Lines in the Sand Redux: A Plea to Type A Fundamentalists
The majority of the healthy remnants of historic fundamentalism today have settled into a kind of co-belligerency. That is, the theological sons and grandsons of the first generation of fundamentalism have perched onto one of two branches of the fundamentalist family tree. These two branches are what I call Type B and Type C fundamentalism. I noted several years ago that a third branch, namely the Type A branch often believe and act as if they, and they alone, represent the entire tree! Thankfully more and more are flying over to the part of our ecclesiastical bush that respects a certain heritage while at the same time respects an allowable diversity.
This kind of C/B relationship was on display this last year when Mark Dever shared a platform with leaders such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and Tim Jordan. Another example of how that relationship continues to emerge is the incredible overlap of what a healthy and biblical evangelicalism looks like as defined by Kevin Bauder and then by Al Mohler in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. One more example of this has been the explosion of interaction between Type B and C fundamentalists at conferences such as Shepherds and T4G. Certainly there continues to be a few differences between a Type B and Type C fundamentalists, but frankly there are far more differences between Type A fundamentalism and the B/C co-belligerency than there are differences between the B and C brethren themselves.
Lines in sand
Years ago I developed and presented a kind of taxonomy primarily for those within my own ministry. At the time I was wanting to hold on to the fundamentalist label but, for a variety of reasons, felt I needed to distance myself from many who used the same tag. I believed the taxonomy helped me do that in a way that could be understood by both those who grew up in the movement as well as newcomers (or onlookers). The result was the identification of Type A, B and C fundamentalism. I explored these categories several years ago in a series of articles entitled, “Three Lines in the Sand.” An earlier article entitled, “A Line in the Sand,” focused on the differences between Type A and B fundamentalism. “Three Lines” expanded to include Type C fundamentalism.
Several aims motivated that effort. First, I wanted to explain the similarities and differences within the fundamentalist heritage. Second, I wanted to defend the idea that there were occasions when A, B and C fundamentalists could have a meaningful koinonia (fellowship). I also believed (and still do) that there might be other times when (in the words of Mark Dever) a particular group should stay within its fence, while keeping that fence low enough to shake hands over. A third purpose was to explain to friends and family why I had departed the frigid ice-caps of Type A fundamentalism for the warmer waters of Type B—and why I wanted them to do the same!. Finally, I wanted to offer a kind of public rebuke against certain forms of Type A ecclesiastical nonsense that had wounded sheep near and far. I supposed this would probably be my only chance to lovingly smack the offenders all at once. I worked hard to speak truth in love but I’d been slightly irritated at certain Type A behavior for years.
From my earliest days in ministry training, and then vocational service, I had issues with the Type A status-quo. First, I have always been a Baptist who loves the doctrine of individual soul liberty and who is something of a maverick. I’ve always felt that this combination caused conflict with the Type A guys. They often want leaders coming up to follow the primary leader’s thoughts about this and that, and they frankly frown on mavericks who develop their own ideas. I had long been a believer in biblical authority—that is, when a leader tries to lead with authority that does not come from Scripture he is someone to be avoided. About the same time I began learning about the reformers and puritans and began to compare what I saw in Type A fundamentalism with a version of Christianity that was consistent with the sola’s of the reformation. The result was growing suspicion toward certain sub-culture norms in the movement of Type A fundamentalism.
Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!
Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.
After the articles appeared several years ago, I realized there had been some unintentional “friendly fire,” so I gently apologized where my taxonomy overlapped edges that they should not have. Looking back at my attempt, I’m actually grateful I was able to say what I needed to say. All in all, I remain in basic agreement with my presentation as it appeared then. Bob Bixby made a similar appeal about the same time in his discussion of “The Emergent Middle.” For the sake of those who are unfamiliar with my taxonomy, the following is a limited presentation of the position.
Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.
Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!
Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.
