Fundamentalism and the New Conservative Evangelical Identity

[Jim]

http://thinkgospel.com/fundamentalisms-silent-moderate-majority

Excerpts:

“Fundamentalists tend to circle the wagons to support their own no matter how aberrant in theology or practice they are while at the same time they are willing to attack others on the outside for a lot less. When push comes to shove, the silent moderate majority will invariably favor the extremist fundamentalist if it is a choice between him and a more moderate, or even a more faithful conservative evangelical. The reason for this is simply to protect fundamentalism…”

“The safest course for the fundamentalist is to protect the movement and such protection of the movement often trumps truth and honesty.”

“Young soldiers are reluctant to enter the battle where they fear they might be mistaken for the enemy and shot by one of their own.”

It’s worth noting that—and I do not diminish our own guilt in tolerating con men within fundamentalism—that the sad stories of Mark Driscoll, Doug Phillips, and others indicate that it’s probably part of our human condition. The key is—starting “at home”—to create a culture that reduces this likelihood.

I agree with Bert Perry that many other movements or groups have their own version of Fundamentalism’s flaws. Driscoll is a good example, but really the list could go on and on. As Bert said, it is human nature.

What I personally abhor is the uber, type-A, domineering, make-you-or-break-you on his whim, his-way-or-the-highway, “leader.” From what I hear R.V. Clearwaters was such a (cough) leader. Driscoll & Gothard are similar personalities.

I ain’t got time for that.

No one should allow themselves to put up with that garbage.

Dr. McCune, I understand your perspective, but having personally been in places where Hyles, Rice, and others are still named and revered, I think it’s important to understand our movement’s weaknesses. While certainly fundamentalists are not the only ones who have honored big names to the point of absurdity, we do tend to hold on to that which was in the past without recognizing the weak spots of our practice.

On the flip side, it’s certainly appropriate to point out that “our tribe” has been guilty of some pretty nasty things in the past decade or so (Jack Schaap, the issues at BJU regarding counseling, Bill Gothard’s lawsuit), so we don’t need to pick on those who are long dead. But we do need to develop some stronger introspection and learn from our mistakes.

[Rolland McCune]

I know of no one who would deny that some fundamentalists said or did things that were not right, i.e.,unchristian and sinful. And, in my judgment, those today who would defend such would be relatively few, with little real influence and ability to further poison the well of fundamentalism, such as it is. In other words, pastor Dunlop and others who continue to search fundamentalism’s history for evidence of wrongdoing are foraging burned over turf, covering old news, and trying to analyze warmed-over anachronisms. I think the point was been established long ago, and admitted with regret, that there was sin in the camp. I don’t see how a continual rehashing of those events makes a meaningful contribution to 2016 issues.

I think it’s helpful to recognize that the issues of the past are continually being learned of anew by an ongoing succession of individual fundamentalists. Historical events are fixed in time, and have undoubtedly been wrestled with, rehashed, and addressed seemingly ad infinitum by long-time fundamentalists (who may understandably be weary of such things), but to, say, a 13, 17, 22, or 30 year old encountering or hearing about said issues for the very first time, they can be something entirely new to be processed and sorted through. In these circumstances, it might be unrealistic to expect all references to or discussion of such things to simply cease.

As one of the older guys in these parts, I think we need to remember that the negative behavior of some of those fundamentalists of time past had consequences. I was deeply involved with a few of those types of ministries and will admit to trying to emulate their behavior. Today I find myself ministering to the generation that was “turned off” to fundamentalism by those negative behaviors and have never forgotten them.

Larry:

Thanks for your point on teaching/training the upcoming waves of fundamentalists. You are correct about that need. I do not expect that chore to cease, and many of us in fundamentalism give diligence to see it done properly and fairly. I for one do not shy away from the darker side of our movement, i.e., some of the words, attitudes, foibles, misrepresentations, prevarications, poor strategies, moral failures, false doctrine and sins of varying intensity. The optimal word in that aspect of historicism is “some.” I fear that some who delve into the history of fundamentalism seem to get their jollies in what looks like muckraking.

Proper instruction about the downside of our history must not be construed as bashing or in any way to suggest that it is the fault or fruit of fundamentalism itself, a concern too often missing in what is supposed to be “anlysis.” Nor should there be any notes of encouragement for a defection from fundamentalism to a supposedly more spiritual, caring, warmhearted, and intellectual group or movement, i.e., a move based on individuals who in some fashion failed the Lord, the Scriptures and the biblical beliefs and ideals of fundamentalism itself.

Regrettably the above rubrics of pedagogy are ignored in too much of what passes for the history of fundamentalism today.

Dr. McCune wrote:

Regrettably the above rubrics of pedagogy are ignored in too much of what passes for the history of fundamentalism today.

I think young fundamentalists need to be given a copy of Kevin Bauder’s One in Hope and Doctrine. It’s a wonderful analysis of Northern Baptist fundamentalism to 1950. It is frank and honest about the shortcomings (and triumphs!) of leaders from the past, without relishing in gossip and slander. It’s an even-handed look that every young fundamentalist needs to read.

I’d also recommend Doug McLachlan’s Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism, which every older fundamentalist knows about, but many younger men don’t know even exists.

I also agree that much of what we read about fundamentalism’s past failures looks more like muckraking than an attempt to learn from the past. I think we should treat these failures much as a good treatment of the book of Judges. We know that all Scripture is profitable, including Judges, and we (should) treat that book as more than just a historical record — it’s there for us to delve into and learn from, but not for us to take pleasure in what we read there, something that almost none of the sites that are “exposing” fundamentalism’s flaws have learned (or want to).

We definitely need to pass on the failures of past generations for the new ones to learn from, but we do need to take care, especially when we are tempted to say things like “well, that’s not what we do,” or “that’s in the past, we don’t need to hear about it any more.” It will take teachers who are really dedicated to passing on the “faith once delivered” while helping to steer new generations to learn the right things from the past.

….maybe a bit of self-examination and trying to figure out the why would be profitable. I would guess that a large portion of us would agree that a couple of the nastiest things about stereotypical fundamentalism (and a fair amount in practice) are holding to the mores of the past whether they’re Biblical or not and domineering leadership. Not our only problems, but two big, dominant ones.

Now I would assert that holding to the mores of the past is a simple retained response to modernism—we were “born”, as it were, in a response to the same. Add to that a hefty dose of suspicion of the academy, and we would expect that we’d have a certain tendency to hold to past mores, along with an inability to process whether these old habits are indeed Biblical—remember it is primarily in the academy that the tools of logic and rhetoric are learned.

This leads to the second part; domineering leadership. If we tend to hold to the past and lack the tools of logic, what is left but for a person of real or perceived significance to hold the whole thing together by force of personality?

The question, then, is how to overcome the problem. Just like AA, we might start by recognizing it, and then step #2 would be to start learning the tools of logic so we can actually take a look at our culture Biblically. Notice here that we are not undermining the Fundamentals, Solas, or other key doctrine, but reinforcing it.

Step 3 is painful, but necessary; start throwing flags when basic rules of informal logic are violated, and start examining our own culture to see if it is indeed Biblical. Note that this will likely rein in domineering leadership as well.