I Learned it from Fundamentalists
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 1:00am
What follows should not be seen as any kind of “answer” to the essay by Dr. Kevin Bauder we posted here last week (what minor points I differed with him on are already expressed in the comments there).
But it is a reaction of sorts.
Many have been announcing the death of the “Fundamentalist Movement” for some time. And these death knells are coming increasingly from those still inside whatever Fundamentalism now is. I don’t care to argue the question of the movement’s deceased status one way or the other here. But even contemplating its passing stirs me, because Fundamentalism (both the “movement” and the “idea”) has been a source of great blessing to me as God has used it my life.
1. Fundamentalism taught me expository preaching.
From early childhood, I was exposed to a broad spectrum of Fundamentalist preaching. At school, I heard the preaching of passionate evangelists who knew how to penetrate the apathy of hardened Christian school kids’ hearts and move us to walk aisles by the dozens. Sometimes (only God knows how often) the Holy Spirit was at work in these efforts as well and produced His fruit in lives.
But being “in” Fundamentalism also exposed me to well trained pastors who—even when I was too young to understand—began training my “preaching ear” in the cadences of exposition. At age five I couldn’t have told you what the difference was, but I sensed that my pastor was doing something different in the pulpit from what many of the visiting evangelists were doing. As I grew older, the frequent sound of congregants turning pages in their Bibles became one noticeable difference. The impulse to bring an ink pen and mark up my Bible became another—as when “Pastor Aseltine” (to me, his first name will always “Pastor”) walked us through Ephesians, verse by verse.
Later, when our Fundamental Christian high school began requiring us all to take notes during all the sermons we heard in chapel and in our churches, the differences between one style of preaching and the other became even more pronounced. No one told me then that the most persuasive and enduringly powerful preaching I was hearing—and had grown to love—was called “exposition” or “expository preaching.” The Fundamentalist college I attended next taught me that this kind of preaching had a name as well as a long and glorious tradition.
Could a young man learn expository preaching outside of Fundamentalism at the time? Absolutely. But I learned it from Fundamentalists.
2. Fundamentalism taught me to appreciate the original languages.
Within “the movement” as a youth, I did not often hear encouragement to use other translations of the Bible. All of the preachers I heard used the KJV as their English text. But we often heard references to Greek and Hebrew terms and grammatical concepts. Words like parakletos, agape, phileo, pneuma and ecclesia were familiar. The idea of a Greek tense being a factor in the interpretation of a verse was something I discovered under the tutelage of Fundamentalists.
And I’m pretty sure that the whole concept of using another translation as an Bible study tool came from the same expositional preachers who served as my pastors in those days. I acquired my first copy of a “modern translation” from a Fundamentalist bookstore (I did have to dig a little to find it).
Could I have discovered the value of digging down to the original languages from non-Fundamentalist evangelicals? Definitely. But as it turns out, I learned it from Fundamentalists.
3. Fundamentalists taught me to be mindful of doctrine.
I can still hear one of my elementary school Bible teachers raving (so it seemed at the time) that “the Bible is not a book of cunningly devised fables, but was given by inspiration of God!!!” My parents were stunned once to see me doing an imitation of this teacher, complete with bulging eyes, bellowing voice, and shaking fist. I had absolutely no idea what any of those words meant.
I wouldn’t recommend this method of indoctrination to anyone, but in my own case it was an important beginning. What I learned was that there were really big ideas with really big words that were of extreme importance to our faith—and that I should get used to wrestling with heavy concepts in my Christian life.
I learned about propitiation, reconciliation, adoption, sanctification, illumination and a host of other “tions”—all from Fundamentalists.
So when I went to college, long complicated outlines of Bible doctrines were not all that new to me. Nor was I surprised—when I went to seminary—to encounter even longer and still more complicated outlines of Bible doctrines. I would have been shocked if it were otherwise.
The attitude that doctrine is extremely important and that believers should expect to put their thinking caps on and wade through it somewhat regularly was an attitude I caught from Fundamentalists.
4. Fundamentalists taught me critical thinking.
The lessons in critical thinking may have been accidental from the point of view of those involved. Their goal was not to teach critical thinking but to argue from Scripture that “Idea A, which you have heard, is not the best way to understand the Scriptures or the issues involved.” The thing is, I had just heard a really compelling case for Idea A in chapel the day before, or in my home, or in a book that was required reading. And often an Idea B that one teacher or pastor held up as a better way to understand the Bible was dismantled pretty effectively some time later by someone making a case for Idea C.
Some might say this kind of conflicting teaching is recipe for confusion, and for some it seems to have turned out that way. But most of the competing views I was hearing on one issue or another were delivered thoughtfully, with serious attention to the relevant Scriptures and without much malice toward those who saw the issues differently.
By behaving this way, the Fundamentalists in my life taught me to expect godly men to disagree and to expect that I would have to do some sorting out of things on my own. They also, in every case, pointed to Scripture as their authority (though with widely varying credibility on that point). The effect was to encourage me not to be critical, but to listen critically and look for the answers in the Book.
5. Fundamentalists taught me to read and write.
The seemingly rules-obsessed, rigidly disciplinarian elementary school teachers at John R. Rice Baptist Academy had us diagramming long, complex sentences in fourth grade. Somehow, they had most of us loving it. I can remember rubbing my hands together with glee at the prospect of digging into another sentence that was longer and more complicated than any I’d diagrammed before. If memory serves, they had given us extremely large pieces of paper so we could fit the whole thing on one sheet.
The same school utterly failed to teach me math! But I thank God for the foundation in readin’ and writin’. These were Fundamentalists who understood well the value of the written word and the importance writing skills would have in our futures. That attitude continued throughout my education.
In high school and college, Fundamentalists encouraged me to read broadly. In seminary, Fundamentalists taught me to read deeply.
I still stink as a reader. But I owe it to Fundamentalists that I’m even aware of that!
6. Fundamentalists taught me the gospel.
Best of all, Fundamentalists taught me the pure, biblical gospel of grace through faith in Jesus Christ. They taught it early, and often, and clearly. Yes, there were some silly songs, some inept illustrations, some less-than-ideal wording—all that. The fact remains that I learned the true gospel, and learned it well, from Fundamentalists.
So, to me, they still have beautiful feet (Rom. 10:15).
Fundamentalists gave me the gospel in its simplicity, but also later taught me its complexity. Fundamentalists taught me what total depravity meant, what imputation meant, what regeneration meant, even what election meant.
7. Fundamentalists taught me to hate legalism.
Some believe I am a “legalist.” After all, I believe rules are very helpful things and that they are often even instrumental in sanctification. But I learned from Fundamentalists that you can keep all the rules and not love God—that you can look the look, and say the words, and have no personal convictions. Fundamentalist preaching taught me to despise the Pharisees with their proud looks and self-righteousness.
Some might consider it a small miracle, but all the same, the people who taught me that we must glorify God in all we do, believe and desire were Fundamentalists.
Conclusion
I don’t know what all this “goes to show,” if anything. I don’t know how common my experience in Fundamentalism is. It feels completely ordinary and “normal” to me. What I do know is that though I could have learned all these things from Conservative Evangelicals (and a few from not-so-conservative ones), I didn’t. In my life, this is not evangelicalism’s legacy; it’s Fundamentalism’s legacy.
Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia, and served in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 7:37am
#2
"Fundamentalisms"
Thanks, Don.
I don't usually publish something without knowing for sure what I'm trying to say and why. But that's the case here. Maybe it's just that I often feel a disjunction between the fundamentalism many are criticizing and the fundamentalism that--for all practical purposes--built me. I don't deny the other exists. Saw plenty of that, too. But "my fundamentalism" exists as well and is every bit as authentically "movement fundamentalism" as the other.
That the movement is now fragmented almost beyond all recogition, I also accept.
I guess I'd agree, too, that the experience I describe in the article is not unique to fundamentalism now (and probably wasn't then). But I tend to think your odds of finding what I experienced are still far better "in" it than "outside of" it.
I left out alot of fundamentalist ugliness. But I really think that's mostly human ugliness and it just takes different shapes and flavors outside the movement. The quantity and seriousness of flaws and weaknesses may well be pretty much a constant. So maybe my lack of enthusiasm for the CEs (though I'm not much of a critic of them certainly) is just cynicism.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 9:09am
#3
Great Article!
Aaron,
Your observations hit the nail on the head with me, too.
I think I had a "Eureka" moment when you said this in your response to Don.
I left out alot of fundamentalist ugliness. But I really think that's mostly human ugliness and it just takes different shapes and flavors outside the movement. The quantity and seriousness of flaws and weaknesses may well be pretty much a constant.
The ugliness is not fundamentalism's fault. It's human sinfulness (pride mostly) that is at fault...it justs manifests itself in some particular ways within the fundamentalist context. I hope that people who are thinking of leaving the fundamentalist ranks because of the "ugliness" don't get so enamored with leaving that that aren't able to see the same sins manifesting themselves in whatever other context to which they are attracted--CE, NE, Liberal, Catholic or whatever. Then I hope they, like you (and me with the gentle nudging of your article) renew a thankfulness to God for all the benefits they have received within fundamentalism.
Thanks again for a great heartfelt (can we as fundamentalists do that?
