"Does Charles Spurgeon represent 'Cultural Fundamentalism?'”

[BryanBice]

I recently began serving as chaplain to a local manufacturing firm that employs over 125 workers. Prior to taking this position, I knew only two of the employees. My basic job is to go to the worksite for a couple hours a week, touch base with each employee for a moment or two, and see if anyone wants to discuss a problem, need, etc. The relevance to this thread/post is that all of the office personnel dress essentially the same: business casual attire. All of the workers in the manufacturing areas also dress essentially the same—jeans, t-shirts/sweatshirts, etc. There is absolutely no way to tell who the Christians were by their dress (well, except for one guy who was wearing a t-shirt that said, “Real Men Love Jesus” — but he would be labeled “worldly” by many(?) in the fundy world because he was wearing t-shirt with a slogan on it!!).

So here’s the interesting thing. In interacting briefly with people, I was quickly able to discern who were the likely Christians by their demeanor, attitudes, friendliness. In other words, something akin to “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35) and “…let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:16). I suggest the same thing should be true in the Chicago law firm…the baseball game (watching OR playing)…on the golf course…in the restaurant.

Maybe I missed it, or maybe it’s in the original 1611 version and got mistranslated by worldly compromisers, but I’ve never read the verses, “people will know that you are my disciples, if you dress with distinction” or “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your unusual garments….”

Having said all that—especially that last tongue-in-cheek paragraph—I recognize the importance of not having a sin-clouded, idolatrous heart that wants to identify with a radical, distinctive sub-culture that prides itself in rebellion, immorality, or even exorbitant materialism and whose adherents distinguish themselves largely in their manner of dress. Certainly, for example, it’s hard to reconcile “Christian Goth.” But it’s equally difficult to reconcile “Christian Hilfiger” (or whatever the latest must-have clothing label is). What I’m getting at here is best illustrated by a young lady I overheard in the Christian school hallway bragging to her girlfriends that she spent over $100 for her [designer label] top (that met the dress code & therefore wasn’t “worldly”). I’d suggest that the professing believer who wants to dress either “goth” or “designer” has an idol-heart issue.

I work in a prison. The inmates wear light blue which means I don’t. If they are in solitary confinement they wear orange (along with accessory chains on their hand and feet when out of the cell). I can’t wear my orange pants. The guards wear black except sergeants and above who wear white shirts. However the majors and above are usually in business dress. I wear business casual and sometimes jeans. Apart from the clothes I sometimes cannot tell the difference between some inmates and some guards because of the way they speak. I have met many Christians, both inmates and guards, and often can tell before I speak with them in having heard how they speak to others, their demeanor, or when they bow their heads in prayer before eating. You’re right. People will know we are Christians by many things but not by our dress.

Steve Davis

[BryanBice] I appreciate your refusal to “require” certain attire, but I’ve seen an interestingly different development. Young, immature Christians come to church, see how most people are dressed, and conform thinking it’s “the uniform,” while at the same time, some mature believers in their retirement years have ditched the coat & tie and the ladies wear slacks. The immature believer thinks there’s a code to which he has to conform…the mature realizes there is none.

This has been my experience as well. It took me a long time to stop associating ‘worship’ with ‘coat and tie’. To be honest, getting away from coat and tie has freed me to stop thinking about and worrying about what I look like and concentrate on worship.

For the record, it’s shirt and tie or shirt and vest. Suit and tie does still make an appearance on occasion.

I’m not wanting to get into a specific debate as to what is appropriate where. My point is, however, that Christian maturity doesn’t adopt an “anything goes” or “there is no standard” approach. While there isn’t a code (written and specific) in the Bible, there are principles that guide mature Christians in even so mundane an issue as dress.

And I will concede that there is some latitude in specific application. My own applications are possibly different than Chuck’s, and may be different than some of the rest of you.

But I think it is foolish to argue that Biblical principles don’t guide us to appropriate/inappropriate in various contexts and that a mature Christian approach is different from the approach of the world in these matters.

[Don Johnson]

But I think it is foolish to argue that Biblical principles don’t guide us to appropriate/inappropriate in various contexts and that a mature Christian approach is different from the approach of the world in these matters.

To whom are you speaking here? Did anyone say that? I think not.

The immature believer thinks there’s a code to which he has to conform…the mature realizes there is none.

See, here’s the thing. Don wrote:

Besides that, there is an appropriate standard of dress in every context of life, especially playing sports. The team members all wear the uniform. Businesses have dress codes, they often have specific “dress down” days when they relax their codes for some charitable cause or for company morale, or whatever. But codes still exist.

