“Pull Pin. Throw Grenade. Wait for Shrapnel.”

When you are for something, are you not against the counterpoint? When I look at the ministry of the prophet Isaiah, I see a man who was against a great many things, but noticably “for” the holiness of God and the repentance of his people. Maybe the lessson is to find the difference between what is perceived as angriness in fundamentalism, and the prophetic voice of Isaiah.

Allen,

Your point on balance here is very good. Both insiders and outsiders are often wrong about fundamentalists and fundamentalism. Many times separatist leaders take a hard stand out of a deep love for God and His people. These leaders will privatly weep that they have to take the hard stand and then people judge their motives wrongly. It is true that we have had men who have had a wrong spirit, but many times fundamentalist leaders have done what they’ve done out of principle and then have been falsely “tagged” with what some have perceived in others. The thing we can be greatful about fundamentalism is it’s continued willingness to speak with a prophetic tone against sin and worldliness when other strands of evangelicalism remains silent….or at least quiet. This certainly is a trait that any Bible-believing minister or ministry should aspire too.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Joel,

You said well, what I said vaguely.

I recall a couple of generations of these grenade throwers who would proudly announce that you had to let people know that you were against something, even if it was buttermilk.

Ron,

Please don’t take my buttermilk away!! :)

Straight Ahead!

jt

But buttermilk makes the best fried chicken marinade. Cut up chicken, buttermilk, Siracha hot sauce, in a bag overnight before you fry. Yum. Ron, I’ll make some for church sometime ;-)

Fundamentalist separation used to be simple. It was separation from apostasy and false doctrine and separation from brethren who (after being confronted with their activity) continued to co-operate in spiritual activities with those who held false doctrine. The second aspect being a step that was difficult to take because it involved brethren. These practices were an aspect of fundamentalism that was concerned with sound doctrine.

In some circles of fundamentalism today, separation has become THE practice and belief that defines the movement and separation has become the default position to take when anything new appears. Sadly, separation from brethren is practiced without any attempt or desire at gaining a brother.

Add to this separation based on matters without spiritual foundation and it’s no wonder we have a generation yelling “Grenade” and running for cover.

[Ron Bean] Fundamentalist separation used to be simple. It was separation from apostasy and false doctrine and separation from brethren who (after being confronted with their activity) continued to co-operate in spiritual activities with those who held false doctrine. The second aspect being a step that was difficult to take because it involved brethren. These practices were an aspect of fundamentalism that was concerned with sound doctrine.

In some circles of fundamentalism today, separation has become THE practice and belief that defines the movement and separation has become the default position to take when anything new appears. Sadly, separation from brethren is practiced without any attempt or desire at gaining a brother.

Add to this separation based on matters without spiritual foundation and it’s no wonder we have a generation yelling “Grenade” and running for cover.

Speaking of throwing grenades……! I, for one, would love some factual basis for such statements (bolded) that are broad enough to define a movement. Otherwise, statements such as this look very much like a rant.

[Lee]

[Ron Bean] Fundamentalist separation used to be simple. It was separation from apostasy and false doctrine and separation from brethren who (after being confronted with their activity) continued to co-operate in spiritual activities with those who held false doctrine. The second aspect being a step that was difficult to take because it involved brethren. These practices were an aspect of fundamentalism that was concerned with sound doctrine.

In some circles of fundamentalism today, separation has become THE practice and belief that defines the movement and separation has become the default position to take when anything new appears. Sadly, separation from brethren is practiced without any attempt or desire at gaining a brother.

Add to this separation based on matters without spiritual foundation and it’s no wonder we have a generation yelling “Grenade” and running for cover.

Speaking of throwing grenades……! I, for one, would love some factual basis for such statements (bolded) that are broad enough to define a movement. Otherwise, statements such as this look very much like a rant.

Bro. Bean’s comment is not IMO a broad statement. A clarifier such as “In some circles” lets us know that he is not attempting to ‘define’ Fundamentalism wholesale. But, the widespread practice, which I’ve personally seen again and again for over 25 years, of separating without any attempt at correction or restoration (and sometimes without any Scriptural foundation), is enough to cause one to grieve the twisting of the important, necessary, and humbling practice of separation. I’ve seen far too much glee in some folks when separation is engaged to believe that their motivation was compassion and restoration. I think it is often more of an attempt at deflection.

