Now About Those Differences

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, and Part 13.

A Rejoinder from Bauder

Kevin,

Your response to my essay has been received and noted. It is certainly the most unusual reply that I’ve received—not to mention the most provocative and thoughtful!

By way of rejoinder, let’s start with what we clearly agree upon. For example, we agree that the gospel is supremely important. It is the most important thing in the world. Its importance does not lie in the fact that it works to our benefit, as if it were permissible to love God only for His gifts rather than for Himself. No, it is important because it is inseparable from God’s own person and from God’s quest for His own glory. The gospel is precisely what reveals God to us as He is.

We also agree that the gospel is assumed in all of Christianity. We further agree that the gospel is supremely worthy of proclamation to those who need it, and supremely worthy of defense against those who attack it. We agree that we need more of the gospel, not less. So far, so good.

Where, then, do we disagree? The short answer is that we do not! Any putative disagreement between us should be ascribed to the short-sightedness of those who delight in false dilemmas and who wish to pit us against each other.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, and Part 12.

A Response to Bauder

Kevin,

Your last essay raised the question of the gospel as a basis of fellowship. I think you would agree that the gospel is essential to all Christian fellowship. The question that you raise is how much cooperative effort is possible on the basis of the gospel alone.

By the way, who do you think you’re addressing? Are you trying to convince conservative evangelicals of the error of their ways? Are you trying to persuade young fundamentalists to stay in the FBF? What’s going on here?

I appreciate the fact that you phrased your essay in terms of testing ideas rather than positing absolute conclusions. The form that you chose invites response. If you meant to construct an argument that would satisfy all enquiries and answer all objections, however, then you have fallen seriously short of your goal.

Having acknowledged the importance of the gospel—unquestionably it is the most important thing in the world—you then seek to diminish its importance by arguing that Christians do not pay attention to it except under certain circumstances. The two circumstances that you mention are evangelism and polemics, i.e., when the gospel is being offered or when it is being defended.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Part 11.

Together (Only?) for the Gospel

The differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals include considerable disparity in their attitudes toward miraculous gifts. Fundamentalists are almost universally and vigorously cessationists. Conversely, many conservative evangelicals are continuationists, and those who are not can still function comfortably with the ones who are. From a fundamentalist perspective, this difference is rather a significant one.

Nevertheless, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals do hold much in common. What they hold in common is properly designated as koinonia or fellowship. It would be hypocritical to pretend that this fellowship does not exist, just as it would be hypocritical to pretend to enjoy fellowship where none existed.

Most fundamentally (the word is deliberate), both groups are united in their affirmation and exaltation of the gospel. None of the differences that we have examined to this point results in a denial of the gospel. Both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believe the gospel, preach the gospel, and defend the gospel.

This mutuality in the gospel leads to a question. Since conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are united in their allegiance to the gospel, should they not be able to cooperate at the level of the gospel? To put it positively, should fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals get together for the gospel?

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, and Part 10.

Weighing Cessationism

Among other things, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals differ over the question of miraculous gifts. Nearly all fundamentalist leaders insist that miraculous gifts ended with the apostolic age. Several prominent conservative evangelicals have argued for the continuation of those gifts. Just as importantly, fundamentalists do not pursue public ministry or cooperation with continuationists. Many conservative evangelical leaders, however, are willing to downplay their differences over miraculous gifts in order to perpetuate certain forms of public cooperation.

Doctrines and practices differ in their importance. Therefore, errors differ in their gravity. In the debate between cessationists and continuationists, one party must be in error. The question is, How serious is the error?

To put it a different way, fellowship centers upon something that is shared or held in common. Continuationists and cessationists clearly do not hold certain things in common, which means that they do not have fellowship in those areas. Given that their fellowship has been limited objectively by those differences, how far-reaching are the implications for public cooperation?

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9.

Miraculous Gifts

Are fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals really the same thing under different labels? In order to answer that question, we must investigate the apparent differences. So far in this series we have looked at two.

