The Great Evangelical Mea Culpa

….is that while perhaps the specific stands have changed, there are often specific things in our fundamentalist “corporate culture” that could make a huge difference for us. In quality engineering, the proverb is that corporate culture eats corporate initiatives for lunch, and then of course there is the old dictum “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”. No?

Other ways of describing the matter are Deming’s proverb “your system is perfectly designed to give you exactly the results you’re getting.” So if we see, for example, publications making vague accusations like “sidling” up to movements, guilt by association arguments, strong suspicion of any change, and the like, we might wonder whether the system purposefully or inadvertently rewards them, and why.

Now perhaps I’m not old enough in fundamentalism to know really well, but I’d suspect that a great part of the deal is simply that fundamentalism is a reaction, as it were, to the innovation of theological liberalism—and hence we tend to resist change, and we’ve drug in a whole bunch of Victorian/Edwardian mores into our “body of knowledge” as it were without even quite realizing what we were doing. (I’d even argue that accidentally, we drug in some things that were part of the agenda of theological liberals) We also had our birth in the early/middle industrial era where the company president often acted more or less as a benevolent dictator.

Start at that point, and view academia and change as inherently suspect, and is it any surprise what we read about in histories of fundamentalism? The question is, IMO, how we extract the doctrine of separation so it becomes merely a way that we separate based on the fundamentals, and not on the other issues we’ve dragged in, and how we resurrect academic work in our movement.

​Responding to some of the comments that TylerR made above regarding shallow doctrine and shallow training:

One of the things that Fundamentalism has done well is to articulate its positions on a far reaching range of doctrinal issues. Christians who are serious about the studying the Word of God should come to conclusions about the many points of faith and practice of which the Bible speaks. Compare the typical doctrinal statements of a typical Fundamental church vs. a typical Evangelical church (yes, there is a stereotype here), and you will find that the typical Evangelical church has a few paragraph doctrinal statement, and the Fundamental church has a multi-page one. The Fundamental church will go way beyond the gospel and have very specific position and practice statements for the Lord’s Day, ordinances, human sexuality, creation, eschatology, etc. Fundamentalists believe that the Bible can be interpreted simply and literally, and that doctrine is a result of that type of hermeneutic process.

So far, so good.

But there is one downside to this, and I believe it’s a big one. Subtly, over a period of several generations, a shift in how Fundamentalists perceive the Word of God and doctrine have become suspect. I’d like to lay out the case that we have let our doctrinal statements become the standard of truth, and use the Bible as evidence of that truth. In other words, many in Fundamentalism will view critical thinking of the Bible as outright dangerous and and unnecessary because we already have a gold standard for truth. I believe that this proclivity has led to the shallowness of teaching and training of which TylerR has spoken. The discussions that we have been having regarding the symbolism of baptism in a recent post are not encouraged in many fundamental churches and schools. It might upset what we think we know, and that’s very disconcerting.

When students are not encouraged to critically examine Biblical text, they lose objectivity when studying Scripture, and wrote memorization and recitation kicks in. Fundamentalists must not become Catholics in the sense it allows the Biblical analysis that men have performed (doctrine) supersede the authority of Scripture.

We need a humbling and repentance from any whisper of this attitude or risk becoming theologically corrupt.

I’d love to see us try to answer Dr. McCune’s question……..indeed…..who were the militant evangelicals twenty or thirty years ago……who were clearly in the evangelical camp…….clearly not in the fundamentalist camp……and yet were the “white hats,” fundamenatalism should have listened to, appreciated, be willing to have some level of dialog?

It’s my theory that it wasn’t until the Battle of the Bible and the SBC’s massive fight with the liberals….coinciding with MacArthur and guys like him in the late 70’s…early 80’s were men like Schaffer (and others) began to recover and articulate an anti-eccuminical evangelicalism vis-a-vis Billy Grahama’s version of evangelicalism. Dr. McCune….many IFCA leaders saw friends at Dallas Seminary who were dispensational and anti-ecuminical in the 70’s….and early 80’s.

