Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism
Republished with permission (and unedited) from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. (The document posted at Central’s website within the last couple of weeks.)
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
To be an evangelical is to be centered upon the gospel. To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines. We are both evangelicals and Fundamentalists according to these definitions. We all believe that, as ecclesial movements, both evangelicalism and Fundamentalism have drifted badly from their core commitments. In the case of evangelicalism, the drift began when self-identified neo-evangelicals began to extend Christian fellowship to those who clearly rejected fundamental doctrines. This extension of fellowship represented a dethroning of the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. It was a grievous error, and it has led to the rapid erosion of evangelical theology within the evangelical movement. At the present moment, some versions of professing evangelicalism actually harbor denials of the gospel such as Open Theism or the New Perspective on Paul. We deny that the advocates of such positions can rightly be called evangelical.
On the other hand, we also believe that some Fundamentalists have attempted to add requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship. Sometimes these requirements have involved institutional or personal loyalties, resulting in abusive patterns of leadership. Other times they have involved organizational agendas. They have sometimes involved the elevation of relatively minor doctrines to a position of major importance. In some instances, they have involved the creation of doctrines nowhere taught in Scripture, such as the doctrine that salvation could not be secured until Jesus presented His material blood in the heavenly tabernacle. During recent years, the most notorious manifestation of this aberrant version of Fundamentalism is embodied in a movement that insists that only the King James version of the Bible (or, in some cases, its underlying Greek or Hebrew texts) ought be recognized as the perfectly preserved Word of God.
We regard both of these extremes as equally dangerous. The evangelicalism of the far Left removes the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The Fundamentalism of the far Right adds to the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neither extreme is acceptable to us, but because we encounter the far Right more frequently, and because it claims the name of Fundamentalism, we regard it as a more immediate and insidious threat.
Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.
We also reject the “new-image Fundamentalism” that absorbs the current culture, producing a worldly worship and a pragmatic ministry. These self-professed fundamentalists often follow the latest trends in ministry, disparage theological labels such as Baptist, and aggressively criticize any version of Fundamentalism not following their ministry style.
We oppose anti-separatist evangelicalism, hyper-fundamentalism, revivalism, and new-image Fundamentalism. We wish to reclaim authentic Fundamentalism, to rebuild it, and to strengthen it. For us that reclamation involves not only working against the philosophy of broad evangelicalism (which assaults us from outside), but also working against those versions of Fundamentalism that subvert the Christian faith.
On the other hand, these positions do not exhaust the evangelical options. Conservative evangelicals have reacted against the current erosion of evangelicalism by refocusing attention upon the gospel, including its importance as a boundary for Christian fellowship. These conservative evangelicals have become important spokespersons against current denials of the gospel, and they have also spoken out against trends that remove the gospel from its place of power in transforming lives (e.g., the church growth and church marketing movements).
Certain differences do still exist between historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Fundamentalists, in contrast to Conservative evangelicals, tend to align more with dispensationalism and cessationism. Fundamentalists tend to react against contemporary popular culture, while many conservative evangelicals embrace it. Perhaps most importantly, Fundamentalists make a clean break with the leadership of anti-separatist evangelicals, while conservative evangelicals continue to accommodate (or at least refuse to challenge) their leadership.
Because of these differences, we do not believe that complete cooperation with conservative evangelicalism is desirable. Nevertheless, we find that we have much more in common with conservative evangelicals (who are slightly to our Left) than we do with hyper-Fundamentalists (who are considerably to our Right), or even with revivalistic Fundamentalists (who are often in our back yard). In conservative evangelicals we find allies who are willing to challenge not only the compromise of the gospel on the Left, but also the pragmatic approach to Christianity that typifies so many evangelicals and Fundamentalists. For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.
We wish to be used to restate, refine, and strengthen biblical Fundamentalism. The process of restatement includes not only defining what a thing is, but also saying what it is not. We find that we must point to many versions of professing Fundamentalism and say, “That is not biblical Christianity.” We do not believe that the process of refinement and definition can occur without such denials. The only way to strengthen Fundamentalism is to speak out against some self-identified Fundamentalists.
