Bixby's take on Northland

I know I’m not adding much in the way of discussion, but all I can say is…

I don’t know much about the specifics of NIU, but what Bob has to say about fundamentalism is right on target.

My post isn’t going to add much either, but here goes…

I’m what some would call a young fundamentalist. [I’m 38 yrs old - 38 is still young, right?] I agree with Bixby.

Bixby’s post NAILS why many young (& old) fundamentalists look at much of the rest of fundamentalism, including IFBism, say ‘Yuck’, and walk away…

Edited to add:

And, exactly why a young, unsaved & atheist friend of mine, in a discussion about spiritual matters, once pointed right at IFBism, and said ‘Why would I want THAT?’

Bixby said, “Fundamentalism, despite the best efforts of some very gifted men to say otherwise, is an ideological movement premised on the doctrine of secondary separation.”

That is a spectacular overstatement!

It is not a movement based on secondary separation. Sure, separation does exist, it has to exist. But, that is not the primary focus of fundamentalism. I thought the premise of fundamentalism was the Lord, and being faithful to the doctrines taught in the Bible.

Have fundamentalists taken the issue of separation unnecessarily too far. Yes! And I think there is room for that group to loosen-up, but that is Not the premise of that group.

Let’s be honest, those to the left of traditional fundamentalists do practice secondary separation themselves. In the case of NIU you cannot say that people didn’t separate from NIU, not the other way around. Even those to the left of fundamentalism will exercise secondary separation from those to the left of them. All groups practice and are defined by separation from something.

This harping and whining and fussing about fundamentalists and their hang-up with separation is frankly tiresome. Especially since it is coming from people who in fact practice secondary separation themselves.

Bixby’s post NAILS why many young (& old) fundamentalists look at much of the rest of fundamentalism, including IFBism, say ‘Yuck’, and walk away…

It is a fundamental mistake to speak of fundamentalism as if it is a denomination to walk away from. Lance Ketchum comes close to this in his recent article. Fundamentalism is more aptly defined as a philosophy of ministry, characterized by militant separatism from apostasy and disobedient brethren, and defense of orthodoxy Christianity.

The rub is that the definition for “disobedient brethren” is subjective. However, the philosophy of fundamentalist ministry is certainly not something to “walk away from.” You may wish to disassociate yourself from certain elements within fundamentalism whom you honestly and Scripturally (Titus 3:9-11) feel are intentionally divisive and troublesome, but I question whether these “young fundamentalists” truly abandoned a militant philosophy of ministry.

“In the words of Professor R. B. Kuiper, ‘The man who today forbids what God allows, tomorrow will allow what God forbids.’”

Bixby’s quote of Kuiper caught my attention because of an example in my neighborhood. The pastor of the local KJVO church — a proponent of Crown College and West Coast Baptist College — forbids his members from using non-KJV translations, forbids his female members from wearing pants, etc. Yet he permits women to divorce husbands who have at any time in the marriage used pornography, on the grounds of “mental adultery” (looking after a woman to lust after her, per Matt. 5:28), and he permits such women to remarry (and to use the church facilities to do so).

Leaves me shaking my head. But apparently Kuiper anticipated this conundrum (and many others like it).

Tyler,

Technically, second degree separation is separating from those who, though orthodox themselves, will not separate from apostates. On that basis most of us, including the author, believe and practice second degree separation. Where we don’t agree is regarding what levels of cooperation are legitimate with those whom we may disagree on other important matters. That is never going to be settled this side of heaven. There are departing “brethren” (those who once claimed the orthodox doctrines of Scripture but then denied them in doctrine and practice, i.e. “apostates”), disobedient brethren (those who willfully practice their faith contrary to apostolic instruction and practice), and disagreeing brethren. Much of our restricted cooperation (not “separation” per se) falls on the third category based on the intensity of the the issue and the relevancy it has to the particular ministry. This is where much of the variation occurs. I have appreciated your comments in the other threads. Keep up the good work.

Dmyers,

Run from that ministry like you would run from poison, shaking your head and the dust off your feet.

When Fundy defenders say that Fundamentalism isn’t like a denomination because everyone is independent and it’s just a philosophy of ministry in which separation is only ONE of it’s tenets, I have to laugh out loud. They’re like the defenders of Islam when they say “Radical terrorists are only a small minority! They don’t represent true Islam”

Ya, but they make the most noise and thus define the rest of them in the eyes of the public.

I have briefly described the historical roots of both fundamentalism and evangelicalism on Si in recent weeks. If you would care to interact meaningfully with historical facts, I invite you to do so. If not, I’ll have to dismiss your comments as irrelevant. Not trying to be malicious, but there it is nonetheless.

[TylerR] It is a fundamental mistake to speak of fundamentalism as if it is a denomination to walk away from.

Yes, really.

Could you please be more specific? The conversation could take a while if we go on like this.

[TylerR]

Yes, really.

Could you please be more specific? The conversation could take a while if we go on like this.

Bixby mentioned that along with Dr. Olson other members of the administration were let go as well. Who else besides Dr. Olson in the Administration was dismissed?

[iKuyper]

[TylerR]

Yes, really.

Could you please be more specific? The conversation could take a while if we go on like this.

Lol. You should be postmodern enough to understand that what we mean by “denomination” also means “functions as a denomination.”

Phrases like “our” schools, “our” churches, and “our” missionaries sound like it.

[mmartin]

Bixby said, “Fundamentalism, despite the best efforts of some very gifted men to say otherwise, is an ideological movement premised on the doctrine of secondary separation.”

That is a spectacular overstatement!

It is not a movement based on secondary separation. Sure, separation does exist, it has to exist. But, that is not the primary focus of fundamentalism. I thought the premise of fundamentalism was the Lord, and being faithful to the doctrines taught in the Bible.

Have fundamentalists taken the issue of separation unnecessarily too far. Yes! And I think there is room for that group to loosen-up, but that is Not the premise of that group.

It may not have started out as a movement that way, but Bixby is certainly right: it has become an ideological movement with its fundamental assertion being separation.

The Bible emphasizes unity and talks about separation as an expression of unity. Fundamentalism has inverted that. And separation is rightly viewed as its core premise because it’s really the single thing that differentiates it.