) piece. Made my day.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:27am
#4
Great! I Too Am Thankful
Aaron, that was exceptional! I was raised Roman Catholic and came to the Lord and began attending a truly Bible-oriented fundamental church at age 17. I had many of the same blessings: expository preaching, an emphasis on the importance of language, etc. Our church was particularly blessed; annually, the following would visit and speak: John Walvoord, Henry Morris, John Miles, Bill Currie (the former pastor), and, on one time basises, other major guns: Lloyd Perry, The Feinberg brothers, Irvine Robertson, Fred Dickason, John Whitcomb, and a host of others. These guys were no dummies! The pastor at the time of my conversion was Clinton Foraker, and he was a good man.
With some other branches of fundamentalism being more of a "bundled" package of beliefs and values not necessarily derived from he Bible, and not making great use of the mind, I thought myself blessed to be reached by such a branch of fundamentalism. Not that some rules (which I considered and still consider "silly") were added -- they were; but not as harshly as in other groups.
So I too, along with Aaron, have to say that I am EXTREMELY THANKFUL to have this sort of fundamentalist foundation.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:29am
#5
"I spent the next 10 years of
"I spent the next 10 years of my life in Greenville and the influence of BJU fundamentalism shaped my thinking and philosophy along the lines you mention in your article."
Shouldn't the Bible do that for you? Instead of some flavor of Chrisitianity? The Bible is what should shape our thinking and philosophy. Nonetheless, Fundamentalism has had a great impact on my life. Appreciated the article.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 12:33pm
#6
Really, Aaron?
I guess I'd agree, too, that the experience I describe in the article is not unique to fundamentalism now (and probably wasn't then). But I tend to think your odds of finding what I experienced are still far better "in" it than "outside of" it.
Aaron, this statement absolutely floored me. It strikes me that most of the things you listed are either exceptions to the rule in Fundamentalism or were imported from outside Fundamentalism. Now, I'm not comparing Fundamentalism vs. Everybody Else, but Fundamentalism vs. specific groups.
1. Expository Preaching
There are vast swaths of Fundamentalism that don't practice this at all, or mean by it only that the sermons come from consecutive parts of the Bible. This is something that mostly came from outside Fundamentalism and that Fundamentalists picked up late in the game. For example, who writes the preaching textbooks they use at BJU/Sem.? Also, at BJU, I noticed that the faculty were generally expository but that the visiting preachers, especially the older ones, tended not to be. In any case, I'm sure you would find much more consistent expository practice and method if you were in Dallas Seminary, Lutheran, or Reformed circles.
2. Original Languages
What Fundamentalist, other than Randy Leedy, is doing any substantive work in original languages? Maybe there is somebody, and I'd love to know that. But even if we're talking about the average pastor, I think it highly unlikely that Fundamentalism outshines other groups in original language priority or proficiency. Remember, there are some Fundamentalists who believe that the KJV corrects the original languages, and a bunch more that believe the KJV renders them somewhat redundant. Even outside that segment, there are anti-intellectual strains that view learning Hebrew as a distraction to soul-winning or real pastoral work. I don't think Fundamentalist pastors would compare well with my denomination, the PCA. Just to be licensed to preach, not ordained, you have to pass basic proficiency exams in both Greek and Hebrew.
3. Doctrine
I'll grant you that Fundamentalism teaches you to watch what you believe, and especially what you say, but won't agree that it teaches very well how to constructively articulate doctrine. Where are the Fundamentalist systematic theologies (complete ones, not McCune's)? Is there even one Fundamentalist theology work that is widely recognized outside Fundamentalism? I would say that most Fundamentalist families have a thorough training in English Bible content and even verse memory, but I don't know if that transfers to doctrinal understanding.
4. Critical Thinking
I simply can't see how this would be better in Fundamentalism than other places. Many non-Fundamentalist schools actually require courses in formal logic and history of philosophy. Do any Fundamentalist schools even have a major in philosophy?
5. Read and Write
That's a private school thing, not a Fundamentalist thing.
6. The Gospel
I can't even comment on this without losing my temper.
7. Legalism
There are lots of Fundamentalists who aren't legalists, but I have a hard time believing that Fundamentalism encourages hatred of legalism more than other conservative Christian groups. In fact, I think the suggestion is bizarre.
So, I guess I disagree with you entirely. I agree that sin is everywhere, and so are systemic problems. But I think life outside of movement Fundamentalism is much, much better.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 12:38pm
#7
MichaelC wrote: "I spent the
"I spent the next 10 years of my life in Greenville and the influence of BJU fundamentalism shaped my thinking and philosophy along the lines you mention in your article."
Shouldn't the Bible do that for you? Instead of some flavor of Chrisitianity? The Bible is what should shape our thinking and philosophy. Nonetheless, Fundamentalism has had a great impact on my life. Appreciated the article.
Are you acquainted with the notion of discipleship?
What do you think the point of Eph 4.11-17 is?
Why try to make a cheap point out of a testimony of thankfulness to God's grace in my life?
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 1:04pm
#8
Shorter List
I note this not at all to discredit Aaron's experience. Would that mine had been so rich. Still, I thank God for one overarching lesson I learned from the fundamentalists who raised me: a high view of Scripture. While I did not grow up with expository preaching, an appreciation for the original languages, a particularly coherent and studied doctrine, critical thinking (until college), the (full) gospel, or a hatred of (practical) legalism, the high view of Scripture with which they imbued me prepared me for these and many other lessons further down the road.
FWIW, fundamentalists also (indirectly) taught me another important lesson. Almost a decade ago, John Hannah was teaching a church history seminar at the church to which I then belonged. After his description of a view of church history held by some fundamentalists, I sought him out and said "I can't believe some people believe that, they are . . . ." To his credit, and my shame, he cut me off and finished my sentence "dear brothers and sisters in Christ." So that lesson on the unity of the body of Christ and the preciousness of those bought with His blood fittingly came to me courtesy of both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 1:47pm
#9
Thank Aaron
I appreciate your essay, Aaron. I did not come into Fundamentalism until my teen years, the points you bring out were indicative of those years. Your point of the "ugliness" of Fundamentalism is well noted. For indeed it is the sinful nature of us all that has so marred us as humans created in the image of God. Far too many, I beileve, forget that every Christian, whether Fundamentalist or CE or whatever, still has that sinful nature residing within us and at any given moment will seek to find prominence.
Thank you.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 1:58pm
#10
Don Johnson wrote:
MichaelC
"I spent the next 10 years of my life in Greenville and the influence of BJU fundamentalism shaped my thinking and philosophy along the lines you mention in your article."
Shouldn't the Bible do that for you? Instead of some flavor of Chrisitianity? The Bible is what should shape our thinking and philosophy. Nonetheless, Fundamentalism has had a great impact on my life. Appreciated the article.
Are you acquainted with the notion of discipleship?
What do you think the point of Eph 4.11-17 is?
Why try to make a cheap point out of a testimony of thankfulness to God's grace in my life?
I understand what you are trying to say with Eph 4:11-17, I was not trying to make a cheap point. I guess I would have said, " The Bible helped shape my thinking and philosophy through what I learned at BJU. I just what to make sure people are not placing a place over The Word. I hope no offense was taken.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 2:08pm
#11
Agree with Charlie
I agree with the thrust of Charlie's post, and I'd like to note that a lot of the books and resources that Fundies are using to teach aren't Fundy resources...they're Evangelical ones. Other that DBTS's excellent book(s), has anyone even attempted to put out a book on Systematic Theology? Most Fundy books are on one of two topics - separation or Christian Living. Sure, BJ Press also does a lot more, but almost every single textbook that I've needed, esp. in Seminary at Bob Jones, came from the CE camp [MacArthur in particular].
Joseph knocks Fundamentalism often for it's poor scholarship. While I don't think that it's the be-all end-all of what a Fundy does, it certainly would seem that Fundamentalists need to improve in that regard.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 2:40pm
#12
Bravo
Bravo! I found your article most refreshing and encouraging. While I certainly share the concerns of many others, I-- like you--have been richly blessed by the best of fundamentalism. My (perhaps naive) desire is that we can improve the segment of fundamentalism which best represents biblical Christianity by standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before.
JCV
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 2:41pm
#13
Scholarship = Books?
I'm interested in these responses to Aaron's fine article--especially from the readers who ask why fundamentalist scholars have not written more books that are well regarded outside the fundy camp.
1. In the past ten years many fundamentalist professors have been published in academic journals, have presented at mainstream academic conferences, and have contributed to anthologies, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. Too numerous to mention, really.
2. I'm not sure I'd use "published books" as a gold standard to evaluate fundamentalist scholarship. But if the complaint is that fundys have not produced book-length theological works published by Famous Academic Publishers, hang on for a bit before nailing that coffin shut.
3. The best fundy scholars have devoted their lives to reproducing themselves via their classroom teaching ministry. Not writing. The best way to sample fundy scholarship is to sit under the classroom teaching of Myron Houghton, Kevin Bauder, Paul Hartog, John Hartog, Larry Pettegrew, Mike Grisanti, Rolland McCune, et al. And perhaps one could observe that their ministries have been devoted to producing pastors, missionaries, and church planters--not scholars who are well regarded by the academy.
Having said that, do we need more books that make a credible defense of our core values--books that are aimed at seminary students and scholars, rather than the Sunday School class?
Yes, we do.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 2:41pm
#14
Whose God?