Just Joel’s view here……I would say much of the fights that took place from the 50’s to late 70’s between fundamentalism in the main and newevangelicalism in the mane….. were mostly ….legitimate……even necessary! Especially the issues over doctrine….and an eccuminical gospel fight is a legitimate fight over the nature of justification. When we turned our separation and militancy on each other we undermined our credibility (BBF vs. Itself vs. FBF vs. NTB vs. GARBC vs. IFCA vs. OBF vs. etc…..). Everybody was separating from everybody……how lovely.

Of course what young fundamentalists forget is there was as much angst and hatred from newevangelicals to fundamentalists than there were from fundamentalists to evangelicals. Of course these were also the days when fundamentalists hated other fundamentalists. I think Dr. McCune saw some of that in Minnesota….. As a type B fundamentalist I’d say the Minnesota wars between the leaders that we know of…….was not really one of our finest moments…….of course I wasn’t there yet……

As always…..Thx Dr. McCune for sharing your thoughts…..please don’t stop…….where you think we younger ones are being unfair historically, even if you think we disagree with you, please share……please…….Don’t be afraid to “bring it!”

Straight Ahead!

jt

I think Dr. Talbert does an excellent job with this piece, and I think that, in reality, the emphasis on the ‘fundamental’ to ‘evangelical’ divide is visible with this paragraph:

So I do not condemn penetration by evangelicals any more than I condemn separation by fundamentalists. Separation was necessary to save the gospel against the inroads of modernism, I think; and penetration has been necessary to save the gospel from irrelevance and a seclusion that threatened to keep it from being heard in the world at large.

I started out attending a church pastored by FBFI men, then switched to an IFCA church, and now have moved to a Conservative Baptist church. I have watched that strategy of ‘penetration’ and ‘separation’ for a while now, and I am convinced that the difference between our brethren isn’t as much a matter of separation per se as it is a matter of timing. For whatever reasons, the strongly ‘fundamentalist’ camps (thinking of primarily the FBFI here) are much, much faster to draw the sword of ‘militant orthodoxy’ than evangelicals, who are just as serious in their commitment to the overall unity of the Body of Christ (cf. John 17, Eph. 2). Evangelicals, I think, haven’t developed the systematic reason for separation because they generally want to work issues out and remain united. Fundamentalists are generally (and I think rightly) more prepared to say ‘this is so dysfunctional that I can’t remain or participate in it’. I see the advantages of both approaches, but I also haven’t been through the new evangelical battles of the ‘50’s-’70s, either, so my view is different from many. Dr. Talbert touches on that when he writes:

Fundamentalism has historically championed a militant orthodoxy wedded to personal orthopraxy. Jude 3 has long been its corporate life verse.

Having watched the Religious Right / Fundamentalist discussions since 2005(ish), it is my opinion that a sliver of ‘fundamentalism’ (as I have seen it, although not nearly as much on SI as elsewhere) is absolutely dominated by the cultural fundamentalism (Hyles / FBCH) and, more recently, that some sections of ‘fundamentalism’ are more akin to what Russell Moore described as ‘southern honor culture’ in Erasmus lecture for First Things this week than they are actual, true, Biblical fundamentalism. That is a serious problem as well that needs to be addressed.

Phil Johnson commented on this in his Dead Right presentation at Shepherds’ Conference in 2009:

In fact, let me say this: From the title of the seminar, those of you who don’t know me might assume that I am someone who is hostile to the principles of fundamentalism. That is not the case. In the historic and classical sense of the word, I am a fundamentalist. I have never really been a member of the fundamentalist movement, but I have always had an interest in the movement and a deep sympathy for the true principles of historic fundamentalism. Here’s what I mean by that: I believe wholeheartedly in the authority and the inerrancy of Scripture. I’m quite willing to be militant in defense of the gospel. In fact, I believe as Christians we have a duty to contend earnestly for the faith whenever vital gospel truths are threatened. I recognize that there is a core of truth that is absolutely essential to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and when someone’s teaching deliberately rejects or fatally compromises any of those essential truths, true Christian fellowship is impossible (and seeking spiritual fellowship with such people is absolutely out of the question). I am not willing to pretend that someone who rejects the essentials of the gospel is my brother or sister in Christ, and I would not knowingly align myself in ministry or Christian fellowship with such a person in the name of Christian unity….

In fact, by the 1970s, American fundamentalism had already ceased to be a theological movement and had morphed into a cultural phenomenon—a bizarre and ingrown subculture all its own, whose public face more often than not seemed overtly hostile to everyone outside its boundaries. Frankly, I thought that sort of fundamentalism deserved to die.* And I knew it eventually would, because the most prominent hallmark of the visible fundamentalist movement was that its leaders loved to fight so much that they would bite and devour one another and proliferate controversies—even among 4 themselves—over issues that no one could ever rationally argue were essential to the truth of the gospel.

My question, which I have posed on SharperIron before, is what is it going to take for Fundamentalism to disown it’s half-bred stepchildren and stand for the gospel when there is sin in ‘our’ own camp? I’ve seen and heard and read a lot about evangelicalism’s issues - when will be clean up our own messes? Are we willing to say, “No, ‘brother’ Hyles (to pick a name), you are not a Fundamentalist. Don’t say that you are, because your life doesn’t manifest the fruit of godly living that is described in John 13:35, Gal. 5:22-23, etc.” I realize Hyles is the easiest to target, but there are a few other names that I think we could all agree on fairly easily.

So far, I’m not impressed with the responses I have seen. But there are some who are trying to fix it, and I’ll support that until the end.

* This section in particular reminded me of TylerR’s post from the Convergent thread the other day.

[TylerR]

In regards to the past, I have nothing to say which Bro. Golden (above) hasn’t already written.

Regarding the present, I think fundamentalism can do better than simply attack conservative evangelicals repeatedly and publish articles admonishing the choir to “hold the line” against the usual array of “compromising” positions. We’re spinning our wheels. Bro. Dan “Tommy Gun” Unruh and Co represent a spectrum of fundamentalism which is obsessed with defense against the wrong targets, rather than offense against liberalism and apostasy.

Consider this - who is writing and defending the Bible’s teaching on:

• human sexuality?
• gender?
• inerrancy of Scripture?
• the Trinity?
• absolute truth?
• Christology?
• the canon of Scripture?
• the doctrine of the Holy Spirit?
• etc, etc, etc?

It is not fundamentalists - some of them are still arguing about Steve Green and reloading their Tommy guns. It is MacArthur, Mohler, DeYoung, James White, Michael Kruger, et al. In this respect, these men are more “fundamental” than “Tommy Gun” Unruh is. Much more. That is why younger fundamentalists see some real common cause to be made with these men. That is what is wrong with large swatches of fundamentalism. Many of its leaders are either unwilling or frankly not well educated enough to engage these issues in a comprehensive way for their congregations and the Christian community at large.

A few passages from the article linked to below (but I’d encourage reading the entire article):

”Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.”

… … . .

“We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

“If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.”

… … . .

“Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.”

http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/279-lets-get-clear-on-this

Speaking as someone who was a teenager in a fundamental church in the 70’s, I wouldn’t say that it’s mostly that fundamentalists of the time got everything wrong (though I would certainly argue that the views on things like e.g. interracial dating/marriage and music were much more based on preferences and tradition than on any kind of serious scriptural exegesis, and that dovetails with where I’ll go with this). From what I saw, the problem with fundamentalism at the time was that we spent no time really learning how to know why we believed what we did, and passing on the “why” and the desire to make it our own rather than just doing what we’d been taught and passing that same practice on to the following generations. The battles were seen as having already been fought in the past, so we didn’t need to revisit them, and all we needed to do was to continue soldiering on. Maybe that analogy is not too far off, either. Those of us in the pews were seen more as soldiers who needed to “hold the line,” while those above had the knowledge and controlled the strategy. In no way was it like the Catholics, but it certainly seemed to me that the whole “search the scriptures whether these things are so” and applying it to what we were told from the pulpit (not just from outside the church) was definitely discouraged.

