Observations About Those Who Are Still Here

I haven’t read the resolutions, like you have, Bert! But, it strikes me these resolutions have amazing historical value. They chart a fundamentalist position on various issues, going back nearly 40 years! If somebody is ever doing some research about what issues were particularly “hot” at a given time, and how fundamentalists generally responded to these issues, the FBFI resolutions are one good place to go!

For example, I was interested to learn that the term “pseudo-fundamentalist” is not a new one. In resolution 78.04 (June 1978), we read:

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship deplores the movement known as pseudo- fundamentalism; defines pseudo-fundamentalism as a movement that violates the doctrine of Scriptural separation; sees pseudo-fundamentalism as new evangelicalism in embryonic form; believes that pseudo-fundamentalism is destructive of true Biblical fundamentalism; calls upon all local Bible believing churches to reject such pseudo-fundamental activities as those of the Jerry Falwell ministries.

The king did not listen to the people, because this turn of events came from the Lord to carry out his word…When all Israel saw that the king had not listened to them, the people answered him:

What portion do we have in David?
We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse.
Israel, return to your tents;
David, now look after your own house!

So Israel went to their tents, but Rehoboam reigned over the Israelites living in the cities of Judah.

-1 Kings 12:15-17, CSB

OPINIONS ad infinitum

I’m at sea with certain aspects of this thread. I see about three intertwining currents here. One is by Jim who is terribly burdened about the “absolutely laughable” and “without any “nuance of thought” FBFI resolutions regarding John MacArthur in 1985 and 1995. And there was the “clearly fueled by a deceitful malevalence” and the “YOU COMPROMISED” accusation when the FBFI rejected as “heresy” MacArthur’s position on the moral worth of the corpuscles, plasma, etc., of Christ’s physical blood. You also made a clear call that “now is the time for a FBFI resolution that really recognizes the contributions of John MacArthur.” Others were concerned about what was said negatively about John Piper and his connections; also inferentially about Charles Swindoll.

Another strand in the thread is by Greg Linscott, who is a voice of moderation, time, patience, and clear-headed evaluation/critique of the resolution/position issue. I sense clearly that His advice is to avoid a rush-to-judgment handling of biblical and historical controversies in hopes of preserving what remains. More than once he senses the need to repeat that obvious point. Is anyone listening??

And of course there is Don Johnson trying to be a gracious and kind defender of the gates of fundamentalism in general and the FBFI in particular. I resonate with his frustrations and grief over the arrows, mud, spitballs and the like from a few, but also sense he sizes up the personages and the whole situation—pro and con—rather well. He obviously also wants to move forward in the current impasse if there is a valid path.

I hope the putative gap between the FBFI’s “position” and “resolution” has been freed of innuendo and other unusual complaints, and rest in peace. I trust the “opinion” controversy has met its demise. It surely cannot survive Don’s explanations, especially the (“tiresome”) coup de grace that it deserved. I agree that institutions cannot simply “walk back” 38 year old resolutions.

…then what is being said is that we all ought to ignore FBFI and its resolutions completely, then.

Alrighty, then.

But let’s be serious here; it is really disturbing to see Mr. McCune’s endorsement of Don’s slander—and sorry, Don and Rolland, but that is exactly what it is. If I have a “compulsion to post in every thread”, please explain the threads on SI that have no comments from anyone. If indeed I “know nothing” about the matter, please explain how I noted the general tone of the document a few days ago.

Regarding the list, the things that are objectionable to me in the document go far beyond the reckless statements accusing Piper and MacArthur of being neo-evangelicals. You’ve got guilt by association (sinful) arguments about music, and in one resolution, the use of beverage alcohol is described as a sin on a par with fornication and adultery as being “practiced without shame in the body of Christ.”

If only Jesus had known about this before the miracle at Cana, eh? And to be blunt about the matter, if adultery and fornication are being practiced without shame at evangelical churches, that comes as something of a surprise to the pastors who counsel those caught in it.

Really, the question that comes to mind for me is whether most FBFI members can even recognize what they’re doing anymore. If one cannot recognize that statements are (a) an ad hominem attack and (b) slanderous to boot, that would seem to confirm Ockenga’s critique of many fundamentalists, as well as Maclachlan’s note in Recovering Authentic Fundamentalism about the term too often referring to a lot of fun, a lot of duh, but not much mental about it.

Well, I think that clears up any illusions as to whether or not the FBFI consists of “a Fundamentalism worth saving”. It isn’t.

We also, I think, have an answer as to how Dr. Ward’s issue was received by the rulers of the Foundations Baptist Fellowship.

