Appreciating and Assessing Fundamentalism

Nine Marks Ministries, a conservative evangelical ministry aiming to strengthen churches by emphasizing Biblical rather than pragmatic approaches to ministry, recently released their March/April 2008 e-journal. This month the topic was unity and separation, with an emphasis on fundamentalism.

The journal was kind to fundamentalism. While it recognized a need to balance separation with unity, it gave fundamentalists like Dr. Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) and Dr. Mark Minnick (pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC and NT faculty member of Bob Jones University) an opportunity to defend their fundamentalist viewpoint.

The journal brought together some of the best articles on the issue of Biblically-based separation and unity. I particularly thought that the articles by Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, and Wayne Grudem were excellent. See this link where Justin Taylor provides links to all the articles in the journal. Or download the pdf version of the journal. Also, don’t miss out on the audio lecture by Iain Murray (of Banner of Truth) on “George Whitefield and Catholicity” (catholicity meaning Christian unity with the universal church).

Perhaps the most interesting part of the journal was the “Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum on Fundamentalism“. It is a round-table discussion of sorts, where 19 different men were asked to answer this question: “What can we learn from the Christian fundamentalists?” For the most part, the answers focused on the positive contributions fundamentalism has made to evangelicalism. And while the faults of fundamentalism were sometimes mentioned, the overall feel of the discussion was one of a great appreciation for fundamentalists.

Ben Wright, a pastoral assistant at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC (home of Nine Marks Ministries), at his blog Paleoevangelical (which I would consider a reforming fundamentalist blog), asked for people to comment on which round-table answer they thought was the best. Ben of course expects his commenters to choose his own answer, as he contributed both to the roundtable and the journal (providing one article). I thought the idea was fun and could encourage some good conversation on these matters.

As I thought about responding, I felt I should just make my response into a post. So here goes….

I think the two best overall answers were Bob Johnson‘s and Carl Trueman‘s. And I appreciated some phrases and thoughts from other answers. I should also note that I learned a new derision of fundamentalism: “No fun, all da**, and not enough mental”. I should say that this was given tongue in cheek, and the 2 contributors who mentioned it were not bitter at the “fightin’ fundies”. I still thought it was funny, even though I recognize it is not true of many good fundamentalists I know.

Besides that line, I thought the following quotes were worthy of consideration:

…What it does is reassert a lost world, a once intact but no-longer-taken-for-granted cultural reality. In doing so, it both romanticizes the past and radicalizes the present with its overlay of psychological defiance and cultural militancy. Herein lies its danger to followers of Jesus: the cultural overlay grows more and more alien to the call of Jesus to his disciples…. (by Os Guinness)

In a day when Protestants seem to be as easily impressed by smooth-talking television preachers, beautiful liturgies administered by women and gays, or smart popes, we could use Fundamentalist suspicion. (by Darryl Hart)

I also was pleased to see someone make the same point I did about the place of the Gospel as it relates to extreme separation.

Sometimes, their practical applications appear to be as important as (or even more important than) the gospel. (by Matthew Hoskinson)

So what are your thoughts on the journal, or the round-table discussion?