In some ways the modern Type C fundamentalists remind me of the earliest of the fundamentalists. In 1920 the Fundamentalists Fellowship was comprised of a group of militant evangelicals who contended for the faith on the inside of the Northern Baptist Convention. Some of these men eventually left, but some men (such as W. B. Riley and the First Baptist Church of Minneapolis) stayed within the NBC and fought for the sake of the gospel on the inside of the denomination. The recent victory of the conservative resurgence in the SBC demonstrate that indeed God can and does use men who are true to the faith and choose to stand and fight for the faith. So the Type C fundamentalists remind us more of the original fundamentalists that we who are already ministering outside of any real formal ecclesiastical connections with evangelical associations.
Today there seems to be little difference between the Type B and Type C fundamentalist. There are some differences. Kevin Bauder has mentioned a few differences that I think are helpful. The biggest difference seems to be that the Type B fundamentalists have fundamentalist-movement roots and the Type C fundamentalist has evangelical roots. There continues to be a little suspicion when the two groups come together. In the back of his mind, the Type B guy remembers that his Type A friends just know that this Type C guy is a compromiser! In the mind of the Type C guy looking at the Type B guy, he remembers that his evangelical friends are very sure that this Type B guy (because he still “sort of” connected to fundamentalism) must be an idiot! Other than that, there really is little difference. For the most part Type B and C ministries pretty much use the same teaching material, have the same theology, practice similar approaches to leadership, enjoy similar taste in Christian music and have a similar mind-set about how a Christian can be committed to Christ and His Kingdom and yet live in this society and culture at the same time.
Without being mean-spirited here, I would have to say I still prefer the Type B world to the Type C world. A clear example of that was my recent participation at Heart Conference with Northland International University. Frankly, as much as I love John MacArthur and the annual line-up at Shepherd’s Conference, I still prefer the bright lights of Type B fundamentalism that we enjoyed in Dunbar. The preaching by Dan Davey, Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, Sam Horn, Tim Jordan, Matt Olson and Doug McLachlan was the best I’ve ever heard in any one conference. So while I really enjoy being with the Type C fundamentalists, and while I have more in common with the Type C guys than I do the Type A guys, (for the three of you who care), I still remain a Type B fundamentalist. I think our relationship with the Type C’s will continue to be something of a co-belligerency. It may be that eventually the B/C relationship will be one. I don’t think we are there yet.
To be honest, when I wrote “Three Lines in the Sand,” I pretty much had determined that both my view and my ministry would be rejected by the majority of the fundamentalist world. Now, just a few years later, my view is in the majority. Much to my surprise and thrill (and frankly shock) a consensus has formed amongst those of the balanced and non-KJV-only wing of fundamentalism to—to one degree or another—reach out to various conservative evangelicals. Most of the leaders of significant ministries within Type B churches, seminaries and other ministries are admitting either privately or publicly that some kind of a relationship is not only unavoidable but necessary for the day and age in which we live. I have no words to express how grateful I am for how things have developed.
This brings us to the challenge of the present article. I once again would like to urge our friends in Type A fundamentalism to consider (or reconsider) a better approach than your present trajectory. In one sense I don’t think any of us who are Type B or Type C fundamentalists have a problem with your not enjoying venues such as the Shepherd Conference or T4G. We don’t have a problem with your continued use of the KJV. It’s a beautiful translation of God’s Word! We don’t have a problem that you continue to use conservative music in your worship services. We are refreshed that you continue to encourage brothers and sisters to hold the line on modesty in the present Corinthian culture. The problem and puzzle is not really that you will remain more separatist than we are. The confusion is that you would reach out to the unhealthy branches of hyper-fundamentalism (A+ fundamentalism) as a place to hang your bird house.
What would be better is for you to allow us who are to your left to have an occasional cup of coffee and prayer time with some that you might not fully understand, than for you to run away from us and bolt towards those who are guilty of everything from Pelagianism, to sacramentalism (angels took the blood to heaven and sprinkled on a literal alter?), to a bibliolatry (the worship of the 1611—didn’t that include the apocrypha?), to “decisional regeneration” that rejects biblical repentance, not to mention the almost common occurrence of pastoral and spiritual abuse that takes place at the hands of these hyper-fundamentalists!
Here’s the appeal: It’s really time for you guys to choose which way you’re going to head! A well known national fundamentalist fellowship of Baptist separatists have recently been sharing their angst that some of us Type B fundamentalists are reaching out to the Type C’s. Meanwhile various leaders who have been connected with this group continue to reach out to ministries characterized by a Type A+ approach to ministry. OK—that’s just confusing, and frankly it undermines just about everything you guys say to us when we reach out to men like Dever or MacArthur. It looks like the Type A guys have three choices:
- Go ahead and separate from everyone (which some of you seem to enjoy!). Separate from the A+ guys (which is often right because many of them are not orthodox!). Withhold (or at least undermine) koinonia also from the Type B guys because we have some connection to the Type C guys. So there you are under your juniper tree with Elijah complaining everyone else is worshipping Baal!
- Link up with the A+ guys!
- Consider that perhaps The B/C guys really do love Jesus, His Word, His Church and in fact are co-belligerents with the gospel. (I would recommend option 3!).
One more note. This really isn’t meant to be incendiary, but in case you A guys don’t know, we B and C guys aren’t really worried or even waiting for you to make up your mind. We have a mission and there is an urgency and were moving on. But if you ever want to join us, you can expect a warm and genuine hug from at least one of us.
Joel Tetreau Bio
Joel Tetreau has over twenty years of pastoral ministry experience and presently serves as senior pastor at Southeast Valley Baptist Church in Gilbert, AZ. He is married to Toni, has three sons and serves on the boards of several ministries. He earned his MDiv at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and his DMin at Central Seminary. When it’s not 120°F, he enjoys the outdoors. In the near future, he expects to publish his book, The Pyramid and The Box: The Decision-Making Process in a Local NT Church. You can reach Joel via email at pastorjoel@sevbc.org.
- 214 views
I like that “Type A” doesn’t sound pejorative (and who wants to be a “C”… too close to D or F), unlike some other analyses I’ve seen.
But the “Type C” guys don’t even consider themselves fundamentalists. I agree with them, so that would seem to make me an “A.”
But I’m not KJVO, anti-Calvinist, revivalist, or inclined to think the CEs have cooties. I’m quite convinced that proper worship cannot accommodate the cultural trends of the last few decades, but think this is true of much of the work of the last century as well.
And I really don’t see either (a) the supposed inevitability or (b) any substantial benefit to making common cause with the “Type C” ministries. I might have more in common w/the “Cs” than the “A+” ways of thinking, but that’s hard to evaluate since the axes are completely different. The “A+” stuff that bugs me is more irritating most days, but that doesn’t mean it’s more substantial. I don’t make common cause with them either.
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.
I saw this today (came in my inbox), and I’m pretty sure that you would classify this as an A+ Fundy.
When I find a preacher who is playing games with Biblical separation and who is showing signs of rejecting it, I refuse to have anything to do with him as far as ministry goes. I am not going to join his church. I’m not going to preach in his church. I am not going to preach with him on the same platform in meetings. And I am not going to preach in churches that would have him!Is that correct?
Yea, that is narrow and strict and I sincerely and earnestly wish it weren’t necessary, but I believe it is necessary to cut off the effect of compromise.
Compromise is a communicable disease!…
…There are a lot of compromised preachers in Independent Baptist churches who are saying it is OK to lighten up on separation. They say that music is largely an issue of taste, that teaching the biblical principles of modest dress is legalism, that it is fine to take the youth group to Dollywood and initiate them into Hollywood.
