September 19, 2010

Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Questions have now been answered about this statement from the *Central Seminary Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism, “For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.”

Mark Dever will be the keynote speaker at the Calvary Baptist Seminary Lansdale Conference Advancing the Church in 2011. Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder are joining Dever on the platform.

Doran, of course, has already hosted three evangelicals in his pulpit and seminary. Will Bauder soon be opening the classrooms of Central Baptist Seminary to the evangelicals? To date he finds no significant differences that might give him pause. “Careful, limited forms of fellowship...?” This is only the beginning of what will be greater forms of compromise for the sake of fellowship with the evangelicals.

The magnetic attraction for men like Bauder and Doran to the so-called “conservative” evangelicals is Calvinistic soteriology. Calvinism is their so-called “pure gospel” rallying point. Because of that point of agreement Bauder and Doran have shown a growing willingness to tolerate, allow for and excuse the aberrant doctrine, worldliness in ministry and **ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals.

Anyone believing this cooperative fellowship with Dever is going to be the full extent “limited form of fellowship,” is mistaken.
Mark Dever is just the latest step toward greater compromise of genuine biblical separatism for expanding the boundaries of limited fellowship. Dever is the bridge that will take Bauder, Doran and those they are seeking to influence to completely embrace the entire T4G/Gospel Coalition community.  Compromise is a learned behavior. It typically progresses this way: Crawl, then Walk, then Run. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran have, in my opinion, just about outgrown the crawling stage.

It is timely to repeat the prophetic commentary of Dr. Gerald Priest who in reacting to Bauder’s incendiary Let’s Get Clear on This noted,
Kevin has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism…. What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear.”
That is exactly what we are witnessing in these days. The Trojan horse is being brought into the fundamentalist camp and it is Bauder, Doran and Lansdale that are holding the gate open and leading it in. All doubt has been removed on the bent of Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder toward cooperative ministry with non-separatist, compromising evangelicals. Is this a fundamentalism worth saving?


*See- Cogitations Stemming From the Central/Bauder Ethos Statement

**The reaction from Bauder and Doran to Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration was to dismiss it as merely an “occasional inconsistency, single episode” (KB), merely “a wrong decision based on bad judgment.”(DD)

For post conference reading please see articles such as, Dr. Ernest Pickering, “The Separatist Cause is Not Advanced by Featuring Non-Separatists and The RAP on Mark Dever: What is The “Militant” Separatist to Do?

At SI Don Johnson just posted the following to one of SI’s staff (JayC), which IMO bears repeating.
Jay, may I point out that the only one arguing that people should ‘sit down and shut up’ is someone who is arguing in favor of the Dever/Doran/Bauder/Jordan connection. The ‘traditional’ fundamentalists who are supposed to be against this haven’t told anybody to be quiet....”
Jeff Straub is among those telling anyone who does not agree with the new, and sure to be greater convergence with a broader scope evangelicals, to sit down and shut up.

I also found it ironic that Jeff Straub (at SI) ran down the pastor(s) and foreign missionary of a small church when he and Bauder serve at a seminary in serious decline. His comment for what may have been one pastor besmirched the pastors and foreign missionary church planters of any and every “small” church.

Go to this link at SI for the full context of Don’ s comment.


  1. To All:

    At the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI) site an exchange merits it in this thread as an addendum. In an SI thread addressing the 2011 Lansdale conference to Don Johnson- Greg Linscott wrote:

    Whether or not you agree with the action and choices, your own statement seems less than "careful," I must say. It has already been conceded in the Central statement that some fellowship was seen as possible. This is an academic setting (the conference is hosted by an accredited institution of higher learning). It is not substantially different in many senses than Fundamentalist faculty members participating in settings like ETS or NANC.

    To which Johnson replied,

    But please, spare me the “this is an academic conference” baloney. It is the first fleshing out of what Doran and Bauder have been hinting at for some time. It is pure sophistry to hide behind the “academic” banner. FWIW, I have repeatedly disagreed with fundamentalist participation in ETS. I haven't thought much about NANC, so no comment there.

