Archival Series: Do Fundamentalists & Evangelicals “Believe, Preach & Defend the [Same] Gospel?”

Many of you are aware of a long running series by Dr. Kevin Bauder titled Now, About Those Differences. He is publishing this series to clear up what he alleges to be misunderstandings surrounding his incendiary article Let’s Get Clear on This (March 2010). In his Differences series Kevin heaps lavish praise on Evangelicalism and continues to redefine and/or castigate Fundamentalism just as he did in the Let’s Get Clear on This article. Nevertheless, the current installment, Part 12 subtitled Together (Only?) for the Gospel contains an element that is highly disconcerting, bordering on a deliberate misrepresentation of a known fact.

Dr. Bauder wrote,

“Most fundamentally (the word is deliberate), both groups are united in their affirmation and exaltation of the gospel. None of the differences that we have examined to this point results in a denial of the gospel. Both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believe the gospel, preach the gospel, and defend the gospel.”

For any objective commentator it is widely known and irrefutable that Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel is the Gospel message of so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

Is it possible that Kevin Bauder refuses to disclose the vast chasm, disagreement and debate in Fundamentalism over what is the true nature of saving faith; what is the Gospel?

His statement above is at best an avoidance of the truth and at worst a deliberate attempt to conceal the disagreement that exists among men in Fundamentalism on the nature of the one true Gospel.

There is wide spread disagreement in Fundamentalism over Calvinism, but for many on both sides of that debate Calvinism does not necessarily mandate a split. Lordship Salvation, however, is an entirely different point of sharp contention.1 John MacArthur defined the core of Lordship Salvation (LS) when in TGATJ he wrote, “Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.”2 Statements such as that are the focal point of controversy and many fundamentalists consider that to be a defining mark of a works salvation.

Bauder also wrote,

“This mutuality in the gospel leads to a question. Since conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are united in their allegiance to the gospel, should they not be able to cooperate at the level of the gospel? To put it positively, should fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals get together for the gospel?”

There is no universal “mutuality in the gospel” among evangelicals and fundamentalists. “Evangelicals and fundamentalists are [NOT] united in their allegiance to the gospel,” because there is a vast difference between what evangelicals and non-Calvinists in Fundamentalism believe to be the Gospel.

Kevin Bauder is well aware, that many men in Fundamentalism reject LS as a false, works based Gospel. It is, furthermore, indisputable that virtually every man in “conservative” evangelicalism is a passionate advocate for Lordship Salvation, which Bauder is also well aware of. It is, therefore, impossible for fundamentalists who reject LS to have any kind of fellowship, unity or cooperation with the evangelicals precisely because of their advocacy of Lordship Salvation. And that is before we examine the ecumenical compromises and worldliness of these same evangelicals.

To be honest with his readers Kevin Bauder must add a qualifier, a clarification. The qualifier would be along these lines, “Only those in the fundamentalists and evangelical camps who rally around Calvinism and Lordship Salvation can be, united in their allegiance to the gospel…” It is the Calvinistic Lordship Salvation message that Calvinists in fundamental circles are choosing to unite around with their Calvinistic counter-parts in Evangelicalism. This is irrefutable! Dr. Bauder also wrote,

“Is it really believable that they [T4G] cannot find a place for Christian statesmen like Charles Ryrie or John C. Whitcomb?”

Of course it is believable. Frankly, this is a question any casual observer could answer. T4G is Together for the LS Gospel.3 Then there is the alternating year sister conference The LS Gospel Coalition. Lordship Salvation is the interpretation of the Gospel that they gather around. How could Bauder not grasp that T4G will never have Dr. Ryrie on their platform when he surely knows that Dr. Ryrie in, So Great Salvation rejects John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation?

What the apologists for unity with Evangelicalism such as the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron do not fully disclose is that Bauder’s so-called “pure gospel” rallying point is Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation. This is exactly why no man who rejects Lordship Salvation will ever be invited to the platform of events like T4G and/or The Gospel Coalition.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the sole test for fellowship with the evangelicals is whether or not they can agree on a Calvinistic soteriology. Kevin Bauder is willing to find agreement and base fellowship with evangelicals solely on the LS interpretation of the Gospel. Virtually all other considerations among the evangelicals such as ecumenical compromise, worldliness and aberrant doctrine have been tolerated, ignored, allowed for and excused.

It is irresponsible to portray Fundamentalism as though all fundamentalists accept and agree with the evangelicals interpretation of the Gospel. This is an inappropriate caricature. According to Kevin Bauder,

“Both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believe the gospel, preach the gospel, and defend the gospel.”

The truth is that many men in Fundamentalism do NOT “believe, preach or defend” the Lordship Salvation message of the evangelicals. They instead reject LS because it “corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and biblically resist its spread as fervently as they would Roman Catholicism’s sacramental system because both are works based, non-saving interpretations of the Gospel.

IMO it is disingenuous for Kevin Bauder to speak as if there is wide spread unanimity in all of Fundamentalism for agreement with evangelicals on what constitutes the Gospel, the nature of saving faith. His failure to disclose the well-known, demonstrable division in Fundamentalism over LS is the practice of censorship by omission. I am calling on Kevin Bauder to be honest with his readers. To publicly recognize that many men in Fundamentalism reject Calvinistic soteriology and especially the Lordship Salvation, which the evangelicals “believe, preach and defend.”

A Personal Admonition to Kevin Bauder:
Brother Bauder you do not speak on behalf of and are no more the voice of Fundamentalism than I am. Fundamentalists speak for themselves and many of them passionately reject Lordship Salvation and would have every right to be offended by your suggesting Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism believe, preach and defend the [same] Gospel.

As I have documented in this article you are perpetuating a fallacy. It is intellectually dishonest to declare, without qualification, there is unanimity on the Gospel between fundamentalists and evangelicals. It is an egregious misrepresentation. Scores of fundamentalist pastors, teachers and evangelists reject Lordship Salvation as a false interpretation of the Gospel and you know this to be true.

I am calling on you to be honest with your readers. Tell them that a select group of Calvinists in Fundamentalism rally around evangelicals on Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation. Tell your readers that Calvinistic soteriology is the “pure gospel” you speak of and around which you are trying to influence others toward unity in the Evangelical and Fundamentalist camps.


LM

Originally appeared August 24, 2010.
Kevin Bauder never revised, edited or retracted any of his false narrative above.

1) What is the Fault Line for Fracture in Fundamentalism?

“How can there be unity within a fellowship when two polar opposite interpretations of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ are accepted as legitimate? Reasonable men can get along over differences of opinion over Reformed theology. Many men who reject Calvinism have cordial personal friendships with IFB men who are Calvinistic in their theology. There is the desire to work in cooperative efforts and I understand that desire. It is, however, antithetical to the Scriptures to call for unity in any fellowship at the expense of compromise with Lordship’s message, which has changed the terms of the Gospel.”

2) For a brief definition of LS by Dr. John MacArthur see, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

3) Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations: “Foremost Defenders of the Gospel Today?”

Please continue to Cogitations Stemming From the Central/Bauder Ethos Statement

“Why These Schools Collapsed & What Does it Mean for [Bob Jones University]?”

Today [June 8, 2020] I am drawing your attention to a message given by Dr. Will Senn given at the FBFI Annual Fellowship on June 12, 2019. His message title is, What are the Qualities of True Christian Fellowship?1You will appreciate the relevance of the latter part of his message as it has a direct bearing on our discussions about the changing face of Bob Jones University (BJU).

Where the message begins to move toward what is applicable to BJU begins at -20:50. Later the message hones in on specifics that precisely addresses what is happening at Bob Jones University (BJU). To appreciate the impact of what was said you must listen to the balance of Pastor Senn’s message from -17:20 through the end.

