Observations About Those Who Are Still Here

Mark’s article and supportive comments from others makes me hopeful but after observing the FBFI for nearly 40 years I find it difficult. I’ve seen good young men express their concerns and get friendly pats on their heads from the elite and then never be heard from again. Meanwhile, when the time comes for new leadership, the choices are made behind closed doors by that same elite who always seem to pick one of their own.

A lead pastor recently asked my advice on choosing a new member for the church’s leadership team. I advised him to look for someone who had the best interest of the church at heart but might not see eye to eye with him on every issue and would be willing to push back.

[Steve Davis]

I do take exception to this:

“Third, an often repeated refrain was the concern for practical holiness, suspicion of worldliness, and the desire to please the Master. While we have intramural debates on what this looks like when it comes to specific applications, the fact that we have these struggles demonstrates this as a fundamentalist distinctive. While the “worship wars” have been a subject of debate (to some degree) in evangelicalism, on average they don’t appear as concerned about this area of spiritual discernment as we do.”

I’m not sure how much wiggle room “on average” provides. I spent years in fundamentalism. I’ve seen a lot. When it comes to practical holiness, worldliness and pleasing the Master, I think it’s ludicrous to blanket suggest this as a “fundamentalist distintive.” Maybe a mark of fundamentalism would be a better choice of words (which Don later uses). Claiming “practical holiness et al” as a “fundamentalist distinctive” is an insult to those outside that camp who are every bit as concerned for holiness and every bit aware of the struggles. It sounds like, well, “holier than thou.” Rather than claiming holiness and preeminence in pleasing the Master, the gospel call us to an awareness of our need of continual repentance and humility.

Perhaps you are right and “mark” would have been a better choice of words than “distinctive” (ie, as if we are the only ones). However, you do realize that different groups define holiness in different ways, do you not? When I speak of “practical holiness, suspicion of worldliness,” some evangelicals might agree with those words but when it comes to describing what they mean, we are miles apart.

I should clarify that I don’t see these views as distinctive of the FBFI alone but rather of fundamentalism as a movement. Within the group of individuals that self-identify as fundamentalists, these concerns mark them out from the evangelicals, by and large. I don’t think you will see many evangelicals making a case for music or dress or movies or other cultural trappings in the way that fundamentalists do. Within fundamentalism, there is some debate on specific applications, but there is a shared concern.

I will grant that some evangelicals are more concerned with some aspects of this than others, they might be seen as almost “fundamentalist-like” in these areas, but they also differentiate themselves from fundamentalists in clearly distinct ways. I don’t have a great deal of time or interest in fleshing this assertion out, but I think we should be able to agree that the way fundamentalists see these questions is different than the way most (if not all) evangelicals see these questions. Thus, there is a difference over “practical holiness, suspicion of worldliness.”

I wrote on SharperIron a few years ago that I was concerned that the FBFI would gradually succumb to the Hyles-Sword-KJVO right wing of fundamentalism eventually as the younger men in the movement fell away. I would hate to see that happen, and I really am concerned that whoever picks the new President of the FBFI - whenever that is - is going to be more beholden to that wing of Fundamentalism. (One such post is here and this is the other one that came to mind. You can’t say I’ve been inconsistent over the years!)

And if the FBFI does go that way, it would be a tragedy…but it would be one of their own making, which makes it so much worse. And I would grieve at that as well.

What you all are saying is quite predictable. You dredge up every possible slight you can find from the past and use it to attack the FBFI. Most of it, as far as I can tell, is from quite some time ago. Who, exactly, is living in the past?

My point in this article was to summarize certain traits that seemed to be repeated in all the articles in this particular issue. These are things the writers themselves mentioned as their reasons for remaining identified with fundamentalism. They may or may not be actually members of the FBFI, some of them are. But that is irrelevant, as I noted, one remark Mike Riley made is I think the key to the ethos of each one of us as fundamentalists. He said:

“I am a fundamentalist, but my loyalty to the idea of fundamentalism is greater than my loyalty to the institutions of fundamentalism.”

I think, bottom line, that is what all of us believe. There are certain ideas that we think are important for an obedient Christian testimony. We hold to those, if our institutions fail us in these areas, we are ready to go and found new ones if necessary.

Someone linked to past FBFI resolutions above. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with this one:

78. 01 REGARDING FUNDAMENTALISM (1978)

A fundamentalist is a genuine believer in the person, work and doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Regards the Bible, both Old and New Testaments as the verbally inspired, inerrant infallible Word of God.
2. Recognizes the Bible as the authoritative voice of God on all issues pertaining to life, including civil, social, and spiritual.
3. Endeavors to practice Biblical conduct in all areas of his life.
4. Believes in all the foundational truths of historic Christianity, including:
   a. The inspiration of the Bible.
   b. The virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ
   c. The deity of Christ.
   d. The bodily resurrection, ascension and literal return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
   e. Salvation by grace through faith and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
   f. The eternal destinies of heaven or hell.
   g .Man is a sinner by nature and by choice.
5. Earnestly contends for the faith, which includes a militant defense and proclamation of the faith and separation from all forms of heresy, apostasy, unbelief, and inclusivism.
6. Is compelled by love to expose error, within and without the household of faith.

That’s one of the best definitions of fundamentalism I’ve ever seen…and I bet you could attract a lot of younger men and women back with a statement like it.

Most of it, as far as I can tell, is from quite some time ago. Who, exactly, is living in the past?