    Don Johnson is right! We have already has this “academic setting” trial balloon floated earlier this year. See, Is There a Second Definition for “Separation” in Academic Contexts?


  2. This triad of men have floated their trial balloons over the past year. Whether they were like politicians following their opinions polls to see how the wind blew remains unknown. One thing is certain, they have not wasted much time putting the compromise into practice. Dr. Jordan should read his father's book, Chief. He has chapters titled, The Battle for Separation, The Battle against New Evangelicalism, The Battle against Calvinism. Evidently, the younger Jordan is not following in his father's shoes. Tragic.

  3. Priest is correct, compromise even if it is just toleration for the sake of "limited" fellowship IS allowing a Trojan Horse behind your defenses.

    What is "limited" fellowship anyway, except surrender?

    Separation is the only strong defense God has given, and ordered, against persistent fallacy.


  4. Brian:

    A friend sent me an e-mail that address your notes on Tim Jordan. I’ll let what he sent me speak for itself. He asked why I did not include Jordan in my article. My answer is that we have Doran and Bauder actively on the Internet trying to influence a generation to follow them into compromise at the expense of authentic biblical separatism to have their fellowship with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. As far as I know Jordan is not trying to influence people outside his own sphere of influence the way Doran and Bauder are. Anyway, here is what my friend shared with me.

    Why would you not put, say, Tim Jordan in the same category? Just because he isn't in print? Jordan has said a lot more volatile things from platforms, and led his church in a lot more evidently observable changes in methodology, such as music and these hosting opportunities. George Coon of Lansdale caused grave concern among many at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit a year or two ago with his statements that seemed to approach a waffle on inerrancy (see the title of his paper at the Lansdale faculty page.”

  5. Lou,

    I'm curious to know, would you consider Lehman Strauss and Warren Wiersbe (yesterday's conservative evangelicals) as ones not to share the platforms with? The reason I ask is because Dr. Robert Ketcham, who did more to shape the GARBC in its first 40 years beginning in 1932 than any other pastor, often shared the pulpit at conferences with Lehman Strauss and Warren Wiersbe in the 1960's and well into the 1970's. In fact, Dr. Ketcham often spoke at Moody's Founders week during these decades. By the way, Dr. Ketcham was one of the first fundamentalists to sound the alarm about cooperating with Billy Graham in the early 1950's. He also saw the distinctions between "neo-evangelicals" and conservative evangelicals.

    Again, as I have said before, Christian fundamentalism as a movement is quite diverse when it comes to applying separation. It seems as if Bauder and Doran are applying it along the lines of the GARBC, which, through all of its history, appealed to the Baptist distinctive of Individual Soul Liberty in dealing with connecting to Conservative Evangelicals. Now they would have other issues, which may not have allowed these pastors to cooperate at certain levels with conservative evangelicals, but speaking at a conference was never a problem.

    Maybe Bauder and Doran are advocating the more historical GARBC views of applying separation and rejecting how separation has been applied in your circles of the IFB. This would make sense, especially since Kevin is an alumnus of Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary, which has always been aligned with the GARBC.

  6. Joel:

    Thanks for the input, valuable lessons there from the not to distant past.

    While I appreciate the mention, today I’m not particularly concerned with what transpired with Strauss and Wiersbe because those men are not in IFB circles presently trying to influence the current and next generation to relax their convictions to the God-given mandates for separatism.

    Certain men in our age are redefining separatism to advance their desire to have fellowship with men in the ce camp who have a track record of issues such as aberrant doctrine, worldliness in their methods of ministry and disturbing ecumenical compromises. This convergence around Dever at Lansdale is an out-working of the shifting tide. As I noted in the article this move to cooperate with Dever is not the last we’ll see of the movement toward embracing the T4G camp by Bauder and Doran. This is the baby-step, there will be more steps.

    Furthermore, all one need do is read Doran’s 1995 article In Defense of Militancy and you quickly realize Doran no longer believes or holds to the kind of militant separatism that he articulated in that article. He is changing, he has lost the sense of militancy.

