Programs, Preaching and the Rest of Us (part 1)

Entering the sanctuary, I hear the musical prelude and realize I have made it on time. Soon the music leader starts off with a congregational song and the worship service has officially begun. I pop a mint in my mouth as I listen to the pastor welcome us to the service today before he gives a few announcements and prays. I stand again, as we sing a few more songs, pausing only to read a portion of Scripture together. Several men walk up to the front with baskets, while someone prays and the offering begins. The nice music in the background makes me almost forget that this offering is a part of our worship to God. We sing again, this time as we remain seated. And then a wonderful trio of ladies present us with a special number. Then the pastor steps up and our sermon begins. The message is moving, I must admit, although I wonder about that fellow over there who is practically snoring–oh, and then those people that keep getting up and taking their children out and then returning again. Before I know it the sermon has finished and we are praying. We rise and sing a few verses of a closing hymn and after a brief prayer or benediction we are dismissed.

This is the cycle repeated week in and week out every Sunday morning at numerous churches all over the world. It is carefully planned out and programmed. There is a bulletin with the order of service in it. Everyone who has a part up front has been notified well in advance. The songs have been selected, those praying have thought through what they will say. The pastor has prepared his fine sermon. Everything is in accord with the admonition in 1 Cor. 14:40, “all things should be done decently and in order”.

In some cases this same cycle is repeated at a Sunday night gathering. There may be a bit less formality than the morning worship, and perhaps a different pastor or church leader is speaking, but all in all it is the same. At the mid week service, there may be a time of concerted prayer before or after the service, but the service once again is largely a mirror image of Sunday morning’s routine.

Have you ever wondered if this kind of service was what the New Testament really had in view? Is this formal gathering with one man leading the show and another doing all the talking really what Hebrews has in mind when it exhorts us to not be “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (KJV, 10:25)? Or how about this question: Do we actually see this kind of a meeting in Scripture?

Far too often, I fear, we Christians, and especially we theologically conservative Baptists, resist asking such questions. Much more than we want to admit it, we are creatures of habit and upholders of tradition. Tradition is not all bad, in fact it can be very healthy. But if we find ourselves appalled that someone would even dare to question something as important as a programmed worship service where one man preaches the word to all gathered, perhaps a word of caution is in view. Just maybe, we are more connected to our tradition than to Scripture, and probably tradition is holding too prominent a place in our thinking.

In this article, I argue that an open, participatory style of worship is closer to what we see in Scripture than the modern programmed service. Then I give some descriptive examples as to how this might look, and finally I propose some recommendations (not without a few reservations) on how to implement this in a typical church. I understand this is controversial and radical to say the least. But I hope you hear me out and pause to think through some of the considerations I bring forth. May God bless us all in thinking through these matters together, and help us to live out church life in a way that is honoring to Him.

 

Arguments for Open, Participatory Worship

 

1) Church Services in Scripture

We do not have many examples in Scripture of believers meeting for worship and edification, but those we do have are examples of an open, participatory style of worship. The clearest example of public worship in Scripture, indeed also the most direct teaching on public worship, is found in 1 Cor. 14. The most pertinent section to our study is verses 26-33.

26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. (ESV)

Verse 26 specifies that “each one” of the brothers are participating in the service. Two or three are allowed to speak in a tongue while another interprets. And two or three prophets may speak, while the other prophets weigh what is being said. Vs. 30 highlights the spontanaity of the service by stressing that if someone receives a message from the Spirit he may interrupt another’s message (from the same Spirit). Vs. 31 is key: “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged”. Today that verse would be rendered, “For one may prophesy so that everyone else can learn from him and be encouraged.”

Now some will argue here about my use of this passage. It seems that many would prefer to not have 1 Cor. 14 in the Bible, so little do they actually listen to what it says. Many will object that prophecy is in view and since prophecy is no longer current in the church today, we do not follow the teaching of the passage. I have actually heard people try to equate NT prophecy and preaching as almost synonymous. If so, the passage should be followed. Many today teach that NT prophecy is similar to sharing something God laid on your heart. Others obviously believe prophecy (albeit of a less authoritative nature than Scripture) is a revelation from God the Spirit for us to hear today. These all should apply the passage, still. And those who think it is referring to a prophecy no longer functioning should realize he is singling out encouragement and edification as the result of prophecy (see v. 3) and any speech today which would encourage or edify–an exhortation, if you will–would fit the bill and fall under the directions of this passage.

Others will point out that Corinth was a confused church and Paul is correcting problems here. Exactly, what you read in vs. 26-33 is Paul’s correction. It applies to us in that this is how Paul says churches should behave. As Steve Atkerson points out, “The inspired correction was for the church to have regulated, orderly interaction, and not a prohibition of it….” [1].

Other glimpses in Scripture at how church services were conducted also show us that the worship was interactive and participatory rather than heavily programmed and conducted as a one man show. Acts 15 shows us a church meeting [while vs. 6 specifies apostles and elders were considering the matter of discussion, vs. 12 and 22 suggest the entire church was together for this discussion] where Peter, Barnabus, Paul, and James all participated. In fact, vs. 7 says “after there had been much debate”. And vs. 12 which follows on the heels of Peter’s appeal, begins “And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabus and Paul…”. This suggests that there had been an open forum of discussion and Peter brought forth an appeal and then Barnabus and Paul spoke up, followed by James after the crowd had finished talking (v. 13). Now I know this was a business meeting more than a worship meeting, but it is instructive that one man didn’t run the show.

But what about Acts 1? It seems that Peter is the only one conducting a business meeting of sorts. Well, actually, vs. 14 specifies that everyone was in one accord together in prayer. And then vs. 15 says “In those days Peter stood up among the brothers…”. In the context of this gathering where many are praying, Peter stands and addresses everyone. Then everyone (or at least the apostles) together chose two men (v. 23) and cast lots over them (v. 26). It again was no one man show, but there was a mutual involvement in leadership.

You may be scratching your head trying to come up with some other example of a church meeting in Scripture. Well, don’t forget Acts 20:7-12. And yes, this seems like a contradiction to all I have said, but upon closer look it is not at all. Here we find Paul meeting with the believers in Troas and talking with them, around a meal which seems to be also an observance of the Lord’s Supper. Now this at first glance might seem to be an argument against the position I am advocating. The ESV says “Paul talked with them…and prolonged his speech until midnight…” (from v. 7). Now I admit that many modern Bible translations are similar here, but I believe the Darby version and the NIV best capture what the Greek is actually saying.

Darby — And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight.

NIV — On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

The greek for “discourse” or “talk” (the KJV has “preach”) is the word “dialogemai“. This is the word from which we get “dialogue”. Vine’s Expository Dictionary says the following here: “…primarily denotes ‘to ponder, resolve in one’s mind’ (dia, ‘through,’ lego, ‘to say’); then, ‘to converse, dispute, discuss, discourse with;’ most frequently, ‘to reason or dispute with.’…The AV translates it ‘preached,’ in Acts 20:7,9; this the RV corrects to ‘discoursed,’ lit., ‘dialogue,’ i.e., not by way of a sermon, but by a ‘discourse’ of a more conversational character.”[2] This understanding of dialogemai fits with what we see later in this passage. Vs. 11 mentions that after Eutychus was raised from the dead, they go back up to the room and eat and “converse” until daybreak. The Greek word for “converse” is homileo. Vine says of this verse: “‘to be in company with, consort with’ (homilos, ‘a throng;’ homilia, ‘a company’), hence, ‘to converse with,’ is rendered ‘to talk with,’ Acts 20:11” [3].

Now the word homileo brings up an interesting point. This word sounds like “homily” another word for a sermon. And the word “discourse” a good translation of dialogemai also can have a formal or religious sense to it. Yet when one looks in the dictionary, the formal sense of discourse is not the first sense for “discourse”, rather the idea of communication, expression, or conversation is primary. [4]

So in Acts 20, we see Paul earnestly desiring fellowship with believers before he likely will never see them again. Paul converses and dialogues, discussing the Word and other things in an edifying way to the believers present for the worship service.

Before I move on form this point about church services in Scripture, we should note two passages which expressly instruct how we are to behave as a body of Christ. Most would view them as directly informing our public worship. Let me quote the verses here.

Col. 3:16 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (ESV)

Eph. 5:19 “Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,” (ESV)

Did you catch the “one another”? We are to be teaching and admonishing, verbally and in song, one another. This seems to be most easily accomplished in a setting where people can bring a hymn or a teaching or exhortation (prophecy) publicly before the gathered body and share it with us all. Just think, how can the believers in the pew really teach, admonish, address, or edify the church as a whole? More on that aspect later.

