Category: Fundamentalism

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

Hoping for a Re-Run of Original Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 8 Comments

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

I Don’t Wanna Know If the Answers Aren’t Easy…

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In some recent posts on hyper fundamentalism (IFBx), I pointed out a devaluing of discernment and also explored some possible reasons that many people are attracted to this movement. One of those reasons, incidentally, was the removal of discernment. With hyper fundamentalism there is less need of personal discernment. Rather, one simply must conform to all of the positions mandated by the big personality who is in charge of that particular branch of the movement. Professor Lucas said it this way, “Well, one reason has to be that they provide very simple, black and white, answers to the challenges that face most American families…”.  

In my experience with this kind of fundamentalism, I found that many people really did not want to think through things on their own. It was easier to just go with what preacher said. And further, independent thinking, was not often explicitly encouraged, while conformity was.

I think that this mentality  of choosing to follow a leader, rather than exercise personal discernment, is part of human nature. It is more than just a fundamentalist’s problem. It is easier to just vote on party lines, or follow each item on the party’s platform. And it is easy to just follow a leader (like John Piper–I am not exempt from this human tendency…) and adopt all of his positions.

We all need to be aware of this tendency and also need to understand that Scripture calls us to exercise wisdom personally. We must discern. Yes it is wise to get counsel, and following godly leaders can be wise. But ultimately we must answer for our own actions, and we men must lead our own families.

All of this is an introduction to a song which expresses this tendency well. It is a song I hope you will listen to and let its message sink in. May God keep us from being the kind of person who wants to find comfort in “a new law”.


I  Want  a New Law
Derek Webb  

Verse 1:
Don’t teach me about politics and government,
just tell me who to vote for.
Don’t teach me about truth and beauty,
just label my music.
Don’t teach me how to live like a free man,
just give me a new law.

Chorus:
I don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy,
so just bring it down from the mountain to me.
I  want a new law,
I  want a new law,
gimme that new law.

Verse 2:
Don’t teach me about moderation and liberty,
I  prefer a shot of grape juice.
Don’t teach me about loving my enemies.
Don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit,
just give me a new law.

Chorus (again)

Bridge:
What’s the use in trading a law you can never keep
for one you can that cannot get you anything.
Do not be afraid,
do not be afraid,
do not be afraid.

 

You can actually get the entire CD that this song is on for free by spreading the word to five friends by email. Click here for details. For a good  review of that CD (Mockingbird) click here. For a free music video of this song, click here. For more info on Derek Webb, check out his website.

Fencing in Fido: Fundamentalism's Tendency to Devalue Discernment

~ fundyreformed ~ 12 Comments

how high is your fence?I recently came across two must read articles on fundamentalism and discernment. I underlined “must read” so go read the articles!    Okay, I guess I’d better give you the links if I expect you to follow my advice.    Both articles are by Buffington Powers of Truth Matters,  and you can view them by clicking on their titles: “Fence Building and Dog Training: Fundamentalism’s Dearth of Discernment” and “Discerning Dogs and the Masters Who Train Them: Developing Christian Discernment” (HT: Donette).   When you are finished, come back and we’ll discuss them a little.

I really think you should read the articles before continuing with my post, but I will summarize the main gist of the articles for you  before proceeding.

The articles paint a picture of two dogs: Well-Trained T-Bone and Fenced-In Fido. One dog is given a fence and the other was trained to follow his master. The dog who was trained lives life to the fullest, while constantly depending on his master. The dog behind the fence does not really need to depend on his master for anything. He also becomes discontented with his plot of beautiful green grass, preferring instead to focus on his fence and what lies beyond. For the whole story, I refer you again to the articles, but let me  quote a few paragraphs which provide the lesson from Powers’ parable.

