Young Fundamentalists

I suppose I would be considered a YF.

I took the survey that started this site. It probably was a good starter when it was done, but it has been quite a number of years since.

I have a feeling it is a mindset of getting to the root of what Christianity is. Wanting to have scripture to back up all things we do. (not implying previous generations didn’t) A throwing off of old cultural issues that are irrelevant today. (of course, what is irrelevant can still be debated.) At least a questioning of cultural issues and then deciding whether or not to keep them, rather than just keeping them because of tradition.

One of the things that many have noted about this site is that it is not a comprehensive gathering of Fundamentalists. The site membership (and the YF survey) are heavily weighted toward schools and churches within the orbit of BJU (and friends) or GARBC. How many representatives do we have from Crown College, West Coast Baptist College, Pensacola Christian College, Liberty University or Trinity College of the Bible? How many active participants in the Sword of the Lord or IFCA?

I’m guessing that the students at these different schools, and the twenty-somethings at their supporting churches are miles apart. So I don’t think we can talk about Young Fundamentalists as a class, only about the current crop of young people within a certain sub-group of Fundamentalism. Or, in other words, all the definitional problems associated with the word “Fundamentalism” don’t disappear when we put the adjective “young” in front.

I would not be ashamed of the title of Young Fundamentalist. I have no collage associations to claim or a big name preachers from the past to be sent from. Just a firm conviction to cling to the fundamentals of the Faith and to separate from all of the worldly forms of teaching, evangelism and worship I see in the Baptist denominations. At 34 years of age do I qualify? (I have a mustache; that maybe a deal breaker)

[Pastor Harold] I would not be ashamed of the title of Young Fundamentalist. I have no collage associations to claim or a big name preachers from the past to be sent from. Just a firm conviction to cling to the fundamentals of the Faith and to separate from all of the worldly forms of teaching, evangelism and worship I see in the Baptist denominations. At 34 years of age do I qualify? (I have a mustache; that maybe a deal breaker)

http://www.beards.org/soul_patch.php

You just need to move that mustache down a couple of inches!

I’m a young fundamentalist who sadly is no longer able to grow hair! I do have a very small patch on the top of my head (which can be seen with a microscope!)

I’m never sure what to classify myself. Some of us who would own the YF title, see ourselves outside of movement fundamentalism. Thinking of Joel Tetrau’s rubric, that makes me a Type C Fundamentalist. Do us Type Cs, count as YFs? Or do YFs have to be Type B?

I wonder too, how many of us Type Cs, were once Type A+ and not in the BJU realm. In my experience in the reformed fundy blogosphere, I see a lot of Type A+ (or IFBx) types move out of fundamentalism altogether, instead of into a Type B or moderate A sphere (i.e. a BJU type fundamentalist orbit).

Jim, that link has inspired me to skip your recommendation of the “soul patch” and go for the “friendly mutton chops”.

Jay,

I’m working on a comment.

Straight Ahead!

jt

I think Charlie is right to point out the limitations of the label “young-fundamentalist” and the definitional problems that attach to it.

I doubt many people at all would so self-describe; for example, if someone had not heard of SI, Janz, etc. would they even know the term? Unlikely.

Moreover, the definitional problem with “fundamentalism” is evidenced in SI’s doctrinal statement, which is good I think. Ironically, however, I’m almost certain that Mark Dever or John MacArthur could affirm the SI statement and join SI, which just illustrates that much of what people think of as Fundamentalism are fundamentally cultural issues, issues of sensibility and method, not issues of substantive doctrine.

On SI, I think Iwould be a YF. Outside of this context, the term would be meaningless because I don’t move in cultural Fundamentalist circles.

The only form of Fundamentalism I would remotely consider ascribing to “publically” would be the kind outlined in Bauder’s essays and articles, a form which has never historically existed, so I don’t see much point in identifying with it as people assume such identifications have a historical component.

To be fair, I feel the same ambivalence towards the term “evangelical,” which I’m almost as chary about as I am “fundamentalist.”

[Bob Hayton] In my experience in the reformed fundy blogosphere, I see a lot of Type A+ (or IFBx) types move out of fundamentalism altogether, instead of into a Type B or moderate A sphere (i.e. a BJU type fundamentalist orbit).

I think that you are right, and I think there are some reasons for that. We tend to underestimate the relational and emotional motives behind our actions, especially our supposedly “intellectual” shifts. I have one friend who became Presbyterian from a less than healthy Baptist background, and he admits that he was looking to become “not Baptist.”

Almost all the people whom I know who changed denominations have done so in conjunction with sins (real or perceived) against them or people they know. There is a negative way to view this, that is, that they are just being reactionary. That may be true, but there is also a positive side of the coin. Perception of serious wrong is usually the only thing that will motivate people (except high idealists) to make a life change. In other words, having a few exegetical or doctrinal anomalies isn’t enough actually to unseat most people, who will simply find a way to reinterpret data to fit, or acknowledge some imperfection and shrug their shoulders.