But in reality, in contrast to an official sports team that has a uniform or the company that has a written dress code in the employee handbook, the church doesn’t have a uniform, nor is there a biblical definition of “distinctive dress”…when it comes to clothing.

But alas, we do have a dress code!

The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. (Rom 13:12)

…put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (Eph 4:24)

…Put on the whole armor of God (Eph 6:11)

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. ‎And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony (Col. 3:12-14)

But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation (1 Thess 5:8)

Some pretty distinctive garb, indeed!

This rabbit trail could go on forever. My overarching point is that the notion of “cultural fundamentalism” is erroneous.

We each must take Biblical principles, specifically the holiness expected of God’s people in any dispensation (Lev 19:2; Eph 5:1; 1 Pet 1:16), and apply them in a practical manner to everyday life in a variety of contexts. The application will vary depending on the nuances of the specific culture - but the overarching principle is holiness.

Matt Olson’s blog post prompted Chuck Phelp’s article. Matt Olson repudiates secondary separation and accuses those of us who uphold it of “cultural fundamentalism.” The implication is that we are drawing artifical lines in the sand over shifting social mores rather than Biblical truth. This is erroneous.

The mini-debate on dress “standards” illustrates my point, and is only one minor point among a whole host of others we could think of. I am not imposing an external standard on anybody. I am gently and lovingly providing an example of what I Scripturally believe to be the appropriate way to worship God.

Dress is minor. Implementing contemporary music, associations with individuals or organizations of different theological persuasions, etc. are examples of much more substantive flash points we could discuss. It is not about “cultural fundamentalism” at all - it is about a particular manner of implementing ministry.

To what extent should we imitate “the world” while we do ministry? We draw the line in different places, each honestly believing we are correct. Separatists like myself believe ours is the more Biblical position, and I say this without malice or condesension. Matt Olson’s charge of “cultural fundamentalism” suggests this divide is merely about outward conformity to external standards. This is specious and wrong.

Tyler, some of the most mature Christians in our church, including most of our elders, dress casually (relatively speaking, I’m talking business casual or maybe jeans).

[BryanBice]

[Don Johnson]

But I think it is foolish to argue that Biblical principles don’t guide us to appropriate/inappropriate in various contexts and that a mature Christian approach is different from the approach of the world in these matters.

To whom are you speaking here? Did anyone say that? I think not.

The immature believer thinks there’s a code to which he has to conform…the mature realizes there is none.

See, here’s the thing. Don wrote:

Besides that, there is an appropriate standard of dress in every context of life, especially playing sports. The team members all wear the uniform. Businesses have dress codes, they often have specific “dress down” days when they relax their codes for some charitable cause or for company morale, or whatever. But codes still exist.

But in reality, in contrast to an official sports team that has a uniform or the company that has a written dress code in the employee handbook, the church doesn’t have a uniform, nor is there a biblical definition of “distinctive dress”…when it comes to clothing.

But alas, we do have a dress code!

The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. (Rom 13:12)

…put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (Eph 4:24)

…Put on the whole armor of God (Eph 6:11)

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. ‎And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony (Col. 3:12-14)

But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation (1 Thess 5:8)

Some pretty distinctive garb, indeed!

We draw the line in different places, each honestly believing we are correct. Separatists like myself believe ours is the more Biblical position, and I say this without malice or condesension. Matt Olson’s charge of “cultural fundamentalism” suggests this divide is merely about outward conformity to external standards. This is specious and wrong.

On the other hand, Tyler, it would seem that Phelps piece as presented would not acknowledge that there are situations where self-identified Fundamentalists have decayed into “outward conformity to external standards” that have become more than a matter of personal separation, and degraded into making blanket judgments about who is a “true fundamentalist” or even a “genuine Christian” when other’s personal applications don’t match our own.

Again, I have observed this kind of thing recently firsthand. Our association of churches (MBA) has recently agreed to sponsor a church plant in the Twin Cities metro. We had a large degree of controversy in our board meeting before it passed, however, because the individual’s sending church was in the Minnesota Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Nevermind that we have an extreme amount of overlap in our constiuent churches in both doctrine and practice, and nevermind that even though we have a larger membership, we haven’t gotten behind a church planter from one of our own congregations in over 6 years. The resistance was largely generational, and when I asked individuals privately outside of the meeting what the concerns were, it boiled down to 1. the past- namely, Cedarville (which was formally separated from by the GARBC several years ago, now), and 2. perceived differences on music (apparently, “theirs” is more liberal than “ours”). Now, whatever else might be true, we have conservative churches musically, and so do they. We have more progressive churches, and so do they. The controversy is ultimately rooted in a suspicion that our culture is “more separated” than theirs (not to mention the perception that the MBA has Minnesota history, while the MARBC are the johnny-come-lately carpetbagger types).

