Is the Central statement a new approach to Fundamentalism?
I am not familiar with the author of this blog, and I am not entirely sure about the purpose of his writing, so this is not an endorsement of his piece. I do concur, however, that I found several points in Central’s statements to be curious (if not confusing) upon my first reading of them.
I appreciate Central in many ways and am not trying to demean it in the least. I would say, however — like this blog author — I will be watching with interest to see what is forthcoming from them. Right now I am not at all sure I have a handle on it.
The first two documents are full of phrases like this: “Some of us believe that…” contrasted with “while others believe…” or “while others understand…” The third document contains no expressions like this at all. One has to wonder how much these first two documents really distinguish the character or guiding beliefs of the institution. Some believe one thing, others believe another. Doesn’t sound like a statement of certainty to me. It seems that the third document, the “Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism” is more definitive than the first two.This is an excellent point. When I read, “We hold a variety of understandings…; We likewise hold various understandings…” in Central’s statement on sanctification — keeping in mind that Central is a very small seminary with only seven full-time faculty members, I am left more with a feeling of curiosity than of ethos.
I appreciate Central in many ways and am not trying to demean it in the least. I would say, however — like this blog author — I will be watching with interest to see what is forthcoming from them. Right now I am not at all sure I have a handle on it.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Don Johnson, Sharper Iron member, is the blog author
Part of Don’s thoughts, where he quotes from a BJU series on ecclesiastical sep. and compares to the Central ethos statement.
I don’t think that there is actually much difference on this point. The “fundamentals of the faith concerning the Bible, Christ and salvation” are the same ideas contained in “the fundamentals of the gospel” (a phrase in the ethos statement).
I think though that Central should consider following the ethos statement with a series of explanations of how each of the fundamentals of the faith is essential to the gospel… almost a new “The Fundamentals” series, because the relationship between some of these ideas and the small handful of assertions that comprise the gospel itself isn’t immediately obvious to everyone.
(Looking to see if I can get permission to post the ethos statements here at SI for discussion)
On the “some of us believe” and “variety of understandings” etc
These statements describe where there is agreement as well as where there is not. As such, they work just fine as “ethos statements.” They articulate where the seminary is not going to be homogeneous as well as where it will be.
“Ecclesiastical separation involves, positively, identification with groups faithful to the truth of God’s Word. Negatively, it is the refusal to be identified with any teacher, church, denomination, or other religious organization that does not hold to and contend for those fundamentals of the Faith concerning the Bible, Christ, and salvation.”
Note that this is much more comprehensive than simply separation over the ‘boundaries of the gospel’, the defining edge of the separation the Central ethos statement repeatedly asserts. For example, see it’s second sentence:
I don’t think that there is actually much difference on this point. The “fundamentals of the faith concerning the Bible, Christ and salvation” are the same ideas contained in “the fundamentals of the gospel” (a phrase in the ethos statement).
I think though that Central should consider following the ethos statement with a series of explanations of how each of the fundamentals of the faith is essential to the gospel… almost a new “The Fundamentals” series, because the relationship between some of these ideas and the small handful of assertions that comprise the gospel itself isn’t immediately obvious to everyone.
(Looking to see if I can get permission to post the ethos statements here at SI for discussion)
On the “some of us believe” and “variety of understandings” etc
These statements describe where there is agreement as well as where there is not. As such, they work just fine as “ethos statements.” They articulate where the seminary is not going to be homogeneous as well as where it will be.
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.
Posting that ethos statement here tomorrow. Worth having more folks see. The others are interesting also and will probably post in the future.
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.
This may only make sense to some IT people (or perhaps to “no one” but me! :) )
- Linux is ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source] open source ” (more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution] here )
- Roman Catholicism is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software] closed source / proprietary . They have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ] someone to enforce “what Catholicism is!).
- There is no equivalent in fundamentalism
- Roman Catholicism is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software] closed source / proprietary . They have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ] someone to enforce “what Catholicism is!).
- LInux has a ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel] kernel ” - analogous to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism] the fundamentals of the faith :
- The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture
- The virgin birth of Christ.
- The belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin.
- The bodily resurrection of Christ.
- The historical reality of Christ’s miracles.
- The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture
- There are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions] many Linux distributions built on that same kernel. There are many “flavors” (many of them sour! :) ) of fundamentalism. Example: the Schaap/Hyles fundamentalism is greatly different than Detroit Baptist’s, or Central’s, or Faith’s.
The “Scripture was given to the church not the believer” crowd really hates the open source theology idea!
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.
[Jim Peet] By the way I don’t see Central’s ethos statements as “a new approach to Fundamentalism”.I agree. I don’t have a particular problem with anything I have read about Central’s approach to fundamentalism/separation per se. My interest and concern is in their approach to dispensationalism and doctrines that flow directly from it.
The problem I have is that these dispensational issues seem to be the areas where Central makes allowance for a variation of opinion. Yet to me these areas are of far greater importance than a philosophical approach to the development and practice of fundamentalism — which Central in general, and Dr. Bauder in particular, seem to be emphasizing at the moment.
I do appreciate much that Dr. Bauder has written about the fundamentalist movement, and have lauded him for his boldness and for his insights. However, my concern here flows from the fact that I believe firmly that Christ’s Kingdom — the ultimate thing which we await — is NOT YET. That which is ALREADY — even our best attempts at fleshing out some type of fundamental implementation of what He has called us to do — is flawed and sinful at best. I would place my stake on the former.
To some — and indeed, truly in the grand scheme of things — the differences between us may not seem to be that big. However, these are still important issues and points of emphasis.
If I am misreading Central on this, please forgive and correct me.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
To give a synopsis, I am saying that three things are new in this approach:
- Limiting separation to the protection of the gospel rather than a struggle for a pure church
- Repudiating revivalism (historically a significant part of fundamentalism)
- Endorsing cooperation with an as yet still compromised form of evangelicalism
Am I misreading the statement?
If I am not, then are these not new approaches within fundamentalism?
And, FWIW, no one has yet addressed the ongoing questions I posed about certain vagaries of the document.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Many thinking fundamentalists have their definitions as to what is and is not appropriate to fundamentalism. You still end up with Joel’s ABC thing when all is said and done. Bauder is not into revivalism (I am not, either), but I do not think a revivalistic stance is contrary to fundamentalism. I don’t espouse his secondary separation stance and I have less trouble with some elements of contemporary culture. I feel strongly about maintaining a literal exalted future for Israel, and thus am some sort of dispensationalist, and that is an important truth to my way of thinking. But I do agree that this is not what makes one a fundamentalist. That is not to say it doesn’t matter or that our churches and organizations should not take this stand.
What we have here in one opinion about what fundamentalism is or should be. Why is this opinion better than any other? I don’t get it. What good does broadening a few areas and tightening other areas do?
We still do not have popular names that really communicate positions, so the ABC thing is the best we can do for now. I think the SI doctrinal statement is a better definition myself.
What we have here in one opinion about what fundamentalism is or should be. Why is this opinion better than any other? I don’t get it. What good does broadening a few areas and tightening other areas do?
We still do not have popular names that really communicate positions, so the ABC thing is the best we can do for now. I think the SI doctrinal statement is a better definition myself.
Here, a Fundamentalist is someone who believes in the foundational principles of the Christian faith and also believes in separation from apostasy. Opinions vary as to the degree of separation, the process and the methods. But we are committed to the principle. For the purposes of the site, “the foundational principles of the Christian faith” are those expressed in our Doctrinal Statement.I am not saying that Central’s is a bad presentation. It is an excellent presentation as to Central’s Perspective, but there is nothing here that makes me want to jump on the bandwagon as opposed to other presentations.
"The Midrash Detective"
Point # 2: Repudiating revivalism (historically a significant part of fundamentalism)Response. (Kind of a “yes …but”). He expands upon his definition of “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.If it is a change … I’m all for it. My flavor of Fundamentalism (see my explanation of http://www.sharperiron.org/filings/8-25-10/16047#comment-17304] how Fundamentalism is like Linux distros up yonder!) has almost always (41 years as a Christian) been in favor of “expository preaching”, etc!
Point # 3: Endorsing cooperation with an as yet still compromised form of evangelicalismAre you referring to this Bauder quote?
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 FundamentalistsComments:
- He does not appear to be calling for cooperation with C/E’s.
- As far as I am aware he has never “been in fellowship” 1 with C/E’s. 1 Of course there are some that believe that having a John MacArthur commentary or quoting him from a commentary is fellowship. I don’t buy that!
- In my own view, I have more in common with conservative evangelicals than hyper-Fundamentalists (say SOTL or Schaap/Hyles or the guy last year who condemned Calvinism (Sweatt) or Ron Comfort ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/8412866/Fruits-of-Calvinism] The Fruits of Calvinism )
- If this is a change (and for me it is not a change) then it is a good thing!
- By the way, as I consider my theological library, a guestimate is that 90% of it is by C/Es. I’ll venture that that is true for many Fundamentalists. If my hypothesis is correct, we do owe a debt to them
[Jim Peet]I liked your comment about Linux distros. I think it is a good analogy.Point # 2: Repudiating revivalism (historically a significant part of fundamentalism)Response. (Kind of a “yes …but”). He expands upon his definition of “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.If it is a change … I’m all for it. My flavor of Fundamentalism (see my explanation of http://www.sharperiron.org/filings/8-25-10/16047#comment-17304] how Fundamentalism is like Linux distros up yonder!) has almost always (41 years as a Christian) been in favor of “expository preaching”, etc!
Here is my problem with the repudiation of revivalism: on the one hand, the ethos statement uses the term “historic” to describe themselves:
Certain differences do still exist between historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Fundamentalists, in contrast to Conservative evangelicals…This term has been used in recent years to mean ‘not those nasty post 1960s ultra-separatists’ (especially ‘not BJjr’). I don’t know if Central means all that by the term. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that revivalism plays a huge part in the history of fundamentalism. So from a historical basis, it seems odd for fundamentalism to be repudiating a huge part of its history. Further, I think it can be shown that those early conservative men who repudiated the revivalists also repudiated the term fundamentalist (see Machen).
As for the additional details provided, isn’t it a bit of a caricature? I have read Bauder criticize the revivalists from the late 1800s to the present, claiming they brought “Victorian pop culture” into the church. Others have criticized pastors who have any form of invitation at the conclusion of their services, dismissing them as ‘revivalists’. In other words, I think the term ‘revivalist’ is used to paint with a pretty broad brush. There are a lot of good men preaching the true gospel who could also be termed revivalist. Should we now bar the door to fellowship with them? This is a very new approach in fundamentalism.
As for expository preaching vs other styles, I tend to be an expositor (I think it is the easiest style of preaching and I tend to be lazy.) But I don’t disrespect other styles. They have their place. Spurgeon, for example, was not an expositor. He’s everybody’s hero.
[Jim Peet]Go a little further in that paragraph:Point # 3: Endorsing cooperation with an as yet still compromised form of evangelicalismAre you referring to this Bauder quote?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
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.This is not the approach fundamentalism has typically taken with evangelicals. Their entanglements have been regarded as too compromised. For example, Piper with Driscoll and Warren, Dever with Packer, Mohler with Graham (and MacArthur with Graham, too, for that matter).
[Jim Peet] Comments:Point 1: not so, see above.
- He does not appear to be calling for cooperation with C/E’s.
- As far as I am aware he has never “been in fellowship” 1 with C/E’s. 1 Of course there are some that believe that having a John MacArthur commentary or quoting him from a commentary is fellowship. I don’t buy that!
- In my own view, I have more in common with conservative evangelicals than hyper-Fundamentalists (say SOTL or Schaap/Hyles or the guy last year who condemned Calvinism (Sweatt) or Ron Comfort ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/8412866/Fruits-of-Calvinism] The Fruits of Calvinism )
- If this is a change (and for me it is not a change) then it is a good thing!
- By the way, as I consider my theological library, a guestimate is that 90% of it is by C/Es. I’ll venture that that is true for many Fundamentalists. If my hypothesis is correct, we do owe a debt to them
Point 2: don’t know, that is not my issue with the ethos statement as it stands
Point 3: well… more?? hard to say. I don’t think any of them (conservatives or so-called hypers) preach a false gospel [maybe Schaap/Hyles have, not familiar enough with their teaching]. The fact is we have a lot in common with left-wing evangelicals too. What does that prove?
Point 4: matter of opinion, I guess
Point 5: is 90% of your library limited to books written in the last 20 years? That is the outer edge of the “Conservative Evangelical” orbit, I’d say. Hard to imagine you have limited your library in that way.
FWIW, just didn’t want to ignore your questions.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate that.
Just a brief word about my library …. I probably should not have commented on that. Used to be huge … now pared down … much disarray. Probably hard to categorize one way or another
Back to Schaap/Hyles / Ron Comfort (The Fruits of Calvinism) (I hope folk read that … it is a real straw man of Calvinism!) - I separate from them!
–— More
I really think that fundamentalism as a label has largely lost it’s value. Doran made a comment like that some time ago on his blog
I don’t really run in church / religious circles (I mean I work in a secular job - I don’t go to conferences, etc …. I am a faithful member of my church where I serve). In my circles fundamentalism as a label either means nothing or nothing positive (or accurate). Terms like DCAM, VSAM, SQL, or the scores of other terms I deal with daily are as meaningless to the the Christian professional class as the term fundamentalism is to the average Joe.
The fundamentalism of those I mention above is not my fundamentalism. They wouldn’t have me and I wouldn’t have them.
Comment: I’ve looked over your church website and your writings. If I lived in Victoria BC I probably would attend your church. So we could fellowship together.
Sometimes I wish the religious professionals would just get out and rub elbows more with the average non Christian person.
Just a brief word about my library …. I probably should not have commented on that. Used to be huge … now pared down … much disarray. Probably hard to categorize one way or another
Back to Schaap/Hyles / Ron Comfort (The Fruits of Calvinism) (I hope folk read that … it is a real straw man of Calvinism!) - I separate from them!
–— More
I really think that fundamentalism as a label has largely lost it’s value. Doran made a comment like that some time ago on his blog
I don’t really run in church / religious circles (I mean I work in a secular job - I don’t go to conferences, etc …. I am a faithful member of my church where I serve). In my circles fundamentalism as a label either means nothing or nothing positive (or accurate). Terms like DCAM, VSAM, SQL, or the scores of other terms I deal with daily are as meaningless to the the Christian professional class as the term fundamentalism is to the average Joe.
The fundamentalism of those I mention above is not my fundamentalism. They wouldn’t have me and I wouldn’t have them.
Comment: I’ve looked over your church website and your writings. If I lived in Victoria BC I probably would attend your church. So we could fellowship together.
Sometimes I wish the religious professionals would just get out and rub elbows more with the average non Christian person.
[Jim Peet] I really think that fundamentalism as a label has largely lost it’s value. Doran made a comment like that some time ago on his blogI appreciate that sentiment. It is true that the average person in the pew has no idea what fundamentalism is (or evangelicalism or neo-orthodoxy or…). Absolutely true.
I don’t really run in church / religious circles (I mean I work in a secular job - I don’t go to conferences, etc …. I am a faithful member of my church where I serve). In my circles fundamentalism as a label either means nothing or nothing positive (or accurate). Terms like DCAM, VSAM, SQL, or the scores of other terms I deal with daily are as meaningless to the the Christian professional class as the term fundamentalism is to the average Joe.
However…
- Whose fault is that? I submit that if we pastors are keen to separate and identify ourselves as fundamentalists, we need to understand what it is and learn how to communicate it to our people so that it aids their discipleship. If we can’t do that, or can’t communicate it in an edifying way, we might as well quit yapping.
- If you had people working in your industry who didn’t understand DCAM, VSAM, SQL and such, what would happen to your industry? (See point 1)
- I happen to think that separation is important. My people listen to and read all kinds of religious teachers (radio, books, internet). I need to keep up with them [to some extent] and offer warnings when needed.
- My people need to understand why we go to the trouble and endure the flak for distancing ourselves from certain churches and/or Christians. I need to be able to show why I don’t know the guys in the local ministerial association all that well. If I can’t articulate my differences, they are just prejudices.
So, yes, I think a lot of people in fundamentalist churches don’t understand what makes their church / pastor unique. I think that is a problem. I think that young people from such churches who arrive at fundamentalist Christian colleges without some idea of the nature of fundamentalism are in for a bit of a culture shock. And may be open to cynicism about the whole thing.
One of the ways I try to teach these things is to cover the subject in different ways through our teaching ministry. In our Adult Bible Study I have tackled the Versions, Separation, and am currently teaching about Godliness-Worldliness. I have taught our men History of Fundamentalism and elements of Christian Leadership in our monthly Men’s Breakfasts. I don’t harp on the same thing every week, but over time, line by line, I am building (I hope) something of a Fundamentalist Christian ethos (to borrow a term).[Jim Peet] The fundamentalism of those I mention above is not my fundamentalism. They wouldn’t have me and I wouldn’t have them.
