Young Fundamentalists

One of the things that many have noted about this site is that it is not a comprehensive gathering of Fundamentalists. The site membership (and the YF survey) are heavily weighted toward schools and churches within the orbit of BJU (and friends) or GARBC. How many representatives do we have from Crown College, West Coast Baptist College, Pensacola Christian College, Liberty University or Trinity College of the Bible? How many active participants in the Sword of the Lord or IFCA?

I'm guessing that the students at these different schools, and the twenty-somethings at their supporting churches are miles apart. So I don't think we can talk about Young Fundamentalists as a class, only about the current crop of young people within a certain sub-group of Fundamentalism. Or, in other words, all the definitional problems associated with the word "Fundamentalism" don't disappear when we put the adjective "young" in front.

http://www.beards.org/soul_patch.php

You just need to move that mustache down a couple of inches!

I'm a young fundamentalist who sadly is no longer able to grow hair! I do have a very small patch on the top of my head (which can be seen with a microscope!)

Jim, that link has inspired me to skip your recommendation of the "soul patch" and go for the "friendly mutton chops".

I think Charlie is right to point out the limitations of the label "young-fundamentalist" and the definitional problems that attach to it.

I doubt many people at all would so self-describe; for example, if someone had not heard of SI, Janz, etc. would they even know the term? Unlikely.

Moreover, the definitional problem with "fundamentalism" is evidenced in SI's doctrinal statement, which is good I think. Ironically, however, I'm almost certain that Mark Dever or John MacArthur could affirm the SI statement and join SI, which just illustrates that much of what people think of as Fundamentalism are fundamentally cultural issues, issues of sensibility and method, not issues of substantive doctrine.

On SI, I think Iwould be a YF. Outside of this context, the term would be meaningless because I don't move in cultural Fundamentalist circles.

The only form of Fundamentalism I would remotely consider ascribing to "publically" would be the kind outlined in Bauder's essays and articles, a form which has never historically existed, so I don't see much point in identifying with it as people assume such identifications have a historical component.

To be fair, I feel the same ambivalence towards the term "evangelical," which I'm almost as chary about as I am "fundamentalist."

I think that you are right, and I think there are some reasons for that. We tend to underestimate the relational and emotional motives behind our actions, especially our supposedly "intellectual" shifts. I have one friend who became Presbyterian from a less than healthy Baptist background, and he admits that he was looking to become "not Baptist."

Almost all the people whom I know who changed denominations have done so in conjunction with sins (real or perceived) against them or people they know. There is a negative way to view this, that is, that they are just being reactionary. That may be true, but there is also a positive side of the coin. Perception of serious wrong is usually the only thing that will motivate people (except high idealists) to make a life change. In other words, having a few exegetical or doctrinal anomalies isn't enough actually to unseat most people, who will simply find a way to reinterpret data to fit, or acknowledge some imperfection and shrug their shoulders.

So to apply this to your example. When those in Type A+ churches wake up and realize a lot of the crazy stuff going on, they are sufficiently motivated to look around at other alternatives. On the other hand, most in the BJUish sphere probably have many positive experiences and role models, but chafe some and reach a frustration level just under the breaking point, resulting in a "reform from within" kind of strategy. These are the true Young Fundamentalists as I see them. I am, then, more of a YF sympathizer than a YF proper, since I have actually left movement Fundamentalism and retain my influence through spheres of association rather than membership.

This isn't just a Fundie phenomenon. You can see this psychology at work in almost every ecclesiastical group now and throughout history. I will note, however, that the "breaking point" seems to be lower today than ever before because of the amount of emphasis placed on individual religious experience as opposed to religion functioning in tandem with society.

A few random thoughts, following up my comments on the tendency of young Type A/Type A+ fundamentalists to jettison movement fundamentalism altogether, ending up as a Type C fundamentalist (i.e. historic fundamentalist/conservative evangelical, what have you).

1) I've travelled around the reforming fundamentalist sphere, the blogs similar to mine -- blogs of those who in one sense consider themselves "former" fundamentalists. And I would have to say many of them are former Type A/Type A+ who are now Type Cs. I have to be fair and say I know quite a few Type Bs that schooled at NBBC and the like, who migrated over to TEDS or in some other way slipped out of the movement, so this doesn't have to be a Type A thing only.