    You wrote, “Dr. Ketcham was one of the first fundamentalists to sound the alarm about cooperating with Billy Graham in the early 1950's. He also saw the distinctions between ‘neo-evangelicals’ and conservative evangelicals.”

    Wouldn’t you agree that, in light of Mohler, Duncan, et. al., (in T4G) signing the Manhattan Declaration, and Mohler sitting as chair for the Louisville Billy Graham crusade, that the lines of distinction between the neo-evangelicals and conservative evangelicals are not so clear any longer? See- Al Mohler: was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

    Now one more question for you. Why do you suppose that Bauder and Doran never publicly call on the so-called “conservative” evangelicals to obey the God-given mandates in Scripture for separation from unbelievers and the disobedient? To in essence become more like a Fundamentalist with strong convictions over and unwavering fidelity toward balanced biblical separation? Aren’t you curious about that? Instead Bauder and Doran are shifting and trying to influence others to relax on separation so that they (KB & DD) can move closer to what the evangelicals are for the sake of fellowship with them. Tragic results ahead.

    I think we both know what would come of the effort to fellowship with the ce camp if Bauder and Doran took the Scriptures such as: 2 Cor. 6:14-17; Eph. 5:11; 2 John 7-11, 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Rom. 16:17 brought them to bear on and made the obvious application to the compromises of these the ce men.

    Thanks for stopping by


  7. Lou,

    Was going through different magazines and books and read this.

    “It seems to me that those who are willing to rid contemporary Fundamentalism of its belligerence should proceed with great caution. The last group of people to take that path found it to be a winding road that ends up in a theological and moral wasteland.”

    Guess who wrote? Dave Doran in closing his 1995 Frontline article. I see at his site he has listed why he is speaking next Feb. alongside Dever. His criteria go back to 2001, he states, which lead me to conclude that in the 6 years between his 1995 article and his 2001 justification for attending a conference, he changed from being militant to being moderate (at best).

    This is a troubling trend, we now have three seminaries which are, in my estimation, no longer valid places to send our young men training for the ministry. The colleges and seminaries have in the past considered themselves servants to the local church. While the three seminaries in question are all tied in some form to three churches they (the seminaries) seem to be exerting influence within Fundamentalism apart from the local church.

    I know we have talked about this before, but it is time that pastors, not seminary presidents, start speaking up in Fundamentalism. While Doran and Jordan are themselves pastors, neither have made these statements as pastors but as seminary presidents.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Who Moved?

    Let’s take new evangelicalism in its worst form of ecumenical compromise and open disdain for biblical separation. Then let’s take fidelity to the biblical principles of separation, not the certain extreme manifestations, but the balanced application of the mandates.

    Now, let’s drive a stake in the center of the two positions. Ecumenism to the left and Separation to the right.

    That done let’s consider the “conservative” evangelicals while giving some benefit of the doubt saying many might be found somewhere at the midpoint: Have the ce men, in recent years, been moving right of center toward obeying the Scriptures on separation or left of center away from it? Obviously, increasingly to the left of center.

    So, for certain men in fundamentalism who want to have fellowship with the ce men they (IFB men) have to move a little to the left as well, and that is what we are witnessing. Consider it.


  10. Ps. Brian Ernsberger has posted a related article. Please read This is More Than Just the Camel’s Nose at his The Parsings of a Preacher blog.


  11. Brian:

    You may have noted in my previous comment this portion.

    "All one need do is read Doran’s 1995 article In Defense of Militancy and you quickly realize Doran no longer believes or holds to the kind of militant separatism that he articulated in that article. He is changing, he has lost the sense of militancy."

    In my FrontLine article on the Manhattan Declaration I cited the excerpt you noted and one more excerpt from Doran's article because he was right then. I also wanted to demonstrate in a subtle way to readers, who are up on current events with Doran, that he does not think that way anymore.


    *Revised version of the earlier submission of this comment.

  12. Brother Martuneac,

    While I appreciate your concern for the Gospel and your commitment to separation, I believe some are confused about a number of things. For now I would like to pose a series of questions to help you clarify your biblical position. My desire is mutual edifying of all Christians including myself.