Their theme song is “lighten up, don’t be so strict, so narrow. Let’s be separatists but let’s not go overboard with it. Let’s not be fanatics. Surely, it can’t hurt to read the ‘conservative’ evangelicals and use their materials and follow their blogs. Do you want us to be ignorant? And if we don’t lighten up, we’ll lose the kids.”
I don’t want anything to do with that crowd! I believe that if you “lighten up” on biblical separation you will definitely lose the kids. You will lose them to the world and to the contemporary emerging philosophy.
I am convinced this thinking is wrong, that it is compromise, and I don’t want to be affected by it.
Even if I could associate with such men without being personally affected, which is probably not possible, what about those who are observing my example? I don’t want to risk having our church members influenced by my association with compromising preachers and churches.
Biblical separation cannot be maintained without a real campaign. A separatist stance will only be maintained on purpose and at a cost, but it is worth it.
Separation is not the gospel and it is not the work of the ministry, but it is a divinely-ordained wall of spiritual protection against apostasy and the world. To reject “separatism” is to tear down this wall so that God’s people are no longer kept from the “good words and fair speeches” whereby heretics deceive the hearts of the simple (Romans 16:17-18) and no longer distanced from the siren call of the world (2 Timothy 2:22).
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay - quick thoughts on the article:
1. AB and C guys believe in Biblical separation - the issue is in the descript “Biblical Separation.” The difference usually is in the implication or application of the doctrine. The brother in question here ends his thoughts well. Of course we need to protect the core of the gospel by way of separation. The point here is that all of us believe that. The “beef” is how we practice that conviction. If our brother wants to separate from other guys who apply or practice the doctrine differently then he does…..that’s his prerogative.
2. There is plenty of hard preaching on modesty in all three groups - again the issue with the B and C guys is we want to make sure we honor the text of Scripture. If the Deut passage teaches modesty we don’t want to say the Scriptures are saying it’s evil for my wife to wear slacks - because the Scriptures do not teach that and simply cannot mean that. My wife can as easily be not-modest wearing a dress as she can wearing slacks. The point of the Deut passage is that men and women in the cov’t community needed to demonstrate their commitment to separation from the heathen by not just Sabbath practice but in daily dress that was/is not only immoral but also clearly not trans-sex in nature. So the difference here is not that one group of fund are tighter on standards (Type A’s ) and one is not as tight (B/C)….rather one group is careful with the teachings of Scripture to make sure “a text can only mean what it only meant…..and that a text cannot mean what it could not have meant“….and the other group is using the Scripture in such a way as to drive home a point, but without being careful with the original text/context. The ends here cannot justify the means. There simply is no way that this passage could mean it was wrong for Mrs. Moses to wear slacks - everyone was wearing a robe!
3. Hollywood - Frankly there is no doubt that too many churches and Christian families are being careless with the secular entertainment - I would say amen! Here again most in AB or C ministries would say Amen. The difference is in the application.
More responses later as I have time.
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;
Today there seems to be little difference between the Type B and Type C fundamentalist.Do Doran and Bauder know this, or should someone besides Lou Martuneac tell them?
OK, now that I’ve had my fun with you, Joel, questions:
1. Is it ok for us to be militant separatists and still love and appreciate conservative evangelicals (your “C” guys) when they speak and do truth (and applaud them when they do) from our side of the fence, while keeping the fence up for good reason? If we do, are we A or B?
2. Is it ok for us to agree with the man Jay quoted that “compromise is a communicable disease” and yet be charitable in the way we build those fences? Is it A or B to do that?
3. Is it ok for us to agree with you that the B/C guys are co-belligerents for the Gospel and be glad they are, yet have enough concerns about factors in some of their ministries that we avoid linking up with them? A or B?
I think you’ll say that’s ok to do those things. I don’t care if you tell me if it is A or B because those categories aren’t in Scripture, and neither of them fit what I’m trying to be.
4. Is it ok for us to be militant separatist and still love and appreciate KJVO guys when they speak and do truth, and applaud them when they do?
5. Is it ok for us to be charitable in the way we build and maintain fences on that side of the lawn?
6. Is it ok for us to think anti-Calvinists and revivalists are co-belligerents for the Gospel and be glad they are?
7. Is it ok for us, if they don’t burn our house and our fence down with a flame-thrower, to shake hands over the fence on that side, too?
Is that OK, or does that make us an A tending towards A+?
My biggest question:
8. Is it ok for us to mostly just not worry about all these conferences and parachurch organisations that give rise to all these questions and basicly just stick to loving and serving the Lord in our own church? Is it ok to limit fellowship (with those outside of our church) pretty much to those we are really in agreement with, because, really, we don’t have time for a whole lot of extra-church stuff anyway?
Is that ok, or is that the horrible #1 choice you’ve described of separating from everyone because we enjoy it? :)
JG -
1. Yes, probably a gracious A guy - which there are plenty of.
2. You could believe that and be A, B or C.
3. Of course - again this is the view of gracious A guys.
4. Sure - as long as the KJV guys are not the non-orthodox version…..usually the non-orthodox KJV guys will have nothing to do with even a gracious type A guy unless you are non-orthodox as well. I think you A guys know what I’m talking about.
5. Please!
6. Great question and Yes! As long as the anti-Calvinism doesn’t take you to the non-orthodox view of Pelagianism, that is as long as we preach the same gospel we can have some koinonia. I actually have another article I’d like to write no time soon - maybe 9 years from now - on how Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, Dispensationalism and Reformed-ism ought to be working together in the main ….. to some degree.
7. Yes - talking to each other is far better than arson.
8. Bro - the local church is where it’s at my man. We don’t need the conferences. They are nice and it’s fun…..but all we need is the Scriptures, the Gospel, the Holy Spirit and a local church that loves each other and is committed to the great commission. If I communicated that we “have” to hang here or there – that’s not the priority. The local church is the priority.
Straight Ahead bro!
jt
ps - OK really that’s all for now. Later guys.
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;
I think that your taxonomy—and all taxonomies, whether binary, tertiary, etc.—suffer from a tendency to impose a superficial analysis on complex issues that inevitably results in propagation of unfortunate stereotypes. This is not personal criticism because we have all probably engaged in this sort of thing at some point in our lives. I suggest that it would be more profitable to spend time talking to our congregations about specific issues rather than explaining and re-explaining categories that prove to be moving targets.
Steven Thomas
You used to call me a B when I said the things I’ve written here. I said I was B+ or A- back in the day, but you had me as a B. Now, you’ve got me as a gracious A. I don’t think I’ve actually moved at all in the things you are talking about here.
You also, if I recall, drew rather sharper distinctions between B & C back in the day than you are now.
Your lines are moving. And since you were a B and are still a B, I sort of suspect you are moving, too. Maybe you hadn’t noticed. Maybe you had, and think that move is good. I don’t think it is good, but you’ll have guessed that.
You are talking more like what you might have called in the past B- or even C+. I don’t think, five years ago, you would have said that your C guys are the heirs of the original fundamentalists (not your exact words, but that’s the general idea).
Maybe some of the movement is because men like Dever have perhaps moved a little bit in our direction. But I’m pretty sure from what you’ve written that you’ve moved in their direction, too. And I don’t think your original intent with your taxonomy was to be moving towards anyone, but rather to be appreciating those other guys. Just something to think about.
In His love,
Jon
1… . grew up for 23 years at Bob Jones U. My dad is on Bible faculty. Therefore, I’ve had loads of interaction with various fundamentalists leaders of all types. I was able to travel with my dad sometimes to the various fundamentalist churches he spoke to, and when pastors would visit the University, they would often end up eating breakfast, lunch or dinner with my family. This kind of exposure made me thankful for the best of fundamentalism. But frankly I also saw some extremes I wasn’t comfortable with, and some could be characterized as type A+.
