Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism
Republished with permission (and unedited) from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. (The document posted at Central’s website within the last couple of weeks.)
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
To be an evangelical is to be centered upon the gospel. To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines. We are both evangelicals and Fundamentalists according to these definitions. We all believe that, as ecclesial movements, both evangelicalism and Fundamentalism have drifted badly from their core commitments. In the case of evangelicalism, the drift began when self-identified neo-evangelicals began to extend Christian fellowship to those who clearly rejected fundamental doctrines. This extension of fellowship represented a dethroning of the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. It was a grievous error, and it has led to the rapid erosion of evangelical theology within the evangelical movement. At the present moment, some versions of professing evangelicalism actually harbor denials of the gospel such as Open Theism or the New Perspective on Paul. We deny that the advocates of such positions can rightly be called evangelical.
On the other hand, we also believe that some Fundamentalists have attempted to add requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship. Sometimes these requirements have involved institutional or personal loyalties, resulting in abusive patterns of leadership. Other times they have involved organizational agendas. They have sometimes involved the elevation of relatively minor doctrines to a position of major importance. In some instances, they have involved the creation of doctrines nowhere taught in Scripture, such as the doctrine that salvation could not be secured until Jesus presented His material blood in the heavenly tabernacle. During recent years, the most notorious manifestation of this aberrant version of Fundamentalism is embodied in a movement that insists that only the King James version of the Bible (or, in some cases, its underlying Greek or Hebrew texts) ought be recognized as the perfectly preserved Word of God.
We regard both of these extremes as equally dangerous. The evangelicalism of the far Left removes the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The Fundamentalism of the far Right adds to the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neither extreme is acceptable to us, but because we encounter the far Right more frequently, and because it claims the name of Fundamentalism, we regard it as a more immediate and insidious threat.
Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is 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.
We also reject the “new-image Fundamentalism” that absorbs the current culture, producing a worldly worship and a pragmatic ministry. These self-professed fundamentalists often follow the latest trends in ministry, disparage theological labels such as Baptist, and aggressively criticize any version of Fundamentalism not following their ministry style.
We oppose anti-separatist evangelicalism, hyper-fundamentalism, revivalism, and new-image Fundamentalism. We wish to reclaim authentic Fundamentalism, to rebuild it, and to strengthen it. For us that reclamation involves not only working against the philosophy of broad evangelicalism (which assaults us from outside), but also working against those versions of Fundamentalism that subvert the Christian faith.
On the other hand, these positions do not exhaust the evangelical options. Conservative evangelicals have reacted against the current erosion of evangelicalism by refocusing attention upon the gospel, including its importance as a boundary for Christian fellowship. These conservative evangelicals have become important spokespersons against current denials of the gospel, and they have also spoken out against trends that remove the gospel from its place of power in transforming lives (e.g., the church growth and church marketing movements).
Certain differences do still exist between historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Fundamentalists, in contrast to Conservative evangelicals, tend to align more with dispensationalism and cessationism. Fundamentalists tend to react against contemporary popular culture, while many conservative evangelicals embrace it. Perhaps most importantly, Fundamentalists make a clean break with the leadership of anti-separatist evangelicals, while conservative evangelicals continue to accommodate (or at least refuse to challenge) their leadership.
Because of these differences, 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 (who are often in our back yard). 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.
We wish to be used to restate, refine, and strengthen biblical Fundamentalism. The process of restatement includes not only defining what a thing is, but also saying what it is not. We find that we must point to many versions of professing Fundamentalism and say, “That is not biblical Christianity.” We do not believe that the process of refinement and definition can occur without such denials. The only way to strengthen Fundamentalism is to speak out against some self-identified Fundamentalists.
We also see a need to speak out against the abandonment of the gospel by the evangelical Left, the reducing of the gospel’s importance by the heirs of the New Evangelicalism, and the huckstering of the gospel by pragmatists, whether evangelicals or Fundamentalists. On the other hand, while we may express disagreement with aspects of conservative evangelicalism (just as we may express disagreement with one another), we wish to affirm and to strengthen the activity of conservative evangelicals in restoring the gospel to its rightful place.
