Six Degrees of Separation

I just started reading Teis’s article. It was interesting reading until he described Jack Hyles as a godly Fundamentalist.

That ended the discussion for me. I don’t know what “brand” of Fundamentalism Teis belongs to, but the description of Jack Hyles as a godly man is enough to make me run screaming in the other direction.

Lester Roloff may have started a bunch of homes for young women, but there were apparently issues with abuse there as well, although I don’t know too much of the specifics. So Roloff is another one that I would be leery of.

Teis errs by laying the blame at Pickering’s door. He should, actually, be supportive of of Pickering because Fundamentalism - needs - a position of secondary separation. It just needs to define that principle clearly and apply it correctly (by which I mean separating from Hyles and his ilk) which we too often have not done well, and that is why we get self-inflicted wounds like the Convergent issue of Frontline.

Pickering’s book is a good book. Very important. Some people who are separation fanatics ought to read it, so they can see a responsible discussion of the matter. For example, he discusses some axioms for fundamentalists to follow when they consider how to do this in real life (225-226):

• Some issues are complex. “Sometimes we give the impression that there are pat and easy answers for every decision we must ake regarding separation. That is not always true. Life is complex and must face that fact.”
• Personalities differ. “Separatists are people, too! There are different kinds of them. In fairness we must recognize and accept that and be careful lest we, too, carelessly mark as a compromiser someone who may not approach a problem in the same manner as do we.”
• Contexts differ. “We all tend to be influenced by our background and experiences, and we all have different points of reference … We must be careful not to compromise vital convictions, but at the same time we must be big enough to allow another person to differ with us without rejecting him.”

Good stuff. Too bad Unruh didn’t read the book before he wrote his silly article, and alienated an entire generation of younger fundamentalists.

Or maybe… you have misunderstood.

Thanks for your comment, Jay! I believe that Teis is a good and godly pastor who comes from a ‘wing’ of the IFB world that looks kindly upon Hyles.

I share my own observations on the divisions within the IBF movement that come from a wrong application of secondary separation. First crack, my freshman year as a Bible major at BJU, I was required to subscribe to a year of the Sword of the Lord (edited by John R. Rice). The next year, due to ‘separation’, I was not required to subscribe. I admit, that caused some inner turmoil for me.

Second crack, as a part of the Hyles’ wing of the IFB movement, I saw Hyles split independent Baptist over the issue of the King James. He did so, I believe to cover his own sin; but he made the KJV an issue of being a ‘true baptist’. (BTW, I am no longer associated with the Hyles’ wing).

Thanks again Jay for a great observation!

What do you mean? Meanwhile, all ya’ll can ponder this.

It’s actually kind of funny to see Teis, if Jim characterizes him well, taking inspiration from a movie for his column. I don’t think Hyles would have approved. Or Rice, or Roloff, or his other heroes.

And, quite frankly, Hyles’ sins went WAY further than just his KJVO nonsense. So did Roloff’s, and if Teis still is on their side, he seriously need to go to a competent opthalmologist to get those blind spots checked out.

I left a few comments at the bottom of his article, not here, but for what it is worth, I don’t think he has read deeply or experienced widely the spectrum of fundamentalism. My first comment:

I appreciate what you have written in this article from your perspective. However, I feel that you have a limited understanding of a single slice of fundamentalism from your history, reading, and background. Your article is an expression of what occurred within the realm of southern Fundamentalism, not northern (or northern-transplant Fundamentalism). We, in the north, have not seen fundamentalism unified under John R. Rice, as you have described in this article. The 1920s saw the beginning of the fracturing of the Northern Baptist Convention. The GARBC was the first formal organizational fellowship to remove themselves from the Convention in 1932, under the ministries of Robert Ketcham, et al. Within the Convention itself, the Fundamentalist Fellowship (now the FBFI) continued to battle, as well as the Conservative Baptists (CBAofA). The Minnesota Baptists left as a whole in the late 1950s, early 1960s. The Conservative Baptists had also exited the convention in the 1960s. Fundamentalism was not at all unified during this time, but fractured. Perhaps there was unity to be found in the BBU, the GARB, the FBFI, and the CBA, but there was no overall unity within fundamentalism itself. Within the CBA, an internal battle soon broke out over how they would respond to the New Evangelicalism (led by Billy Graham, Fuller Seminary, Wheaton College, etc.). The hardliners left the CBA, and the mainstream stayed in (1960s).