2… . moved to Washington DC after school and was a member at Capitol Hill Baptist under Mark Dever for two and a half years. I found him to be eerily similar to what I was used to at BJU, just more Calvantistic, and less revivalistic, which was refreshing to be honest. I was able to help host Mark Minnick when he came to Capitol Hill to meet with Mark Dever. He expressed great appreciation for Mark, along with some concerns. Does that make Mark Minnick type B? He’s definitely looks type A when it comes to cultural fundamentalism. This interaction made me thankful for the best of evangelicalism, and especially with Dever how good ecclesiology can correct extremes I saw in fundamentalism.
3… . am now involved in a church plant here in DC that was started out of Heritage Bible Church in Greer (Greenville), SC. It’s fundamentalist and mostly type B, with some type A and C. They want to just get along and love each other. My pastors just got back from a pastors’ conference there with Chris Anderson and they are bubbling with how much joy there is at Heritage and unity there is among the various church plants, some of whom are broader in their associations than Heritage can be.
I can see Joel’s taxonomy at work reasonably well in these parts of my own history. I’ve also found that really understanding another person’s philosophy of separation can open up new friendships and appreciations where before none existed. For example, I was astonished one night at Capitol Hill when Dever highly recommended BJU professor Mark Sidwell’s history of African American heroes of the faith “Free Indeed,” and I’m also encouraged by the vast selection at the BJU Campus Store of books by good conservative evangelicals like Dever, Mohler and others. With new friendships come new influences. Dever’s writing can help baptist ecclesiology within fundamentalism, and fundamentalists can (and I think have) positively effect the thinking of evangelicals on separation.
Anyway, thanks Joel for the article it helps me understand some of your posts in different areas of SI.
Shayne
[Jim Peet] I envision the Missionary questionnaire being one page longerJim, the font looks exactly like some missionary (and pastoral candidate) questionnaires I’ve seen. :D (I didn’t know it was possible to create that look without making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a mimeograph)
As for the scale, I guess I’m probably a B+ most days, but it depends on who’s in the room and what we’re talking about. When facing really dogmatic A’s, I find myself dropping into the C- range for the sake of argument. And if I’m with C’s who are doing a lot of talk against “the American dream” or advocating giving-based economies or just doing really sloppy lump-and-dump of all the As and Bs, I find myself flirting with A+ territory.
I like to think I’m opposed to wherever the weak argument is at the moment. But maybe I’m just a curmudgeon.
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.
Got it here: http://slodive.com/freebies/typewriter-fonts/
DK P.I. font
Lifestyle issues are a part of being a separatist. Though we will never all fully agree on our particular applications, we should all be committed in principle and practice to holiness, purity, separation from worldliness, and worshiping God in a sober manner that is pleasing to God characterized by sacrificial love, true reverence, awe, and godly fear. I get nervous when some leaders in our circles blatantly declare they are “not cultural fundamentalists” or become virtual agnostics and/or mystics when it comes to the musical approach we take in our worship services. As is evident the taxonomy does not work in describing myself. How could it work in describing others?
Pastor Mike Harding
My own preference for self is to be identified by my doctrinal statement (link below my signature) and practice (church membership)
I see epic failure in the labeling and the pigeonholing associated with taxonomies.
I can say that outside of ecclesiastical circles (where I spend most of my time!) the term “fundamentalist” either does not communicate clearly or has negative excess baggage for the gospel (speaking specifically of the term … not the ideal)
In that sphere (outside of ecclesiastical circles) I find myself using the term “conservative Christian”.
Conservative meaning: the truth has been revealed … my duty is to conserve it … not to invent or re-invent it
I can’t put my finger on it but the Bauder taxonomy that he did 4 or 5 years ago is very helpful.
From 2 years ago
I found this very helpful
*This comment brought to you by the letters, A, B, and C
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion