Kent Brandenburg: "I'm not a fundamentalist"

KLengel objects to the apparently disparaging term “hyper-fundamentalist.” I can see that. At the same time, my friend, do you understand in any sense any kind of potential charitable reason that someone might choose to use that for someone like yourself or Kent? Fundamentalists, to be quick and dirty, unite and separate over issues related first to the principles deemed to be fundamental to the Gospel, and yet have more specific principles that distinguish closer levels of fellowship (church associations, church fellowship, church leadership…). Again, to be quick and dirty, you and Kent separate and unite with a much more exhaustive list, and there is no recognition of any levels- it’s basically all-or-nothing. That seems to be the same generally separatist mindset present, only your list is “over and above” the gospel list- a classic employ of the “hyper-” prefix. You have already insisted you are not Fundamentalist. At the same time, “Biblical Baptist” doesn’t really cut it (how many Baptists would say, “yeah, you’re right, we’re not as Biblical as you”?). If you’re going to insist you’re not like “us” (and that is something we should all be able to agree on in this case), then until some better term catches on, you’ll be lumped in with Fundies by some, and will be referred to as “hyper-” by others- all in an effort by people to distinguish themselves from you, which is something you yourselves want to do, for that matter. But is there a better solution? I’d love to hear it.

–––

To the rest- the bottom line is they don’t want to be Fundamentalists, and as someone who is still very comfortable identifying as one in most settings, I am okay with that- because I don’t draw all the same conclusions, and I am admittedly very interested in having limited fellowship (talking and active partnerships) with those whom I have some doctrinal and practical incongruity with. I don’t think we should seek to offend these men intentionally, and if they reject the “hyper-” term, we should ask if there is some way we could better refer to them (sometimes people have used the term “Big ‘B’ Baptist”- that’s probably not precise enough, either…). But at this point, I don’t know how much more benefit there will be to attempting to persuade them of the validity of a position they want no part of, and to have a relationship with people like us that they clearly want to separate themselves from in tangible ways.

dmyers,

My education remark was referring to a characteristic attributed to hyper-fundamentalists that they are uneducated. Obviously, your education only allows you to argue against typos, yet cannot even recognize your own use of innuendos. Over-sensitive? Not likely. I just call them like I see them. And for the record, I have not done any name calling so you need to read thru what I wrote again. Perhaps a second look will make you recognize your mistake.

KML

Ken,

It’s obvious your dander is up. That’s fine, we have all been there many times. I don’t think anyone truly minds your passionate disagreement over this topic. If I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of others, I think the thing that is most troublesome is when someone wades into a conversation with passionate disagreement but refuses to answer questions that are posed. Then it ceases to be a conversation and ends up just being a diatribe. No one listens when the conversation is one -sided. JD just posed the most recent question that has so far gone unanswered. I will repost it here in honest hopes that you desire to sharpen and be sharpened through conversation rather than simply wanting to dull everything around you by beating on it.

JD MIller wrote: KLengel, I may have missed it as I was reading through the posts, but I was curious as to how you would define Baptist as you use it to describe yourself and how that would differ from others who call themselves Baptists. (If you are not a Baptist, please forgive me for assuming you were, I just wanted a bit of clarification as I contemplated your positions). Thank you.

Chip,

I did not refuse to answer anyone’s questions. I saw late last evening that I did not respond back to JD yet, (I originally missed his question about being a baptist) but I had other things to take care of late last evening, that took greater precedent.

Ken

JD,

My apologies for not seeing this post the first time. I did see it late last evening before Chip reminded me as well.

So what does being a Baptist have anything to do with being a fundamentalist? I simply do not believe the Bible describes certain doctrines to be essential and others to be non-essential. I also believe from history and from reading The Fundamentals, that this was not the founding reasons for fundamentalism either. I would like to hear from someone on what Scripture discusses essentials? or for that matter, what Scripture defines as non-essentials? If we want to talk about why I am not a fundamentalist, let’s discuss the real crux of the issue. Where does the Scripture define what is essential? And essential to what? and the same for non-essentials. I think this description of essentials vs. non-essentials is a recent development and I would like to see some proof from Scripture that it is so. I am willing to learn, but I want to discuss the passages that support such a view. Again, sorry for taking so long to respond.

KML

My observation about the “True Fundamentalist”:

• The entire label is unanchored - it is elastic and floats with time and individual
• From the perspective of the “True Fundamentalist”, he’s in the center (image below)
• Everyone whom he deems to be a fundamentalist to his right is “Hyper”
• Everyone whom he deems to be a fundamentalist to his left is [pick a label] “no-so”

[KLengel]

JD,

My apologies for not seeing this post the first time. I did see it late last evening before Chip reminded me as well.

So what does being a Baptist have anything to do with being a fundamentalist?

Ken:

When I say, “I’m a fundamentalist,” I am using it in the original sense of the word and what it meant in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. That is, there are certain basic fundamental doctrines that define theological orthodoxy - lines which cannot be moved. These are the bare minimum, the bare essentials that define the Christian faith. Therefore, when I say, “I’m a fundamentalist,” I am speaking in terms of orthodoxy vs. theological liberalism. I don’t mean in terms of fundamentalists vs. evangelicals. I mean in terms of orthodoxy vs. heresy.

I’m not sure if I’m in the minority in this perspective or not. It’s just what I mean when I claim the label “fundamentalist.” I am saying:

1. There are certain non-negotiable lines in the sand which define and characterize the Christian faith (e.g. inerrancy of Scripture, virgin birth of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection of Christ, authenticity of Biblical miracles).
2. These lines must be defended against theological liberalism - and we ought to be militant about it

To re-state, fundamentalism is not about:

1. Being Baptist
2. Being dispensational
3. Being a pre-millennialist
4. The KJV Bible
5. Neo-evangelicals
6. John MacArthur
7. Anything else

It is merely a particular philosophy of ministry, not a denomination or a sect. It crosses denominational lines and unites around the idea that orthodoxy can be defined, that the rule of faith does indeed exist, and that these fundamentals must be defended. The rise of so-called “gay Christianity” is an appropriate example of a threat that needs a defense, because to advocate for this position fundamentally impugns the work of Christ.

That is why I say I am a fundamentalist.

I take it that for KLengel and Brandenburg, there is no such thing as “mere Christianity”?

Kevin,

The topic of this thread is fundamentalism and I would be glad to discuss Baptist Distinctives and Baptist History in another thread.

Thanks,

Ken

[KLengel]

Kevin,

The topic of this thread is fundamentalism and I would be glad to discuss Baptist Distinctives and Baptist History in another thread.

Thanks,

Ken

This would be an appropriate thread The Logic of Brapsis

[KLengel]

Kevin,

The topic of this thread is fundamentalism and I would be glad to discuss Baptist Distinctives and Baptist History in another thread.

Thanks,

Ken

Fundamentalism does not have a doctrinal creed or statement of faith. The term is elastic and has morphed over time.

“Baptist”: Something to which I subscribe. Has:

• The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
• New Hampshire Confession of Faith
• Et Cetera

These (obviously) predate the Fundamentalist movement

Let’s talk fundamentalism. Am I in the minority when I describe fundamentalism that way I did, above?

Nope

[TylerR]

Let’s talk fundamentalism. Am I in the minority when I describe fundamentalism that way I did, above?