Separatist, Baptist Fundamentalism
Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-04 and is reprinted with permission from the May/June issue of FrontLine magazine.
Discussion
FBFI Resolution 09-04
Separation versus Limited Participation
Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-03 and is reprinted with permission from the May/June issue of FrontLine magazine.
Is There A Difference?
Introduction
Pastor Robert Corso is facing a hard decision. Another Bible-believing pastor in his town has asked him to participate in a joint youth outreach emphasis. The difficulty is that Pastor Corso has some significant differences with the other church in terms of ministry philosophy and the practice of youth ministry. Although he does not wish to throw stones, he does not feel comfortable participating in the event. Pastor Corso is sure that some of his church members believe that he should publicly separate from the other church. Other members would see nothing wrong with participating, given that the gospel is more important than a church’s “parochial interests.”
Although there are times when a church must unequivocally separate itself from individuals and ministries, many times a pastor is faced with a situation like the one above. He does not believe that he has clear enough Scriptural warrant to publicly declare another ministry or minister to be “in sin,” but he does not think it prudent to involve himself too closely with that ministry or a particular project. The question is whether he has the leeway to limit his participation without officially separating from the other ministry. Are there such things as prudential limits on association that are different in nature from Biblical separation?
Discussion
FBFI Resolution 09-03
Is Fundamentalism a Cultural Phenomenon?
Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-02 and is reprinted with permission from the May/June 2009 issue of FrontLine magazine.
One criticism leveled against Fundamentalists is their refusal to engage the culture. Sociologist Alan Wolfe writes, “When believers refuse to engage the culture, their opponents dismiss them as fanatics, frustrated people rendered insecure by the dilemmas and opportunities of modernity.” 1 Implicit in this complaint is resentment toward Fundamentalists for being unsociable: they are generally an intolerant people who do not mix well with their culture. Interestingly, this same complaint was directed against first-century believers by Roman hedonists.
It is true that historically Fundamentalists have refused to tolerate, let alone participate in behavior that exalts sensual pleasure and denigrates Christian values. The criticism is perennial, and understandably so, since sincere Christians have taken seriously the Biblical admonition to love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. They love and are loved by God, whose values are theirs and whose commands they seek to obey. And those living for the world have hated them for it.
Discussion
FBFI Resolution 09-02
What Is the Gospel?
Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-01.
The word evangel means gospel. Therefore, to be evangelical is to be defined by the gospel. At minimum, those who claim to be Evangelicals should have a very clear idea of what the gospel is.
Within today’s Evangelicalism, however, the content of the gospel is the subject of significant disagreement. Many contemporary Evangelicals are attempting to create an understanding of the gospel that is much more inclusive than the message of personal salvation. While these Evangelicals do not always deny a personal gospel (and some are fervently committed to it), they think that the gospel must also deal with other issues, including problems of a psychological, social, and environmental nature. What they proclaim is neither simply a personal gospel nor a social gospel. It is a both/and gospel.
The basic argument for the both/and gospel is that sin has done more than to disrupt our personal relationship with God. It has disrupted the inner integrity of each individual, resulting in the disintegration of emotional wholeness. It has disrupted the relationship between humans, resulting in oppression and exploitation. It has disrupted our relationship to the created order, resulting in the ruination of nature through human abuse. According to proponents of the both/and gospel, a meaningful gospel must address each of these issues directly.
Discussion
A Man Sent from God
John Monroe Parker
June 23, 1909-June 23, 2009
Editor’s Note: Today marks the one hundredth anniversary of Dr. Monroe’s birth. He went home to glory on July 17, 1994.
“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” (John 1:6). John Monroe Parker was born June 23, 1909, in Thomasville, Alabama. His parents, Jacob and Lucy Parker, named him after John Parker, a paternal uncle who was a Baptist preacher, and Monroe, a maternal uncle who died in infancy. He was always known by his middle name. Before he reached school age, Parker’s parents moved the family to Texas. When he was thirteen, his parents returned to Thomasville, Alabama, and in 1925 the family moved to Birmingham. There the robust young man, an outstanding athlete, finished high school and entered college.
Monroe’s parents were godly people, and they provided a godly atmosphere in the home. Monroe made a profession of faith at eight years of age and was baptized in Edgewood, Texas. He records that though he gave intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, “I was a sinner and I knew it.” 1 Many of us remember Monroe Parker’s statement about his early college years as a lost church member. He used to say, “I helped make the twenties roar.” 2
Discussion