Dr. Will Senn

Dr. Senn begins closing his message with an illustration from a graduate class he was teaching at International Baptist College & Seminary (Spring 2019).  His concluding remarks are drawn from the students’ answers to the final exam he had given them. Their assignment was, “I am giving you five colleges where the doors are now closed…. You’re going to make an oral presentation…. Why did they close?” (-17:20) Dr. Senn’s assigned the final.

“Why did Clearwater close, Northland close, Pillsbury close, Calvary Baptist Seminary close, Tennessee Temple close…. why did they fall, what happened and what can we learn? I want you to do the research. I want us to learn something from history because it will have a current application and future application as it relates to our fellowship.”

Dr. Senn then assigned the students a second portion to the exam.  He said, “You’re going to take the lessons learned and I am going to ask you to put yourself in the context of addressing five current Christian schools where if you had the opportunity to talk to their boards what would you say to those board members from the lessons just learned?”

The five current schools assigned were: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Faith Baptist (Ankeny, IA), Maranatha Baptist University, Bob Jones University and International Baptist College & Seminary.

The student answers are as revealing as they are factually correct. Dr. Senn read samples of the reasons students arrived at for the five schools closing, for example:

•    Guard against sports becoming the focus of the school, rather than the focus being disciple making, loving Christ and other type of school.

•    Maintain sound doctrine; do not compromise to broaden the school’s base of support.

•    The need for the school to solicit input and support of the pastor and churches that are sending their students to the school.

•    Be true to your mission statement. Do not try to be something that you are not.

•    Southern Baptists and other evangelicals have their own well established and attractive schools. They are not looking for new schools, but are content with their current choices.

•    Sports programming can become overbearing and expensive especially if you seek to compete in higher divisions.

The excerpted student answers above (there were thirty in all) boiled down to a summary statement. Dr. Senn prefaced their summary, “Why these five schools collapsed and then what would you say to the other five schools that I love?” Their summary statement was,

Every failed school veered from its conservative and historic base to accommodate a new base…and each time it was the death knell of the school.


BJU president Dr. Steve Pettit was in the auditorium under the sound of Dr. Senn’s message. From that day to this it appears virtually none of those student admonitions made a dent with Steve Pettit and his mission for BJU. Does Steve Pettit think he can veer from the university’s base to accommodate the SBC and evangelicals and the university will survive it? If that is Steve’s plan then he is not learning from history the lesson that the five closed schools learned the hard way.

Drs. Horn & Pettit

During the tragedy that became Northland’s closure objective observers knew that Matt Olson, with Sam Horn “veered from its conservative and historic base to accommodate a new base.” Today, objective observers recognize that Steve Pettit and Sam Horn “veered from [BJU’s] conservative and historic base to accommodate a new base.” BJU’s “conservative and historic base” recognize what Pettit and Horn together have done. The base has been alienated, their admonitions ignored.  Consequently much of the base has abandoned the school, plus the SBC and evangelical students Steve Pettit is trying to attract, “are not looking for new schools, but are content with their current choices.”

At this blog I have in various forms been writing statements like this, “For NIU the lesson from TTU [Clearwater, Calvary Seminary] and Pillsbury is the same, ‘You can’t come in and turn a hard right or left and expect to have your alumni with you’.”2Today we can take that statement with some editing to read as follows, “For Bob Jones University the lesson from NIU, TTU, Pillsbury, Clearwater and Calvary Seminary is the same, “You can’t come in and turn a hard right or left and expect to have your alumni with you.”

Closing with Dr. Senn, 

“You can’t build that [SBC, evangelical] relationship fast enough. So what happens is your pushing the good people out, the Calebs and Joshuas. And you start listening to the ten spies.”

BJU is well on its way to joining the five failed schools. You cannot alienate your core constituency and expect them to remain loyal. On its current trajectory BJU should not expect to survive Steve Pettit’s presidency.

LM

Footnotes:

1) What are the Qualities of True Christian Fellowship?

