Category: Fundamentalism

General critiques (and discussions) of fundamentalism (IFB or IFBx)

The Origin of Today’s “Conservative Evangelicals”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Dr. Kevin Bauder has been fleshing out the differences between “conservative evangelicals” (like John MacArthur, John Piper, Mark Dever, Tim Keller and etc.) and the fundamentalists. His series has covered a lot of ground (this is part 18!), and now has circled back into a bit of a historical mode.

Today’s installment focuses on where the “conservative evangelicals” fit in when it comes to the historical rise of fundamentalism and its antithesis, “neo evangelicalism”. I thought his essay posted today at Sharper Iron, really covered some important ground. It explains the origin of today’s “conservative evangelicals”, a label that perhaps most of my readers would be comfortable with.

I have excerpted the most important parts of the essay here for your benefit. I encourage you to read the whole thing, and (if you have some time) to read the previous essays he’s done on this same theme.   Note: in the excerpt below, words in brackets and any bolded emphasis are mine.

Fundamentalism surfaced in about 1900 as a doctrinal and ecclesiastical reaction against the influence of theological liberalism… It grew out of an American evangelical coalition that stretched across the denominations, produced the Bible conference movement, built mission agencies and Bible institutes, and produced The Fundamentals. This coalition has come to be known as proto-fundamentalism….

As the battles [against liberal theology] within the denominations warmed up, three evangelical groups became identifiable. One was a militant minority that intended to oust the liberals. These were the fundamentalists. Another was a minority that stood with the liberals, though they themselves were evangelical. These were the indifferentists.

These two groups did not exhaust the spectrum, however. A third group was present. It was a larger group than either the fundamentalists or the indifferentists. This group constituted what Richard Nixon would someday call the “silent majority.”

This silent majority was firmly evangelical and was usually willing to be labeled as fundamentalist. For the most part, the members of this majority agreed with the fundamentalist desire to be rid of the liberals. They were, however, squeamish about some of the tactics employed by fundamentalists. They would have rejoiced if the liberals had simply walked away from the denominations, but as a full-scale ecclesiastical conflict loomed, they lacked the lust for battle….

Institutions like Wheaton and Moody certainly opposed liberalism from a distance, but they did not actually have to fight liberals. They were outside the denominations and de facto removed from fellowship with liberalism. Their focus was on building a positive network of missions, education, publishing, conferences, and itinerancy….

Eventually, the fundamentalists either left their denominations or were forced out. As they built new missions, schools, and denominations, they drew help and support from the interdenominational network. For a time, it looked as if fundamentalism and the silent majority might reconverge into a single, self-aware movement.

The thing that kept that from happening was the emergence of the new evangelicalism. [The attitude of co-belligerence with liberal apostates, which amounted to a rejection of separation — my defiinition].

The whole thing came to a head with Billy Graham’s 1957 crusade in New York City. This was the crusade that solidified a New Evangelical coalition and made Graham its captain. The cooperative evangelism of Billy Graham involved a clear rejection of separation from apostasy. Consequently, it led to a final break between Graham and fundamentalism.

What about the silent majority, the evangelical mainstream, the people who were the most direct heirs of the old proto-fundamentalism? Certainly, they did not approve of Graham’s cooperative evangelism. Unlike fundamentalists, however, they stopped short of breaking with Graham. He was the world’s most successful evangelist, and they felt themselves drawn to him. They had no desire to fellowship with liberals but every desire to support the magnetic young evangelist.

By the early 1960s, neoevangelicals had clearly gained the initiative in missions, evangelism, and scholarship. They welcomed the support of the evangelical mainstream without insisting that other evangelicals break ties with fundamentalists. While neoevangelicals were focused upon positive work, however, fundamentalists were focused upon neoevangelicals. They muttered their disapproval of the evangelical mainstream for not distancing themselves sufficiently from the most prominent neoevangelicals.

The more that moderate evangelicals [sic] shied away from the muttering, the more strongly fundamentalists expressed their disapproval. Many fundamentalists refused to acknowledge any middle ground or mediating position between themselves and the new evangelicalism. Moderate evangelicals were forced to choose….

By the end of the 1970s, the evangelical majority had staked out a position midway between separatist fundamentalism and neoevangelicalism. Leaders and institutions have wandered into and out of that position, but the position endures to this day. It is the position that we now call conservative evangelicalism. It has, however, been supplemented from a new and unexpected direction.

Before the 1980s, Southern Baptists were not reckoned as a part of the evangelical movement in America. Because they saw themselves as Baptists, they disliked the inter-denominationalism that characterized evangelicalism. Because they saw themselves as Southern Baptists, they disdained an evangelical movement that they viewed as a predominantly northern phenomenon.