2) My thoughts on "why" are similar to Charlies. Type A and especially Type A+ (IFBx) fundamentalists are very controlling. The opportunity for objective thinking is hard to come by. So it does take more gumption to consider switching your views when you are in such an environment. And since you are already likely to be ostracized for changing, what difference does it make to go to a Type C level? Plus the people that are more likely to move would naturally have more gumption and be more likely to be a Type C, possibly.

3) Another reason for this may be (and was in my case), that after you see the extremes to which a fundamentalist mindest can gravitate towards (IFBx), you are very reluctant to put yourself in a place where such tendencies are still present and operative, albeit in a latent state. I sampled Type B fundamentalism and found it sniffed too much like the Type A/A+ fundamentalism I had become concerned about. However, in my case, there was a really good Type C church nearby which made my decision easier.

4) So I would say I'm a YF sympathizer too. Albeit now that I'm outside the movement, I have come to learn more of the good that remains in the idea of fundamentalism (Bauder), and in Type B fundamentalism. Again having been isolated in a Type A+ group, I didn't really know much about Type B fundamentalism at all. Now that I'm out, I could almost see myself going back. But I don't think I'd be welcomed, and I still see the potential dangers I feared being greater in Type B fundamentalism than not (of course opposite tendencies are at play in Type C fundamentalism).

I think for many, they can't fathom being "outside" the movement, but once you have been, you see it's not all that big a deal. The us-vs.-them mentality seems to pervade fundamentalism. Once you've left the movement it's refreshing to stop thinking along those lines.

Anyway, good thread.

Thanks for sharing your story Susan. Your story is sad. I think it could be repeated many times over (the negative part of it). This isn't only a fundamentalist thing though, it's a sinful-human thing.

You are right that it's not so much what you believe, but how you love and treat others. I respect lots of people who are on different sides of the fence than me on certain issues. Rom. 14 comes into play.

Thanks again, as this is an important element in the discussion, for sure.

Truer words were never written, Susan.

It's long irked me that some people here acted like (more often a long time ago) like the people who read SI were "THE" representatives of "true fundamentalism". BJU doesn't represent all of fundamentalism. Even if you put them in the picture as the most balanced (IYO or IMO), there are lots and lots of churches out there who call themselves "fundamentalist" who don't run in that orbit. These other groups aren't well represented here. To decide that SI is "THE" blog or forum for all of fundamentalism is overestimation of itself. Probably way more fundamentalists have never heard of SI than have actually sat down and read it.

I also have seen this. It seems like when the AAA+s react, they react completely and go to the other side. When the ones who were more moderate (even A's) react, they tend to react by going to the left, but not as far as the ones who were in AAA+. So, you find the ones who were BJU types (A) churches now in evangelical type churches and the HAC (AAA+) grads often have completely denounced Christianity altogether and want nothing to do with anything called "church".

Maybe some of it is personality types. Some people love that screaming and such and when they tire of it, they tire of ALL of it.

I am coming to the conversation late. Sorry.

My family moved from MA to SC almost 30 years ago. We had grown up in an Independent Fundamental Non-Denominational church. (Can a church *truly* be fundamental without being Baptist? ::WINK!:: ) We were thrown into the center of BJU style fundamentalism. We visited many of the big name churches in the area, and my parents (coming in from the outside) were able to make a prescient observation. There were at that time still men preaching in the area who had been trained under the ministry of the Founder of the University. Those men, my parents observed, tended to be “shepherds”. Of course, there were many men preaching in the area who had been trained under the administration of the Founder’s son. Those men, my parents observed, tended to be “generals”.

My own observation (::GASP!:: Anecdotal Information!!!) has been thus: Fundamentalists tend to leave Fundamentalism when “Godly” people do not treat members of their church families in a Godly way. There is very little love. Very little compassion. Lots of rules and insistence on obedience, often without a Scriptural basis for establishing the rules.

