A Personal Look at Fundamentalism

I don’t know this Dr. G. Beauchamp Vick - never heard of him. I did find it interesting that this man’s own grandson referred to him as a “Benevolent Dictator” and this article also mentions that he came from the era of “Big Men.”

I fully recognize that this era and those men did a lot of good things for the Lord and rightly held the line against various false teachings.

But all too often this era and these “Big Men” had a true Dark Side. They could make you or break you as a pastor or even an entire ministry depending upon their personal whims or moods. My Dad told me he had a good friend who wouldn’t come to his ordination because this man felt the regional “Big Man” wouldn’t approve because this other “Big Man” was going to be there.

How wrong! How absolutely silly and petty!

Since we are all humans with selfish defaults and since strong personalities will often tend to rise to the top this “Big Man” issue will never go away completely. Indeed, some situations do demand a strong personality.

But those that are mere minions to whatever “Big Man” may be in vogue need to grow a spine and not put up with the excesses that may arise. Do not allow yourself to become so attached or intertwined with a leader that you can’t or won’t do what is right for that leader, yourself, your family, or others.

I have left working at a ministry because the leader acted like he was a leadership god, was obnoxious, and hypocritical. He had a Napoleon complex. I loved my job but I hated working for this man. With the stress and impact on my health and my wife, the decision to leave was easy.

I know I’m being negative here, perhaps overly so. But this is such a hot topic for me - and for others. We are talking about people’s lives, their livelihoods, their family.

BTW, I consider myself a fundamentalist, I go to a fundamentalist church. I’ve worked in Fundy ministries and currently work in a ministry that is evangelical. By far - no comparison - the evangelical ministry is the healthiest work environment I’ve ever been in. By this I mean the daily working mechanics of organizational governance, processes, & policies and the personal interactions of the employees. From the President on down, there is no comparison.

I think the era of “Benevolent Dictators” is past! (Hopefully)

Jim - “I think the era of “Benevolent Dictators” is past! (Hopefully)”

This has been my observation as well, that the younger generation is not embracing the absolute top-down leadership style that characterized the pastoral charisma of the 60’s and 70’s. I’ve long had an interest in speculating what has caused this generational shift in leadership approach.

My thoughts are that other than in their own churches, the younger generation has not experienced this type of leadership style anywhere. Not in their schools, or workplaces, or even their families. Successful leadership is now seen as being more horizontal and cooperative, collaborative, and nurturing rather than vertical and authoritative.

Another factor is the changing demographics of the church. Among traditional fundamental fellowships, the average and median age of the church is growing older. That being stated, I think it would be harder for a young pastor (say age 26) to be called to an aging church and try the “my way or the highway” routine to deacons and lay leaders who are in their 50’s and 60’s. There is a respect and veneration that is due to those two and three decades older, and a younger man must take this into account in his leadership approach.

Lastly, I perceive the younger generation to have lost much of the cultural militancy that was a fundamental ethos from the past generation. Many still hold to the same traditional standards, but will not use them to completely define the ministry. I see the result of this shift in that leading a church requires less command and control leadership.

Fundamental Baptist churches are undergoing some interesting changes as a result of the generational shift. Even though the initial Vick interview is now forty years in the past, we still recognize the prevailing leadership sentiment in it today. I don’t believe this will be the case in another twenty years.

My reason for posting it was to offer some insight into the mindset of at least one person who was noted as a leader in his time. From all reports, he was a man of good character, which is not to say he was without flaws.

In addition, I thought his comments gave a more human picture to the kind of thinking that typified men of this generation. Personally, I think young people today are so far removed from the war generation that they have difficulty grasping how they thought and acted and what motivated them. It would be better to try for more understanding and less thoughtless condemnation. There were reasons for why they operated as they did. They made mistakes, no doubt, but it is short-sighted to condemn them for being people of their era.

