Kent Brandenburg's journey from Fundamentalism (Part 1)
Who is Kent Brandenburg?
Frankly, I’m getting tired of reading such stories (why do I still read them? I don’t know). I have some of the same issues he has or has had, but such stories seem to paint a monolithic picture of fundamentalism when it has always been fragmented.
Frankly, I’m getting tired of reading such stories (why do I still read them? I don’t know). I have some of the same issues he has or has had, but such stories seem to paint a monolithic picture of fundamentalism when it has always been fragmented.
[RPittman] Steve, you and Kent are viewing the world through two different sets of eyes. I doubt that you hold the same views on separation, KJV, behavioral norms, etc. as Kent. Your norms are compatible with Calvary and their views on the KJV. Naturally, you would not notice or easily pick up on criticism as readily as Kent, who is coming from a different prospective. Kent is sensitive to the KJV issue whereas you would naturally be more in agreement. Thus, he is not slandering anyone but he is stating his perspective. Give him the right to his opinion. To one person the food is awful but another finds it delicious. It’s a matter of perspective and not a point to villify.Kent’s perspective is one of a summer intern and I spent years there off and on. I’m no longer there and have no reason to be beholden to them in coming to their defense. When I was a student at Calvary, I was a proud defender of KJV-onlyism. If there had been “mocking” and “scoffing” I would’ve known about it. Kent grossly exaggerates the position of the school and if there were professors and “many” graduates who did this it would be easy to be more specific.
Listen, not everything Kent says about what he knew of fundamentalism and its excesses and aberrations is wrong. But he is wrong on this and it’s a cheap shot. He was a summer intern and in that time found out that the professors and many graduates mocked and scoffed at the KJV? Please! It’s not true and he ought to retract that point.
Steve
FWIW, Basil Manly Jr. died in 1892, so I think the story above may be apocryphal or, at the least, conflating some things. The lives of Manly and Riley overlapped, so it is possible there was communication between them, but if Manly died before the Fundamentalist movement really had formed, I don’t see how this could be an accurate way of framing the exchange.
Historical accuracy aside, the idea that a Baptist might not want to engage in an interdenominational fight is certainly plausible.
Historical accuracy aside, the idea that a Baptist might not want to engage in an interdenominational fight is certainly plausible.
DMD
Todd,
I would agree with Kent being independent. I might actually call him “super-independent.” I mean Todd…you’re independent. I’m independent. Kent is a whole category beyond you or I. Now, he is a self-thinker. Actually there are some things I’ve always enjoyed about Kent - 1) He doesn’t care if you like him or not. 2) You don’t have to worry about Kent trying to make his view “smooth” so that the reader can swallow the words easier. 3) I think Kent truly loves Christ and has no time to seek the applause of men - in that sense Kent demonstrates a commitment to the Lordship of Jesus - very cool! 4) I know for a fact Kent hates “easy believe-ism” and does a good job with explaining and living the gospel. 5) Kent has paid and continues to pay the price of study. 6) In interacting with Kent, he’s actually one of the few “Type A’s” that will actually try to understand the other sides “view” without setting up a straw man. Back when Kent and I were going back and forth on my Taxonomy, I think for the most part Kent was fair in explaining what I was saying. Obviously we disagreed on the conclusions.
Kent is probably going to struggle with koinonia outside of his own congregation. That may be OK with him. I actually understand and even think Kent is right about a number of issues he lays at the feet of fundamentalism. I’m just not sure he offers a viable solution in a few of the categories. I hope things go well with Kent. We obviously have a different approach to ministry. I’m sure he’d call me evangelical or even neoevangelical. I’d call him somewhat of a hyperfundamentalist in his view of the text, the roll of women in home/ministry, and a few other areas. In the end neither one of us would care. If we could, we’d play a friendly game of horse, He would win - I’d buy him a root beer…..we would end the meeting with a hug and an appreciation that we both serve the same merciful Savior.
