"The label fundamentalist is being claimed simultaneously by people who would deny it of each other."

Reminds me of the humorous Coke ad campaign [URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/media/05adcol.html Can’t Tell Your Cokes Apart? [/URL]

The campaign is based on an oddball thought, that the executives at Coca-Cola who sell the flagship Coke Classic brand want to hire lawyers to sue their co-workers who sell Coke Zero. The grounds for the imaginary lawsuits would be “taste infringement” — that is, it annoys the Coke Classic executives that no-calorie Coke Zero tastes so much like their sugared soft drink.

In one commercial, a person identified as an actual lawyer who is not in on the joke, tells two actors portraying Coke Classic executives: “It’ll be dismissed. You’ll be humiliated.”

Better on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv8YgrqUCVU

Perhaps we should get back to the old way of confessions of faith

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm

Doran does us a favor by putting these two conferences side by side & showing us just how messed up things really are. His observations are well worth reading.

Dr. Doran takes us to a question I have had for many years. “Movement fundamentalism” seems to be built on the premise that “separation” trumps doctrine.
The article focuses on the KJVO issue, but I believe we could probe this idea in other areas as well.
In practical terms, it seems that is acceptable to fellowship with people who may be doctrinally unrelated or even doctrinally askew as long as they are “separated.” That, in my opinion, is at best a distortion of the grid which Scripture gives us for determining areas of fellowship and separation. And, ironically, it is done in the name of preserving doctrine.
Of course, the fundamentalist model could even be abused to the point where a group would become doctrinally apostate while remaing “separated.” Lest we think that is impossible, I would submit that it has happened — and sometimes in quarters which are closer to home than we might want to admit.

I agree that the label Fundamentalism has become very confusing. The label evangelical is also confusing as is the term conservative evangelical. Labels are now too broad in meaning. I have tried calling myself a “historic fundamentalist” since the KJVO movement did not emerge until the 1970s. However, to many that term is meaningless unless defined by explanation. What to do?

While pastoring I had fellowship with two groups here on the west coast. The GARBC by attending some of their Pastoral meetings. The IFCA by attending some of their regionals. Also, fellowship with a couple personal pastoral friends. Our church youth attended an independent camp that was initiated and run by about 10 churches who rented facilities each summer and ran their own camp. Without conscious effort to do so, I was attempting to have fellowship and ministry encouragement without entanglement. I would disagree with some of the emphasis of the IFCA but appreciated some in the organization. They were more conservative evangelical than Fundamentalist separatist. The GARBC was stronger in separatist Fundamentalist principles but I never really wanted to take the steps to have our church join them.

From my perspective, true Fundamentalism, as historically seen and applied today, begins with a central biblical pastoral ministry based upon Acts 20: 17-36. The pastoral principles and warnings in that passage are an Apostolic mandate for church (assembly) ministry. This would be applied today by assemblies having a thoroughgoing expository teaching ministry that creates discerning Christians. It would also necessitate a watchfulness against heresy and misguided or exaggerated doctrine that must be avoided. This leads to separation and warning, not just positive blessing ministry. The center of true Fundamentalism is an Acts 20 and Matthew 28 ministry. Fundamentalism as a label has some major problems.

KJVO doctrine is heresy. It actually undermines the truth source foundation for the entire Christian faith.

The Nouthetic Counseling doctrines are damaging doctrine (not heresy) in that they create a false basis for true biblical counseling while hindering true grace ministry to a segment of people.

The commitment, submission, faith Gospel of MacArthur and Piper is a gospel of limited grace that has appealed to some Fundamentalists because it provides a perceived remedy to easy believism and appeals to a legalistic mentality that desires to see grace in the context of spiritual disciplines.

True historic Fundamentalism had non of the above emphasis on the Bible, counseling, or the Gospel.

So what should we call ourselves? I guess maybe just Bible Grace Christians, or Biblicists, or just “Bible non labelists”? How about “No name believers” or “Christ alone believers?”

Bob T.,

I always enjoy your posts — and usually agree with most of it! :) (I have strong disagreements on nouthetic counseling…but we will leave that alone.)

But regarding labels, I am trying to think of a context where I would even use the term “fundamentalist” to describe myself, and I can think of very few — unless I were teaching on church history or “the fundamentals.” Otherwise, the occurrences would be very rare.

Were I to be speaking to someone in the culture at large, I would call myself a “conservative,” and I think that broad term would communicate volumes. If the person were genuinely interested, I would then begin to explain narrowing terms such as premill., dispensationalism, baptistic, etc., etc.

Maybe we are thinking too hard about all of this…

QUOTE: Pastor Sexton seems like a genuinely gracious, kind man

Do you know Clarence Sexton?

[Paul J. Scharf] But regarding labels, I am trying to think of a context where I would even use the term “fundamentalist” to describe myself, and I can think of very few — unless I were teaching on church history or “the fundamentals.” Otherwise, the occurrences would be very rare.

Well, if not that term, then some term. I ministered in Maine where we had American Baptist Convention churches that were having discussions on whether churches should be “welcoming and affirming” homosexuals. As a Baptist, I definitely want to distinguish myself from that!

Even here in Minnesota, the Baptist General Conference/Converge USA would take different positions on thing that our church would not- say, sponsoring the “Rock the River” BGA association event in the Twin Cities last year. The term can be useful in that context, too. Are there others that can be used? Sure. Are there place I would not want to use it? Yes there are. But I still think it has benefit in some contexts, even if it is the context of where you came from (which appears like it will be more and more the case as others take over the label).

It seems that mainline Fundamentalism (no oxymoron intended) must bear some responsibility of the circus we have of King James Onlyism. While battling heretics on the Left (Harry Emerson Fosdick, et al.) and their translation (the much-maligned RSV), Fundamentalist leaders tolerated and even extolled those that took a King James Only position doctrinally or practically rather than exposing them in the same way as those to their Left. Takeaway lesson for the next generation on biblical separation—it’s got to be practiced consistently with aberrants to the Left and to the Right of Scripture.

I had to follow Doran’s links to the conference (the one by Sexton) to see who all was coming to see who he was upset about being there.

My question would then be, if for example, So and so speaker goes to Sexton’s conference, should you then not be in another conference with him (for example, Vaughn)? At what point does “independent” mean that?

It is an interesting situation to watch.

Incidentally, on another forum I sometimes read (about ex-quiverfullers), I tried to point out that the term “fundamentalist” is supposed to do with doctrine and not whether one is anti-birth control or home schooled, patriarchal, etc, but the readers and promoters of the blog just ask me why I care who they call “fundamentalist” ?

I was trying to point out that definitions should matter since when we are talking about a “group”, it is nice to know what group you are talking about. But the term “fundamentalist” seems to mean different things to different folks and thus, except for your own crowd, it is pretty meaningless.

This particular group referred to “fundamentalist” as anyone with a more narrow outlook than they—even extreme—, even though, not many “fundamentalist Christian” groups would actually claim most of the people they say are. They were even giving Dobson the title “fundamentalist.”

[Greg Linscott]

[Paul J. Scharf] But regarding labels, I am trying to think of a context where I would even use the term “fundamentalist” to describe myself, and I can think of very few — unless I were teaching on church history or “the fundamentals.” Otherwise, the occurrences would be very rare.

Well, if not that term, then some term. I ministered in Maine where we had American Baptist Convention churches that were having discussions on whether churches should be “welcoming and affirming” homosexuals. As a Baptist, I definitely want to distinguish myself from that!

Even here in Minnesota, the Baptist General Conference/Converge USA would take different positions on thing that our church would not- say, sponsoring the “Rock the River” BGA association event in the Twin Cities last year. The term can be useful in that context, too. Are there others that can be used? Sure. Are there place I would not want to use it? Yes there are. But I still think it has benefit in some contexts, even if it is the context of where you came from (which appears like it will be more and more the case as others take over the label).

Greg,
How the would term distinguish you from the these groups? Who are you hoping would read the term and understand that “fundamentalist” would mean you are not in support of “welcoming and affirming” homosexuals or that you separate from Rock music? Is there a danger that they would attribute more to you than you would like? (If WE who use the label can’t clearly define it, how can the world around us?) Are there more effective ways communicating that you do not agree with these areas?

I want a cup of coffee. But what kind? Small, medium, or Grande? Paper, styrofoam, or mug? Cream & sugar or black? Espresso or cappuccino from a powdered mix? Boy, I ought to just scrap the whole term “cup of coffee”- it has no practical usefulness…

Well, I see this in similar fashion. “Fundamentalist” may not be sufficient for everything, and certainly will need me to be more specific beyond assuming other people know exactly what I mean when I employ the term. But with that being said, it does imply some things they can assume- to refer back to our illustration, I don’t want tea. And in the case of what Jamie has said, it may be that I need to counter assumptions more- it’s not just about rock music (or , connecting with the illustration again, the fact that instant coffee isn’t something I care to drink… It may even be that I need to clarify that not everyone who takes a “coffee break” is actually a coffee drinker…

[Greg Linscott] I want a cup of coffee. But what kind? Small, medium, or Grande? Paper, styrofoam, or mug? Cream & sugar or black? Espresso or cappuccino from a powdered mix? Boy, I ought to just scrap the whole term “cup of coffee”- it has no practical usefulness…

Actually Grande, at least at Starbucks, is “Medium.” Using it the way you do, one might think you’re not really a coffee drinker, just a poseur! :) (Personally, I think it’s stupid that they just can’t call it “Medium.” Sometimes I ask for a medium anyway, just to be contrary. They probably just want their mediums to sound large. Reminds me of some stories from NASA about the original astronauts having equipment labeled Large, Extra-Large, and Enormous, or something like that, since among that highly-competitive group, no one could stand to be considered “Small.”)

I do understand that the term “fundamentalist” can be useful, but really only *within* our groups, just as all those extra coffee terms are only useful to people who drink coffee. To everyone else, it’s just coffee, and thus not helpful. I use it here, at my church, and in discussions with other like-minded people, but not much, if any, outside of that. Even when looking for a church to visit, I want to know a lot more than just “fundamental.” And, as others have pointed out, when used outside our circles, it’s applied to a lot of people who wouldn’t call themselves fundamentalists (and ones to whom we would certainly not apply the term). When dealing with people in day-to-day life, it’s enough to just mention that I believe the Bible, and attend a church where we worship God and believe in Jesus as our Savior. That description might just as easily apply to a Rick Warren or Hybels-style church, but it would be all the same to those on the outside. The term “fundamentalist” doesn’t generally come up in discussions with unbelievers (unless it’s about muslim terrorists), but if it did, I would ask them what they meant by it before applying it to what I believe.

Using some phrases or labels may have more negative connotations than positive. “I’m going out for a drink” is probably a phrase to avoid if you mean you are going to grab a cup of coffee (which ever way you like it).

All of this really depends upon the audience to whom you are communicating. Which is why I dropped the label on our website…but still use it in Sunday School.

[dcbii] Even when looking for a church to visit, I want to know a lot more than just “fundamental.” And, as others have pointed out, when used outside our circles, it’s applied to a lot of people who wouldn’t call themselves fundamentalists (and ones to whom we would certainly not apply the term).

It may sound “overboard,” but I’ve learned generally to shy away from visiting a church if it’s Yellow Pages ad says “fundamental.” 9 out of 10 times (OK, not statistically accurate, probably) when we’ve visited such a church, it’s been either redneck, KJVO extremist, or both. Come to think of it, I can’t remember very many churches I’ve visited that I would want to be a part of if I lived in the community—and that’s visiting 2-3 churches a year for the last almost 30 years. Sad, huh?

Actually Grande, at least at Starbucks, is “Medium.” Using it the way you do, one might think you’re not really a coffee drinker, just a poseur!

I just revealed that I am a “home-brewer…” :D