If You Liked “My Story”…

When I first posted “My Story” on my blog back in December of 2005, I didn’t have a clue about blogging.   I posted an enormously long letter, with some slight formatting changes, as one big post.   By God’s grace, that post has blessed my readers more than any other.   I’ve received dozens of comments over the years, on the blog or by email, thanking me for sharing that story.   It’s not “my” story, really, It’s God’s.

I think I now have found another story as long as mine.   However this one is formatted much nicer and contains many hilarious vignettes.   You will really enjoy Greg Wilson’s personal story, if you take the time to read.   Anyone more personally familiar with fundamentalism will especially be blessed.   Greg’s story narrates a similar “wake up” experience.   He continues in a faithful pastoral ministry in a Bible-believing (albeit non-IFB, non-KJVO) church.

Here’s the link, enjoy the read.   May his story also be a help to those who may be “hurt” or confused by extreme fundamentalism.   And as Greg concludes his story: “Soli Deo Gloria“!   (To God alone be the glory.)

Confusion Over Fighting Sin

how high is your fence?Within fundamentalism, as in other areas of Christianity no doubt, there is quite a bit of confusion over fighting sin. The thinking goes like this: if we erect a big enough fence, or hedge people in with enough rules, we will prevent them from falling into sin. Sadly, this tactic most often fails, to one degree or another.

The Former Fundys Blog recently posted some thoughts in this regard. In a post entitled What’s Wrong with Fundamentalist Pastors?, the problem of pastors running headlong into adultery is brought up. I thought the main point of the post, however, applied to more than just the fall of big name pastors. Here is an excerpt from that post that may be a help to some of my readers.

Fundamentalism has claimed to have the answers to stopping sin, by their superior standards that will keep one from sinning. Don’t go to the theater, and you won’t struggle with impure thoughts or with using foul language. Women have to dress a certain way, in order to protect men from lusting after them. Men and women can’t touch unless they are married(to one another), so they won’t fall into sexual sin. If one is a faithful soulwinner who reads/studies the Bible on a regular basis, they won’t fall into sin. I have heard “remedy” after “remedy” for stopping the presence of sin in one’s life, for keeping one away from sin by placing barriers in place to protect one from sin.

But these remedies do little to protect the very pastors who put these rules in place from sinning….

Fundamentalism misses the essence of what the Christian life is about. One is not moral because they follow rules. One is not moral because they go to church every Sunday. One is not a good Christian because they follow those rules. One is not a Christian because they follow those rules. Rule-keeping does not make a good Christian. And it does not make a good person. It is pure moralism, instead of Gospel.

The answer is in teaching the Gospel, instead of rule-keeping. Too many Fundamentalists fail to teach repentance from sins as part of the salvation process, thus watering down the Gospel to something that is more palatable to sinners. They make their Christianity easy for those who love their sin, but want fire insurance. The answer is also in desiring Christ, and desiring to live for the glory of God. So much of Fundamentalism is about keeping rules, and following a list of do’s and don’ts. But that’s not what the Christian life is about. Sure there are things that a Christian can’t do, like have sex outside the confines of marriage, or get drunk or high, or lie to others. And sure there are things that Christians need to do, like read the Bible, pray, go to church. But that is not the essence of the Christian life. Following Christ is more than not doing or doing those things. I would strongly recommend that Fundamentalists look to books written by non-Fundy authors that deal with things like sin, or living for God, because Fundamentalists don’t have the answer. Books like “Overcoming Sin and Temptation” by John Owen(the Puritan), or “Desiring God” by John Piper.

In short, such men are able to sin so gravely because they don’t understand the nature of sin, the Gospel, or the essence of the Christian life…

My response to all of this is first to point out that the post is primarily addressing the IFBx wing of fundamentalism. Not all fundamentalists that I’ve known are this bad. However, in seed form, this idea concerning sanctification is prevalent throughout fundamentalism.

The problem, as I see it, amounts to a widespread confusion over the nature of sin. It doesn’t attract us externally, the desire for sin comes from within us. We need the internal change of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Too often, Christians fail to remember that the Gospel is for them — for believers. And sadly, preaching is too often about moralism rather than the gospel.

A few of my previous posts may be of interest to those looking to dig more deeply into this topic:

Confessionism: Abusing 1 John 1:9

I want to encourage my readers to take some time and read Jim Elliff’s recent blog post on a practice he calls “confessionism”. As a former independent fundamental Baptist, I still tend toward a legalism of sorts that stresses performance and action to a fault. And while I never reached the level of zeal and devotion Jim describes in his post, I can certainly relate to a confusion over how the requirement to confess relates with the Gospel’s free gift of salvation.

“Confessionism” takes 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” and turns it into a general maxim for Christian living. It goes like this: confession of every known sin is required for us to experience a relationship with God and to have growth in our sanctification. This can lead one into an endless cycle of continual introspection and a zeal to remember and confess each and every known sin. What’s missing is a realization of God’s grace. Jim discusses this in depth, and explains how the context of 1 John 1:9 actually stresses the complete forgiveness we have in Christ. It is a must-read post. Go, check it out.

A 21st Century Theological Taxonomy

The fundamentalist blog Sharper Iron is running a series of posts by Dr. Jeff Straub of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Minneapolis) on the future of fundamentalism. The series is entitled “The Fundamentalist Challenge for the 21st Century: Do We Have a Future?”. The first post is quite good.

The post links to a chart describing the different groups within fundamentalism. The chart goes on to describe a few groups within evangelicalism as well. I’m always impressed by such charts, and the word “taxonomy” just sounds so smart. No, actually, it really does help, especially for those who have changed from one category to another (as I have).

I am in general agreement with the chart as a whole, although there will probably be exceptions to the rule, and a few people listed that don’t fit exactly where they are listed on the chart. I think it’s a helpful chart all in all, and wanted to point you to it.

Click here to find the chart (you can also save it, as it is a .pdf file).

The chart splits Fundamentalism up into 3 categories: Hyper Fundamentalism, Historic Fundamentalism, and New Image Fundamentalism. Evangelicalism also finds itself a tripartite being: Evangelical Right, Broad Evangelicalism, and Evangelical Left. Then there’s Neo-orthodoxy and Radical Non-orthodoxy. Currently I find myself at times within the Evangelical Right category and at times in the New Image Fundamentalism category.

Let me know what you think, and be sure to read the next parts of Straub’s assessment of fundamentalism.

Of Rules and Schools

Over at Sharper Iron, there are some interesting discussions of the role of rules in schools. Mike Durning, in a 3 part series, argues that a heavy-handed, rules-oriented school can foster legalism. Then Aaron Blumer, site publisher, posts a 2-part series defending the validity and value of rules. My blogging friend Josh Gelatt saw in Blumer’s first post an overt legalism of sorts, and that made me jump in and read through all the articles and comments. It’s an interesting discussion but I lean more toward Josh’s assessment.

If you have time or if this topic interests you, why don’t you check out the discussion over there. Here are the links: