Kent Brandenburg's journey from Fundamentalism (Part 1)
I thought this, along with the second part he’s now posted, was a great insight into some of the fundamentalist foibles that aren’t acknowledged as much as the Hyles stuff is.
I think a part three is coming.
I think a part three is coming.
I don’t know a lot about Kent, but I suspect he and I would disagree on some points (KJV).
I can say that the fundamentalism he knows and has known is not the fundamentalism that I have experienced (GARBC and now 4th Baptist Church)
I can say that the fundamentalism he knows and has known is not the fundamentalism that I have experienced (GARBC and now 4th Baptist Church)
Kent and I lived in the same town for several years. Our experiences are similar.
[DavidO] Kent and I lived in the same town for several years. Our experiences are similar.
So is the FBF really as he describes it where both of you were living? Having attended an FBF-supporting church, one that practiced church discipline and did NOT teach second-blessing theology, I’m curious as to what KB is referring to as the lack of dealing with disobedience within the FBF.
Dave Barnhart
At the time we lived there (Kent’s pre-pastor days), the church we attended was not an FBF church. I had no experience with the FBF until my current church (which joined FBF in the early 2000s), and, as I comment at Kent’s blog, my experience with FBF folks has been largely positive.
I take him at his word as to his experience, although Don Johnson, as you can read in the comments sees/saw it differently than him.
Let me make it clear that I have no particular beef with the FBF. I think fellowships of independant churches are variegated by nature with the result that any one aspect of any one church may or may not be representative of the fellowship as a whole. There are some very good churches and pastors in the FBF. There are also probably a few clunkers. It may be very like the SBC in that regard. ;)
When I said my experiences were similar to his, I referred generally some failures of doctrine and practices in other institutions we had in common. I probably won’t say any more about that until I find a more constructive way to do it. And I think the folks I’m talking about meant well, and might have been doing the best they could.
I take him at his word as to his experience, although Don Johnson, as you can read in the comments sees/saw it differently than him.
Let me make it clear that I have no particular beef with the FBF. I think fellowships of independant churches are variegated by nature with the result that any one aspect of any one church may or may not be representative of the fellowship as a whole. There are some very good churches and pastors in the FBF. There are also probably a few clunkers. It may be very like the SBC in that regard. ;)
When I said my experiences were similar to his, I referred generally some failures of doctrine and practices in other institutions we had in common. I probably won’t say any more about that until I find a more constructive way to do it. And I think the folks I’m talking about meant well, and might have been doing the best they could.
Seems appropriate to repeat the question here: what defines the essence of what something really is, its worst examples or its best examples?
An analogy:
There is a game called baseball. My son and I in the back yard don’t play it well. So is “baseball” a middle aged non-athlete and a high-energy but unskilled 9 year old (last time we did this) hitting balls and running bases in the back yard?
What if the majority of people play baseball badly… accepting fouls as fair, skipping bases, getting six strikes for each at-bat. Is that “baseball”? Should somebody who sees all that “leave baseball” as a sloppy, weak sport?
What fundamentalism is should be separated from how anyone implements it. Execution has always been and always will be flawed. Nobody has to embrace a poor execution of fundamentalism as the real thing. Nor does anybody have to “leave” the real thing because many perform it badly… even if most perform it badly (which may be the case—I don’t really know).
An analogy:
There is a game called baseball. My son and I in the back yard don’t play it well. So is “baseball” a middle aged non-athlete and a high-energy but unskilled 9 year old (last time we did this) hitting balls and running bases in the back yard?
What if the majority of people play baseball badly… accepting fouls as fair, skipping bases, getting six strikes for each at-bat. Is that “baseball”? Should somebody who sees all that “leave baseball” as a sloppy, weak sport?
What fundamentalism is should be separated from how anyone implements it. Execution has always been and always will be flawed. Nobody has to embrace a poor execution of fundamentalism as the real thing. Nor does anybody have to “leave” the real thing because many perform it badly… even if most perform it badly (which may be the case—I don’t really know).
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.
Kent does hit some things on the head. I think the Second Blessing, Keswick non-sense is taking up root in our movement and I don’t think that is a good thing. Aaron’s analogy is a good one. The problem may be that more in more people are playing “baseball” in their backyards and not on teams, and therefore changing he meaning of “baseball.” I hope I am wrong, but I am starting to think that is what is happening.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
I appreciate Kent coming out and writing this. I commented on his blog, but I do think that he’d have wound up as one of the nebulous “young fundamentalists” if he were my age. I think that we’ve got a lot in common, and am looking forward the third installment, whenever it comes out…if for no other reason than to see how he got to his positions and how different they are from mine.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Nevertheless, if a guy can’t get any of the [whatevergroup] to practise [whatevergroupism] the in a way he sees consistent with whatever ought to governs [whatevergroup] a guy is likely to leave [whatevergroup] and join with (or start) one that matches his vision.
That’s how the backyard baseball games go, and that’s how this goes, too.
In the interest of full disclosure, Brother Brandenburg has written at one of his other blogs that, frankly, he disagrees with the idea of fundamentalism with its notion of primary, secondary, etc. doctrines. He wouldn’t agree with this characterization, but he seems to me to be approaching a sort of “everythingism”.
That’s how the backyard baseball games go, and that’s how this goes, too.