Straight Ahead Kent!
jt
I would agree with Kent being independent. I might actually call him “super-independent.” I mean Todd…you’re independent. I’m independent. Kent is a whole category beyond you or I. Now, he is a self-thinker. Actually there are some things I’ve always enjoyed about Kent - 1) He doesn’t care if you like him or not. 2) You don’t have to worry about Kent trying to make his view “smooth” so that the reader can swallow the words easier. 3) I think Kent truly loves Christ and has no time to seek the applause of men - in that sense Kent demonstrates a commitment to the Lordship of Jesus - very cool! 4) I know for a fact Kent hates “easy believe-ism” and does a good job with explaining and living the gospel. 5) Kent has paid and continues to pay the price of study. 6) In interacting with Kent, he’s actually one of the few “Type A’s” that will actually try to understand the other sides “view” without setting up a straw man. Back when Kent and I were going back and forth on my Taxonomy, I think for the most part Kent was fair in explaining what I was saying. Obviously we disagreed on the conclusions.
Kent is probably going to struggle with koinonia outside of his own congregation. That may be OK with him. I actually understand and even think Kent is right about a number of issues he lays at the feet of fundamentalism. I’m just not sure he offers a viable solution in a few of the categories. I hope things go well with Kent. We obviously have a different approach to ministry. I’m sure he’d call me evangelical or even neoevangelical. I’d call him somewhat of a hyperfundamentalist in his view of the text, the roll of women in home/ministry, and a few other areas. In the end neither one of us would care. If we could, we’d play a friendly game of horse, He would win - I’d buy him a root beer…..we would end the meeting with a hug and an appreciation that we both serve the same merciful Savior.
Straight Ahead Kent!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[RPittman] Steve, you and Kent are viewing the world through two different sets of eyes. I doubt that you hold the same views on separation, KJV, behavioral norms, etc. as Kent. Your norms are compatible with Calvary and their views on the KJV. Naturally, you would not notice or easily pick up on criticism as readily as Kent, who is coming from a different prospective. Kent is sensitive to the KJV issue whereas you would naturally be more in agreement. Thus, he is not slandering anyone but he is stating his perspective. Give him the right to his opinion. To one person the food is awful but another finds it delicious. It’s a matter of perspective and not a point to villify.I arrived in Lansdale in August of 1994. I was KJVOnly. All of the professors, in particular Gordon Lovik, Clint Banz, Steve Horine, and the dean, Dave Burggraff, were bend-over-backwards gracious and loving to me and my weak understanding of the issues. In no way did any of the profs say anything negative about the KJV or KJVOnly’ites, either inside or outside of class. They helped me, prayed with me, encouraged me as I struggled with the issues. I can testify that these profs sought me out and touched base with me on a regular basis. Their offices and hearts were open to my knock and they spent more than they probably should have helping me.
Yes, some, a small minority, of the student body did make jokes about Hyles and Ruckmanites, but that is to be understood in the context of the day. In no way were those jokes/teasings done with the approval of the profs. A poor joke by a student around the coffee pot should not be held against the leaders or the institution itself. Children may make jokes that are inappropriate at times, but that very well may be because they are young and childish. A few young recent grads from college making some bad attempts at humor is no reason to say that the seminary’s profs were involved in that, or that seminary graduates were involved.
As a side note, often attempts to humor are perceived as attempts to hurt. Perhaps a softer heart and thicker skin would be good for all of us.
I’m very sorry that Kent’s experience at Lansdale differs so dramatically than mine. My experience was that the staff and profs loved God, loved the Bible, and graciously displayed a patient Christ-like love to me. May their tribe increase.
Joe
Joel…I admire so many things about you and among the things that blesses me most is your consistent graciousness. I hope that I can better work toward that spirit in my life. Thank you for demonstrating that for us yet again. Hopefully it will help me write more kindly in the following paragraphs.
I, like Kent, also feel like I don’t belong in “fundamentalism” anymore, though I don’t know if I’m ready to say that I’ve “left it” as declaratively as has he. I was intrigued that many of the same things that drove him his direction into a more isolationist definition of his faith actually have driven me and other so-called “young fundamentalists” (Hey, I haven’t reached the big 5-0 quite yet, so I’m laying claim to that title for a few more weeks) in the opposite direction.
