Category: Legalism

Audio Interview: Leaving the Extremes of Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton

duddingI wanted to call your attention to a 3 part audio interview of Will Dudding (pictured to the right). The interview centers on his story of leaving the extremes of Fundamentalism. Kevin Thompson is interviewing Will on his new podcast, Gospel Points.

Will Dudding is the pastor of Mission Peak Baptist Church in Fremont, CA. He also blogs at Reforming Baptist. Part one is available (click here) and sets the stage. Will’s personal story is going to be the focus of part two which should went live today. Stay tuned to Kevin’s blog on Friday for the third part of this interview.

If you can’t wait for the rest of Will’s interview, you can listen to my interview (also done by Kevin Thompson on his “Understanding Our Times” podcast) on the subject “Fundamentalism and Reformed Theology.” Links to that interview and a few others are available on my media page.

Another Reader’s Story

~ Bob Hayton

Often I receive emails from readers who have stumbled across “my story.” Most of them thank me for taking the time to share as they have gone through similar circumstances and are helped by my own experience. Sometimes these emails or Facebook messages include a detailed story from the reader — of their own journey with respect to fundamentalism. I have shared a few reader’s stories so far, and now have another story to add to the mix.

I have made some slight edits and changed some of the details to protect this reader’s privacy, but she is a real person sharing her thoughts and questions about fundamentalism.

Hello, Bob. I ran across your blog on the internet again, from when I first saw it, 2 yrs ago. 🙂 You took my thoughts and words right out of my mind and heart as I read your Story.

I’ll put this as short as I can. We ended up moving to the deep south in 92. We were invited to an IFB revival meeting week. My husband gets saved, and we are for the next 7 yrs immersed in an IFB church and culture and all that you describe. As a wife and mother, the church ladies made legalism, dress code, and etc. look very holy and right.

7 yrs later, we move to a rural Westerm state where there was no IFB church at all in a 50+ mile range. So we took a daring step to attend a local Bible church. Boy were our eyes and hearts opened to our once KJV-only, strict ideals of a Godly life! We were opened up to a world of other Christians (imagine that!), who were not hindered by all the IFB oddities. We saw for the first time in 7 years what real grace, love and joy in the Lord looks like! We realized we can sing praise and worship songs and hymns in the same service and still be OK!!

Move forward about 14 more years. We are still out west and about 2 yrs ago now, we move closer to larger town. This time we tried to go back to an IFB church and drove 45 miles to attend one in a larger town. 10 months later we realized we aren’t as IFB as we use to be! God had opened our eyes, grew our hearts and we then saw how actually depressing, small minded and small world this IFB church is.

We now attend for the last 2 years a non-denominational community church where God is passionately preached and worship is so real that it just brings tears of joy to my eyes! 🙂 The people are very kind, loving, REAL, and have a zeal for life we’ve not really seen in most IFB churches we attended.

My question is… is this normal to swing so far away from the IFB ways? Are there more ex-IFB attenders seeing what I’m seeing and you have seen? I feel we are all saved by grace, and we’re just filthy rags in God’s eyes, but through His grace and love we are HIS, and I no longer feel pressured to have more children because that’s what other IFB ladies do. Or pressured to wear skirts all the time, etc…. I think you get the picture.

We are pondering going to a revival in the IFB church we left on good standing, but that now has a new pastor. The evangelist is ——— ———–. We would like to attend because we sometimes miss that “good old fashioned” preaching like when my husband got saved. Do you know of this evangelist? Is he a moderate IFB or from the “I will not be moved at all” type? LOL

Also I might add, expository style preaching, verse by verse is where it’s at!! Our pastor we have now is awesome. We don’t miss the topical style preaching. I’ve always felt it was lacking a good Bible base, and has too much of pastor talk or shout.

Well, thanks for your input, like I said, you took the words out of my mouth! I do sometimes feel guilty for us moving on to a non-denominational church, but God is putting peace in me as the years go by.

Peace and God bless!

