"Fundamentalism has a wonderful future because it is based on the truth of the Bible"

[Jim Peet] There is an authentic fundamentalism and it should be embraced.

That’s right. But you won’t find it in the evangelical direction.

[Don Johnson]

[Dan Burrell] And some are just exhausted by stuff like this:

Don Johnson wrote:
… simply holding to orthodox theology doesn’t make one a fundamentalist.

He’s so exhausted!

Are you saying that a guy like, say, Carl Henry was unorthodox in his theology? I am not.

Are you saying therefore that a guy like Carl Henry was a fundamentalist? He would not.

And to DavidO, No, I am not saying that to be a fundamentalist someone must match up to my brand of separation. I am saying that by definition, fundamentalism involves militancy which results in separation. Those who left fundamentalism in the past repudiated militancy / separation. They ceased to be fundamentalists at that point.

Did I say I was exhausted? You obviously don’t know me. Some get so and they leave. Me….I’m still here and don’t have any intention of throwing in the towel.

The reason why some do get exhausted and take leave is not because they are rejecting theological fundamentalism. They are rejecting extra-theological/Biblical definitions of neo-fundamentalism.

I would also suggest that many of them are quite weary of those who can’t tell the difference between militancy and stridency. Perhaps an idea that is worthy of personal contemplation.

[Don Johnson] First, I would say that most evangelicals (especially the more conservative variety) do insist that these doctrines are fundamental (essential) to the Gospel. Most of the currently popular evangelicals are orthodox in their theology. (By currently popular, I guess I mean ‘currently popular amongst left-leaning but still self-proclaimed fundamentalists.’) But men like Dever, Mohler, Piper, Mahaney, Grudem, and even the execrable Driscoll find no doctrinal complaint from me. That is, on the essentials. We probably disagree on particulars, but we also disagree on particulars amongst fundamentalists.

FWIW, I am concerned about the trajectory of Mahaney, Grudem, and Josh Harris because of the charismaticism and charismatic leanings in some of their theologies. It’s more Mahaney than anyone else at this point. I would not endorse Mark Driscoll at all, even though his doctrine may be ‘correct’ (there’s too much other baggage there).

Second, the distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists is not theology (except on one point) but it is primarily philosophy (how you apply that one point). That point is sometimes called separation, but it is more properly called militancy. And I will grant that some evangelicals are militant at some points, but we are talking especially about ecclesiastical relationships, not necessarily limiting the focus of militancy to the fundamentals but to a holistic approach to Christianity - the fundamentals and the applications flowing from them, including orthodox theology and orthodox living, sometimes called orthopraxy. We will speak of separation from error and separation from the world. Separation is the end of the line for militancy, not the beginning. We are vigilant on those points and will even call our friends and brothers to account for things they say and do.

Don, this is an excellent point. I think that most of the discussion over the NE-CE-F divide is simply a matter of philosophical difference over when and how quickly to apply ‘separation’. I use separation in quotes because it’s becoming more and more clear that the varying definitions of separation - eg, I can’t ‘separate’ from Dever because I have no real relationship with him - although I do own one book that was given to me. For some, separation means I sell that book and start preaching against him because of ________________________ reason.

On this last point, although it is not a focus of the article, or our discussion so far, I’d say that one of the problems with the current ‘conservative evangelicals’ is that they don’t really seem to see how grievous the New Evangelical error was. They see New Evangelicalism as a necessary corrective to Fundamentalism. If they could actually come around to seeing the New Evangelical error for the betrayal of the Gospel that it was, we could make some real progress.

It might just be me, but it seems like they aren’t really concerned with or have studied the history of the new evangelical movement. I could be mistaken, but I really get the impression that most CE’s are concerned with either ministry now or the Puritan-era history. One could argue that this lack of knowledge could lead to the same mistakes being repeated, but then again, I don’t see a real concern on the part of CE’s for “scholarly recognition” or any of the reasons that we enumerated by Ockenga for making his break.

Or maybe I’m the ignorant one here…that’s always possible :D

[Jay C.] It might just be me, but it seems like they aren’t really concerned with or have studied the history of the new evangelical movement. I could be mistaken, but I really get the impression that most CE’s are concerned with either ministry now or the Puritan-era history. One could argue that this lack of knowledge could lead to the same mistakes being repeated, but then again, I don’t see a real concern on the part of CE’s for “scholarly recognition” or any of the reasons that we enumerated by Ockenga for making his break.

I would suggest that you listen to Mark Dever and Al Mohler in particular when they speak of fundamentalism. I think they are quite aware of the history. I have read / heard both of them express appreciation for some aspects of fundamentalism and also express the notion that the new evangelicalism was a necessary corrective on the ‘excesses’ of fundamentalism. As long as this view is maintained, we will be on differing trajectories.

As for scholarly recognition … well, Dever went to Oxford. Mohler has said that to go the fundamentalist route would mean to ‘lose influence’. Perhaps they don’t see it the same way Ockenga said it, but it is pretty important to them.

[Dan Burrell] I would also suggest that many of them are quite weary of those who can’t tell the difference between militancy and stridency. Perhaps an idea that is worthy of personal contemplation.

Is it really necessary to take little shots like this?

We should be able to articulate our views without attacking one another, don’t you think? Is it illegitimate to express viewpoints different from yours? If I think your views compromise the truth, am I merely being strident to say so? But if you are going to attack, come right out and say it, don’t make these little jibes. It isn’t very becoming.

Really Don? You’re the one who said, “Poor Dan…he’s so exhausted!” Sounds like a sarcastic, snide remark to me.

Greg, It doesn’t matter ‘who started it’ in terms of the snide comments. Either or both can let it go and we will all move on peacefully :)

[Don Johnson] I would suggest that you listen to Mark Dever and Al Mohler in particular when they speak of fundamentalism. I think they are quite aware of the history. I have read / heard both of them express appreciation for some aspects of fundamentalism and also express the notion that the new evangelicalism was a necessary corrective on the ‘excesses’ of fundamentalism. As long as this view is maintained, we will be on differing trajectories.

I will do this…are there any particular MP3s or whatever that I should look for and listen to?

Don, I was not trying to take a “little shot”. I was trying to make a specific point. And I was just trying not to be too strident in the application of it. :-)

Without a doubt, the number one issue that young guys, coming out of places like Bob Jones, Pensacola, Northland, et. al, speak to me about personally and often with the request of privacy is the “tone” of today’s fundamentalism, and let me be clear, Don. Many times you embody that tone. That is not to say that I don’t have my tone issues as well — all of us who enjoy give and take, debate and who speak for a living are going to have something intemperate fall our of our face from time to time. But in some ways, on this forum at least, you have become one of several who consistently represent what I would describe as stridency. This isn’t about our rights to disagree and certainly disagreement is not a matter of automatic asignation of ‘stridency’. Many on this board and elsewhere disagree on key issues. They just seem able to do it without being condescending or harsh.

Someone I think you and I both would agree is a legitmate fundamentalist leader is Doug McLachlan. In his book, “Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism”, he addressed the issue of stridency vs. militancy. Militancy is more of a position whereas stridency is more of an attitude. While I realize that you and many who see the world as you do believe that one of the reasons young people are leaving their fundamentalist heritage is because of the appeal of a less restrictive and theologically mushier form of evangelicalism. I wouldn’t argue that frequently that isn’t the case. But I would ask you to consider whether or not some of the stridency of the rhetoric and the quick-triggered separatism that is common among some branches of fundamentalism is not also responsible for the flight of some of our sons in the ministry and in some cases — sons of our families as well. I was able to have an extended conversation with Dr. McLachlan years ago when I had just become a lead pastor and his words of counsel have resonated in me to this day.

I would suspect, Don, that if it came down to black and white doctrine and even philosophy, you and I would align at a level of 98% or greater. On doctrine — militancy is an important stance. I well remember my days in leadership wherein I defended and promoted those ideals with a level of rhetoric that was at least intemperate and in all likelihood, way too acerbic. In doing so, I know for sure, I turned people away from the substance of my position with the harshness of my communication and demeanor. I am unaware of a single individual I influenced for positive change with my strident words of which I would later repent. I am painfully aware of some, who to this day, think of my harsh tone and not my sincere heart when they think of me, pastors or even historic fundamentalism. To say that I regret that would be an understatement. I like pointed communication and unambiguous communication. At the same time, speaking the truth in love is more than just a vapid ideal according to Scripture.

So, I’ll stop highjacking this thread and hopefully will have at least clarified why I believe some, who are purposefully and definitively walking away from the fundamentalist idenfication, are exhausted by it all. Perhaps, you’ll disagree with my thesis, but I know at least anecdotally that is the focal point of way too many conversations with young men in the ministry (one as recently as 2 weeks ago who is a BJ alum and one of the finest men I know) who specifically tell me, “I no longer want to be identified with how fundamentalism behaves and sounds. I want to be true to my beliefs, but not at the expense of appearing to be associated with the ugliness.” Many of them are well aware that in doing so, they will be ostracized and criticized — often by those who schooled them in their positions — and it causes them no small amount of grief and confusion.

I regret that my response to you was received as being petty. It was not my intent.

[Dan Burrell] But in some ways, on this forum at least, you have become one of several who consistently represent what I would describe as stridency.