Don, I don’t disagree with you. At the same time, your responses here seem defensive. If those things are the past and not indicative of the present, why not just disarm everyone with an acknowledgement of that and move on? It’s a lot harder to criticize BJU these days on the race issue… not impossible, but the rational critics are more or less satisfied with what has happened. Is there any reason the FBFI couldn’t do something similar with its own past?

I’m asking sincerely.

[Don Johnson]

I will grant that some evangelicals are more concerned with some aspects of this than others, they might be seen as almost “fundamentalist-like” in these areas, but they also differentiate themselves from fundamentalists in clearly distinct ways. I don’t have a great deal of time or interest in fleshing this assertion out, but I think we should be able to agree that the way fundamentalists see these questions is different than the way most (if not all) evangelicals see these questions. Thus, there is a difference over “practical holiness, suspicion of worldliness.”

This is interesting Don. As someone who has grown up in a fundamentalist home, my grandfather was an extreme fundamentalist pastor in the South back in the old days, I went to a fundamentalist college, helped start a fundamentalist church, and have now been outside of this circle, I have lived in both camps. One challenge with your statement, is that both fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals contain a spectrum of ranges. And as a result it is hard to nail down and define the true differences. Conservative evangelicals is a very broad spectrum, with many all over the place. But, at least within the circles that I have run in and the churches I have been a member of within the CE space, practical holiness is extremely important. I am fully aware that in many spots it is much looser. In fact there are quite a few more churches that fit into a more conservative space than most fundamentalist would probably realize. I would agree that even those who fit into this space do differentiate themselves from fundamentalist. Right or wrong, most would not view being more fundamentalist as being something they would strive for.

A typical example could be alcohol (just a caveat I don’t drink at all). If I were to mention that I drink in a fundamentalist church, I could at worse face church discipline and at best be ostracized. There is very little effort to figure out how to deal with the situation, but still live a holy life. Within the CE circles that I have been a member of and have fellowship with they would view that approach as not looking to the Bible to develop a model of holiness, but just develop a man made rule. None of the CE churches that I have been a member in, has the teaching elder or the pastor drank. They choose not to, to avoid offending a weaker brother. In terms of church members a few have drank, but are extremely deferential to those members who do not drink and choose not to drink when in the company of those who do not. They also recognize it as something that needs to be controlled, just as many other daily practices. In all instances, someone who drank in excess, would be church disciplined. They would view this approach as being aligned with Scripture and would be extremely careful in their offense of a weaker brother. They would view fundamentalist as putting a man made rule in place of Scripture.

I know this is a simple example, that we have all hashed to death here on this forum. And I am extremely sympathetic to the fundamentalist position here and I would lean toward the fundamentalist side for my personal practice. I guess you can say I am broad stroking this, but I have been a member or have attended for quite some time churches that have been the foundation of the FBFI, and I have sat in on these discussions as a leader in both fundamentalist churches and CE churches. So I say all of that to say that I agree with you, there are distinctions, there are many in the CE circles that are well outside a fundamentalist realm in terms of practical holiness. But don’t quickly brush off all of CE in practical holiness. There are a lot more there, than we often give credit to, where practical holiness is extremely important, and much thought, prayer and study goes into the right way to practice holiness.

I think we are saying essentially the same thing. I recognize that some evangelicals are close to fundamentalists with respect to holiness issues, but even in the example you cite, there is that subtle difference in philosophy and approach. They both may end up looking pretty close to the same applicationally, but how they get there defines the difference.

[Greg Linscott]

Most of it, as far as I can tell, is from quite some time ago. Who, exactly, is living in the past?

Don, I don’t disagree with you. At the same time, your responses here seem defensive. If those things are the past and not indicative of the present, why not just disarm everyone with an acknowledgement of that and move on? It’s a lot harder to criticize BJU these days on the race issue… not impossible, but the rational critics are more or less satisfied with what has happened. Is there any reason the FBFI couldn’t do something similar with its own past?

I’m asking sincerely.

I suppose it is impossible to not sound defensive when you are under attack. You try it sometime!

what specifically do you have in mind? I, for one, don’t believe in institutional apologies. Let the whiners whine. If an institution is really so bad and do besmirched, best to tear it down and start over. I don’t see it in this case

[josh p]

Don, has the FBFI made any resolutions on any of the current problems on justification? Not being a reformed organization they are not likely to encounter a lot of it. Just curious. I guess Finney’s justification problems would be a little closer to home in IFB circles.

I will have to check, I don’t recall our more recent statements. Our theme this summer is Whosoever Will, I think we have a position statement on the doctrine of salvation coming out, but it is more a positive statement of what we believe rather than a specific repudiation of errant views if I recall correctly.

Just a note, the correct term is Position Statements now. We changed from Resolutions because we wanted it to be clear we are giving a statement of what we as a board believe rather than issuing a resolution calling on others to conform. I think the Southern Baptists, for example, still do resolutions.

[Don Johnson]

what specifically do you have in mind? I, for one, don’t believe in institutional apologies. Let the whiners whine. If an institution is really so bad and do besmirched, best to tear it down and start over. I don’t see it in this case

If not an “institutional apology,” why not something like what Riley wrote a few years ago for Frontline: “On the Ministry of John Piper”? You could be generally complementary and acknowledge the valuable contributions made by MacArthur, while briefly acknowledging some methodological and application differences. You came pretty close in reviewing Strange Fire on P&D. Just one idea.
I’m not so sure I agree with your last sentence, though. There are times for reform, times for repair, times to attempt to smooth over and rebuild damage from the past, try to regain trust.