    First, could you (or have you ever) posted a comprehensive (or at least robust) list of passages that you believe relate to the issue of separation? REASONING: I believe all who are in your cross hairs would be committed to biblical innerrency and authority. The best arguments would start from scripture and reason to events rather than assuming we are all on the same page as you on application and then call any differences in choice compromise.

    Second, Could you take each of these passages and unpack briefly what the Text is saying and how that applies to present day realities. REASONING: You and others seem excessively concerned about this issue but the biblical support is more drive-by rather than explained. The audience that takes your view (in meaning or application) of certain passages that are referenced regularly will Amen! your concerns, but others are left confused and dare I say frustrated and angered. Furthermore, it would give opportunity to test and examine the reality of your understanding from the text. Some may see the light -- we all may be edified.

    Third, What other biblical principles besides direct separation verses control or contain this doctrine and our response to violations (passages please)? Are there any balancing truths regarding unity, communication, judging ect. that we must hang on to as we earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3)? REASONING: Too often we are caught up in the fray of battle and the focus becomes fighting rather than any true objectives of glorifying God and being godly in the battle. We fight for right things in the wrong ways. The platform you on this blog not only potentially teaches what to fight for, but how to fight for it.

    These are not questions to necessarily accuse only to explore and help you explain. Right now you appear to me to be screaming at traffic and the short statements are either agreed with or disagreed with based on where someone was when they arrived on the scene. In essence there is little change toward edification only possible new information about current events to process and get worked up over. The scriptural quote that undergirds your site is for "the defense and confirmation of the Gospel." but on the this particular issue there has not (to my knowledge) been a clear reasoned delineation of the biblical foundation of your concerns. Can you help those who come to your site not just know more about what Seminary Presidents are doing but what the Bible clearly says about what they are doing--again not in short quotes, but extensive explanation of texts of Scripture.

    Frankly, I want to have a discussion about this recent public announcement, but I fear the present atmosphere here teeters easily on prohibitions of communication delineated in the Epistles of 1&2 Timothy and Titus (1tim 1:4; 4:7; 6:3-5; 2 Tim 2:14-16, 23; Titus 1:14; 3:9).

    For His glory,
    Christian Markle

  13. Christian:

    Always a pleasure to hear from you. While I appreciate what you are asking for, you are asking for way more than I can possibly dedicate the time to to produce. I think we have to agree, understand and take for granted that many of the folks in these on line discussion have a good grasp on the meaning and application of the passages that I have on many occasions brought to bear on the movement of some fundamentalists toward embracing the ce camp and relaxing their commitment to separatism to have that fellowship.

    When I address separatism at this blog, which has been often, I have posted repeatedly verses such as: 2 Cor. 6:14-17; Eph. 5:11; 2 John 7-11; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Rom. 16:17. Over the past four years I have along the way provided some unpacking of these verses in various articles.

    I believe a more interesting discussion would be over why it is that Bauder and Doran have, to my knowledge, not brought the Scriptures to bear on the doctrinal aberrations, worldliness and ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals they are wrapping their arms around. Why have they not made an application of the Scriptures to the evangelicals and holding them accountable for violating those God-given mandates? Furthermore, no one I am aware of, who is embracing this movement toward the evangelicals, engages the passages and arguments I have brought to bear on their movement. Why do you suppose that is?

    Let me close with one other note. If these seminary presidents were not trying to influence others well outside their own sphere of local ministry I would not pay nearly as much attention to it. They are, however, through their own blogs and with the happy cooperation of SI trying to influence this and the next generation to accept a paradigm shift on separation for the purpose of allowing, as Gerald Priest stated, the “Trojan horse” of evangelicalism to have free roam in fundamentalist circles. While Dever does not have nearly the disconcerting baggage of Piper and Mohler, he is the first step toward the others in T4G. As I said in the article- hooking up with Dever at Lansdale is the baby-step. Greater steps are going to follow.

    Thanks for stopping by.


  14. To All Readers:

    If you are truly interested in what the Scriptures say about the doctrine of separation in detail and the practical application of those God-given mandates I recommend the following books for your consideration.

    Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church

    The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin & Impact of the New Evangelicalism

    Both of the above were written by Dr. Ernest Pickering a former president of Central Baptist Seminary.

    Be Ye Holy & Contending for the Faith by Dr. Fred Moritz.


  15. Brother Martuneac,

    Thank you for your thoughts, the list of references, articles, and book suggestions. These certainly allow for a corpus of material to work from. I am familiar with two of the three books (own them). I have looked at your chosen articles.

    I would encourage you that the most powerful tool we have is the truth of the word unpacked exegetically, thoughtfully, and in a spirit-filled manner. There can be no mistake that there is no issue of eternal importance and present priority that we should not be willing to invest time to carefully explain the Scriptures. I sense that we (you and I) have ever so slightly different views on this based on your use of time on this subject (2 Chronicles 32:8).

    Please consider reworking your blog entries with scriptural truth unpacked carefully and then applied specifically. I guess I am suggesting a shift in your present practice. From where I sit your most powerful Weapon is too often sheathed or it is simply brandished but not wielded with precision (Hebrews 4:12).

    I do indeed thank you for your replies and I trust that many will take the time to study the passages you suggest thoroughly and then first weigh their own decisions in light of them. Then I trust we will be well equipped to discern [to some extent] the good and evil" of the decisions of others (Hebrews 5:14).

    For His glory,
    Christian Markle

  16. Joel Shaffer9/29/2010 11:36 AM


    As for Mohler and the Billy Graham crusade, if I remember correctly, he refused to cooperate with R.C. and Liberal Protestants and the Billy Graham Crusade conceded to Mohler's demands. Too bad the Billy Graham didn't concede back in the 1950's when he was invited by a more Fundamentalist/Conservative Evangelical group in New York that wanted to purposely excluded the R.C. and liberal protestants.......

    Now that doesn't mean I agree with what Mohler did. 4 years before the crusade, Billy Graham did come out as an inclusivist when it comes to Salvation at the Crystal Cathedral. That would have been problematic for me. However, my point is that many fundamentalists didn't even realize that Mohler did take a stand on the R.C. and liberal Protestants so they assume the absolute worst instead of getting all of the facts.

    However, it is Mark Dever that is on the platform with Bauder and Doran, not Al Mohler. He does not have the baggage that you reference to (Billy Graham Crusade and signer of Manhattan Declaration).

    As for all of the verses that you post concerning the disobedient brother, wouldn't you agree that there is no uniform agreement of what constitutes worldliness and compromise among fundamentalism? Fundamentalists are all over the place when it comes to music/worship, ministry methodology, and etc... Often it is a matter of conscience and individual soul liberty. Even Dr. Rolland McCune (Promise Unfulfilled) has admitted to as much in a dialogue with Andy Naselli over his book.

    That is why I keep on stating that there is way too much diversity among fundamentalists when it comes to the application of personal and ecclesiastical separation to make statements such as calling SI "pseudo-fundamentalist."

    Younger fundamentalists such as myself and those that come from a different fundamentalist background as yourself realize this and therefore don't buy into sharing the platform with a person such as Mark Dever (that doesn't have the baggage that Mohler has) as being some sort of slippery slope.

  17. Joel:

    Thanks for getting back to this discussion.

    As for Mohler and the Billy Graham crusade, if I remember correctly, he refused to cooperate with R.C. and Liberal Protestants and the Billy Graham Crusade conceded to Mohler’s demands.

    As for the Mohler and the Graham crusade I know from a first hand account that RCC priests were in attendance at the planning meetings. That is a fact. And you can be sure, as in every Graham crusade, RC’s were part of the group dealing with folks who came forward. This is what Mohler chaired. No matter what concessions he gained he should never have cooperated with Graham’s ecumenical evangelism in the first place. It was and is inexcusable.