One of the issues he raises — that of the KJVO matter — actually was a major factor in my questioning of what passes for “fundamentalism” these days, but because I experienced the exact opposite of what he described and which Steve Davis challenged. As a teen in the 70’s, I was introduced to people like Peter Ruckman and Harold Boyd and Scotty Drake and others as the whole KJVO movement started gaining steam. I was solidly ensconced in the Hyles brand of fundamentalism at that time (to my current embarrassment — but I was an impressionable teen) and in those days, Hyles would have nothing of them. (We were threatened with expulsion at HAC in the late 70’s early 80’s for reading Ruckman or holding a KJVO view). The horrifically vicious attacks in print and from pulpits by the main voices of the KJVO leadership was unlike anything I had ever heard. “The Flaming Torch” and Ruckman’s “Bible Believers Bulletin” were scorching weapons against those that saw the possibility of preservation of the Scripture being something more than KJV or even English for that matter. Those not holding the position were called cultists, infidels, pissants and worse. People I had been taught to hold in high esteem (again — in some cases to my current embarrassment) like the Jones’ trio, Hyles, Lee Roberson, John R. Rice, G. B. Vick, just about every Southern Baptist, etc…, etc… were not just criticized, but viciously demeaned. At that point in my life, I had never heard anyone talk about others that way — saved or unsaved, and it immediately set off all kinds of alarms. I was reared in a family that only used the KJV, but was not KJVO and we were basically eventually pitched out of the church we had initially started in our home when Ruckmanism took over the church. Sadly, the tragedy didn’t end there for us and it is too painful to write about publicly.
When I read I John and other passages that deal with the fruit of the Holy Spirit, I saw a huge absence of the characteristics of brotherly love within the Body of Christ. It was this thing, more than the other things, which caused me to re-evaluate all I had heard and been taught about separation, “standards” and other issues. I became aware of my own arrogance, obnoxious pride in my self-righteousness and Pharisaical criticisms that I would spew on others who didn’t “measure up” to our latest “list” of holiness standards. This lead me to greater study. Doing things that had been all but forbidden to me by the “leaders” of fundamentalism including listening to expositional preaching (something that Hyles-Anderson actively taught against with sayings like “Expositional Preaching will destroy a church”), deeper study of Scripture (what was again referred to as being “deeper life” in a pejorative way) and asking impolitic questions about things like “inter-racial dating policies”, “not attending movies but supporting about everything else Hollywood related”, why “no pants on women” was constantly harped upon while immoral behavior by men was rarely discussed, questioning the practice of counting “saying the magic prayer as a decision for Christ”, wondering about the total absence of legitimate discipleship, etc…, etc…
I haven’t changed a thing about what I believe doctrinally in the nearly 30 years since I went to Fundy U. However, I absolutely do not belong nor do I want to belong to what I see in the typical church of my first 25 years of life. Unlike Kent, I feel a greater liberty and confidence in who I am in Christ and what I believe from Scripture which allows me to interact with people to the left of me and challenge their softness on some issues and receive equal challenges on other matters in which I have become blind or am simply uneducated. Sadly, those to the right of me appear to be so isolationist in their mentality or so threatened by a challenging question or vigorous dialogue that they rarely want to engage in meaningful (read: non-reflexive, non-cliche, non-belligerent) conversation. It almost never is a matter of real doctrine, but a matter of philosophy, methodology, worldview, application and separation issues.
I’m grateful that I’ve been able to network with others (often because of this very website) who identify with fundamentalist orthodoxy, but are unwilling to become so isolated that they can’t — as Joel would describe it — share a root beer or spend a few hours around the proverbial campfire discussing where we are and how we got here and where we should be going.
Kent’s articles resonated with me in our shared experiences and saddened me as I realize that we are further apart than ever. Like Joel, I believe those of us who are frustrated with what much of fundamentalism has become would be better served if we kept speaking to each other than constantly looking for cause to separate from and criticize each other.
I, like Kent, also feel like I don’t belong in “fundamentalism” anymore, though I don’t know if I’m ready to say that I’ve “left it” as declaratively as has he. I was intrigued that many of the same things that drove him his direction into a more isolationist definition of his faith actually have driven me and other so-called “young fundamentalists” (Hey, I haven’t reached the big 5-0 quite yet, so I’m laying claim to that title for a few more weeks) in the opposite direction.
