I Learned it from Fundamentalists
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 a 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.
- 78 views
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)
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
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
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
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.
Jeff Brown
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.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
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.
[Aaron Blumer] Charlie,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.
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.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Charlie] 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I 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. :(
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Aaron Blumer] 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?
Ecclesia semper reformanda est
Discussion