Moving Toward Authenticity: Musings on Fundamentalism, Part 2
Dr. Doug MacLachlan presented this paper at Central Seminary’s fall conference on Oct. 17, 2011. Read part 1. Part two begins with the second of three indispensible necessities for authentic fundamentalism.
2. Pursuing the radical center
It was G. K. Chesterton who suggested that the Christian life is like a narrow pathway with deep ditches on both sides. For much of its history, large segments of the body of Christ have too often found themselves off the “narrow pathway” (the radical center) and in one or the other of these ditches. It doesn’t matter which ditch we fall into. In both of them, believers become muddied and defiled. In this condition, the watching world is once again receiving a skewed view of Christ and His body. Far too large a percentage of the evangelical world has descended into the “left ditch.” And doubtless, far too much of the fundamentalist world has descended into the “right ditch.” This tragic descent into the ditches mandates a deep commitment to a strong pursuit of the “radical center,” if we are to recover historic, mainstream fundamentalism.
A word of caution is necessary here. In coming up out of these ditches, there is often a tendency to overreact and miss the radical center by passing right over it, and ending up in the opposite ditch. The Christian faith is replete with examples of this. When we “over-correct” we don’t correct. We simply create a whole new world of hypocrisies, because both the right and left ditches are full of hypocrisies. The only place to find authenticity (genuine Christianity) is in the radical center.
Incidentally, the radical center should not be thought of as a compromising posture that allows for one foot in the church and the other in the world, as though we were straddling the fence. Rather it is the narrow pathway defined by Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14. Pursuing the radical center means absolute love to the Triune Godhead, and absolute loyalty to absolute truth. This combination defines precisely what it means to pursue the radical center.
3. Recognizing the interdependence of the hard and soft virtues
Peter Kreeft has argued that our ancestors were better than we are at the hard virtues such as courage and chastity, holiness, righteousness, and justice. We, on the other hand, are better than they were at the soft virtues such as kindness and philanthropy, love, mercy, and grace. But you can no more specialize in virtue than in anatomical organs. The virtues are like organs in the body—interdependent—the one cannot survive without the other. In other words, the hard virtues are like bones in the body; the soft virtues are like tissues in the body. Bones without tissues are a skeleton. Tissues without bones are a jelly-fish. Neither can survive without the other, and apart from their union our full humanity is lost.
In the very same way, authentic Christianity cannot survive without both the hard and the soft virtues. They are absolutely interdependent. Too much of evangelicalism has opted for the soft virtues, exclusive of the hard. Too much of fundamentalism has opted for the hard virtues, exclusive of the soft. Neither of these movements will be capable of authentic Christianity or genuine ministry, until they are deeply committed to the union of both the hard and the soft virtues. The hard virtues strengthen the soft, and the soft virtues temper the hard. We cannot specialize in one or the other and hope to survive, because without both we inevitably forfeit our integrity, ministry, and authenticity.
And this, too, is a reality that has biblical justification. Paul’s final word to the “dysfunctional” body of believers at Corinth is: “Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong. Let all that you do be done with (in) love” (1 Cor. 16:13-14). This call to watch alertly, stand faithfully, and lead courageously (v. 13), is Paul’s mandate to embrace the “hard virtues.” But his warning to beware of the lessons we learn in warfare by loving visibly and tangibly in all that we do (v. 14), is his mandate to embrace the “soft virtues.” Corinth’s dysfunctional behavior and missional failure would continue unless both ends of this equation were to be honored.
For us at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, this is the critical balance that defines an authentic Fundamentalism. We remain deeply committed to historic, mainstream fundamentalism; a fundamentalism that is marked by a combination of grit, grace, and scholarship; a fundamentalism that is theologically sound, exegetically rich, dispositionally gracious, and intellectually astute. But we have no desire to join forces with either left-ditch evangelicalism or right-ditch fundamentalism.
As I close, I would like to make one final observation. It seems to me that on the one hand post-conservative and neo- or generic-evangelicals are bolting to the left. On the other hand, it appears that neo- or hyper-fundamentalists are bolting to the right. There is, however, a group on both sides of this divide that appear to be in pursuit of the radical center. Both groups represent minority movements in their respective theological settings. Confessional or conservative evangelicals aspire to distance themselves from the majority of the evangelical movement that is bolting left. And natal or historic, mainstream fundamentalists aspire to distance themselves from the majority of the fundamentalist movement that is bolting right. This looks very much to me as though both these groups are moving toward the radical center.