Part of my reply to her was:

Hi ——.

Thanks for your note. You are not alone. So many have traveled the same road and learned the same truth. Not all IFB churches are bad, but so many just miss out on a wider world of God’s grace and goodness. That isn’t to say there aren’t problem churches that aren’t IFB. Not just anything goes, mind you. But there are so many sincere, godly churches that just don’t do church by IFB rules.

I haven’t heard of Evangelist ——— …. There can be good preaching, but so much is shallow and emotional. And IFB churches are so focused now (more than ever) on keeping people in the fold. As long as you know what you’re getting into, it wouldn’t hurt to attend one night. But that is up to you and your husband and how God directs you.

Enjoy the freedom in Christ. I loved your story. From time to time, I like to share stories like this on my blog with personal names and details removed. If you were interested in letting me share it, I would. But I never do so without permission. I’ve had literally hundreds contact me and thank me for what I’m doing or share part of their story like you did – so know that you are not alone.

Either way, God bless you and yours. Glad you stumbled across my blog.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton
FundamentallyReformed.com

She replied, giving me permission to share this with my readers. Here is part of her reply.

Thanks for writing back so quick. You are welcome to post my story — it is the shortened version. 🙂

I do believe it took the straightforward, hard evangelist-style preaching to get my husband’s attention, short of a tallking donkey. 🙂 Tthe IFB church was his first real introduction to church, so it is near and dear to his heart….

3 of our 5 kids have prayed with Dad to accept Christ as their Savior. The 2 youngest are too young to understand, but they will not know the stressful lifestyle of the IFB church upbringing. Instead they will learn how to have a life in Christ full of grace and a good biblical world view.

Have a great day~

An Accurate Assessment of Christian Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

I came across an excellent article written by Steve Whigham, a graduate of BJU (apparently) and former administrater/faculty member of Northland International University, now working for World Magazine. [HT: Sharper Iron] His thoughts come with the recent controversy at Northland where the university board fired and then subsequently re-hired Matt Olson as president. Steve points out what others have mentioned, that the controversy was precipitated primarily by Northland’s change in its music. Whether or not that charge (that music is what the controversy at Northland is most about) is correct, Whigham’s rehashing of the history of fundamentalism is worth reading. I have excerpted some of the good parts here, but encourage you to read the whole thing.

This brouhaha about Northland has served to remind me of my reasons for not being a part of the fundamentalist movement. As Whigham points out, the original fundamentalists, historic fundamentalism if you will, prized certain fundamental points of doctrine as worth unifying around and defending. The fundamentalist movement today is prizing doctrines that are not truly fundamental — such as one musical style over another, and unifying around and defending these sub-fundamental doctrines. This is something I don’t see as healthy or helpful. Some of the sub-fundamentals that are being prized may well be good and grand in themselves. But the essence of what fundamentalism entails — prioritizing and defending cardinal truths of the gospel — this essence is lost when something less than the gospel becomes the main thing. I tried to say something to this effect years ago in my post, “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.”

Here is the except from Whigham’s article, which you should bookmark as a helpful summary of the history and problem of today’s Christian fundamentalism.

In the late 1960’s and following, Fundamentalism mobilized its arsenal to a new battle front: sheltering the Christian faith from the worldly influences of an American culture run amok. Drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll were the targets… As it relates to practical Christian living, for many fundamentalists the mantra became, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.” So, many preachers began to wage campaigns against certain “worldly” behaviors and drew bold lines between the world and the fundamentalist norm. Women’s dress (skirts only, and must cover the knee) must be modest, “mixed” bathing (allowing girls and boys to swim together at the beach or pool) should not be allowed in order to protect each other from youthful lusts, men’s hair length (shouldn’t be over the ear), listening to rock music, smoking, holding hands for unmarried couples, and a host more, became not only expected behaviors within Fundamentalism, but was also touted as clear biblical mandates….