Aaron:
I appreciate the post very, very much. It reflects much of my experience too. We often criticize what we are most familiar with but we have to remind ourselves that God sovereignly uses all things to grow us spiritually and work out His good in our lives. For most of us here that has been largely in Fundamentalism. My father long ago pointed me to Hebrews 11:16 which tells us: "But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city." We all need this balance and I thank you again for providing it this week
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 2:54pm
#15
KevinM wrote: I'm interested
I'm interested in these responses to Aaron's fine article--especially from the readers who ask why fundamentalist scholars have not written more books that are well regarded outside the fundy camp.
1. In the past ten years many fundamentalist professors have been published in academic journals, have presented at mainstream academic conferences, and have contributed to anthologies, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. Too numerous to mention, really.
2. I'm not sure I'd use "published books" as a gold standard to evaluate fundamentalist scholarship. But if the complaint is that fundys have not produced book-length theological works published by Famous Academic Publishers, hang on for a bit before nailing that coffin shut.
3. The best fundy scholars have devoted their lives to reproducing themselves via their classroom teaching ministry. Not writing. The best way to sample fundy scholarship is to sit under the classroom teaching of Myron Houghton, Kevin Bauder, Paul Hartog, John Hartog, Larry Pettegrew, Mike Grisanti, Rolland McCune, et al. And perhaps one could observe that their ministries have been devoted to producing pastors, missionaries, and church planters--not scholars who are well regarded by the academy.
Having said that, do we need more books that make a credible defense of our core values--books that are aimed at seminary students and scholars, rather than the Sunday School class?
Yes, we do.
Hi KevinM-
Please don't get me wrong - I'm thankful for (some of) what I've taken away from Fundies. Like Aaron said, some of it is what you get and in what circles your Fundy experience is. Hyles Fundyism isn't the same as BJ Fundamentalism, for example. I've touched both spheres myself.
My problem is that a lot of the 'heavy lifting' for Fundamentalist thought and discussion, at least in my point of view, comes from the works of Cons. Evangelicals. That's a big problem, esp. if CE's really are to be avoided and marked as false teachers [which is a point of view that I happily reject]. If Fundy learning and teaching is so critical to the movement, then why are we farming out the important work of developing pedagogical materials, esp. on the college and seminary levels? And why are we screaming that Evangelicals are the 'enemy'? Bauder is [AFAIK] the only real Fundy leader that is trying to do anything like this, and yet some are ready to disfellowship him for it. Frankly, we need more Bauders!
Do you see the Gordian knot here?
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 2:55pm
#16
Balance
It seems wholly appropriate to acknowledge one's debts and express one's gratitude for positive formative influences.
I don't think such acknowledgements and expressions have any intrinsic argumentative value. They can acquire rhetorical or polemic force, however, by the context in which they are expressed. Thus if one speakers mounts a podium and flails someone's hometown while praising another city, and then the next speaker offers a heartfelt expressions of gratitude and acknowledgement of debt to the previously abused hometown, it's quite obvious, irrespective of intentions, that the function of such a speech is polemic and indirectly argumentative.
The power of such a speech would be (at least) twofold. First, insofar as it was primarily anecdotal, it cannot be denied or refuted in any straighforward sense. Second, because its primary force is performative, not conceptual, its effect can aptly be compared to a man who, hearing his favorite clothing company besmirched, jaunts unto a stage, wearing clothes from that company that appear excellent and decidedly not besmirchable, thus showing, rather than saying, that the besmircher has gotten something important wrong.
If the person's particular set of clothes are shown to be exceptional, or our hometown lover's experience to be unusual, then the rhetorical force of the performance is mitigated, with the implication that the performance involved a perhaps unintentional misjudgment by the performer of the performance's significance. It could still signify, suggesting, perhaps, why some people are happy to wear these clothes that seem generally to be quite shabby, or why some people love that old town, even if does deserve the abuse it received.
This is always beneficial, since humans tend to perceive imbalance too quickly, having a difficult time conceptually balancing out a real experience with intellectual mitigating factors that would check how they interpret their experiences (e.g. I know, in my head, some of those clothes must be nice, but all the ones I've felt are so crummy....). Unfortunately, we normally need to actually experience both things to genuinely believe in their importance and see the balance they entail in our interpretation of the world.
So, a toast to balance...(I'm drinking coffee)
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 3:03pm
#17
On fundamentalists and their writing...
While not necessarily completely disagreeing with Charlie it would be fair to note that many theological works came out of institutions that were fundamental at the time they were written. Much of the stuff that came out of Dallas (Chafer's Systematic, Things to Come, etc) was written when Dallas would have been part of the fundamentalist orbit (same for the stuff coming out of Grace and possibly even some coming out of Westminster). So some of the critique of not having scholarly works produced is a more recent development which the folks at DBTS and Central are trying to correct (though not without some difficulty since the major publishing houses are now thoroughly evangelical at best and typically more concerned with $ than theology. So they recognize that fundy works will not have a significant enough readership to pay off, thus making it nearly impossible to get published without scrubbing the work first from any separatistic elements). Another mitigating factor is that many of fundamentalism's thinkers are so engaged in the classroom/pulpit that writing something substantive/worthwhile is just not feasible, especially when much of the stuff coming from the C.E. side of things is so good. That in and of itself may be a weakness of our movement, but it is the reality nonetheless.
I have seen enough of both (or all three?) sides of the aisle to realize that good and bad preaching, good and bad theology, etc are no respecters of persons and movements. I remember hearing a mp3 of David Wells where he described a project where he had all the pastors in the town where he teaches send a transcript of their sermons - something like half had nothing to do with the text that was used, nor really of the Bible at all, a remaining quarter or more had nothing to do with the text yet were biblical in content and less than a quarter were both biblical in content and tied to the text used. And those were not Fundamentalist churches. If you listen to the guys who are the leaders of the Conservative Evangelical camp, how many of them make passionate appeals for expository preaching and lament its absence. Let's not think that they are just (even?) looking at fundamentalist churches. Sometimes our perspective is skewed because we only see the top 5-10 preachers of evangelicalism. 90% of non-fundamentalist preachers wouldn't hold a candle to them either (just as 90%+ fundies can't).
I would join Aaron in expressing my thanks to those in our camp who showed charity and gratitude to those outside our movement while consistently exhibiting solid preaching and doctrine and ministerial wisdom. I don't know whether percentage wise they are the majority, but then again I don't know whether percentage wise the solid guys in the other camp are the majority either, in fact I tend to doubt it. As Dr. Doran expressed recently: why don't we just endeavor to do all that we feel the Bible requires us to do and show charity when possible to those that think we have gone too far or not far enough, even if those disagreements may limit our ability to work side by side.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 3:23pm
#18
Different experiences
Charlie,
I tend to see the landscape in terms of my own experience as you see in light of yours. It would very, very interesting to see some thorough research to measure just how common or uncommon my own experience in fundamentalism is. But I don't think we have that data yet. Part of the perception factor is that the kinds of fundamentalists I've described here are very quiet people. They're not big shots for the most part, not making headlines, if I listed them all, most would be people most readers have not heard of.
It's easy to gauge the "norm" of a group of people by what stands out the most... but what stands out is, almost by definition, not the norm. The normal stuff disappears into the rest of the normal stuff and doesn't get noticed.
I'm just saying that nobody's really measured--as far as I know--how much real, godly, well-trained, NT ministry is quietly going on among fundamentalists every day completely unnoticed. Maybe it's a minority. Maybe not.
About the books and other influences on the fundamentalists I sat under: There's no question that they were influenced by non-fundamentalists in their own studies. But that's pretty much my point in part of the article: they read widely and encouraged me to read widely.
It wasn't my aim to suggest that fundamentalists learning only from fundamentalists trained me in such a way that I learned only from fundamentalists. Far from it. It's not like I didn't hear all the things they taught me from several places "outside" the movement as well (eventually). But the people who actually did the pastoring and teaching were all fundamentalists. I got it all from them first.
So I guess I'm just jabbing at the stereotype a little bit because the fundamentalists who influenced me were not narrow-minded, ignorant, xenophobic, obscurantist, power-hungry, arrogant or any of that. (Not that those were ever very far away, but when you have them side by side with guys who are living the real deal, it's pretty easy to decide who to pay attention to. The goof balls became mostly invisible. I'd see them and hear them but they seemed like cartoon characters... still do.)
Edit: just hit me that several of the less admirable types remind me a lot of Yosimite Sam.... "I hates neos!"
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 3:53pm
#19
Thankful for fundamentalism.
This article sets forth much that we need to remember. Thank you Aaron.
May I point out that there has been a gradual evolution with Fundamentalism and the term Fundamentalist. As for Systematic theologies by Fundamentalists; both Bancroft and Theissen were Fundamentalists. Lewis Sperry Chafer was a Fundamentalist. John Walvoord was a Fundamentalist and member of the IFCA even when it was more Fundamental. Preeminent OT and Hebrew scholar Charles Feinberg was a Fundamentalist. J Vernon McGee was a Fundamentalist as was Charles Woodbridge, Griffith Thomas, Alva J McClain, John C. Whitcomb, and many others. Robert Thomas is a Fundamentalist. Many come to mind but not enough time or space.
When I attended Biola college (University) from 1962 to 1966 most on the Bible faculty considered themselves other than New Evangelical. Westmont College and Fuller Seminary were considered as not sound and not recommended. The President was Samuel Sutherland, a graduate of Princeton Seminary, and one who withdrew from the United Presbyterians. He considered himself as a Fundamentalist and against New Evangelicalism. Things were starting to change though and of course today the school is moderate Evangelical but more conservative than some schools.