You see, the problem is that Fenced-in Fido is dependent upon the fence for his safety. There is no thought required. The fence was imposed by someone who could not possibly be with Fido every waking hour. That is, the fence required no relationship between the builder of the fence and the dog. Much like the fences imposed by some pastors, churches, schools, and even parents, they require no thought and no relationship. If pastors, or parents, or schools represent the fences, the day will come when they will not be there. What then?

Well-Trained T-Bone, on the other hand is dependent upon his master. When he comes to a curb, he sits and looks for the approval of his master before he continues. He tunes his ears to the voice of his master and returns to the circle of safety after each Frisbee toss. He tunes out the barks and challenges of other yipping dogs. He is constantly under the control of his master.

Fundamentalism builds fences and does not train for discernment. Instead of teaching how to approach dogs, it just builds the fence — “No CCM.” Instead of teaching how to approach curbs and cars, it just says, “No parks.” Is there nothing to be gained from evangelical pastors like Swindoll, Piper, MacArthur, Warren, Hybles, Stanley, Evans, etc.? Should we just make them off limits or should we teach people how to be discerning? Is there no worship to be had in the lyrics and songs written by Smith, Patty, Green, Chapman, Paris, Third Day, Go-Fish, Mercy Me, etc.? Should we just make them off limits or should we teach people how to be discerning? By the same token, is every person, book, song and lyric that comes from Greenville, Pensacola, Watertown, Dunbar, Detroit and Lansdale infallible and worthy to be trusted without discernment? Is everything Bob Jones says to be accepted unchallenged while everything John Piper says is to be rejected unquestioned “by association” ?

Sure, you can keep your dog safe by building a fence and you can keep your dog safe by training him well. Which dog is happiest? Similarly, pastors, churches and schools can keep their children “safe” by building fences; but how does that enhance their relationship and walk with their master?

I am afraid that Fundamentalism is creating a breed of “Christians” who think they are navigating the world while simply enjoying the safety behind their fences; when in reality they need know nothing of the dependence upon the voice of their master.

You should know that Buffington Powers  goes beyond mere critique. He does discuss ways to build discernment and deals with Scriptural texts which encourage discernment. But his critique is worth listening to.

I think his critique is spot on. I can certainly see many ways in which fundamentalism in general, and hyper fundamentalism in particular devalues discernment.

I understand the desire behind legislating standards, particularly with regard to children and teenagers. Fundamentalists want to shelter and protect them from wrongdoing. Avoiding evil is commendable and fences can help us do that. But more often than not when fences are legislated, the fences become the focus. The practical “in”s and “out”s and the “how to”s and such concerning the fence  are all that is communicated. The reasoning behind the fence  is unclear.

Fences become a crutch. It is easy to measure yourself by your adherence to the fences. It is easy to measure others by their level of conformity.    Soon the fences are the indicator of spirituality in an unhealthy way. If anyone questions the fence they are viewed as spiritually deficient or even as  a threat to the authority. But remember, fences are not explicilty demanded by the Bible, rather they are a human  attempt to apply the Bible’s prinicple to a given situation.

Take the typical fundamentalist Bible college, for example. (I  am thinking more  along the line of  IFBx or hyper fundamentalists, but I believe the criticisms can apply  in  a lesser degree to  any  fundamental Bible college.) The  students are not usually guided into right decisions, they are forced into them. They receive a rule book a mile long. Emphasis is given as to what exactly constitutes the breaking of rules rather than on the Biblical rationale behind the many rules. Demerits fly left and right, and there is usually some form of a “gestapo” in place defending the rules and policing the students. In many hyper fundamentalist colleges, the young adults are treated like junior highers in many respects. They leave home with independence and endorsement from their parents that they are prepared to be responsible adults yet they arrive to find that the college does not trust them to leave campus and go to Walmart to buy a toothbrush on their own! Back to kindergarten they have come. Rather than seeking to empower and help the students through their choices as responsible adults, the leadership suspects the worst of them and does their best to erect a 50 foot high fence rimmed with barb wire to keep them away from any negative influences.