The marks of a strong Fundamentalism will include the following:
- A recommitment to the primacy and proclamation of the gospel.
- An understanding that the fundamentals of the gospel are the boundary of Christian fellowship.
- A focus on the importance of preaching as biblical exposition.
- An emphasis upon progressive sanctification understood as incremental spiritual growth.
- An elevation of the importance of ordinate Christian affections, expressed partly by sober worship that is concerned with the exaltation and magnification of God.
- An understanding of Christian leadership primarily as teaching and serving.
- A commitment to teaching and transmitting the whole system of faith and practice.
- An exaltation of the centrality of the local congregation in God’s work.
These are features of an authentic Fundamentalism that we all feel is worth saving. These features describe the kind of Fundamentalism that we wish to build. Their absence in either Fundamentalism or other branches of evangelicalism constitutes a debasing of Christianity that we intend to oppose.
- 70 views
As for learning from the inside, I think many here are more than familiar with men in your position. I would remind you Jack Hyles spoke for many year at MBBC’s Fall Soul Winning and Missionary Conference. I would posit it’s my southern brethren reared on the Sword of the Lord who need to understand the historical differences. I leave here so I don’t go into personalities. One factor contributing to the lack of understanding is we northerners didn’t/don’t have a non-associational publication like the SoL. So, many perceive(d) the SoL as speaking for Fundamental Baptists as a whole. When, in fact it didn’t/doesn’t..
As for “our northern brethren find more in common with the conservative Evangelicals,” it’s probably due to the fact that many of them came through the CBA.
[RPittman][Rob Fall] I would add most of the schools which Brother Pittman cites come out of the former\ex SBC side of the family.Rob, you are right. Thank you for making this point. And I think it is important and germane point in order to understand my position. My argument has run that Fundamentalism is much larger and more diverse than the Faith-Central sphere of influence. I have respect for these guys but don’t lop off the other arm. From this perspective, it appears that our northern brethren find more in common with the conservative Evangelicals than other self-identified Fundamentalists. My challenge is to learn more about us from the inside before condemning us to purgatory.
Clarification: My statement above should read, “we Northern Baptists have not had any organizational ties to the Southern Baptists since the demise of the Triennial Convention.”
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Bob and I do not always agree, but I think on this he is right. My heritage is more southern fundamentalism, eventhough I am a Northerner. My uncle left Michigan to go to Bob Jones and spent his entire ministry in the South. Our family was greatly influenced by Southern fundamentalism. I often felt growing up that I was settling for being in a church in the North because they weren’t as good.
But the KJVO position that Bob is speaking of his diametically opposed to our movement. John R. Rice was not KJVO. I have a relative that also remembers hearing Dr. Sightler preach from the old ASV! Later, the SOL and Tabernacle people became more KJVO, but only after swallowing the Fuller, Riplinger pills. I have no problem fellowshiping with someone who only uses the KJV. Many in my church only use it. But the quasi-Ruckman people are just a dangerous as the Ruckamites, maybe even worse. Or to put it this way, an institution that says, “if you change your KJVO position, you will turn in your degree” is not really part of the latter Fundamentalist movement that John R Rice was apart of.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
In this developing discussion, I can see this developing into a game show where the announcer says, “Welcome to Who Gets to Wear the Label?” (notice my tongue in cheek)
If all this is boils down to a battle of labels…as far as I’m concerned, you can have it.
Appreciated the article Dr. Bauder!
I pray that this discourse will have the net result of bringing well-deserved attention and interest (especially from prospective students) to both Central and Faith, who will each continue on separately but cooperatively.
I am sure that there are people involved in this discussion who probably have not thought about Faith — particularly its seminary — for a long time. May God use it in His way to attract students who He would lead to both schools.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
End lecture.