Kevin Bauder has made the point that,
Mainstream fundamentalists are coming to the conclusion that they must distance themselves from hyper-fundamentalists, and they are displaying a new openness to conversation and even some cooperation with conservative evangelicals. Younger fundamentalists in particular are sensitive to the inconsistency of limiting fellowship to their left but not to their right. (Four Views On The Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Andrew David Naselli, Collin Hansen, General Editors, Zondervan, 2011, p. 45)
He argues further that, “Many fundamentalists (and I am among them) are growing in their appreciation of the contribution that confessional evangelicals have made… . Yet differences remain between us, the largest of which is our assessment of indifferentism” (Ibid., p.103). Following J. Gresham Machen, Bauder defines “indifferentism” as the offense of those “who personally believed the fundamentals of the gospel but who extended Christian recognition to others who did not.” Though confessional evangelicals are “not indifferentists themselves,” they have exhibited a reluctance to “distance themselves from indifferentism or to warn against it publicly” (Ibid., p.102).
Nevertheless, though confessional evangelicals and historic, mainstream fundamentalists are not a perfect match, and though it is true that real and significant differences remain between them, it is fair to say that both of these groups seem equally committed to finding the radical center, and that both often have much more in common with one another than with those in their own movements who have jettisoned the radical center for one or the other of the ditches. In this regard, Bauder affirms what confessional evangelical, Mark Dever, recently said: “There is nothing wrong with our having fences. But let us keep our fences low and shake hands often.” I concur with Bauder’s response: “That remark nicely summarizes the sense of a growing number of fundamentalists” (Ibid., p. 103).
To begin with then, achieving an authentic fundamentalism will require a deep-seated commitment to the three indispensable necessities, which we have attempted to address in this essay:
- Expressing holiness and love simultaneously (1 Thess. 3:12-13). It mandates a combination of both critical thought and cruciform.
- Pursuing the radical center (Matt. 7:13-14). It mandates a combination of absolute love to the Triune God and absolute loyalty to absolute truth.
- Recognizing the interdependence of the hard and soft virtues (1 Cor. 16:13-14). It mandates an equal passion for and implementation of both sets of virtues.
These define for me the broad, general, and I believe biblical, principles which provide the parameters or boundaries within which we should do our work as we move forward toward an authentic fundamentalism.
- 59 views
[Jay C.]I don’t think you will ever find a time when some guys will not try to lord it over other guys. Do you think that approach is exclusive to fundamentalism? Do you think that I, for one, am likely to be intimidated by that approach? The reality is that men try to influence one another. Some are better at it than others, some are ham-handed, some are smooth as silk.[Don Johnson] And, quite frankly, I think you are doing to him what you say he did to others. I don’t think his complaint against MacArthur was based on nothing. I don’t say he dealt with the whole situation as well as he could have, but I don’t think you are being fair to imply that his complaints were based on nothing.You’re sidestepping the question, Don. Do you really want to go back to the day when Pastor X (I’m not thinking of anyone in particular here - just a hypothetical pastor) tells you who is and isn’t OK to fellowship with? Or do you want to be able to follow the dictates of Scripture and your own conscience, which is what you will use when you stand before God, acc. to Romans 14:10-12?
When you run into situations such as you describe one’s response depends on the relationship involved to some extent. If you are dependent on such a guy (an assistant pastor or something similar) it is time to start handing out resumes and making job applications. If you are relatively equal and independent, you can reason with him, oppose him, or ignore him.
But I don’t think any such behaviour is any reason to bail on the fundamentalist ideal.
[Jay C.] Now, as for the Scripture thing - do you agree with my argument re: the Pharisees? Or did you not see the connection there?No, I don’t agree with that argument. The Pharisees were transgressors of the Law, they were no better off than the pagans. They were in the same ditch.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Shaynus]If that was what Wilson meant to say about “doctrinally correct” the grammatical construction of the quote does not reveal it. All the other terms fit his construct but that one, by itself without the qualifier you added, does not. But I will side with you that this is what he meant.[Alex Guggenheim]If someone is looking to their doctrinal correctness as their righteousness, then that would be a form of righteous over much. Doug Wilson doesn’t have to be correct in all counts in order to have a point in others.“What does it mean to be overly righteous?…Doctrinally correct Christian…” -Douglas WilsonSince when is being doctrinally correct to be viewed in any sense as something that is overly righteous? But then with Wilson’s grotesque Federal Vision error I do understand his wishing to have doctrinal correctness viewed as an undesirable property.
