A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.

Dr. Kevin Bauder Interviewed on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

My friend, Scott Oakland, recently interviewed Dr. Kevin Bauder who was a contributing author to Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2011). You can download the interview from Scott’s ReformedCast.com. I’ll be listening to this interview this week. I really enjoyed the book and especially Dr. Bauder’s chapter.

Social Media, the Reformation, and the Power of Blogging

As we look back on 2011, the “Arab Spring” stands testament to the power of social media. Facebook and Twitter, and other social media sites helped unite and focus a growing distaste for autocratic state power. The revolutions in Egypt and Libya, Syria and elsewhere were fostered and furthered by means of social media.

The Japanese tsunami and earthquake, also gave evidence to the speed of social media. Some were alerted to the earthquake via speedy social media — spreading faster than the earthquake and its deadly wave.

It seems we are living in a brave new world of social media. But it turns out that the power of social media isn’t really all that new. A recent article in The Economist reminds us that social media and its power to foster social revolutions is no new thing. In a fascinating article, “How Luther went viral: Five centuries before Facebook and the Arab spring, social media helped bring about the Reformation,” we are reminded that the printed pamphlet and the cartoon — both in their infancy as media in the early 1500s — were tools used to unite those discontented with the Roman papal system. Luther would have been silenced like so many other would-be reformers that preceded him, were it not for the rapid-fire spread of printed pamphlets and public sentiment in his favor.

Similarly, in our day, the last five to ten years has seen the internet, and blogging in particular, unite those discontented with the problems of Christian fundamentalism. No longer can pastors mold and shape their congregation’s opinion about anything without fear of having their facts checked by a quick Google search. The internet brings us closer to the world of ideas, and closer to other Christian communities too. No longer is John MacArthur some distant radio personality that our pastor warns us about — we can download his messages online and realize that his ministry isn’t as dangerous as our fundamentalist pastor has warned.

While social media can certainly be used for evil, and while the nature of social media can encourage sinful behaviors (gossip, hateful speech, and lack of discernment among many others), it nevertheless remains a powerful tool to be used for good. Just as Luther seized the opportunity provided him via the “social media” of his day, we Christians should take every opportunity to wield this new tool for the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom.

As I look forward to 2012, I hope to continue to expend some of my energies in this realm for the good of the Church next year and in the years to come. I’m also thankful for the many other exemplary Christian bloggers who have extended their influence into the this arena and are speaking truth to a watching world.

The 12 Days Before Christmas Book Giveaway: Day 11

Well, Christmas is almost here! I hope you’ve enjoyed Cross Focused Media’s 12 Days Before Christmas Book Giveaway this year. Giving away 203 books/media has certainly helped us get in the Christmas Sporit! The 21 publishers who have made this possible have certainly been generous. We hope that this giveaway will also help introduce you all to these great companies and their fine products. Good Christian books change lives, and we hope to in some small way help further the impact of Christian materials in the lives of those who come across our blogs.

We still have big giveaways today and tomorrow. Be sure to check back in with us in the new year, too, as we may be bringing you new giveaways from time to time. Or better yet, sign up for our free newsletter (at the bottom of our giveaway form).

Now, today’s giveaway is sponsored by Reformation Heritage Books, Zondervan, Christian Focus Publications, InterVarsity Press, Theocentric Publishing Group, and Sovereign Grace Ministries. From the books and CDs provided by these fine publishers, we have assembled the following four prize packs. You’ll want to use the links provided to answer the questions in the entry form below.

Prize #1

The Gathering CD (Sovereign Grace Music) For Calvinism by Michael S. Horton (Zondervan) Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson (Zondervan) Joy in Worship by James Vickery (Theocentric)
PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

Prize #2

The Gathering CD (Sovereign Grace Music) Reading Scripture with the Reformers by Timothy George (IVP) Reformation Heroes by Joel R. Beeke & Diana Kleyn (Reformation Heritage)
PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

Making Godly Choices by Martin Murphy & James Vickery (Theocentric) Magnify the Lord by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Christian Focus)
PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

SAMPLE

LEARN MORE

Prize #3

The Gathering CD (Sovereign Grace Music) Taking Hold of God edited by Joel Beeke & Brian Najapfour (Reformation Heritage) Taking a Serious God Seriously by James Perry (Theocentric)
PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

Experiencing Spiritual Encouragement by Ann Varnum (Theocentric) Children and the Lord’s Supper edited by Guy Waters & Ligon Duncan (Christian Focus)
PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

Prize #4

Amos (Focus on the Bible series) by T.J. Betts (Christian Focus) Meet the Puritans by Joel Beeke & Randall Pederson (Reformation Heritage) The Essence of Christian Doctrine by Martin Murphy (Theocentric)
PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

Developing a Healthy Prayer Life by James Beeke and Joel Beeke (Reformation Heritage) My Christian Apology by Martin Murphy (Theocentric)
PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

PREVIEW

LEARN MORE

Contest is now closed. Winners will be announced soon.

Chuck Phelps Resigns from the BJU Board

Since I pointed to Chuck Phelps’ presence on the BJU board as evidence that fundamentalism doesn’t treat mishandling of sexual abuse cases with the same level of outrage and alarm that the culture in general today, I thought I should inform you all that Phelps has stepped down from his position on the board. It seems that one of the factors in his decision was an online petition that was circulating concerning Phelps and his presence on any board of higher institution. I was unaware of that petition until Friday.

I had noticed Bob Jones University’s defense of Chuck Phelps [which has now been taken down from their website, apparently], and was saddened to see they showed little sympathy or concern for the abused but rather seemed to jump to defend one of their “good old boys”. Bob Bixby gives a fuller account of both the petition and the board’s role in this “defense” of Phelps.

I am not happy to see this whole matter unfold how it has. I wish the whole event wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Phelps could have handled the abuse case better, and since it happened years ago, he could have admitted he made some serious mistakes and apologize – and thereby teach many onlookers how to handle such situations with grace and also to bolster the cause for a clearer and more direct response to these situations by fundamentalist pastors. Sadly this did not happen.

I think that it is high time that fundamentalism wakes up to how devastating to one’s reputation mishandling of abuse cases really should be, and how horrific a crime these sorts of allegations (of sexual abuse) really are. Fundamentalists are all to ready to excuse leaders because they don’t have all the facts or because they’ve done their legal duty. But there is a further moral duty which fundamentalists often do not undertake. Tim Henderson, of Campus Crusade for Christ, talks of “the deficiency of love” in response to the Penn State scandals. And there seems to be a similar problem in some degree, with the response that Fundamentalist leaders and institutions often have to cases of alleged abuse. Let this whole affair be a wake up call to our God-given duty to defend the weak and help the hurting, rather than defend those in places of prominence and power.