Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Dispensationalism

Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists actually hold a great deal in common, including the most important things. Nevertheless, they do differ in certain ways. Some of those differences are more important and some less so. Some of them are more characteristic of each group, while others are matters of degree.

One of the differences has to do with dispensationalism and covenant theology. In general, fundamentalists are rather loyal to dispensationalism. Also in general, conservative evangelicals incline toward covenant theology.

This difference does not apply in every instance. Exceptions exist in both camps. Some fundamentalists are (and always have been) covenant theologians, while some conservative evangelicals are dispensationalists.

Actually, at one time many or most conservative evangelicals were also dispensationalists. For example, in his recent history of Dallas Seminary, John D. Hannah argues that Dallas Theological Seminary tried to stake out a middle ground between fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism. He cites Lewis Sperry Chafer and John Walvoord to show that these leaders disapproved of inclusive evangelism as it was practiced by the new evangelicals, but they also disapproved of the rigid separatism (as they saw it) of many fundamentalists.¹ Yet Dallas Seminary was certainly among the leading voices of dispensationalism.

Coming soon… Aaron Blumer & Brian McCrorie blog from the GARBC conference. (Twitter fans: Brian may do some Tweeting as well. Watch for more info.)

Last night we had the opportunity to hear Pastor Rick Arrowood. Pastor Arrowood is the pastor of Crosspointe Baptist Church in Indianapolis. He preached from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. He used this passage to describe the comfort that believers posess in the rapture. This service was by far the most attended service of the whole conference as it formed the Wednesday service for plenty of the area churches.

Brent Belford reporting from FBF.

This morning started with an exposition of 2 Peter 3:1-12 by Pastor Jim Efaw.

Pastor Efaw is the senior pastor of Beth Eden Baptist Church and he was also a pastor at Cross Lanes Bible Church in Cross Lanes, West Virginia. I also served on staff at CLBC for a time, so I know Pastor Efaw from his frequent visits back to West Virginia. Since I was a young man, I have always appreciated him and this session was no dissapointment. His basic premise was about the blessed hope that we have as believers.

Brent Belford reporting from FBF.

Greetings from Denver! I’m Brent Belford, a Bible professor from Northland International University, reporting on the FBFI Annual Fellowship. This year’s conference is being held at Tri-City Baptist Church in Westminster, Colorado.

I came to the conference at 3 pm for registration and was greeted by many wonderful and helpful workers. The registration process was easy to navigate and there were many staff prepared to help me in any way that they could. There were sessions going on in the auditorium that were designed to help chaplains learn how to better deal with Islam.

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Inside the Boundary

Fellowship is by definition that which is held in common. Unity is a function of that which unites. The quality of unity is always defined by the thing that unites, and the quality of fellowship is always defined by the nature of the thing that is held in common.

To speak of Christian fellowship and unity is to say that Christians hold something in common and that they are united by something. Christian unity and fellowship are not primarily experiential, but positional. All legitimate experiences and expressions of Christian unity and fellowship grow out of the real unity that exists among them.

The most basic form of Christian fellowship and unity is defined by the gospel. However else they may differ, Christians hold the gospel in common. Christian fellowship and unity are like a circle, and the boundary of the circle is the gospel.

Those who deny the gospel—whether explicitly by flat rejection or implicitly by denying some fundamental doctrine—are outside of the circle. No Christian unity or fellowship exists with someone who denies the gospel. Where no actual unity exists, any pretense of unity is the merest hypocrisy. Therefore, to profess unity or fellowship with someone who denies a fundamental of the gospel is always sinful.

Outside the Boundary

A few months ago I wrote an essay entitled “Let’s Get Clear on This.” That essay argued the following: (1) conservative evangelicals are not neo-evangelicals; (2) conservative evangelicals are making a substantial contribution to the defense and exposition of the Christian faith; (3) substantial differences continue to distinguish conservative evangelicals from fundamentalists; but (4) fundamentalists must not treat conservative evangelicals as enemies or even opponents. These points are, I think, as clear in reality as they were presented to be in the essay.

What “Let’s Get Clear on This” did not do was to explore the differences between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. Such an exploration would have been beside the point in that essay. Nevertheless, those differences remain important. What I have proposed to do is to examine the ways in which fundamentalism differs from conservative evangelicalism.

Partly, this is an empirical evaluation based upon an examination of the two movements as they actually exist at this point in time. But only partly. In my examination of the differences, I am deliberately opting for an a priori definition that excludes some self-identified fundamentalists.

My reason for this decision is simple: words refer to ideas, and ideas are anterior to things. This discussion will recognize as fundamentalists only those who approximate the idea of fundamentalism. Of course, none of us perfectly implements the idea. Whenever ideas are incarnated in human institutions, movements, and persons, they display the effects of human finiteness and fallenness. No ideal fundamentalist (or conservative, or Baptist, or even Christian, for that matter) has ever existed, and none ever will. We judge ourselves by the idea. In the present discussion, I shall consider only those versions of fundamentalism that are closer to the idea.