Can Fundamentalism Recover?

… is already only useful among those who have a mutual understanding of what we mean by it. I think it will continue to be useful in that way.

But putting “fundamental” on your church sign or your bulletin makes less sense now than ever.

Do you believe that America can ever recover after this scandal with Clinton? Has this scandal and others like this brought America to the place where the name can never again be separated from moral deviancy? Not interested in debate but humble reflection and thoughts for a time of great need.

Do you believe that the Episcopalians can ever recover after this scandal with Gene Robinson? Has this scandal and others like this brought the Episcopalians to the place where the name can never again be separated from moral deviancy? Not interested in debate but humble reflection and thoughts for a time of great need.

Do you believe that figure skating can ever recover after this scandal with Tonya Harding? Has this scandal and others like this brought figure skating to the place where the name can never again be separated from moral deviancy? Not interested in debate but humble reflection and thoughts for a time of great need.

Do you believe that cycling can ever recover after this scandal with Lance Armstrong? Has this scandal and others like this brought cycling to the place where the name can never again be separated from moral deviancy? Not interested in debate but humble reflection and thoughts for a time of great need.

~~~

No doubt about it, the world is going to hell.

The term fundamentalism seems only to be meaningful to the fundamentalists. I find that outside of their (our) circles no one knows who they (we) are. The people that I work with, even the Christians. wouldn’t recognize the term but they do understand Bible believing Christian.

We owe a great debt to the fundamentalists of the early 20th century but, IMO, today’s fundamentalists bear little resemblance to their founders.

I recall a fundamentalist leader saying that the first generation fought for a cause. The second generation established an institution to maintain the cause. The third generation fought to maintain the institution.

In my view, Westwood Baptist has sullied the name “Baptist” more than Jack Schaap / First Baptist church has “fundamentalism”.

I have just about abandoned the term “fundamentalist” for self-appellation. I prefer to define myself by my doctrinal statement (linked to in my signature).

There are too many “not’s” for me w the term fundamentalist:

• I’m NOT like First Baptist Church of Hammond
• I’m NOT KJVOnly
• I’m NOT like Westwood Baptist
• I’m NOT associated with BJU or the FBFI

But please do not though me under the He’s a conservative evangelical bus. Let me define myself - see my doctrinal statement. I’m still comfortable with the name “Baptist” and calling myself a Calvinist

Out in the secular world (where I work) and outside of the NW Indiana / Chicago orbit, few people know the name “Jack Schaap”. They may someday if 20/20 does a follow-up on the Tina Anderson story (or was that ABC news?)

If I worked with an organization that had “FUNDAMENTALISM” boldly up on it’s sign, I would suggest that they reformulate what is before the public.

I’m less concerned about “Fundamentalism”, than the Church in general in America today. We’ve become so wrapped up in our pride, liberty, materialism, worldliness, traditions, etc that I believe we are less effective than ever and slowly dying. I would put more stock in many churches in the third world countries that I would in the churches here. It appears we’re dying just like the church in England did.

How are things in churches that label themselves as fundamental, conservative, and with traditional music?

How are things in churches that label themselves as fundamental, conservative, with traditional music and against anything possiblly “new evangelical” like the the SBC, MacArthur, Piper, and/or Calvinism?

If you’re talking about FBC Fundamentalism, the answer is no.

If you’re talking about BJU/FBFI Fundamentalism, the answer is yes.

If you’re talking about TMS/Dever Fundamentalism, the answer is moot.

Let’s define Fundamentalism before we start saying that it will or will not survive. After all, the three types of Fundamentalism that I noted above are pretty different from each other.

1. The (what I would call) the radical right represented by Hyles Anderson, First Baptist of Hammond, Golden State Baptist College, Crown (Knoxville)
2. The center-right of the FBFI and BJU
3. The more moderate (perhaps less militant) of Northland, Faith (Ankeny), the GARBC, Central seminary, etc
4. And then those who do not “name the name / own the label”): Denver, John MacArthur

I’m neither a historian (although I read history) nor a prognosticator so I really don’t know. But I self-identify with group # 3 above

Whoa…

And then those who do not “name the name / own the label”): Denver, John

I always knew there was something wrong with you! (Joke)

I did not mean to imply that Dever is a fundamentalist.

I intended to insert the xtra group (#3) (GARBC, et cetera)

Dever and MacArthur don’t call themselves fundamentalists and I don’t regard them as fundamentalists either

I wasn’t clear. Sorry

Jim,

I think Don was poking at your typo in post 10 where you typed Denver instead of Dever.

Thanks Chip!

I’m Sorry

Jim, the fact you missed it twice made me laugh again.

I knew what you meant, but it was too priceless a typo to let it pass by without notice. Poor John Denver was certainly not a fundie, lived and died a tragic life.