Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism
Republished with permission (and unedited) from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. (The document posted at Central’s website within the last couple of weeks.)
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
To be an evangelical is to be centered upon the gospel. To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines. We are both evangelicals and Fundamentalists according to these definitions. We all believe that, as ecclesial movements, both evangelicalism and Fundamentalism have drifted badly from their core commitments. In the case of evangelicalism, the drift began when self-identified neo-evangelicals began to extend Christian fellowship to those who clearly rejected fundamental doctrines. This extension of fellowship represented a dethroning of the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. It was a grievous error, and it has led to the rapid erosion of evangelical theology within the evangelical movement. At the present moment, some versions of professing evangelicalism actually harbor denials of the gospel such as Open Theism or the New Perspective on Paul. We deny that the advocates of such positions can rightly be called evangelical.
On the other hand, we also believe that some Fundamentalists have attempted to add requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship. Sometimes these requirements have involved institutional or personal loyalties, resulting in abusive patterns of leadership. Other times they have involved organizational agendas. They have sometimes involved the elevation of relatively minor doctrines to a position of major importance. In some instances, they have involved the creation of doctrines nowhere taught in Scripture, such as the doctrine that salvation could not be secured until Jesus presented His material blood in the heavenly tabernacle. During recent years, the most notorious manifestation of this aberrant version of Fundamentalism is embodied in a movement that insists that only the King James version of the Bible (or, in some cases, its underlying Greek or Hebrew texts) ought be recognized as the perfectly preserved Word of God.
We regard both of these extremes as equally dangerous. The evangelicalism of the far Left removes the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The Fundamentalism of the far Right adds to the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neither extreme is acceptable to us, but because we encounter the far Right more frequently, and because it claims the name of Fundamentalism, we regard it as a more immediate and insidious threat.
Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.
We also reject the “new-image Fundamentalism” that absorbs the current culture, producing a worldly worship and a pragmatic ministry. These self-professed fundamentalists often follow the latest trends in ministry, disparage theological labels such as Baptist, and aggressively criticize any version of Fundamentalism not following their ministry style.
We oppose anti-separatist evangelicalism, hyper-fundamentalism, revivalism, and new-image Fundamentalism. We wish to reclaim authentic Fundamentalism, to rebuild it, and to strengthen it. For us that reclamation involves not only working against the philosophy of broad evangelicalism (which assaults us from outside), but also working against those versions of Fundamentalism that subvert the Christian faith.
On the other hand, these positions do not exhaust the evangelical options. Conservative evangelicals have reacted against the current erosion of evangelicalism by refocusing attention upon the gospel, including its importance as a boundary for Christian fellowship. These conservative evangelicals have become important spokespersons against current denials of the gospel, and they have also spoken out against trends that remove the gospel from its place of power in transforming lives (e.g., the church growth and church marketing movements).
Certain differences do still exist between historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Fundamentalists, in contrast to Conservative evangelicals, tend to align more with dispensationalism and cessationism. Fundamentalists tend to react against contemporary popular culture, while many conservative evangelicals embrace it. Perhaps most importantly, Fundamentalists make a clean break with the leadership of anti-separatist evangelicals, while conservative evangelicals continue to accommodate (or at least refuse to challenge) their leadership.
Because of these differences, we do not believe that complete cooperation with conservative evangelicalism is desirable. Nevertheless, we find that we have much more in common with conservative evangelicals (who are slightly to our Left) than we do with hyper-Fundamentalists (who are considerably to our Right), or even with revivalistic Fundamentalists (who are often in our back yard). In conservative evangelicals we find allies who are willing to challenge not only the compromise of the gospel on the Left, but also the pragmatic approach to Christianity that typifies so many evangelicals and Fundamentalists. For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.
We wish to be used to restate, refine, and strengthen biblical Fundamentalism. The process of restatement includes not only defining what a thing is, but also saying what it is not. We find that we must point to many versions of professing Fundamentalism and say, “That is not biblical Christianity.” We do not believe that the process of refinement and definition can occur without such denials. The only way to strengthen Fundamentalism is to speak out against some self-identified Fundamentalists.
We also see a need to speak out against the abandonment of the gospel by the evangelical Left, the reducing of the gospel’s importance by the heirs of the New Evangelicalism, and the huckstering of the gospel by pragmatists, whether evangelicals or Fundamentalists. On the other hand, while we may express disagreement with aspects of conservative evangelicalism (just as we may express disagreement with one another), we wish to affirm and to strengthen the activity of conservative evangelicals in restoring the gospel to its rightful place.
The marks of a strong Fundamentalism will include the following:
- A recommitment to the primacy and proclamation of the gospel.
- An understanding that the fundamentals of the gospel are the boundary of Christian fellowship.
- A focus on the importance of preaching as biblical exposition.
- An emphasis upon progressive sanctification understood as incremental spiritual growth.
- An elevation of the importance of ordinate Christian affections, expressed partly by sober worship that is concerned with the exaltation and magnification of God.
- An understanding of Christian leadership primarily as teaching and serving.
- A commitment to teaching and transmitting the whole system of faith and practice.
- An exaltation of the centrality of the local congregation in God’s work.
These are features of an authentic Fundamentalism that we all feel is worth saving. These features describe the kind of Fundamentalism that we wish to build. Their absence in either Fundamentalism or other branches of evangelicalism constitutes a debasing of Christianity that we intend to oppose.
- 70 views
Just a recommendation for anyone interested. If you read the book, you’ll see the relevance.
**** Forum Director ***
Added link to book.
********************
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Kevin, I thought about adding after the last post, that I hope my public agreement with you didn’t add an extra burden to you.
I appreciate the statements being made here. It is the result of careful Biblical thinking. I agree “big-time” with Jeff on the group I call A+ fundamentalism. I’ve been encouraging the more careful wing of the separatist movement to note that “many” within the more militant branch of conservative evangelicalism (Mac, Dever, etc…..) are frankly far closer to us than the “Bus Wing” or “Finney-types” of the IFB movement. The reason this statement from Central is refreshing is that it officially states that while Central may be slower than others of us (like me for instance) to extend a hand of cooperation to a John MacArthur type of evangelical - they are not ruling it out! In other words just as there is an “other-worldly” difference between Central Seminary and Hyles-Anderson, there is a similar type of difference between Grace Community Church and the Crystal Cathedral. Our schools IMO have been slow to make that point clear - and so Central’s leadership is thrilling.
This has been the view held by the majority of fundamentalists over the last century - especially the guys in the trenches. That is the average pastor of the average separatist church will have “some” connection with other Godly men of churches in his town - even if the minor doctoral differences preclude from regular and total koinonia. Most guys in the pulpits, leading fellowships do not have an “all or nothing” approach to fellowship in their towns. Our one brother is saying that in his experience (I think a Southern context) that fundamentalism is known for its KJV only, and not fellowshipping with others who are not KJV only. Some of us are saying we want that to be viewed as it has for the majority of the movement’s history - not part of the sine-qua-non of the movement, and not healthy. The KJV is a beautiful translation of the Bible. I love it and use it from time to time. Where fundamentalism has adopted a KJVO as a part of the sine-qua-non - it is sick. And we say that for Biblical, theological and exegetical reasons listed in other places. That illness means that those of us who believe Biblical/theological health is important, we have to limit our people’s exposure to such thinking. Usually KJVO leads to more bad theology. Bad theology is toxic because it directly or indirectly undermines the gospel. That’s why it’s much healthier for our church to participate at Shepherd’s Conference each year than to reach out to the Hyles gang. My hope is that leadership in other groups (like the FBF) and other schools (name them) will follow Kevin’s and Central’s lead.
Once again, Central Seminary demonstrates why it has been the “Grand-daddy” of all the historical fundamentalist grad and post-grad institutions. Somebody has to lead. Straight Ahead Central! Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - this glowing endorsement in no way, shape or form makes Central Seminary culpable for any stated or written view past or current by me. (I’m finding it necesary to add this little disclaimer any time I comment on any policy by a former institution….not sure what’s up with that. I love them all! - Shalom!)
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
ELittle
[Brian Ernsberger] Does Dr. Bauder have short term memory loss? He answered a question given, with this statement earlier in the thread,Like Jeff Straub stated for himself, I also hesitate to jump into this discussion but many of the comments and charges have been so outrageous (of which the quote above is one example) that I felt compelled to speak up. I confess upfront that I am a friend of Drs. Bauder and Straub, and of Central. To call CE men “full-blown ecumenical compromisers” is preposterous and displays hubris and ignorance of these men and of biblical separation. And to speak of the “aberrant doctrine of CE men” would be silly and laughable if it were not so sad and especially untrue.
On April 27, 2010 at the Foundations Conference Kevin Bauder had dismissed Al Mohler’s signing the MD as merely an “occasional inconsistency…single episode.”
Statements like these from Kevin Bauder is how fidelity to biblical separatism, the hallmark of Fundamentalism, is slain for the sake of fellowship with full-blown ecumenical (ce) compromisers. The ethos statement saying, “that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible,” is the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent. The aberrant doctrine of the CE men I want nothing of in my tent.