Well… yes, to some extent. I have an evangelist friend who is an Ambassador grad. He isn’t insane. I would have him back again. But there are others…. And to me, this is something of the beauty of Fundamentalism to me. We aren’t monolithic. I can keep my distance from some, fellowship with others, and not really be tainted by the scandals that some fall into. (Hopefully I will keep out of scandals myself!)[Jim Peet] Comment: I’ve looked over your church website and your writings. If I lived in Victoria BC I probably would attend your church. So we could fellowship together.
Thank you. I hope that someday we will leave an enduring work behind (not there yet), but it depends on the grace of God in the end.[Jim Peet] Sometimes I wish the religious professionals would just get out and rub elbows more with the average non Christian person.
Amen.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] To give a synopsis, I am saying that three things are new in this approach:
- Limiting separation to the protection of the gospel rather than a struggle for a pure church
- Repudiating revivalism (historically a significant part of fundamentalism)
- Endorsing cooperation with an as yet still compromised form of evangelicalism
Am I misreading the statement?
If I am not, then are these not new approaches within fundamentalism?
Not misreading it exactly. I do think item three is pretty “new”—not so much as a way of thinking but as an official statement of direction. I don’t think I’ve seen much (any?) of that in fund. institutions before.
But item 1… the struggle for a “pure church” has always required something to define “pure” whenever the struggle has been more than rhetorical. It’s true that much of fund. rhetoric has been more broadly worded, but this has not been a good thing. What is “pure”? So I think articulations of the separation principle that define that purity more precisely are not “new” so much as “newly refined.” The boundaries that constitute “purity”—as far as tests for fellowship/separation are concerned—have always been gospel boundaries. But do note that the Central statements use terms like “fundamentals of the gospel” etc. It’s not just “the gospel” that is the test of fellowship but the doctrines that both essential to it and necessary inferences from it… things you can’t deny without also denying the gospel.
Along the way, some have defined fundamentalist separatism in extremely broad terms like “separation from all forms of error and disobedience.” This is regrettable and certainly not how the movement began. I mean, should I refuse fellowship in a punitive sense from brothers who teach that NT believers should tithe? I happen to believe that’s error. But I’m only about 51% sure of that so I tithe anyway. It’s just an example of how silly “everythingism” is.
But I do think the official repudiation of revivalism is pretty new, too, now that you mention it.
Note: I hope this post isn’t terribly redundant. I did a no no and skipped several. Bit hurried.
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.
Hi Aaron
I’ll concede that separation over the “fundamentals of the gospel” could be broader than merely and strictly “the gospel” itself.
However, note that this theme has been pretty prominent in some of the discussion lately. Give a listen to Bauder’s lectures at International Baptist Bible Colllege a couple of years ago. Also see a good deal of rhetoric on the usual blogs.
I also agree with you that some have gone too far in “separation from all forms of disobedience”. But the less extreme have noted ecclesiastical separation as separation from modernists and those who work with modernists and personal separation from worldliness as basic criteria. Obviously worldliness is not an absolutely precise term, but “we know it when we see it” generally speaking. In other words, I don’t think it is as hard as some want to make it out to be.
So it is possible I am reading more into the term ‘gospel’ than was intended. I would be glad to be wrong. … But I’m not holding my breath either.
I’ll concede that separation over the “fundamentals of the gospel” could be broader than merely and strictly “the gospel” itself.
However, note that this theme has been pretty prominent in some of the discussion lately. Give a listen to Bauder’s lectures at International Baptist Bible Colllege a couple of years ago. Also see a good deal of rhetoric on the usual blogs.
I also agree with you that some have gone too far in “separation from all forms of disobedience”. But the less extreme have noted ecclesiastical separation as separation from modernists and those who work with modernists and personal separation from worldliness as basic criteria. Obviously worldliness is not an absolutely precise term, but “we know it when we see it” generally speaking. In other words, I don’t think it is as hard as some want to make it out to be.
So it is possible I am reading more into the term ‘gospel’ than was intended. I would be glad to be wrong. … But I’m not holding my breath either.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion