Tag: Fundamentalism

Book Briefs: “America’s Pastor: Billy Graham and the Shaping of a Nation” by Grant Wacker

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

Billy Graham passed away this week at the ripe old age of 99. He had been withdrawn from public life for quite a number of years now, giving his last sermon by video five years ago. It has been more than 12 years since his last evangelistic crusade. Gone are the days where crowds would flock to hear this giant of a man and his addresses would be telecast on live TV. Now an entire generation of Christians has grown up largely unfamiliar with Graham and his ministry.

The occasion of his death offers many of us a good reason to remind ourselves of Graham’s significance. There are a number of good biographies on Graham and a wealth of resources for studying his unique impact on American Christianity and Culture at large, and Christianity Today has a commemorative magazine edition – with an interactive webpage to go with it.

A few years ago I listened to an audio book from ChristianAudio.com that I want to recommend as a helpful introduction to those who may not be fully aware of the impact Billy Graham has had on our nation. Wacker’s book is not exactly a biography, and Wacker himself is a self-proclaimed evangelical who sides with Graham on a number of his positions. The book instead walks through Graham’s life and evaluates what it was that made him great. It asks who exactly was this man?

The chapters explore different aspects of Graham: his roles of preacher, icon, Southerner, entrepreneur, architect, pilgrim, pastor, and patriarch. The ethos of Graham’s ministry amid the backdrop of the cultural and social nature of the day are stressed. A lot of time is devoted to Graham’s interaction with the presidents and his own angst at Nixon’s fall. Also highlighted is the key role that Graham played, early on, in helping the civil rights movement in the 50s — including his asking Martin Luther King Jr. to pray at his 1957 New York Madison Square Gardens Crusade. Some argue that Graham could have done more on this issue and others, and Walker explores the ins and outs of that debate and situates Graham within the context of his time as a one who moved the needle in positive ways.

Wacker highlights controversial points of Graham’s legacy, too. He explores Graham’s departure from American fundamentalism and his creation of a moderate position (which became known as new evangelicalism, and which is spawned the Evangelicalism most prevalent today). He pinpoints a bizarre interview with Robert Schuler, and presses into what Graham may have really believed about inerrancy and other doctrinal questions. He spent time on some newly discovered disparaging marks Graham made toward Jews in the oval office – and what that says (and doesn’t) about his character. Overall Wacker paints a portrait of Graham that is rich and colorful, and yet reveals a simple and true-hearted man, who honestly attempted to introduce as many people as possible to the life-giving message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by whatever means were at his disposal.

The final part of the book includes Wacker’s own accounts of his interviews with the aged Graham, and his attempt to size up the real Graham. The aged evangelist exuded a warm humility that appealed to Wacker, and which appealed to so many throughout his decades of public ministry.

The audiobook version of this book is easy to listen to: the narrator reads in a matter of fact voice, but not with an emotional poignance that can at time distract. The format may make it an easy way to reflect on Graham and evangelical history amid the pressures of today’s modern world. I highly recommend this title.

Book Blurbs:

“Excellent… It is not a biography, but rather a disciplined, admirably fair-minded effort to understand and explain how 20th-century American culture produced a figure like Billy Graham, and how Graham in turn helped to shape that same culture.” — Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University

“A striking and authoritative account of one of the most influential Americans of recent times. Wacker writes gracefully and offers a fund of astute insights. By exploring Graham’s background, his character, his beliefs, and his work, he reveals how Graham could move so comfortably among the powerful and at the same time always be able to speak effectively to so many ordinary people. Both Graham’s admirers and his critics will come away from America’s Pastor with a fresh appreciation of the man and his world.” — George M. Marsden, author of The Twilight of the American Enlightenment: The 1950s and the Crisis of Liberal Belief

“Grant Wacker has given us a superb―and richly detailed―portrait of Billy Graham, presented in the context of a solid cultural and historical analysis of the era in which Graham served as the kind of religious leader we are not likely to see again. And all of this from a marvelous storyteller. Wacker’s deeply moving epilogue can stand alone as a model of inspiring prose!” — Richard J. Mouw, Professor of Faith and Public Life and former President, Fuller Theological Seminary

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from ChristianAudio.com or Harvard University Press.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by ChristianAudio.com. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Together for the Gospel: Northland & Southern

~ Bob Hayton ~ 19 Comments

I was excited to hear recently that Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College) was formally accepted by The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and will become Boyce College at Northland. Northland’s president, Daniel Patz and Southern’s president, Albert Mohler announced the news. See this link for a fuller story. The video below provides additional details.