2) Preaching and Teaching in Scripture

“But what about the emphasis Scripture places on preaching?” I can almost hear someone thinking that right now. Well, let me tell you that most often preaching is tied to the public declaration of the gospel message. And most, if not all, of the examples in Scripture we have of preaching (think Acts) are all in contexts describing an evangelistic message to a group of mostly lost people. Teaching, however is what we see happening in the church. The believers in Acts 2 continued in the Apostle’s teaching. Doctrine is a fancy word for teaching. And teaching is stressed as something which should be a part of church life. When Paul sums up his ministry of one and a half years to the Corinthian believers, he does not say he preached to them all that time, but rather that he was “teaching the word of God among them” (Acts 18:11).

Teaching, it is true, conjures up an image of a less formal structure than that of preaching. But still the idea is that one guy is doing it all. At this point let me provide a somewhat lengthy, but I trust helpful quote from John Zens.

Among the many gifts Christ gives to his people, some are gifted as teachers (Eph. 4:11). James says, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Paul says, “if a person’s gift is teaching, let him teach” (Ro. 12:6-7). And in 1 Co. 12:28-29 Paul underscores the fact that Christ never intended for everybody to have the same gifting by asking, “Are all teachers?” On the other hand, the writer to the Hebrews chides all the bretheren for their lack of growth by saying, “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” (5:12). So while it is clear that only some are gifted as teachers, all of Christ’s people are to be “teachers” in the broad sense of contributing to the overall edification of the body according to their gifting….groups of believers will vary greatly in their giftedness…some assemblies will have several gifted at teaching, some will have one person, and others may feel that they have none. The central thing to keep in mind is that all believers have the Holy Spirit (the “anointing”) and are capable of some level of sharing Christ, of manifesting discernment, of caring for one another, and of understanding the Scriptures…. [5]

A further point could be made about James 3:1, I believe. James does not make being an elder a requirement to becoming a teacher. He seems rather to be resisting the influx of people willing and apparently able to teach. Steve Atkerson says concerning this verse, “James’ warning makes sense in light of the intimate, interactive meetings that characterized the early church.” [6]

Now I do believe that pastors and elders (remember I believe in a plurality of elders, see Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23) have a special responsibility to be pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11) and to equip the saints through teaching (Eph. 4:12). And I will mention later that I believe there still should be public teaching including a lecture style format. More on that later. But for now notice Titus 1:9-11. Pastors must be able to teach so they can silence those who “contradict”. Those in view here are false teachers. They are speaking in these churches due to the open and participatory format. Thus they need to be silenced. Verse 11 is intriguing. The ESV says, “They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.” But the Greek has “whole houses” not families. I think this is a reference to house churches being led astray by the influence of these false teachers “of the circumcision party”. This is similar to what is in view in 2 John 10, where house could be understood as local assembly, most of which met in houses originally.

3) Church Life in Scripture

One last and important line of reasoning which supports a participatory worship style are the many “one another” commands in Scripture. The Bible is replete with exhortations for us to love, encourage, comfort, edify, and exhort one another. In a previous post on this issue (“1 Thessalonians and Churches’ Greatest Need”), I listed 27 passages of Scripture besides almost the entire book of 1 Thessalonians which give “one another” commands. And my list is by no means exhaustive.

Now how exactly are we to obey these commands? Does sitting in a pew provide you the means of exhorting and encouraging fellow believers? Perhaps every third month when you get a chance to pray publicly, but certainly not regularly. Now, I am sure the commands mentioned above are to be followed out as we interact within the community of believers in our local church. But think about how your church is structured. How exactly are these commands being obeyed? While I agree that I and you and we all must be more assertive in looking for ways to practice “one another” ministry, I think, however, that part of the blame for a lack of “one another” ministry should lie at the feet of how we structure church today. With a select few doing all the practical ministry, the rest of us merely veg being the wonderful consumers that we are.

When you look at Scripture, you do certainly see specific qualifications and responsibilites required of the elders. But it is most often the normal church members who are addressed and called to serve and work in the church. Just typing the phrase “normal church member” irritates me. That entire idea stems from the whole Catholic idea of a distinction between the clergy and the laity. The clergy must mediate the spiritual blessings to the laity. I think the whole Protestant view of preaching is tied up in this concept of clergy and laity held over from the Catholic church. When we look at church life in Scripture we see no special prominence given to the church leaders, and we see non leaders actively involved in every facet of ministry and worship within the church.

We have come to the end of part one. I still plan to describe open, participatory worship (giving modern and historical examples) and offer some final recommendations and reservations about this whole discussion. I wanted to go ahead and post what I have so far here. And the rest should follow shortly.