Question to Dr. Bauder. Can you give me an example of “New Image Fundamentalism?” In which kind of circles would this occur? I think a lot of people, including you, would want a new image for fundamentalism. For example, I told a Buddhist client of mine today that I was a fundamentalist Christian, and here eyes popped out of her head. I’m in an area where suits, organ music, and other stylistic expressions just aren’t helpful to our membership, where a guitar and Starbucks coffee might be. I love other fundamentalists, and Baptists, and I don’t think I’m all that pragmatic. Am I still a New Image Fundamentalist? Is it a matter of attitude on all counts as you described them, or is it a more stylistic thing. I know you’re generalizing in the statement, but could you be more specific?
Thanks.
Shayne McAllister
“Do you personally know of conservative evangelicals who are knowingly extending Christian recognition to open theists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc? No? I didn’t think so. Neither do I. I do know of evangelicals who do some of these things, but not of conservative evangelicals.”
Incredibly Kevin Bauder suggests he knows of no conservative evangelicals who have extended Christian recognition to Roman Catholics. I believe we can turn to John MacArthur to help refresh Bauder’s memory.
“The [Manhattan] Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light…. Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims…. That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.” Dr. John MacArthur, The Manhattan Declaration, 11/24/09 at Shepherd’s Fellowship web site
Conservative evangelicals Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Tim Challies, et. al. signed the Manhattan Declaration. They knowingly joined Romans Catholics in that cooperative effort. They have, therefore, knowingly granted Christian recognition to purveyors of a different gospel and thereby have compromised the gospel.
On April 27, 2010 at the Foundations Conference Kevin Bauder had dismissed Al Mohler’s signing the MD as merely an “occasional inconsistency…single episode.”
Statements like these from Kevin Bauder is how fidelity to biblical separatism, the hallmark of Fundamentalism, is slain for the sake of fellowship with full-blown ecumenical (ce) compromisers. The ethos statement saying, “that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible,” is the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent. The aberrant doctrine of the CE men I want nothing of in my tent.
First, I wonder what the “cooperative effort” was in the MD. So far as I recall, nothing was actually done, was it? There was no effort of any type. Perhaps I missed something. I think it was just a statement of common concern about three main cultural issues.
Second, I wonder what you make of http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-decla… these words from Mohler himself . They seem fairly clearly to contradict your thoughts about Mohler’s position. Perhaps you weren’t aware of these comments from Mohler where it sounds to me like he removes all doubt about his position on the “gospel” of Catholicism. (I know some people who talk a lot don’t always tell the whole truth, and so these comments are not as repeated as perhaps they should be.) He seems to plainly state that Catholicism is irreconcilable with the biblical gospel, but I wonder how you understand these comments.
I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues — the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.To be clear, I think Mohler should not have signed the MD, and I have said so. I think it sent a mixed message because it failed to distinguish clearly between biblical and cultural Christianity, and it accomplished virtually nothing precisely because there was nothing done, no “cooperative effort” at all. So any suggestion that I am “running interference” for anyone or excusing abberant doctrine or practice is a flat out lie and is inexcusable. I think Mohler was wrong to do this.
My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.
But these statements from Mohler seem pretty clear to me that he does hold a biblical gospel and does not compromise it. So I am wondering where you think the confusion in them is.
Thanks
[Shaynus] Question to Dr. Bauder. Can you give me an example of “New Image Fundamentalism?” In which kind of circles would this occur? I think a lot of people, including you, would want a new image for fundamentalism…. and I don’t think I’m all that pragmatic. Am I still a New Image Fundamentalist? Is it a matter of attitude on all counts as you described them, or is it a more stylistic thing. I know you’re generalizing in the statement, but could you be more specific?Some previous articles shared on SI and elsewhere may help. I’m with you on wondering about the label “new image fundamentalist”. I suspect I’m labeled as one, or else I’ve gone beyond that now…. But the motivations expressed really don’t match up with my own situation. These links may help.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22115897/Bauders-Taxonomy] Bauder’s own taxonomy (with a column of descriptions about New Image Fundamentalism)
http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/reference/fund_taxonomy_char…] Jeff Straub’s taxonomy of fundamentalist varieties
http://sharperiron.org/article/fundamentalist-challenge-for-21st-centur…] Jeff Straub discussing New Image Fundamentalism, part 1 (scroll to the bottom)
http://sharperiron.org/article/fundamentalist-challenge-for-21st-centur…] Jeff Straub discussing New Image Fundamentalism, part 2
Jeff teaches at Bauder’s seminary.
