A Young Fundamentalist, on Fundamentalism

NickImage

It is a periodic priority for the leaders of fundamentalism to attend to the mindset of their young folks. This essay is another contribution to that discussion, although I must acknowledge at the outset that it is based on a survey of no one but me. I therefore begin by defending the significance of these observations, despite the paltry sample size.

I grew up in some of the very best neighborhoods of fundamentalism. I’ve become convinced of this in recent years as I’ve found that, unlike many of my peers, I have precious little in my ecclesiastical upbringing to react against: neither scandal and abuse, nor outlandish authoritarianism, nor anti-intellectualism, nor pervasive mishandling of Scripture, and not even an intolerable measure of crisis-inducing revivalism. Friends whose experiences in fundamentalism have been nothing so benign as mine have decided that theological conviction—if not common decency—compels them to abandon the movement. But I am not of their disillusioned number.

Not only have I had few bad experiences in the movement of fundamentalism, but I’m still wholeheartedly committed to the idea of fundamentalism. The most important distinctive of fundamentalism remains its willingness “to do battle royal” for the fundamentals (recalling Laws’s definitive expression). Christian fellowship cannot exist with anyone who denies a fundamental of the faith. Those who extend such fellowship have erred, and not insignificantly. As the regular author of this publication insists, compromise on this point is scandalous, and those who advocate and perpetuate scandal are derelict of duty and patently untrustworthy. Separation is both theologically and historically justifiable.

In addition to boilerplate separatism, I also adhere to a litany of other common fundamentalist shibboleths: cessationism, young-earth creationism, dispensationalism, cultural conservatism. That last item merits special attention in establishing my traditional fundamentalist credentials, as it makes me something of a demographical oddity. (As I write this, I’m wearing a tie. Voluntarily.)

So, were the institutional fundamentalists to draw up a profile of a young man likely to remain among their number, the description would fit me comfortably. This is why I feel justified in offering my reflections on the movement, although I have taken no survey: I am a representative sample of those most likely to be the next generation of fundamentalists.

And yet, as one who might be expected to stay in the movement, I confess that I’m disinclined to align myself with the institutional fundamentalists. (An aside: I intend nothing pejorative when I speak of institutional fundamentalism. I simply use the term to refer to institutions which identify themselves as fundamentalist, and indirectly, to the informal but real network of such institutions.) It should be obvious that my reluctance is not caused by any substantive disagreement with the principles of fundamentalism; point by point, I’m a convinced fundamentalist. Nor do I hesitate to join the fundamentalists because I have any thoughts of throwing my lot in with the conservative evangelicals. Rather, my disinclination is rooted in the shifting identity of the fundamentalism most familiar to me.

Nearly a half-decade ago, a blogger stirred up spirited discussion when he projected an emerging coalition of the saner fundamentalists and the more conservative evangelicals. From where I sit, I think that his prediction is unlikely to come to pass. I say this despite the obvious increased mingling between the camps, with conservative evangelicals being featured in fundamentalist conferences, chapels, and classrooms. To form an intentional coalition, however, the evangelicals would have to care that we exist, and (perhaps with rare exceptions) they don’t. Rather than some third thing emerging, I contend that many fundamentalists are simply being absorbed into the organizations of the conservative evangelicals, organizations that would have been there without us (but, hey, we’re welcome too!). To this Detroiter, the situation suggests the DaimlerChrysler “merger of equals,” although I doubt that fundamentalists will be granted the dignity of a compound name.

As a consequence of these new relationships, the institutions that still proudly wear the label fundamentalist are increasingly dominated by those who are (or tolerate those who are) the most rabid anti-Calvinists, and by those who uphold (or tolerate those who uphold) disastrous heresies on the text of Scripture. This shift in power is occurring for two reasons. The first is obvious: the fundamentalists who are most inclined to seek common cause with conservative evangelicals are also those who have repudiated the stereotypical fundamentalist eccentricities. As they forsake (or are expelled from) the institutions of fundamentalism, the deleterious influence of those who remain grows proportionally.