2) What Do Pillsbury; TTU & NIU Have in Common? (October, 2012)

Related Reading:
Dr. Bob Jones, Jr, “If BJU Ever Changes...I Pray the Lord Closes Its Doors.” 
Ironically it is through the actions of BJU graduates, Steve Pettit (80’) and Sam Horn (86’ 88’ 95’) that the school has lost its ‘strong fundamentalist stand.’ Going forward, unless some radical intervention takes place, it will be through BJU graduate Steve Pettit that the university’s doors are destined to close.

Sam Horn in Historical Perspective: Northland & Bob Jones University

The Northland/BJU pattern is virtually the same, casting off its fundamentalism, separatist roots, and the common denominator is Sam Horn. BJU is learning what the colleges learned the hard way when they went down the road of embracing evangelicalism.  And that lesson is: You cannot turn a college to a hard right or hard left and expect to have your alumni with you. 

The Closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary: Predictable & Repeatable (August 2013)

Is NIU “UnChanged?” NBBC Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity

What tires objective observers is letters like those from Les Ollila and Matt Olson where they…use subjective imprecise language to quell any concerns…. Northland’s new trajectory has a historic parallel. The devastating effects of introducing Evangelicalism’s philosophy and practices into a biblical Fundamentalist setting are no starker than the demise of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College.

NIU Closes: Continuation of the Pattern of Demise (April 2015)

This is the predicted result of Matt Olson’s Experiment with the “new wave” of new evangelicalism. It was clear that the school would not survive Olson’s changes. Matt Olson and his team [Sam Horn] had pounded the nails into the coffin of a once fine, fundamental, Baptistic, separatist school. 

This Pastor’s Perspective on the Closure of Clearwater Christian College (June 2015)

From the front pew it has been my sorrow to observe CCC’s decline over the past 13 years.  From a college with a strong following of biblical fundamental pastors and churches, CCC appeared to have lost her way.  Many reasons will be given for the doors of CCC closing.  Some will cite economics, a dwindling number of conservative churches, low student enrollment and competition from other colleges. Although all of the above no doubt contribute to the demise of CCC; I suggest from my vantage point that the leadership of the college over the past 10 years steered the college away from its founder’s purpose, philosophy and vision.



The Hufhand Report: Friday’s Focus on Fundamentalism

A recent article written by Dr. Kevin Bauder, has come to my attention, and with it, he has opened up a can of worms, in regard to the strategy of Bible colleges and Christian Universities in their approach to getting students.

         This article appears to be an about face for Dr. Bauder, who has consistently downgraded fundamentalism every chance he got, over the last 10 years.  Actually, there is much in the article, with which I would agree, and have written about.  Please forgive this feeble attempt to understand how we got into this mess.

           The answer to this dilemma is a return to old time Biblical fundamentalism, but few people are interested in doing that.  Reflecting on the past, there was a time when many young men went off to college, simply to major in some particular course of study, such as History, Engineering, Literature, Political Science, etc.  In the course of time, they began to seek God’s will for their life, aided by the influence of godly pastors.  As a result, some of them gave themselves to the ministry, at which time; they would choose a seminary where they would focus on studies pertaining to the ministry, such as languages, Bible, apologetics, and theology. Generally, their choice of seminary came through their denominational preference. 

         All of this changed when the denominational Seminaries started to become liberal in their theology.  The advent of such schools as Moody Bible Institute, Biola, Detroit Bible Institute, Temple University, and Bob Jones University, etc., became the answer to this onslaught of liberalism.  The products of these Christian schools produced thousands of young men and women who had no place to serve, hence, the church planting movement of the 1920’s through the 1970’s.  Now here we are, back where we started from in the beginning.  Someone has stated, “What goes around, comes around.”  This is what has happened.

         As a result of the former strategy, every community in America had a denominational church of one kind or another, to which young men could attend.  The pastors of those churches were always on the lookout for young men who would make good ministers and he would take them under his wing and steer them into the ministry.  The number of men going into the ministry adequately supplied the church or churches in each community with a pastor.