 

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

 

Further Resources

[1] Steve Atkerson, “Interactive Meetings”, an online article (similar to the chapter  3 in Ekklesia—see footnotes).

[2] Beresford Job and Jon Zens, “Paul Preached Unto Them”, an online article (similar to chapter 4 in Ekklesia).

[3] The New Testament Restoration Foundation, a ministry devoted to spreading and teaching about house churches with participatory, open worship.

[4] More to come in part 2.

Footnotes

[1] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life, edited by Steve Atkerson, (Atlanta: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 2003), pg. 37. [For sample of a chapter in this book, click here.]

[2] Vine’s Expository Dictionary entry for “discourse” as accessed at BlueLetterBible.Org, click herefor the online entry.

[3] Vine’s Expository Dictionary entry for “talk – B-3” as accessed at BlueLetterBible.Org, click herefor the online entry.

[4] Information gathered from the Dictionary.Com entry for “discourse” as accessed at Dictionary.Com, click here to view the whole entry.

The Dictionary.Com dictionary’s first two definitions for “discourse” are as follows: “1. communication of thought by words; talk; conversation: earnest and intelligent discourse. 2. a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing, as a dissertation, treatise, sermon, etc.” And The American Heritage Dictionary‘s first three definitions for “discourse”, cited at Dictionary.com are as follows: “1. Verbal expression in speech or writing. 2. Verbal exchange; conversation. 3. A formal, lengthy discussion of a subject, either written or spoken.”

[5] John Zens, Ekklesia, pg. 59-60; underlined emphasis is italic in original.

[6] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia, pg. 42.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Hyper Fundamentalism and the Family

A few weeks ago I received the following comment on my blog:

I am not sure what your blog was talking about, but I gather that you understand about the strictness of fundamental Baptist churches.
My son is in one, and I am gathering information about this church. It is independent and the pastor controls everything the members do. I only see my son Thanksgiving and Christmas. Probably not at all now, since I will not attend his church. I was saved in that church and immediately left soon after, when I realized what it was about. I am attending another church. If you can help me, I would appreciate it. —A Reader

I wish the predicament that this dear lady finds herself in were uncommon. But, sadly, this is all too common in hyper fundamentalism. I have encountered several examples to a greater or lesser degree myself, personally. And I am sure my readers have their own sad stories to add here.

Long before I ever made a break from fundamentalism, I felt this was wrong. A certain relative of mine treated his wife’s parents very badly—with great disrespect, I believe. Although at the time they were driving a long distance to go to a fundamental Baptist  church they could agree with, he apparently viewed them as not good enough for him to spend any time with them. The decency of visiting and loving the family God gave him was downplayed and evidently separation and loyalty to his own church and movement emphasized. But hey, isn’t Deut. 5:16 still Bible?

My Dad always warned me to be on the lookout for any emphasis to distrust your family or to not go home over the holidays. And indeed among some students, the implication was that if you stayed over the summer, or if you stayed over the Christmas break that you were a more devoted Christian. Or at least that is the impression one could get (especially if they did not come from one of the churches which strongly supported the college).

I can’t say the church and college I went to explicitly taught us to distrust your family or to separate from them. In fact they emphasized that we go home and be a help to our churches. But in the teaching they gave concerning the family, they made it very clear that your family could be very wrongly influenced by your relatives and you needed to be extremely careful. Generally, I would agree, to an extent. But that advice was often taken to an extreme.

People whose children are still faithful Christians, albeit not fundamentalists (or not as much a fundamentalist as the parents would like), practice a firm separation from them. It is unnatural and ungodly. And yes, I have heard first hand of such goings on. And in this lady’s example above, she is facing such separation from her children.

Can’t strict fundamentalists appreciate that God is at work in their families’ lives—even if they aren’t fundamentalists? Can’t they agree on the big things like love for Christ, mutual faith, salvation, the fundamentals, etc., and then agree to disagree on the minor issues which define them as fundamentalists?

Does anyone else see this as a big problem for hyper fundamentalists (IFBx)? Is the problem wider than just this segment of fundamentalism? Does anyone else think that this trait of IFBx is one which seems very similar to a cultish characteristic?

I am interested in your responses. And lastly, does anyone have any hope to offer this reader? I encourage her to look to Christ and trust Him for support and love. She should also get involved in a good church where she can be ministered to. And then, she should try to love her son and family and try to show them she is a dedicated Christian, albeit not a fundamentalist. Any other thoughts?