In the interest of full disclosure, Brother Brandenburg has written at one of his other blogs that, frankly, he disagrees with the idea of fundamentalism with its notion of primary, secondary, etc. doctrines. He wouldn’t agree with this characterization, but he seems to me to be approaching a sort of “everythingism”.
Posted on his bloig:
Kent:
I’d like to take issue with your comment on the KJV:
“…the professors and many graduates mocked the King James Version. E. Robert Jordan was a King James advocate, but the school already ridiculed the translation while he was still the pastor of the church. I’m not saying they took a different position. I’m saying that they scoffed the King James.”
I don’t think you are knowingly fabricating that, or hope not, but I question the accuracy of your recall. Sure there may’ve been a professor or some graduates who did that but I never heard it or knew of it. I was a student there from 1978-1982, planted a church under ER’s leadership in 1982, was on staff at Calvary from 1999-2009, and adjunct professor at the seminary until last year. When I was a student there and KJV advocate we had great discussions and arguments over versions in hallways and classrooms. “Mock” goes way too far and paints godly men in an unflattering and false way akin to slander. For those who think you are dong a “service” I’d like them to know that your narrow view is only that – your view and distorted in this case. Surely the men at Calvary don’t hold to the KJV as you do but you exaggerate in order to prove something that proves nothing. Your characterization of Calvary is not true. Leave whatever for whatever but you should retract your error although I don’t know if I have ever seen you admit wrong.
Steve Davis
Kent:
I’d like to take issue with your comment on the KJV:
“…the professors and many graduates mocked the King James Version. E. Robert Jordan was a King James advocate, but the school already ridiculed the translation while he was still the pastor of the church. I’m not saying they took a different position. I’m saying that they scoffed the King James.”
I don’t think you are knowingly fabricating that, or hope not, but I question the accuracy of your recall. Sure there may’ve been a professor or some graduates who did that but I never heard it or knew of it. I was a student there from 1978-1982, planted a church under ER’s leadership in 1982, was on staff at Calvary from 1999-2009, and adjunct professor at the seminary until last year. When I was a student there and KJV advocate we had great discussions and arguments over versions in hallways and classrooms. “Mock” goes way too far and paints godly men in an unflattering and false way akin to slander. For those who think you are dong a “service” I’d like them to know that your narrow view is only that – your view and distorted in this case. Surely the men at Calvary don’t hold to the KJV as you do but you exaggerate in order to prove something that proves nothing. Your characterization of Calvary is not true. Leave whatever for whatever but you should retract your error although I don’t know if I have ever seen you admit wrong.
Steve Davis
Kent is a true independent.
I remember some of Kent’s posts on SI. He cannot leave Fundamentalism as he was never part of genuine historic Fundamentalism. It appears from these articles he does not understand genuine Fundamentalism.
He is part of the KJVO sect which has emerged since 1970 and have sought to call themselves Fundamentalists and then import additional baggage not part of genuine Fundamentalism. This is seen in these articles where he makes issues of such as mixed swimming and movies as if they are part of defining the subject of Fundamentalism. Many in the KJVO sect often perceive those who differ with them on their issues as “mocking” those issues. To them it is part of their doctrinal stance or the application of that stance.
You cannot leave what you were never part of. It is good that Kent no longer is trying to say he is a Fundamentalist. Let us hope that he is followed by many others who are KJVO or sympathetic to their extremist sectarian position.
He is part of the KJVO sect which has emerged since 1970 and have sought to call themselves Fundamentalists and then import additional baggage not part of genuine Fundamentalism. This is seen in these articles where he makes issues of such as mixed swimming and movies as if they are part of defining the subject of Fundamentalism. Many in the KJVO sect often perceive those who differ with them on their issues as “mocking” those issues. To them it is part of their doctrinal stance or the application of that stance.
You cannot leave what you were never part of. It is good that Kent no longer is trying to say he is a Fundamentalist. Let us hope that he is followed by many others who are KJVO or sympathetic to their extremist sectarian position.
[Todd Wood] Kent is a true independent.He is not at all an independent. He is part of the KJVO sect. He is the prisoner of many non scriptural hang ups.
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-i-left-fundamentalism-…
Between 1984 and 1987 was when the blood issue rose to the surface between Bob Jones University and John MacArthur. I had heard MacArthur on the radio, and even though I knew he wasn’t a separatist and was off in some of his positions, he was someone I respected for preaching the Bible, unlike almost anything else I heard. I really did wonder how MacArthur could be so wrong, and yet have preaching that was so much better than anything else I was hearing.
When Bob Jones attacked MacArthur in their magazine, Faith for the Family, I already knew what MacArthur’s position was on the blood of Christ. Fundamentalist leaders said that MacArthur denied the blood. I knew that wasn’t true, because I had read through his Hebrews commentary. The type of argumentation used against MacArthur was so superficial and silly that I was mystified. To start, MacArthur did not deny the blood, but even if he did, his error should have been pointed out from scripture. Bob Jones and its surrogates really did argue a strawman at the time. Once they saw that they had misrepresented MacArthur, they should have recanted right away, but they dug in for over a decade in typical fundamentalist fashion. As the winds toward MacArthur began to change among young fundamentalists, Bob Jones came out with a weak apology many years later.
Bob T., you are an independent, too. :)
Discussion