Some Advice for Younger Fundamentalists

Let me frame this in a way that might be helpful. Many readers have been, or are, leaders in local churches. This may help folks to understand where I’m coming from:

• Some fundamentalist para-church organizations are like dying churches.
• A dying church lives in the past, idolizes it, and generally neglects its most basic functions of robust discipleship and active evangelism. Instead, dying churches tread water and gradually die out. As the end draws nearer, some church members often react with extreme defensiveness, and pine away for the “good old days” of the Nixon era, when they ran 500+ and had multiple bus routes.
• In these churches, there always are some younger, reform-minded folks who see the problem, but are rarely given free reign to actually tackle these issues. Eventually, some of them get fed up, and leave. The younger exodus begins, and you’re left with a small congregation of embittered older saints who dig their heads into the sand, and convince themselves they’re suffering for righteousness’ sake.
• Indeed, some of those who remain take to slandering the younger men as inexperienced, inept, “new-fangled,” and immature. This is generally (but not always) pride and arrogance talking - borne out of defensiveness.

This is a remarkable parallel to what has been happening in some fundamentalist para-church organizations:

• They’re dying.
• They live in the past, idolize it, and generally neglect their most basic functions of fighting to defend the faith against theological revisionism and outright apostasy, at an intellectual and popular level. Instead these dying organizations tread water and will gradually die out. As the end draws near, some fundamentalists often react with with extreme defensiveness, and pine away for the “good old days” of the Nixon era, when they had influence in the larger Christian sub-culture.
• In these organizations, there always are some younger, reform-minded folks who see the problem, but are rarely given free reign to actually tackle these issues. Eventually, some of them get fed up, and leave. The younger exodus begins, and you’re left with a small organization of embittered older saints who dig their heads into the sand, and convince themselves they’re suffering for righteousness’ sake.
• Indeed, some of those who remain take to slandering the younger men as inexperienced, inept, “new-fangled,” and immature. This is generally (but not always) pride and arrogance talking - borne out of defensiveness.

Do you see the parallels? Many of the godly saints can correctly diagnose these problems in local churches. Can they do it in their own organization? Will they do it? We’ll see.

Back in the “Regular Baptists for Revival” days of the 80’s I remember Dr. Duane Brown (?) mentioning a similar three stages in organizations.

1. A group fights the battle against error and raises a standard.

2. The next generation organizes fellowships,schools, and associations to maintain the standard.

3. Then a generation arises to fight for, maintain and defend at all costs the fellowships, etc. created by #2.

In addition there’s the denial factor that refuses to address the obvious fact that they’re dying, even couching their denial in eschatological terms like “these are the last days” and “we are the remnant”.

Tyler,

I agree with much of your points. That said, I have often seen in a Fundy church or college where those that are clamoring for reform are most often younger and very often behaved in an inappropriate manner. When you combine youth with naivite’ you often get a potent recipe for arrogance and stupidity. They have been reckless, stupid, naive, abrasive, and ignorant.

How many of those “change” folks acted with the Northland International University fiasco is a prime example and I can name others. I can think of one particular article printed in well known Christian publication from a NIU “change” guy. Despite what those guys thought, they really had no idea what they were doing - and the rest is history.

Both sides need to have appropriate balance, respect, love, grace, and patience. I seem to remember a while ago reading a couple articles by Dr. Bauder addressing both sides (young & old folks) of this issue.

I’d agree with you Tyler except my friends who are in the FBFI might shun me.

[mmartin]

Tyler,

I agree with much of your points. That said, I have often seen in a Fundy church or college where those that are clamoring for reform are most often younger and very often behaved in an inappropriate manner. When you combine youth with naivite’ you often get a potent recipe for arrogance and stupidity. They have been reckless, stupid, naive, abrasive, and ignorant.

How many of those “change” folks acted with the Northland International University fiasco is a prime example and I can name others. I can think of one particular article printed in well known Christian publication from a NIU “change” guy. Despite what those guys thought, they really had no idea what they were doing - and the rest is history.

