"Does Charles Spurgeon represent 'Cultural Fundamentalism?'”
[Jay]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):
Jay, I would submit to you that many fundamentalists have been willing to bend on most of the issues you just listed except for the one I highlighted. And this is why the recent videos have caused the reactions we’ve seen.
I know of several Fundamentalist churches, where they won’t bend on KJV only, but they adopt contemporary music. The ones I know also have different dress standards now than they used to have. But of all the things on this list, music is probably the one most held to by fundamentalists of many stripes.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton]I know of several Fundamentalist churches, where they won’t bend on KJV only, but they adopt contemporary music. The ones I know also have different dress standards now than they used to have. But of all the things on this list, music is probably the one most held to by fundamentalists of many stripes.
Northern Florida is filled with these types of churches. Staunch KJVO churches, with massive bands, worship teams, drum sets, long haired tatooed worship leaders…. It is the craziest combination I have ever seen.
Interesting read for sure. I saw part of this on SFL but enjoyed reading the rest of the article. I found it interesting that he would use CHS as the standard for obvious reasons. I didn’t realize that CHS had become the bar by which we all measured our commitment to Christ. Don’t get me wrong, I love CHS, but this is an interesting idea. When he really starts citing Scripture it is in the statement below that most orthodox conservative Christians would all agree to.
His statement #2 sounds nothing like “cultural fundamentalism”…
The cross-denominational Niagara Conference is considered to be the seed-bed out of which fundamentalism grew. The Niagara Creed was written in 1878. Statement #12 of Niagara’s Creed says, “We believe that we are called with a holy calling to walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, and so to live in the Spirit that we should not fulfill the lusts of the flesh; but the flesh being still in us to the end of our earthly pilgrimage needs to be kept constantly in subjection to Christ, or it will surely manifest its presence to the dishonor of His name: Rom. 8:12-13; 13:14; Gal. 5:16-25; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:1-10; I Pet. 1:14-16; I John 3:5-9.” Niagara’s Creed, which both predates and lays the foundation for the fundamentalist movement sounds a lot like the straw man now called “cultural fundamentalism.”
Obviously all fundies, conservative evangelicals, and even many others far from the fundy orbit would agree with this statement from the Niagara Conference. Not sure what this proves or disproves about his assertions about cultural fundyism.
As I read the conclusion I was struck by these statements:
Beware of those who belittle personal separation by attacking “cultural fundamentalism.” To belittle separatism is to belittle Scripture and to ignore what it means to live a life of consecration. It’s not about “cultural fundamentalism,” it never has been. It’s about living a consecrated life of personal separation to please a holy God.
Interesting that he uses the words, “beware”, and “attack”. He seems to be overstating it a bit, don’t you think? First of all, I’m not sure that anyone is belittling personal separation. The real issue here is when I demand that my brother or sister have the same personal standards or preferences that I have. Reminds me of my M-I-L who still says that those ladies who wear britches just haven’t “grown in the LORD” enough yet. We should pray specifically for them to get out of their slacks.
Secondly, I wonder how my “personal standards” or “personal separation” pleases God. Years ago I would have read that statement and never batted an eye. Now I read it and it just doesn’t hit me right. If our righteousness is like a dirty rag in God’s sight, why would this be a motivation for me? Certainly we should seek to please Him but does my lack of card playing, cigar smoking, listening to rocky music, and absence of long hair REALLY please the LORD?
Matthew
In re-reading, this statement jumped out at me:
For the genuine Christian, “personal Separation” predates “fundamentalism.”
In context, Phelps speaks of those who reject the applications of personal separation in areas of “music, dress, ministry associations, and methods” under the guise of “cultural fundamentalism.” Is Dr. Phelps actually meaning to say here that those who don’t agree with his applications regarding personal separation aren’t genuine Christians?
I would tend to think that ultimately, that is not his intent, but one can only interact with what was published. At the same time, though, it demonstrates that this piece perhaps does not deserve the “wide circulation” that the FBFI editors seem to think it does. As much as those who are abandoning “cultural fundamentalism” are, in Phelps’s words, “(failing) to biblically explain one’s position on matters pertaining to Christian liberty,” the piece does little to reassert why his is Biblically justified, and serves only to muddy the waters further by citing a contradictory reference that condemns practices he has himself adopted in his own ministry.
Furthermore, while accusing others of causing “increasing polarization among those who profess to know the Lord and love His Word,” this piece is actually worded in a way that is more accusatory, very nearly implying that those with opposing views perhaps don’t “know the Lord and love His Word” and aren’t “genuine Christians.”
