Is Cultural Fundamentalism a New Form of Fundamentalism?
I have no idea if this thread will last since it seems Sharper Iron is becoming the “let’s not talk about fundamentalism” fundamentalist blog. Anyway, recent threads and events have caused me to wonder, is so called Cultural Fundamentalism a new trend, or is it the old form keeping on while the new breed deviates from the established norm? Let me start be saying that I do not pretend to be an expert in Fundamentalist history. I have read the basic books (Pickering, Moritz, McLachlan) but I am not a vaunted graduate from a fundamentalist Bible college or seminary.
It seems to this “layman” that historically Biblical Christianity in America was a pretty separated group. There have always been the mainline denominations, but the hallmark of the First and Second Great Awakenings, the Finney revival, Moody, Salvation Army, etc, was a radical departure from the cultural norms. People were expected to be dedicated to their faith, refrain from alcohol (at least its abuse), read the Bible, pray, etc. Watch TV shows set in the 19th century west and the Christians are always portrayed as distinct from the regular population. That trend seems to have continued into the 20th century. Christianity was assumed to be distinct from the vices in the culture around it. As an anecdote both my grandparents and my wife’s grandparents did not have gold wedding rings until they were in their 50’s because gold rings were considered too worldly!
As the original battles with liberalism and modernism were raged, Fundamentalists separated from the liberals, and then the evangelicals that still associated with them from time to time. All through this fundamentalists were culturally distinct from the society around it. I’m sure many sermons were preached in the 1950’s on the evils of that new-fangled television set, not the mention the vices of Elvis and the Big Bopper. Into the 60’s we went and faced the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, marijuana, and the hippies. But something new was happening. Over in the corners of Christianity in America a new trend was breaking out. Pentecostalism had been born in 1901, but it had not been a wide spread movement in American Christianity. In fact is developed as distinct denominations. This started to change in the 1960’s with the so-called Charismatic Revival (that is what Charismatic groups call it at least). Speaking in tongues, prophecy, and the supremacy of emotional Christianity started to break out across denominations. This new feature in Christianity continued to spread. Charismatics developed a specialty in creating worship music. They created Christian music that was stylized along popular music tastes. This music grew in popularity and really seemed to explode in the late 1980’s and 1990’s. Eventually it became common for evangelical churches to use this Charismatic inspired music almost exclusively in their worship services, while others had “traditional” services in addition to the ones with so called CCM.
Along with changes in the music there was a dramatic shift in the focus of churches in the evangelical community. The dramatic success of the pastors like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels suggested that instead of being separate from culture Christians should embrace culture and use it as a tool to draw in the unbeliever. The mind of the evangelical began to change. Church was more about drawing in the unconverted than feeding the saints. To meet that desire church needed to look like the world rather than against it.
Somewhere along the line for various reasons this trend is starting to make its way into fundamentalism. Many “young fundamentalists” are rebelling against the traditional fundamentalism and its historic separation from the culture around it. Perhaps that isn’t all bad. But in rejecting traditional authority they have accepted other forms of authority that are not healthy or historically Christian. An example is using CCM styles of music for worship that were developed largely by Charismatics. Another is accepting contemporary culture and “trying to redeem it for Christ”. This is the main issue traditional fundamentalists see with NIU, as well as problems that have occurred at BJU with social media and, infamously, watching Glee. The next thing you know students at fundamentalist colleges are posting rap videos on youtube, producing Christian themed hip-hop, etc., and worse.
Traditional fundamentalists have responded to this new threat with a warning that modern culture and methods are to be separated from as well as liberalism. This is no different than historical fundamentalism. It went unstated in the past because there was general agreement to it. Now, people are feeling they can embrace elements of contemporary culture into a new form of fundamentalism that looks a lot like evangelicalism. As a result a new dogma develops that is labeled cultural fundamentalism that reminds us to separate from contemporary culture and methods. The young fundamentalists see this as the development of a new form of fundamentalism, but as Dr. Chuck Phelps stated somewhere, cultural fundamentalism is just simply old fashioned separation.
- 13 views
I do have concerns with certain segments of cultural fundamentalism, but that does not mean I want to repudiate separation. One of my main concerns is that cultural fundamentalism often tries to address the symptoms, rather than the real Biblical issues (Notice I said often- I am not accusing all of doing this). For example, if we preach against movies and rock music, but do not address separating from the works of the flesh in Gal. 5, we have then created the idea that as long as we avoid movies and rock music, then we will not be worldly. Let us not forget, the Apostle Paul never had to deal with Hollywood or Elvis, but he was very concerned about worldliness. The point that I am making is that even the Amish have problems with worldliness. They have separated from many things, but that does not mean that they are separated in all the areas that they should be separated from.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Mark,
I read your historical overview of cultural fundamentalism and I’m not on the same page as you. It reminds me of Maslow’s Hammer: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Charismatic movement seems to be your hammer. Because you experienced toxic Christianity in that movement, with its many excesses of emotionalism and the twisting of scripture, compounded by their use of CCM, you’ve automatically assumed that CCM is dangerous. And from how you described it, it was dangerous to you.