In Minnesota, there was a fundamental difference in the nature of leadership between R.V. Clearwaters and B. Myron Cedarholm over the organization and operation of Pillsbury College (which was taken over by the conservatives when the Minnesota Baptists left the convention). So Cedarholm went to WI (a few hours drive) to found his own institution – almost nearly out of spite.

I could give example after example of the various institutions and individuals who were fighting for orthodoxy within the convention, and forgot to “beat the swords into ploughshares” afterwards – they kept fighting. It was a day of BIG men, not big ideas. Ministries rose and fell around personalities – flawed men who made the argument, “if you aren’t for me, you’re against me.”

John R. Rice was no exception. Read sometime on the disagreements between Rice and Lewis Sperry Chafer, and how Rice treated his Presbyterian brethren.

The rise of King James Onlyism was not only a serious doctrinal error, but brought even greater schisms down to the level of the local church (even to the point of splitting/closing some churches in near vicinity to me).

However, even though I do see your article as missing a number of important historical works and sources, and limited in its scope, I do see a change (in my circles) in most of the younger fundamentalists within ministry (by younger, I mean around 40 and younger). Most of us will barely mention the concept of separation, but practice it on a case-by-case basis. Most of us will be judicious in our choices of associations. Most of us have no problem visiting an SBC church, conference, praying with an SBC brother. I’ve even known a number of fundamentalists – who still consider themselves fundamentalists – who teach in SBC institutions, and pastor SBC churches. Are we separate? In some degree. We associate formally (in our churches) in different organizations. Do we pray for one another? Certainly. Do we hang out together when we find ourselves at the same conferences? Yes.

The era of BIG MAN fundamentalism is over. It exists in some churches/towns, and still exists within what is left of southern Fundamentalism within the KJVO movement. For most of the younger men, that era is dead. Most of us younger guys who still consider themselves as fundamentalists see fundamentalism as an idea – a good idea, and possibly the best idea. The idea that the a gospel profession is the boundary of true Christian fellowship, and that our understanding of the whole council of God is the center of true Christian fellowship. The closer we are in agreement to the whole council of God, the more fellowship (formal and informal) we can have. The farther we are in agreement to the whole council of God, separation naturally occurs.
My second comment (awaiting moderation on his website):

Joshua,

For a solid history of Northern fundamentalism (although he does deal with the southern fundamentalists in the book), I would begin with Kevin Bauder (of Central Seminary, MN), “One in Hope and Doctrine,” which tells the story of fundamentalism until 1950. He is currently working on the second volume. I would also go back and spend time reading the archives of his weekly newsletter, in the Nick of Time, in which he deals with both the idea of fundamentalism/conservatism, current events, and sometimes the history of fundamentalism (Both linked below).

I would also read the evangelical explanations of fundamentalism as well, George Marsden (both his book on Fundamentalism and American Culture, and his history of Fuller Theological seminary titled, Reforming Fundamentalism) and Joel Carpenter (Revive Us Again). Read the secular/Catholic history of fundamentalism by Karen Armstrong (The Battle for God). Read Ian Murray’s Revival and Revivalism (a history of the great awakenings, which gave rise to the milieu of fundamentalism) followed by his book, Evangelicalism Divided (the fundamentalist/evangelical split in England). Read Sandeen’s (Roots of Fundamentalism) book that describes fundamentalism as a sociological phenomenon rising out of millenarian dispensationalism. Read David Stokes biography of J. Frank Norris. Read the expose on Jack Hyles in the Biblical Evangelist (linked below). Read Hatch’s Democratization of American Christianity. Read more on John R. Rice (as far as I know, there isn’t a critical – by critical, I mean academic – biography of him written yet, but I’ve put a link down below of a master’s thesis that compares him to Carl Macintyre).

Read deeply and broadly in the subject of fundamentalist history. As much as I agree with the idea (and I am a committed fundamentalist – depending on who defines the terms), I am not at all pleased with the “Christian” behavior of men who are lauded as leaders who have gone before.

http://www.biblicalevangelist.org/jack_hyles_story.php
https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=ht…
http://www.rbpstore.org/Products/5128/one-in-hope–doctrine.aspx
http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/p37

I’m looking forward to the next volume in Bauder’s history of Northern Baptist fundamentalism. I went to the winter conference at Central in 2014, and heard him lecture on the same subject. Excellent stuff.