Now, About Those Differences, Part Nine
Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8.
Assessing the Worldliness
How different are fundamentalists from conservative evangelicals? We have now examined two answers to that question. The first answer had to do with dispensationalism. We concluded that, although fundamentalism has a higher percentage of dispensationalists, this difference creates no greater tension between the two groups than it does within each group.
The second difference that we examined was the putative legalism of fundamentalists (according to evangelicals) and the supposed worldliness of evangelicals (according to fundamentalists). We have tried to discover what these accusations mean. Our working hypothesis includes the following factors. First, fundamentalists tend to observe certain revivalist taboos more frequently than evangelicals. Second, fundamentalists are more reluctant to adopt the accouterments of the counterculture that emerged during the 1960s. Third, fundamentalists are more likely to accept second-premise arguments when the extra-scriptural premise relies upon a judgment. Fourth, evangelicals tend to employ more recent versions of popular culture in their church life, while fundamentalists tend to hang on to older and now obsolete manifestations of popular culture.
Of course, these are generalizations to which plenty of exceptions can be found on either side. Furthermore, as generalizations, they are less likely to be typical of conservative evangelicals than of some other evangelicals. Nevertheless, these differences remain noticeable between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.
How much does any of this matter? Maybe there is a difference, but is the difference really sufficient to separate conservative evangelicals from fundamentalists? To answer that question, let me report three episodes.
Episode one occurs in a doctoral classroom of a major evangelical seminary. The professor has just been asked whether he is willing to restrict his liberty for the sake of those who believe that consuming alcohol is a sin. He replies, “I won’t choose to drink around people if I know that it makes them uncomfortable, but if they tell me that I can’t, I’ll drink a glass of port in front of them just to show them that I can do it. And of course, in Europe, all bets are off.”
Episode two occurs in an outdoor restaurant. Several evangelical theologians are seated at a table. They order drinks before their meal. Then they order some more. After their meal is served, they order still more drinks. They are growing raucous enough that other diners are beginning to glance over their shoulders. One of the theologians slurs out, “Say—how do we know when we’ve gone from drinking in moderation to being drunk?” Another makes reference to the teaching of an obscure catechism and explains that you aren’t drunk if you don’t vomit within twenty-four hours. The only one who doesn’t drink is chosen as the designated driver.
Episode three occurs outside a nice home. Several men are seated on the deck. Each of them is a patriarchal “pastor” of his Christian Reconstructionist house church. As the women serve, one of the men bellows, “Beer me!” The others echo the phrase, and the women dutifully produce bottles of fresh brew.
None of these episodes is fictional. They all occurred in the context of conservative evangelicalism. The professor in the first story is a major conservative evangelical spokesman. The theologians in the second story were the founders of a significant conservative evangelical alliance. The patriarchs in the third story may be people you have never heard of, but they are really out there. In plenty of places.
Now, can anyone imagine any of these scenes occurring in a group of fundamentalist leaders? No? Neither can I.
To be sure, not all conservative evangelicals drink booze. But these do. And what they do is tolerated in the name of Christian liberty—as if somehow Christians have liberty to engage in one of the most destructive practices that humans have ever invented. How much should a Christian drink? Here’s a hint: the same number of drinks that it takes to make you a better driver is exactly the number it takes to make you a better Christian, too.
Of course, I am tipping my hand here. I do not think that the so-called “revivalistic taboos” are necessarily just for revivalists—at least not all of them. Take social dancing—I have absolutely no desire to see my wife swept around the room in the arms of another man. When my daughter was in my home, I had absolutely no desire to see her bouncing and flouncing with some undisciplined adolescent whose hormones were barely under control. The waltz, the fox-trot, the tango, the samba, the rhumba, the Charleston, the jitterbug, the twist, the frog, the monkey, the funky chicken: whatever the name and whatever the style, modern social dancing is all about sex.
Nor do I think that fundamentalists were wrong to reject the symbols of a defiant counterculture. I do not think that we are wrong to raise serious objections to adopting the accouterments of anti-Christian or anti-moral social movements today. Let me put it bluntly: Christians have no business looking like Goths, Rastas, gangstas, one-percenters, or metalheads, any more than they have any business looking like transvestites or Nazis.