That situation has changed. The conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention has brought many Southern Baptists into close contact with northern evangelicals. Conservative leaders like Albert Mohler and Mark Dever have found camaraderie and moral support in the evangelical movement. They have identified with it and they have found themselves welcome. Given the battles that they have fought against liberals and moderates, they have naturally aligned themselves with the conservative evangelicals. The degree of congruence is so high that these Southern Baptist leaders have become a defining force within the renascent conservative evangelical movement.

Many””perhaps most””Southern Baptists still do not consider themselves to be conservative evangelicals. They simply consider themselves to be Southern Baptists. Increasingly, however, many SBC leaders are forging an alliance with other evangelicals, and the alliance is a conservative one.

Consequently, today’s conservative evangelical movement combines ecclesiastical DNA from two kinds of leaders. It gets part of its heritage from the old proto-fundamentalism, traced through the moderate evangelicalism of the 1960s and 1970s. It gets another part of its heritage through the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Unlike neoevangelicals, conservative evangelicals (whether northern or southern) oppose theological apostasy and refuse to fellowship with apostates. Unlike fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals have been reluctant to issue public rebukes or declare public withdrawals from those who share the neoevangelical attitude toward apostates. This is the nub of the most important difference between these groups….

I, for one, don’t hesitate to embrace the “conservative evangelical” label. And I would view many conservative evangelicals as much closer in practice to fundamentalists, than most fundamentalists would acknowledge.

Al Mohler, The Fundamentalist

~ Bob Hayton ~ 22 Comments

Christianity Today is out with a cover story on Al Mohler and how he lead the push to purge the SBC from liberal theology by reforming the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary. The article is entitled “The Reformer”, and certainly Mohler is that. It truly is an amazing story, even if the author of the CT story makes it very clear she doesn’t approve.

What struck me when reading this article was how similar Mohler’s battle for truth at Southern is to the battle that was waged at Princeton in the 1920s by the likes of J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til. The only difference is that Mohler won and turned back the tide of liberalism at Southern. He didn’t have to leave and found his own seminary, like Machen and Van Til did (when they founded Westminster).

“Fundamentalist” isn’t a popular label these days. And it’s meanings are many and varied. But by the truest, historic sense of the term, Al Mohler would have to be considered a fundamentalist. The question is, would today’s fundamentalists (of the independent Baptist variety) accept him?

Sadly, no. At least the vast majority would find some reason to distrust him or avoid allowing him entrance into the “seriously-devoted-to-God” club. Some would point to Mohler’s chairing of a Billy Graham crusade in Louisville as an act that belies Mohler’s true character (or at least points to something worthy of separation), while others would point to his more recent signing of the Manhattan Declaration. As an aside, that crusade carefully excluded the participation of Catholics, and Mohler’s explanation for why he signed the MD should be acceptable to any but the most die-hard of critics.

This is precisely the problem I have with most fundamentalists today. They refuse to get out of their box and see the world through non-sectarian lenses. Mohler is a convention man””not independent, like the fundamentalists. But the original fundamentalists were forced out of their conventions and denominations. Separation from doctrinal error, and militancy for truth have more than one manifestation. And from the fundamentalist side of the aisle, at a point several decades from the original conflicts with modernism which gave Fundamentalism its name, the thought that someone may be employing some form of separation from within a denomination doesn’t seem to register.

Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis recently explained how separation is a hallmark of what it means to be a fundamentalist:

…fundamentalism was always about more than belief in the fundamentals. It was about doing battle for the fundamentals, an attitude that came to be called militancy….

At first, the fundamentalists hoped that the liberals would leave the Christian denominations peacefully and quietly (a hope that, in retrospect, seems astonishingly naïve). Later, the fundamentalists attempted to purge liberal influences from their denominations by expelling the liberals. Failing in that, the fundamentalists themselves severed contact with the liberals by leaving the denominations. In all three forms, however, fundamentalism was about separation, i.e., ecclesiastical non-cooperation with apostasy.

If the original fundamentalists could have had their choice, they would likely have stayed in the denominations. They would have loved to see Al Mohler’s outcome in their own context. It didn’t work out that way for them. Unfortunately, many of the heirs of the fundamentalists can’t give Christian support and brotherly affirmation to their conservative brethren like Al Mohler who have so profoundly changed the SBC for the better. Instead, they find ways to maintain a skeptical distance.

I hope this attitude of distrust will diminish. I hope a greater striving for unity and a mutual welcoming of others as true brothers in the faith, will flourish. And I am happy to see signs of change in fundamentalism. A conference is scheduled at a fundamentalist seminary where Kevin Bauder and other fundamentalist leaders will be speaking alongside Mark Dever, a well-kown SBC leader. I trust this kind of thing will continue.