    However, it is Mark Dever that is on the platform with Bauder and Doran, not Al Mohler. He does not have the baggage that you reference to (Billy Graham Crusade and signer of Manhattan Declaration).

    Agreed on Dever, but there are serious concerns with his SBC connections and other issues. He (Dever) is, nevertheless, the bridge to Mohler, Piper, et. al. This convergence is not going to end with Dever.

    As for all of the verses that you post concerning the disobedient brother, wouldn't you agree that there is no uniform agreement of what constitutes worldliness and compromise among fundamentalism?”

    I see things very simply. When I look at the rock-n-roll CCM culture of events like MacArthur’s Resolved and hear almost no difference between the world’s rock-n-roll concerts that I used to attend, I see worldliness. I don’t think it takes special conference to discern what is “worldly” in examples such as that. If it looks and sounds like the world’s anti-god culture then it is worldly. I would ask: Why it is so many appear willing to give the devil and his music the benefit of the doubt instead of giving God the benefit of the doubt?

    That is why I keep on stating that there is way too much diversity among fundamentalists when it comes to the application of personal and ecclesiastical separation to make statements such as calling SI ‘pseudo-fundamentalist’.”

    When I cite SI as “pseudo-fundamentalist” I mean the site itself. A while back I asked for anyone to show me any article at SI on its main page in its 5+ years that is exclusively positive on Fundamentalism. There are no such articles at SI.

    Younger fundamentalists such as myself and those that come from a different fundamentalist background as yourself realize this and therefore don't buy into sharing the platform with a person such as Mark Dever (that doesn't have the baggage that Mohler has) as being some sort of slippery slope.

    We’ll see how slippery this becomes. You may be aware that Doran has already been attending The Gospel Coalition and MacArthur’s Shepherd’s conferences. You might also be aware he has hosted evangelicals (3) in his pulpit and/or seminary.

    Some view this hooking up with Dever as moderate cooperation and so it may be. It is what Bauder says is a limited form of fellowship. IMO it is not going to stop there, this is not the limit. What you allow for in moderation today the next generation will take to an extreme. Bauder and Doran are trying to influence others to allow for, tolerate and excuse the aberrant theology and ecumenical compromises of the ce camp for the sake of fellowship with them. The next generation will go farther.

    Do you suppose any of our YF’s have to date accepted the non-cessationism of Piper? It has happened already and one of them confirmed to me he has accepted Piper's view on charismatic theology.

    There will be more of this because in part we have Doran/Bauder showing them the way there.

    Last question: Why is it that Bauder/Doran are influencing our men to move in the direction of the ce camp instead of calling on the ce men to become more like us especially in fidelity to balanced, biblical separatism?

    Thanks again for getting back to this.


  18. Joel:

    Here is something that I want to show. In his current article Dave Doran wrote the following,

    This is my concern about a lot of contemporary discussions regarding separation. Labels, because they are application-oriented, run the risk of serving prejudice more than principle. IOW, rather than really looking at what that man believes and practices, I judge him on the basis of a label.”

    I, for one, in all of my articles related to the issues among the evangelicals have addressed what they say and what they do in practice. I compare those things to Scripture and make an application. Labels could be a distraction, the absolutes are in what is said, done and what the Bible says about it.

    So, you raised Mohler and his signing the Manhattan Declaration, which gave Christian recognition to the enemies of the cross of Christ and compromised the Gospel. I trust you see that as wrong and since he is unrepentant, has other ecumenical compromises on his resume that he must be counted among the disobedient. The Scriptures mandate our response to the disobedient. (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Rom. 16:17)

    You may have known this, but the following statements are how Doran and Bauder respectively responded to Mohler's practice of signing the MD with Roman Catholic priests and protestant liberals.

    Doran concluded that “It was a wrong decision based on bad judgment.”

    Bauder wrote that it was merely, “occasional inconsistency…single episode.”

    That is how authentic biblical separatism is swept aside.

    Incidentally, in his 15 parts (thus far) Differences series Bauder has not yet addressed this issue. I’ve wondered from the beginning if he would address this obvious and glaring difference and make a Scriptural application.