So to apply this to your example. When those in Type A+ churches wake up and realize a lot of the crazy stuff going on, they are sufficiently motivated to look around at other alternatives. On the other hand, most in the BJUish sphere probably have many positive experiences and role models, but chafe some and reach a frustration level just under the breaking point, resulting in a “reform from within” kind of strategy. These are the true Young Fundamentalists as I see them. I am, then, more of a YF sympathizer than a YF proper, since I have actually left movement Fundamentalism and retain my influence through spheres of association rather than membership.

This isn’t just a Fundie phenomenon. You can see this psychology at work in almost every ecclesiastical group now and throughout history. I will note, however, that the “breaking point” seems to be lower today than ever before because of the amount of emphasis placed on individual religious experience as opposed to religion functioning in tandem with society.

[Charlie]…

On the other hand, most in the BJUish sphere probably have many positive experiences and role models, but chafe some and reach a frustration level just under the breaking point, resulting in a “reform from within” kind of strategy. These are the true Young Fundamentalists as I see them.

…

This seems true and probably reflects many BJU[ish] alums.

The exceptions seem to be a few who have invested more in the system before reaching the “breaking point.” Perhaps they have invested the prime of their career and then become frustrated. Those seem to end up with some activism against the University.

A few random thoughts, following up my comments on the tendency of young Type A/Type A+ fundamentalists to jettison movement fundamentalism altogether, ending up as a Type C fundamentalist (i.e. historic fundamentalist/conservative evangelical, what have you).

1) I’ve travelled around the reforming fundamentalist sphere, the blogs similar to mine — blogs of those who in one sense consider themselves “former” fundamentalists. And I would have to say many of them are former Type A/Type A+ who are now Type Cs. I have to be fair and say I know quite a few Type Bs that schooled at NBBC and the like, who migrated over to TEDS or in some other way slipped out of the movement, so this doesn’t have to be a Type A thing only.

2) My thoughts on “why” are similar to Charlies. Type A and especially Type A+ (IFBx) fundamentalists are very controlling. The opportunity for objective thinking is hard to come by. So it does take more gumption to consider switching your views when you are in such an environment. And since you are already likely to be ostracized for changing, what difference does it make to go to a Type C level? Plus the people that are more likely to move would naturally have more gumption and be more likely to be a Type C, possibly.

3) Another reason for this may be (and was in my case), that after you see the extremes to which a fundamentalist mindest can gravitate towards (IFBx), you are very reluctant to put yourself in a place where such tendencies are still present and operative, albeit in a latent state. I sampled Type B fundamentalism and found it sniffed too much like the Type A/A+ fundamentalism I had become concerned about. However, in my case, there was a really good Type C church nearby which made my decision easier.

4) So I would say I’m a YF sympathizer too. Albeit now that I’m outside the movement, I have come to learn more of the good that remains in the idea of fundamentalism (Bauder), and in Type B fundamentalism. Again having been isolated in a Type A+ group, I didn’t really know much about Type B fundamentalism at all. Now that I’m out, I could almost see myself going back. But I don’t think I’d be welcomed, and I still see the potential dangers I feared being greater in Type B fundamentalism than not (of course opposite tendencies are at play in Type C fundamentalism).

I think for many, they can’t fathom being “outside” the movement, but once you have been, you see it’s not all that big a deal. The us-vs.-them mentality seems to pervade fundamentalism. Once you’ve left the movement it’s refreshing to stop thinking along those lines.

Anyway, good thread.

I am probably an OF in principle, but a YF in practice, if that makes any sense. What I believe personally as an ultra-conservative right-wing KJVO has no bearing on whether I treat people with respect or compassion, because those characteristics are not affected by which Bible I read or how long my skirt is. Type Cs can be just as haughty and in-yer-face as Type As. OFs and YFs are not immune to pride or hostility towards those who hold different views. It seems to me that certain cultural and doctrinal climates have allowed some dysfunctions to flourish, and I am relieved to see that the rabbit trails of the past are diminishing in number and are far less circuitous.

Thusly, the difference I see between the OFs and the YFs isn’t so much about doctrine, but that authority figures are being held accountable in doctrine and practice in a way they never were before. There used to be the Untouchable Anointed Ones, and if you dared to ask a question, you were branded a rebel.

Christ’s example of leadership was crawl around on the floor to wash His disciples feet, and I believe there is a hunger today for servant-leadership that is more the Biblical model than the tyrannical Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do leadership of the past.

The Day The Light Bulb Went On for Susan was when I was cleaning the church (years ago) in the afternoon after a morning Camp Meeting. Several preachers were sitting around talking, and I would occasionally bring them coffee or a snack while I wiped tables, tended to food that was in the oven, washed dishes, etc… Then a preacher/missionary comes in, and instead of asking me to fetch him some coffee, he insisted that I sit down for a minute while HE got ME some coffee. He included me in the conversation, asked me questions about my family etc… and the rest of the preachers acted like he had just picked his nose in public. The nerve of him to allow a servant girl to sit at the same table as The Great Ones.