We also see a need to speak out against the abandonment of the gospel by the evangelical Left, the reducing of the gospel’s importance by the heirs of the New Evangelicalism, and the huckstering of the gospel by pragmatists, whether evangelicals or Fundamentalists. On the other hand, while we may express disagreement with aspects of conservative evangelicalism (just as we may express disagreement with one another), we wish to affirm and to strengthen the activity of conservative evangelicals in restoring the gospel to its rightful place.
The marks of a strong Fundamentalism will include the following:
- A recommitment to the primacy and proclamation of the gospel.
- An understanding that the fundamentals of the gospel are the boundary of Christian fellowship.
- A focus on the importance of preaching as biblical exposition.
- An emphasis upon progressive sanctification understood as incremental spiritual growth.
- An elevation of the importance of ordinate Christian affections, expressed partly by sober worship that is concerned with the exaltation and magnification of God.
- An understanding of Christian leadership primarily as teaching and serving.
- A commitment to teaching and transmitting the whole system of faith and practice.
- An exaltation of the centrality of the local congregation in God’s work.
These are features of an authentic Fundamentalism that we all feel is worth saving. These features describe the kind of Fundamentalism that we wish to build. Their absence in either Fundamentalism or other branches of evangelicalism constitutes a debasing of Christianity that we intend to oppose.
- 70 views
Thank you for informing us of our motivations. Our faculty might not have known why they drafted and adopted this statement if you had not told us.
Why does there need to be a torpedo? Do you have any idea of the difficulties in trying to accomplish a merger between two institutions?
For the record, this statement represents in almost pristine form the understanding of Fundamentalism and evangelicalism that I was taught as a student at Faith Baptist Bible College and later at Denver Baptist Theological Seminary (which merged into Faith in 1986). George Houghton was the one who supplied his students with the category of “Fundamentalism Plus,” which our Central Seminary document labels “Hyper-Fundamentalism.” Faith and Denver also provided the setting in which I and others were taught that fellowship (and its correlative, separation) between believers is not all-or-nothing. We were clearly taught to consider levels of fellowship and the importance of those doctrines and practices that might hinder fellowship. David Nettleton used to model this principle by featuring speakers from outside of the Fundamental-Baptist-Dispensational orbit. We could hear an amillennialist like Peter Masters or a conservative evangelical like Lehman Strauss.
Even in the 1960s and 1970s, mainstream Fundamentalists were beginning to separate from Hyper-Fundamentalists. Perhaps the quintessential example is the rejection of Carl McIntire’s leadership by the American Council of Christian churches and its fellowshipping denominations. I was able to observe this separation at close-hand when I was a student at both Faith and Denver. Mainstream Fundamentalists have been building walls on the Right for a very long time.
What is surprising is that anyone would think this statement says something new. It is a fair representation of the mainstream Fundamentalism in which I was reared.
What is not so clear to me, is how rejecting various fundamentalist or evangelical varieties aligns with a few points made in the paper. First it is said that fellowship is around the fundamentals which relate to the gospel, and leaders who make ties with those repudiating the fundamentals are to be rejected. How do the various fundamentalist wings or even some of the evangelical wings specifically repudiate or deny the fundamentals or align with those that do? Secondly, some fundamentalists are chided for adding “requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship”. I fail to see how aligning with a particular musical style as being the only acceptable one for worship is not also adding to those same requirements.
I think many of the practices of some on the far right are dangerous yes, and less than best. But many individuals are still worth maintaining a gospel fellowship or association with. I understand there are various degrees of separation and fellowship, those degrees don’t seem clear in this paper where it appears they reject the far left and far right equally, and then by implication claim all this “rejecting” going on relates intimately to the gospel.
KJV Onlyists, anti-Calvinists, revivalists and the like — they are not all of one carbon-copy, one-size-fits-all variety. I think separation should be crystal clear on first-level doctrines, and less firm and strong as you move down to second and third level issues which may impact practical cooperation, but shouldn’t be as important as gospel matters.