We should not wear the symbols of those movements for the same reason that we should not wear a fur coat in the woods during deer season. There is nothing immoral about the coat. We simply do not wish to be mistaken for something that is about to be shot.
I know, I know. Guys who wear suits can be just as worldly as guys who wear piercings. They can embezzle money, for example, or cheat on their wives. True!, but suits were not invented to advertise the defiance of property rights or marital vows.
This is not quantum mechanics. This stuff is obvious. It is so obvious that I have to wonder about somebody who can’t seem to get it. Why should a person who wants to wear the Devil’s uniforme du jour have the right to pontificate about Christian liberty? If you want to challenge me about patriotism, then take off your swastika first. If you want to lecture me about Christian liberty, then remove your piercings.
One of the first questions we need to learn to ask is, “What does that mean?” Fundamentalists do not ask this question nearly as often as they ought to, but they do ask it more than other evangelicals do—including, in many instances, conservative evangelicals. Before we adopt a trend, we need to know what it means.
Christian liberty is important. The last thing we need, however, is for Christian liberty to be defined by people who are looking for loopholes. Too often, many fundamentalists and more evangelicals are doing just that.
In sum, this is one of the differences between fundamentalists (in general) and conservative evangelicals (in general). With respect to this difference, neither fundamentalists nor evangelicals are always right. Fundamentalists, however, are right more often than other evangelicals are. And I think it matters.
A Fourfold Exercise for the Believer in His Lodging on Earth (Part 1)
Ralph Erskine (1685-1752)
The HOLY LAW: or, The Ten Commandments, Exod. xx. 3—17.
1. No God but me thou shalt adore.
2. No image frame to bow before.
3. My holy name take not in vain.
4. My sacred Sabbath don’t profane.
5. To parents render due respect.
6. All murder shun, and malice check.
7. From filth and bunnydom base abstain,
8. From theft and all unlawful gain.
9. False witness flee, and sland’ring spite.
10. Nor covet what’s thy neighbour’s right.
II. The UNHOLY HEART, the direct opposite to God’s holy and righteous Law, Rom. vii. 14. Or, The Knowledge of Sin by the Law, Rom. iii. 20.
1. My heart’s to many gods a slave.
2. Of imag’ry an hideous cave.
3. An hoard of God-dishon’ring crimes.
4. A waster base of holy times.
5. A throne of pride and self-conceit.
6. A slaughter-house of wrath and hate.
7. A cage of birds and thoughts unclean.
8. A den of thieves and frauds unseen.
9. An heap of calumnies unspent.
10. A gulph of greed and discontent.
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 129 views
It’s about making generalized statements that border on silly and which invite deserved ridicule from…The same could be said of your generalization that Kevin was taking the fun out of fundamentalism. My point was just that finding an exception in line dancing (I personally doubt the exception given the sort of music likely to be involved nowadays) is not an effective answer to Kevin’s assertion that modern dance has been completely corrupted as an art form in our culture.
I guess we’ll find out when we get to glory what ridicule was “deserved.”
But in fairness to you, Kevin did not make a serious attempt here to prove that social dancing has become “all about sex,” he asserted it mentioned two scenarios (wife and daughter) to illustrate why he sees it that way, and declared it to be obvious.
Another odd thing about “things that are obvious to us” as human beings is that we do not know to not-see what we see. Constructing an argument is that much more challenging because we find it hard to understand why others do not see what we do.
As for this essay being “way out somewhere,” I’ve explained the argument. A piece of writing is not “way out somewhere,” just because it contains a couple of examples of a subpoint that folks don’t happen to like. His point is completely valid that fundamentalists and mainstream evangelicals differ on the ‘revivalist taboos’ the use of second premise arguments and rejecting the counter culture. And his examples do indeed aptly illustrate why these differences have at least some results that are not trivial.
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.