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.
As candidates for graduation from –– Baptist College, I want to ask you to listen to the following challenge. As your “final test” at this institution, I would like to ask you if you agree with the following:There does seem to be wiggle room, such that for myself, I could claim that God has preserved His Word in the KJV as well as in other versions like the ESV too. But their intent may well be to encourage that their graduates remain KJVO. Graduates must affirm a variety of beliefs this being one of them. It does not specifically rule out using other versions, though.
That the Bible is the fully verbally inspired Word of God, and that God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people…..
That if at any time, as a graduate of ––- Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.
Edited to removed second reference to college name… since the first was removed, I’m guessing Bob’s intent was to remove both. -Aaron
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.
I once said to a friend regarding a man at Southern that I had the privilege of studying under that this dear brother was one of the finest men I knew—a superb blend of godliness and erudition. To which my friend balked. How could a non-separatist be godly? He after all missed an important biblical doctrine.
Well, in fact, this dear man is a separatist, just not a IFB separatist. For instance, he was no supporter of Billy Graham when he came to Louisville in 2002. Oh, to be sure, he wasn’t “militant,” but neither did he compromise his convictions in this matter.
Godly men are always reasonable men. If this is the case, few if any KJVO men can be by definition “godly.” I am fully aware that I will get severely chided for this assertion. Nevertheless, the KJVO movement, among them schools that Mr. Pittman mentioned, promote a position that cannot be sustained by truth. The evidence against KJVOnlyism is indisputable to any one willing to consider the case on its own merits. Moreover, as I have contended elsewhere, the KJVO movement is utterly unbaptistic. Baptists have historically wanted the Scriptures in the language of the common man, which the KJV 1611 is not. Languages change. But this is ultimately beside the point.
I am happy to allow my KJV friend to use the KJV if he feels that before God this is the text for him. Would it surprise anyone to know that Kevin Bauder preached in chapel today from the KJV. He regularly does in fact. I give Kevin the liberty to use the KJV and he gives me the liberty to use the ESV. Kevin is a reasonable man. In fact, we here at Central disagree on a number of minor issues—translations among them. We disagree charitably. But KJVO men, most with little or know knowledge or Greek or Hebrew, cannot give me this liberty. Nor can they be engaged in a reasonable discussion on the debate. Many, many are ultimately disingenuous. No one today uses the 1611! No one! The modern KJV versions (Oxford and Cambridge) are 18th century texts with minor variations from the 1611. Anyone who advertises that their church is “KJV 1611” is deceitful or ignorant.
The KJVO crowd—please note I am only talking about the KJVO crowd—cannot be godly unless they are ignorant of reality and sincerely but naively hold to the KJV. Most who promote the KJV do not fit this description, sadly. Few among them are godly. Many, many are strident and schismatic—not qualities of a godly man (1 Tim. 3:3 - “not quarrelsome”)
Jeff Straub
That being said, many are strident, schismatic, closed minded, and basically write off non-KJVOs as forcefully and more than Central does. For me it’s a little difficult. I can’t agree that everyone who is KJV Only or even the crowd in general is “not godly”. I think they have a big blindspot. Then again, in the http://kjvonlydebate.com/ KJV Only Debate group blog I’ve been running for a couple years now, we’ve had our fair share of fanatics that we’ve had to ban. But there are those that are ignorant too. Speaking this forcefully may draw boundaries but harm some of God’s sheep who may as yet come to their senses about the error that is KJV Onlyism. This error has dug in hard and deep in far too many fundamentalist churches. These kinds of drawing the line statements may in the end add fuel to the KJV only fire, unfortunately. But I can see wisdom in speaking out against it too. So I guess it’s a catch 22. I think separation would have to be done on an individual, case by case level, ultimately with regard to this issue. But that’s my thoughts.