Second, those fundamentalists who are alarmed by these perceived defections are ratcheting up their separatist rhetoric and reforging wholly indefensible alliances with the most extreme segments of self-proclaimed fundamentalism. This is not a new problem for fundamentalists, but the day for patience with such inconsistency is long since past. The same men who decry sharing a platform with Mark Dever will then share a platform with Jack Schaap, thereby abandoning any credibility on the topic of separatism. I have no issue with militancy, but misaimed militancy is appalling.

Given the changing complexion of institutional fundamentalism, I suspect there is decreasing tolerance for an outspoken Calvinist—even one no more outspoken than the semi-Pelagians who receive choruses of amens. Is there a place in fundamentalism for one who happily acknowledges that he has profited from the ministries of brothers not of our tribe, commends their resources, and applauds them in their battles for the evangel (even as he sees no good reason to join their battles)? Is it possible to be a fundamentalist in good standing while also standing opposed to overtly pragmatic, manipulative methods of ministry?

If not, what am I supposed to do? Read that less as a rant than a lament. It is a lament because there ought to be sadness when one feels cut off from those to whom he owes gratitude. It is a lament because I retain my principled objections to the compromise of evangelicalism, so much so that I can find no home there.

The idea of fundamentalism remains as sound as it ever has been, and there are many good men committed to instantiating the grand idea. And I’ve become acquainted with other rooms in the house of fundamentalism, rooms where the problems I’ve cited aren’t nearly so prevalent.

Even so, I’m saddened about my fundamentalism. I love the house, but hate what’s being done to the place.

From Depths of Woe I Raise to Thee
Martin Luther (1483-1546); composite translation

From depths of woe I raise to Thee
The voice of lamentation;
Lord, turn a gracious ear to me
And hear my supplication;
If Thou iniquities dost mark,
Our secret sins and misdeeds dark,
O who shall stand before Thee?

To wash away the crimson stain,
Grace, grace alone availeth;
Our works, alas! are all in vain;
In much the best life faileth:
No man can glory in Thy sight,
All must alike confess Thy might,
And live alone by mercy.

Therefore my trust is in the Lord,
And not in mine own merit;
On Him my soul shall rest, His Word
Upholds my fainting spirit:
His promised mercy is my fort,
My comfort, and my sweet support;
I wait for it with patience.

What though I wait the livelong night,
And till the dawn appeareth,
My heart still trusteth in His might;
It doubteth not nor feareth:
Do thus, O ye of Israel’s seed,
Ye of the Spirit born indeed;
And wait till God appeareth.

Though great our sins and sore our woes,
His grace much more aboundeth;
His helping love no limit knows,
Our utmost need it soundeth.
Our Shepherd good and true is He,
Who will at last His Israel free.
From all their sin and sorrow.


This essay is by Michael P. Riley, Assistant to the President at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Discussion

You did read (a little) something more than I actually meant into “little to do but”, yet I agree with everything you said after anyway, so that’s fine.

Although I’d have to admit that I probably once (recently) cared/hoped too much that a movement reflecting my values would “carry the day”.

[Dave Doran] DavidO,

All of them, from my perspective, reveal a lack of contentedness with the God-appointed means for His work in this time—the assembly of God’s people in a specific time and place. What happens there is far more important than happens in any conference or coalition gathering.
It’s amazing how local church life, week by week, progressive sanctification in a corporate context, can clear away all the distractions of how to define a movement. Separation? Sure, OK, it’s something I might need to think about again. Right now, I’m handling a church discipline situation here and now. All those passages we use when talking about separation were originally written, after all, for a primarily local context.

When I stand before God, I expect to be talking more about how I taught my Sunday school class, how I treated other believers week after week, what opportunities I took and what I passed up as there were needs all around me. Until I’m actually offered platform fellowship with __________, I have a hard time justifying much ink on the question, aside from the general principles worked out.

This isn’t to slight the question for the people actually facing it. I guess I’m just rambling to say that theology should have an existential edge to it, and if it doesn’t, it risks falling to the level of endless genealogies.

Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA

Michael (& friends),

Even though I remain vigorous in my rejection of your tie, please know I appreciated deeply both the content and tone of your article. Once more it’s been fun to read some of the responses. Frankly I recognize personally the frustration of wanting to say you appreciate certain ministries and certain leaders that you have gained from, only to articulate a set of beliefs that you know will be rejected…and to some degree that rejection may, or has, a personal edge to it. That’s hard, but if these differences really result in a separation (at least from them to you), and if you believe that is not at all reasonable, then perhaps they (whoever “they” are) are not as reasonable as you might think they to be. I have a few quick thoughts to your initial post as well as a response or two to the others who have commented. Just a few free-floating thoughts, as I ponder this away from my beloved “Lawn 4000” and the dry yet cooler November climate of AZ (I’m visiting the campus of CCC here in what my middle son calls “the shwamp” of Florida). OK….the first several points here are directed to you Michael….the rest of the points are thoughts on the observations made by the others.

1. To your last question, “What am I to do?” My response is relax! In one sense you worry too much here (I know you really don’t worry, just go with me here). Frankly there are many who have not bowed the knee to what you might assign as Baal. You don’t know who they are, but I promise you out there in the big blue world of ministry are many ministries who walk with God and honor him with healthy ministry….even many who would fly all (or certainly most) of those flags you fly.

2. Furthermore many who are “evangelical” would agree with you about your conviction of not being or becoming “evangelical!” My guess is it’s too late and you already are but we’ll save that discussion for another time! I will say here that I don’t think it’s accurate to say that conservative evangelicals (and especially the really militant CE’s that I call “Type C” fundamentalists) just want to swallow you up in their own identity. The difference with most of those guys, is that if you love the gospel they love, and order yourself with Biblical convictions, even if it limits how much you can do with them, they have a great appreciation for what you do, and even with who you are! Furthermore on the few occasions your conscience will actually allow you to have some level of pre-heaven “koinonia” with your evangelical brothers, you’ll find they are thrilled and (even without you being able to admit it to certain friends), you will also be thrilled! (because the Spirit of God will be thrilled – in many cases). Your comment adds fuel to the opinion of not a few of us that we still have many who continue to have this binary thinking that lumps the conservative Gospel world into two “hermetically sealed” tents – one with “Fundamentalist only;” and a second with the phrase, “evangelicals only.” Maybe God is doing something with those tents?

3. I would have to say amen! to Dave Doran’s thinking about our retreat to the one thing that is consistently and exegetically clear: ministry from and for and through the local assembly. Having said that, I would also tell you that as you tread forward in the direction of ministry objectives, you will without a doubt be joined by other churches, individuals, ministries that are headed in the same direction, but what is different is that you won’t have to lament that a unity is not allowed because it will be natural, shared and undeniable! Often times you’ll even be surprised at how much you have in common (per Harding’s post) and how much you don’t have in common (per Steve’s post) with those to whom God joins you with in ministry.

4. So to review - I would just restate what Dr. Dave has said – just in my own less-impressive way: a) The biggest thing “out there” is local church ministry. As a matter of fact, that’s really all we need. b) God graciously gives us a second category of “like-minded” guys with whom we can enjoy limited or broad “right-handed” koinonia with co-belligerents (notice this idea of “co-belligerency” fits well the “battle-royal” motif you so appreciate!) outside the local church. You actually don’t have to have fundamentalism or evangelicalism to do these first two. I see the movement thing as almost a third category – this is where movements start naturally and are often powerful because the Holy Spirit blesses the effective ministry of the Word. Then overtime our dependence of the Holy Spirit and the Word shifts over to our dependence on a movement….or association…..or denomination, etc….. this tends to degenerate into a man - made thing and eventually serves as a poor substitute for the Word and the Spirit….probably. This does not mean fundamentalism or evangelicalism has to be unhealthy. I suppose it could be healthy somewhere…sometimes.

5. Why would you want to “force” movement fundamentalism to “fit” you? Why would you even ask movement fundamentalism to except you.? So this kind of reminds me of the occasional battered or abandoned or cheated-on spouse who will look at me with a black eye and says, “I really want my spouse to love me.” Right…I do too but this is why at least in my understanding of the Scriptures God hates but allows divorce in certain circumstances. There is something worse than divorce and that is to stay in a marriage that actually mocks what marriage is. Michael my friend….I say this with all candor. I think you will have to come to a conclusion I had to wrestle with some time ago….there is something worse than not being accepted by movement fundamentalism and that is making a mockery of Biblical Christianity as you understand it must be. If you have to compromise what you believe you must believe to be accepted by a group… “Holy Cow Vern!….What in the world does that say about the group!?” Furthermore, if the group so readily and in your mind so consistently rejects what is right…how in the world can you just wait for them to come to you? I don’t think you can do that with Biblical integrity. Can you do that with Biblical integrity?

6. At some point in time, I’d like to see you guys (You, Kevin, Harding, Scott A., etc…) in the “Beethoven Group” (BG) actually defend exegetically cultural conservatism (CC). So far it looks like you are assuming a priori that CC is in fact “good” and therefore all that is not consistent with CC (or “good”) is ergo….worldly. So, if there is hesitancy with a few to your right and to your left, perhaps it’s there. However, I don’t think reasonable men would reject you guy “BG” guys just based on your views of CC. I can’t imagine doing that.

Well….that’s more than I wanted to say. I try not to say much. Once in a while you have to come out of the shadow of the cactus and just think out loud. You all are good men. Would love to share hot cider over the warm campfire with all of you…..well…….

Straight Ahead! (or as they said in Rome….prorsus!)

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

you guys (You, Kevin, Harding, Scott A., etc…) in the “Beethoven Group” (BG)
Bach, actually. ;)

[DavidO]
you guys (You, Kevin, Harding, Scott A., etc…) in the “Beethoven Group” (BG)
Bach, actually. ;)
I’ve talked to Joel about this before, that it’s Bach and not Beethoven, but I don’t seem to be making any progress on that at all :)

Joel,

B is for “Beatles”. “I is way cooler and more cultured than you think I be.” In fact, I have a coffee mug at home that says, “Way Cooler Than My Kids Think I Am!” You pose a fair question and one which many volumes have attempted to address. I would like to tackle that subject at our next conference here at FBCT. You probably noticed that I listed “Conservative” at the bottom of the list. In other words I don’t think it carries the same weight as other more important items listed prior; however, “Conservative” does describe one of our core values and I think I can defend it exegetically and theologically on a principle level. Applications will change from age to age. Now comb your hair and get back to work!

Pastor Mike Harding

Well….the little comments here tells me we have a variety within the Beethoven Group - not that I’m surprised. So Scott, you’d put your understanding of CC up with or near the fundamentals of the faith? I don’t think Doran would be comfortable with that - but I’ll read the link.

Mike, I’ll look forward to hearing your exegetical delineation of CC vis-a-vis worldliness. As I mentioned before, I think this task for you men has been left undone thus far. I’ve seen the philosophical arguements - which you guys do well. It will improve your case if your exegesis can catch up to your philosophical apologetic.

Mike….for the record my hair is no longer an issue. I usually cut most of it off - which I should have done a long time ago. It is not an issue because when I’m out in the AZ sun I usually wear a hat. One more point…..of course you’re cool…..you live in Michigan…..which is just 5 minutes south of the tundra of Canada!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Joel, belief in the fundamentals of the faith does not make one a fundamentalist; it makes one a Christian. So the fact that I said “Christian” was at the top of my list implies that the fundamentals of the faith are at the top of my list.

But yes, “Conservative” would come next in my level of priority. I am a Conservative because I am a Christian—because I want to preserve the fundamentals of the faith.

My separatist convictions (which define me as a fundamentalist) come as natural applications of my Conservatism. In other words, I am a Fundamentalist because I am a Conservative Christian. I don’t believe one can be a consistent Conservative Christian without practicing separation from both the world and false gospels.

I’m glad you’d like to know more about the importance of Conservative Christianity. If memory serves, you once insisted that we should “shoot in the head the desire to be conservative.”

So, for your reading and listening pleasure, let me recommend a few other resources beyond Doran’s talk that articulate well the principles of Conservative Christianity:

http://cl.ly/0y0v0E2S3b362i3j412Q/Bauder_-_The_Need_for_Conservative_Ch…] “The Need for Conservative Christianity” by Kevin Bauder

http://centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick203.html “Understanding Conservative Christianity” Nick of Time Series by Kevin Bauder

http://religiousaffections.org/series/toward-conservative-christian-chu… “Toward Conservative Christian Churches” by David DeBruyn

http://religiousaffections.org/series/defining-conservatism/ “Defining Conservatism” by Scott Aniol

http://religiousaffections.org/series/preserving-the-truth-in-our-worsh… “Preserving the Truth in Our Worship” by Scott Aniol | http://cl.ly/3C1w2U1x183e1u0I1A2H/Aniol_-_Preserving_Truth_in_Worship.m…] audio

Michael Riley connects Conservative Christianity with Fundamentalism well in this talk: “Pressing the Antithesis: Defending a Fundamentalist Tertium Quid” – http://cl.ly/3R3j0T0b2n0w021K170B/Riley_-_Pressing_Antithesis.mp3] audio | http://cl.ly/0e1u0s1K0k2g2J0y0e05/Riley_-_Pressing_the_Antithesis-_Defe…] notes

“How Can We Conserve Biblical Worship” by Scott Aniol - http://cl.ly/0f0V1S333I1J1d1x1F1F/Aniol_-_How-Can-We-Conserve-Biblical-…] audio | http://cl.ly/2P1m0N471J0w3O0x052U/Aniol_-_How_Can_We_Conserve_Biblical_…] notes

Scott Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist

Scott,

The context of the shooting was those who place “conservatism” over the Scriptures. Thanks for the links brother. Prayeful you are well as you serve in your corner of the vineyard. I think I saw that you are working on a ph.d somewhere. I pray that goes well for you.

Joel

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

To those that are fearful of any past comments - I’m not really a violent person. The only time I shoot people is when I shoot my boys with rubber bands. My comment was aimed at my disagreement with a defense of conservatism (specifically the CC of the BG) that places that above the Scriptures directly or indirectly (IMO). In that sense I’m willing to not just aim at “conservativism” but also “liberalism,” “evangelicalism, ” “fundamentalism,” “dispensationalism,” and any other “ism” that places a grid above the Scriptures….and then demand that other believers should accept the same grid based as an abosolute based on …. a philosophy which they mix up with their bibliology….sort of.

Peace!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Joel,

To your point in #6:

Perhaps while you wait for an exegetical argument that will satisfy you, you could provide an exegetical argument for “close communion.” If that subject is not to your liking, maybe “expository preaching.” I’m sure that the Bible is shot through with texts that explicitly outline a practice so patently biblical as either of these!

My hope is that this exercise will help you pass the time fruitfully.

Whether there is Biblical support for close communion/expository preaching, I doubt Joel would put either on a list.(I could be wrong) That is the difference.

Chris,

You post is confusing. It may just be me….I’m kind of tired this evening. I’m confident we’ll strive to be fruitful with the gift of each day no matter if the BG guys ever exegetically are able to parse “CC” or “worldly” or not. I’m pretty busy with pastoring, writing, mentoring, teaching, and a few other responsibilities God’s given me. I see you are in seminary (or were). Chris, if you need help thinking through either communion or preaching I’m happy to help, but I’m sure whichever school you are attending probably have some good courses on both homilitics as well as practical theology that you could sign up for. If you want to understand my view of preaching or communion I think I express that in a 10 page document that is called “Philosophy of Ministry of Southeast Valley Baptist Church” (or something like that). Happy to zip that to you. Stay on course my man.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Daniel,

For what it’s worth, Dever would (and has) put expository preaching on a list. And I don’t disagree with him.

Joel,

Chris’s question has nothing to do with any confusion on these issues on his part. Rather, his claim is that most folks here would hold expository preaching in high regard, and would consider unhealthy any church that makes it a habit to neglect consistent exposition. The question is: what exegetical reason could be given for this standard?