         However, the strategy that began with the advent of the Bible colleges was different. The church planting movement came about as a result of thousands of young men surrendering to the ministry, with no place to serve upon graduation from college.  Most of the pastors and missionaries presently serving, or have recently retired, are products of those fundamental churches, as well as fundamental schools.  On the other hand, some of us, like me, are products of churches that were in liberal denominations.  My pastor didn’t really care where I went to college, as long as I went to their particular denominational seminary.  If I did that, my pastor assured me of a nice comfortable pastorate somewhere in the country.  I didn’t take him up on it.

         Once the fundamentalist movement got started in earnest, back in the 1920’s, fueled by several aggressive church planting associations, such as the CBA of A, the GARBC, the BBF, and the IFCA, it wasn’t long until churches began to dot every little town and village in America.  The Bible schools were pumping out preacher boys by the hundreds and soon there was a “glut” of preachers with few places to serve, except in communities where there were already at least one or two well attended Gospel preaching churches.  New churches were started in these towns, and soon there were three or four in it, and to make matters worse, churches began to split and splinter, and soon, there were hundreds of small struggling churches scattered all across the landscape of our country, which is the case today, with no pastors to fill them, as the number of pastors continues to decline.  To make matters worse, hundreds of pastors are walking away from the ministry every month.

         With the advent of Christian day schools starting up in the 1970’s, it altered the focus of most pastors.  Where they were once aggressively growing their Sunday Schools and Churches, through soul winning programs and evangelistic preaching, they began concentrating on building their Christian schools. And although the Christian school has been a blessing and did alleviate the glut of preacher boys coming out of college, because now many of them became involved in the Christian school, it did nothing to head off what would tragically follow.

         What we have to understand is that the choices we make are often fraught with unintended consequences and one of the consequences is the product of our Christian schools. Instead of training our young people for the battlefield through the ministry of the local church, we educated them in the Christian school to ignore where the battle was.  We actually took them out of the battlefield, which was the public school system.  What we really accomplished in our Christian schools was to develop a callousness toward the things of God.  The Bible became a textbook, instead of love letter and a manual for Christian living.  Instead of causing their hearts to be tender toward the ministry, we actually turned their hearts away from it.  Let me tell you a story and I’m done with this.

         This goes back to the days when Bob Jones III was still President of BJU.  He wrote a letter to all of the BJ pastoral graduates in regard to something that literally broke his heart.  Even as I write, I hesitate to mention it; for fear that it might return the grief to his heart.  He told of inviting many of the Christian schools that had a basketball team, along with their cheerleaders, to a week of competition and comradery at the University.  Thousands of young men and women gathered together.  As they gathered in the Auditorium, to hear the 75cent pitch about the school, they were then told about the different courses of study that were positioned through-out the building, naming each one, and then dismissing them to go where their interest was.

DR. Bob Jones, III

          In writing his letter to us, and I still have the letter, he asked this question: “Do you know how many of those thousands of students came to the School of Religion?”  To his grief and sorrow, he said, “Just one.”  That was 20 years ago.  Imagine what it is today!  No wonder there is such a dearth of ministerial students.  The fire has gone out in our churches, as well as our Bible colleges and Universities.  And I’m sorry to have to say, much of it must be laid at the door of our Christian schools and pastors who lost their focus. Let’s face it, with a few exceptions, most of our once thriving fundamental churches are dead or dying.  There is little to no life in them.  Although the Christian school endeavor, along with the Bus ministry, has declined greatly, the problem of young men entering into the ministry still exists, and is getting worse. What fundamentalism needs today is a champion; i.e. someone like Billy Sunday, Bob Jones Sr., W.B. Riley, a Bob Ketchum, a John R. Rice, a Lee Roberson, or a Tom Malone, who will step up to the plate and lead the way.  God help us, and if it doesn’t happen, we can write our own obituary.


Dr. Lawrence Hufhand

The Hufhand Report:
Friday Focus (May, 29, 2020)
Reprinted by Permission.

Related Reading:

Recognizing Kevin Bauder’s Contribution to The Future of Fundamentalist Education: Students

The Coronavirus of Ecumenical Compromise: Are You Infected?