Just my two cents. It is good to see such documents being put forth as thinking through such matters helps all involved.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Kevin T. Bauder] What is surprising is that anyone would think this statement says something new. It is a fair representation of the mainstream Fundamentalism in which I was reared.While I was not raised in Fundamentalism *, the statement basically represents the fundamentalism I have always known (since 1969)
* http://4bya.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/my-testimony-of-faith-in-christ/
I graduated from Central in 1975 at age 35 (almost 36). I had already had experience in ministry and the business world. This statement reflects Fundamentalism as generally understood at that time. Dr. Clearwaters was a militant Fundamentalist as described by that term by George Dollar in his book “The History of Fundamentalism” which came out in 1973. Doc Clearwaters was very focused on the subject of separation due to being through the battles himself.
The book “Which Bible” by David Otis Fuller came out in 1970. The KJVO position was advocated by a Seventh Day Adventist from where David Otis Fuller appears to have obtained most of his arguments. The KJVO position was just becoming a little bit of an issue in the 70s. However, many Fundamentalists still avoided fellowship with those of the Hyles and Falwell style of Fundamentalism. Falwell would move away from Fundamentalism, Hyles would eventually become a KJVO advocate. Since that time the KJVO position has become a major issue among some who use the name Fundamentalist. Since the issue involves the necessity of post apostolic inspiration and / or revelation, it takes those churches and persons who are KJVO outside the realm of Christian epistemology that fits within biblical doctrine and the establishment of biblical facts as historically valid according to normal historiography. This is very serious deviation. It undermines the foundation of historic Christianity. It is probably necessary for the integrity of the Christian faith that other Fundamentalists separate from those holding the KJVO position.
This statement by the Central faculty appears to hold to the traditional historic Fundamentalist position but allow for the necessity of not including those of the KJVO position within that Fundamentalist fellowship. This position would not be liked by KJVO advocates. However, many of them have their own principles of separation that makes them separate from all non KJVO churches and pastors.
We should thank the faculty of Central Baptist Seminary for this Ethos statement and for their Ethos statement regarding salvation and sanctification. They appear very well thought out.
I have a proposition which may nor may not be true. It is that fundamentalists who engage in “careful, limited forms of fellowship” with conservative evangelicals either A) will likely become conservative evangelicals themselves down the line or B) are already conservative evangelicals whether they acknowledge it and apply the terminology to themselves or not. (I could go on to state that a lot of “conservative evangelicals” are actually “moderate evangelicals” that are skirting the boundaries of what can honestly be called Biblical Christianity … you catch my drift.) So, what can fundamentalists - or more accurately the cause of Christ - gain from this “careful, limited form of fellowship”?
If the conservative evangelical will fellowship with a fundamentalist on Monday, an open theism/theistic evolutionist on Tuesday, and a Roman Catholic on Wednesday (why not go ahead and be consistent and add Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, shintos, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists and Scientologists to the dance card also?) then this “careful, limited fellowship” will serve different purposes for the fundamentalist than it will for the conservative evangelical, who will consider himself very mature for possessing the theological openness to be all things to all people so that he might save some. So why bother? What do conservative evangelicals have that fundamentalists need? (I said “need”, not “want.”)
This is not to say that conservative evangelicals are not Christians, and I understand the problems with refusing to fellowship with other born-again believers. However, the evangelical insistence of “extending Christian fellowship to those who clearly reject fundamental doctrines” is a real spiritual problem. That conservative evangelicals are now setting boundaries is insufficient, likely the result of crossing thresholds that the conservative evangelicals set themselves for their own arbitrary reasons, not Biblical truth, such as deciding that theistic evolution is OK but gay marriage isn’t because of being more comfortable with the former than the latter. It makes the conservative evangelical the arbiter of “acceptable” and “unacceptable”, and allows him to act as the final authority instead of the Bible. How is that different from “some Fundamentalists have attempted to add requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship.?”
Demanding that a Christian heed what the Bible says about not being yoked with unbelievers as a precondition of fellowship isn’t too much to ask. Evangelicals have decided that it is, and fundamentalists should not assimilate their position. That is my proposal, anyway.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[RPittman] it’s the same old spiritual oneupmanship
[RPittman] Is this the torpedo that sank the talks between Faith and Central?No imagining of anything behind bushes involved.
My only concern w/the statement is that if there is going to be a separation from problem ministries/leaders on the right now in addition to separation from problem ministries/leaders on the left, are we just looking at more splintering? But ultimately people have to stand where they believe it’s right to stand as best they can discern that, regardless of how few join them there. (But it may well be that enough fundamentalists are looking at things this way now that this particular stance won’t be so lonely after all.)
Kevin says there’s nothing new here, and I don’t doubt it represents a long standing way of thinking, but I don’t recall seeing fundamentalist institutions put these kinds of distancing-from-the-far-right statements in writing before as expressions of official direction. So it looks to me like a new level of frankness about these things at the very least.
Edit: it may be that the “separation from the right” I referred to has really already pretty much happened.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I, too, am sorry that the conversation went awry (and with the very first post!), but here is what you said:
“As far as I can tell, it’s the same old spiritual oneupmanship that has been used since the Corinthian church to gain status and ascendancy.”
Let me repeat the purpose clause in your sentence: “to gain status and ascendancy.” Mr. Pittman, this is a very clear judgment about the intentions and motivations of my colleagues on the faculty at Central Baptist Seminary. It is more than a judgment: it is an accusation in a very public forum. Furthermore, it is false. The men whom you have smeared are about a million miles away from the kind of self-aggrandizement that you impute to them.
As for the putative difference between Faith and Central, I thought that I had answered that matter. Let me put it more clearly. Naturally, I can speak only for Central Seminary and not for Faith Baptist Bible College. If someone at Faith thinks that I have stated things wrongly, then they are free to correct me.
I know of no difference between Central Baptist Theological Seminary and Faith Baptist Bible College over the issue of separation. We are guided by the same principles and we apply them in much the same way. If we diverge at all in application (which I doubt), the difference is no greater than whatever diversity already exists within each of our faculties. It is indeed minuscule, and probably is nonexistent.
The professors from Faith teach regularly at Central and vice versa. The administration at Faith previews and critiques my “Nick of Time” essays, just as our own Central Seminary faculty and staff members do. Some of us at Central Seminary received our education from Faith and Denver, and most of the professors in the seminary at Faith received training from Central. The two seminaries are already cooperating in multiple ways, and we shall continue to do so in the future.
These congruities and others are precisely what led us to believe that a merger might be desirable. These common denominators remain undiminished by the decision that a merger was not in the best interests of both institutions. Far from it—the respect and esteem between our two schools has actually increased. There is absolutely no spirit of recrimination, competition, or (as you put it) one-upmanship. There is not a faculty member or administrator at Faith Baptist Seminary with whom our faculty would not be proud to work.
I personally would be happy to work for Dr. James Maxwell or Dr. John Hartog III. I would be happy to have either of them work for me. I owe my fundamentalists convictions and my interest in historical theology to George Houghton. I owe my interest in systematic theology and my overall theological framework to his brother, Myron. I count Paul Hartog as the brightest rising scholar in Fundamentalism today, and I consider Doug Brown to offer a rare combination of scholarly acumen, humility, and compassion. Ernie Schmidt, John Hartog II, and Alan Cole are all alumni of Central Seminary (so are Doug Brown and John Hartog III), and Tim Little is actually a student at Central Seminary while he teaches at Faith.
A rift between Central Seminary and Faith Baptist Bible College exists only in the minds of gossip-mongers and prevaricators (and, Mr. Pittman, I am NOT including you here). Such individuals are the pus, phlegm, and bile in the body of Fundamentalism. May God stop their mouths, along with unfounded speculations and unsupported assertions that they proliferate.
Between Faith Baptists Bible College and Central Seminary exists only mutual blessing and a firm commitment to strengthening one another. We heartily support and recommend each other’s doctrine, faculty, position, and academic standards. Whoever says that the two institutions are moving in different directions is simply displaying ignorance. No one has heard such things from the administration at Faith. No one will hear any such things from me.
Kevin T. Bauder
P.S. Regarding my “narrow” experience of Fundamentalism—
You are joking, right?
P.P.S. Regarding McIntire, thanks for making my point.
P.P.P.S. Regarding Clearwaters and Dollar. Central today stands very much where Clearwaters stood (perhaps a bit more separatistic), though not so much where Dollar did. When he was at Central, Dollar was denouncing Faith as “moderate” rather than a “militant”. For his part, Clearwaters was willing to lecture at Faith. The break between Clearwaters and Dollar came when Dollar claimed that he had fought New Evangelicalism at Dallas and at Bob Jones, and now he was fighting it at Central Seminary. Doc did not let that pass. Oh, and Clearwaters was crystal clear in his opposition to the King James Only philosophy.
P.P.P.P.S. For your information, Fundamentalism still comprises Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. That is an aspect of Fundamentalism that I applaud. In fact, I have worked as hard as anyone to integrate non-Baptists into mainstream Fundamentalist organizations. You might be interested to listen to my commencement address at Geneva Reformed Seminary from a few years back.
Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.Does this statement put these seminaries at odds with most fundamental Christian camps in the Country?
Thank you for your praise, faint as it was.
After reading your post, I am not sure that you are attempting to interact with our statement so much as to use it as an occasion for scoring points that are of interest t you. For example, if you can cite any section of the posted statement that suggests making music a test of Fundamentalism, then I have a thousand dollars that I’ll put in the mail to you tomorrow.
I don’t see how you can question the fact that some evangelicals have made common cause with gospel-deniers, recognizing them as Christians and even pointing to them as Christian leaders. Pick up George Marsden’s “Reforming Fundamentalism,” and look in the index under Graham, Billy. Then read the signatures on Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Then consult the signatories for the Manhattan Declaration. Do you really want to debate any of this?
Such evangelicals do not deny the gospel. What they do, however, is to demean the gospel by demoting it from its proper place as the boundary of Christian fellowship. According to 2 John, they gain a share in the harm that apostates do. While they are not denying the gospel, they are damaging it.
The same is true of hyper-fundamentalists on the Right. They add other things to the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship, which does equal and opposite damage. We do not have liberty to treat just any doctrine or practice as fundamental. To elevate non-fundamentals to the level of essentials is to incorporate them into the gospel itself. This is much the same error that of the social gospel crowd commits—and you KNOW how we feel about that!
On my view, hyper-fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals (or whatever we’d call them now) need to be treated in pretty much the same way. We recognize them as brethren, but we limit our involvement with them very sharply. We certainly do not recognize them as insightful Christian leaders.
In both cases—whether the hyper-fundamentalist Right or the neo-evangelical Left—the gospel is still the issue. The problem lies in the role that the gospel is expected to perform. Anyone who dethrones the gospel from its position as the borderline of Christian fellowship, whether by addition or deletion, has done damage to it.
More than that, the conduct of individuals on both extremes has brought disrepute upon the gospel. Both seeker evangelicalism and revivalist Fundamentalism engage in manipulative techniques that disgrace (in the proper, literal sense of the term) the gospel. Abusive and manipulative leadership reflects a lack of commitment to the sufficiency and transforming power of the gospel. These are trends that must be rejected, if not for the being of the church, then at least for its wellbeing.
Kevin T. Bauder
It certainly creates no tension with Camp Clearwaters!
Kevin
Outstanding! Thanks for your work. More thoughts later.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I have a proposition which may or may not be true. It is that Fundamentalists who will not engage in “careful, limited forms of fellowship” with conservative evangelicals (A) will likely become Islamic terrorists themselves down the line, or (B) are already Islamic terrorists whether they acknowledge it and apply the terminology to themselves.
Makes a nice syllogism, doesn’t it? Of course, somebody who has an ounce of sense might point out that it is a complete non sequitur, but why get hung up on details?
Do you personally know of conservative evangelicals who are knowingly extending Christian recognition to open theists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc?
No?
I didn’t think so.
Neither do I.
I do know of evangelicals who do some of these things, but not of conservative evangelicals. The conservative evangelicals I know have fought hard against Open Theism, evangelical feminism, and the New Perspective on Paul. They have cleaned apostates out of seminaries and mission agencies. They have been mocked and abused because of their stand for the truth. They have even had their lives threatened.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to think that an evangelical is an evangelical is an evangelical. But you can’t do theology with a blunt instrument like that. The only thing that blunt instruments are good for is causing mayhem.
Now I’m worried!
Straight ahead,
Kevin
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Discussion