Kent Brandenburg: "I'm not a fundamentalist"

Didn’t that Clay Nuttal guy have a similar statement with the same type of strange argumentation a while ago?

I don’t claim the term because, it has become meaningless in the circles with which I associate.

Yeah I don’t really use the term unless I know I am talking to someone who has the same definition of the word as myself. Still the article has a decidedly different reason for rejecting the term.

Dr. Nuttall has been helping train men for the ministry for probably longer than most of the men who frequent this board. Just because you don’t agree with his view or Kent’s does not make it “strange”.

Ken

Since the Filing isn’t about Dr. Clay Nuttall’s statement, let’s not discuss it. OR … link to it in this thread and add it to the discussion mix

Just further evidence that you can try to out-fundamentalist a fundamentalist, but it won’t work. There are always new extremes to be plumbed, new issues over which to divide, additional controversies that can be stirred.

And so they fiddle while souls burn….

Effectively, Kent is distinguishing himself from others who identify as Fundamentalists. That’s his prerogative. I can understand that he takes exception (though I don’t agree with all of his positions, or the extent to which they limit his fellowship). What seems most inconsistent to me is the vigor with which he eschews the term Fundamentalist, but from all I can see still seems to see the utility of the “Baptist” label- which, if “Fundamentalist” is variegated, those identifying as “Baptist” are infinitely more so.

Labels serve a purpose- but there is always more to something or someone than just a label.

DL,

Not sure how you can make such a statement. Do you really think people who disagree with the notion of fundamentalism are to be equated as a person who has no interest in souls? I find your comment very deprecating and self-absorbed. It is a real shame no one really truly interacts with the content on his site on a regular basis. How about interacting with his evaluation of fundamentalism. Tell us why his view is extreme, or what new issues he is dividing over. Please tell us. Give us your profound wisdom.

KML

Greg,

I know you asked Kent this question on his blog, but I would like to propose my answer to you. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist. I don’t avoid the term or label being applied to myself. I just don’t think it fits. Do I believe in the virgin birth? Of course. Do I believe in the physical resurrection of Christ? Absolutely. However, while I believe in the fundamentals as historically declared, I do not divide the Scriptures into essentials (fundamentals) and non-essentials. Fundamentalism has put a limited amount of truth in a lockbox, as sacred truths which are sacrosanct, and other things are open to debate. I just don’t look that way at the Scriptures. I am not saying I fully understand everything in Scripture or that I have 100% of the right beliefs. I just don’t the fundamentals are enough. The Bible is what is enough for me. All of its content is fundamental to my faith.

As for the “Baptist” label and its usefulness, I would compare the use of it to the present battle over the definition of marriage. The correct definition of a marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God. While our culture seems intent on changing that definition, the proper definition and the only right definition is a correct understanding of what “Marriage” truly is. It is the same with the term Baptist. Some may call their churches Baptist, and a variety of them may be all over the place doctrinally. (as you well noted.) However, I must call myself what I am, and continue promoting what the true definition of a Baptist is, regardless of how others misuse the word by their church doctrine and practices that may be unbiblical. (we may disagree on that)

As for your comment on labels, I think Kent would agree as he wrote: “Labels themselves don’t bother me, but we’ve got to be honest with them. They have a purpose for marking someone, helping understand who someone is.”

KML

KLengel,

First of all I retract my characterization of Nutall’s position as strange. I should have said IMO or not said it at all. I was wondering: you mention the variation in the definition of the label baptist. Do you believe there are certain elements which identify a Baptist church, and without which a church can not rightly be labelled as such? In other words do you believe that there are “fundamentals” of the label “baptist”?

[KLengel]

I do not consider myself a fundamentalist. I don’t avoid the term or label being applied to myself. I just don’t think it fits.