Recognizing Kevin Bauder’s Contribution to The Future of Fundamentalist Education: Students

Kevin Bauder

Dr. Kevin Bauder’s current blog article is, The Future of Fundamentalist Education: Students. There he writes about fundamentalist, “Schools [that] have closed and those that remain are scrambling for students.” He cites issues and strategies, as he sees them.

How often did Kevin Bauder lead the way in his criticism of all-things fundamentalism? It has been difficult to recall him ever share any unqualified praise of the fundamentalists others have respected. Instead he posted questionable revisionist histories of fundamentalism and castigate fundamentalists. For example,

“Again, I am very disappointed at the language Bauder uses against his fellow fundamentalists, evidently chiefly against [John R.] Rice: ‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘the big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc. Is this the kind of language a fundamentalist leader should use?”1 Kevin Bauder also wrote, “Fundamentalism is still home to quite a few people who were willing to burn incense to the emperors.”2

I was at the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship. Toward the end of the Q&A Symposium moderator Dr. John Vaughn directed a question to Dr. Bauder about the conservative evangelicals, which was the subject of the Q&A.  Concerns that Kevin Bauder might launch another unprovoked attack against historic Fundamentalism were realized. Bauder just could not let his three previous attacks on the legacy of Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice be “Nuff said.” Bauder dodged the question put to him to instead besmirch Bob Jones University for having hosted various candidates for political office. Then current BJU president Stephen Jones was unable appear in the symposium as scheduled. So, Bauder directed his darts at the most recognizable personality from BJU on the panel: Dr. Mark Minnick. Clearly Dr. Minnick was uncomfortable with Bauder ambushing him with criticism of BJU administration decisions and calling on him to explain it. Dr. Minnick graciously tried to leave the discussion for the BJU administration to answer, but Bauder kept up the pressure. Kevin Bauder’s performance was a disgrace.

On March 30, 2012 Kevin Bauder published an article titled, Facts & Lies. Of that article it was noted,

“As I read the blogs of Dr. Kevin Bauder, I see an attempt to re-write the history of fundamentalism in America. No one has that privilege. Are we not hypocrites when we deprecate the secular intellectual for attempting to re-write our American history, only to set ourselves up to do the same with the history of Baptist fundamentalism? We are who we are, regardless of how some may want to re-define or re-name us.”3

Of another article a reviewer had this reaction, “Kevin Bauder’s latest installment [Differences, Part 18] tells the history of separation from a point of view totally foreign to me…. And I am astonished that credulous readers of Kevin Bauder seem to swallow this revisionism as if it were entirely accurate.”4

February 2013 Kevin Bauder announced that he believed it is his “duty” and “responsibility” to clean up the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI). His self-appointed duty to clean up the FBFI included “hauling out the trash.”5

At the pseudo-fundamental Sharper Iron Kevin Bauder (2/2/2013) made this statement to Pastor Don Johnson, “Don, don’t you get it? People like me [Kevin Bauder] are the last and best hope for Old Fundamentalist institutions like the FBFI.”

In March 2010 Pastor Marc Monte reviewed Dr. Bauder’s Let Get Clear on This article,

Having charitably distinguished conservative evangelical’s from fundamentalists, Bauder immediately attacks fundamentalists as doctrinal obscurantists. For reasons known only to himself, Bauder mocks those whose doctrinal concerns include bibliology, the blood atonement, and sovereignty/freewill. Apparently Bauder feels that the doctrinal concerns of fundamentalists are illegitimate and ill-informed. He goes as far as stating that fundamentalists “have lost their doctrinal sobriety.”6 

In addition to castigating fundamentalism Bauder heaps lavish praise on so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

“Kevin [Bauder] 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…. Like Kevin, I would give credit to the conservative evangelicals where credit is due. I say ‘Amen’ to everything they have done well in defense of the gospel of Christ. But not at the expense of discrediting fundamentalism for the valiant battles it has fought against some of the very things many conservative evangelicals are espousing which compromise the gospel, yet which many of the current generation do not seem to take very seriously…. 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.”7

A “Trojan horse” has indeed been allowed in the fundamentalist camp, and it is Kevin Bauder who encouraged opening the gates for it. Kevin Bauder’s Trojan horse is in large part why Northland International University ultimately closed and Bob Jones University is in serious decline.

