Dave Doran has posted some reflections on where we are after the Advancing the Church conference, with respect to fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals (or at least where he is coming from). Of course separation and fellowship are the twin concerns for today’s fundamentalists: just how much fellowship can we permit with conservative evangelicals who don’t proudly wear the label “Fundamentalist”? Now that Kevin Bauder has clarified his current stance and hesitations over extending full fellowship to someone like Mark Dever, perhaps Doran sees the need to clarify some statements of his own. In any case, the last few posts on Doran’s blog have been meaty and traced the development of his thinking on these questions over the last 20 years or more.
In yesterday’s post, Doran discussed fences, shibboleths, fundamentalism, non-fundamentalist separatists, and more. His conclusion is worth posting here in full, but I encourage you to read his whole post (or better yet scroll down from here and read the last several “reflections” posts). I’m glad Doran continues to explain his take on things as the questions he’s exploring need to be hammered out by fundamentalists, and have needed to be for several years (or more).
…I am not advocating extending Christian fellowship to those who have denied the faith. I am not advocating toleration of those who do it. Just the opposite, in fact. I am advocating that these very specific questions be the ones that govern our decision making. Those questions are the baseline for fellowship and cooperation. A lot more matters to me than these, but anything other than the right answers here prevents it. The circle of people that can answer these questions satisfactorily is not limited to self-professing fundamentalists. IOW, there are separatists who don’t claim to be fundamentalists. My fellowship is limited to those self-professing fundamentalists who are genuine separatists and also other genuine separatists even if they don’t call themselves fundamentalists.
That last sentence prompts the real question of the hour””will the self-professing fundamentalists build a fence that excludes people who won’t limit their fellowship to only those who claim the label of fundamentalism? Is that label so tied to the essence of the biblical position that to not wear it means you fall on the wrong side of the fence? If so, is that a fence that can be defended biblically and practically?
I agree almost entirely here. I still consider myself a fundamentalist in many respects, but I’m not in a church which considers itself part of the fundamentalist movement. Yet the concern for doctrinal purity and biblical living is equal to or more than what I have found in many fundamentalist churches. I’m interested to hear your take on this, too. Do you agree or disagree with Doran? I’m all ears.
I find Doran’s articles compelling. They are Biblical and sensible. I pray that many will read Doran thoughtfully, and will be encouraged to think, re-think, and discuss the separation issue quietly and carefully.
Personally, I think these terms have overstayed their welcome. Simply because language has changed, the terms have become cloudy in meaning. So terms like these are not helpful (anymore) to such a degree that we must get to precision by “commentary” rather than conciseness.
This does not mean the “arenas” upon which these terms have been applied in the past don’t exist – they do exist – but we must speak of these “arenas” in ways that are helpful to today’s understanding of the discussion.
“Fundamentalism” has been hi-jacked in so many ways and splintered so many times, it ceases to provide any meaningful contribution to the discussion – and to such a degree, using terms like this is like bringing a knife to a gun match.
Another way to express this, we must get to precision by marathon not sprinting.
Just my 2 cents.
I applaud any conclusion that leads to the centrality of the gospel as the clearest line of demarcation between truth and error and the strongest basis for true Christian fellowship.
I concur with all three of these comments. It’s been a busy day, but yes, I’m encouraged by Doran’s reflections. Thanks for the interaction.
Acid test on the use of a term: Is there wide agreement on what the term means?
The term itself has morphed or devolved into obsolescence
Very true, Jim.
I agree with Doran, but I really resonate with what you wrote in the last paragraph. That describes where I am at, precisely.
Thanks, Andrew.
I think I’ve reached the point that I am more comfortable calling myself a Conservative Evangelical. Just realized this this week!