Some Advice for Younger Fundamentalists

I’m still waiting for any real reasons that we ought to view criticism as “inappropriate.”

Has anyone argued that criticism is inappropriate? I would love to read that if you could point us to it.

I have had several frank conversations with several FBFI members on multiple occasions. I have never been shunned, excommunicated, or thrown out. I have always received honest, thorough, and thoughtful answers to my questions. Now, I never called the FBFI a “rotting corpse” either… maybe that is the difference.

I’m not a “feelings” guy. My article has nothing to do with feelings. It’s never been part of my argument. My point of contention is about mission (see advice #7, in the article). Many fundamentalist para-church entities (except the Bible Colleges and Seminaries) appear to have ossified, have forgotten the original fundamentalist ethos, and do little to provide an militant offense and defense against theological revisionism and apostasy, at an intellectual and popular level. By and large, fundamentalism has given up that role to conservative evangelicals.

To the extent they’ve indeed forgotten and lost their way, these fundamentalist para-church entities are useless. The conservative evangelicals seem to be the real fundamentalists, in the historic sense. If these institutions want to be relevant again, they should starting acting like historic fundamentalists again. There’s plenty of apostasy and revisionism out there to fight against. Have at it, fellas. Use your organization and network to produce something the church can use.

Unruh’s article is an excellent example of this ossified and misguided mindset.

My article is about balance and sanity. We shouldn’t be Company Men (see #1, in the article). We need to think for ourselves (see #2 and #4, in the article). We also shouldn’t worship “the movement” (see #5 and #6, in the article), and we should have some perspective about what really matters for real people (see #6, from the article) - and it isn’t Baptist fundamentalism. “The movement” isn’t a confessional pseudo-denomination, and it’s a horrible mistake to treat it like one. We should run far away from those who arrogate to themselves (or their organizations) the title of “Gate Keeper” (see #8, in the article).

My article is about balance, instead of blind loyalty to a para-church organization or “movement” that may well be withering on the vine. It’s about fundamentalism as a philosophy of ministry, not a “movement” per se (see #9, in the article).

I would appreciate any pushback about the general failure of mission in the fundamentalist para-church organizations.

Note - before someone else responds, wondering about my tone, see the following:

1. for my “dying church” analogy, see here;
2. for questions about why I’m not approaching this matter like a fawning padawan, hesitant, uncertain, and apologetic with my humble criticisms, see here.

Those are some wise words. Thank you.

I went to my first NorCal FBF meeting in 1981. In Northern California, the FBF has always been a directory centric organization. Frontline came into being with the demise of BJU’s magazine.

[Jim]

My advice (for Pastors):

SNIP

• The FBFI. It’s really a directory and a magazine. I’m sure meetings would be valuable. But keep the italicized in mind. Not a slam: but it is dying!

SNIP

[Bert Perry]

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.

I think you are reading into my post. The last point of my post is that both sides need to exhibit appropriate grace, kindness, patience, and even if necessary Christ-filled firmness. No one, the “old guard” or otherwise, responds well to arrogant, condescending, & abrasive attitudes.

To be clear, I’m not saying anyone is above criticism either. BUT, if you want a chance of being listened to and taken seriously, it is MOST done in a mature manner and you better know what you are talking about and what you are doing. My illustration of NIU was that the “Young Turks” (& Matt Olson) didn’t know either, which lead to disastrous results.

I think Tyler’s point is that too often the “old guard” won’t listen or change. My response was that I’ve too often see the other side, the “young turks” behave in a manner that was just as prideful.

Both are wrong.

[mmartin]

Bert Perry wrote:

I think you are reading into my post. The last point of my post is that both sides need to exhibit appropriate grace, kindness, patience, and even if necessary Christ-filled firmness. No one, the “old guard” or otherwise, responds well to arrogant, condescending, & abrasive attitudes.

To be clear, I’m not saying anyone is above criticism either. BUT, if you want a chance of being listened to and taken seriously, it is MOST done in a mature manner and you better know what you are talking about and what you are doing. My illustration of NIU was that the “Young Turks” (& Matt Olson) didn’t know either, which lead to disastrous results.

I think Tyler’s point is that too often the “old guard” won’t listen or change. My response was that I’ve too often see the other side, the “young turks” behave in a manner that was just as prideful.

Both are wrong.

The bold demonstrates my point. You have just stated, unequivocally, that unless the comments of reformers are made in a way that matches the self-appointed rules of decorum set by groups like the BFI, there will be no discussion.