Now, these kinds of observations tend to be dismissed as the emotional reaction of weaker bretheren. Once, OK I’ll agree. Twice? OK, it happens. But when this kind of testimony is repeated dozens and hundreds of times, a disturbing pattern (no compassion, no humility, no desire to serve, but only to be served) emerges, which is largely ignored by those who remain in the ever dwindling congregations of Fundamentalism.

One more comment. Let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that our little Blog is having any real impact on Fundamentalism in the US. There are some OSFs (a greater number than you might think) who read this blog, disheartened by the trend our faith is taking. They lurk, and do not participate, because they consider us too far gone: fools who have left the fold of Pure Fundamentalism (whichever brand they personally consider to be right.) But most of the OSFs don’t even bother logging on to SI.

I find myself to be too old (chronologically:D) to be a YF. But their insistence on tying practice to Scripture is exactly what is needed in our society today.

As an old fundamentalist, I'm beginning to understand and and appreciate young "fundamentalism" and would agree with what's been stated in the two previous posts. However I've known some of those first generation men and to call them "generals" would have been a complement. Still, the "my way or the highway" mode of leadership produces both imitators and defectors. SI has provided a forum for a generation who questions and concerns would have no audience before the internet.

I always wonder where that attitude came from... the idea that pastors and evangelists were 'Anointed Ones' and the laity should not so much as touch the hem of their robes. Why is it when conversations about Biblical authority come up, some folks run to the OT monarchy, Abraham sending Eleazar to choose a wife for Isaac and the like as a pattern of pastoral and parental authority? We clearly have many NT examples of authority, Jesus Christ being #1 I would hope, and nothing about Him was pompous nor did He ever seem to feel threatened. He didn't ask people to stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels as 'proof' that He Was In Charge.

Example anecdote: I heard someone say not long ago that just as Laban made Jacob work 14 years for Rachel, he was going to place heavy burdens on anyone who wanted to marry his daughter to make them prove they were worthy of her. I shut my mouth, because I knew nothing I said would be heard over the din of the testosterone raging in this man's ears.

What I wanted to say but didn't:
1) Jacob set his own wages, not Laban
2) Jacob got there with the shirt on his back, as in no dowry, which is why I imagine he felt he needed to work to establish himself (that's my opinion, but I like it, so there)
3) When Laban tricked Jacob with Leah, he had to work the same number of years for Rachel... you know what I'm sayin'?
4) Laban was a jerk of the first water, and if I had to pick, out of all the examples of parental authority in the Bible to pattern myself after, Laban would be very near the bottom

But this guy was applauded like he'd just invented an automobile that ran on tap water. It's that kind of warped thinking that has been rewarded over the years, and it has colored the pure idea of Fundamentalism (separation especially) with a sickly greenish tint. What's worse is that this same father, who goes on and on about the Christian character and purity of his daughter, took her this last weekend to see The Perfect Getaway. When she dares to disagree with him, he totally loses it- as in he gets in her face and screams at her. But that's ok, because he is her Authority, and Authority is accountable to no one. Of course I must clarify, and say that parents should be involved in when their offspring chooses a spouse, and there should be some qualifications- he's saved, he's faithful, he has a job... but that's not what this dad was talking about.

Anyway, if everything truly rises and falls on leadership, it is IMO the dysfunctional views of authority structures that has led to the decline in the purity of doctrine, healthy relationships in homes, and accountable church leadership. YF's are asking honest questions, but some OF's react as if they are being questioned. Which is probably why so many lurk but don't post on SI. I don't buy that whole "SI has compromised", or "SI is too far gone" because this isn't a church, it's a forum, which being interpreted means a public meeting place. It is asked that folks who contribute be able to agree with the doctrinal statement and adhere to the comment policy, but other than that, all sorts of folks are welcome here. If that means hard questions are asked and controversial topics are brought up and many sides of the discussion are presented and no particular stance is favored over another by the moderators or admin, then that should be a good thing. But many in positions of authority are not used to defending themselves in an open forum to younger men or, angels forfend, women, so they are not going to expose themselves to any form of criticism, constructive or otherwise. So we're back to Square One- you can't ask Authority questions, you must accept what they say as coming from the mouth of God.

Yes, very true: my comments were broad, sweeping generalizations, There were exceptions in the "era of the shepherds", and there have been exceptions in the "era of the generals".