By the end of the 1980’s, the fight against modernism and German higher
criticism appeared to be over, but the fighting spirit of the movement continued… The battle lines were no longer being fought over the core doctrines of the faith (as was true in the early years) but rather over acceptable behaviors for a fundamentalist. The battles were no longer waged over theology, but over practical Christian living.

Today, there’s a new generation rising up within Fundamentalism which has little to no connection to the historical roots of the movement. These young millennials see a community led by perpetually angry leaders obsessed and divided over issues that have little to do with the more important expressions of Christian doctrine. What they perceive instead is a movement that is more about arbitrary command and control tactics to subdue behavior than about Christ’s core intentions for mankind. It’s a battle that appears to them as having shifted away from morals to mores. Many younger members of fundamentalist communities are no longer seeing “the Fundamentalist Cause” as worth fighting for and are choosing to leave the community for less rancorous pastures. What Fundamentalism is currently experiencing is, with a few exceptions, a decline in church attendance, a drop in fundamentalist school enrollment, and even a sharp reduction in the number of fundamentalist pastors and missionaries being sent out.

Fundamentalism is shrinking quickly and losing its next generation. As Fundamentalism shrinks, the remaining voices in the movement are becoming more shrill. In their sermons and blogposts you can sense the desperation….

In the beginning, the issues Fundamentalism chose to rally around united a community. They united because: (1) the issues were authentic fundamentals and (2) unity was still valued as a vital doctrine of the faith. By today’s use of slash-and-burn rhetoric against anyone with a different take on a point of Christian liberty, unity has been devalued. In order to protect the enclave, Christ’s call for unity has been stripped of all its moral weight. Currently, the issues most “surviving fundamentalists” are now opting to rally around divide rather than unite. And as long as their current fields of battle remain the same, I cannot see the end of the shrinking anytime soon….

“Accidental Pharisees: Avoiding Pride, Exclusivity, and the Other Dangers of Overzealous Faith” by Larry Osborne

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Book Details:
  • Author: Larry Osborne
  • Category: Christian Living
  • Publisher: Zondervan (2012)
  • Format: softcover
  • Page Count: 208
  • ISBN#: 9780310494447
  • List Price: $14.99
  • Rating: Recommended

Review:
Books on the Pharisees make many people nervous or defensive. No one wants to be labeled a Pharisee, and we’re all sure that whatever they were, they weren’t us. Larry Osborne approaches this from a more gracious angle, he describes people as “accidental Pharisees” in his new book Accidental Pharisees: Avoiding Pride, Exclusivity, and the Other Dangers of Overzealous Faith. If you’re already suspicious of that title, let me encourage you to give it some thought. With everything in the Gospels about the Pharisees, perhaps God really does want us to take some time and study their unique problems and learn how not to be like them.

Osborne’s writing style is light yet direct, he communicates with analogies from modern day life and personal anecdotes and has a mastery of humor. Yet his message is serious and at times, he spares no punches. His book attacks pride, exclusivity and the tribalism which characterizes so much of contemporary Christianity, whether we realize it or not. He shows the dark side of movement-based Christian movements such as “Spirit-led, missional, incarnational, gospel-Centered, or some other current Christian buzzword.” As Osborne puts it, “You’ll find it hard not to look down on those who don’t even know there’s a buzzword to conform to” (pg. 48).

Perhaps the best way to explain how close to home Osborne’s analysis is will be to string together some quotes which capture the essence of both his style and his message. Fundamentalist Christianity such as I hail from, will be eager to write off Osborne’s critique as extreme, unloving, or errant. I wish that conscientious fundamentalists would put down their defense, however, and give Osborne an ear. It never hurts to subject oneself to scrutiny. They might just find that his critique is restorative, and his objections spur them on toward a closer conformity to Scripture and a more holistic approach to spirituality that recognizes the need to encourage the weak and guards against the all-too-natural pull toward pride and exclusivity.