[Aaron Blumer]Aaron, that reminds me of one of something from this article:[Philip] or by implicationThat’s where the points of disagreement are. Nobody here’s arguing that we have binding rules of life apart from the teaching of Scripture. But we all must apply Scripture to the choices we face and this involves drawing inferences on a regular basis. If you take a close look at http://sharperiron.org/article/now-about-those-differences-part-seven] Part 7 in this series, Kevin explains the role of second premises and judgments. Very helpful stuff there.
Third, fundamentalists are more likely to accept second-premise arguments when the extra-scriptural premise relies upon a judgment.I do not think so. Everyone accepts second-premise arguments. Everyone. I think that this misunderstanding is why there was general agreement with previous Parts and then this one is rejected.
The difference between Fundy’s and Con.Evos in this area is more like:
Con.Evo Perspective: Fundy’s HOLD their second premise arguments, even though they are far-fetched and not made by Biblical writers.
Fundy Perspective: Con.Evos IGNORE clear Biblical principles and obvious second premises.
… border on silly and which invite deserved ridicule …Careful not to despise your brother. Paul was so good in predicting the pitfalls!
The professor in question is DA Carson. Bauder’s quote seems to mischaracterize Carson’s public position. I heard him say this basic thing at the Gospel Coalition 2009. However, he actually used the word “teetotaler.” He said he was a teetotaler in the United States to avoid the cultural baggage surrounding alcohol consumption so prevalent among Christians. He expressly stated his goal was to avoid offense of other believers. If you have heard this guy teach and preach, you know he is one of the most humble and understated guys in professional ministry. His comment about consuming a glass of port was said tongue in cheek and a theoretical response to someone who would claim it a sin.So Bauder’s quote is basically factual, but somewhat prejudicial in its incompleteness.
This installment was delivered somewhat strangely. I fully agree with the concept that we should be very clear as to the reasons we adopt any activity that may cause disrepute on Christ or the Christian faith. In other words, you should know why you do what you do. Lack of clear thinking can affect fundies & CE’s. Fundies avoid things b/c the pastor said to. CE’s engage in things b/c they assume they can. Sweeping generalization i know, but somewhat accurate.
[Dan Miller]Are you serious? To opine that some statements border on silly is despising a brother. I have utmost respect for Kevin. Your statement borders on silly. I must be on the wrong thread.… border on silly and which invite deserved ridicule …Careful not to despise your brother. Paul was so good in predicting the pitfalls!
The convictions of our scrupulous brothers will always seem wrong (if they seemed right, we’d have the conviction ourselves).
So the ridiculous-ness of the conviction is foreseen by the Apostle. And it’s forbidden.
—=—=
I’m not saying we have to pretend that they make sense. I do think we should point out that we don’t agree. I’m just saying that that we shouldn’t get in the position where we hold that they deserve ridicule.
Jeff Brown
[Dan Miller] The difference between Fundy’s and Con.Evos in this area is more like:Not sure I get what you’re saying here. No second premise arguments are “made by biblical writers.” That’s what a second premise argument is: you take a biblical principle about life, you look at life and make a judgment about it to relate it to the principle.
Con.Evo Perspective: Fundy’s HOLD their second premise arguments, even though they are far-fetched and not made by Biblical writers.
Fundy Perspective: Con.Evos IGNORE clear Biblical principles and obvious second premises.
So are you saying that the Con.Evo perspective just doesn’t get what second premise arguments are?
Got the Fundy Perspective pretty close though. In my own case, I’ say “don’t see many” instead of “ignore” (though I do think some ignoring goes on).
Jeff… can you link me to a good source for Whitefield “legalism” (I’m taking your use of the word as tongue in cheek there)? Maybe we need to post some “Weekly Whitefield” on Sundays at SI!
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.
[Aaron Blumer] Not sure I get what you’re saying here. No second premise arguments are “made by biblical writers.” That’s what a second premise argument is: you take a biblical principle about life, you look at life and make a judgment about it to relate it to the principle.I refer primarily to alcohol. There are indeed Biblical principles that must cause caution regarding alcohol. But the Biblical writers did not apply these to total abstinence (except Nazarites, which was a different basis). That is what I mean by writers who did not make the same second premise argument and application.
You can argue that the wine they drank was a lesser concentration (that doesn’t make sense biologically, but people claim it’s true). But clearly they were not total abstainers.
So are you saying that the Con.Evo perspective just doesn’t get what second premise arguments are?No. ConEvos do make second premise applications. They just make different ones from the Fundies. Listen to Driscoll enough and you’ll see that he makes a few and preaches them so as to make them appear that all believers everywhere must so apply.
The author was recently interviewed on the NY Times Freakonomics blog: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/what-can-prohibition-t… (Comment … the author has an agenda (clear from this interview … but then again every author has an agenda!)
This quote from the above interview (also in the book!) was of interest to me:
… one of the very few positive consequences of Prohibition was the reduction in drinking. There was a very steep reduction immediately after it went into effect, but even the ensuing years of speakeasies, bathtub gin, cross-border smuggling, and every other manner of law-breaking did not bring drinking back to pre-Prohibition levels. At the end of Prohibition, Americans were consuming approximately 70 percent as much alcohol as they had in 1914. (Demographic historians use that as a base year, as many states began to pass sharply restrictive liquor laws around that time.)The prohibition era characters and organizations are fascinating: Several:
In fact, it wasn’t until 1973 that we returned to pre-Prohibition levels of alcohol consumption, and only a few years later the per capita consumption figure began to decline again. Even now, we’re only inching our way back to the 1914 high-water mark. (Or maybe I should call it the “high-alcohol mark”!)
One figure we’ll never reach again: [red] the 7.5 gallons of absolute alcohol the average American drank in 1830 – the equivalent of 90 fifths of 80-proof liquor, or nearly three times as much as we consume today.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation] Carry A Nation . The woman trademarked “Carry A Nation”! Check out her picture with the axe!
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union] The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (the pre-prohibition was so broad (including socialism) that it was not entirely effective in the prohibition message
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Saloon_League] The Anti-Saloon League which was able by having a simple message push the agenda
I did find this old image interesting - “the drunkard’s progress”
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/SharperIron/The_Drunkar…]
It’s a little hard to view but note that the drinker progresses from something fairly benign (left-most) to suicide (right most)
My guess is that in the pre-prohibition milieu where drink was so much more prevalent than today (quoted section in red above) and where men frequented saloons (that doubled as houses of prostitution!), and wives contracted syphilis from such unions, and where families were left destitute, that most of Sharper Iron would have been allied with the Anti-Saloon League.
Back to Brother Davis’ comments earlier (re France): it strikes me that some cultures have a more mature view towards “the grape” (I’m thinking about France and Italy) and where drinking in moderation is more common than the American (the US) experience.
– Updated –––-
My parents always had “a fifth” in the house. I can today visualize exactly where it was kept .. in a kitchen cabinet to the left of the sink!. My Father drank so infrequently and moderately that that fifth (a drink for him was a shot in a glass with water and ice) would last him for a year! Quite a contrast to the above (red) cited text)
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Dan Miller] I refer primarily to alcohol. There are indeed Biblical principles that must cause caution regarding alcohol. But the Biblical writers did not apply these to total abstinence (except Nazarites, which was a different basis). That is what I mean by writers who did not make the same second premise argument and application.Second premise arguments are always arguments not made by the biblical writers.
So if Driscoll can do it (as you say—I wouldn’t know), fundamentalists can also. There is no reason to put alcohol in a special category. As conditions change, new second premise arguments will always have to be made. So the fact that the Scripture writers did not make the argument is neither here nor there…. it’s really built into the definition.
But in the case of the essay, I think Kevin was identifying alcohol more as a case of “revivalist taboo” than second premise argument. Seems accurate though to say it is a case of both.
So if the Con. Evo. gripe w/fundamentalists is that they make 2nd premise arguments not made in Scripture, they are being very selective and in that complaint. None of their 2nd premise arguments are made in Scripture either.
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.
Whenever somebody else makes an argument (application of Scripture) that I don’t make, I’ll tend to think they are going too far - beyond Scripture. If they get judgmental, then I’ll have other reactions and conclude they are legalistic.
Whenever somebody fails to make an argument (application of Scripture) that I think is obvious, I’ll see them as failing to apply Scripture.
Discussion