Well, that depends on who you ask. How can you discern tone on the internet? It is a dodgy science at best. Of course, I recognize that I was saying you were snide in your earlier remark, so I note that I miss tone just as much as anyone else. Perhaps it would be better for you to just simply be direct and straightforward.

[Dan Burrell] While I realize that you and many who see the world as you do believe that one of the reasons young people are leaving their fundamentalist heritage is because of the appeal of a less restrictive and theologically mushier form of evangelicalism. I wouldn’t argue that frequently that isn’t the case.

I am not exactly sure what your double negative means, but it seems to me like you are conceding my point, in some measure at least.

[Dan Burrell] But I would ask you to consider whether or not some of the stridency of the rhetoric and the quick-triggered separatism that is common among some branches of fundamentalism is not also responsible for the flight of some of our sons in the ministry and in some cases — sons of our families as well. …
So, I’ll stop highjacking this thread and hopefully will have at least clarified why I believe some, who are purposefully and definitively walking away from the fundamentalist idenfication, are exhausted by it all. Perhaps, you’ll disagree with my thesis, but I know at least anecdotally that is the focal point of way too many conversations with young men in the ministry (one as recently as 2 weeks ago who is a BJ alum and one of the finest men I know) who specifically tell me, “I no longer want to be identified with how fundamentalism behaves and sounds. I want to be true to my beliefs, but not at the expense of appearing to be associated with the ugliness.”

Well, I do disagree with the thesis, but perhaps not in the way you think. I suspect that some may say they object to ‘stridency’, but they are going to find strongly opinionated people wherever they go. Back in the days of Compuserve, I was on SBCnet, a Southern Baptist discussion board. I interacted with many guys who now teach at Southern Seminary and other prominent SBC schools. Russell Moore was one of the participants, if memory serves. I don’t think Mohler was on there. But there were a whole lot of lesser lights from the SBC as well. I can assure you that the “stridency” was often much stronger than it is here on SI.

My point is this, if you want to avoid stridency, go find a quiet job somewhere, join a quiet country church, and live a quiet life. But even there, I expect you might still find stridency.

So while some may use an excuse about tone and stridency, etc, etc, the real reasons are quite different. I would say that there are some complaints about the behaviour and practices of some fundamentalists which are legitimate. I disagree that the answer is to head for evangelicalism, but I recognize there are legitimate complaints.

But if you are so thin skinned that you can’t handle strong personalities… well… good luck finding a place where they don’t exist.

I’m with Dan. for some reason, stridency is a a primary adjective in the fundy world but not in the evangelical word (for example), and there is prob’ly a reason for that. I’m not denying there are stridents everywhere, but it is somehow an overriding theme in F.

I believe there is a huge difference between ‘militant’ and ‘strident’. Strident is “characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound” or “commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality”. It does not merely mean a ‘strong personality’ or ‘strongly opinionated’. Moreover, as defined, I don’t think ‘strident’ is a trait that should characterize any Christian. I’d be happy to be considered passionate, enthusiastic, and even dogmatic- but not strident.

The stridency perceived by many is, IMO, the “Shut up and sit down” kind that permeates certain circles of Fundyism. Sadly, this harsh, insistent, and discordant behavior is for some a badge of honor. I’ve been in Fundyism since I was 4 years old, and I’ve seen this over and over and over again. It should not be a defining characteristic, and it should not be tolerated.

It’s funny (and not funny ha ha) when after a meeting the preachers are sitting around talking, and you watch the eyes and faces of those not speaking. You can see that they are not listening, but forming their responses before the speaker has even made his point, usually based on words and phrases that seem to ignite their mental adrenaline. We should start decorating tables in fellowship halls with mulberry bushes for all the discipling and encouragement that isn’t taking place there.

Why do I know this? I’ve been cleaning fellowship halls in IFB churches since I was about 14, somehow rendered invisible when holding a broom or dishrag. If you want to know what is really going on in your church, skip the nursery, and ask the ladies who work in the kitchen. ;)

To be fair, what I see amongst NEs and even CEs is a mild disdain and condescension, which on the surface seems harmless because of its passivity, but it is as much borne of pride and arrogance as stridency is.

[Jim Peet] I know this is kind of dated (1971) but I would like to share a Coke with Dan and Don

“He’s the real thing, Christ is, what the world wants to day, Jesus Christ…”

That’s true. I sang it in my evangelical youth groups and youth rallies when I was a teen. I was (ahem) 14 in 1971! (Who are you calling dated, dude???)

But that was evangelicalism. I came out of a youth group singing that song and went to BJU. Talk about culture shock! In a good way.

I’ve tried evangelicalism. No thanks.