Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

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.

Why This Discussion?

Some weeks ago I wrote a piece expressing appreciation and even admiration for the contributions that conservative evangelicals are making to the Christian faith. Many people have replied, both publicly and privately, both agreeably and disagreeably. Leaving aside the most hysterical evaluations, responses have generally fallen into four categories.

First, some have questioned whether particular individuals or institutions should have been listed as conservative evangelical. According to this response, some of the evangelicals whom I listed are not so conservative after all. To this criticism I reply that my direct knowledge of some individuals and organizations is less complete than my knowledge of others. It is entirely possible that a few of these people may be less conservative than I had understood them to be.

Since my main concern was with conservative evangelicalism as a movement, however, the inclusion or exclusion of a few names does not fundamentally alter my conclusions. In other words, the first criticism is not directed against the argument itself. The remaining criticisms, however, go to the heart of the matter. Let me put them on the table, and then I can evaluate them together.

Second, some have praised my essay for what they took to be its blanket endorsement of conservative evangelicalism. These respondents seem to believe that no appreciable difference exists between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. In my article they read agreement. They welcomed my observations as a legitimization for abolishing whatever barriers inhibit fundamentalists from fully cooperating with conservative evangelicals.

One of the perks of my job is that I get to go to many conferences. In fact, I am virtually required to attend, and often asked to speak at conferences of various sorts. Most are sponsored by parachurch agencies of some sort. Most are worth attending, which places the average pastor in something of a dilemma. Given his limited resources, how can he choose which conferences to attend?

Some are drawn to speakers or locations, while others choose conferences based upon their themes. Some attend out of obligation (perhaps their church is associated with the organization that is hosting the conference). Many go for the fellowship.

The conference that I attended last Monday stands out as a noteworthy blessing. This conference is held annually by the First Baptist Church in Rockford, Illinois. It is known as the “Conference on the Church for God’s Glory.”

My first experience with the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory came about a decade ago. At that time it was rather a small affair, as one might expect from a conference at a smaller church in a smaller city. Over the years, however, the event has grown.

Several features make this conference unique. In the first place, it is organized by a church for other churches. In a day when many conferences are sponsored by parachurch or ad hoc organizations, First Baptist has taken leadership in ministering to other congregations. It is an opportunity for pastors to speak to pastors about things that matter to churches rather than things that matter to associations, missions, or schools.