Bert, time to turn the other cheek (cf Matthew 5:38-48) and move forward. It’s time to separate and move on.

Having observed the recent back and forth in this queue, I’ll share one more half-cent thought of my own and sign out. The FBFI cause is much broader than one Sharper Iron conversation string of 6-8 men. Time will tell what steps the FBFI takes into the future.

[Jay]

Well, I think that clears up any illusions as to whether or not the FBFI consists of “a Fundamentalism worth saving”. It isn’t.

We also, I think, have an answer as to how Dr. Ward’s issue was received by the rulers of the Foundations Baptist Fellowship.

Bert, time to turn the other cheek (cf Matthew 5:38-48) and move forward. It’s time to separate and move on.

Jay,

Not sure what prompted this post, for one.

Second, or B… :) What are you basing the FBFI assessment of MLWj on?

C, or iii… What do you mean by ” It’s time to separate and move on”? What dopes that look like for you? Leaving your church? Actively warning against? Refusing to converse with anyone who is an FBFI member or is known to associate with them?

I’ve thought a lot about what my relationship with the FBFI is and should be since this thread kicked off a few days ago, so I’m not ‘flying off the handle’ on this.
1. The exchange between Don and Bert, for starters. Some of what Dr. McCune said as well.

2. I actually know Mark from our time together at BJU - we worked together in the Library. He’s a good guy, and I really like him although we haven’t been in real touch for years. I had put a message on his Facebook wall congratulating him on the Frontline when it came out, and I told him it was one of the best things I’ve read there in years. I have no issue with Mark at all; it’s not about him (or the other writers) in any way. I had been planning on rejoining and subscribing just to get Mark’s issue; I really wanted to see what Dr. Ward and the rest of the writers had said in the magazine. That desire is gone now.

3. It means I’m done spending time and energy trying to defend the FBFI in any format, and I am certainly not going to promote it to friends and acquaintances. Most of the people in my church aren’t aware of the FBFI because they don’t run in ‘Baptist Fundamentalism’ even though we’re Baptist Evangelicals, and I had hoped to tell some of them about it to see about attracting some more members, but at this point I’m done. I’ve seen enough at this point, and it’s long past time I cut the ties anyway.

I’ll stay in touch with whomever I know in the FBFI - making plans to meet up with a local FBFI guy soon, actually, and I only know maybe two or three guys in it - but I’m not going to give the organization any publicity or endorsement at all. It’s not about the people in the FBFI; it’s about the organization itself.

It’s like Christian Bale said in Batman Begins: “I don’t have to kill you, but I don’t have to save you either.” I’m done trying to help or save the FBFI. I’m just going to ignore it to death. And maybe I’ll work with some guys to start a new association in it’s place. Who knows? Right now, it’s enough for me to know that it’s time to move on, fully and finally.

• Just remember. Dr. McCune and Don are not indicative of the whole. Not that their contributions are irrelevant, but they don’t speak for the entire membership. I’m not even sure that RMc is formally FBFI. I assume he’s in a GARBC church in Sebring (hopefully hassling Gerry Carlson every once in a while), but I’m not positive.
• The time you need to grant is to people like MWj, TOvermiller, and similar, to say nothing of the Mike Sprouls, Mike Hardings, Ken Endeans, Kevin Schaals…
• Granting time to wait and see isn’t the same as active promotion. You have enough to invest in in your local church and so forth. Whatever the FBFI does, positive or negative, isn’t as likely to immediately affect you from what you describe of your setting.

Take a deep breath. Wait and see what happens… or don’t, even. But using “separation” language maybe isn’t the best choice. I don’t keep up with all the people from the schools I attended as a child… doesn’t mean I’ve “separated” as much as it does I’ve moved on. That isn’t to say some of those relationships might not be rekindled in some way in the future.
I don’t envision myself taking an active role in reforming the FBFI, for a few reasons, one main one being geographic (the FBFI doesn’t have much of an influence in Minnesota), and another being time (I’m invested in other church associations among other things). But I don’t wish them ill. I do hope and pray there will be positive change. And if not, I hope to maintain friendships with many of the men who now identify with the FBFI. We all need one another as time advances, imperfect as we all may be. The FBFI aren’t the only ones with flaws and past warts.

Agreed that a couple of people whose actions I’ve objected to are not all of the FBFI. That said, the ugly reality is that when you look through the resolutions, what becomes very clear is that there is a fairly strong culture that is going to pervade the organization, even through leadership transitions. My previous job was for a company where most older blue collar workers were (in their minds) working for a guy who’d died 20 years before, and who’d retired over a decade before that. Corporate culture eats initiatives and new leaders for lunch if you’re not careful.