For many independent Baptists, this step is unthinkable – and it marks the end of faithfulness. Another college has capitulated. But have they really? What is the point of breaking off of groups like the Southern Baptist Conference? Wasn’t it to preserve doctrine or take a stand for truth? The SBC turned around, and under Mohler’s leadership among others, the SBC is now a bastion for theological conservatism. Sure Southern has an emphasis on Reformed theology that many Baptists are leery of. But the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Reformed theology wholeheartedly. In many respects, the SBC is a mirror image of many groups of independent Baptists. There is a lot of autonomy in the SBC structure. And that Baptist autonomy is part of the problem when it comes to assessing the SBC. The SBC is not completely pure in every respect, because it is not an entity that can cause direct change in a top-down sort of way. The very independence and autonomy that independent fundamental Baptists prize is the reason that many of them view the SBC with suspicion.

Looking at Northland, by joining with Boyce College, Northland continues its overall mission. And in difficult financial times (for all private colleges everywhere) this decision makes sense. Both the SBC and the IFBs who have supported Northland over the years, are driven by a Great Commission calling. Both of them long to stand for truth and equip students to live courageously for Christ in today’s world. Strategic partnerships and inter-dependence among churches and missionaries — that is what we see as we read the book of Acts and study the early years of Church history.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the status of the IFB movement. Are churches staying independent just to be different? Are they insular and isolationist or is independence a means to a healthy end? Why must there be three, four or even five IFB churches that have virtually nothing to do with each other in the same town? Why can’t we overlook minor differences and truly stand together for the Gospel? We can respect differences and appreciate distinctives even as we work together around bigger realities and shared Gospel truths. That is what is driving Northland’s actions.

May we see more Christ-honoring inter-dependence in the future. “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity!” (Ps. 133:1).

Northland, SBTS, and the Next Chapter for Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College) just announced a formal partnership with The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. NIU President, Daniel Patz says this move will “energize our mission, and anchor our institutional stability for generations.” You can read some of Al Mohler’s comments on this partnership and learn more about the announcement here.

I have some positive reflections on this move, for Northland in particular. And I have a question about Fundamentalism’s next chapter.

Positives for Northland

1) Students at Northland can see that their degree may mean more now, with an academic institution like Southern “backing” it.

2) There are lots of churches who are loosely IFB but not committed to one particular sphere or fellowship, this partnership makes Northland attractive to some of these churches now.

3) It allows Northland to receive help from another institution and continue to exist – and in the area of Northland there are not an abundance of conservative evangelical schools of any stripe.

4) It expands the base of Northland to other conservative churches aware of Southern but not necessarily aware of Northland.

Fundamentalism’s Next Chapter?

Remember this is a connection with a particular institution not the SBC as a whole, nor every SBC seminary, just Southern. As such, Northland doesn’t have to be seen as eschewing fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was a para-denominational idea to unite around the gospel. Might it not be time for conservative IFB churches to unite more formally as NIU is doing here, with conservative bastions of evangelicalism, whether they be The Master’s College, Southern, or what have you?

The IFB movement prizes independence. Northland is acting independently. They already forged a partnership with the CCEF, and now with Southern. This is not old-school fundamentalism, but it might just be the natural progression of the growth of Type B/C Fundamentalism.

What exactly would be the case for separating from Northland for partnering with Southern? What exactly is the case for not sending students to Southern, or for being willing to send them to The Master’s College but not Southern?

Is Fundamentalism an idea that is more important than a movement? Time will tell. For now, I applaud Northland for being willing to go their own way and unite around what matters. Some will “nay say,” but for Fundamentalism to stay relevant to the church both now and into the future, it is exatly this kind of independent thinking (that stays true to the spirit of historic fundamentalism) that will be needed.

“IFBx”: A Definition

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Recently the question came up in a discussion group I’m a member in, as to what the term “IFBx” stands for. Defining that term is an interesting exercise and worthy of its own post.

I first heard the term from Ryan DeBarr, who was a regular at the FFF (Fighting Fundamentalist Forums) back in the day, and who had a blog back in the mid 2000’s. It stands for “Independent Fundamental Baptist extreme” or extreme IFB. I can’t remember all the details surrounding the use of the term, and I’m sure everyone uses it differently.

In my case, very soon after abandoning the IFB movement altogether, I came to realize that I was overstating things on my blog. I clarified my critique of fundamentalism to hone in on the IFBx part of fundamentalism more particularly. I have maintained since then (early 2006) that I do not believe everyone should abandon the IFB movement wholesale. There are healthy IFB churches and a positive trajectory to be found in many branches of the movement. Furthermore, Fundamentalism has much to teach Evangelicalism about the weightiness of truth and the importance of holiness. Far too often such matters are brushed off as “legalistic” without a second thought. That being said, there is much that is not healthy in IFB churches and particularly among those I would consider extreme fundamentalists.

To help flesh out more fully what I mean, I’m going to string together two excerpts from earlier posts that I think still capture the heart of what I believe should be understood by the term “IFBx”:

Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.

Hyperfundamentalists, also known as IFBx, elevate cultural standards to the level of doctrine, and separate accordingly. Many leaders in this group exert an inordinate control over the lives of their followers, and demand an almost cultish loyalty. This group also maintains extreme positions, often holding to an almost-heretical KJV-only position.