Dr. Bauder w/ Mark Dever

Many have recognized Kevin Bauder’s revisionist histories and omission of known facts in his articles. He has been blurring the lines of distinction between fundamentalism and so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. How often have we seen him defend, tolerate, allow for, ignore or excuse the aberrant theology and ecumenical compromises of his evangelical friends? Kevin Bauder has practiced, taught and encouraged abandoning “militant” separatism for the sake of fellowship and cooperative ministry with non-separatist evangelicals.

These examples above, and to follow below, exemplify how Kevin Bauder contributed to why fundamentalist, “Schools have closed and those that remain are scrambling for students.” Kevin Bauder shares responsibility for why The Future of Fundamentalist Education: Students is in doubt.


LM

Addendum: An email reply to the article above.

Brother Lou, I have often wondered about the fascination of other fundamentalists with men like Kevin Bauder. In my opinion, there has long been a bent of self-promotion in boards of fundamentalist institutions that not only insulates, but borders on incestuous politics. I cannot think of any other explanation for how pseudo-fundamentalists have risen to the top perches of fundamentalists institutions while rejecting a cardinal doctrine…Separation. Kevin Bauder and others of his fold have taken license to castigate faithful fundamentalists of the past whose voices are silenced by the grave. Had those ancient prophets lived to this day, I have no doubt that pseudo-fundamentalists would have been exposed and driven from the fold. Instead, they have used their institutional perches, their ivory towers, to gain a following of “young fundamentalists” who confuse intellectual rhetoric with spiritual fervency for the faith.

Footnotes:

1) A Call for Kevin Bauder’s Removal from the 2009 FBFI Platform

(See, Missionary John Himes, grandson of Dr. John R. Rice.)
2 Ibid.
3) Answering Questions About  the Changes We are Seeing in Fundamentalism

4) Show Me the Silent Majority

5) Hauling Out the Trash in Your Own Home First

6) Kevin Bauder: Muddying the Clearwaters

7) Dr. Gerald Priest reacting to Dr. Kevin Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This, March 2010.

Related Reading:

Kevin Bauder Discussing Al Mohler’s “Occasional Inconsistency.”

To dismiss Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan signing the Manhattan Declaration as merely a, “wrong decision based on bad judgment,” (Dave Doran) an “occasional inconsistency…single episode,” (Bauder) is the look and feel of a “downward drift toward compromise” of the Scriptures (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Rom. 16:17), in the form of tolerance for the sake of fellowship.

A Letter from Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

It is astounding to me that in many of your recent writings on a professedly fundamental, Baptist site, you seem to constantly extol the “virtues” of evangelical Protestants while, at the same time, deriding the “vices” of Fundamental Baptists. Reading your posts would lead some to wonder if you weren’t just writing a resume for some “conservative evangelical” seminary…. No doubt, Fundamental Baptists have their “flaws,” as do others in a different theological orbit, but must you constantly point these out with little or no qualification? It is hard to read even one of your tomes without hearing you constantly jab at the perceived flaws of some past and even present Independent Baptists…. Is this generalization of the movement, of which you “claim” to be a part, healthy? Do you think it is possible that your constant diatribe against “your own” is one of the main reasons some young people are leaving sound churches for “greener pastures?”

We’re Not Convinced Kevin Bauder is a Help to Fundamentalism

Dr. Kevin Bauder generated anger and resentment of the younger generation of preachers toward Fundamentalism.  He has, furthermore, encouraged their movement toward the spiritual dangers of the new wave New Evangelicalism. When the upcoming generation, finally land in the compromised evangelicalism of John Piper, Al Mohler and Mark Dever (some have already done so) we need look no further than Kevin Bauder who, from within fundamentalism, was given free rein to influence them in that direction.