Both sides need to have appropriate balance, respect, love, grace, and patience. I seem to remember a while ago reading a couple articles by Dr. Bauder addressing both sides (young & old folks) of this issue.

Notice here that you’ve said absolutely nothing substantive about the “young turks”. Whatever is inappropriate or arrogant is left unsaid; the conclusion is simply assumed. And the FBFI and ACCC wonder why young people are running from the exits. More or less, mmartin, what you’ve said is Unless the young turks meet the self-determined standards of propriety of the old guard, there will be no discussion.

Besides, the simple fact is that if the old guard wants to be seen as the wiser ones, it strikes me that patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control are among the fruit of the Spirit, and that same old guard basically gave NIU a blanket party after the Big Daddy Weave concert. Again, if you don’t want people running for the exits, appropriately or inappropriately, lead by example. You cannot use “acting inappropriately” or inferred mental state or attitude as a reason not to discuss very real questions unless you want to kill off your movement for good.

Notice here that you’ve said absolutely nothing substantive about the “young turks”. Whatever is inappropriate or arrogant is left unsaid; the conclusion is simply assumed.

You can read Tyler’s comments above for a good illustration of it close at hand, or his comments and response to the ACCC on another thread.

On the ACCC thread, I issued a call for anybody to demonstrate the ACCC does anything substantive to perpetuate a historic fundamentalist ethos. If you have something to offer, please do so on that thread.

To the FBFI, I likened it to a dying church because it appears to have lost its sense of purpose. If you disagree, please provide evidence to demonstrate the organization is primarily focused on militant defense and offense against theological revisionism on an intellectual and popular level. My contention is that the FBFI is actually focused on promoting a very particular flavor of Baptist fundamentalism characterized, not by an historic fundamentalist ethos, but by disdain for evangelicals.

Please respond with substance, if you disagree.

Please respond with substance, if you disagree.

You provided the substance that Bert asked for in his comment. I don’t agree or disagree with the FBFI or the ACCC. I don’t keep up with either because I don’t care one way or the other. Personally, I find your approach one that lacks wisdom and graciousness, which ironically is the same thing you seem to complain about in the groups you are criticizing.

I think your youthfulness gives you a lot of energy. I wonder whether you are employing that in the most effective way for the furtherance of the gospel and the principles of the fundamentalist ethos. You talk about the harshness of the older generation of the FBFI and the ACCC (neither of which I have ever been a part of), but have you considered whether you may be demonstrating the same kind of party spirit and harshness that you dislike in them? I am sure you feel it is warranted. So do they.

NIU was the flashpoint that polarized each side of the Fundamentalism civil war, especially for people involved with or who followed the FBFI. That’s why you can’t really talk about the FBFI without wading into the issues and closing of NIU.

Tyler, you said:

• When it comes to the FBFI, I have to answer “no” on both counts. My decision to be very critical and dismissive of the FBFI is a calculated one. I’m doing it on purpose. I don’t think that sinking ship is an organization worth perpetuating, and I have no expectation that the “soft touch” will actually effectuate change anytime before 2075. So, I chose to go the other route - that of the outsider who laughs at them.

Tyler, I understand what you’re saying and doing, but I think you need to dial down the criticism and tenor of your posts. I also agree that the FBFI is not worth saving, and that the years of ‘soft touch’ diplomacy to their constituency has proven worthless.

That being said, we can still address them in an Christian manner, which we should do:

• Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Col. 4:6)
• Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. (1 Timothy 4:12-13)
• Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.
  (Titus 2:6-8)

The principle of heaping scorn and calumny on our brothers, even if done for ‘good’ purposes, is not Jesus’ teaching, but it is self-satisfying and seductive:

• Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (Galatians 5:19-26)

If you want to prove that you’re a better man than the FBFI, then don’t go down that road. Be gentle and respectful and continue to point out that they don’t know what they are doing and that they are fading out of existence quickly. Throwing more sarcasm and vitriol at them reinforces an “us vs. them” mentality and robs you of the points that you are rightfully making. They can argue back when you have vitriol, but they can’t do that if you shelve that weapon.