Admittedly, the division between these two groups can be somewhat arbitrary. And we are obviously speaking in generalities. There are similarities between both groups, and that is part of the reason why I have left independent Baptist fundamentalism altogether. But the differences remain. And these differences can be very large and defining…

[excerpted from “Responding to Error: A Comparison Study between Fundamentalism and Hyperfundamentalism“]

The [branch of] fundamentalism I came from is often termed IFBx (extreme fundamentalism). I think the definition fits, although I tend to think an asterisk is called for. My alma mater, for instance, is not into the blatant man worship and ultra traditionalism which permeates those who rightfully own the IFBx label. They find Scriptural reasons (using sound hermeneutical methods, for the most part) for the standards and positions they adhere to. In fact, I am thankful for the emphasis on Scripture and a serious devotion to Christ that I inherited from this branch of fundamentalism.

It is the positions they hold and how tenaciously they hold them, which makes that branch of fundamentalism extreme. Some of the positions they hold, such as KJV onlyism and the teaching that women should not wear pants are extreme in the sense that there is so little clear teaching in Scripture which demands these positions. The few verses claimed to support them have other obvious interpretations available. Yet only one interpretation is allowed. Other positions which may have a larger Scriptural support, are held in such a way as to say that only their own interpretation is correct. If one is not pre-trib rapture, or if they hold to less than conservative music style, or if they hold to any form of Calvinism, they are not only wrong, but worthy of censure and separation. The broader movement of fundamentalism might limit fellowship to some degree over these issues, but they do not “write off” those who hold differing views to the extreme degree that IFBx fundamentalists do.

A further consideration here comes with regard to the extreme emphasis on loyalty and allegiance to personalities. IFBx fundamentalists view any departure from their list of required positions as compromise and disloyalty. This sector of fundamentalism also places an undue emphasis on authority. Any questioning of a position, however sincere and non threatening, is viewed as an attack and a threat to the leader’s ministry. Such a situation begs a complicit adherence to the authority’s list of do’s and don’ts and facilitates an unhealthy separation of external conformity and internal heart worship. With such a stress on outward conformity, it is easy to seek to gain acceptance by men while neglecting the matters of the heart. While the particular circles of fundamentalism I came from were not as extreme in this regard as other IFBx groups, they still hold an undue emphasis on loyalty and conformity, which again puts them as IFBx* in my book.

Within this branch of fundamentalism, there is no liberty to contemplate changing one’s positon on a point or two. Any capitulation from any small point is seen as a departure from fundamentalism en toto, and in reality a departure from the faith! Thus, any break from this branch of fundamentalism (at least a break made by someone who was whole-heartedly embracing all of the points to begin with) is necessarily very dramatic and often final. It also results in much pain in the one leaving. When one emerges from extreme fundamentalism, they do so with a lot of disorientation and a feeling that they will never fit in anywhere ever again! More than doctrinal positions and standards are left behind, one’s very identity is left behind. In a lot of ways, it is very similar to leaving a cult.

[excerpted from “A New and Improved ‘About This Blog’“]

Feel free to chime in and give your thoughts on what IFBx should or shouldn’t mean. Where are you in your assessment of the IFB movement, and more importantly, in your journey of faith?

Three Historic Approaches to Separation

~ Bob Hayton

Just wanted to call your attention to Justin Taylor’s brief history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that he recently shared on his blog. A key section in this brief history, which focuses on the years 1920 through 1962, is Taylor’s thoughts about “three approaches to separation.”

Three Approaches to Separatism

Emerging from this 1957 division, and continuing through the intra-denominational controversies of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention into the 1980s, there was conservative agreement that personal holiness was a necessity and that separation from moral sin was required. But beneath this general principle, there were three overlapping approaches to separation within fundamentalism.

First, there were denominational reformers who believed they should stay within a denomination and fight for its doctrinal and moral purity.

Second, there were denominational separatists who believed that faithful Christians should extricate themselves from denominations and professing Christians influenced by modernism and therefore apostasy.

Third, there were ecclesiastical separatists who were also secondary separationists, refusing to have fellowship with fellow conservative dissenters who did not withdraw from apostate denominations.

What must be noted here, and is often overlooked in discussions of fundamentalism, is that the original fundamentalists were in categories 1, and sometimes 2. But category 3 was largely the result of post-1957 fundamentalism and represents a new phase of development. (Read Taylor’s whole article)

I agree that historically, the third viewpoint on separation gradually grew over time. What fundamentalist critics of John Piper, Mark Dever, Tim Keller and others fail to note, is that often these conservative evnagelical leaders have a lot in common with historic fundamentalists who held to the first approacth to separation. The conservative turnaround of the SBC is testament to the fact that the second and third approaches to separation are not always necessary.