What follows then, are several hard-hitting quotes from Osborne:

Gold-Package Fences

The gold-package fences were designed to keep sin out…. Apparently, God’s fences werent’ good enough. So we added some extra ones to help him out. For instance, God had a fence that said, “Don’t get drunk,” so we added one that said don’t drink. He had another fence that said, “Don’t fornicate,” so we added one that said don’t dance. he also had one that said, “Don’t love money,” so we added one that limited the size of the house you could live in and the price of the car you could drive…. It didn’t take me long to sign up for the gold package. I wanted to be the best Christian possible. The extra rules and fences provided a track to run on and a great way to show God and everyone else that I was serious about following Jesus. I gave it my best shot. But I noticed that all the rules and fences didn’t do much to make me more like Jesus. I still struggled with all the same sins as [I] did [with] the stripped-down model. Well, actually, I had one more to deal with: pride. (pg. 96)

Legalism vs. Mercy

The absolute worst thing about legalism is what it does to mercy. It casts it aside, then walks away. It leaves people who need mercy most to fend for themselves and castigates those who offer mercy as spiritual compromisers who water down the gospel…. Legalists offer mercy. But the mercy they offer has limits. They have plenty of mercy for those overseas, mercy for those who face tough odds, mercy for those who don’t yet know Jesus. But there’s very little mercy for struggling brothers and sisters in Christ. There’s not much sympathy for people who are weak and faltering. For those folks, there’s nothing but a harsh rebuke and stinging exhortations to catch up with the rest of us, often with a disclaimer that they’re probably not even real Christians anyway. (pg. 103, 107)

Theological Uniformity

Ironically, the more fervently we pursue theological uniformity, the more the Bible takes a back seat, even among people who pride themselves on having the Bible in the navigator’s seat. that’s because the lens of uniformity insists that everyone interpret difficult or controversial Scripture passages exactly the same way. there’s no room for differing opinions, blind spots, or simply being wrong. Those who don’t toe the company line are cast aside. The result is that every time a tough biblical question comes up, we have to consult the tribal manual for the “correct” answer. Instead of our answers and theology flowing out of the Bible, we end up with answers and theological systems superimposed upon the Bible and read back into it. Eventually the Bible becomes nothing more than a proof text for what our tribe already believes…. But let’s be honest. most of our most heated disputes are not about matters that, when we get them wrong, will send us to hell. Granted, many are about important things–very important things–but it’s a stretch to call them eternal. And that’s why it’s also a stretch to think that God approves when we let our pursuit of theological uniformity escalate to the point that it tears apart his family or closes up the Bible. (pg. 146, 149)

I could go on and on quoting Osborne’s insights. He speaks of idolizing the past, spiritual gift projection, drive-by guiltings and more. He also speaks of the importance of bearing one another’s burdens and fighting for real unity in the church. Frankly, at times, Osborne hits too close to home, for comfort!

After hearing Osborne and his passion, let me insist that there is more to the book than harsh criticism of the harsh legalism that abounds in today’s Christianity. Osborne lovingly helps those who see these tendencies in themselves, and he frankly admits that many of these traits were first discovered in his own heart. Ultimately this book offers hope and inoculates believers from a Christianity that is more about scoring points for the home team, then about pointing people to Jesus Christ. I hope you’ll pick up this book and add it to your “must-read” pile for 2013. Or after reading it yourself, you may consider giving it to a friend who might appreciate this encouragement too.

Author Info:
Larry Osborne is a teaching pastor at North Coast Church in northern San Diego County. North Coast is widely recognized as one of the most influential and innovative churches in America. Osborne speaks extensively on the subjects of leadership and spiritual formation. His books include Sticky Teams, Sticky Church, 10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe, and Spirituality for the Rest of Us. He and his wife, Nancy, live in Oceanside, California.

Where to Buy:
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from Zondervan.

Disclaimer:
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Matt Olson and “What Matters Most” with Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.

Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.

Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:

The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.

The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.

The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]

Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:

I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.

The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.

Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.

A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]

I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:

What do we separate over?

  1. The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
  2. The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
  3. The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).

[from part 3]

While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.

These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”

Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.