At many such colleges you are more apt to hear discussions concerning different standards end with “well, preacher says…” than with a well thought out position based on Scripture. This might reflect the fact that the preacher is constantly making blanket statements such as, “If you do external behavior A or do not do external behavior B you will never do anything for God!” Never mind that behaviors A and B are not explicitly addressed in Scripture and that the preacher has not given a Biblical defense as to how he comes to his conclusion about A and B–no he prefers to “pontificate”, if you will. The preaching, then, tends to reinforce the devalueing of discernment.

Censorship and isolationism have their roles in this system as well. Intentional censorship attempts to keep people away from certain authors or books, while the unintentional censorship of isolationism keeps people away from other ideas and approaches to Christianity.

The end result  in one sense looks great. People look and act the same and they know which standards to emphasize! But the result comes with a price. People often stay because they are pressured into staying and they conform in order to achieve acceptance  or recognition. They only know the environment they are in and this tends to make room for a dead orthodoxy. Discernment is only needed as far as discerning what preacher’s position is on any topic, and thus the healthy dependence on Christ and the searching of His word that discernment creates are absent. An environment where people can look good and be branded as good and which requires little heart worship is scary indeed.

I do not say that such an environment is only to be found in IFBx circles, we all must watch out for it. And I admit that I may be overstating my case a bit. I am sure it is not alwasys quite so cut and dry as I make it out to be. Yet, I believe the over emphasis on fences found within fundamentalism contributes to the scenario described in the articles linked to above  being played out far too often. When the young person finds the fence is removed momentarily, they rush out into the world only to get hit by the first truck that rumbles down the street.

Any other thoughts on this tendency of fundamentalism? Any suggestions for how to cultivate Christian discernment?

Muscular Personalities, Big Church Politics, and the Attraction of Hyper Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

I’m back now, and it will take a while to post some follow up posts that are overdue around here. But I came across something interesting that I had to blog about first.

Bread & Circuses posted a link to an eye-opening video promoting First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN’s 2006 Youth Conference. You have got to go see the video, it is very intriguing to say the least. (You might find it easier to download the video by right clicking on this link and selecting “save target as”.) The last few minutes of it really give you an insider’s view into the extremist sectors of IFBx-dom. And what you see should alarm you.

Sharper Iron has an interesting discussion going on about this video, which you can view here. But I found the insights of professor Sean Michael Lucas of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis (PCA) to be very enlightening. You can read his comments here, but I will provide excerpts while commenting on them below.

Specifically, Professor Lucas explored the strange attraction that fundamentalists (specifically hyper fundamentalists) have to “muscular” personalities.

Even more, I was struck by the way that Protestant fundamentalism has always seemed to be attracted to these muscular personalities–real manly men battling against the forces of wickedness and evil in our culture. The result is a cult of personality in which these “gladiators for truth” are set on a pedestal and create independent fifedoms [sic] that spin off colleges and publishing ventures, as well as very comfortable lifestyles. (For an academic historian’s treatment of some of these issues, see William V. Trollinger, Jr., God’s Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism [Wisconsin, 1990].)

The question that I’ve always wondered is why? Why do these men attract such attention, such adulation, such support?…

This question is very intriguing. Why do people gravitate to the extremes of Hylesism, for instance? Many who are branded as cultural fundamentalists/hyper fundamentalists/IFBx, stay clear of the Hyles group too. But there are plenty of macho leaders, whose word is treated as law, who yet remain aloof from Hyles.  

Cultural fundamentalism (indeed many sectors of mainstream fundamentalism, also, to some extent) stands divided into multiple personality groups. Each camp gives extreme devotion to its leaders. Indeed, such unswerving loyalty is expected of them. In turn the leaders squabble among themselves over trifling issues, sometimes. My dad always called this “big church politics”. And indeed the tactics employed by various fundamentalist “big shots” at one  time or another would make  the worst politicians look like angels.  

Professor Lucas’ description of “independent fiefdoms”  is right on the money. And the pedestals such leaders are placed on are often  dangerously high. The word of the leader becomes law to the follower. I’m sure there are many others reading this who’d be rich if they had a nickel for  every time  they heard a variation of “well, preacher  says…”.

Having described the phenomena and having asked the question “why”, Professor Lucas does a great job of presenting some valid reasons for the attraction of hyper-fundamentalist, macho personalities. He then follows up with an argument against being swept up into hyper fundamentalism.  

I, for one, think he is on to something here. Perhaps we can discuss it more in the comments section below this, but let me close this post by quoting the remainder of his post.

Well, one reason has to be that they provide very simple, black and white, answers to the challenges that face most American families–your teenager is rebelling? Cut his hair short, burn his rock music, involve him in youth group, send him to Bible college. Your marriage is on the rocks? Get involved in church more. Your job not working out? Do Bible studies on your work break; develop a work ethic.

Not only in personal life, but especially in their analysis of the world, these muscular fundamentalists are able to divide the world into heroes and devils in ways that make sense for their adherents: the media, academic elites, bureaucrats (especially Democrats), and pluralists are evil; preachers, missionaries, and evangelists “resolved” to stand for truth, justice, and the American way are good.

Most of all, I believe that these fiery leaders attract others based on their sheer charisma–as men who know what they believe and who know what they are about, they are attractive even when their harshness would otherwise repulse. In that regard, this quality stands true across cultures, religions, or regions–the hypnotic powers of harsh, believable rhetoric can motivate people and create cult-like adherence.

One of the many reasons that I moved away from American fundamentalism (though I continue to be endlessly fascinated by it) was how different this all is from Jesus as presented in the NT. Especially in places such as Mark 10, Jesus presents a different approach to leadership–not lording it over as the Gentiles do, with angry words and strong charisma, but with service that may lead all the way to the death of our reputations, plans, and dreams. Such a humble willingness to serve Christ was missing in my more muscular heroes of my college days; and eventually, while their personalities continue to draw my attention and study, they cannot claim my adherence.

[Read the Professor Lucas’ whole post here.]

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

Is This Your Fundamentalism?

~ fundyreformed ~ 16 Comments

I was reared in a Fundamentalist church, and we were incredibly proud of it. We were strident, largely uneducated (even dismissive of education), theologically censorious, separatistic, intolerant, and accusatory of every smidgeon of slight alteration. There were no questions; there were answers “” and we had them. We saw our abrasiveness as a sign that the rest of the world couldn’t count the cost; rejection proved we were right. I’m embarrassed today mostly about what we were like as humans – we were ungracious if not unchristian.

The above are the reflections of Scot McKnight (the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago) (HT: Sharper Iron Filings). His recent  post concerns a movement he sees among evangelicals who are pursuing a  neo-fundamentalism. In the ensuing comments (very interesting to read through), Scot clarifies that he considers fundamentalism more a posture or attitude than a particular theology. One gets the feel that most conservative evangelicals  who are somewhat uncompromising in their beliefs would fit the bill as neo-fundamentalist in his book. And his definition of fundamentalism could include some outside of evangelicalism as well.

My question relates to his own description of the fundamentalism he knew. Is that your fundamentalism? Take a step back and consider if that describes you. Most everyone who reads this blog would qualify as a fundamentalist (or neo-fundamentalist) in Scot’s book, so the question is for all of us. Yes, truth matters. But so does our posture/attitude. Are we know-it-alls? Do we bristle at questions and prefer to pontificate answers? Are we smug with who we are? Do we care about anyone not inside our movement? Is it us four no more?

I think his description is worth pondering, and not just pondering in the sense of earmarking others who fit his description. Think of yourself and your group, and ponder how his description fits or doesn’t. Let us, as fundamentalists, seek to keep a large measure of grace along with our truth. (See this post on Grace & Truthby Randy Alcorn, for some helpful thoughts in this regard.)

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