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.
[RPittman] I do not believe West Coast requires one to pledge turning his or her degree if the KJVO position is abandoned.Sorry Rowland, but it is absolutely true. I sat in the 2003 graduation and heard this heresy first hand. I was attending the graduation of a former student and had to apologize to her parents after the graduation for ever recommending the school to them in the first place. Heresy such as this does not need compassionate understanding but militant rebuttal.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[rogercarlson] Or to put it this way, an institution that says, “if you change your KJVO position, you will turn in your degree” is not really part of the latter Fundamentalist movement that John R Rice was apart of.What title should it be given since they themselves claim to be fundamental? Said school was invited to a Harvest Rally in IN several years ago and my daughter attended. From that time til she left for college, she got literature from them. They are ardently “fundamental”. At least as far as they claim.
To claim all who believe the KJV as the only Bible that should be used by English speakers as “not godly” seems over-the-top to me. Maybe because I have family represented on this side of the “spiritual family tree” or because I have friends here, it seems simply too strong. Some of them appear to be more godly than some who stand where we stand (IMO). (I say that because for someone else to declare someone else ‘godly’ or not seems funny. I’ve heard various people described this way to me when I’ve known a whole different side of them so that with restraint I refrained from comment as the gusher was telling me about the “great man of God” that I knew quite differently.)
I think that most of us don’t really believe that most of them are “rabid” about the subject. Maybe because I believe that most secretly “professed KJV only advocates” will buy calendars with the NIV on it, t-shirts, forward emails, etc., we don’t see their belief that the KJV is the ONLY one that can be used as as strong as a few of the vocal proponents. IOW, it appears to be about as sincere for many of those who are farther away from their own pulpit as those of us who click “I agree” when we say we’ve read all the fine print before we install a new program on our computer.
I’ve read the interaction with interest between Pittman and Bauder. It’s been interesting.
I’ve thought since the beginning that SI ignored the far right—at least for the first couple of years. I had never heard of the people who were talked about here before reading here (Mohler, and others from the conservative SB), but had heard of all of the “hyper” guys who weren’t being listed or articles being posted. I thought I was in the middle somewhere and considered myself “normal” fundamental. :) I think we all do. We somehow perceive ourselves where the right balance is. Since my heritage is a bit of GARB, Hyles, BBF and BJU, I thought I was familiar with it all.
A few years ago, Joel did his famous taxonomy of the fundamentalist and they (the far right) got their share of time! :) Thanks, Joel, as he acknowledged them as part of the group—at least in name. He received a lot of flak for his taxonomy, but I thought it not bad at all—in his attempts to more or less broadly define a group that varies dramatically.
The discussion here is a little strange though. The statement authors did not cast anyone out of Fundamentalism (as if they could/I wish they could), despite all the discussion of “who gets to keep the label” going on here in the threads. They called all the other strains Fundamentalists too. They just affirmed more in common with some outside the movement than with some inside it — a statement I can relate to.
The problem of American Fundamentalism is an unwarranted extra-biblical separatistic/isolationist spirit. Everyone not like me is suspect. Within Fundamentalism, everyone to the left of me is a liberal, and everyone to the right of me is a lunatic. It’s true. I feel that way about you, perhaps, depending on where you stand. It makes it a little hard to build movement unity, though.
Formerly, we have seen people trying to affirm that the “thinking wing of Fundamentalism” (whichever part I am in this week) and the CE’s are really pretty much the same thing. That has stirred some angry reaction. The unique claim of this document is that it says “I will refuse to fellowship with the Fundamentalist to my right and left, but will reach (with some limits) to the Conservative Evangelicals — who are not Fundamentalists at all.”
Discussion