[Shaynus] Wilson often writes provocatively. It looks like it worked.Well, indeed he did provoke my notice of his erring grammatical structure with respect to what apparently was an otherwise intended communication. I am not sure the value of Wilson provoking notice of his poor articulation but if that is valuable to Wilson, so be it. So, now, back on topic, right?
but to deal honestly and transparently with the “holes” in the superstructureis an understatement to today’s zealous and pious chief-tans who truly bear the witness to Paul’s description of the Jews in Romans 10:2
…that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
Now what is my thought for such brash statements? Glad you asked (or thought)!! Allow me to point out just a few humble observations for your consideration:
- “holes in the superstructure” would mean that the foundation for all the movement’s strength is crumbling. See Ephesians 2:19-22. No where is the foundation for Fundamentalism found in the Scriptures but in history. And the references to the corrupt Corinthians, et al, hardly allow for discussion on a level plain. The separatist movement gained such a powerful following, not just because of the publication of The Fundamental, but because men like Machen stood against the horrific higher criticism that was sweeping Christianity (not unlike Spurgeon’s stand in the Downgrade Controversy). Dr. Machen, and many of the Princeton Divines led the charge. Baptists, in my opinion, just grabbed his coat tales. That, along with the pre-millennialists dividing like minded Christians into separate camps over eschatology, dispensationalism, and secondary separation.
- Consider my last two words above: secondary separation. Oh, here comes the need for a set of rules that substitutes for true holiness. Holiness is being set apart, sanctified, and walking in the fear of the Lord. It is not man-made but Spirit driven. But pastors and movements and colleges would have none of that, i.e., how could the everyday person know what pleases God unless we instruct and enforce the “don’t do this or that list” as defined by these “divines.” Do you comprehend that the brew you are mixing with these secondary (and often non-biblical) standards are as important as the rudimentary truths of orthodoxy (i.e., the few truths that cannot be denied and still have a Savior such as The Trinity, Salvation by faith alone, grace alone, and some others)? People will (and have) equate the outward appearance as somehow pleasing God (and too many then expect the spiritual sacrifices they think they are making serves as a “God owes me something.” Sound much like Matthew 6 and the Pharisees (for they have their reward).
- The post also made reference to Chesterton and Kreeft. Any idea where they stand on theology? Take a guess. Yep, Roman Catholic converts. Now, I am not disagreeing with their words, but the author needs to clarify that these men are not Fundamentalist at all.
So I see all of this to be much ado about…TOXIC FAITH!!! Toxic faith are often churches that abuse their flock by guilt theology and unbiblical mandates of what is an essential truth. Who really gets any glory from these self-serving theologies? Romans 11:33-36 should be our clarion call! We, as pastors, are responsible to oversee the flock as 1 Peter 5:1-4 mandates.
Separate yourselves so as to have a fraudulent purity but I assure you, the world sees the truth. Please recognize that I am not throwing stones for I have lived in the same glass houses and have worn the emperor’s clothes all the while thinking that I had it right. Be men who study, read, question, seek God, walk humbly, and leave the idea of Fundamentalist chest pounding aside. See the kingdom of God and His righteousness and we won’t have time to see who is “holier than thou.” Peace Out.
––
Note: Fixed bullet points
––
Bob
The Fundamentalists lost the battle in the 20s for various reasons. Laying the fault on those who didn’t side with them is just ignorance of history.
The Moderates didn’t win the SBC, they lost.
Time to ride the bench. Three fumbles in one game doesn’t help your team.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[RMSprung] The two-part post is an attempt at redemption of the Fundamentalist Movement that must now be more of an appeasing group than the swashbuckling militants of J. Frank Norris, the Jones’, Hyles, good ole John R., and many other movers and shakers of authoritarian ecclesiology. SNIP
The separatist movement gained such a powerful following, not just because of the publication of The Fundamental, but because men like Machen stood against the horrific higher criticism that was sweeping Christianity (not unlike Spurgeon’s stand in the Downgrade Controversy). Dr. Machen, and many of the Princeton Divines led the charge. Baptists, in my opinion, just grabbed his coat tails. SNIP
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I don’t think you will ever find a time when some guys will not try to lord it over other guys. Do you think that approach is exclusive to fundamentalism?No, but it seems as if it is most prevalent in Fundamentalism. In my short life, I’ve seen three examples of “lord it over” people take over a church, with disatrous results.
Keeping in the middle of the middle of the road isn’t moderate; it’s the safest place to be.
It is a shame that so many who want to be the authentic fundies are so blinded by rage and misunderstanding that they can’t appreciate what is going on.Indeed. When people write articles about colleges’ names dropping the word Baptist, and assuming it’s a big problem, we’ve indeed hit a new low.
And, as long as we’re straining at gnats, isn’t it possible the “narrow way” runs down the middle of the broad road going the opposite direction?
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.
[JWebber] And, as long as we’re straining at gnats, isn’t it possible the “narrow way” runs down the middle of the broad road going the opposite direction?but somehow I don’t think that is what the author of the metaphor had in mind.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Can you say that with certainty? Seems to me the “end of the road” is in the opposite direction. Surely those on the “broad road” are traveling the other way—and causing no small friction as they do. Worth thinking about before dismissing?[JWebber] And, as long as we’re straining at gnats, isn’t it possible the “narrow way” runs down the middle of the broad road going the opposite direction?but somehow I don’t think that is what the author of the metaphor had in mind.
[JWebber]The passage says this:[Don Johnson]Can you say that with certainty? Seems to me the “end of the road” is in the opposite direction. Surely those on the “broad road” are traveling the other way—and causing no small friction as they do. Worth thinking about before dismissing?[JWebber] And, as long as we’re straining at gnats, isn’t it possible the “narrow way” runs down the middle of the broad road going the opposite direction?but somehow I don’t think that is what the author of the metaphor had in mind.
There are two different gates and two different ways confronting the individual. The choice is between two “diverging ways” [Tom Constable].
NAU Matthew 7.13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Constable refers to several OT passages in his ‘diverging ways’ comment:
The Old Testament contains several references to diverging ways that force the traveler to choose between two paths (e.g., Deut. 30:19; Ps. 1; Jer. 21:8). …Here’s the Bible Knowledge Commentary on the same passage:
The narrow road leads to life, namely in the kingdom (cf. vv. 21–22). The broad road leads to destruction, namely death and hell (cf. 25:34, 46; John 17:12; Rom. 9:22: Phil. 1:28; 3:19; 1 Tim. 6:9; Heb. 10:39; 2 Pet. 2:1, 3; 3:16; Rev. 17:8, 11). Few will enter the kingdom compared with the many who will perish. Jesus clearly did not believe in the doctrine of universalism that is growing in popularity today, the belief that everyone will eventually end up in heaven (cf. John 14:6). Entrance through the narrow gate onto the narrow way will eventually lead a person into the kingdom. The beginning of a life of discipleship (the gate) and the process of discipleship (the way) are both restrictive and both involve persecution.
Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003), Mt 7:13.
Elaborating on the Golden Rule, Jesus presented the clear way of access into righteousness. The righteousness He demanded (Matt. 5:20) does not come through the wide … gate and the broad … road. Rather it comes through the small … gate and the narrow … road. In light of the whole sermon, it was obvious Jesus was comparing the wide gate and the broad road to the outward righteousness of the Pharisees. If those listening to Jesus followed the Pharisees’ teachings, their path would lead to destruction (apōleian, “ruin”). The narrow gate and road referred to Jesus’ teaching, which emphasized not external requirements but internal transformation. Even the Lord Jesus acknowledged that few would find the true way, the way that leads to life (i.e., to heaven, in contrast with ruin in hell).And the ESV Study Bible:
John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-), Mt 7:13–14.
The way to eternal life is “narrow” in that it is through Jesus alone (cf. note on Acts 4:12). Though the way is hard, those who choose the way that is easy (by seeking the approval of man rather than God) will find that the easy way only leads to destruction—ultimately to eternal punishment and separation from God.It seems to me that you are just spouting your opinion and not thinking about the actual passage itself. The Christian is NEVER on the broad way. It is the way to hell. He is always on an entirely different road, the road to heaven.
Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1834.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Featured Resource
Discussion