It’s hard, I get it. You and I have talked about that before, but we can still demonstrate Christlikeness and candor to people that we don’t agree with. That’s what Jesus would want us to do.

In my opinion Big Daddy Weave, etc. did not destroy NIU. As I’ve talked to people who were there It has become evident to me that the school was dying (Sound familiar?) because of its geographic location and lack of enthusiastic support from its fundamental constituency. BDW, etc. MAY have been acts of desperation to find a new and more enthusiastic base of support but was not the cause of its demise.

As for Tyler’s approach I’ve seen good men try to kindly and gently address the flaws in the FBFI for over 30 years. The reaction has been the same. Either denial (what flaws?), or dismissiveness (he’s not one of us or thank you, we appreciate you, and now we’ll wait for you to go away). Sometimes a man has to shout!

Tyler, the welcome changes at my alma mater, BJU, are an encouraging example that respectful kindness in disagreement is more effective than harsh criticism. However, the bottom line is that God must effect change. In the case of BJU, the poor health of Stephen Jones effectively ended the long standing Jones dynasty. In my opinion, that was a necessary component for change. I love Stephen Jones, and long prayed for his renewed health. I wanted him to continue, but I now realize that this was not the best path to renewal.

I could continue with other details and examples, but my point is that those who remained on friendly terms with BJU were far more influential in effecting needed change than the harsh critics. Yes, BJU itself modeled a pattern of harsh criticism of others, and it was very tempting to return in kind. However, a softer, more Biblical response demonstrates Godly wisdom. Why repeat the mistakes of those who need to reform? How much better to demonstrate a better way. In the end, God must do the work, and God is more pleased with those who treat their Christian brothers with love and respect than those who heap scorn upon them.

In my opinion Big Daddy Weave, etc. did not destroy NIU. As I’ve talked to people who were there It has become evident to me that the school was dying (Sound familiar?) because of its geographic location and lack of enthusiastic support from its fundamental constituency. BDW, etc. MAY have been acts of desperation to find a new and more enthusiastic base of support but was not the cause of its demise.

Yup, and I was saying things along these lines when the BDW issue first exploded. NIU had been bleeding money for a long time before the concert, and I do think that some of the changes there (especially the concert) were attempts to recruit new students to the school. Of course, the BDW concert was also used as a banner by our fundamentalist brethren to indicate that NIU was hopelessly compromised, destroying whatever support from the old constituency that had remained. When the FBFI decided to jump in and take a public stand against the school, that was more or less the end of it. (edit - actually, the FBFI had quite a few things to say about NIU).

There’s a lot of blame that could go around for the closure of the school, and I don’t think that Matt Olson escapes that either, but a lot of it was result fo fundamentalist gossip-mongering and infighting.

There’s a video out there somewhere from the early 90’s of BJ III, BJ IV, and Stephen Jones discussing the future of BJU and admitting that their constituency was changing with the decline in the number of Christian Day Schools and large fundamental churches and that they needed to adjust. To me, that was the first hint that Stephen saw things differently than his father and that change might happen. I then recall board members being introduced to some of those early Facebook BJU Survivor groups that lovingly and with humor talked about the unique culture of BJU that we silently disagreed with but endured because we loved the place.(This was before the crazies like the “balloon-a-tic” hijacked those groups.) The University responded by listening and slowly implementing the changes we see and enjoy today at BJU. A lot of people have NEVER seen the FBFI or ACCC respond positively to criticism.

I’m still waiting for any real reasons that we ought to view criticism as “inappropriate.” Unless we want to view “brood of vipers”, “whitewashed tombs”, “that fox” or “cows of Bashan” as affectionate references instead of the very direct criticisms (or even insults) that they were, I do not think that we can a priori assume that direct, and even somewhat harsh, criticisms are ipso facto out of line.

And again, if these direct kind of criticisms were indeed out of line, then the first people that need to apologize are guys like the FBFI and the ACCC. They cannot have harsh criticism of “convergents”(without evidence or definition) and then cry foul when someone criticizes them strongly their their sins, no?