Some Advice for Younger Fundamentalists

I’ve edited the original article to be kinder, yet still express the same substance. I also deleted the inflammatory comments I made throughout this thread. I have decided it is best to not discuss fundamentalism in an online format; I don’t think anything good will ever come of it - for me or those reading. It accomplishes nothing, and you always end up sounding harsher than you intend to (see advice #1, in the article). Online discussion about Baptist fundamentalism is excellent at bringing out the worst in everybody, and it always ends badly.

So, I do not intend to discuss fundamentalism online again. I’ll likely write about it, of course, but I won’t discuss it online. I popped back in to offer a brief and sincere apology for the unnecessarily inflammatory way I expressed myself, and to apologize to the folks in the ACCC and the FBFI. I am quite certain we’d have excellent and profitable face to face discussions. But, an online forum just isn’t a healthy or helpful medium for these discussions - for anyone involved.

My thanks to those in this thread who cautioned me to be kinder. I didn’t listen to you at first, but I eventually came around.

With that, away I go …

Jim, I think most of the men on the FBFI board overall appreciate men such as John MacArthur. Some men disagree with him on his five-point Calvinism and strong emphasis on Lordship Salvation. Some disagree with his equality of elders view. Nevertheless, overall they see his preaching, books, and commentaries as a positive influence on Christianity at large and as an attack on liberal or deviant views of Christianity. I have never heard Vaughn or Kevin Schaal or Dave Schumate excoriate those men at board meetings, in private, or in public. On several occasions, Mark Minnick has taken time to educate the board on where the conservative evangelicals stand. I have been to those sessions and they have always been well-done, accurate, and gracious. Not all the board members agreed with Mark’s assessment, but all did listen attentively and respectfully. The board members were kind, gracious, discerning, and teachable in their responses.

NIU was a disappointment to us all. We are saddened over it’s demise. My son was directly involved in the negotiations to save the school. Even my son told me that the school was beyond saving financially. Most of our schools and seminaries are hanging by a financial thread. If Central and DBTS didn’t have the strong backing of their churches they would not exist either. Let’s try to keep the schools we have and support them financially and with students. Let’s hold them to their core mission and biblical values.

Huh? Let’s contrast my treatment of the BFI with the accusations leveled from the other side

Bert, you are big on the first fundamental as you call it. Where in the Bible does it tell us to disregard biblical commands because of “the other side” does something?

I think one problem is that we have become a little too sure of ourselves and little too hesitant for introspection. We want to hold “the other side” accountable to commands and ideas that we are not willing to hold ourselves to and that we are not willing for someone else to hold us too. I think that is a dangerous thing. Here’s an example on two fronts:

One appraises their logic, the other makes accusations and insinuations of motives without evidence.

Said logic sometimes isn’t quite as logical and/or conclusive as it is held out to be, and the accusations and insinuations of motive can fly both directions as we have seen here.

We are far to prone to judge ourselves and others by different standards. We are far too prone to love our own position and assume the best about ourselves and “our side” while assuming the worst about “them.” I think a good dose of humility and grace and liberty towards others would go a long way. The problem is not that we have discussions on fundamentalism. The problem is that we have them wrongly. The commands on speech and relationships do not change because the topic is fundamentalism or the “other side” sees it differently than we do.

…it could simply be that the verses you cited simply do not mean what you think they do. When you cite 1 Timothy 5:1 to prove your point, you ignore the fact that Paul is explicitly giving commands to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an awful lot of people. Your claim simply does not survive the context of the verse, let alone instances like Paul confronting Peter to his face and then writing about it in Holy Scripture.

Really, what you’re doing is claiming that responding to a public article in public is sin—which is more or less carte blanche for anyone to assume that his eldership allows him to make any fool claim without being called on it. Again, Peter and Paul ought to disabuse us of this notion.

Severely limiting the rebuke of elders and emphatic reminders to obey them that have the rule over you remind me of “touch not the Lord’s anointed”. I don’t wonder why a generation with legitimate questions is walking away.

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what to do when you address concerns with an elder, in keeping with I Timothy 5:1, and they shut you down with the verse that Ron noted. Or when an elder simply refuses to listen to you at all and insists that they are right.

“Touch Not The Lord’s Anointed” is a Bible verse that I really hate hearing used anymore, in part because it’s ripped from context (is the elder King Saul as in I Samuel 24:6? Are we the OT nation of Israel, from Psalm 105:15?), and because I have seen it used, more often than I would like, as a way of slapping someone back down ‘into their place’.

Pastors and elders are fallible people too, despite what we’d like to think.