Moreover, accusing someone of being prideful not only requires evidence, but also requires more evidence than other accusations because you’re trying to suss out the inner state of a man. Generally such an accusation is a sinful slander.

mmartin:

I have nothing against the “old guard.” My point is that some fundamentalist parachurch organizations have neglected their core mission, ceded it to conservative evangelicals, and are therefore useless organizations. Those in positions of power should remember their core mission, work to perpetuate a true fundamentalist ethos (i.e. militant offense and defense against theological revisionism and apostasy, at an intellectual and popular level) if they wish to survive or have any meaningful relevance to anybody, going forward.

My article is meant to be a short dose of reality to younger fundamentalists to not be blind Company Men, to think for ourselves, puts things into perspective, and not be captive to “the movement” at the expense of the God-honoring ethos which gave birth to the movement in the first place.

I’m not a “young turk”. (More like an “old goat.) It’s just that in my nearly 40 years of being a part of groups like the FBFI and ACCC I have seen the majority of leadership listen with an air of condescension, stubbornly resist change, and dismiss any criticism. I can understand the frustration of the younger generation. After watching good people silently walk away from these groups, some are going to be “Silent No More!”

I know there are good people in these groups. I hope they listen.

Tyler - I agree with you that all of us, young and old, should NOT be company men.

Ron Bean - As I said in my last post, No One enjoys being confronted in an arrogant, condescending manner and how often does that bring about a good result? So, not sure what you mean by interpreting my comment in saying that unless the young’uns communicate to the older in the self-appointed rules of decorum. How can anyone act like a horse’s behind and then wonder why their message or questions aren’t well received? Maybe we are talking past each other??

I don’t think you are saying that the young folks can act in anyway they want and say whatever they want - and if the older folks won’t listen, well that’s the old folks problem. But to me, that kinda sounds like you are saying. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I agree with you about the resistance to listen and a too often automatic knee-jerk condescending attitude towards any kind of questioning or criticism from certain leaders or groups. Things got that way because of the kind of company men Tyler is speaking of. My previous employment at a fundy-type ministry had that kind of leader and I left after only three years. Worst! Leader! Ever!

I never mentioned emotions, so I do not get your response. You point out all of this stuff that you don’t like about an organization THAT YOU DO NOT BELONG TO and have no interest in belonging to. OK. Fine. I am merely saying that AS AN FBFI MEMBER I have never experienced what you report. That is all.

As for “convergence,” which you have majored on for a while, I have explained it at least twice. If you choose to turn it into something it is not, fine. But that is on you.

You wrote:

I have had several frank conversations with several FBFI members on multiple occasions. I have never been shunned, excommunicated, or thrown out. I have always received honest, thorough, and thoughtful answers to my questions. Now, I never called the FBFI a “rotting corpse” either… maybe that is the difference.

My point has never been about being “shunned, excommunicated or thrown out.” My article is not about hurt feelings; it’s about balance and message. Again, my larger point is to encourage younger men to not be Company Men when it comes to fundamentalism. The advice I give is helpful along that line. Take it or leave it. God bless.

[mmartin]

Tyler - I agree with you that all of us, young and old, should NOT be company men.

Ron Bean - As I said in my last post, No One enjoys being confronted in an arrogant, condescending manner and how often does that bring about a good result? So, not sure what you mean by interpreting my comment in saying that unless the young’uns communicate to the older in the self-appointed rules of decorum. How can anyone act like a horse’s behind and then wonder why their message or questions aren’t well received? Maybe we are talking past each other??

One can say that presentation matters, for sure, but in various positions where I’ve interacted with people under my authority at work and at church, I’ve often been confronted by a person who contests my authority to make a decision, or thinks that I have no clue whatsoever about the process, and they generally do not do so in soft tones full of respect and with nary a bad word involved. In the hallowed halls of fundagelicalism, it would be seen as rude, all that.

What I learned when I conditioned myself to let the perceived insult slide:

• At least a third of the time, the person complaining is not even trying to be rude to me. It’s simply how things are discussed at his level, especially when I’m interacting with blue collar workers. Like the old joke about New Yorkers: ” (*&Y)(&*)(& , and how are the wife and kids?”.
• nine times out of ten, the person is saying something that half the group believes, but is not willing to say to me publicly. It’s something I need to know.
• At least two thirds of the time, the criticism has some merit.

The long and short of it is that if one requires a certain level of “decorum” to interact on a topic, one is going to miss the vast majority of issues that are important to the vast majority of people, and hence I would suggest that a huge portion of the blame for the collapses of the BFI and the ACCC lies with the attitude of people along the lines of “touch not the Lord’s anointed” or “how can anyone act like a horse’s behind….”.

Put another way, Jesus dealt with a lot of “adverse” people in His ministry, and David did the same with a lot of people as king. The servant of God ought to take a hint as to how He handled the Pharisees, and how David dealt with Shimei and the like.