The Real Problem of Fundamentalism: The abundant misuse and abuse of Scripture

I personally don’t agree with all the finer details of this article or the one he mentions, but as a young fundamentalist baptist I believe we need to make a distinction between true to our foundation classic fundamentalism, and the worship of conservative American culture disguising itself as fundamentalism. I personally label this traditionalism. For many, in the escape from traditionalism or the contemporary movement, have done nothing but trade in the worship of conservative American culture for the worship of American pop culture. Both of these parties bend Scripture to their own uses. It is my opinion, that in order for Fundamentalists to stand their ground they must stand against traditionalists and the contemporary movement together. We can’t choose to fight against one or the other, we must emphasize true Scriptural principles. From the school that I am a part of this is taught. Unfortunately, I feel that those wise older men around me who hold strong to the true tenants of Fundamentalism are not vocal enough about it. For whatever reason they chose to remain non-confrontational about it. Perhaps as it has been said that it is due to past connections with those who now make up traditionalists. I believe one key attribute of traditionalism is the worship of a certain school in the east. A stand against traditionalism would clearly upset these individuals and even many churches. Yet perhaps it is time to upset some people, in both extreme camps?

I would repeat the same question I asked in a related thread - which brand of fundamentalism? The author needs to be more specific. For instance, suppose I proclaim, “Evangelicalism is a cesspool of compromising preachers who only care about boosting your self-esteem!” I am referring to Joel Osteen; but by using the term “evangelicalism,” I’m also tarring Al Mohler and Mark Dever, too. Is that fair? Hardly.

• Do Maranatha, Central, and Detroit teach their grads how to properly handle Scripture? Yes.
• Do West Coast, Hyles-Anderson or Providence? Not sure.
• I do know, however that there is a WORLD of difference bewteen those two categories - be more specific!

Regarding the separation issue, I would add this:

• Instead of being militant for separation from apostasy and rank compromise, there seems to be an urge to define a fundamentalist only by how militant someone is about secondary separation, particularly his stand on “platform fellowship.” This is ridiculous. My comments on the MaaArthur/Piper thread made my own concerns clear on that score.

Personally the fundamentalism with which I’ve been involved has done a very good job with Biblical teaching / preaching

Dan Brown of Faith recently published a very good article on preaching

http://www.faith.edu/resources/publications/faith-pulpit/message/toward…

Toward Expository Preaching

I agree with Tyler. It’s laziness and sloppy language not to make the distinctions.

[TylerR]

I would repeat the same question I asked in a related thread - which brand of fundamentalism? The author needs to be more specific. For instance, suppose I proclaim, “Evangelicalism is a cesspool of compromising preachers who only care about boosting your self-esteem!” I am referring to Joel Osteen; but by using the term “evangelicalism,” I’m also tarring Al Mohler and Mark Dever, too. Is that fair? Hardly.

• Do Maranatha, Central, and Detroit teach their grads how to properly handle Scripture? Yes.
• Do West Coast, Hyles-Anderson or Providence? Not sure.
• I do know, however that there is a WORLD of difference between those two categories - be more specific!

Regarding the separation issue, I would add this:

• Instead of being militant for separation from apostasy and rank compromise, there seems to be an urge to define a fundamentalist only by how militant someone is about secondary separation, particularly his stand on “platform fellowship.” This is ridiculous. My comments on the MaaArthur/Piper thread made my own concerns clear on that score.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/03/mark-driscolls-proble…

for upper class Pulpit Speech. I can fully attest he taught us how to properly prepare an exegetical sermon.

[TylerR]

Regarding the separation issue, I would add this:

• Instead of being militant for separation from apostasy and rank compromise, there seems to be an urge to define a fundamentalist only by how militant someone is about secondary separation, particularly his stand on “platform fellowship.” This is ridiculous. My comments on the MaaArthur/Piper thread made my own concerns clear on that score.

Amen Tyler! This statement deserves a spotlight, fanfare, publicity, sirens, and any other thing that would make this an issue today. Too much of modern day fundamentalism is all about separation from brethren. It is their principal standard. It is their identity.

[TylerR]

I would repeat the same question I asked in a related thread - which brand of fundamentalism? The author needs to be more specific. For instance, suppose I proclaim, “Evangelicalism is a cesspool of compromising preachers who only care about boosting your self-esteem!” I am referring to Joel Osteen; but by using the term “evangelicalism,” I’m also tarring Al Mohler and Mark Dever, too. Is that fair? Hardly.

• Do Maranatha, Central, and Detroit teach their grads how to properly handle Scripture? Yes.
• Do West Coast, Hyles-Anderson or Providence? Not sure.
• I do know, however that there is a WORLD of difference bewteen those two categories - be more specific!

Regarding the separation issue, I would add this:

• Instead of being militant for separation from apostasy and rank compromise, there seems to be an urge to define a fundamentalist only by how militant someone is about secondary separation, particularly his stand on “platform fellowship.” This is ridiculous. My comments on the MaaArthur/Piper thread made my own concerns clear on that score.

You’re correct as far as you go, Tyler. And your additional bullet point about “platform fellowship” is very good. But I don’t think you go far enough. Asking whether particular institutions have a practice/policy of teaching their preacher boys to rightly handle the Bible only has a clear answer at the extremes. (And I notice you don’t give any examples of institutions as to which your answer would be negative. You also don’t put BJU in either category, which is a glaring omission, unless I underestimate that school’s level of continuing influence.) For example, as far as I’m concerned, do West Coast, Hyles-Anderson, and Crown teach their grads how to properly handle Scripture? Clearly not. (I’m not familiar with Providence, but if it’s in that orbit, the answer is the same.) Does Maranatha? Not sure; based on observations of some of its grads, either no or maybe not. Does BJU? Depends; based on observations of many of its grads and attendance there myself, some professors do and some don’t, and many professors do in some areas and not in others, and the grads might or might not follow the better teaching after they’ve left.

So your approach is going to leave you (or at least me) with a (hopefully short) list of supposedly fundamentalist schools as to which the answer is no, they don’t teach proper handling of the Bible; maybe a short list of schools as to which the answer is yes, at least as to their stated approach and the general performance of their grads (or maybe a non-existent list); and a very long list of schools in the muddled middle.

Seems to me we’d be better off with a category or issue-based approach to determine who is a “wrong” fundy (not a fundy? lunatic fringe? cultural fundy? anachronistic fundy?) vs. a “right” fundy (biblical fundy?). If you’re KJVO, you’re not a biblical fundy. If you preach against women wearing pants, you’re not a Biblical fundy. If you preach against CCM for private listening (as opposed to use for church services), you’re not a biblical fundy. If you preach against going to the movie theater, you’re not a biblical fundy. If your criteria for music sung in church is, effectively, only that it pre-date 1960, you’re not a biblical fundy. If you preach a polity that looks the other way from the pastor’s sexual sin or dictatorship, you’re not a biblical fundy. (The list could go on.) If you endorse preachers or churches or schools that preach the above even though you don’t do it yourself, you’re not a biblical fundy.

Oops. Maybe that last one is another issue (the issue?) that is triggering the departures of young fundamentalists that Jeremy Wallace and Jeff Amsbaugh are concerned about. Even if they are in (or could get to) a church or school that itself handles the Word of God rightly, if it is associated with/cooperates with/endorses/soft pedals the non-biblical “fundamental” churches and schools, why stay and put up with that insult to their intelligence and their consciences?

My list of schools wasn’t meant to be exhaustive; I was in the middle of study and didn’t stop to list them all! It was meant to be representative. I didn’t mention BJU, Faith or a host of others because I was in a hurry. You are quite correct that graduation from a school doesn’t mean a grad will hold to the standards. For instance, KJVO advocate David Sorenson is a Central grad.

As for categories instead of schools as criteria, see the linked post in my original comment or, better yet, listen to Kevin Bauder’s lecture #4 from this year’s MacDonald Lectures.

As for Providence, behold the KJVO fiefdom of “Dr.” Keith Gomez … Did I spell “fiefdom” correctly … ? :(

Sorensen is a Central Grad? Whoa I didn’t know that. I thought he was a PCC man. That surprises me.

[paynen]…the worship of conservative American culture disguising itself as fundamentalism. I personally label this traditionalism.

Similar to Moralistic therapeutic deism​!

Wikipedia - Moralistic therapeutic deism

Christian Post - Moralistic Therapeutic Deism—the New American Religion

I can’t find where it confirms that Sorenson is a Central grad, but I’ve read that he is. A friend and I were discussing KJVO with Dr. Beacham over lunch while we were up at Central for the McDonald Lectures this year, and Dr. Beacham lamented that Sorenson should know better than to buy into KJVO foolishness.

See Doug Kutilek’s review of Sorenson’s KJVO book, Touch Not the Unclean Thing:

Sorenson was briefly an associate in the early 1970s of Richard V. Clearwaters, late pastor of Fourth Baptist Church of Minneapolis, Minnesota and founder of both Central Baptist Seminary and Pillsbury Baptist College, schools from which Sorenson graduated. He would have done well to have considered more carefully Clearwaters’ published remarks …

Yeah I had read that review before. I know he has some advanced degree from PCC but I had not heard that he had graduated from central. Beacham would know. It is really strange though.