Tag: Fundamentalism

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

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

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

~ Bob Hayton

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.

Quotes to Note 32: John Piper on Godliness

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I came across this quote in reading through Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, John Piper’s most recent book (Crossway, 2011). You can tell that Piper has thought about this more than just this little quote says. This resonates with me due to my experience in hard-nosed fundamentalism. But it’s not just fundamentalists, who can tend to think this way. Read the quote below and let me know what you think. This could be fodder for a healthy conversation.

Apathy is passionless living. It is sitting in front of the television night anfter night and living your life from one moment of entertainment to the next. It is the inability to be shocked into action by the steady-state lostness and suffering of the world. It is the emptiness that comes from thinking of godliness as the avoidance of doing bad things instead of the aggressive pursuit of doing good things.

If that were God’s intention for the godliness of his people, why would Paul say, “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12)? People who stay at home and watch clean videos don’t get persecuted. Godliness must mean something more public, more aggressively good.

In fact, the aim of the gospel is the creation of people who are passionate for doing good rather than settling for the passionless avoidance of evil. “[Christ] gave himself for us… to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). The gospel produces people who are created for good works (Eph. 2:10), and have a reputation for good works (1 Tim. 5:10), and are rich in good works (1 Tim. 6:18), and present a model of good works (Titus 2:7), and devote themselves to good works (Titus 3:8, 14), and stir each other up to good works (Heb. 10:24). (pg. 101, emphasis added)

Piper goes on to stress being fervent and zealous in good works, but the point I wanted to hone in on is called out in bold emphasis above. Too often, conservative Christians rest in the fact that they are avoiding bad works. They can pride themselves in “watching clean videos,” not using foul language and etc. The old adage was something along these lines: Christians “don’t drink, don’t chew, and don’t go with those who do.” But merely being decent people is not what true godliness entails. We should take thought to what we are doing, not merely what we are not doing.

Food for thought, indeed!

Chuck Phelps Resigns from the BJU Board

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

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.

What Can Fundamentalists Learn from Joe Paterno?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 48 Comments

By now, I’m sure most of my readers have heard that Joe Paterno was recently fired after more than 40 years of coaching one of the top College Football programs in the country. Paterno won more games in his coaching career than anyone else in Division-1 Football. Even now his Penn State’s Nittany Lions are poised to win the Big Ten Championship. By all accounts he should be respected and revered. But he was summarily dismissed, and turned out — and this at the end of his golden career.

Paterno is an illustration of a changing reality in the world today. A reality that Fundamentalists and other conservative Church groups must pay attention to, and learn from. Paterno lost the battle of public opinion, because today’s public has an entirely different opinion of child abuse, and potential child abuse, than yesterday’s generation.

In the old days, when the “Good Ol’ Boy” club reinged supreme. An allegation, was just that — an allegation. An alleged incident that may or may not be true. And someone in a position of leadership, would usually be given the benefit of the doubt. In Paterno’s case, his son made the following argument on his behalf:

“Unfortunately,” Scott Paterno said, “once that happened, there was really nothing more Joe felt he could do because he did not witness the event. You can’t call the police and say, ‘Somebody tells me they saw somebody else do something.’ That’s hearsay. Police don’t take reports in that manner. Frankly, from the way he understood the process, he passed the information on to the appropriate university official and they said they were taking care of it. That’s really all he could do. [source]

Thinking this through, I was inclined to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt. He did what he thought was right, and someone else goofed up and didn’t report like they should have. But the more I think about the situation, the more convinced I am that he really does share a blame. It’s convenient to pass a problem off on someone else, especially when the allegation concerns someone you know and trust.

While occasionally, innocent people do get falsely accused, overall, today’s culture which prizes the innocent victims is really to be praised. Isn’t that what the Bible advocates? Standing up for those who have no voice of their own? Ministering to the helpless and the fatherless? The following Scripture verses comes to mind:

Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3 ESV)

Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-10)

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

The Church is also to maintain a good reputation with the world, and particularly its leaders, the elders are given this charge: “Moreover [they] must have a good report of them which are without.” (1 Tim. 3:7a KJV) So, this changing opinion of the public in regard to allegations of child abuse is something that fundamentalists need to pay attention to.

Penn State University, when faced with the potential that some of their employees allowed child abuse to happen and didn’t report or ensure that a report was made to the police, quickly acted to remove all doubt about their stance against child abuse and to fire their high ranking, “good ol’ boys” who had come under a cloud of suspicion. But in Fundamentalism, this is not the road that churches and institutions usually take.

In Chuck Phelps’ case, he filed a report, but allowed the victim to flee the state while the police sought her in vain. He had done his duty by reporting, but didn’t go out of his way to help, because after all this was an allegation, one might say. The perpetrator of the abuse maintained his membership in good standing at the church, while the victim was viewed as a troubled teen who needed special care and who wasn’t worthy of being in the church-run school. Phelps wasn’t censured, that I know of, by any church or institution. He did lose a speaking engagement, and stepped down from the presidency of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (but we don’t know if that was related to this allegation), but he is still on the board of Bob Jones University.

In Fairhaven’s case, when CNN investigated allegations of abuse, there was no apology and no sympathy for the victims. They were said to be kids who caused a lot of trouble, or outright liars. Instead of apologizing and investigating the incidents, Fairhaven staff gave the CNN reporter a souvenir paddle in a mockery of the gravity of these allegations.

Thankfully, not all fundamentalist institutions react this way. The American Council of Christian Churches, a fundamentalist group parallel to the National Association of Evangelicals, publicly condemned Fairhaven’s actions – specifically referencing the giving of a souvenir paddle as an over-the-top and unChristian reaction to these serious charges. A fundamentalist mission board, ABWE, when faced with numerous people going forward about specific cases of abuse, launched an independent investigation, publicly apologized and took radical steps toward changing the culture of their organization in this regard.

Joe Paterno presents an example for fundamentalists that I hope they won’t ignore. The watching public won’t let us give the benefit of the doubt to the “good ol’ boys” anymore. We need to be as concerned as God is, over the victims of abuse. A man I respect, when learning of certain systematic abuse at a Fundamentalist institution that he had given years of his life to, reacted by confronting the leader of the church and institution, and then leaving. From what I’ve heard of this incident, he was told something to the effect of “Well, what do you want us to do about that? There’s nothing we can do.” He replied, “I’d dedicate my ministry to helping every last child who was harmed by the abuse that happened.”

Good advice for all of us. Don’t hide behind the fact that these are only “allegations”. Don’t refuse to investigate the matter, or have it investigated by a third party, for fear of what the high-up, protected and revered leaders would think– or what could happen to them. Stand up for the oppressed and the abused, and take a stand. A watching world wonders if we really are as much like Jesus Christ as we say we are.