Fundamentalists have a lot to offer the wider church, and it’s a shame that they are so ignored and marginalized today. Sadly, this is due in large part to their own distrusting attitude toward even the best of evangelicalism””pastors and leaders who are often fundamentalists at heart, going by different names.

Flexibility, Church Planting and Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Steve Davis has an intriguing article on church planting over at Sharper Iron. I will quote the first part of his article then encourage you to go read the whole thing.

Left Behind: The Apparent Absence of Fundamentalists in Resurgent Church Planting
by Steve Davis

While Fundamentalists often noisily do battle over issues important mostly to their sub-culture, there is a battlefield where Fundamentalists are conspicuous by their absence. There has been a resurgence in church planting in North America and few Fundamentalist churches have answered the call. The names of leaders in this resurgence are well-known and include Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Bob Roberts, and Ed Stetzer, to name a few. Whatever Fundamentalists think of these men, let there be no doubt that they are engaged in the most noble of tasks””the Great Commission””on a scale rarely seen and in cities which, with some notable exceptions, have been long abandoned by solid, Bible-believing churches. These leaders are not without their foibles, and controversy often surrounds or follows some of them. That said, it must be asked if there are any church planting movements in Fundamentalism with the depth and breadth of what is taking place in conservative evangelical circles.

Recently I attended a conference on church planting where several thousand active or prospective church planters and their wives were in attendance. Admittedly the presenters and attendees were from diverse evangelical backgrounds, a blessing in many ways in witnessing the diversity and unity of the body of Christ. Many in attendance could not plant churches together, a fact they recognized, due to doctrinal differences that are at the heart of one’s understanding of the nature the local church. One speaker, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, expressed his friendship with and admiration for Tim Keller, yet confessed that they could not plant a church together. There would be an immediate conflict over needing a bowl or a bathtub to baptize the first convert. Yet in spite of obvious differences and the inability to partner in church planting there was a laudable spirit of cooperation to help others plant churches by providing training, mentoring, and access to resources.

Why not?

We cannot partner with anyone or everyone to plant churches. But planting churches is not an option. It is a matter of obedience. If fundamental churches are lagging in this area they need to ask themselves why. The neglect of church planting is flagrant and perhaps nothing will hasten the demise of Fundamentalism more quickly than the inability or unwillingness of Fundamentalists to be engaged in this work. Alas, church planting requires cooperation and networking, rare commodities among many Fundamentalists, among whom the spirit of independence and individualism persists, and few churches have the resources to go it alone. In addition, churches must recognize that the churches they plant may not be a mirror image of the sending and supporting churches, an unacceptable condition and consequence for many churches.

Some of the reasons for the lack of church planting movements in Fundamentalism were addressed in an earlier article and won’t be repeated here. In this article I would like to expand on those earlier thoughts and raise some questions.

I will offer this opinion up front. Most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves….

[read the entire article]

My Reformed Cast Interview

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Last night, I was privileged to be on the debut episode of Reformed Cast, a new weekly podcast hosted by Scott Oakland. Here’s some information about the podcast.

This weekly podcast is dedicated to the discussion of all things Reformed, including all aspects of Reformed theology and practice, as well as its relationship to the culture at large. We broadcast live on Ustream every Monday at 7:00 PM Eastern Time.

I was interviewed about fundamentalism and my change from fundamentalism to Reformed Theology. Here are the show notes, and a link to the mp3.

In our debut episode, we talked a little about the purpose of this podcast, and then entered into our discussion on fundamentalism with Bob Hayton. We discussed what fundamentalism is, its errors, and how it may be “reformed” into a more Biblical movement. Bob Hayton has a BA in Pastoral Theology with a Greek emphasis and a MA in Bible from Fairhaven Baptist College and Seminary in Chesterton, IN. He currently works in technical sales support for Boston Scientific, and actively serves at Beacon of Hope Church, St. Paul. Since 2005, he has been blogging theology at www.fundamentallyreformed.com. He is the founder of www.KJVOnlyDebate.com and can also be found at www.Re-Fundamentals.org and www.CrossFocusedReviews.com.

You can listen online here, or download the mp3 here. I encourage you to bookmark Scott’s site and subscribe to his podcast. Next week, Dr. Sean Michael Lucas of Covenant Theological Seminary will be on the program.

Why Preachers Fall

~ Bob Hayton ~ 20 Comments

The higher you rise, the harder you fall. There seems to be nothing more universally revolting than the fall of a big name preacher.  The scandals of Jim & Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard all made the national news headlines.  But not every scandal gets such nationwide attention. Sadly, such falls by “men of God” are all too common.