As we look back on historic Fundamentalism there were some very good scholars. The Dispensational theology became popular as a more Biblical theology that appealed to grass roots Fundamentalism. The more philosophical European forms of Calvinism found in Puritan and Reformed theology were set aside by many for that which appeared to interpret the scriptures more plainly and acknowledged the place of Israel. It must be remembered that the invention of the Gutenberg press in 1450 eventually placed the scriptures into the hands of other than the clergy. It took two centuries and a new land but this eventually started a grass roots ability to approve of the clergy teachings. This took hold in England and Ireland but especially in the 19th century in America. The result was a systematizing of a Biblical interpretation and theology which we call Dispensational Theology and with the Pre Tribulation rapture. The setting forth of these view points freed Christianity from the medieval and Augustinian prejudices that still clung to the theology of the Reformers. Fundamentalism was not only a reaction to liberalism but a popularizing of a more common sense approach to the scriptures and to Theology. There were eventually many scholars who set forth books on prophecy and different aspects of Doctrine. Dallas Seminary, Moody, Biola, Philadelphia college of the Bible, and many more, were grass roots Dispensational schools that arose from the soil of grass roots Fundamentalism. They also increasingly produced scholars who would defend their viewpoints.
I am thankful to Fundamentalism for the Bible centered teaching and many good Bible teaching expositors it has produced. They are too many to name. J Vernon McGee was a graduate of a Presbyterian Seminary in Atlanta, Georgia and then went on to get the THM and THD from Dallas. He told me that you could make it through most Presbyterian Seminaries, even the best and most conservative, without hardly opening your Bible. At Dallas he was challenged to exegete the scriptures themselves to prove every doctrine. He was a great Expositor. When you hear him on radio he was sitting at a desk in a small room and just talking. In the Pulpit he was a powerful expositor .He opposed Fuller Seminary and the rising New Evangelicalism. I had many personal conversations with him. He was a good friend and example of Biblical ministry. He was an old line Fundamentalist.
I am thankful to Fundamentalism for producing Bible centered scholars and such Godly men of the past. The problem today is that many who call themselves Fundamentalists, and who are readily called that by Evangelicals, do not stand in the path of the old line historic Fundamentals. The KJVO heresy, the decisional numbers count soul winning, the lack of education or inferior schooling, the use of phony degrees, and much, much more has robbed the term Fundamentalism of its broader historic meaning and sound grass roots doctrine. There was a normal more literal approach to the Bible, in depth expository Bible teaching, discernment and exposure of error, wisdom in associations in ministry, and Godly living based on the disciplines of grace. These were all hallmarks of much of the movement. Yes there were problems and problem personalities. They did not abrogate the broader movement and the much good.
I am thankful mainly for the influence Historic Fundamentalism, not Conservative Evangelicalism, moderate Evangelicalism, New Evangelicalism, or Reformed. Those others may from time to time have something of value that is helpful and needful. However, I am especially thankful for historic fundamentalism.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 4:20pm
#20
A good recent theology that is complete (or will be).
By the way, the First two volumes on Systematic Theology by Rolland McCune are out. It is not exhaustive or wordy but is complete. Berkhof does not cover Bibliology and is no more exhaustive than McCune. Millard Erickson covers too many contemporary views, some of which have come and gone in popularity and is too wordy .Not tight or concise. i would also say that McCune's theology is, and will be, as complete as Grudem and Reymond and more complete by far than Theissen or Bancroft. It is Biblical and not attempting to be philosophical. Robert D. Culver has put out the most complete and exhaustive recent theology but he does not handle Bibliology. Hodge also ommits Bibliology. Overall, it would appear that McCune handles the course of Systematics in a way that attempts to be Biblical and complete but not exhaustive or philosophical. It is very good. Just my opinion.
As for a work being published by a recognized publisher, who is that? In this day and age many Christian publishers have been sold to larger non Christian groups and the publishing field is in flux. The line of recognized v. non recognized publishers has been blurred. Some writers recognize that they may make more money self publishing and contract distributing than through a contract publisher.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 4:23pm
#21
The Atom Bombing of Fundamental Scholarship
When asking the question
"Why isn't there more scholarly books coming from Fundamental Baptists?"
One answer is the liberal\modernist\neo-orthodox take over of the mainline seminaries by the late 40s created a toxic wasteland in academia for such men. Yes, men like B. Myron Cedarholm, M. James Hollowood, Richard Weeks, Richard Clearwaters, et al. were the last of their breed to graduated from the Northern Baptist Convention schools. But after them, there were few decent schools for their successors to go to for doctoral training.
It's taken a couple of generations for Fundamentalist to regenerate their cadre of scholars. Yes, there are those who reject the need for academic research and writing. And I leave them to their self limited menu selection. Our Lord told Peter to feed his sheep. I like to think He meant Peter to set a table with all the varieties of food he could cook up. To do so, takes time to research the variuos dishes and cooking techniques.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 4:33pm
#22
Herein Lies the Problem with Fundamentalism Today
Aaron,
I appreciated your article and experiences. Would to God I had had the same experience in "fundamentalism". I still happily identify with theological fundamentalism, but have found the extreme fundamentalist clique in which I was reared to be even more extreme today and yet, quite alive and kicking among those who identify themselves as such. While they loudly proclaimed their fundamentalism and lifted similar icons of fundamentalism as you have cited from time to time, my personal experiences were almost the polar opposite.
1. Expository Preaching? -- I was taught that expository preaching will quote -- "destroy a church". That it was to be avoided, not embraced. Thus, I was constantly plied with opinion posing as preaching. I learned the art and power of expository preaching from men who were derided by fundamentalists as "new evangelicals" and "liberals".
2. Original Languages? -- If you mean that the Lord delivered the Word of God in Old English about the time of the early 1600's, then I would agree -- otherwise, I frequently heard people abuse scripture made archaic in English by the passage of time or flatly mistranslated rather than explore the original languages.
3. Mindful of Doctrine? -- I didn't learn good doctrine until I studied it on my own. I was taught the "whats" but never the "whys" of why doctrine was essential and even then, doctrine was emphasized at a small degree compared to "Christian Living" which dealt with everything from "standards" to "separation" to extra-Biblical diatribes on specific areas of Christian conduct.
4. Critical Thinking? -- I don't see how this can be the case when most every fundamentalist institution I know of has a list of "thou shalt not reads" that would have caused disciplinary action to be taken against students. At one college I attended, reading a book by John MacArthur would have resulted in the same penalty as reading a Playboy. The Sword of the Lord actively edited the Calvinism out of Spurgeon's messages. I could not read books by Wiersbe, (ironically) Ruckman, Swindoll and others without getting in BIG trouble. I actually read some author's under my covers at night with a flashlight so I would not be caught. Today's young people WILL read people like McClaren, Warren, et. al. -- the question is only whether they will read it under the tutelage of a professor who teaches them to read with discernment or on their own with minds wide open having not been taught to "eat the meat and spit out the bones." To ask the impolitic question was to be labeled as a questionable or problematic -- effectually shutting down a key component of learning and discerning.
5. Read and Write? -- Quite the opposite....I survived a mediocre Christian day school education only to attend an even more academically deficient fundamentalist college. My love for learning was due to what many considered a "rebellious" thirst for reading broadly and debating with those who weren't afraid to discuss key topics. I sat in one college course and filled a noteback with HUNDREDS (no exaggeration) of historical errors spouted by the "professor". Had I dared to challenge some of his lack of knowledge, I would have been disciplined for showing disrespect to authority. Today, the students I teach are actively googling my quotes, pronunciation and facts for accuracy and are free to correct and challenge me -- and I love that. It keeps all of us honest and engaged. The two colleges where I earned my first two degrees were unaccredited and for good reason -- they couldn't have earned it. Yet, it was considered to be a "spiritual" position. Balderdash. Those degrees have been a professional albatross around my neck for over a quarter of a century and I had to work to get into a graduate school where I could actually earn an accredited degree at last.
6. The Gospel? -- I was taught a level of easy-believism that would make a Catholic blush. Say the magic prayer and you had instant fire insurance. Drawn by the Spirit? -- not reliable, instead shake your head up and down while witnessing to get a positive reception for saying the magic prayer. Repentance? That's just a synonym for "works". Finney is alive and well in many fundamentalist churches and schools.
7. Legalism? -- It was an artform in my circles. And lest someone argue that "real" legalism is about salvation through works, can we PLEASE agree or at least acknowledge that there are very few terms that are confined to a single definition/application? The external legalism of fundamentalism created in me an appalling sense of self-righteousness and an obnoxious critical spirit that grieved God and wounded good people. It was a key component to the fundamentalism I knew.
It was refreshing to me, when as an adult I learned, that historic theological fundamentalism had very little to do with the movement in which I had been educated. Doran's blog post of a few days ago nailed what fundamentalism has become.
I'm delighted, Aaron, for what you experienced and gained from fundamentalism. But herein lies the problem with fundamentalism today -- which branch/camp/school/church/group/fellowship/association etc... are we referencing? My experience has taught me that far more grew up in the kind I just described than yours.