Both Chuck’s piece and Matt’s piece represent extremes, I would say. The truth is, we do need to make sure we define our lives according to Biblical principle (which includes, by the way, being patient with each other). It is also true that people have established some weird applications and elevated them into definitive tests of fellowship, at least practically speaking. I would even say that this includes music- and not just contemporary vs. traditional extremes like “Redeemed” vs. Patch The Pirate, but things even like singing “How Deep The Father’s Love For Us” as a hymn, or including an acoustic guitar in the services, or the acceptability of a Steve Green song for special music… I may not embrace every one of those practices, but someone who does is not indicating they are disposing of the concept of personal separation by adopting one or more of them. They’re just not.

[Greg Linscott]

It is also true that people have established some weird applications and elevated them into definitive tests of fellowship, at least practically speaking. I would even say that this includes music- and not just contemporary vs. traditional extremes like “Redeemed” vs. Patch The Pirate, but things even like singing “How Deep The Father’s Love For Us” as a hymn, or including an acoustic guitar in the services, or the acceptability of a Steve Green song for special music… I may not embrace every one of those practices, but someone who does is not indicating they are disposing of the concept of personal separation by adopting one or more of them. They’re just not.

Then you have the complete weirdos like me who would be fine with Steve Green congregationally, but are against all special music by “performers.”

Obviously, Shane, since you don’t have Baptist in the name, you care not a whit for separation of any sort. You even consort with compromisers like Ron Bean! :o

I may not embrace every one of those practices, but someone who does is not indicating they are disposing of the concept of personal separation by adopting one or more of them. They’re just not.

I understand. The militant separatists of the past would have agreed with you. Pickering, for one, has this caution in his book on the matter:

We must allow for honest differences. Some separatists give the impression that everyone must hold the same positions and interpretations as do they in order to be a “true blue” separatist. Artifical tests of fellowship are created. If someone uses a different translation or approves a pantsuit or holds a different view on the question of divorce, some separatists make an international issue over it and brand the brother who differs a compromiser. We need to be able to distinguish minor points from major issues. We must be free to discuss subordinate theological issues on which we may disagree without making them a test of fellowship. Many separatists can do this. Regrettably, some cannot.

I couldn’t say it better, so I simply quoted! The question, of course, is what is a “minor” issue? That will differ according to the individual. And the endless cycle goes on … .

Matt Olson, however, is surely erecting a straw man when he dismisses this entire discussion, which really circles back to NIU once again - the genesis of Phelp’s article, when he dismisses separatists as holding to “cultural fundamentalism.” He has been around a lot longer than me. He surely knows this is inaccurate.

I’ll give you that, T. But is the solution to answer one bad argument with another?

Greg:

This entire discussion over NIU (in this thread and countless others in the past month) has prompted me to examine my own understanding of fundamentalism. I have written articles on the roots of both fundamentalism and evangelicalism for SI, to document historical realities of both movements. My next article will be a survey of fundamentalist positions on the idea of secondary separation.

I have been disappointed the previous two haven’t generated much discussion. I am hopeful that conclusions I draw in the next piece on secondary separation can generate some good debate and help clear the air, for me and others.

Matt Olson’s blog post prompted Chuck Phelp’s article. Matt Olson repudiates secondary separation and accuses those of us who uphold it of “cultural fundamentalism.” The implication is that we are drawing artifical lines in the sand over shifting social mores rather than Biblical truth. This is erroneous.

Tyler,

On what basis do you claim that Olson repudiates secondary separation?

Jay, from his own blog post on the matter:

Some may ask, “Are you fundamentalists?” If you are talking about believing the fundamentals of the faith, being willing to separate over them, and being committed to living a holy life before God—then the answer is a resolute, “Yes.” If you are talking about our being willing to separate over “cultural fundamentalism” and its demands to separate over Bible translations, music, dress, methods of ministry, secondary associations, etc., the answer is an equally resolute, “No.” We cannot. Our consciences before God will not allow us to draw artificial lines of separation where God Himself has not drawn them.

Look for the entry on 18APR13.