I understand. At the same time, as I just said to Kent, you have enough grudging affinity with those who do identify as Fundamentalists to pay attention to them, certainly more than you would self-identified Pentecostals or Greek Orthodox…
Also, as I said to Kent, the reality is that whether or not you embrace the label, someone will use it to describe you… disparagingly, perhaps, but still. We don’t always have the luxury of choosing our labels. And as a general category, you fit there about as well as you’re going to anywhere. Sorry. :)

Greg,

I think people are debating from two differing perspectives. A pastor feels a need to defend the faith he is teaching to his flock who is exposed constantly in our age to various doctrines. That often requires the need to proclaim his position in the arena of worldviews, so others know what they agree with and what they don’t. Let’s use a fruit analogy. (I know all analogies break down, but let’s have some fun.) I am an orange. Fundamentalists are tangelos. I will support a tangelo when it looks like an orange (not often) and smells like an orange, (sometimes they do) but I don’t fully want to be a tangelo, because when I taste it, it is obvious it is not an orange. (I actually know the difference by sight, but I will move on.) I believe it’s right to be an orange. I want to be called an orange, not a tangelo. The problem is not whether or not someone thinks I am a tangelo. They can call me that all they want. The truth remains, I am an orange. OK, more diet pepsi please. :)

To borrow from your illustration, “Fundamentalist” would be less similar to “orange” or “tangelo” and more like “citrus,” at least in the sense its being used here.

I understand you wanting to distinguish yourself from others… we all do. Who among us wants to be grouped in with Westboro Baptist Church? Hands? At the same time, the people to your left need to have some way of quickly summarizing why you don’t show up at the ministerial association meetings or support the big summer CCM festival. “Fundamentalist” is usually as good a term as any to communicate that.

So you don’t want to be grouped in to some kind of broad-based institutional constituency with organizational dues, politics and all that. Not going to argue with you on that here. But there is some sense where the term is going to be useful, and like it or not, where it is going to accurately apply to people like yourself and Kent to distinguish your from others. That’s all I’m saying.

Klengel said:

I do not divide the Scriptures into essentials (fundamentals) and non-essentials. Fundamentalism has put a limited amount of truth in a lockbox, as sacred truths which are sacrosanct, and other things are open to debate. I just don’t look that way at the Scriptures. I am not saying I fully understand everything in Scripture or that I have 100% of the right beliefs. I just don’t the fundamentals are enough. The Bible is what is enough for me. All of its content is fundamental to my faith.

I actually disagree pretty strongly with that statement. The point of the fundamentals is that there are certain core or fundamental truths that are so central to the gospel and saving faith that to deny them is to deny Biblical Christianity. Paul says if someone preaches another gospel let them be accursed. There are other aspects of Biblical truth that are either less clear or less vital to saving faith. Kent mentioned mode of baptism in his post, so I will use it as an illustration. I feel pretty strongly about immersion, but I wouldn’t say (nor do I think Paul would say) “let everyone who teaches sprinkling be accursed”.

Now, if I understand Kent B. rightly he says that he separates over more than the fundamentals, which so would I. But i think it is somewhat misguided for you to say Scripture never distinguishes between essentials and non-essentials, or that we shouldn’t do that. Most recognize that there are some truths that are less clear or less essential for saving faith. God in his good providence and wisdom ensured that the things necessary for saving faith and preserving the essence of Biblical Christianity are quite clear. Certainly all of the bible is vital for the faith (which is one of the fundamentals by the way), but not all of it is equally clear and not all of its truths are of equal importance (maybe equal consequence is a better way to put it).

I think Dr. Bauder has written quite articulately on this point, i just couldn’t find the exact place, maybe someone else could link it.

Ryan,

That distinction is at the heart of why Kent is rejecting the term Fundamentalist. Perhaps it’s worth discussing, but this is the key issue for them (and I don’t anticipate that the conversation will gain any headway on convincing them otherwise). There are also going to be disagreements on what constitutes fellowship (just talking isn’t fellowship of any sort). The question I have is does this create some new category or label for them, and if so, what is that? I would still tend to describe them generally in the Fundamentalist category, just with a much more exhaustive list of what they deem to be essential.