There has been a shift in our culture—away from respecting one’s elders, even if it was just because they were elder. The assumption, right or wrong, was that the ‘gray head’ deserved an extra measure of honor and loyalty. I believe very few of them were actually engaging in dictatorship. And let me just say - gentlemen are few and far between, and they are often using a cane or walker to get around. You want to meet a bombastic jerk? Get around some twenty-somethings who know Everything There Is To Know About Life.

There have always been those who demagogue any group or movement or idea or platform. That’s NOT a generational thing, it’s a human nature thing. Just get on Twitter for awhile, and you’ll be shouted down by this generation for sneezing on Tuesday.

I think some of the changes we’ve experienced are because of the internet - people can communicate quickly and easily, share information, compare notes, see other points of view. A true dictator can’t isolate his flock anymore— they’re on Facebook and have friends in Madagascar, Costa Rica, and New Jersey.

However, we are not more enlightened. I don’t believe we use our gifts effectively, and although we have the most amazing communication tools man has ever known, I don’t think we are enough with it to the honor and praise of Christ. We’ve got our soapboxes, only now we can literally be heard around the world.

Methinks this is not always a good thing.

And think about it - Dr. Vick got saved at 9 years old in 1910. Just take a minute to think about what America was like during his formative years. Like, no air conditioning, dude!

_{Please note that last sentence was typed by my Sarcasm Hand.}

Don, I see your point that the “Big Man” era was, in part, a product of their generation. Not to argue with you, but when the word “mistakes” is used in context of these leaders, I’m sure you would agree that there are “mistakes” and then there are “MISTAKES.” My point is that many of these leaders allowed themselves to be too often in the latter - far too often and far too long. And, it was allowed to go on for far too long. I would argue that too often this leadership style fell into the category of “Abuse of Power.”

Susan, Yes, you are right about the change in today’s culture of respect for our elders. I do believe that our elders rightly deserve honor and respect. Yes, I agree that there are few things more irritating than a 20-something know-it-all. I’m sure you would also agree that at the same time respect is also earned and a two-way street.

My arguments are against the abuses of the assumption that this older leader (or any leader) is above questioning. That the idea of “Touch Not the Lord’s Annointed” is pure garbage and ripe for leadership over-reach. And that those under this leader must accept whatever is dictated from on high.

In the last few years I have read hundreds of books and articles on leadership and management. The prevailing wisdom of this day is empathy, lead by example, trust and empowerment, mutual accountability, respect is earned and can evaporate in short order, respect for all, command and control is yesterday, and practice what you preach. I see these principles lining up with what I see in scripture and the example of Jesus. I do not see Jesus as a Command & Control leader. If the world can teach these things how much more should we as believers live by them.

Indeed, yesterday is not today. Years ago Command & Control was the predominant style of the day. So, to your point, Don, this discussion should be viewed in that context. This style will never go away. Mark Driscoll is a recent example of this.

My arguments are that we must acknowledge that style too often does have a Dark Side, that we need to learn from it … . . and not put up with it.

For a frightening look at Norris, see Bauder’s One in Hope & Doctrine. If that account of Norris is correct, I have trouble believing the man was actually a Christian at all. Vick’s interview, here, is very interesting. He hearkened from an era of “big men” which I hope will never return, but I know will never really go away. What is Driscoll, if not a “big man?” Piper? Keller? A major difference, however, is that many modern “big men” in the evangelical world have (or pretend to have) a shroud of genteel niceness that Norris apparently never bothered to cultivate. After all, I cannot imagine Piper blowing somebody away in his own study …

On “old era” fundamentalists vs the Internet and more:

• Just like the Internet revolutionized car buying (and really all kinds of shopping (thanks Amazon!)) …
• The Internet (sites like Sharper Iron for example) has benefited the average man in the pew. No longer is “the pastor” the authority. Ideas get “shopped”. (the Randy Alcorn article (a current filing) is a case to point. Traditional fundamentalist taboos have been re-examined and questioned. I find this healthy
• Also consider the study Bible revolution. A pastor, in my view, would be foolish to expound upon a text ignorant of the fact that listeners have on their laps the likes of the ESV or MacArthur study Bibles
• Additionally, the “layman” (not a fan of the label) today is educated - a generation ago few had college educations

Scripture advises us on how to rebuke elders, so obviously the ‘accept without question’ is not a biblical mandate for how we view authority.