It changed my life, because I saw a man that others loved, respected, and admired treat ME, the grubby little kitchen worker, with compassion and respect and acknowledgment of the work that I was putting into this meeting. I have never viewed authority in the same way since. And it wasn’t their doctrinal stance that made the difference.

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

Thanks for sharing your story Susan. Your story is sad. I think it could be repeated many times over (the negative part of it). This isn’t only a fundamentalist thing though, it’s a sinful-human thing.

You are right that it’s not so much what you believe, but how you love and treat others. I respect lots of people who are on different sides of the fence than me on certain issues. Rom. 14 comes into play.

Thanks again, as this is an important element in the discussion, for sure.

Jay,

I’ve been working on an updated and a bit more precise and less “wordy” version of the ABC thing. Susan, you are right on the money that “the attitude” is not limited to Type A’s. Frankly you will find great attitudes and nasty attitudes in each “mood.”

Jay, I’m not opposed to running those articles again…..There actually was a forth part that I pulled from SI and ran it over on neo-fundamentalist. I’ve been thinking of re-writing it into one smaller version where I bring all four parts into a smaller version. My perspective has changed a little bit on an institution or two….One that I thought was Type B is back in Type A. One that I called Type A- is very much B, etc….I think for sake of the re-write I’ll keep it as simply and to the point as possible.

Straight Ahead!

Joel

[Susan R] I OFs and YFs are not immune to pride or hostility towards those who hold different views.

Truer words were never written, Susan.

[Charlie] One of the things that many have noted about this site is that it is not a comprehensive gathering of Fundamentalists. The site membership (and the YF survey) are heavily weighted toward schools and churches within the orbit of BJU (and friends) or GARBC. How many representatives do we have from Crown College, West Coast Baptist College, Pensacola Christian College, Liberty University or Trinity College of the Bible? How many active participants in the Sword of the Lord or IFCA?

It’s long irked me that some people here acted like (more often a long time ago) like the people who read SI were “THE” representatives of “true fundamentalism”. BJU doesn’t represent all of fundamentalism. Even if you put them in the picture as the most balanced (IYO or IMO), there are lots and lots of churches out there who call themselves “fundamentalist” who don’t run in that orbit. These other groups aren’t well represented here. To decide that SI is “THE” blog or forum for all of fundamentalism is overestimation of itself. Probably way more fundamentalists have never heard of SI than have actually sat down and read it.

[Bob Hayton] I wonder too, how many of us Type Cs, were once Type A+ and not in the BJU realm. In my experience in the reformed fundy blogosphere, I see a lot of Type A+ (or IFBx) types move out of fundamentalism altogether, instead of into a Type B or moderate A sphere (i.e. a BJU type fundamentalist orbit).

[Charlie]

So to apply this to your example. When those in Type A+ churches wake up and realize a lot of the crazy stuff going on, they are sufficiently motivated to look around at other alternatives. On the other hand, most in the BJUish sphere probably have many positive experiences and role models, but chafe some and reach a frustration level just under the breaking point, resulting in a “reform from within” kind of strategy. These are the true Young Fundamentalists as I see them.

.

I also have seen this. It seems like when the AAA+s react, they react completely and go to the other side. When the ones who were more moderate (even A’s) react, they tend to react by going to the left, but not as far as the ones who were in AAA+. So, you find the ones who were BJU types (A) churches now in evangelical type churches and the HAC (AAA+) grads often have completely denounced Christianity altogether and want nothing to do with anything called “church”.

Maybe some of it is personality types. Some people love that screaming and such and when they tire of it, they tire of ALL of it.

“To decide that SI is “THE” blog or forum for all of fundamentalism is overestimation of itself. Probably way more fundamentalists have never heard of SI than have actually sat down and read it.”

That’s actually somewhat funny. I seem to vaguely recall a man who shall remain unnamed as stating that those who came to SI were probably new evangelicals instead of fundamentalists. After all, many read books by Piper, etc.

I think that goes to illustrate once again the fragmentation that is inherent in fundamentalism.

Honestly, I don’t know what flavor I am. I hope to be historic fundamentalist more than any extreme form. I’ll just say that, at the present, I feel I’m a Christian growing in grace.

That is most important to me.

I’ve decided not to be like the elderly lady who was a staunch fundamentalist. She was asked, “auntie, when Jesus returns and you ask Him if he’s a fundamentalist, and he says ‘no’, what will you think”? She said, “I’ll know it’s not Jesus.”

[Jay C] Personally, I’m just a little surprised that type A’s would jettison the entire movement whatsoever. I wonder if it’s because there’s a high degree of centralized control with most type A ministries; when control can’t be exerted over whatever the leader wants/needs, they grow frustrated and quit?

[Susan R] The Day The Light Bulb Went On for Susan was when I was cleaning the church (years ago) in the afternoon after a morning Camp Meeting. Several preachers were sitting around talking, and I would occasionally bring them coffee or a snack while I wiped tables, tended to food that was in the oven, washed dishes, etc… Then a preacher/missionary comes in, and instead of asking me to fetch him some coffee, he insisted that I sit down for a minute while HE got ME some coffee. He included me in the conversation, asked me questions about my family etc… and the rest of the preachers acted like he had just picked his nose in public. The nerve of him to allow a servant girl to sit at the same table as The Great Ones.

I am coming to the conversation late. Sorry.

My family moved from MA to SC almost 30 years ago. We had grown up in an Independent Fundamental Non-Denominational church. (Can a church *truly* be fundamental without being Baptist? ::WINK!:: ) We were thrown into the center of BJU style fundamentalism. We visited many of the big name churches in the area, and my parents (coming in from the outside) were able to make a prescient observation. There were at that time still men preaching in the area who had been trained under the ministry of the Founder of the University. Those men, my parents observed, tended to be “shepherds”. Of course, there were many men preaching in the area who had been trained under the administration of the Founder’s son. Those men, my parents observed, tended to be “generals”.

My own observation (::GASP!:: Anecdotal Information!!!) has been thus: Fundamentalists tend to leave Fundamentalism when “Godly” people do not treat members of their church families in a Godly way. There is very little love. Very little compassion. Lots of rules and insistence on obedience, often without a Scriptural basis for establishing the rules.

Now, these kinds of observations tend to be dismissed as the emotional reaction of weaker bretheren. Once, OK I’ll agree. Twice? OK, it happens. But when this kind of testimony is repeated dozens and hundreds of times, a disturbing pattern (no compassion, no humility, no desire to serve, but only to be served) emerges, which is largely ignored by those who remain in the ever dwindling congregations of Fundamentalism.

One more comment. Let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that our little Blog is having any real impact on Fundamentalism in the US. There are some OSFs (a greater number than you might think) who read this blog, disheartened by the trend our faith is taking. They lurk, and do not participate, because they consider us too far gone: fools who have left the fold of Pure Fundamentalism (whichever brand they personally consider to be right.) But most of the OSFs don’t even bother logging on to SI.

I find myself to be too old (chronologically:D) to be a YF. But their insistence on tying practice to Scripture is exactly what is needed in our society today.

Karl,

Dude……that was awesome! Your parents hit the nail on the head! I think you are right on the money. I’ve heard the same kind of thing from the Old Timers I ministered to in Minnesota. The picture I got was that the first and like the first half of the second generation of fundamentalist leaders were shepherds…….many of them were very humble men. And then the second half of the second generation……every significant leader had his own little army and off to war they went with each other. Um…..the old-timers in Minnesota saw a bit of that “slug-fest” in the second generation…..and frankly it turned many of them off to Minnesota Fundamentalism especially in the 60’s and into the 70’s. What I need to do is to start getting dates and names and observations and catalogue this stuff….so that when you present this to the Type A’s they can’t come back and say…..you’re just liberal…..because at that point in time I want to have something more substantial to hand them other than my response…..”no, you’re just a dork!” (And then we go back and forth like 3rd graders…..”You liberal!…..you dork!……liberal!……dork!)

The analogy of Shepherds from the first generation and then Generals from the second might not be an absolute…..but I do think there was that pattern. Wow….what a great post. We have to talk off line…….!

Straight Ahead Bro!

Joel

PS - Gang…..we are just a blog! We are just a group of friends and “people that we know or don’t know” who have something in common and so we talk about it. Our impact will be as God designs it. As far as this idea that people here think we talk for “fundamentalism”…..that’s nutty. We can’t even represent each other here because of the amount of diversity….how in the world could we speak for fundamentalism at large? Hello!? :~

As an old fundamentalist, I’m beginning to understand and and appreciate young “fundamentalism” and would agree with what’s been stated in the two previous posts. However I’ve known some of those first generation men and to call them “generals” would have been a complement. Still, the “my way or the highway” mode of leadership produces both imitators and defectors. SI has provided a forum for a generation who questions and concerns would have no audience before the internet.

Good thoughts. I would simply add that younger ministers often walk away from the current fundamentalism because of what they experience from the pew. When congregations get embroiled in differences over personal convictions and practical matters they often resort to sowing discord and other forms of evil. I know a number of young men who just came to the point where they felt that gospel-centered ministry in this type of environment is impossible. So, while they no there is no such thing as a perfect church environment, they seek for one where they can actually do what God has gifted and called them to do.

[Rev Karl] My own observation (::GASP!:: Anecdotal Information!!!) has been thus: Fundamentalists tend to leave Fundamentalism when “Godly” people do not treat members of their church families in a Godly way. There is very little love. Very little compassion. Lots of rules and insistence on obedience, often without a Scriptural basis for establishing the rules.

Now, these kinds of observations tend to be dismissed as the emotional reaction of weaker bretheren. Once, OK I’ll agree. Twice? OK, it happens. But when this kind of testimony is repeated dozens and hundreds of times, a disturbing pattern (no compassion, no humility, no desire to serve, but only to be served) emerges, which is largely ignored by those who remain in the ever dwindling congregations of Fundamentalism.

I always wonder where that attitude came from… the idea that pastors and evangelists were ‘Anointed Ones’ and the laity should not so much as touch the hem of their robes. Why is it when conversations about Biblical authority come up, some folks run to the OT monarchy, Abraham sending Eleazar to choose a wife for Isaac and the like as a pattern of pastoral and parental authority? We clearly have many NT examples of authority, Jesus Christ being #1 I would hope, and nothing about Him was pompous nor did He ever seem to feel threatened. He didn’t ask people to stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels as ‘proof’ that He Was In Charge.

Example anecdote: I heard someone say not long ago that just as Laban made Jacob work 14 years for Rachel, he was going to place heavy burdens on anyone who wanted to marry his daughter to make them prove they were worthy of her. I shut my mouth, because I knew nothing I said would be heard over the din of the testosterone raging in this man’s ears.

What I wanted to say but didn’t:

1) Jacob set his own wages, not Laban

2) Jacob got there with the shirt on his back, as in no dowry, which is why I imagine he felt he needed to work to establish himself (that’s my opinion, but I like it, so there)

3) When Laban tricked Jacob with Leah, he had to work the same number of years for Rachel… you know what I’m sayin’?;)

4) Laban was a jerk of the first water, and if I had to pick, out of all the examples of parental authority in the Bible to pattern myself after, Laban would be very near the bottom

But this guy was applauded like he’d just invented an automobile that ran on tap water. It’s that kind of warped thinking that has been rewarded over the years, and it has colored the pure idea of Fundamentalism (separation especially) with a sickly greenish tint. What’s worse is that this same father, who goes on and on about the Christian character and purity of his daughter, took her this last weekend to see The Perfect Getaway. When she dares to disagree with him, he totally loses it- as in he gets in her face and screams at her. But that’s ok, because he is her Authority, and Authority is accountable to no one. Of course I must clarify, and say that parents should be involved in when their offspring chooses a spouse, and there should be some qualifications- he’s saved, he’s faithful, he has a job… but that’s not what this dad was talking about.

Anyway, if everything truly rises and falls on leadership, it is IMO the dysfunctional views of authority structures that has led to the decline in the purity of doctrine, healthy relationships in homes, and accountable church leadership. YF’s are asking honest questions, but some OF’s react as if they are being questioned. Which is probably why so many lurk but don’t post on SI. I don’t buy that whole “SI has compromised”, or “SI is too far gone” because this isn’t a church, it’s a forum, which being interpreted means a public meeting place. It is asked that folks who contribute be able to agree with the doctrinal statement and adhere to the comment policy, but other than that, all sorts of folks are welcome here. If that means hard questions are asked and controversial topics are brought up and many sides of the discussion are presented and no particular stance is favored over another by the moderators or admin, then that should be a good thing. But many in positions of authority are not used to defending themselves in an open forum to younger men or, angels forfend, women, so they are not going to expose themselves to any form of criticism, constructive or otherwise. So we’re back to Square One- you can’t ask Authority questions, you must accept what they say as coming from the mouth of God.

[Pastor Joe Roof] Good thoughts. I would simply add that younger ministers often walk away from the current fundamentalism because of what they experience from the pew. When congregations get embroiled in differences over personal convictions and practical matters they often resort to sowing discord and other forms of evil. I know a number of young men who just came to the point where they felt that gospel-centered ministry in this type of environment is impossible. So, while they no there is no such thing as a perfect church environment, they seek for one where they can actually do what God has gifted and called them to do.

I have seen this sort of thing, too. Good pastors often look for churches where people value the Word; when the traditions of men carry too much authority, the authority of the Word is limited.

[Joel Tetreau] Karl,

Dude……that was awesome! Your parents hit the nail on the head! I think you are right on the money. I’ve heard the same kind of thing from the Old Timers I ministered to in Minnesota. The picture I got was that the first and like the first half of the second generation of fundamentalist leaders were shepherds…….many of them were very humble men. And then the second half of the second generation……every significant leader had his own little army and off to war they went with each other. Um…..the old-timers in Minnesota saw a bit of that “slug-fest” in the second generation…..and frankly it turned many of them off to Minnesota Fundamentalism especially in the 60’s and into the 70’s. What I need to do is to start getting dates and names and observations and catalogue this stuff….so that when you present this to the Type A’s they can’t come back and say…..you’re just liberal…..because at that point in time I want to have something more substantial to hand them other than my response…..”no, you’re just a dork!” (And then we go back and forth like 3rd graders…..”You liberal!…..you dork!……liberal!……dork!)

The analogy of Shepherds from the first generation and then Generals from the second might not be an absolute…..but I do think there was that pattern.

Yes, very true: my comments were broad, sweeping generalizations, There were exceptions in the “era of the shepherds”, and there have been exceptions in the “era of the generals”.

And the overall generic application of the time line does not necessarily attach itself to the products of one particular educational institution. I have observed (there he goes with that ANECDOTAL information again!!!) similar general trends in the products of several post-secondary schools.

And (generally, with noteable exceptions) the people who need to hear this just don’t want to hear it.

My out loud thinking tends along the same lines, Jay. There is so much in the Bible that has appeals to military types- there are battles galore, as well as battle/armor and sports analogies- but the church is not the pastor’s ‘platoon’ or ‘team’. I think it is clear that the role of pastor is as an under-shepherd, with Christ as the example of the True Shepherd. All of the commands and principles that apply to authority tend toward a sacrificial servanthood. Which of course does not mean that the sheep use the shepherd as a bootscraper, but if Christ can handpick 12, and one of them is a devil, a pastor can expect to have a devil or two or three in the average congregation. If the pastor has some faithful sheepdogs, though, the wolves will find themselves in a very uncomfortable position before long. ;)

Another thought is that is so much easier to deal with outward behaviors than try to get at heart issues. The battles the IFB church has fought over cultural practices IMO have been one great big long rabbit trail of long skirts (which I wear, btw) and flat-front pants (remember when pleated pants came out? oh the horror!) and “You must attend the college of OUR choice”… when what was missing, especially when I look back at my own life, was being confronted with “WHY?” Why would I want to wear something short/thin/tight? Why would a Christian follow every fashion trend by default? Why would I want to hear dirty jokes and obscenities and nudity on a movie screen? I think many folks are tired of The IFB List of Do’s and Don’t’s, and want to delve into underlying issues that involve the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I’ve been looking for some good resources for my kids in this area- blogs and books etc written by young people to encourage them that there are other young people living whole-heartedly for God, and most of what I found are not in the traditional IFB camp- all the good Fundy stuff is written by old guys. So what’s up with that? Or am I not looking in the right place?

[Susan R]

I’ve been looking for some good resources for my kids in this area- blogs and books etc written by young people to encourage them that there are other young people living whole-heartedly for God, and most of what I found are not in the traditional IFB camp- all the good Fundy stuff is written by old guys. So what’s up with that? Or am I not looking in the right place?

Try the Rebelution. I cannot immediately remember the link, but it’s written by the sons of Gregg Harris - Josh Harris’ brothers.

Good stuff there.

I have looked at it, and for the most part I like it, as well as a few of the blogs The Rebelution links to.

[Jay C] I wonder if perhaps this idea or concept of pastor as dictator actually started and was a result of the early 1900 battles over liberalism, where a few men grew their ministries and became point men to deal with the encroaching theological threat and had to act more as ‘generals’ in the theological wars…

Just thinking out loud.

My Opinion:

Following generations tend to emulate the externals, without seeing, knowing, experiencing the internals.

The humorous story when I was at BJU was the way BJU preacher boys of a certain era would hold the backs of their hands up to their mouths when they shouted in the pulpit, just like Dr. Bob, Sr. did. Dr. Bob, Sr. did that to hold his dentures in. (!) The preacher boys had no dentures, but mimicked that idiosyncrasy in their “preaching style”.

I know men of great humility who never confront people on issues having to do with themselves, but stand tall, strong, and without apology for the principles of the Word. I fear that “the second generation” saw humble, gracious men standing their ground for the Word, and emulated what they saw in that noble battle, without ever having the opportunity to experience the gracious humility of these men when they were in other situations. (Or even when they were discussing basic, non-confrontational doctrines in their home churches.)

[Susan R] I am probably an OF in principle, but a YF in practice, if that makes any sense. What I believe personally as an ultra-conservative right-wing KJVO has no bearing on whether I treat people with respect or compassion, because those characteristics are not affected by which Bible I read or how long my skirt is. Type Cs can be just as haughty and in-yer-face as Type As. OFs and YFs are not immune to pride or hostility towards those who hold different views. It seems to me that certain cultural and doctrinal climates have allowed some dysfunctions to flourish, and I am relieved to see that the rabbit trails of the past are diminishing in number and are far less circuitous.

Thusly, the difference I see between the OFs and the YFs isn’t so much about doctrine, but that authority figures are being held accountable in doctrine and practice in a way they never were before. There used to be the Untouchable Anointed Ones, and if you dared to ask a question, you were branded a rebel.

Christ’s example of leadership was crawl around on the floor to wash His disciples feet, and I believe there is a hunger today for servant-leadership that is more the Biblical model than the tyrannical Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do leadership of the past.

The Day The Light Bulb Went On for Susan was when I was cleaning the church (years ago) in the afternoon after a morning Camp Meeting. Several preachers were sitting around talking, and I would occasionally bring them coffee or a snack while I wiped tables, tended to food that was in the oven, washed dishes, etc… Then a preacher/missionary comes in, and instead of asking me to fetch him some coffee, he insisted that I sit down for a minute while HE got ME some coffee. He included me in the conversation, asked me questions about my family etc… and the rest of the preachers acted like he had just picked his nose in public. The nerve of him to allow a servant girl to sit at the same table as The Great Ones.

