Observations About Those Who Are Still Here

Good content and distinctions the last few days by Mark Ward and Don Johnson.

I’m fascinated by who is not included in the “tent” of the article The “we” of this article represent a subset of those who are self-identified as Fundamentalists. Is this (BJU-Northland-Maranatha-Detroit-Central-IBC-Wilds-Faith-FBFI) group saying that their “wing” is separate from and not tolerant of the false doctrines and abuses of the (BBF-Sword of the Lord-Hyles-West Coast-KJVO-or-belligerent-TRO) group? That last group is probably not very well defined. But the second group is definitely left out of the “in crowd” of these articles.

I was in a situation from 1994 to 2004 where I was isolated from news regarding evangelicalism/fundamentalism. (Long story - think “The Village) I was stunned and thrilled when I emerged and learned what had happened in the Southern Baptist Convention and Seminaries having been taught that “we” would always lose those kinds of battles. “Our” reluctance to recognize this victory by our brethren was interesting. Even now they seem to be looked at with suspicion because, in spite fo winning the battle with apostasy, some of thm still haven’t come around to adopt our cultural stand.

First, a much repeated theme was an over-all good experience with fundamentalism, often the fruit of the ministry of godly parents. Don’t dismiss the importance of this. The very first place for Christian discipleship is the home. Christian parents who faithfully follow the Lord are most likely to reproduce Christian faith in their children. No worldly success will compensate for the disappointments that will come if your children fail to follow the faith. The Christians we highlight in our recent issue demonstrate that loving, faithful, fundamentalist Baptist parents will create the kind of positive home and church environment that motivates their children to continue in the faith of their parents.

I kept noticing the references to parenting and the history of fundamentalism as well in the articles I read, and honestly, I wonder if this is the biggest determining factor for those who ‘remained in’ versus those of us who ‘aren’t’ (whatever that means).

It seems like a lot of the ‘young fundamentalists’ (like myself) who have left the BJU-Wilds-etc orbit are people who did not grow up in Fundamentalism and who were not surrounded by that support system for whatever reasons. So while many of us do remain committed to the ‘big idea’ of Fundamentalism, we were also more able to step back and see the ‘warts’ much differently from someone who grew up in the BJU atmosphere of BJU daycare, BJU academy, BJU, BJU for post-grad work, then FBFI membership for five/ten years (as an example, and I’m not saying that to pick at anyone in particular).

It also makes us look at things a little differently when we didn’t grow up surrounded by and in constant contact people like Chief Jordan or David Doran or Ken Collier or Bob III or whomever. So we potentially see ‘mistakes’ as ‘major’ when someone who grew up with that constant exposure would be more inclined to let it slide as a simple mistake or something that should be easily overlooked. I think we saw some of that with the threads on Chuck Phelps way back when.

I (eventually) came to Fundamentalism from Roman Catholicism, so I have a very deep seated skepticism towards the ‘traditions handed down by our fathers’ and place a very high premium on first sources - seeing what the person actually said/wrote as opposed to receiving it second or third hand via coffee stories at the table. Stories like Don’s are great, and I’m glad for people that have those kinds of experiences, but it might be worth noting that there are a slew of first generation fundamentalists out there that don’t have that background, so we approach Fundamentalism and the FBFI differently than they would.

Jim,

You are absolutely correct. There are many individuals and groups fighting for the Cause. I know it and thank God for them.

[Jim]

My critique (criticism) is that you guys think you are the only ones fighting for orthodoxy and you fail to realize that there are allies who are a bit different than you but on the same side)

Jim, thank you for sharing your heartfelt thoughts here. I can’t speak for all, but I will share that it is not my perception that FBFI guys think they are the only ones fighting for orthodoxy. Perhaps some do, but such does not make it the case. Instead, the FBFI believes that it lends an important (albeit imperfect) voice to the broader spectrum of “those who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”

You wrote:

I kept noticing the references to parenting and the history of fundamentalism as well in the articles I read, and honestly, I wonder if this is the biggest determining factor for those who ‘remained in’ versus those of us who ‘aren’t’ (whatever that means). It seems like a lot of the ‘young fundamentalists’ (like myself) who have left the BJU-Wilds-etc orbit are people who did not grow up in Fundamentalism and who were not surrounded by that support system for whatever reasons.

I think this is a real factor. I have no fundamentalist heritage in my family. I don’t even have any Christian heritage. This may be why I am very baffled by some issues and personalities within fundamentalism.

This also impacts the so-called “generational gap” which Bro. Vaughn referenced. It would be easy for some people (e.g. the author of one of the convergent Frontline articles) to believe I’m wicked and deceitful, and assume I’m showing disrespect and disdain for the “old guard” of the movement. From their perspective, this seems like exactly what I’m doing. However, I didn’t grow up in fundamentalism, I have no ingrained deference and loyalty to “grand old guard.” It’s not a loyalty issue for me. I’m an outsider; I’m not homegrown.

• Fundamentalist institutions and organizations cannot assume they deserve “brand loyalty” from members who came to the movement as “strangers,” then become indignant when these fundamentalist proselytes begin asking pointed and direct questions - without the normal tip-toeing deference homegrown fundamentalists often employ.

The articles in this Frontline edition were good. I liked them. However, some (not all) of them were written by people who grew up in fundamentalism and they are very careful, very nuanced and very apologetic with their criticisms. Some of them read as if they’re written by insiders who are trying to be critical, but in as diplomatic and nice a way as possible. I understand how that is.

