separatism are being done by men who are highly trained in the Scriptures. There actions, which are unbiblical and anti-biblical are done on purpose with a purpose. And Kevin Bauder has tolerated, allowed for excused and/or ignored all of it one way or another. Why?

    Furthermore, we can arrive at meaning through what he does and will not do. His dismissal and excusing Al Mohler for cooperating with RCC priests and apostates through the Manhattan Declaration is VERY Clear! That ecumenical compromise was EVIL. It was wrong and inexcusable. Yet, Bauder excused it away and so did Dave Doran who dismissed the signing as merely, “a wrong decision based on bad judgment.
    Mohler sitting as chair for the Billy Graham crusade was a betrayal of the cross of Christ. Bauder and Doran say nothing about it nor about the T4G men who excuse these egregious betrayals of God’s Word.

    Josh, it is all very clear to any objective observer.

    God bless you,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  14. Josh:

    This is my email address-

    indefense06@gmail.com


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is this really how one member of the FBFI treats another?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dave:

    Kevin Bauder is being held accountable for what he writes and what he does. There are scores of men in the IFB community that are gravely concerned with a number of issues with Kevin Bauder.

    Now, to your question with a consideration for you. Is the following how a member of the FBFI should treat fellow members and supportive institutions?

    At the 2009 FBFI annual fellowship (I was there) during the final day symposium to discuss conservative evangelicalism Kevin Bauder, without warning and without provocation, publicly attacked and besmirched Bob Jones University (BJU). He was asked a question about the "conservative" evangelicals and separation specifically. He (Bauder) ignored the question entirely to go after BJU.
     
    Dr. Bauder not only dodged the specific question put to him by moderator John Vaughn, not only was it an unprovoked hostile attack on a BJU policy, but since Stephen Jones, due to illness, was not on the platform Bauder got in Mark Minnick grill and was confronting Minnick over BJU policy on chapel speakers, Alan Keyes in particular.
     
    Mark Minnick tried once and I believe twice to tell Bauder that he (Minnick) is not part of the BJU administration, does not participate in or make administration decisions. Yet, Bauder kept pressing Minnick with his questions about and demonization of BJU policy. He refused to drop it with Minnick and I was disappointed that Dr. Vaughn did nothing to extract Dr. Minnick from Bauder's interrogation and put Bauder on track to answer the direct question put to him.
     
    Bauder's action had the appearance of having been preplanned with the intention of ambushing Dr. Jones, but having to settle for the next closest to a BJU administrator, Dr. Minnick.
     
    Just prior to the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship there were calls from various quarters for Kevin Bauder’s removal from the platform because of: 1) His three part (hit piece) series against Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice jointly from Central’s In the Nick of Time blog and Sharper Iron. 2) Concerns that turned out to be legitimate that he wasn't done yet and would do/say something controversial at the FBFI Fellowship. He did not disappoint. 

    I was there, witnessed the whole thing and can tell you a number of men said that because of that stunt in the symposium there is no way they see Bauder being invited back.
     

    LM

    PS: With that kind of brazen hostility toward a Fundamentalist school, can you appreciate why there are legitimate concerns with Bauder being chosen to speak for and on behalf of separatism in Fundamentalism in the new book?

    ReplyDelete