It changed my life, because I saw a man that others loved, respected, and admired treat ME, the grubby little kitchen worker, with compassion and respect and acknowledgment of the work that I was putting into this meeting. I have never viewed authority in the same way since. And it wasn’t their doctrinal stance that made the difference.

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

Thank you for that testimony/story.

The heart of the issue for me isn’t Old versus Young. It is separatists becoming isolationists. The whole paradigm of Christian education and philosophy of education has led separatists to become isolationists. The mission of Jesus Christ to reach the world has become secondary to purity or put in direct conflict with one another. That is it’s either holiness or evangelism in practice. But, the bible calls us to be Holy and to be loving/reaching the lost with the Gospel…at the same time. Taking the best and the brightest as well as everyone else and herding them to Bible college / Seminary for 4-6-8 years, where they are isolated from the real world doesn’t seem in line with Mark 16:15.

I am a tweener. 44 years old. Used to hang with Old Fundamentalists, most are dead now or dying. YF crowd is new to me but I am getting acquainted in the last 2 years or so.

DJung in California

Isolated from the Bloggosphere until 2008

The heart of the issue for me isn’t Old versus Young. It is separatists becoming isolationists. The whole paradigm of Christian education and philosophy of education has led separatists to become isolationists.

It is obvious that there isn’t just one factor that we can nail to the wall as The Reason churches in general and Fundamentalism in particular are in the shape they are in, but I agree that separation morphing into isolationism is another key aspect of the problem. And when I break this down even further, I see the church’s acceptance and adoption of

1) worldly methods of education, such as peer segregation

2) adolescence as a legitimate ‘phase’ of life and the subsequent worship thereof

3) an Us vs Them mentality towards the lost and backslidden (the ‘older brother’ of the prodigal)

4) adherence to rules of conduct as an indicator of spiritual maturity

5) the Warm Body Method of appointing ministers and teachers in the church, tossing 1 Tim 3:6 out the window

I’ve read some comments lately on another blog about how young people should be mentored by older, spiritually mature adults. The problem is that in our culture, instead of mature and responsible adulthood being held up as the standard and something to be desired, adolescent behavior seems to be preferable. And since we shuttle our kids off by the truckload and separate them by age, they have little opportunity to be influenced and affected by their elders. So they grow up to be carnal and shallow Christians, because they are carnal and shallow people who look to their peers for acceptance.

I’ve lately seen a distaste for this amongst younger people who have realized that they will not accomplish anything productive in their lives unless they grow up already. They are reading and studying and asking questions, and that’s a good thing. If some practice is not clearly laid out as a command or even as preferable in Scripture, then traditions do need to be turned on their heads and examined for their purpose and effect. Isolationism has allowed a few people to become leaders of certain ‘sectors’ of Christianity, and for years they were able to maintain authority without being questioned- but I think today there are practices that were once touted as being Biblical and essential being placed under the microscope and seen for what they really are- manipulation, domination, and control.

That isn’t to say that every practice or tradition is detrimental or unScriptural- but if it can’t stand up to scrutiny, then it isn’t a tradition worth saving.

[Susan R] Isolationism has allowed a few people to become leaders of certain ‘sectors’ of Christianity, and for years they were able to maintain authority without being questioned- but I think today there are practices that were once touted as being Biblical and essential being placed under the microscope and seen for what they really are- manipulation, domination, and control.

To your excellent post, I have only one thing to add. In some ways, the internet is doing for the 21st century what the printing press did for the 15th-16th. It is allowing people to be exposed to influences that they normally would not be. For example, if you wanted to introduce someone to Calvinism (not that I know anyone who would do that), it’s much easier to point someone to Desiring God or James White’s blog than it is to ship a few books across the country that won’t be read anyway. The Internet makes it extremely easy to refute factual errors and revisionist history, as well as to compare different churches. For example, my parents left their Type A+ Fundamentalist church in part because of listening to sermons (online) from my pastor and my sister’s pastor. They quickly realized they weren’t getting real Bible preaching, but without that comparison, they still wouldn’t know.

I hope I qualify as a “young fundamentalist” at 31! I believe in the Historic Biblical Fundamentals of the Faith! When I hear the word Independent put in front of Fundamental, the first thought that pops into my head would probably be “Fear of the Church” rather than the “Fear of God”. Most Independent Fundamental views as a church, in my humble opinion, can tend to send out a subtle message that the church is Independent on their “man-made doctrines” (Traditions), rather than independent on the main “Historic Fundamentals of the the Gospel or Faith” of a believing congregation of saints. Examples: Dress, Music, KJV only, and routine services that can cause people to just plainly, fall asleep!