However, CCM was formed from many different influences, not just the charismatic movement. What’s more, the Jesus Movement-which led to the formation of the denomination, Calvary Chapel, the stream of the charismatic movement that first utilized CCM, was one of the more conservative charismatic groups where there weren’t nearly the excesses of craziness about the spiritual gifts. They were quite adamant about practicing the gifts with decency and order, subjected to the authority of scripture. In fact, Jonathon Wimber, founder of the Vineyard movement, criticized them for being too Bible authority centered, which led to not aggressively pursuing the sign gifts. I am not denying that the Pentecostal Movement, the Charismatic movement, and the third wave movement didn’t utilize CCM, just know that it began in a much more conservative realm of charismatics than you’ve described.
If you’d like to do more research on this subject, I would start with a book by Charlie Peacock called, At the crossroads: inside the past, present, and future of Christian Contemporary Music. He also includes the Southern Baptists as a major contributor to CCM with their emphasis in combining popular music with event evangelism. I would also add Black Gospel and R&B as a major contributor as well, but often white Christians overlook this fact because they have not been exposed to much of Black history (except during Black History Month in public schools). Many Christians are even more ignorant of Black history within evangelicalism in the past 200 years.
As for the evangelical church changing to be more like the culture with the examples of Hybels and Warren, it actually goes back a few centuries when the enlightenment and modernity began to take root as the authority of revelation began to be replaced by the authority of reason, individualism, pragmatism, (among many other things). For more research, I would recommend books by Dr. David Wells such as No Place for Truth.
I knew you disagreed with me as I wrote the thread. You missed the entire point though. The point is that what is being labeled cultural fundamentalism is not something new. It is traditional fundamentalism. The thing that is new is “fundamentalists” thinking they can incorporate secular music styles and themes and principles into the the church.
As for the Charismatic movement being my hammer, it is not. Several threads have focused on CCM with Sovereign Grace being the center of it. They are Charismatic, thus the importance of that.
Mark,
You bring up how you’ve argued against Sovereign Grace and they are charismatic. You constantly make the charismatic movement and CCM as two inseparable entities that are destroying evangelicalism and now maybe fundamentalism. So if the charismatic movement isn’t your hammer, is CCM your hammer?
By the way, Black Gospel was one of the streams that influenced CCM. The roots of Black Gospel music was not secular. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to see things with CCM without much nuance.
And since you brought up the 19th century, some of the Ira Sanky songs at Moody revivals did sound alot like “the world.”(if you compare some of the folk songs from that era).
To be honest, because I am more of a type C fundamentalist (using Joel T’s taxonomy). I actually resonate more with Carl F.H. Henry’s “Uneasy Conscience of a Modern Fundamentalist” than I do with much of what you describe as traditional and cultural fundamentalism (Although I did disagree with a few points of Henry’s book). Churches that embrace the cultural fundamentalism that you seem to describe don’t do well in inner-city neighborhoods like mine. Over the past 20 years as an urban missionary, I’ve seen about 15-20 start in my city and they either fizzle out in a few years or they stay a mission church never becoming self-supporting because they had a very truncated view of how to Biblically address culture. Which is why you rarely ever see an African-American fundamentalist Baptist church that holds to your view of music ( for instance even an association of Black fundamental Baptist churches called Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association embraces some contemporary black gospel and some CCM).
This is going to sound harsh, but, correct me if I’m wrong, Henry was one of the founding fathers of New Evangelicalism. If you subscribe to his view of “fundamentalism”, you are NOT a fundamentalist in the contemporary sense, but are instead a conservative evangelical. No shame in that by the way. Own it. So why are you at a fundamentalist forum?
You aren’t the only one by the way. I am simply trying to understand why people who support New Evangelical thought are cruising fundamentalist forums and acting like fundamentalists?
I just looked up Joel T’s 3 level system. You self-identify as an evangelical. So why are we debating an internal matter? I appreciate your views, but they aren’t really relevant to me. I expect an evangelical to use CCM.
Mark,
No. The lines are not as clean as you would like them to be. I am relevant to you because the fundamentalist background that I come from is the GARBC and IFCA. My sending church is GARBC, which considers it fundamentalist and there are several hundred churches strong among them that utilize CCM (although with discernment) The independent church that we started was launched by an IFCA church (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) which also has several hundred churches that utilize CCM. Sorry, but the cultural fundamentalist view is not the only stripe of Fundamentalist around. Several, several hundred churches that I am in contact with do not subscribe to the cultural fundamentalist view that you embrace. By the way, I have been on this forum since 2006……..
Where I differ with Henry, is his more positive view of Billy Graham’s ministry. I could never have joined a crusade with BG because of his cozy partnerships with RC and liberal apostates.
[Mark_Smith] This is going to sound harsh, but, correct me if I’m wrong, Henry was one of the founding fathers of New Evangelicalism. If you subscribe to his view of “fundamentalism”, you are NOT a fundamentalist in the contemporary sense, but are instead a conservative evangelical. No shame in that by the way. Own it. So why are you at a fundamentalist forum?
Mark,
This isn’t a “Fundamentalist Forum” (whatever that means and whoever gets to define that term anymore). If that’s what you’re looking for, you may want to head to the FFF or the Baptist Board. This site is:
[a] site hosted by people of historic fundamentalist conviction (See “Fundamentalist?!” It may not be what you think).
Our aim is to provide a place where Christians can interact thoughtfully and respectfully on a wide range of topics, including our articles and the news items and blog samples we post daily.
But you can start your own conversation. Register, and stop by the Forums and introduce yourself.
The site is of special interest to “fundamentalists,” but we don’t ask that you claim that movement personally in order to participate here. We do ask that you understand and affirm our Doctrinal Statement and agree to abide by the Forum Comment Policy.
The name of the site derives from Proverbs 27:17. “As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.”
It’s our hope that discussions here focus on ideas and understanding and a passion to understand and live by the Scriptures and that, as a result, iron sharpens iron.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
as a whole is anything but a Fundamentalist board. Though, it does have one forum dedicated to Fundamental Baptists. But that designation is honored many time in the breech.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
was to discuss whether so called cultural fundamentalism is new or just old time separation.
I have no idea if this thread will last since it seems Sharper Iron is becoming the “let’s not talk about fundamentalism” fundamentalist blog.
Comments:
- Jay addressed the “fundamentalist blog” comment
- What evidence do you have that a thread of this nature would be eliminated? Paranoid?
- Ditto with this comment: ” Sharper Iron is becoming the “let’s not talk about fundamentalism”“
Several threads have been locked including the one with the essay from Steve Whigham that was locked from its initial posting. That is strange. I was referring to that and the NIU threads being locked down.
Mark,
Without commenting much on the back and forth sense your original post - I’d like to take a short stab at your question. This is from my perspective. So my view is that historic fundamentalism is found today within 3 groups - A, B and C. The C’s call themselves “evangelicals” but they are militant, they fight ecumenicalism and frankly they act, smell and write just like the majority of the first generation of fundamentalists did. There is a fourth group - Type A+ who are the radical hyper-fundamentalists who demand loyalty to either the Baptist label or the KJV. This is extra-historical with fundamentalism and so in my book they are “Hyper-Fundamentalism” and frankly dangerous. We are not friends to say the least.
Most who hold to what I call Type B and C fundamentalism are not comfortable with cultural fundamentalism because in our view fundamentalism defines only a portion of what we are. The Type A’s in the main embrace cultural fundamentalism because to them fundamentalism is more a noun - they are fundamentalists first and foremost.
To the Type B’s and C’s fundamentalism defines some of our Bibliology and Ecclesiology. So like in my case in Soteriology I am Calvinist (4.5). In hermeneutics I am dispensational-ish. In my view of Sanctification I am reformed - very reformed. In counseling I am mostly nouthetic. In my view of creation and the front end of Genesis I am a young earth guy - who doesn’t believe the old earth guys are automatically anti-Gospel. My view of the Baptist heritage is partly spiritual kinship yet largely …. the “English Separatist view.” My point is fundamentalism describes just one facet of my ecclesiastical uniform.
The reason for this is multi-layered. The first is that I’m not sure we are to be flying the flag except the flag of the gospel. Our loyalty should be to King Jesus and the Scriptures. In my view, cultural fundamentalism in the main demands an unholy loyalty to it’s own denomination. For too many of you inside cultural fundamentalism - the title has become an idol. That’s a problem.
My guess is cultural fundamentalism has been a force ever sense it began to emphasizing “fundamentalists standards” (vis-a-vis Biblical ones) for home life, church life, etc…..that placed a heavy emphasis on “us vs them” (fundamentalists vs everyone else even in the Christian community). So when was it that fundamentalism began to say/practice the idea that you were disobedient or at least deficient if you didn’t go to our schools, our colleges, use our Sunday School Curriculum, invite only our evangelists, read only our books (all 3 of them), listened only to the old hymns and newer songs limited to one of three or four groups (most of which should come from Greenville to one degree or another), etc……If you consider what I call Type A+ fundamentalism which I include with the majority of the Hyles gang, the Sword of the Lord group, the bus wing of the BBF, etc…..and if you include their additional demand of cultural fundamentalism that one had to use a specific English translation of the Bible - well I think you are probably looking at the early to mid 70’s on to today…….but it’s on life-support within the balanced sections of the movement today.
My guess is the discerning guys left in the balanced wings of the movement end up just being quietly independent and I mean really independent or they end up like me - hanging with some guys that are somewhat still connected to the movement as well as militant evangelicals who repudiate ecumenicalism.
Mark - my man - that’s what I’m doing. You have to do what you believe you must. God bless with that as He speed’s your journey within the corner of His Vineyard.
As I try to always say………
Straight Ahead!
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;
[Mark_Smith]Several threads have been locked including the one with the essay from Steve Whigham that was locked from its initial posting. That is strange. I was referring to that and the NIU threads being locked down.
Mark,
What threads have been locked down? Other than this one from Saturday?
There are two locked threads. One of which, Aaron explained, was simply to give the NIU issue a rest. The other of which was posted without comment (which I think was probably a good move). That’s the Whigham one.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
There is this thing called humor and hyperbole…
Which type of separation is the most important to us?
-Separation from false doctrine and teachers.
-Separation from other Christians.
-Separation from worldliness.
Or perhaps we should ask others which of these best describes our practice.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I think that in any other context outside this particular religious one, “Cultural Fundamentalism” would be understood as anything but religious. To explain what I mean, think about what the term “Islamic Fundamentalist” expresses. It does not mean a Bible-believing protestant who favors Islam. “Catholic Fundamentalist” does not mean a Bible-believing protestant who favors the Catholic Church. Webster’s unabridged dictionary defines fundamentalism as either the historical American Protestant movement known by this name, or “Strict adherence to any basic set of ideas or principles.” Thus, “Cultural Fundamentalist” means someone who strictly adheres to the basic ideas of principles of a particular culture. When you begin talking about “Cultural Fundamentalists,” you move the discussion out of the Christian realm. The overlap any “Cultural Fundamentalism” has with “Fundamentalism” is necessarily coincidental, it seems to me.
Truth is, the Christian faith impacts culture, in any culture. Thus all Christians have something to say about culture. Their faith compels them to do so. If there are “Cultural Fundamentalists,” then all Christians should either adopt this nomenclature of “Cultural Fundamentalist” for themselves, or else call themselves “Cultural Iconoclasts,” or “Cultural Something-in-betweens.” But this is rarely how Christians have ever defined themselves in respect to culture. These are titles that we only tag onto people with whom we disagree.
May I suggest that we create the titles:
1. “Home-schooling Fundamentalist,” - except that you don’t have to be Christian to do Home-schooling.
2. “Classical Music Fundamentalist” - except that you can be an atheist and love Classical music.
3. “Rock Music Fundamentalist” - except that you can worship pagan gods and love rock.
4. “NRA Fundamentalist” - except that you can love guns and shoot at any preacher who comes near your house.
I’ll stop there.
What I think some people really mean by the term is “culturally-conservative Fundamentalist.” But the term “Cultural Fundamentalist,” a true misnomer, has been created as jargon to define some Christians that we feel have gotten hung up on what we think is too much culture. Further, they have lost sight of the Bible. If this is what we feel, we should say it outright - right or wrong - and be responsible for what we say. Perhaps “culturally-conservative Fundamentalist” sounds too nice. Find something else that has true meaning. But also remember that when we raise the culture issue, it often bites the other way. If, for instance, we talk about music (and when do we not on this website?), and feel conservatives have gone culturally overboard on rejecting the more contemporary forms of music, then we also need to recognize the opposite. Jazz, Rock, Rap, and CCM, are as American as American can be. And their merchandising has transformed cultural musical expression all over the world. These sounds have far more to do with American cultural origin than any we know. Who then really has the cultural hang-ups? But I mention one topic of many.
I my view, we are rather silly on this website to talk about, or even use the term, “Cultural Fundamentalist.” If “thinking is fundamental,” then I suggest we so some thinking.
Discussion