I don’t think accepting that certain attitudes and behaviors came out of cultural norms is promoting or excusing; if empathy is a requirement for good leadership, then I think it’s on us to empathize with past generations who dealt—with a fair degree of success—with WW1, Great Depression, WW2, polio, smallpox, cholera, and Spanish flu epidemics, the Civil Rights movement… Nearly every advance and benefit we have today is due to the bravery, curiosity, and inventiveness of the Greatest Generation.

You won’t find me carrying water for the manipulative dictatory types—been there, done that, left already.

The Internet (sites like Sharper Iron for example) has benefited the average man in the pew. No longer is “the pastor” the authority. Ideas get “shopped”. (the Randy Alcorn article (a current filing) is a case to point. Traditional fundamentalist taboos have been re-examined and questioned. I find this healthy.

Ditto Jim.

I am not simply saying that these men were a product of their generation. They were that, but there is more to see here. I think the previous generations are frequently misconstrued in today’s media, including SI. One reason is that we don’t have access to much more than talking points about what the past was like. In this thread, several have posted the same old lines about the “big men”, we see the same things being said every time topics like this come up. They are the talking points, the “orthodox” line of the Internet experts.

Reading that interview, it seemed to me that Vick came across as aware of the failings of men like Norris, but he was unwilling to call him out, even after experiencing some pretty intense treatment from him. That was interesting to me and showed a different picture of Vick than I had been led to believe. So I’m just saying we should temper our dogmatism about “the way it was” and perhaps look a little closer at these men to see what we can learn from them. Without them, there wouldn’t have been much of a fundamentalism to save, much less one worth saving.

Don, you wrote:

Reading that interview, it seemed to me that Vick came across as aware of the failings of men like Norris, but he was unwilling to call him out, even after experiencing some pretty intense treatment from him. That was interesting to me and showed a different picture of Vick than I had been led to believe.

It confirms the picture I had of Vick. He was reluctant to criticize a nasty and evil man like Norris, even after personally suffering from that nastiness. There is an overweening reluctance to criticize “big men,” and there always has been. You see it in the genteel academy. I watched a video of F. David Farnell rabidly attacking NT evangelical scholars for their cave-in on inerrancy, but he kept issuing caveats like, “now, these men are great scholars, but …” This isn’t a fundamentalist disease; it’s a human disease. Don’t be afraid to call something what it is. Vick shouldn’t have been afraid to call Norris what the evidence suggests he was - a likely false believer. The reluctance to do that isn’t kindness or niceness; it’s cowardice.

When it comes to learning from Norris, I admit I can learn quite a bit - if I observe Norris’ actions and then do the complete opposite, I can be sure I’m on the right track. I had supervisors in the military whom I employed that tactic with, and it always worked.

With regards to “saving fundamentalism,” I really don’t care. It’s not about the fundamentalist tent, it’s about Christ. I’m not trying to be absurdly pious, but it’s just the truth. Our loyalty must never be transferred to an institution or a man at the expense of Scripture. Not long ago, when the apostate Ruckman died, I received a nasty email from some poor deranged soul who read some comments on SI and told me I ought to be ashamed of myself for criticizing such a great man of God (mind you, a great deal of this WAS IN ALL CAPS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). This is the same kind of rapid, zombie-like idiocy that characterized so many fundamentalist men from last century - even the “unknown” ones. I know - I just spent three years dealing with one of these apostates.

I have never turned to the “big men” fundamentalist heroes of the 20th century for insight, inspiration, encouragement or deep insights into the Bible. I’ve never seen a reason to. After reading One in Hope & Doctrine, I’m more interested in the GARBC-flavor of fundamentalism.