That’s certainly the case at FBFI, where a look at their resolutions and other documents gives you some hints about what that culture is. Lots of comments that certain things—especially music styles—are “sensual”, “emotional”, or “carnal.” Not much hint, Biblically, on why they’d say that, or why it matters. Lots of vague accusations without much Scriptural support, a general tone of “I’m agin’ it”, and a strong tendency to call out people by name without spelling out clearly what is objectionable about what they’re doing. Strong exaltation of culture of the past and the concept of secondary separation, and quite a bit of use of loaded words in describing their positions.

Now of you process that a moment, you’re likely to realize that this corporate culture is pretty much tailor-made to generate the kind of problems that have been pointed out here. Moreover, you might realize as well that the problem goes well beyond one leader.

And as such, if the organization wants to survive, it is important that leadership and members start taking steps of repentance now, not later. Toxic corporate culture takes a long time to fix, and as Deming said, “Survival is not mandatory”. Time actually worsens the problem by further entrenching the culture and those who carry it.

This issue of Frontline was good. There’s always that … :)

[TylerR]

This issue of Frontline was good. There’s always that …

It was. MWj (especially) is to be commended. And that’s why the FBFI should be paying attention to this conversation. Not everyone who does not belong to the FBFI is hostile towards the ideas championed in the issue. Some thoughtful consideration and principled responses to the concerns raised might address the deficiencies in enrollment.

There are generational differences manifesting themselves here. But the new generation, as different as they might be in some ways, has the same core values as those that defined groups like the FBFI at the beginning. There may be differences in application… but lest we forget, the FBFI has a heritage of reform. Their founders stayed in the NBC longer than the more militant separatists of the BBU/GARBC. Matters of approach and response have never been completely streamlined in American Baptist Fundamentalist history. We would all do well to remember that, even as we look to differences in application in the present and future.

My recent experience with the GARBC in the Pacific NW is that, generally speaking, some of them are a basically indistinguishable from conservative evangelicalism. There is a more casual approach to dress for corporate worship, the music is different (to greater and lesser extent), personal separation is not emphasized, and evangelism is not emphasized. These are generic observations from a very narrow sphere, so take that into consideration - but the point is that the GARBC out here are basically not fundamentalists, in the sense that I’m used to understanding the term. Hear this, though:

• A common refrain from fundamentalists out here, and everywhere, is that they’re reacting against a real (or perceived) Pharisaical approach to ministry they grew up with, and want no part of. Thus, the pendulum swings far to the left, and they eschew the very label “fundamentalist.” Whether you like it or not, this is a typical testimony from fundamentalist ministers under 40.
• Set aside whether the criticisms are right or wrong - we must deal with the fact that they exist, and they’re widespread.

But, to return to my own recent experiences, I suppose my eyes have been opened a bit to what Don Johnson and others have been warning against with “convergents.” I appreciate more of what I learned at Maranatha now, then I did before.

• I came from the hard right-wing of fundamentalism, where a bastardized, inbred form of Landmarkism was common, along with KJVO-ism and a rabid anti-Calvinism. I was never entirely comfortable with this, because I didn’t grow up as a Christian, was in the military, and sensed that many of these guys weren’t the deepest thinkers in the world. There are intelligent Landmark Baptists and TR guys out there; I’m not referring to them. See Bro. Brandenburg’s blog and edited books if you want good arguments for these positions, whether you agree with them or not.
• I later moved to the center due to a great education at Maranatha Seminary (aka “the best seminary in the world”), and when I took a Pastorate I sought to correct some of the imbalances and idiocy from the far right in my own ministry.
• Now, immersed in the GARBC on the West Coast, I’m essentially in the left-wing of fundamentalism (essentially conservative evangelicalism), and am a bit horrified at some of what I’m seeing.

I think some of the FBFI guys and I are really on the same page. More experience in different contexts has made me a bit more cautious.

I tend to optimism by nature….I really do. And I pray for the FBFI and it’s future. I consider myself a fundamentalist even if others don’t. Over three decades I’ve had my hopes stirred when I’ve heard men say things similar to Mark’s article. They’ve offered constructive criticism motivated by a sincere love for fundamentalism, and fundamentalist organizations and institutions. They’ve been allowed to express their opinions freely and even received some hearty “Amens!” I’ve been encouraged and looked forward to a positive response. Sadly and too often the fresh voice that made me hopeful is not heard from again, their suggestions are ignored and forgotten, and things continue as they always were.