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]In re-reading, this statement jumped out at me:
For the genuine Christian, “personal Separation” predates “fundamentalism.”
In context, Phelps speaks of those who reject the applications of personal separation in areas of “music, dress, ministry associations, and methods” under the guise of “cultural fundamentalism.” Is Dr. Phelps actually meaning to say here that those who don’t agree with his applications regarding personal separation aren’t genuine Christians?
I would tend to think that ultimately, that is not his intent, but one can only interact with what was published. At the same time, though, it demonstrates that this piece perhaps does not deserve the “wide circulation” that the FBFI editors seem to think it does. As much as those who are abandoning “cultural fundamentalism” are, in Phelps’s words, “(failing) to biblically explain one’s position on matters pertaining to Christian liberty,” the piece does little to reassert why his is Biblically justified, and serves only to muddy the waters further by citing a contradictory reference that condemns practices he has himself adopted in his own ministry.
Furthermore, while accusing others of causing “increasing polarization among those who profess to know the Lord and love His Word,” this piece is actually worded in a way that is more accusatory, very nearly implying that those with opposing views perhaps don’t “know the Lord and love His Word” and aren’t “genuine Christians.”
I don’t think Chuck would say that those who disagree with him are not genuine Christians. At least I hope not. Perhaps he would clarify that. Either way I think he is a genuine Christian. When his article first appeared on an easily and deservedly ignored web site it was not taken seriously. When it appeared on a more serious FBF connected web site the article deserved more attention. Now it should be ignored again as I suspect some will do with the FBF as well.
[Dan McGhee]Dan, I think many fundamentalists have bent on the music issue, but the music issue is far more transitory, so the target keeps moving. “Acceptable” music in most IFB churches has loosened significantly in my 42 years of personal contact. Soft Southern Gospel from 30 years ago is now almost a norm - particularly among those in the hyper/far right end of the spectrum.[Jay]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):
Jay, I would submit to you that many fundamentalists have been willing to bend on most of the issues you just listed except for the one I highlighted. And this is why the recent videos have caused the reactions we’ve seen.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
It would be interesting to know what precipitated Phelps’ article. Is he reacting to the SI discussions that have been going on, or is there something else?
"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]It would be interesting to know what precipitated Phelps’ article. Is he reacting to the SI discussions that have been going on, or is there something else?
In the footnotes of the original post, “those who disenfranchise from” cultural fundamentalism is a descriptor specifically linked to Matt Olson’s “Pursuing Transparency With Change” blog post.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Thanks, Greg. Appreciate that.
Someone linked to this post by Kent Brandenburg at his blog on cultural fundamentalism on a friend’s Facebook page. I thought I’d link to it and quote it because it dovetails nicely with the discussion and my thesis.
Kent notes that the term has a fairly lengthy history. I’ve taken the liberty of underlining direct quotes in his post since I can’t seem to do quotes within quotes on SI.
In 1999 a professor at the University of Wisconsin, William P. Tishler, referred to “cultural fundamentalism” existing in the U. S. in the 1920s. He described it like this:
The 1920s was a time when many adherents of “Cultural Fundamentalism” attempted to ensure that all Americans followed the right patterns of thought: quest for certainty and predictability in social relationships; an order in human affairs that was at once familiar, comfortable, and unthreatening; and nostalgia for the idealized, non-industrial society of their parents.
Tishler’s syllabus reads like sheer propaganda, assigning motives to people without evidence. David G. Bromley in his 1984 book, New Christian Politics, calls the “new religious right” (NRR) “cultural fundamentalism.” He, like Tishler, would say that “cultural fundamentalism” supports things like right to life and male headship.
The first “cultural fundamentalism” struck me as an identifiable label was when I read what Tim Jordan said at the latest GARBC national conference. He warned:
If we produce ‘biblical’ reasons for cultural fundamentalism, they [the young Fundamentalists] know you are lying. And why do they know you are lying? It’s because you are!
So you see his usage of “cultural fundamentalism,” differentiating himself from that. I started looking for other usages and I read this from Bob Bixby on his blog in January 2008:
These first-generation Calvinists embrace Calvinism in order to embrace what they really want: contemporary worship, a swig of beer, or the sheer pride of life that gratifies the egos of those who, embittered because of everything they could not have in cultural fundamentalism on the basis of dumb argumentation, now have an indisputably better biblical argument for anything they want.
I don’t know exactly who Ben Wright is talking about at 9 Marks in Mar-April 2008 when he says cultural fundamentalists are atheological fundamentalists. He writes:
In addition, the theological Fundamentalism of Bauder and Doran represents a matured strain of Fundamentalism that intends to expose and disassociate from the atheological (sometimes called cultural) Fundamentalism that has dominated many segments of separatist Fundamentalism in recent decades.
Here’s how someone named Charlie defined “cultural fundamentalism” at SharperIron:
I have heard the term “cultural Fundamentalism” applied to those described as hyper-Fundamentalists. I like this term at least somewhat better, because it communicates that the real areas of controversy are not “doctrinal” in the sense of disputes about systematic categories (which some cultural Fundamentalists wouldn’t even be able to explicate), but rather cultural in the sense of affecting the look, feel, and function of church life. For example, you can sing vapid songs, but not CCM songs. You can murder the meaning of a Bible passage, but you have to have the correct initials on the binding. You can preach all sorts of bizarre allegory, but you need to be in coat and tie when you do it.
Kevin Bauder dealt with this way back in 2005 in his essay “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving,” especially in these two paragraphs:
This, I think, highlights the limited usefulness of a distinction between “historic” and “cultural” fundamentalism. Biblical obedience is never acultural for the simple reason that human beings are never acultural. We must always obey God at a particular time, in a particular place, situated in a particular culture. We do not really care whether George Carlin’s words were obscenities in 1560, nor whether their cognates are obscene in German or Norwegian. We care about what they mean in English at the beginning of the 21st Century.
In short, the only way to be a historic, biblical fundamentalist is to be a cultural fundamentalist. The only alternatives are, first, to say that cultures are beyond the Bible’s ability to critique and correct, or second, to argue that fundamentalism is concerned only with doctrine and not with obedience. I doubt that any of us really wants to take either of those steps.
It’s interesting to consider that Ben Wright says that Bauder is not a cultural fundamentalist, and wants to distinguish him from one, when Bauder himself says that a historic fundamentalist must be a cultural fundamentalist. I think I’ll go with what Bauder says about himself rather than what Wright says about Bauder to help his article along. It would do Ben well to also check out a certain paper produced by Mark Snoeberger, who teaches at Detroit, Doran’s seminary, and his words about cultural fundamentalism:
It is often suggested that there are two kinds of fundamentalism—doctrinal fundamentalism and cultural fundamentalism. The former is to be embraced as a defense of the orthodox core; the latter to be eschewed as a counter-cultural set of archaic, arcane, and even pharisaical traditions some of which are downright silly. There is some validity to this distinction. At the same time, since theology always informs our view of culture, it is impossible to completely divorce the two.
We have already noted above that in the specific issue of evangelism, fundamentalists have typically eschewed both the ―Christ of culture‖ approach (practiced broadly by liberalism and new evangelicalism) and also the holistic ―Christ transforming culture‖ approach (practiced in Kuyperian Reformed circles). I would suggest that this understanding has extended beyond evangelism to a whole plethora of cultural issues.
Snoeberger says you can’t divorce the theological fundamentalism from the cultural.
Why are doctrinal and cultural fundamentalism being divided? I believe there are those who want to hang on to the doctrine of separation. They think it’s in the Bible. But they only want to separate over certain theological issues. They want to allow much more room to maneuver on the so-called cultural issues. Therefore, if there exists doctrinal fundamentalism, they can still be a fundamentalist without associating with the fundamentalists who disassociate over violations of the right cultural practices.
"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
The thing that I wanted to note from his article here is that:
Male headship isn’t cultural. It is biblical. Heterosexuality isn’t cultural. It’s scriptural. Gender designed distinctions in appearance isn’t cultural. They are biblical. Modesty isn’t cultural. It’s in God’s Word. Complementarianism isn’t cultural. It’s in the Bible. Spiritual, sacred worship isn’t cultural. It is scriptural. Dress that is distinct from the world isn’t cultural. It’s biblical. Patriarchy isn’t cultural. It is Scripture. I’m to preach the whole counsel of God’s Word. I’m to teach the saints whatever God has said in His Word. I’m not going to have those teachings diminished for the convenience of those who prefer to fit into an unbiblical way of life. Take the world, but give me Jesus.
The Bible is lived in the real world. The Bible reacts to culture. The Bible guides how we will live. The Bible tells us what is the right music, the right art, the right marriage, the right fashion, and the right family.
