Fencing in Fido: Fundamentalism's Tendency to Devalue Discernment

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

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

Happy Birthday from the Texas Baptist Underground

Happy Birthday to Me!

Okay. I just celebrated my birthday on Wednesday, May 3. My wife informed me that I was 9496 days old, by the way. Anyway, today I found out about a great birthday gift I received–sort of a blogging birthday gift. For a long time now, I have enjoyed and respected James Spurgeon’s posts on his blog devoted to fundamentalism called The Texas Baptist Underground. I have linked to that blog almost from the inception of my blog. Anyway, on Wednesday, James added six new links to his blog and two of them were to my blogs–my main blog as well as my new KJV Only Debate Resource Center blog. Now James did not know it was my birthday, but I thanked him for the gift anyway!

While I am on the subject, let me recommend James’ new book, The Texas Baptist Crucible: Tales from the Temple. It is the published version of a compilation of stories that James published on the internet under the title “Tales from the Temple”. The Temple would be Longview Baptist Temple, and the stories were of James’ days at Texas Baptist College (a ministry of LBT). The book was published by a company specializing in helping individuals self-publish their books, and so it is a little costly–starting at around $24.95. But believe me, it is worth every penny. I am gobbling the book up as you read this!

The stories are fascinating reading, but they teach a sobering message. They point out the worst in extreme fundamentalism, but do so in a graceful and healthy way. While laughing at his own troubles, James’ tells his own story in the hope of disclosing the doctrinal and practical errors which abound in certain sectors of fundamentalism. For me, reading James’ book helped me to see how some of the same ungodly leadership tactics, misplaced emphases, and wrong attitudes about ministry were present (albeit in a less blatant form) in my own experience in extreme fundamentalism. James’ experience was extreme, mine was not, yet many of the root problems were identical.

I encourage my readers to get this book and read it thoughtfully. It will entertain, yes. But it will also enlighten. Ponder your own experiences in light of James and see anew what the errors of extreme fundamentalism can produce. Be warned and move away from the error into a life of grace. The encouraging thing about James’ book is that he did not bail out on God when faced with the problems he endured. Rather, he continued in his faith and therefore is able to see God’s hand at work in his life and encourage others in similar situations to follow the Lord and His Word to such a degree that they are willing to test their own leaders and church by His teachings.

Oh, and lest I forget, let me challenge you fundamentalist readers of mine to get this book. Read what an ex-IFB thinks of you and see if there is any truth to it. Don’t be afraid of the truth. Honestly evaluate your own beliefs and practices. When you place yourself outside of outside scrutiny and Scriptural evaluation, you have placed yourself in a dangerous position. Check out James’ blog, as well as mine. Take the haughty smirk off your face and be willing to see if there is any truth in what ex-IFBs are saying. You may find some truth at least, and be equipped to change a little to better line up with God’s Word. Isn’t that what you are all about anyway?