I don’t believe all the “big men” of the time or even the generation previous were only interested in their own power and legacies — I think many of them were just trying to pass on the truth and protect their flocks. However, what was originally the applications of truths learned in days past was now seen as having more-or-less equivalent authority as scripture because it had been concluded by godly men of the past. We then tended to pass on those applications as the actual scriptural truths, at the same time not spending enough time teaching the current and next generations how to take the scriptures and apply them ourselves. Maybe that was oversight, or maybe it was fear that we wouldn’t come to exactly the same conclusions as those who came before, so instead of learning to apply the scriptural principles, the conclusions and applications were taught instead. I believe it was this mindset and shortsightedness which gave rise to what we now sometimes refer to as “cultural fundamentalism.”

It was actually a relatively big shock to me coming from a fundamental Methodist church, and attending a college that had been started by a Methodist to find that better than 90% of the students were not only Baptist, but disagreed with things I had been taught. I found myself having to defend my beliefs and realizing that although I knew what I believed, I really didn’t know why and wasn’t prepared to answer probing questions about it. And I was not alone in this — I met many others in college who knew just as little of the “why” behind their beliefs as I did with mine.

Similar to Greg, I can very much respect the men from that time period for their desire and fight to stand firm on Bible truth without either wanting fundamentalism to be the same as it was in the 50’s or teaching my children in the same way many of us were taught. Fundamentalism should welcome probing questions asked in the right spirit, and its leaders should be prepared to spend the time and effort necessary to pass on the skills to read and apply the scriptures to the issues seen today without condescendingly telling the next generation that those battles have already been fought and that we should just take others’ conclusions without wrestling with these things ourselves. We won’t learn as well without that struggle.

Edit: Looks like I spent too long composing this — several others have posted similar thoughts above. It’s not that I can’t read, honest! :)

“49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:49 - 50 ESV)

Conservative Evangelicals are not Fundamentalism’s enemies, or opponents–they are allies, and co-laborers.

The purging of apostasy from Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville was a tremendous event that I didn’t hear about until years after it happened. I was deeply involved in ultra conservative fundamentalism where the SBC and especially its seminaries were considered apostate. At that time a good fundamentalist friend of mine told me that he was planning on pursuing a doctoral program in Louisville and I was stunned that he would go to such a place, even though he told me Mohler wanted more people like him to come to Southern. At the time I saw “separation”as the only response to a case like Southern’s.

Today I regularly encounter fundamentalists who have never heard the story of Mohler and Southern and of what has gone on in the SBC. I’d like to think that somewhere in an old copy of Frontline there may be a few sentences complimentary of this event.

[Jay]

My question, which I have posed on SharperIron before, is what is it going to take for Fundamentalism to disown it’s half-bred stepchildren and stand for the gospel when there is sin in ‘our’ own camp? I’ve seen and heard and read a lot about evangelicalism’s issues - when will be clean up our own messes? Are we willing to say, “No, ‘brother’ Hyles (to pick a name), you are not a Fundamentalist. Don’t say that you are, because your life doesn’t manifest the fruit of godly living that is described in John 13:35, Gal. 5:22-23, etc.” I realize Hyles is the easiest to target, but there are a few other names that I think we could all agree on fairly easily.

Jay’s got a great point there. I am personally—nobody will be surprised if they know me well—convinced that at times, I do need to say that some people who view themselves as “fundamental” in doctrine need to be told why they’re not. Here’s a bit from Kevin Bauder in 2010 where he effectively says that the hyperfundamental, KJVO wing of the church is denying the 1st Fundamental. Which is, for what it’s worth, the criticism I’d level at Hyles—not the hidden door to his secretary’s office, but his approach to the Bible. And I might even hesitate to call him “brother”; I sure wouldn’t call him “pastor” if he were still on this side of Jordan. Really, when we separate, isn’t that what we’re saying—that the person is probably NOT a brother (sister) in Christ?

We don’t need to abandon separation. We need to understand it and apply it properly.

[Rolland McCune]

Greg,

Pleasant greetings to you and the good people in Marshall. I have many fond memories of preaching there and having fellowship in different homes.

Greg, unless I missed something quite obvious, I can’t imagine what you mean by the last sentence, and the multitude of references and/or inferences in the previous posts. If you are speaking personally, it is encouraging to those of us longer in the tooth. But I confess to not hearing the same in these present blogs and many like them over the past few years.

We have been fortunate here in Marshall to be the only church in town with “Baptist” in our name. That opened the door for our friend to come looking for us now 6-7 years ago. I am working with a 2017 HS graduate now as she applies to be the first Karen student to enroll at Faith Baptist Bible College in Ankeny next fall. The trip I mentioned is being put together as an attempt to establish and strengthen relationships between Karen church leaders (who have expressed a desire to connect with more Biblically-grounded Baptist congregations and leaders) and churches and institutions in “our circles.”
From where they sit, if they were bound by history, they would be in a far less desirable place than where we are trying to lead them. We are trying to show them that things are not they same today as they were in the days of Judson, Boardman, and so on.
In a similar way, one of the reasons we have what we do today—some considering what is being called “Convergence”—is precisely because our Fundamentalist forbears were right to see and identify the error that they did in the past. The reality is, faced with the matters of liberal theology and Ecumenical Evangelism that previous generations faced, I would separate right along with those who came before me.
But one of the reasons there are what appear to be a change in demeanor and relationships is because those who have inherited and followed the Evangelicals have seen the problems our forbears also saw, and moved to purge that error from out of their ranks. In many cases, they have had great success at it, too. Another reality is that there are those now in the “Conservative Evangelical” side who are descended from those with whom some of our Baptist Fundamentalist forbears would have enjoyed broader fellowship with in organizations such as the ACCC, institutions like Bob Jones University (I’ve had people tell me about the SS classes that used to meet there on Sundays after the campus worship service that would be divided up by the various denominational groups), and so on. It’s not just the “Conservative Evangelicals” or “Convergents” that have changed. Fundamentalists, for better or worse, tend to be more isolated than they once were, and place less priority on broader fellowship than they did in the past. Controversies over translations and “worship wars” have not helped, either.
I won’t pretend to know exactly who should have been listened to in the past… though it does seem to me that there were people on the Evangelical side who were respected and given a hearing to one degree or another in my youth by the leaders of the day. People like Francis Schaeffer seemed to have some things to say that thoughtful Fundamentalists appreciated. Jay Adams or D. James Kennedy came up with ideas and approaches to ministry that many Fundamentalists used without surrendering their distinctive beliefs. I’m sure there are others that could be raised.
I can understand that not everyone is going to agree with decisions being made by today’s leaders. I would just observe that whether you can affirm every decision or not, please know that not every decision is a statement of rejection and discarding of the past and its principles. Many are trying to figure out how to be consistent in applying those same guiding principles to a landscape far different than the ground our forbears walked around.

Where is the “like” button for Philip Golden Jr’s comments?

[Pastor Joe Roof]

Where is the “like” button for Philip Golden Jr’s comments?

Umm…

The like button- I think I have used the like button more on this this thread than any other I have read. I am really encouraged by the thoughtful responses.

Yes, things have changed. I am surprised that of all the churches in the Sioux Falls area, one of the most fundamental (in practice, not in association) is a North American Baptist Church in Hartford, SD. The pastors there have been upset about the Baptist Seminary in Sioux Falls because it has gone liberal. The leaders of this church are contending for the faith and I am so glad to be able to fellowship with them.

There has been a revival in our nation and many fundamentalists have not even noticed it. We can mention names like Mohler, McArthar, Dever, etal, but there are also unknown saints across this nation who are seeing the importance of standing for the word of God without compromise. For too long fundamentalism looked at the Finny model of revival of walking an isle and making a decision rather than the Biblical model of revival of changing course and following God’s word. Many conservative evangelicals have been following the real Biblical model of revival. Let us praise God for that and encouraged them in their faithfulness.

I think the message is getting through.

The conservative evangelicals with whom many are “converging” are our friends. It is wrong to compare them to the neo-evangelicals who co-operated with religious liberalism. They are our brothers while not being our twins. We are in this thing together and we can learn from each other.

If we need to separate from someone maybe we need to consider the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, the “physical blood of Jesus in heaven” group, or the inspired, inerrant KJV crowd.