That said, I have no intention of abandoning the core of our orthodoxy. I've simply lost hope that fundamentalism as a "movement" will change in my lifetime, something to which I aspired to be a part for many years. Instead, I've reached the point in my life where I'm able to interact with folks who appreciate the qualities and accomplishments you mentioned in your list and who, at the same time, reject the baggage of the so-called "movement.
Thanks for the stimulating read. As always I respect your work and your heart.
Dan
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 4:48pm
#23
Thanks Aaron
Wow, an article positive on Fundamentalism! Amazing. Refreshing. With full admission of the errors of Fundamentalists past and present, and full recognition that Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran are probably right about the movement, I appreciate having someone say the things you have said, Aaron.
For Jay C: I have published a book on a minor area of Systematic Theology. Give me your address. I will send you a free copy. Not a best-seller, but I think a worthy contribution to the subject. Endorsed by Earl Radmacher, who is not usually tagged as a fundamentalist. There is probably more written, or being written than most realize.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 5:04pm
#24
The split
I think many here do not recognize the differences between those of us who have our spiritual roots in the northern Baptists and those who came out of the southern Baptists. The elements Aaron cites are standard for us northerners. (an example of expository preaching would be the homiletic training Dr. Richard Weeks gave to the pastoral study students at Maranatha BBC). This leaves those who have only experienced the fundamentalism of what I call the East Texas variety shaking their heads in wonderment.
FIW, it is said of Dr. M. James Hollowood that he read his morning NT devotions out of his Greek New Testament. Mind you he was a TR man, but he did read the original language with out any compunctions.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 7:46pm
#25
I agree with Aaron on this one
I'm also of those who gained a great appreciation for the things that Aaron has mentioned within fundamentalism.
Evangelicalism does not have more right than we to celebrate the things that were mentioned. Theology has been much more of a problem in the evangelical circles I have encountered due to the emphasis on contemporary music, some of which is theologically sound, but much of which is not.
I was encouraged because SI sometimes seems to be a place for people to air their gripes against fundamentalism. Francis Schaeffer stated that he ran into many evangelicals who had gripes against something in fundamentalism, but often it was because of 1-2 particular taboos that they wanted to participate in. I've been encouraged to see people who have spent good chunks of their lives in evangelical churches re-examine fundamentalism in reality, not the straw man that has been portrayed so many times.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 8:03pm
#26
Aaron Blumer
Charlie,
I tend to see the landscape in terms of my own experience as you see in light of yours. It would very, very interesting to see some thorough research to measure just how common or uncommon my own experience in fundamentalism is. But I don't think we have that data yet.
I agree, and I don't dispute that you gained all of those things in Fundamentalism, and that you can find them there. In fact, I'm glad that you appreciate your heritage so much and that you chose those things to appreciate. I'm grateful for some of my Fundamentalist upbringing, mostly the extreme sports approach to Bible memory. I only responded negatively because of your later comment about being more likely to find those things inside Fundamentalism than outside. You can cheer on your team all you want, but when you say they can beat up my team, you've just invited disagreement. You may be cynical about outside groups, but I'm quite content with the grass on my side of the fence. All the things I liked in movement Fundamentalism I see here in more abundance.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 8:33pm
#27
Thanks for the article,
Thanks for the article, Aaron. For the most part, I gained the things you mentioned or an appreciation for the things you mentioned in the fundamentalism in which I grew up--that of the GARBC stripe.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 9:39pm
#28
Charlie wrote:
I agree, and
I agree, and I don't dispute that you gained all of those things in Fundamentalism, and that you can find them there. In fact, I'm glad that you appreciate your heritage so much and that you chose those things to appreciate. I'm grateful for some of my Fundamentalist upbringing, mostly the extreme sports approach to Bible memory. I only responded negatively because of your later comment about being more likely to find those things inside Fundamentalism than outside. You can cheer on your team all you want, but when you say they can beat up my team, you've just invited disagreement. You may be cynical about outside groups, but I'm quite content with the grass on my side of the fence. All the things I liked in movement Fundamentalism I see here in more abundance.
Where is "here" though? Couldn't someone argue that your experience of "here" is as unusual in evangelicalism as my experience was/is in Fundamentalism? (Though, as I said before, I don't know how unusual it is).
As for my comment, I said "I tend to think..." Which I do. Given that I've already said several times that I don't know how common my experience was/is, it would be contradictory for me to say that I know or strongly believe that "your odds of finding what I experienced are still far better 'in' it than 'outside of' it."
But I do still "tend to think" so.
The reason is that my experience is familiar and first hand, and the alternatives are sort of theoretical from my POV.
It's a fact that fundamentalism has many flavors and some of them stink. I'm not denying that. The article is really just a reminder that some of them don't stink. Some of them have just about everything to offer that the best of the CEs have to offer (minus the publishing output, unfortunately, but also minus the problems with a couple of doctrines and with relationships to apostates, fortunately).
I would never have written an article like this 20 years ago, because at the time, all I was hearing was how wonderful fundamentalism is and how rotten all the alternatives are. But with the new freedom and self-criticism that has emerged in fundamentalism in the last decade or so (and whole lot of freedom to criticize fundamentalism here at SI in the last five yrs), well... it's just not the same old "let's all break our arms patting ourselves on the back" club it used to be--at least not around here!
No, we're not in much danger of becoming a Fundamentalist mutual admiration society here any time soon.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 10:08pm
#29
Mixed emotions
Thanks Aaron, for your good and thought-provoking article.
I guess I fall somewhere between Aaron and Charlie/Dan Burrell.
In my 25 years in "movement fundamentalism," I believe I have seen some of the very best and some of the very not-so-best it has to offer.
I agree with Greg Long in that I find lots of kindred spirits in the GARBC. In my experience, I have found it to offer a very healthy variety of fundamentalism along with the opportunity to rub shoulders with some truly great folks of the "historic fundamentalism" type.
On the other end of the spectrum are the high-jumping songleader, the preachers who warned against seminary and the use of commentaries, the fellow who mocked the "hyperstatic" union, etc., etc.
Charlie does raise some valid and inescapable points in post #6. The glories of "historic fundamentalism" notwithstanding, the harsh reality is that many, many "movement fundamentalist" pastors simply could not engage in full-time ministry in most conservative (and some liberal) Protestant denominations based on their lack of academic credentials, proficiency in the original languages, etc.
However, this may be more of an "independent church" problem than a "movement fundamentalism" problem. Pick an IFCA, Ev. Free, CMA or community church out of the phone book some Sunday morning and wander in. Rather than finding "John MacArthur" or "David Jeremiah"-Jr. in the pulpit, you are more likely to find a (likely under-educated) fellow who may be anything from a legalist to seeker sensitive to borderline-emergent.
Fundamentalism does not own the corner on church problems -- though we do contribute a healthy share of them. 
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 12:42am
#30
Aaron Blumer wrote:
Where is
Where is "here" though? Couldn't someone argue that your experience of "here" is as unusual in evangelicalism as my experience was/is in Fundamentalism? (Though, as I said before, I don't know how unusual it is).
Aaron, thanks for the article but I do have to lean towards Charlie on the "here" statement. If we take all the "conservative evangelical" seminaries like Dallas, Grace, Moody, Master's, TEDS, Gordon-Conwell, the Big Six, etc., and add up all the graduates that were pumped out as the Mohler/Dever type and compare that to the Bauder/Doran type that come out of Central, Central-East, Maranatha, BJU, Faith, Detroit, Calvary-Lansdale, Northwest, Shepherd's seminaries, I believe that the "exception" you experienced within Fundamentalism is more of a common ground within CE circles..
Illustration: In general, NCAA Div I schools have better basketball teams than your average NCAA Div III schools. Why? NCAA Div I schools have greater numbers to pick from and better resources to work with.
Thoughts?
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 7:23am
#31
Thanks for the article,
Thanks for the article, Aaron.
\
I also grew up in a more balanced fundamentalism, with a lot of GARB influence (but not entirely). I saw the other side, but was most influenced by the expository preaching, gospel preaching types. I was exposed to the other, but not not until I was a teenager and thought most of their 'oddities' to be just that--strange.
It was nice to read something positive about fundamentalism for a change.
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 8:08am
#32
Having spent all of my
Having spent all of my growing up years in the Southern Baptist movement before moving into fundamentalism I think it is always good to realize that the mainstream of any movement can often be much different than the few well known examples. While I benefit from and enjoy the writings of some of the conservative evangelicals today they do not represent the churches I grew up in. Had I grown up with Mark Dever as my pastor I probably would not have left my Southern Baptist roots. But my pastors, some good, some not so good, were not of the theological persuasion or ability of a Dever.
I think Aaron's article is important because it at least shows us that within Fundamentalism, a movement some now think is totally inferior to conservative evangelicalism as a whole, really does contain some good and balanced ministries. For those enamored with the Conservative Evangelicals that are glowing in the limelight, you might not find the same quality or even the same perspective in many of the main-line CE churches.
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 11:00am
#33
another factor
Another piece of the puzzle just slipped into place for me (again... it was in place before and slipped out I think). Anyway, one of the factors that inclines some to be more verbally critical the Fundamentalist Movement is that the kind of fundamentalism I describe in the article does seem to be shrinking... and the shallower (but more exciting?) kinds seem to be thriving. Bauder has alluded to that a few times.
A big reason for the perception is that the seminaries that produced several of the men who were my pastors growing up are shrinking and struggling to stay afloat. So if you look at these as "movement institutions," you get the feeling that the worst sort of fundamentalism is on the upswing and the better elements are dwindling away.
That may be true. I wouldn't really know. Seems like some of the better fundamentalist seminaries are doing pretty well... and some of the ones I might think of not the "best" seem to be improving what they do and how they do it. (I don't want to name these, because I'm describing my impressions here and the facts behind my impressions are few and many are second hand).
Anyway... in a movement/former movement like this one--highly decentralized--it's really hard to get a comprehensive, factual handle on trends.
(I would certainly expect guys like Bauder and Doran to have a much better idea of what's happening than I do)
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 12:48pm
#34
My own journey in fundamentalism
I'm thankful for both fundamentalism and evangelicalism. When I was saved at the age of 20 I did not know the difference. Virtually simultaneously I had contact with evangelicals on the campus of the University of Cincinnati and began attending a fundamentalist Baptist church. Actually the contact with a student in the evangelical campus fellowship lead to attendance at her church.
Although I have been a member of fundamentalist Baptist churches for 40 years (with the exception of 3 years when I pastored a fundamentalist Bible Church), I don't see myself as strictly a product of fundamentalism!
With regards to Aaron's points I comment on each
- John MacArthur and James Montgomery Boice taught me expository preaching. I actually regard MacArthur as a fundamentalist
- John MacArthur taught me to appreciate the original languages. Him and my seminary training at Grand Rapids (which most would not regard as fundamentalist)
- Evangelicals and Fundamentalists taught me to be mindful of doctrine. I found some fundamentalists (Hyles, Sword of the the Lord, etc) to be so kooky that I shunned them! I tasted at their well and found it wanting
- I actually did critical thinking before I was saved! Some fundamentalists wanted me to "check my brain at the door"
- I knew how to read and write long before I ever knew what a fundamentalist was.
- Fundamentalists and evangelicals taught me the gospel. I appreciate both!
- I can't say that fundamentalism taught me to hate legalism. Frankly I think that rules based sanctification is part and partial with major parts of fundamentalism. The doctrines of grace clarified the process of sanctification. I wish I could say I learned the doctrines of grace in fundamentalism, but my experiences in fundamentalism is that it (generally) has been hostile to the doctrines of grace.
I don't think anyone is simply a product of fundamentalism! I look at my library and most of the books that have instructed me were written by C/E's
The fundamentalism I appreciate would be:
- The GARBC
- Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary (eg the Faith Pulpit)
- Detroit Baptist (their journal, Doran, and the several professors who blog)
- My church (4th Baptist)
- Central Seminary. I find some of Bauder's "Nick of Times" very helpful
The fundamentalism that I do not appreciate
- The militant for militancy's sake
- The name calling
- The guilt by association
- The labeling without real definition
- The bullying and the pomposity
- The defensiveness about questions
- The worldly utilitarian methodologies
- The Frank Garlock theorem of music (which is addressed here: http://www.philchristensen.com/subpage30.html)
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 1:00pm
#35
More on name calling
If one does not agree completely with Bill Personality, he labels you a FINO (fundamentalist in name only), a neo-evangelical, or a pseudo-fundamentalist.
Conservative Evangelicals seem to be less obsessed with labels!
Doran's comment here http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=280 resonated with me
... work with the guys you do agree with.
AND
Restore the local assembly to the center where God intended it to be. When your local assembly engages in Great Commission work outside its walls, find some folks you agree with and get busy doing it. Unity is built on agreement about the truth, not by politics. Few things are as political as trying to preserve movements once they have fragmented theologically.
As far as I’m concerned, you can have the movements. I want friends and ministry partners who agree on what the Bible teaches about itself, the gospel, the nature and mission of the church, and separation
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 1:25pm
#36
My darkest moments in fundamentalism
Each of these touched me in one way or another
- The Bob Jones rules prohibiting interracial dating and marriage. How it touched me: The 2 Pastors of my first fundamentalist church were BJU grads. "blacks are different" was taught and it was wrong. When I questioned my Pastor he was very defensive. It did not make sense to me in the early 70s. I applaud Steven Jones for repudiating the earlier position.
- The plagiarism of David Otis Fuller and "Which Bible?". Documented here http://www.pilgrimpublications.com/unlearnd.htm. How it touched me: David Otis Fuller was my neighbor while I attended seminary school. I admired the man and bought into the error of KVJOnlism (for a while)
- The Bob Jones - John MacArthur blood of Christ controversy (detailed here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm). How it touched me: I Pastored a church with some very fine BJU grads. They split with me over this.
- The Frank Garlock music theorum: (detailed here: http://www.philchristensen.com/subpage30.html). How it touched me. It has been corrosive and has split many churches!
In each case that one element of Fundamentalism was WRONG
- On race. Answered by AIG "One Blood"
- On KJVOnlism
- Lied about John MacArthur - never retracted or recanted!
- Illogical on music
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 1:33pm
#37
Is it helpful to attempt to
Is it helpful to attempt to define something by one's own experience? Just curious. I could say "Fundamentalism is..." and talk about my experiences over the last dozen or so years, but someone would inevitably come along and disagree with me and my feelings would be hurt.
Charlie: Look up Rodney J. Decker over at BBS in Clark's Summit. His work is cutting edge.
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 1:50pm
#38
Product of fundamentalism
I would agree w/Jim that nobody is a product purely of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism isn't even a product purely of fundamentalism.
It's just that almost everything that's great about the CE's, I saw in particular fundamentalists before I really even knew about any CEs. So I guess the point is not that these things are unique to fundies, but that they are certianly not unique to CEs. There are really only a couple of areas in which they excel beyond the best within fundamentalism: they write alot of great books and they've been in a position to fight some really important battles (in recent times... Open Theism, Emerging Church, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, etc.) that fundamentalists' position away from those particular front lines prevented them from engaging in as directly.
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 2:51pm
#39
A book that I have found very helpful
Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church by Ernest D. Pickering
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 3:31pm
#40
Thanks, Aaron
I too appreciated the article.
I grew up in a GARBC church and attended Faith in Ankeny, IA. There seems to be agreement that this "stripe" (as Greg Long put it) is more positive than other stripes.
However...I have to say I saw a great amount of legalism even there...especially in the areas of music and dress. This has been a big source of frustration to me...and your article was a good reminder to appreciate the wonderful things I have learned.
I think Jim summed it up well with his post. Since I am MUCH younger than he is, I don't recall some of these areas first hand...but I think I read about them in a history book someplace
Each of these touched me in one way or another
- The Bob Jones rules prohibiting interracial dating and marriage. How it touched me: The 2 Pastors of my first fundamentalist church were BJU grads. "blacks are different" was taught and it was wrong. When I questioned my Pastor he was very defensive. It did not make sense to me in the early 70s. I applaud Steven Jones for repudiating the earlier position.
- The plagiarism of David Otis Fuller and "Which Bible?". Documented here http://www.pilgrimpublications.com/unlearnd.htm. How it touched me: David Otis Fuller was my neighbor while I attended seminary school. I admired the man and bought into the error of KVJOnlism (for a while)
- The Bob Jones - John MacArthur blood of Christ controversy (detailed here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm). How it touched me: I Pastored a church with some very fine BJU grads. They split with me over this.
- The Frank Garlock music theorum: (detailed here: http://www.philchristensen.com/subpage30.html). How it touched me. It has been corrosive and has split many churches!
In each case that one element of Fundamentalism was WRONG
- On race. Answered by AIG "One Blood"
- On KJVOnlism
- Lied about John MacArthur - never retracted or recanted!
- Illogical on music
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 5:12pm
#41
GARBC Brothers
I too appreciated the article.
I grew up in a GARBC church and attended Faith in Ankeny, IA. There seems to be agreement that this "stripe" (as Greg Long put it) is more positive than other stripes.
However...I have to say I saw a great amount of legalism even there...especially in the areas of music and dress. This has been a big source of frustration to me...and your article was a good reminder to appreciate the wonderful things I have learned.
I too grew up in the same way that Jamie and Greg did.(GARB church, GARBC summer camp, GARBC VBS, GARBC Potfaiths - because we don't believe in luck, GARBC Talents for Christ, GARBC youth rallies). I did not go to Faith, but many of my family have attended and graduated from there including my father. I completely understand individual's frustration with "fundamentalism" and even in the GARBC. I saw much of the same that Jamie mentioned above. I have been telling people for many years that, while I would not want to go back to the philosophy and practive of my youth, I do appreciate it for the things that Aaron articulated above. (If only I knew to write my article years earlier and post it.)
My frustration lies in the balance of those things that were learned from that, which are primarily TRUTH driven concepts and those ideas which are popular today, which are primarily GRACE driven concepts. (***That is just what I see, I do not have any hard and fast data). Somehow, we have got to swing the TRUTH and GRACE pendulum back to the middle and realize that Jesus came to earth full of BOTH grace and truth. I thought that Randy Alcorn's book "The Grace and Truth Paradox" did a great job of pointing out that need.
I am not really sure if I stayed on topic there, but I did appreciate the article and it does articulate what I believe many have probably felt for some time.
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 8:58pm
#42
Legalism at Faith(?)
I grew up in a GARBC church and attended Faith in Ankeny, IA. There seems to be agreement that this "stripe" (as Greg Long put it) is more positive than other stripes.
However...I have to say I saw a great amount of legalism even there...especially in the areas of music and dress. This has been a big source of frustration to me...and your article was a good reminder to appreciate the wonderful things I have learned.
Jamie,
Being a Faith sem grad, I understand what you are saying, but (and please do not be offended by this) it makes me smile inside.
I have seen things in fundamentalism which would make your hair stand on end -- perhaps you have too. I am not sure I saw an incident at Faith that I would put in that category -- with the possible exception of one or two guest chapel speakers I heard over the course of five years.
Shortly before I left to go to Faith I even received a stern warning from a "movement fundamentalist" brother. Years later a deacon told me he was not sure Faith was a Christian school anymore because of hair length, blue jeans, or some other such nonsense.
I guess legalism is in the eye of the beholder. I know some people in contemporary churches who would be horrified at wearing a sportcoat and tie on Sunday morning or having someone think less of them because it is their practice to wear shorts to play in the church band.
I can say with all honesty that, in God's providence, FBTS is the reason I am still a fundamentalist. If it were not for my experience there, the likelihood is I would have given up on "movement fundamentalism" a long time ago, especially if I had gone to some other type of seminary.
At Faith I learned about historic fundamentalism in an atmosphere where the Bible, theology and a classical theological education always trumped the fundamentalist movement, except as the intersection with it proved helpful. I also learned about the need for levels of separation/cooperation and saw the concept practiced with wisdom and balance.
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 11:37pm
#43
Paul J. Scharf wrote: Jamie
I grew up in a GARBC church and attended Faith in Ankeny, IA. There seems to be agreement that this "stripe" (as Greg Long put it) is more positive than other stripes.
However...I have to say I saw a great amount of legalism even there...especially in the areas of music and dress. This has been a big source of frustration to me...and your article was a good reminder to appreciate the wonderful things I have learned.
Jamie,
Being a Faith sem grad, I understand what you are saying, but (and please do not be offended by this) it makes me smile inside.
I have seen things in fundamentalism which would make your hair stand on end -- perhaps you have too. I am not sure I saw an incident at Faith that I would put in that category -- with the possible exception of one or two guest chapel speakers I heard over the course of five years.
Shortly before I left to go to Faith I even received a stern warning from a "movement fundamentalist" brother. Years later a deacon told me he was not sure Faith was a Christian school anymore because of hair length, blue jeans, or some other such nonsense.
I guess legalism is in the eye of the beholder. I know some people in contemporary churches who would be horrified at wearing a sportcoat and tie on Sunday morning or having someone think less of them because it is their practice to wear shorts to play in the church band.
I can say with all honesty that, in God's providence, FBTS is the reason I am still a fundamentalist. If it were not for my experience there, the likelihood is I would have given up on "movement fundamentalism" a long time ago, especially if I had gone to some other type of seminary.
At Faith I learned about historic fundamentalism in an atmosphere where the Bible, theology and a classical theological education always trumped the fundamentalist movement, except as the intersection with it proved helpful. I also learned about the need for levels of separation/cooperation and saw the concept practiced with wisdom and balance.
I guess I should clarify that statement better, Paul. The legalism that has frustrated me has been seen more in the churches...though was, to some degree, present at faith as well. I want to say that I too LOVED my time at Faith. The spirit of the school was one of humility, servanthood, and a genuine love for God and His Word. What I learned at Faith has given me an incredibly firm foundation of solid doctrine to stand on...and like you, I am who I am due to my time at Faith. I greatly appreciated what I learned from Dr. Myron, Dr. Kober, Dr. Walton, Dr. Hartog(s), Dr. Bob, Mr. Dannenberg...and Dean Crown (godly and loving man!!)...and the list could go on. Not only professors but, in some cases, friends...at least they made me feel that way! (Greg Long will tell you that our ladies treated us to a Sadie Hawkins dinner at Dr. Walton's house...just don't ask him about the blind-folded hand-holding incident--don't worry Greg...I haven't told anybody about it...it's still our secret).
By way of clarification, let me define my understanding of legalism. It's teaching as doctrine the traditions of men...it's holding a preference to the same level as doctrine, then binding others to your preference. At the college level at least the music class had a different...spirit to it. The professor (who will remain nameless, though he is no longer with the school) certainly didn't leave much room for "wiggling." Perhaps the stance of the school was "this is just how we see it" but the class was taught with a "there is no other way of seeing it" spirit. Also, I attended one of the local churches who took the issue to an extreme, IMO. I could give examples, but as I saw it...it was definitely extreme. Since many of the professors attended there, I took this as the stance of the school...again, I may be wrong about that.
Quite honestly, the dress code didn't bother at all while I was there. I was fresh out of basic training and infantry school for the US Army...I felt pretty free (you mean I can PICK what color of pants I wear today!!!) It was the way I heard some pastors in local churches belittle those who dressed differently that frustrated me. I don't believe the school ever taught "This is the only way to dress in church"...as I remember their stance was "this makes better students."
Anyway, I appreciate what you said and agree, for the most part. My overwhelming memories are very fond (except when Greg Long put hamburger in my desert and I ate half of it before I realized it...what a jerk...)
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 8:11am
#44
joke
Anyway, I appreciate what you said and agree, for the most part. My overwhelming memories are very fond (except when Greg Long put hamburger in my desert and I ate half of it before I realized it...what a jerk...)
You obviously learned how to forgive from Fundamentalists... 
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 8:20am
#45
Jamie, I really don't
Jamie, I really don't appreciate your personal attacks against me. Even though they're true.
And oh, the stories we could tell about Jamie.
Anyway, I agree with what both Jamie and Paul are saying.
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 8:27am
#46
GARBC etc.
The first church I attended and joined as a youngster was a GARBC church in Flint, MI. I was baptized there. Our second church--when we moved out into the country--was probably GARBC as well, though I'm not sure. Subsequent churches were not affiliated and the pastors were not trained in "GARBC schools." So the experience of fundamentalism in my article is kind of mixed as far as that goes.
Just thought I'd share that for those interested in that part of it.
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 8:37am
#47
Greg Long wrote:
And oh, the
And oh, the stories we could tell about Jamie.
Sorry, Greg...I do not recall those events...
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 9:42am
#48
thanks!
Taken for what it is, this is a good article... obviously it's completely personal experience, others have different experience - and their stories count for something too.
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 10:10am
#49
Faith
Just to chime into the conversation: When I attended FBBC, in the late 80's I didn't perceive much legalism at all. The purpose of the dress code, for example, was presented as a way to promote good focus and study, not because it is necessarily a scriptural mandate. I didn't have any music classes so I can speak for that. The dress code has been significantly relaxed since then.
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 11:31pm
#50
GARBC v East Texas
It's good to hear from those who did not come out of the East Texas strain of Fundamentalism.
Thu, 03/18/2010 - 7:39am
#51
Greg Long Stories
And, so we don't completely kidnap this thread, does anyone want to start a new thread devoted to Greg Long stories?
Thu, 03/18/2010 - 8:15am
#52
GL stories
Do start it. And post a link. I'm all ears (er....eyes)
Thu, 03/18/2010 - 12:07pm
#53
KevinM wrote:
And, so we
And, so we don't completely kidnap this thread, does anyone want to start a new thread devoted to Greg Long stories?
I've got a lot on Greg...but he's got a lot on me! As fun as that thread would be, the rebuttal thread would be painful...
Thu, 03/18/2010 - 8:41pm
#54
Can Relate
My experience in Fundamentalism is similar to the author's. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 12:11pm
#55
Bravo Blumer
Adam Blumer's article was fair, honest, gracious, done in humility, and in the spirit of The Spirit. May it be that there are many who are encouraged by such a spirit. I would add to my list of things I learned from Fundamentalists the following: a heart for truth, a heart for people, a heart for the Great Commission, a heart for church planting, a heart for evangelism, and a backbone to stand for these things.
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 1:28pm
#56
Jamie Hart wrote:
I too
I too appreciated the article.
[*]The Frank Garlock music theorum: (detailed here: http://www.philchristensen.com/subpage30.html). How it touched me. It has been corrosive and has split many churches!
[/list]
[/list]
Second time that Phil Christensen is referred to. I read his article. I'm not impressed. I don't agree with Garlock, but certainly didn't find the right response with Christensen. Fundamentalism (obviously not every branch, but the kind referred to by the original author) DID give us a serious view of worship, though we find some of the old arguments flawed. This is natural as we are charting through major cultural and social changes over the last 50 years. Biblical worship will encompass embracing new things that may make us uncomfortable, but it will also limit us from embracing things that are worldly and ungodly--something Christensen and broader Evangelicalism seem to ignore.
I'm thankful for the care and importance I was taught regarding worship.
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 1:54pm
#57
We are where we have been
Aaron's article was great. My experience was similar. I grew up in an Evangelical church (not even of the conservative variety), but came under the teaching of a Fundamentalist pastor. He was not a great expositor, but he taught me to love the Word. He had some nutty ideas, but was always willing to discuss (or argue) with me and use the Bible doing it. A Fundamentalist college taught me critical thinking and an appreciation for the Puritans. Did I run into legalism? You betcha. Did I see the excesses of Fundamentalism? Absolutely. Did I have friends get a raw deal? Sure. Is this unique to Fundamentalism? Nope.
In Evangelicalism I heard youth pastors teaching situational ethics to high school kids. I heard senior pastors teaching social gospel. I heard speakers questioning Joshua's Long Day, and Moses' crossing of the Red Sea. I saw enthusiastic stampedes to distribute the Good News for Modern Man.
So after I got out of school I asked myself the question: Do I want to associate with a group known for pharisaic legalism, and circuses disguised as worship services, or with people who put their arms around the shoulders ( or at least tolerate) of the priests of Baal (and call them "brother"), and sacrifice their children to the Moloch of contemporary society?
I have found that the people most consistently faithful to the Word of God tend to be in the Fundamentalist orbit (admittedly a broad generalization), and that's where I want to be. I have high hopes for the CE's. I think, in the long run, their desire for fidelity to the Word is going to force them (or they will be forced) to abandon compromises which have marked Evanglicalism since Okenga's infiltration strategy was defined.
MM
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 11:21pm
#58
Worship
Yeah, could have had an eighth point. Fundamentalists taught me to take worship seriously.... but in that particular case, I think I do owe more to non-fundies. That is, the churches I grew up in were not into making a circus of things, but worship was not all that intentional and thoughtful either. Kind of just rote. BJU was some help here. The Sun. campus service may seem formalistic and stuffy to some but for me what it was was elevated. This was the first place I experienced worship that consciously aimed to elevate the worship time above the normal everyday routine. And elevated worship is something we all need I believe. It's a bit hard to re-created in a rural Baptist setting. If I showed up in robes, they'd all figure I'd blown a gasket.
But we do "elevate" in subtle ways.
In any case, whatever else may be said of worship at BJU, it was no circus!
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 11:35pm
#59
Good thoughts
Aaron: I appreciate your kindly approach to describing the fundamentalism of your youth. Mine was much the same. In fact there was very little to criticize about my personal experiences in the fundamentalism of my youth and college years. Nothing is perfect, but I look back with warm feelings on those more innocent times.
Your article reminded me of a book I read a couple of years ago. I'm traveling out of town, so I may not get the title just right from memory. I think it was called "The Smell of Sawdust." It was written by the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and it described his fundamentalist, dispensationalist upbringing. Though he admits to straying far from his roots, he presents a charitable view of our movement in general. It's an interesting read.
Thank you for being kind to the brave and loving souls of yesteryear who faithfully shepherded me and whose heritage and legacy I seek to honor.
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 5:11pm
#60
Worship services
BJU was some help here. The Sun. campus service may seem formalistic and stuffy to some but for me what it was was elevated. This was the first place I experienced worship that consciously aimed to elevate the worship time above the normal everyday routine. And elevated worship is something we all need I believe.
[...]
In any case, whatever else may be said of worship at BJU, it was no circus!
You too? I was the only person I knew who thought the Sunday Morning worship services at BJ were great. Everyone else I knew thought I was crazy. One guy described it as being washed in Anglicanism! Whatever one may think of their worship services, they certainly did attempt to make worship serious and different from the everyday chapel services.
As regards your whole premise, I guess had a midde-of-the-road experience with fundamentalism growing up. I saw some of the good and some of the abuses. But mostly, I saw in my pastor a humble man, who although he used a lot of the Finney-esque methods that I could no longer agree with, was genuinely interested in holiness, the preaching of the word, and the salvation of the lost in our area, and who had no interest in the "big man on campus" syndrome that infected so much of certain swaths of fundamentalism. I largely credit his life and testimony for my not having the completely negative view of the fundamental "movement" that others of my generation ended up with. Looking back now, I definitely have problems with a lot of what happened in fundamentalism at large, and even some of the things done in our church. But it was obvious to me that in spite of all the problems, God could still work though servants who though flawed themselves, were able with His help to rise above all that.
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 8:18pm
#61
Yesteryear
You too? I was the only person I knew who thought the Sunday Morning worship services at BJ were great. Everyone else I knew thought I was crazy.
I'm not sure how much I appreciated it at the time. I may have been more of a seed planted that I recognized for what it was in my life later on. But I can't remember.
Thank you for being kind to the brave and loving souls of yesteryear who faithfully shepherded me and whose heritage and legacy I seek to honor.
Well, I'm not sure I was talking about them, exactly... but there might be some overlap. As for brave, I never saw any indication that they viewed themselves that way, and it's not the main word that comes to mind when I think of them. Just people who loved the Lord, appreciated His good gifts (including their brains and the brains of their listeners) and cared very much about handling the Bible well. The best of them were (and are) joyful but sober-minded and wise.
Wed, 03/24/2010 - 9:27am
#62
Which fundamentalism?
I'm thankful for the positive influences of fundamentalism. However, when it come to these points, I've seen two separate fundamentalist attitudes.
Expository preaching:
- I was exposed to some great examples and encouraged to learn how to prepare and deliver expository sermons.
- I heard pitiful preaching that called itself expository but was little more than a rambling commentary or preaching that had little or nothing to do with the text.
Original languages:
- I was encouraged to learn and use the original languages and make them my final authority.
- I've heard that study of the original languages was unnecessary. (i.e. The "I know a little Greek and a little Hebrew joke" delivered as a boast.)
Doctrine:
- i was taught to love doctrine and I still am blessed as I read the Westminster Confession, Turretin, etc.. My ordination council involved a 37 page written statement and 5+ hours of questioning.
- I've seen churches whose entire doctrinal statement resembled the BJU creed and ordinations that simply asked the candidate if he believed the Bible. I've been in churches who were violently anti-Calvinistic but whose doctrinal statement was the Philadelphia Confession.
Critical Thinking:
- I've been encouraged to think and reason and question. Thanks to a good course in analysis and criticism of oral rhetoric, I still think "claim and warrant" when I read or listen.
- I've been exposed to leadership that would invite questions but never listen to them and who held to "truths" that were merely traditional fables.
Reading and Writing:
- I've been encouraged to be well-read and well rounded (academically-not physically) and to express myself orally and in writing according to form.
- I've heard liberal arts education condemned and heard preaching that would make grammarians cringe and read articles that wouldn't pass junior high English.
The Gospel:
- I've heard the Gospel preached with power and passion and defined with a doctrinal clarity that a child could understand.
- I've heard a Gospel that has no Biblical foundation but maintains its popularity through repetition.
Fri, 03/26/2010 - 7:15pm
#63
Me too
BJU was some help here. The Sun. campus service may seem formalistic and stuffy to some but for me what it was was elevated. This was the first place I experienced worship that consciously aimed to elevate the worship time above the normal everyday routine. And elevated worship is something we all need I believe.
[...]
In any case, whatever else may be said of worship at BJU, it was no circus!
You too? I was the only person I knew who thought the Sunday Morning worship services at BJ were great. Everyone else I knew thought I was crazy. One guy described it as being washed in Anglicanism! Whatever one may think of their worship services, they certainly did attempt to make worship serious and different from the everyday chapel services.
As regards your whole premise, I guess had a midde-of-the-road experience with fundamentalism growing up. I saw some of the good and some of the abuses. But mostly, I saw in my pastor a humble man, who although he used a lot of the Finney-esque methods that I could no longer agree with, was genuinely interested in holiness, the preaching of the word, and the salvation of the lost in our area, and who had no interest in the "big man on campus" syndrome that infected so much of certain swaths of fundamentalism. I largely credit his life and testimony for my not having the completely negative view of the fundamental "movement" that others of my generation ended up with. Looking back now, I definitely have problems with a lot of what happened in fundamentalism at large, and even some of the things done in our church. But it was obvious to me that in spite of all the problems, God could still work though servants who though flawed themselves, were able with His help to rise above all that.
I was a little shocked my first Sunday at BJU in 1983, but grew to love those services (taking aside the topic of the biblical authority to HAVE the service in place of the local church ). I miss the quietness and reverence before the formal worship and preaching of the Word. Sigh.
In our own way, however, we try to keep the principle of exalting the serious worship of God over the frivolity of our pop culture--even though it may not look like it here in casual California!
Aaron, an excellent piece.
I am sure you may get some bitter nay-sayers who want to hold up to scorn the negative legacy of Fundamentalism, but I would have to say that for the most part I share your legacy.
I say for the most part because I was first a product of new evangelicalism. My church was the most conservative of the evangelical churches in my town. There were no fundamentalist churches. I was taught the gospel (at home and at church) and I remember the impact of spiritually minded college young people who led our teen camps and motivated some hunger for spiritual growth.
I also remember not much in the way of expository preaching or much real solid preaching of any kind. I remember a lot of compromise with the world, even among the more spiritual young leaders, so that there was a mass of confusion about how one was to live the Christian life.
When I visited BJU in 1975, I experienced a whole new level of spiritual life in the dorms than I had ever seen before (in spite of flaws that also existed there). I spent the next 10 years of my life in Greenville and the influence of BJU fundamentalism shaped my thinking and philosophy along the lines you mention in your article.
Could I have learned those things outside of Fundamentalism? Maybe. But I doubt it. I wasn't taught it in my conservative evangelical church growing up. I didn't observe it in the relatively conservative evangelical churches I ran across in later years. Perhaps some pockets of sober-minded Christianity existed in evangelical circles, but for the most part even the most conservative of them reflected serious compromise with worldliness in some way. (Of course, my experience is certainly not universal!)
My point is, the purest form of biblical spirituality I have ever seen was taught to me by word and deed by fundamentalists. I see it in stark contrast to the weakness I was taught in conservative evangelicalism. That is why I am so loyal to fundamentalist philosophies and practices.
Thanks for the article, I appreciate it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3