Steve Davis
The label “New Image Fundamentalism” was coined by Jack Keep during the 1980s to refer to individuals and institutions that professed to be Fundamentalist but were characterized by some combination of the following:
(1) They were attracted to the church growth movement, which eventually gave birth to the seeker-sensitive philosophy. [Incidentally, “church growth” and “seeker-sensitive” need to be distinguished from “contemporary.” The first two are almost always the latter, but it is not necessarily the former.]
(2) They rejected in principle any form of “secondary separation,” equating it with guilt-by-association.
(3) They were influenced by those who were allowing social sciences rather than theology to become the organizing point of church activity. They understood counseling in integrationist terms, missiology in anthropological terms, language in terms of linguistics rather than rhetoric, ministry in terms of sociology, etc. This influence could be greater or lesser, depending upon the individual or institution.
(4) A softening or rejection of many of the “traditional taboos” that had been shared by Fundamentalists and the original New Evangelicals.
(5) A new emphasis upon social activity and political involvement as aspects of the mission of the church.
This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but indicative.
In effect, New Image Fundamentalists became indistinguishable from many conservative evangelicals of their day. They only remaining difference was often the name.
Examples of 1980’s New Image Fundamentalists included Jack Van Impe, Edward Dobson, Edward Hindson, and Jerry Falwell. Publications included “Heart Disease in Christ’s Body” by Jack Van Impe, “The Fundamentalist Phenomenon,” edited by Jerry Falwell, and “The Fundamentalist Journal,” edited by Dobson and Hindson. A softened form or the trend became rather influential in the GARBC through the mediation of Paul Dixon, Dan Gelatt, Wendell Kempton, and Paul Tassell. It affected Liberty Baptist College, Grand Rapids Baptist College, Los Angeles Baptist College, and Cedarville College. Ironically, Los Angeles actually became more biblically-focused and conservative when it was turned over to MacArthur and became Master’s College, than it had been when it was supposed to be a Fundamentalist institution.
Should Mohler, Duncan, etc., have signed the Manhattand declaration? Absolutely not! It was a bad mistake, or, if you prefer, a rather serious error. It was, however, rather an isolated error committed by men who had already paid a heavy price for their separatism. While it cannot be overlooked entirely, it must not become the only defining factor with respect to these men’s ministries.
The operative word in my statement was “knowingly.” I do regard the Manhattan Declaration as a compromise of the gospel. Having said that, if we take seriously the words of Mohler himself, he does not believe that it requires him to extend Christian recognition or cooperation to Roman Catholics. The same can be said of other situations, for example Bethlehem Baptist’s ongoing involvement with Converge.
I do take these men seriously. I think they are wrong, but their error is the error of a mistake and not of deliberate disobedience to our Master. Still, it would be more difficult to be involved with a Mohler or a Duncan than it would be with a Dever or a MacArthur. The range of possible fellowship is more restricted.
Kevin
I don’t normally read blogs because of time constraints but others have drawn my attention to this discussion so here are my own thoughts:
First, I believe in preaching for decisions, both for unbelievers to be saved and for believers to respond to God’s Word. Second, I regularly give public invitations when I preach. I make it clear that walking an aisle doesn’t save or help to save but it does give us an opportunity to pray and counsel with them. Third, I believe and practice expository preaching as my normal pattern. Fourth, I believe in a one-stage salvation: everything needed to live a life of victory over sin is given to people when they place their trust in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a two-stage salvation: “trust Christ as Savior and then later trust Him as Lord.” But as believers grow, periodically they will be challenged by God through His Word to respond in a decisive and, perhaps, even in a public way. This could happen any number of times in the life of a Christian.
Myron J. Houghton
____________________________________________________
Thank you for your recent inquiry into the policies of West Coast Baptist College. I trust the information I am able to give you will answer your questions satisfactorily.
I have listed here a statement which is read at graduation each May. We ask our graduating students to stand as an indication of their agreement with the statement. As you can see, it does not mention church attendance, as the rumor had mentioned.
“As candidates for graduation from West Coast Baptist College, I want to ask you to listen to the following challenge. As your ‘final test’ at this institution, I would like to ask you if you agree with the following:
That the Bible is the fully verbally inspired Word of God, and that God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people.
That there is one God who is Eternal, Self-Existent, Infinite, Immutable, and has revealed Himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of mankind. That He possesses all the attributes of Personality and Deity.
That all men were born with an inherited sin nature received from our common ancestor, Adam. That because of this we are a sinner whose hope of salvation is only in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
That the Local Church is God’s only institution to carry out Christ’s work for today.
That the literal interpretation of the Scriptures is the only correct process to use.
That Christ will return literally to rapture the saints out to be with Him. That those lost will be left behind to face the tribulation period followed by the Second Coming of Christ with His saints to the earth, and that sinners will face God at the Great White Throne Judgment and will ultimately be cast into a literal lake of fire called Hell. That the saved will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ and live forever with God in Heaven.
That you personally have accepted Jesus Christ as your Saviour, and that it is your desire to serve Him with your life until the rapture or death.
That if at any time, as a graduate of West Coast Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.”
Jerry F. Goddard, Ed.D. | Dean of Administrative Affairs
Thanks for the clarification. I can see now the stream of “fundamentalism” that you are talking about. I’m pretty much antithetical to each of those tenants of New Image Fundamentalism, especially in the political and seeker-sensitive areas. At the same time, I wish there were a stream of fundamentalism that is committed to the cross of Jesus in a way that is clearly distinguished from the excesses of previous fundamentalisms. What could be a good name for that? New Image is taken. Oh well.
Shayne
I don’t see any real problem with any of the above. I have no argument with such persons.
The problem arises when someone insists that the King James is the only English version that can be recognized as the Word of God, meaning that a NASB or NIV is not the Word of God. When someone calls the NASB or the NIV a “perversion,” they have crossed the line into contempt for God’s Word. That is not an error that I am minded to overlook. If they further insist that those who use the NIV or the NASB are “sinful hypocrites,” or the “leaven in Fundamentalism,” they are now outside of historic, mainstream Fundamentalism and have clearly transgressed into hyper-fundamentalist territory.
Here is a statement from an independent Baptist college:
“We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, “as it is in truth, the Word of God…” (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God’s preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use.”
This statement is already over the line. By implication it rejects the NIV, ESV, NASV, ASV, etc. and refuses to recognize them as the Word of God. This is already contempt for Scripture.
But another Fundamentalist denounces this college as heretical for not clearly stating that the King James is inspired, preserved, infallible, and inerrant. The college’s president is rebuked because he preached at the “apostate” Bob Jones University [for the record, I am thankful for the direction in leadership that was established at BJU under Bob Jones III and has been continued under Stephen Jones. While Stephen has not made himself a public figure, I believe that he is one of the most exciting young leaders in Fundamentalism.] Even Jack Schaap is denounced as a heretic because of his “weakness” on the KJV. Here is the URL if you don’t believe me.
http://www.amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/subpage640.html
That such Fundamentalists exist is a fact, and there is no way of finessing it. For too long many Fundamentalists have been far too tolerant of outrageous conduct to our Right while taking a bazooka to anything on our Left. If we cannot separate from the nonsense to our our Right, then we lose every shred of moral authority when we complain about the relatively lesser infractions slightly to our Left.
This is not about one-upmanship. If is not about self-promotion. It is about defending biblical Christianity from all detractors. Unfortunately, some of those detractors wear the Fundamentalist label.
Those who still cling to the great fundamentals of the faith, and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals, need to stand together against the nonsense. Increasingly, they are. There are plenty of Fundamentalists whose purpose to love rightly, judge wisely, and lead gently.
[Kevin T. Bauder] That if at any time, as a graduate of West Coast Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.”Does the good Doctor Goddard and the institution offer financial remuneration (i.e. institutional costs the student had to pay in full) to those he and the institution insist should return their diploma and “relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it”? Maybe I will take the time to correspond just in case I run into a graduate or two faced with this dilemma. :)
Jerry F. Goddard, Ed.D. | Dean of Administrative Affairs
[Kevin T. Bauder] The problem arises when someone insists that the King James is the only English version that can be recognized as the Word of God…they are now outside of historic, mainstream Fundamentalism and have clearly transgressed into hyper-fundamentalist territory.Is there any way when identifying such groups that the term hyper-fundamentalist might be reconsidered? Maybe aberrant-fundamentalists? The term hyper-fundamentalist seems to carry with it the implication of it simply being an excess of what is fundamentalism when in this case it is not, it is just as you say, “outside of mainstream fundamentalism”. I do understand there probably can be hyper-fundamentalists but it is just a minor thought that such a distinction might be worthwhile when time allows for attendance to such details.
But the folks on the right don’t want to be called “hyper” or “aberrant.”
An idea: is it possible to move in the direction of talking about the ideas rather than the groups that are more or less adherents to them? That is, “hyper fundamentalist ideas and practices” rather than “hyperfundamentalists.” The difference is that it fits the reality better. In some cases, of course, we have to talk about groups and trends, but there are so many that hold idea A associated w/”hyper” but reject B, C and D associated with “hyper” and all sorts of variations along those lines, both in belief and in practice.
Sometimes, in expressing principles, it’s necessary to lump. But when dealing with real people, we usually are wiser to find out where they actually stand vs. lumping them in w/a group they seem to be more or less associated with.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Featured Resource
Discussion