And the overall generic application of the time line does not necessarily attach itself to the products of one particular educational institution. I have observed (there he goes with that ANECDOTAL information again!!!) similar general trends in the products of several post-secondary schools.

And (generally, with noteable exceptions) the people who need to hear this just don't want to hear it.

My out loud thinking tends along the same lines, Jay. There is so much in the Bible that has appeals to military types- there are battles galore, as well as battle/armor and sports analogies- but the church is not the pastor's 'platoon' or 'team'. I think it is clear that the role of pastor is as an under-shepherd, with Christ as the example of the True Shepherd. All of the commands and principles that apply to authority tend toward a sacrificial servanthood. Which of course does not mean that the sheep use the shepherd as a bootscraper, but if Christ can handpick 12, and one of them is a devil, a pastor can expect to have a devil or two or three in the average congregation. If the pastor has some faithful sheepdogs, though, the wolves will find themselves in a very uncomfortable position before long.

Another thought is that is so much easier to deal with outward behaviors than try to get at heart issues. The battles the IFB church has fought over cultural practices IMO have been one great big long rabbit trail of long skirts (which I wear, btw) and flat-front pants (remember when pleated pants came out? oh the horror!) and "You must attend the college of OUR choice"... when what was missing, especially when I look back at my own life, was being confronted with "WHY?" Why would I want to wear something short/thin/tight? Why would a Christian follow every fashion trend by default? Why would I want to hear dirty jokes and obscenities and nudity on a movie screen? I think many folks are tired of The IFB List of Do's and Don't's, and want to delve into underlying issues that involve the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I've been looking for some good resources for my kids in this area- blogs and books etc written by young people to encourage them that there are other young people living whole-heartedly for God, and most of what I found are not in the traditional IFB camp- all the good Fundy stuff is written by old guys. So what's up with that? Or am I not looking in the right place?

I have looked at it, and for the most part I like it, as well as a few of the blogs The Rebelution links to.

Thank you for that testimony/story.

The heart of the issue for me isn't Old versus Young. It is separatists becoming isolationists. The whole paradigm of Christian education and philosophy of education has led separatists to become isolationists. The mission of Jesus Christ to reach the world has become secondary to purity or put in direct conflict with one another. That is it's either holiness or evangelism in practice. But, the bible calls us to be Holy and to be loving/reaching the lost with the Gospel...at the same time. Taking the best and the brightest as well as everyone else and herding them to Bible college / Seminary for 4-6-8 years, where they are isolated from the real world doesn't seem in line with Mark 16:15.

I am a tweener. 44 years old. Used to hang with Old Fundamentalists, most are dead now or dying. YF crowd is new to me but I am getting acquainted in the last 2 years or so.

DJung in California
Isolated from the Bloggosphere until 2008

To your excellent post, I have only one thing to add. In some ways, the internet is doing for the 21st century what the printing press did for the 15th-16th. It is allowing people to be exposed to influences that they normally would not be. For example, if you wanted to introduce someone to Calvinism (not that I know anyone who would do that), it's much easier to point someone to Desiring God or James White's blog than it is to ship a few books across the country that won't be read anyway. The Internet makes it extremely easy to refute factual errors and revisionist history, as well as to compare different churches. For example, my parents left their Type A+ Fundamentalist church in part because of listening to sermons (online) from my pastor and my sister's pastor. They quickly realized they weren't getting real Bible preaching, but without that comparison, they still wouldn't know.

I am new here. I can make a good guess what these def are but would like to be sure. Got a concise definition?

Were you just an attendee at the conference or were you one of the other speakers? How did the guy respond to you? I doubt he thought you were asking "with all respect."

I'm not sure if I would call myself a young fundamentalist but I do refer to myself as being in a less dogmatic place than I was when I was growing up and attending a fundamentalist Bible college. I still believe most all of the same things, but I am not as dogmatic about my beliefs when I discuss them with others. I'm more willing to acknowledge that I might not know as much as I once thought I did.

If a speaker is so uncouth as to 'call out' someone in the crowd for having a beard, I think he deserves about 40 hymnbooks upside the head. Amazing the boorishness that is excused by being "led of the Lord".