I grew up in a Type “A”, BJU, PCC model home where man-made doctrines were enforced militantly rather than emphasizing “Christian Liberty” that can be taken from the Word of God. I grew up in a “People Pleasing” environment. I went to Independent Baptist Churches up until the age of 19. When Satan threw his first major swing at me as an young adult, I threw the “baby out with the bath water”. Is that because I went to a Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church? Absolutely Not! I made a choice. I lived the life as a prodigal for about 10 years, and by the Grace of God, as in Luke 15, Christ came after me and put me on his shoulders and brought me back into the flock. PTL!!!

I love the Fundamentals of the Faith, which are found in one place, The Gospel. What scares me today is that so many Independent Fundamentalist in my generation, who I graduated with, are out in the world, and not even attending church, or even living in Godly discipleship.

The Lord has laid upon my heart to be fundamental in my approach to the Gospel, not traditional in my approach towards our heavenly father! God has place so much responsibility on us, as Christians, that we need to be more focused on the Gospel, than labels. IMHO

I respect Historic Fundamentalist and love them, but when Independent is thrown in front of it, or an -ism is thrown at the end of the word, I get fearful and cautious that our eyes are level and not looking upwards towards our Heavenly Father. So, that being said, I would humbly rather be referred to as a Historic Fundamental Christian!

God Bless!

-FROG

I am new here. I can make a good guess what these def are but would like to be sure. Got a concise definition?

My first post - As an educated (BBC Springfield MO), Associate Pastor in a fundamental church, and one who was all but asked not to question the “doctrine of separation” as “God’s Anointed” would be upset set the stage for my exit. In no way am I being a critic but an observer and participant in the actions of people control in order to hold the unbilical additional rules as “gospel” and a measure of spirituality. Intellectual inquiry is taboo in almost any area. Now I endured (or tried to read) all the above posts — what was missing? The Lord. Once pastors decide there is a correlation with absolute abstinence from all things perceived as “evil” or that would “bring shame” upon the Lord by going to a movie, listening to current music, wearing shorts, read Calvin, fail to run to an “altar” at every invitation {NB: Altars are not in Baptist churches}, drinking a beer, or some other personal liberty decision (Romans 14) — we simply re-enslave the lost into another world of religious captivity.

Then, KJV is God’s only book (cannot withstand true scrutiny, or to wear a beard —I was call out in 1986 by a Fundamental Preacher who was preaching when he felt lead of the Lord to stop his message at the conference to criticize me for my then dark beard of which I publicly stood and calmly asked with all respect - book, chapter, and verse please for our Lord had a beard) == I still have the beard.

Are Fundamentalists, Independents, etc., all worked up about our public persona or the business of gospel preaching? Until the young, upcoming fundamentalists break the chains around their necks held in place by historical precedents and stand for the purpose of glorifying God in all things, guess what — the sheep will follow and the church will be blemished (just like it is today). But it will be one where honesty, clarity of truth, and doctrinal reality meets and the infrastructure that holds it all together (person and work of Christ) will be what is important.

Our lives are pathways and journeys that travel life’s long and winding road (Title borrowed from The Beatles). 1 Peter 1:17-21 sums up our individual and pastoral centerpiece as how to tread the dark lanes and bright pastures as sojourners knowing that the invisible hand of Providence watches and guides His people. 1 Peter 1:17-21 (King James Version)

17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

21Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

[RMSprung] (I was call out in 1986 by a Fundamental Preacher who was preaching when he felt lead of the Lord to stop his message at the conference to criticize me for my then dark beard of which I publicly stood and calmly asked with all respect - book, chapter, and verse please for our Lord had a beard)

Were you just an attendee at the conference or were you one of the other speakers? How did the guy respond to you? I doubt he thought you were asking “with all respect.”

I’m not sure if I would call myself a young fundamentalist but I do refer to myself as being in a less dogmatic place than I was when I was growing up and attending a fundamentalist Bible college. I still believe most all of the same things, but I am not as dogmatic about my beliefs when I discuss them with others. I’m more willing to acknowledge that I might not know as much as I once thought I did.

RM,

I don’t mind you going to the movies, or even drinking beer, but I am going to have to separate from you over your beard!

What’s that you say?

The guy in the picture on my profile has a beard!

Ignore the man behind the curtain (a la the Wizard of Oz)!

p.s. sorry, just couldn’t help myself! Welcome to SI.

[Kevin Miller]

[RMSprung] (I was call out in 1986 by a Fundamental Preacher who was preaching when he felt lead of the Lord to stop his message at the conference to criticize me for my then dark beard of which I publicly stood and calmly asked with all respect - book, chapter, and verse please for our Lord had a beard)

Were you just an attendee at the conference or were you one of the other speakers? How did the guy respond to you? I doubt he thought you were asking “with all respect.”

If a speaker is so uncouth as to ‘call out’ someone in the crowd for having a beard, I think he deserves about 40 hymnbooks upside the head. Amazing the boorishness that is excused by being “led of the Lord”.

Just another example of mystical (mythical?) Christianity run amok.