[Susan R]

[Lee]

[Ron Bean] Fundamentalist separation used to be simple. It was separation from apostasy and false doctrine and separation from brethren who (after being confronted with their activity) continued to co-operate in spiritual activities with those who held false doctrine. The second aspect being a step that was difficult to take because it involved brethren. These practices were an aspect of fundamentalism that was concerned with sound doctrine.

In some circles of fundamentalism today, separation has become THE practice and belief that defines the movement and separation has become the default position to take when anything new appears. Sadly, separation from brethren is practiced without any attempt or desire at gaining a brother.

Add to this separation based on matters without spiritual foundation and it’s no wonder we have a generation yelling “Grenade” and running for cover.

Speaking of throwing grenades……! I, for one, would love some factual basis for such statements (bolded) that are broad enough to define a movement. Otherwise, statements such as this look very much like a rant.

Bro. Bean’s comment is not IMO a broad statement. A clarifier such as “In some circles” lets us know that he is not attempting to ‘define’ Fundamentalism wholesale. But, the widespread practice, which I’ve personally seen again and again for over 25 years, of separating without any attempt at correction or restoration (and sometimes without any Scriptural foundation), is enough to cause one to grieve the twisting of the important, necessary, and humbling practice of separation. I’ve seen far too much glee in some folks when separation is engaged to believe that their motivation was compassion and restoration. I think it is often more of an attempt at deflection.

Not questioning that Aunt Matilda’s former pastor and his 3 or 4 camp-meeting buddies fit the profile you described. But this is a very public and widely read forum, so generalizations that are made have got to cover “some circles” a little broader than that.

Having been around all stripes of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism for most of my life, and having a fairly broad sphere of contact for most of my adult life, I have come across VERY few that even remotely fit the profile. Maybe I’m luckier than most, but separation is a serious matter to the huge majority of pastors/ministers I have had the privilege of knowing. Therefore, the statement “separation has become THE practice and belief that defines the movement and separation has become the default position to take when anything new appears…separation from brethren is practiced without any attempt or desire at gaining a brother” without credible support rankles me no end. Independent fundamentalists are oft accused of sucking things out of their thumb (there was an equally vapid filing some weeks ago where IFB’s were categorized as being disdainful of sola scriptura based only [apparently] on some blogger’s not so humble opinion). These generalizations do nothing to forward the cause of Christ and, frankly, I am no longer content to let them stand unchallenged.

Lee - I am NOT going to name names, places or churches .. but VERY recently I have attended a church on numerous occasions that separation is worked into EVERY … I mean EVERY sermon I’ve heard .. Now to me there’s a problem with that .. this wasn’t a series .. it was over the course of 2 or 3 years .. no matter Sunday Morning, Sunday Night or Wednesday Night ..

I came to the conclusion that the pastor is a one trick pony .. it’s truly sad, because he’s an educated man .. I believe he has a good heart .. he’s just HUNG UP on this ..

I honestly hadn’t been to a self described fundamentalist church in years and years .. and lo and behold .. I go back and WHAM .. ( To be honest the first couple times I had to truly think .. is this meant for ME?! .. then I realized after many times .. No .. it’s the guys “thing” .. and the church is about the coldest I’ve EVER been to ..

I think there’s a danger in getting “hung up” on any one issue .. it tends to bring a works mentality - as well as the heart goes out of the church..

It’s still happening out there - believe me..

Of course this is my opinion only ..

[PLewis]
It’s still happening out there - believe me..

Of course this is my opinion only ..

No doubt. But, as I said, Aunt Matilda’s former pastor does not define a movement. Neither does this guy you’ve described with his one-trick pony. When you can show me in some empirical manner that the simple majority of self-described fundamentalists hold to “separation [being] THE practice and belief that defines the movement and separation has become the default position to take when anything new appears…separation from brethren is practiced without any attempt or desire at gaining a brother” then I, too, will add another string to my current one-note banjo.