I totally agree with that last paragraph that I quoted. That being said, it is my argument that Kent is conflating things that are actually Biblical with the things in his specific culture (the things that are in bold). He’s putting his form of culture on the same level as Biblical teaching, and that’s why I disagree with him strongly. It’s also why people like Chuck Phelps will respond by saying that ‘separation is under attack’.
I would argue that ‘gender designated distinctions’ are Biblical, but they can (should!) look different from what he says is Biblical.
I would argue that ‘spiritual, sacred worship’ is Biblical, but it will look different from what he wants it to look like.
I would argue that dress that is ‘distinct from the world’ is Biblical, but it will look different from what he wants it to look like.
My contention is essentially that Christians can have differences in music, dress, and style that point to distinction from the culture but not ‘land’ at the same places that Kent would. That being said, Kent is still my brother in the Lord and a fellow believer.
"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
Dress that is distinct from the world isn’t cultural. It’s biblical…
I’m seriously curious about this. How does one do this on a consistent basis if….
1) I work on a factory assembly line
2) I work for a law firm in downtown Chicago
3) I’m a server in a restaurant
4) I’m on the golf course
5) I’m a spectator at a baseball game
6) I’m playing in a baseball…basketball…football game
7) I’m out to dinner with my wife
8) Etc. Etc. Etc.
You know what I’ve observed about this particular subject? It’s really all about women & girls! THEY have to be somehow distinct, sticking out from everyone else, looking odd or peculiar or…different. But we men & boys? We can just blend into the crowd and look like everyone else. So I’m questioning the validity of the idea that there’s a biblical mandate for Christ-followers to dress in a unique, distinctive way.
It’s really all about women & girls! THEY have to be somehow distinct, sticking out from everyone else, looking odd or peculiar or…different. But we men & boys? We can just blend into the crowd and look like everyone else. So I’m questioning the validity of the idea that there’s a biblical mandate for Christ-followers to dress in a unique, distinctive way
I went to several different Christian day schools (my father was in the US Navy when I was growing up) where shorts on men were discouraged. On of the schools played in a sports league comprised exclusively of Christian schools, and all the men’s basketball teams wore uniforms with long pants and short-sleeved shirts (as opposed to tank top style). I remember playing a scrimmage with a team from a larger Christian school that wasn’t in our league (they were a traditional school, our league was ACE schools), and there were a lot of nervous twitters from our spectators because their boys wore SHORTS!
I also remember blue jeans being identified by a pastor or two I sat under as a kid as “the uniform of the world.” I think the first time I ever got a pair was in high school, when we had moved back north (and we were in a church where women were not discouraged from wearing pants). Hairstyles on men have been a common emphasis- length, yes, but I was also in one school setting where the men were forbidden from parting their hair down the middle because it was “worldly.” There are still people who will judge a man’s worldly appearance on things like facial hair, glasses frames, lack of a tie in some settings…
So yes, women are often a major emphasis in these areas- but I would submit not an exclusive one.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
The one thing Spurgeon had in common with what I call Type A fundamentalism is that both are willing to be militant on both clear textual issues as well as certain belief’s/practices that might not be as clear in the text - but are at least clear in their thinking as a direct application or implication of the text.
This can be a good thing…….it can also can be dangerous.
A major disconnect between Spurgeon and Type A fundamentalism by way of “sub-culture” is a belief in Calvinism. I just received a little notice from a well-known “really Type A fundamentalist institution” off the Gulf Coast where they make a big deal about not believing God pre-elected anyone to Heaven.
Charles Spurgeon would be militant against that view - He would not want you to send your kids to that institution I promise you!
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;
I found this forum by accident. I am a Christian, and grew up in a fundamentalist environment. Now I am in my 20’s. have to say, no one CARES about these issues you guys all argue about. None of those of us who grew up in fundamentalism with me care at all. We don’t care about music, and all these other fringe “personal separation” issues. Those of us who still are claim Christianity (many were turned off from Christianity entirely by the blatant hypocrisy), believe in the Bible and real doctrinal issues. But you lost those other battles years ago, when we were kids, and we knew all that other stuff was nothing more than (sorry) dumb man-made rules. So, honestly, you can argue about music all day if that’s what you enjoy…but you lost most thinking young Christians long ago on these types of issues. I really don’t understand why you continue to fight about them when the truth is that there are actually important issues that are in the Bible to worry about.
Discussion