"Does Charles Spurgeon represent 'Cultural Fundamentalism?'”

CDS= Christian Day School

Here is a short listing of cultural norms that have been defended vehemently (which is the point Greg is making) under the rubric of ‘separation’:

* King James Version (vs. other versions)

* Christian Day School / Christian College

* Dress Standards

* Music Standards

* Drama Teams

* Door-knocking or ‘soul-winning’

If they sound familiar - they should. They’re arguably the biggest stressors or hot points of Fundamentalism on the Web. I think that’s why Phil Johnson wrote this (in the Dead Right pdf):

In fact, by the 1970s, American fundamentalism had already ceased to be a theological movement and had morphed into a cultural phenomenon—a bizarre and ingrown subculture all its own, whose public face more often than not seemed overtly hostile to everyone outside its boundaries.

Frankly, I thought that sort of fundamentalism deserved to die. And I knew it eventually would, because the most prominent hallmark of the visible fundamentalist movement was that its leaders loved to fight so much that they would bite and devour one another and proliferate controversies—even among themselves—over issues that no one could ever rationally argue were essential to the truth of the gospel.

They fought and argued over controversies because they had stopped arguing and fighting for the gospel and were instead arguing over cultural norms that they defined and decided on even though they didn’t say that was what they were doing. It was always about the norms to one extent or another. When those norms were challenged, the immediate response was to ‘separate’ (or to throw the questioner out so they didn’t create problems).

That’s why SI and individual bloggers generally get the pushback they do - because the culture of the cultural fundamentalist is threatened and they can’t just tell people to sit down and ignore the man behind the curtain like they could in the past. It’s also why the Sweatt incident from 2009 (or whenever it was) was so fascinating and out of the ordinary…the cultural fundamentalists were finally called on the carpet by a bunch of fundamentalists that stood up to them and said “No, this is wrong”. If you don’t believe me, start with post #8 or #9 on that thread I just linked to. Mike Durning used exactly the right word in post #10 - they rebelled. And we should have.

It’s also why movements like T4G are so appealing - people are finally realizing that the emphasis needs to be corrected, and they’re moving back to it. I think a lot of those movements are man-oriented, but I also think that we’ll see a lot of men staying there after guys like MacArthur and Dever (and I pick those two in particular) will be in Glory. Other man-centered movements like Driscoll or Mahaney won’t last as long (if you can even say that they last now).

the KJO movement is just a “cultural norm”?

Man, and I thought we had trouble defining fundamentalist. If you want to simply dismiss KJO-ism as a cultural norm, we’re doomed to talk past each other.

If you make the use of the KJV a separation issue - as in, I will not cooperate with someone who uses a different version because of that - then yes, it is a cultural issue.

I’m not talking about double-inspiration guys or something like that.

Jay,

Per your definition of cultural fundamentalist. You are saying some define their group (the who’s in and out line) around a stance on cultural issues. Dresses not pants, no beat in music, or whatever. Their definitions might differ within this group (some are okay with pants, some are okay with a different style of music i.e, southern Gospel), but it is about these matters of lifestyle and practice.

I think I agree with you. Others opt for fundamentalism around doctrine more. In other words, if someone’s practice is different but they agree on the core, fudnamental doctrines, this group would be less hesitant to hobnob with them.

Is that what you’re saying. Or to ask it another way, what other kinds of fundamentalists are there than cultural fundamentalists? They rally around lifestyle standards and make it a subculture. What do non-cultural fundamentalists, the others (historic or mainstream or what have you) rally around?

Chuck has a point that all Christians care about lifestyle applications. But I’m with Greg L. above that there is drift and change over time that isn’t necessarily bad, it is about applying the same principles of God’s Word in a cultural moment in time and space that is much different than it as in Spurgeon’s day.

Don,

I can’t speak for Jay- he and I would differ on applications for music, for one. At the same time, the KJVO movement, though it has some articulate people who approach the matter theologically (Kent Brandenburg is one example that comes to mind), much of the momentum they have been able to generate comes from a grasp of established tradition and culture that some people just don’t want to let go of. It may not be only a cultural norm, but that does factor in. Music may not just be a matter of cultural norms, but it does factor in (try criticizing “In The Garden” from the pulpit in a Fundamentalist congregation sometime and see what happens…).

But I’m with Greg L. above that there is drift and change over time that isn’t necessarily bad, it is about applying the same principles of God’s Word in a cultural moment in time and space that is much different than it as in Spurgeon’s day.

Bob,

I just want to say that some of the drift and change over time just might be bad, too. I will allow that Chuck perhaps has a point here- I am saying that if he does have a point, he hasn’t really supported it, especially by citing Spurgeon. If he is going to personally distinguish himself from say, music styles in the understanding that they are worldly, while at the same time embracing drama and games that Spurgeon would have recognized as worldly, it seems to me that is at best inconsistent. There is no effort to define or provide reasoning why one behavior is unacceptable, while the other is “in bounds” for Christians today.

I would say too, that it seems to me there is room to extend brothers in Christ room for different applications, even if your disagreement on application leads to limited fellowship.

I don’t have time to get into this just now, will probably have to leave it until late tonight. But I want to discuss this idea of KJO as a cultural norm, and parse a few more things on Jay’s list as well. Probably needs a thread of its own. More later

[Greg Linscott] much of the momentum [fundamentalist cultural taboos/their advocates]… generate comes from a grasp of established tradition and culture that some people just don’t want to let go of. It may not be only a cultural norm, but that does factor in.

This.

I even think some norms in particular are so dearly held that they are read back into passages which are then presented as proof of the norm. I realize I myself could be vulnerable to this very criticism on some issues, but I think its an important and legitimate point well put by Greg.

[Bob Hayton]

Jay,

Per your definition of cultural fundamentalist. You are saying some define their group (the who’s in and out line) around a stance on cultural issues. Dresses not pants, no beat in music, or whatever. Their definitions might differ within this group (some are okay with pants, some are okay with a different style of music i.e, southern Gospel), but it is about these matters of lifestyle and practice.

I think I agree with you. Others opt for fundamentalism around doctrine more. In other words, if someone’s practice is different but they agree on the core, fundamental doctrines, this group would be less hesitant to hobnob with them.

Is that what you’re saying?

Yes…because the cultures don’t match. This is why I would have no problems visiting Greg or Don’s people at my church or camp, but Don or Greg would probably have a bigger problem with going to my church. I do have a problem with Greg’s New England Patriots, though :)

I’m using them as quick examples because they’re in the thread.

[ADThompson]

I do not object to associating personal separation with a call to holy living—far from it! However, our movement developed a culture and as you well stated—“Cultures are usually deeply infected with allegiance to the temporary”.

I remain unconvinced that following these cultural norms (based on the past application of principles) determines whether or not we practice personal separation.

Could one argue that all expressions of religion have “cultural norms” associated with it? Even if you do not hold to any cultural norms that becomes a type of culture. I think one could argue for a NT culture.

Marriage is temporary yet I don’t think any true believer would desire to jettison that aspect of culture.

This is why I would have no problems visiting Greg or Don’s people at my church or camp, but Don or Greg would probably have a bigger problem with going to my church.

I would have no problem with visiting Jay’s church in some settings- say, a conference setting, for example. I don’t know much more.

I do have a problem with Greg’s New England Patriots, though…

Ever since 2007, anyway… :)

I would think that marriage—as a divine institution—transcends culture. Perhaps you could suggest a different example that would help me to understand your perspective.

As for a NT culture, I suppose that there were probably at least two cultures in the NT church—the Jewish background culture and the Gentile background culture. They had trouble reconciling their differences at times.

[Greg Linscott]

As much as Chuck may want to reduce it to personal separation, there is a sense that “cultural fundamentalism” is still something that is changing. Music may or may not be part of the discussion, but there are things that Fundamentalists have slowly changed their application of personal separation on.

[/Quote]

To me this seems to be the crux of the issue. We hold to the truths in Scripture which are binding and don’t falter or change as times change or culture changes. Yet our application of this and culture itself does change. What was once thought as evil “Woman’s pants”, is now not an issue. Is it because Scripture changed? No. It is because culture changed and our application of the truths against today’s culture has changed. This to me is what is rubbing everyone. You have some people in this generation and every generation who feel our application shouldn’t change regardless of culture changes and you have another group that is changing. The group that hold’s fast is calling the other group compromisers and you have the group that is moving that claims the other group is holding fast to items that are no longer relevant. The people who say we shouldn’t change our music to worldly standards are also the same group that now doesn’t require their wives to wear hats in church, or require their wives to wear full arm length gloves, both of which were compromises to the culture not too long ago. Music and other so called separation issues will change over time. Where they fall out only time will show. But culture will change and the fact that we change with the culture shouldn’t always be viewed as a bad thing. Standing still isn’t allows the best thing either.

@Greg - understood. Thanks.

@Jay - I posted my comment just after you had given one that better explained your statement. I think I’m following. Obviously not everyone will be cool with explaining things this way -and technically there are some areas of cultural application that the other group would see as closely enough tied to doctrine as to be an issue. But I think you’re generally correct.

Perhaps this blends into leadership style and institutional MO as well. When it is mainly about praxis and specific cultural stances, the motive for being defensive and the zeal to keep everyone in the fold is greater. When it is mainly about doctrine there is less of a territorial mentality and more agreement to disagree while still making much of the gospel together.

Okay, I’m sure I lost a bunch of people with this. But I think there may be a connection here.