The entire sentence is “In some circles of fundamentalism today, separation has become THE practice and belief that defines the movement and separation has become the default position to take when anything new appears.” Leaving off the dependent clause at the beginning of the sentence changes the meaning of the entire sentence, which does not attempt to define the whole movement, but addresses that fact that there are some circles who claim to be IFB wherein separation is practiced as Bro. Bean describes it.

We can go back and forth with anecdotes all day long, and no one would be ‘wrong’. Your experiences are yours, my experiences are mine. I’ve been in IFB churches where separation wasn’t practiced at all, while others applied separation in a compassionate, humble manner- but I have also seen some that use it to manipulate, dominate, and control the congregation. It appears to me that those churches who use separation as a tool to control and dominate tend to band together and back each other up, and I’ve heard them boast how often and from whom they’ve separated with no visible evidence of sorrow. From their talk, one could conclude that they do indeed consider separation to be a primary identifier, especially when they preach ‘to the choir’ in every message, and what I find scary is that the only people in the crowd ARE the choir. My mom would call it “Talking to hear their head roar.”

What is odd that eventually they become so invested that they will protect those within their ‘ranks’ who have gone off the deep end doctrinally or morally, and sweep the sins of their children under the rug to protect ‘the ministry’.

6. You’ll take all correction personally and as an unpardonable offense against “God’s man.” Any disagreement with your position will be received as an offense. Any critic will be labeled as unfaithful. Any critique of your view will only go to verify the obstinate blindness of your opponent. All your defenses will come down to a small-minded ad hominem. People will eventually stop trying to talk with you. You will consider this a victory. You will become a self-fulfilling prophecy of a self-inflicted martyrdom.

I have seen this far, FAR too many times in men that I respected and admired for years. It is a grief of mind to lose friends and counselors in such a way.

It just reinforces in my mind that every bad thing is a good thing twisted.

We’re playing word games here. The blog posting and Bean’s subsequent post presented their experience with hyper-separatists as definitive of the movement and not as a fringe element (maybe a significant fringe, but a fringe none-the-less). Yet there is no empirical data to back it up besides “I experienced such and such.”

There was a time in America where you could travel a certain geographic corridor and a significant percentage of conservative churches handled snakes, but that didn’t define conservative church life for more than a relative few. It would be a travesty to include in an article/comment representing the whole of conservative Christianity that “in some circles” snake handling is the norm because the implication would be clear that it was meant to draw attention to snake handling as indicative of the whole. Without more data than a random blog post and a couple of experiences with Aunt Matilda’s former pastor we’re looking at a similar, though far more easily believable/acceptable, travesty.

Dr. Bob Jones III would sometimes state “there are some odd ducks in the body of Christ.” I find that to be true in IFB circles, CE circles, charismatic circles, reformed, arminian, and whatever else. I would expect no less. Very possibly these separatists profiled on this thread are some of those “odd ducks.”

The separatists described are a pimple on the face of fundamentalism: highly visible; infected; but hardly representative of the overall health of the body.

The blog posting and Bean’s subsequent post presented their experience with hyper-separatists as definitive of the movement and not as a fringe element (maybe a significant fringe, but a fringe none-the-less).

Where is this being posited in either the Cripplegate post or Bro. Bean’s post? I understand that you are interpreting all of this differently than I am, and that’s OK- I am simply not seeing a warning against and relating experiences with uber-separatism as attempting to make the fringe describe the whole. The fringe by definition is the fringe, and if it becomes the whole, then something else is the fringe.

NOW I’m playing word games, but games are fun, so why not a little levity to lighten the mood? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy055.gif
It could also be said that the reason the fringe is being mistaken for the whole is because the fringe is the most visible, the loudest, the most obnoxious, newsworthy, etc… We need to take steps, IMO, to keep those near the fringe from getting sucked in because they think it is the whole. The description in the blog post is helpful, IMO, with defining those behaviors that can indicate a slippy-slide into extremes of separatism.