One of the issues he raises — that of the KJVO matter — actually was a major factor in my questioning of what passes for “fundamentalism” these days, but because I experienced the exact opposite of what he described and which Steve Davis challenged. As a teen in the 70’s, I was introduced to people like Peter Ruckman and Harold Boyd and Scotty Drake and others as the whole KJVO movement started gaining steam. I was solidly ensconced in the Hyles brand of fundamentalism at that time (to my current embarrassment — but I was an impressionable teen) and in those days, Hyles would have nothing of them. (We were threatened with expulsion at HAC in the late 70’s early 80’s for reading Ruckman or holding a KJVO view). The horrifically vicious attacks in print and from pulpits by the main voices of the KJVO leadership was unlike anything I had ever heard. “The Flaming Torch” and Ruckman’s “Bible Believers Bulletin” were scorching weapons against those that saw the possibility of preservation of the Scripture being something more than KJV or even English for that matter. Those not holding the position were called cultists, infidels, pissants and worse. People I had been taught to hold in high esteem (again — in some cases to my current embarrassment) like the Jones’ trio, Hyles, Lee Roberson, John R. Rice, G. B. Vick, just about every Southern Baptist, etc…, etc… were not just criticized, but viciously demeaned. At that point in my life, I had never heard anyone talk about others that way — saved or unsaved, and it immediately set off all kinds of alarms. I was reared in a family that only used the KJV, but was not KJVO and we were basically eventually pitched out of the church we had initially started in our home when Ruckmanism took over the church. Sadly, the tragedy didn’t end there for us and it is too painful to write about publicly.
When I read I John and other passages that deal with the fruit of the Holy Spirit, I saw a huge absence of the characteristics of brotherly love within the Body of Christ. It was this thing, more than the other things, which caused me to re-evaluate all I had heard and been taught about separation, “standards” and other issues. I became aware of my own arrogance, obnoxious pride in my self-righteousness and Pharisaical criticisms that I would spew on others who didn’t “measure up” to our latest “list” of holiness standards. This lead me to greater study. Doing things that had been all but forbidden to me by the “leaders” of fundamentalism including listening to expositional preaching (something that Hyles-Anderson actively taught against with sayings like “Expositional Preaching will destroy a church”), deeper study of Scripture (what was again referred to as being “deeper life” in a pejorative way) and asking impolitic questions about things like “inter-racial dating policies”, “not attending movies but supporting about everything else Hollywood related”, why “no pants on women” was constantly harped upon while immoral behavior by men was rarely discussed, questioning the practice of counting “saying the magic prayer as a decision for Christ”, wondering about the total absence of legitimate discipleship, etc…, etc…
I haven’t changed a thing about what I believe doctrinally in the nearly 30 years since I went to Fundy U. However, I absolutely do not belong nor do I want to belong to what I see in the typical church of my first 25 years of life. Unlike Kent, I feel a greater liberty and confidence in who I am in Christ and what I believe from Scripture which allows me to interact with people to the left of me and challenge their softness on some issues and receive equal challenges on other matters in which I have become blind or am simply uneducated. Sadly, those to the right of me appear to be so isolationist in their mentality or so threatened by a challenging question or vigorous dialogue that they rarely want to engage in meaningful (read: non-reflexive, non-cliche, non-belligerent) conversation. It almost never is a matter of real doctrine, but a matter of philosophy, methodology, worldview, application and separation issues.
I’m grateful that I’ve been able to network with others (often because of this very website) who identify with fundamentalist orthodoxy, but are unwilling to become so isolated that they can’t — as Joel would describe it — share a root beer or spend a few hours around the proverbial campfire discussing where we are and how we got here and where we should be going.
Kent’s articles resonated with me in our shared experiences and saddened me as I realize that we are further apart than ever. Like Joel, I believe those of us who are frustrated with what much of fundamentalism has become would be better served if we kept speaking to each other than constantly looking for cause to separate from and criticize each other.
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
As we look at church history, there are just too many people who God chose to use in mighty ways who were not baptist. We can be baptist by conviction, defend those convictions, stand on those convictions, and at the same time recognize that there are a lot of great Christians in the body of Christ who are not baptist. As you take an honest look at baptist history, there were many great baptists who would die for their convictions but respect and even have friendship with and view other people who were not baptist as co-laborers.
I believe that the real problem for us here is that many of us know that far too much of what Kent says is true…
But we should continue this arduous journey of figuring out what was bad in the movement and cling to what was good; all the while realizing that we probably had some things wrong in our thinking in the past…and will have some more in our future.
In regards to building the Church of Jesus Christ we may have just graduated from 1st grade.
This is the path of sanctification and repentance.
But we should continue this arduous journey of figuring out what was bad in the movement and cling to what was good; all the while realizing that we probably had some things wrong in our thinking in the past…and will have some more in our future.
In regards to building the Church of Jesus Christ we may have just graduated from 1st grade.
This is the path of sanctification and repentance.
Discussion