Separatist, Baptist Fundamentalism

Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-04 and is reprinted with permission from the May/June issue of FrontLine magazine.

The FBFI reaffirms is position and core value as promoting separatist Baptist Fundamentalism. Historically, Fundamentalism has been identified by an adherence to the fundamentals of the faith as identified during the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversies of the early twentieth century. From its inception Fundamentalism has not only held those doctrines known as the fundamentals but has also contended for them when necessary and battled any doctrinal position that would oppose or threaten them. In its purest form, Fundamentalism is a deep commitment to and willingness to contend for the clear teaching of the Word of God.

We readily recognize that not all Fundamentalists are Baptists. Early Fundamentalists included Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, and many more. They fought royally the corruption of theological liberalism within their own denominational structures.

We recognize that while the theological battles of the past continue today in various forms, new doctrinal corruptions have recently arisen that are of equal import with the fundamentals of previous generations. Such corruptions would include but not be limited to issues commonly known as the Open View of God; the New Perspective on Paul; the Social Gospel; the redefining of marriage; and various corruptions of bibliology such as the denial of inerrancy and the elevation of particular versions or texts above the original autographs of Scripture.

Separate

Separatism was not an early identifying mark of a Fundamentalist. The battles raged within the denominational structures over control of mission boards, colleges, seminaries, and, depending on the denominational structures, church buildings and individual churches themselves. When it became clear that the Modernists would maintain control of the denominational structures, Fundamentalists had a clear choice—stay and cooperate or leave. Cooperation meant compromise, so they separated. Separation eventually became an identifying mark of Fundamentalism because obedience to the Scriptures in the circumstances demanded it. The FBFI affirms the separatist practices of Fundamentalists as a correct and faithful response to those who would compromise the faith once delivered to the saints. We do not condemn our early Fundamentalist leaders for remaining and fighting. Stewardship of the institutions founded and built by faithful believers demanded that they make every effort not to abandon valuable resources to compromise. But we also commend them for separating once it was clear that those resources were lost.

Separation took a new angle with the rise of New Evangelicalism. Under the leadership of such men as Ockenga, Carnell, and Graham, some Fundamentalists sought to re-establish relationships with the Modernists and remake Fundamentalism in a kinder, gentler, and more academically respected form. To the Fundamentalists of the 1940s and ’50s this practice was a clear violation of many direct commands of Scripture. It also confused the message of the gospel. So the line was drawn between the two groups. They became Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals, later called “Evangelicals.” Even today these terms can be confusing. Some use the term “Evangelical” to describe the whole of believers not categorized as theologically liberal. Others use the term to describe the group that would claim neither theological liberalism nor separatist Fundamentalism.

The FBFI affirms the necessity of separation both from unbelief (theological liberalism) and from brothers walking in false unity with those who deny the faith. The first group denies the faith by proclamation; the second denies it by confusing association.

Another type of separation was at work during the rise of Fundamentalism. While the northern groups separated primarily over theological issues, Baptists, especially in the South, separated over worldliness as well. While separation over lifestyle issues was not considered an identifying mark of Fundamentalism everywhere (especially among the northern groups), it was seen so by some. It would be hard to argue that one is faithful to the Word of God while he is clearly living in worldliness. There has never been a consensus in Fundamentalism on the specifics of certain issues of entertainment, dress, or music, but there has been the clear understanding that true Bible believers seek to actively apply Biblical principles to every area of life and that they desire to be morally distinct from the sinfulness of the world around them.

While we would maintain that in the present environment, all true Fundamentalists are separatists, we also would assert that not all separatists are Fundamentalists. History offers many examples of divisive groups that separated over issues clearly not justified by Scripture. The racism of supremacist groups and the primitivism of the Amish and some Mennonites are issues completely distinct from the driving forces of separation in Fundamentalism. It is for this reason that those who carry the mantle of early Fundamentalism now must call themselves Biblical Fundamentalists to draw a distinction between themselves radicals of all faiths.

While being firmly committed to our doctrine, practice, and history as Baptists, the FBFI clearly recognizes that not all Baptists are Fundamentalists. The two granddaddy denominations among the Baptists would serve as examples. Most within the Southern Baptist Convention would not identify themselves as Fundamentalists (even if they hold the fundamentals). The American Baptist Church (the former Northern Baptist Convention) has long ago identified itself wholeheartedly with the liberalism of the early Modernists.

Independent

We are independent Baptists, identifying with the early English Baptists and with the distinctives commonly held among almost all Baptists. These would include the affirmation of the Bible as sole authority for faith and practice, the autonomy of the local church, the priesthood of every believer, two offices of pastor and deacon, individual soul liberty (and responsibility), the separation of church and state, two ordinances (the Lord’s supper and baptism), and a saved, serving church membership. Baptists have generally practiced congregational church government and have condemned sacramentalism even in the ordinances they claim are Biblical. There is no recognition of the communication of grace in the ordinances practiced by Baptists. We have always seen the ordinances as entirely symbolic.

The doctrine of the autonomy of the local church among independent Baptists has especially allowed our churches to grow and multiply free of the constant political battles within broader denominational structures. This is perhaps one great reason that a significant majority of those claiming the name Biblical Fundamentalist today also claim the name Baptist.

This autonomy is not without its deficiencies. The inability to regulate doctrine from one church or school to the next has allowed extremism to exist in generous amounts among those who claim to be Baptist Fundamentalists. This would include, but not be limited to, text and translation issues as well as skewed forms of church government. While the New Evangelicals sought academic and intellectual recognition, some Fundamentalist have become extremists in the other direction. It is not necessarily a sin to be ignorant, but there is a certain sinfulness in willful ignorance, and it is deeply sinful to be proud of it.

While we certainly have an appreciation for those within other denominational circles who were or continue to be Fundamentalists, we, as the FBFI, boldly and without apology continue to identify ourselves as Baptists and faithfully teach the Biblical distinctives that define us as such.

We are Fundamentalists, clinging doggedly to the fundamentals of the faith and contending for them if need be. We will continue to examine attacks both old and new on Biblical orthodoxy and boldly defend in preaching, print (electronic and otherwise), and in practice.

We are Baptists, proudly claiming the history and ecclesiology of those who have identified themselves as Baptists for nearly five hundred years, and even more so with the New Testament Church whose practice we seek to follow.

We are also separatists, recognizing that every NT church must clearly define how it will relate with other faith groups in its local community and around the world. We will draw clear distinctions of fellowship and cooperation between ourselves and those who would deny the fundamentals. We will confront as necessary those who claim the fundamentals while walking in disobedience in this area.

Kevin Schaal (MDiv, DMin) is a church planter and pastor in Glendale, Arizona. He and his wife, Sandy, are the parents of five children. He also serves as the chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the FBFI.