But, I think some of this so-called “generational gap” is due to the old guard not understanding that some of us aren’t homegrown fundamentalists, and we don’t ask questions with the same kind of ingratiating deference the “old guard” has, perhaps, become used to.

Maybe I’m wrong. I was encouraged by this article. It made me glad I subscribed to Frontline.

I plan to write something soon about why I’m grateful the Lord led me to Baptist fundamentalism. People rarely write anything positive about the movement; it’s often all negative. There are a lot of good things to say.

I appreciate Don’s article. I think we crossed paths back in our past lives at BJ long ago. I’m glad to see him faithfully serving the Lord after all these years.

I do take exception to this:

“Third, an often repeated refrain was the concern for practical holiness, suspicion of worldliness, and the desire to please the Master. While we have intramural debates on what this looks like when it comes to specific applications, the fact that we have these struggles demonstrates this as a fundamentalist distinctive. While the “worship wars” have been a subject of debate (to some degree) in evangelicalism, on average they don’t appear as concerned about this area of spiritual discernment as we do.”

I’m not sure how much wiggle room “on average” provides. I spent years in fundamentalism. I’ve seen a lot. When it comes to practical holiness, worldliness and pleasing the Master, I think it’s ludicrous to blanket suggest this as a “fundamentalist distintive.” Maybe a mark of fundamentalism would be a better choice of words (which Don later uses). Claiming “practical holiness et al” as a “fundamentalist distinctive” is an insult to those outside that camp who are every bit as concerned for holiness and every bit aware of the struggles. It sounds like, well, “holier than thou.” Rather than claiming holiness and preeminence in pleasing the Master, the gospel call us to an awareness of our need of continual repentance and humility.

If our institutions fail, we need to be loyal to God, first of all, and seek to build the work of God through institutions that are faithful to Him, even if it means stepping out and building new ones yet again.

I think Don’s statement here reveals one of the difficult things about this conversation. The previous generations have honed instincts to “separate first.” Perhaps I’m exaggerating slightly, but I think many of you will understand what I am talking about. These instincts were needed in many contexts, but have also led to some degrees of inter-mural factionalism that perhaps could have been avoided over the years.

For better or for worse, if what we know as “Fundamentalism” is to survive and perhaps one day thrive again (and I firmly believe it can), we have to start not with just learning how to get along with Conservative Evangelicals (though that may be part of it), but how better to get along with one another. The previous generations are conditioned to separate, and I believe bristle and react almost instinctively against anything that looks like a “reform and revitalize” kind of approach… or as my friend MWJr has cited and applied, “strengthening the things that remain.”
I don’t know how to reduce those kinds of conflicts. I do believe in allowing time for change… but make no mistake. Change is necessary. I’m committed to it in the contexts I’m now invested in. I’ve encountered resistance, and am willing to withstand it. I’m willing to do so because I still believe in our key principles and beliefs, our Biblical distinctives. Those things are nothing, however, without adherents who are taught to believe and live them. We are to invest ourselves in building Christ’s church. That is principles, but it is also people.
People need time to grow, time to change. People also need to be “recruited,” if you will. There is sometimes such a conditioning to be so suspicious of anything new, anything that might seem “trendy,” that I believe we miss so many real opportunities because we spent so much time worrying about being tainted and bucking against our sensibilities that we missed the people who needed Jesus.
If we look to the far past, some of our most prominent leaders—and I say this as a Calvinist—identified as Evangelists. They were serious about “recruiting.” Looking back even further in our history, my Baptist (even Calvinist) ancestors were, too (Spurgeon, Judson…). They were also to some degree innovators. Judson took many risks as the first Baptist missionary from the US. Spurgeon developed many tools that if he were to be doing today might be seen as “gimmicky” (did you know he is credited with developing the “Wordless Book”?).
Separation is still necessary… but it isn’t all that’s needed, either. A Holy God became man to redeem humanity from the curse of sin. Love provided life, and a means by which sinful people can embark on a process of transformation. It’s not all immediate.

I’m not arguing we never critique one another. But we need to extend a little more grace and remained committed to partnering and collaboration, even when people take risks and use approaches that raise some questions. We need to allow differences in administration and not be quick to leave and start our own new institutions. We might even need to look and consolidating some of the old ones in order to enhance effectiveness.

Who’s in? :)

Greg Linscott brings up a good point. In church history it seems that separation was a last resort when we consider the Reformation, the Downgrade Controversy, and the emergence of Baptist Fundamentalism.

I’m no expert on FBFI resolutions,but it strikes me that a lot of the dispute about separation lies in the question of whether we ought to separate based on “doubtful” things, or whether we simply choose not to partake. It strikes me that in some things which are doubtful—no clear testimony from Scripture—the FBFI takes the tack of “separate” a bit hastily.

I’m not opposed to separation when it needs to be done—I’ve personally separated from churches due to seeker sensitive theology (and lack of preaching) and KJVO/Trail of blood theology. The former contradicts Christ’s call to make disciples, the latter attacks the authority of Scripture itself. Big Deals. But there are a lot of other things where I simply choose not to partake.

Jim,

Hasn’t MWJr been saying that he can’t and won’t defend every FBFI resolution of the past? As I’ve been interacting with him, it seems that he is willing to acknowledge warts and not affirm everything, even as he is committed to strengthening what’s still here now.

If that’s the case, perhaps we can reduce the criticism of the past and talk about what is needed moving forward?

[Greg Linscott]

If that’s the case, perhaps we can reduce the criticism of the past and talk about what is needed moving forward?

Yes. I concur. And I think the FBFI leadership agrees as well.