Programming Note

We have company coming today and then we embark on a short trip with my brother and his family. Needless to say I won’t be able to post anything, or comment much at all until at least Thursday night. I do, however, still hope some discussion takes place here regarding my recent post desiring a “re-run of original fundamentalism”.

Also, I want you to know that I have not abandoned my controversial post. It is not finished yet, though it is well on its way. I had hoped to finish it by now, but alas this has been a crazy week. I’ll have to keep you all waiting!

Until I post again, you might find the following links worthwhile. (This is not a full fledged Bobspotted Blogroll post. I won’t comment at all on these links: I’ll just give them to you.)

 

Links of note

 


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

"Worthy Is the Lamb" by Darlene Zschech

There is a common criticism today that much of today’s contemporary praise & worship music is shallow. And to a large extent, I would grant that the criticism is valid. But only if it likewise indicts many of the hymns written in around the turn of the last century (1900).

When we look at the Psalms, however, we see a mix of very deep theologically rich psalms, and simple heartfelt songs. Today’s music (much like the popular “gospel” hymns from around 1850 through 1930) often emphasizes the emotional response of the believer to the truths of God. As long as the song expresses Bible truth and responds in a Biblical way, I would say the song is a Biblical song! And as such we can and should use it.

Now we may prefer the richer, deeper songs, and we probably should major on those songs for their teaching value. But we must not hesitate to use the songs which help draw forth our spirits in heartfelt praise.

One such song is “Worthy is the Lamb” by Darlene Zschech. This song is by no means shallow doctrinally. However, you will notice there is no 2nd and 3rd verse. My recent post on the modern hymn movement was not meant to convey the idea that only hymns are useful for praise. This song, repeated twice (and the last half repeated more than that), is written in such a way as to focus our hearts and souls on a few key thoughts: the cross, the wonder of our personal redemption, & the exalted glory of our Savior. And the music builds throughout the song making it the perfect vehicle for expressing our emotion of joy and love and wonder to God in a holy way.

I have been meaning to post on this song for quite some time, as every time I sing it, it soooo moves me! I trust you will be moved by the message of this song, too.

Worthy Is the Lamb
Words & Music by Darlene Zschech

Thank you for the cross, Lord.
Thank you for the price you paid.
Bearing all my sin and shame, in love you came
And gave Amazing Grace.

Thank you for this love, Lord.
Thank you for the nail-pierced hands.
Wash me in Your cleansing flow, now all I know…
Your forgiveness and embrace.

Worthy is the Lamb
seated on the throne.
We crown You now with many crowns
You reign victorious!
High and lifted up
Jesus, Son of God.
The darling of Heaven, crucified…
Worthy is the Lamb.

 © 2000 Darlene Zschech & Hillsong Publishing. CCLI #1596342

One little note, our church substitutes “High King of Heaven” for “The darling of Heaven” at the end of the song. I am not sure if it is just us, or it this is a more common substitution. It does add to the song, I think to change it, yet it stresses a different side of Christ. Yes, He was the Ultimate Sovereign  who humbled Himself, but He also is the Beloved Son of God, too.

For an idea as to the melody, click here (mp3). Also, I found the entire song on YouTube.Com. The video part  shows some young ladies doing a choreographic dance to the music, but if you click on the link, you will at least here the song in total, even if you prefer not to watch the dancers (nothing immodest, here, too by the way). If you click here, you will see a guitar chord chart of the music; and this link, will take you to a preview of the sheet music, which you can purchase should you so desire.

To learn more about Darlene Zschech, check out her  personal website. This link, also gives a bio and a collection of links (and interviews) concerning Darlene, best known for her song “Shout to the Lord”.

Hoping for a Re-Run of Original Fundamentalism

The Fundamentals, edited by R.A. Torrey

 

Nathan Busenitz over at Pulpit Blog(an online magazine/blog published by John MacArthur’s church)  gave us a must read article yesterday entitled “Our Fundamentalist Future.” In it he compares what is happening today within conservative evangelicalism to what happened more than one hundred years  ago in the rise of the fundamentalist movement. I encourage you to go give his article a read first, but I’ll whet your appetite with a few excerpts here below. Then come on back and see if we can discuss the article here.

Fast forward 128 years from 1878….Now it’s 2006. Yet the basic theological issues of today are not all that different than in 1878. The church of their day was faced with the temptation to compromise. The church today is faced with the very same temptation. The only difference is that we put a “post” in front of the “modernism.” …

The original fundamentalists rallied around core doctrines, desperately desiring to honor the Scripture, and vowing to stand firm against the advances of modernism. Interestingly, they found their rallying point not in denominational ties, but in a common love for Christ and a shared commitment to the truth. Their fellowship crossed denominational boundaries, finding an outlet in national Bible conferences like the one held near Niagara Falls. The movement itself was led by godly leaders from various backgrounds. It was undergirded by doctrinal creeds, and it was promoted through preaching and writing.

In the face of postmodernism, today’s conservative Christian leaders are again rallying around the same core doctrines as the original fundamentalists. Vowing to stand firm against the advances of postmodernism, today’s “fundamentalists” again cross denominational lines. Baptists like Mark Dever and Al Mohler, independents like John MacArthur, Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan, reformed charismatics like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney””they are standing united because something more important than denominational lines is at stake. The purity of the gospel is at stake.

Thousands of pastors across the nation are standing with them….Like the original fundamentalists,  these conservative evangelical  leaders don’t agree on every secondary doctrine. But they do agree on the essentials. And that’s what makes them fundamentalists: they hold fast to the fundamental doctrines of the faith…. [Read the whole article. Underlined emphasis was italic in the original.]

This article is really thought-provoking. And I believe it is worth some discussion. I posted the following  observations/questions as a comment over on Pulpit blog.

1) What is the contemporary remake of The Fundamentals? It seems that it would be good to have something like this today, is there anything out there already? Or do you think we don’t need anything like this?

2) Is this rerun of fundamentalism to be Calvinist-only? It appears most of those you mention are Calvinist. Can we not join together with Biblically minded, theologically conservative, non-Calvinistic brethren? And along this line, do you think this is already being done? I know the Together 4 the Gospel Affirmations & Denialsdid not explicitly shun contemporary Arminianism.

3) Should there be a push for us to unite around something like the T4G Affirmations & Denials statement mentioned above? Could we try to get diverse groups like the Association of Confessing Evangelicals and other counterpart groups to join in affirming some basic fundamental document? Would this help the movement or hinder it?

For my readership, which includes many self-described fundamentalists (most are hard at work reforming fundamentalism, or moving away from hyper fundamentalism–IFBx), a few “hyper fundamentalists”  (they would disagree…)  looking in on the discussion here, and a few recovering/ex fundamentalists (I would label myself here—I accept historic fundamentalism but not the secondary and tertiary separation that still defines [in a large degree] mainstream fundamentalism today), let me point out something of interest and add a fourth point of discussion.

In the comments section, Nathan Busenitz had this clarification to make concerning his article and the mainstream fundamentalism of today:

If I am reading your comment correctly, you seem to be saying something like: “It’s about time the evangelicals realized that modern fundamentalists are right, and started separating like they do.” … [let me] respond by suggesting that conservative evangelicals have no desire to embrace the hyper-separatism, anti-intellectualism, or moral externalism that characterizes much of modern fundamentalism. (Please note that I said “much,” not “all.” )

My point in the article is that conservative evangelicals share much in common with the original fundamentalists. In fact, I believe the conservative evangelical movement today has more in common with the original fundamentalists than the modern fundamentalist movement does. Much more in common, in fact.

Those who are the truest to original fundamentalist beliefs are not those who separate over secondary and tertiary doctrines (not to mention social issues). They are instead those who unify around the fundamentals of the faith. And that, I believe, is the key difference. [bold emphasis mine; underlined emphasis was italic in the original]

Joel's Pipe-Dream??You may not be too  surprised that I tend to agree with Nathan’s sentiments above. But here is an opportunity to discuss whether Joel Tetreau’s oft-blogged about vision of Type B and Type C fundamentalists (for the uninitiated, Type B is mainstream Fundamentalism, and Type C is conservative evangelicalism) standing shoulder to shoulder on common ground, is anything more than a mere pipe-dream.

So here is a 4th point of discussion.

4) Can mainstream fundamentalists really join the push for a modern re-run of original historic fundamentalism? Would they want to/be willing to? Would conservative evangelicals even let them? What could be done (from either side of the aisle) to widen the movement to include mainline fundamentalists? How exactly could joining such a movement be a capitulation from the ideals of rigid separatism? And if it is, how then can you defend the original fundamentalists for doing the same thing? Why shouldn’t separatists unify with others around these causes?

I hope we can generate some worthwhile discussion here. It would be great to be thinking and working (in however small a way) toward a more real unity in the body of Christ rallying around the cause of maintaining the purity of the Gospel in the face of the threat of post-modernism.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7