Yesterday, I found out about one such fall that sits far too close to home for my liking.  Rodney Stewart, an evangelist who was a frequent preacher at the Bible College I attended, was recently caught in an online sex sting.  I own several cassette tapes of this man’s preaching, which always struck me as intense and radically serious. He was a great preacher who stuck close to the Biblical text in most of his messages.  Yet he was found out in his sin and now is sitting in prison awaiting his trial and sentencing.  The sad story is covered by a local news station in the Cleveland area here.

Why is it that men who are respected and hold a revered office (such as pastor, evangelist or preacher) would do such horrendous things?  Why would they be found soliciting sex online from a 15 year old? And why exactly are such failures so commonplace, as it seems?

I can’t speak for all sectors of Christianity, or for the Roman Catholic Church. I do know that sin is common to all men, that is sure.  But for conservative evangelical churches, particularly of the fundamentalist variety, there are several factors which I believe contribute to this problem.

1)  Too much emphasis on morals

This might sound crazy to some.  But an over-emphasis on morality actually encourages sin.  Moralism cannot save.  It cannot free someone of sinful urges within. Only the Gospel of grace can truly transform our hearts.

2)  An external focus

Many fundamentalist churches stress external conformity to rules and standards.  Christians need to look different, act different and dress differently than the world.  Christians need to read their Bibles, spend time evangelizing their friends and neighbors, and actively serve in their church.  All of this, people can trick themselves into thinking they can do.  And then keeping up the appearance of spirituality can in turn become a heavy burden.

3)  Little emphasis on grace

Grace, or God’s favor for undeserving sinners, is not emphasized.  God’s holiness and his high standards are.  Grace comes into play in salvation, but living the Christian life is all about effort, character, and duty. So when people struggle, there is no saving grace that can help them.  They must dust themselves off and try harder.  Often a do-it-yourself-mentality is the practical effect of an over-emphasis on externals and conformity.

4)  Failure to appreciate the Gospel

Similar to what was said above, the Gospel is seen as the 101 class for becoming a Christian.  The meat and the nitty-gritty of Christian living leaves the Gospel behind.  The Gospel is good news for the lost unbeliever, and its an assumed thing for believers.  This misunderstanding cuts off the Christian from his only sure hope.  The Gospel teaches that God accepts us not on the basis of how well we behave, but as a matter of pure grace and on account of Jesus’ death on the cross in our place.

5)  Legalism and burnout

All of this leads to a practical legalism.  Christians live as if God is not happy with them.  To please God and to truly grow in faith, one must add mountains of work to the faith that saves.  If we measure up to our own (or our group’s) expectations, if we perform, if we put out, only then are we satisfied with ourselves, and only then is God pleased with us.  When we fail in a myriad of ways, we have to struggle on alone.  This leads to burnout.  All work, no recognition of God’s love and approval, and no grace.  It’s hard struggling on in such a condition.

6)  No mutual accountability

The ethos of a legalistic church does not lend itself to mutual accountability.  Pastors rarely mention that they too struggle with sin.  If one confesses a sin, he is dealt with as a sinner. Grace isn’t proffered.  There is no benefit to opening up to others about your struggles.  You’ll be rejected, written off and then treated so differently.  For those struggling with sexual addiction, mutual accountability is balm to the soul.  Understanding that others share the same struggles and hearing others be open about their struggles to overcome the sin are key to victory.

7)  Lone Ranger Christianity

This final aspect is an American trait that has affected the church.  People think that the Christian life is something that is purely personal, and can be accomplished on their own.  The Bible stresses the role of the church and the need for brothers and sisters in the faith to encourage each other.  Often, in a high-stress environment, where a judgmental spirit is present, the communal aspects of church life are downplayed.  We get together to eat and socialize but never to discuss the impact of the Gospel on our personal lives.  This is only intensified in the life of a pastor or evangelist.  They are even more prone to the lone ranger phenomenon.  The pastor has to keep himself aloof from his congregation, it is thought.  The very thought of a pastor wanting help for struggling with his personal sins and thought life, is unheard of in many such legalistic environments.

I suppose other factors come into play, but these are certainly influential in many fundamentalist church environments.  But it isn’t only legalistic churches that can harbor such ideas about the Christian life. People can tend toward legalism in any context.

It’s so easy to cast stones at the fallen pastor.  I would hope that we could pray for him and his family, and be on guard lest the sin in our own hearts come to overcome us as well.  I certainly don’t excuse him for his crimes. however.  I just wish the system he was in would have been more grace-oriented.  But for the grace of God, I too could be consumed by my sin.

I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this, too.  Feel free to chime in and let me know what you think.