Dave Doran: "over-dependence on the labels ... makes assumptions about what really needs to be proven"

I don’t think Dave is on the island by hinmself unless he has his own island. I argued for this over two years ago in an article on SI. Here are two quotes from that article.
http://sharperiron.org/2008/03/24/fundamentalism-in-the-21st-century-an…

“Among the criteria for fellowship will not be the label for those who choose to retain one or the other. Fellowship will be sought with those who manifest family traits without masking disagreement, while engaging in constructive theological dialogue, and with the willingness to practice separation when scripturally compelled.”

“For many in Fundamentalism today, especially younger men, the ideas and strengths of Fundamentalism will find expression in other movements, but the outmoded label and extra-biblical trappings will be dropped.”

The question shouldn’t be, “Are labels important,” but “Which labels are important?”

Is “Fundamentalist” an important label?
Is “Baptist” an important label?
Is “Independent” an important label?
Is “Evangelical” an important label?

I’d hate to shop in a grocery store without labels on the cans.

The question shouldn’t be, “Are labels important,” but “Which labels are important? … I’d hate to shop in a grocery store without labels on the cans.

I think Doran’s point is that the labels are meaningless. Imagine going to a grocery store, buying a can labeled “green beans,” and then getting it home and finding out that’s evaporated milk. Or buying a can labeled “mushroom soup” and finding out that it’s actually dog food.

Those kind of labels don’t help because you have to wait until you open it to find out what you have.

So it is with the whole landscape today. The labels are jumbled and you have no idea what you have until you look specifically at a person or ministry. And once you actually look at the person or ministry, the label is unnecessary.

Labels migrate over time in their meaning. There may have been a time when “fundamentalist” meant something pretty consistent. It would then have been useful.
The HAC crowd and the DTS crowd may have claim to some of the same roots. But there has been so much migration since 1915 in one or both that they can’t usefully use the same label.

I think that labels are most prone to this problem when we love them most. If a label has a origin connected with something great (e.g., the anti-modernist movement, battle royale), then we’ll tend to view it with affection. Which means that we hold the label even when we migrate in our content.

So, to use Larry’s analogy, we used to LOVE baked beans. So we LOVE our baked beans label. But over time, some who use and love the label don’t like beans so much and would rather serve corn (labelled, of course, as “baked beans”).

The labels comments have been very good. I liken the “fundamentalist” label not to a particular can of food, but closer to the type of store I’m entering. If I go to an “electronics” store, I have a general idea of what I’m going to find there (i.e. I won’t be looking for dog food), but if I don’t know more about the store, it might be the type of store that sells electronic components, or it might be a store that sells stereos, or it might be more towards computers, etc., etc.

The label “Baptist” can be (minimally) useful. But when, as in our area, it can encompass everything from fundamental Baptist churches (of various stripes from everything like KJV-only to those that are reformed, free-will baptist [even though not in the name] , etc.) to others on the other end of the spectrum that have women pastors or will “marry” gays, then I quickly find it’s not really all that helpful, and I have to look deeper.

Since even the original fundamental label included Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and probably many others, by itself, it only would keep one away from the more liberal churches that refuse to use that label. One would still need to know more about a “fundamental” church to know whether it could be joined or not.

As Dan mentioned, today even much of that meaning is gone. I’d argue that instead of baked beans, much of what is being served under the “fundamental” label is not even food, and is in fact closer to poison (the insidious kind that looks, smells, and tastes like food, but isn’t). And as I said, in my area, “Baptist” is pretty much just as useless.

The discussion whether ‘fundamentalist’ has meaning any longer is irrelevant. I agree with Dave Doran that we shouldn’t be making labels the basis of separation or non-cooperation.

However, as you know, I disagree with his decision with respect to the Lansdale conference. I disagree not because of the label Dever wears, but because of the entanglements he represents. I disagree because of the directions Dave’s actions will take young fundamentalists. Oops, let’s leave that label off… let’s say young Christians, instead.

So let’s leave the labels out of the question. Are Dave and Kevin right or wrong for deciding to participate in this conference? That is the issue. Most here would say they are right. I guess you can figure out what I would say.

Don,

We younger Christians just was consistancy. Well, at least I want consistancy. You were concerned over the Dr. Vaughn and Dr Phelps recent associations. But most of the mainstream fundamental leadership was silent. I think it is hypocritical for them now to criticize Doran, Bauder and Jordan. I am glad they are expressing their concern. But I think the former is just as dangerous and maybe even moreso when we consider some of the dangerous teachings of Schaap and Fugate.

[rogercarlson] But I think the former is just as dangerous and maybe even moreso when we consider some of the dangerous teachings of Schaap and Fugate.

The current Calvary topic is an issue worthy of contemplation, but the previous conference Roger references was hands down, unequivocally, beyond any shadow of a doubt a humongous, gigantic, titanic issue by comparison.

Roger,

I must have missed this somewhere, so I am hoping you can help me here.

Where are the “mainstream fundamentalist leaders” that were silent on Schaap & Fugate that are now criticizing Doran, Bauder, and Jordan? I haven’t yet seen it, but I read a fairly limited number of blogs now-a-days, so I would appreciate it if you could point me to this.

Thanks,

Frank

Frank and me, I mean!

I had the same thought Frank did, the silence (so far) is deafening.

I retract guys…in retrospect it was an overstatment. There are many more concervative bloggers who have been all over this…but said nothing about the Schaap/Fugate thing. I dont read that many blogs anymore either, but I only saw Don comment on both.