First, we asked the extent to which each favored dispensationalism. We discovered that fundamentalists tend to be dispensationalists while evangelicals tend to be non-dispensationalists. In evaluating the significance of this difference, however, we found that it really did not mark out a major division between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

Second, we explored the accusations that (according to some evangelicals) fundamentalists tend toward legalism and (according to some fundamentalists) evangelicals tend toward worldliness. In trying to understand these mutual recriminations, we found that they tended to focus upon revivalistic taboos, concessions to the counterculture, the acceptance of extra-Scriptural second premises in moral argument, and the degree to which churches adapt their congregational life to popular culture. These differences are sometimes matters of degree, but they are nevertheless real. I am willing to argue that more often than not, fundamentalists have been more right than evangelicals on these matters, including most conservative evangelicals.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8.

Assessing the Worldliness

How different are fundamentalists from conservative evangelicals? We have now examined two answers to that question. The first answer had to do with dispensationalism. We concluded that, although fundamentalism has a higher percentage of dispensationalists, this difference creates no greater tension between the two groups than it does within each group.

The second difference that we examined was the putative legalism of fundamentalists (according to evangelicals) and the supposed worldliness of evangelicals (according to fundamentalists). We have tried to discover what these accusations mean. Our working hypothesis includes the following factors. First, fundamentalists tend to observe certain revivalist taboos more frequently than evangelicals. Second, fundamentalists are more reluctant to adopt the accouterments of the counterculture that emerged during the 1960s. Third, fundamentalists are more likely to accept second-premise arguments when the extra-scriptural premise relies upon a judgment. Fourth, evangelicals tend to employ more recent versions of popular culture in their church life, while fundamentalists tend to hang on to older and now obsolete manifestations of popular culture.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7.

Styles and Methods

Fundamentalists and evangelicals (including conservative evangelicals) both want to distinguish themselves from one another. Fundamentalists usually want to be known as fundamentalists, or at least to find some label that says more than “evangelical.” For their part, evangelicals of all sorts are eager to avoid being mistaken for fundamentalists.

When asked about their differences, both groups often respond with stock answers. According to many evangelicals, fundamentalism has been polluted with legalism or externalism, while fundamentalists often say that evangelicalism has been tainted with worldliness. Each group has typically taken its perception of the other to be virtually axiomatic.

What I have been trying to do is to discover what each party means by its accusation. What do fundamentalists see in evangelicals that smacks of worldliness? What do evangelicals see in fundamentalists that seems legalistic?

I have suggested several answers to those questions. First, fundamentalists and other evangelicals have often differed over their observance of what I have called “revivalistic taboos.” Second, fundamentalists have been more hesitant to adopt the accouterments of the counterculture (now mainstream culture) that began in the 1960s. Third, evangelicals have been more suspicious of second-premise arguments when the second premise has relied upon a matter of judgment rather than a statement of fact.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

Second Premise Arguments

Making generalizations about either fundamentalists or other evangelicals is a bit presumptuous. Both groups are quite diverse, and exceptions can be found to most generalizations. Non-fundamentalistic evangelicalism covers an especially broad array of influences and movements.

The diversity of each group has rarely been realized by the other, however, and so each group does tend to posit generalizations about the other. One of those generalizations has to do with the matter of worldliness and legalism. Fundamentalists tend to think of other evangelicals as worldly. Those evangelicals tend to think of fundamentalists as legalistic.

We are not yet to the point of weighing the merits of these perceptions. For the moment, what we are trying to do is to understand what each group means when it speaks about the other. What do fundamentalists see that leads them to think evangelicals are worldly? What do evangelicals see that leads them to perceive fundamentalists as legalistic?

Articulating these perceptions more fully will be useful in two ways. First, it will furnish us with criteria for assessing the merits of the judgments that evangelicals and fundamentalists make about each other. Second, it will provide us with a device for distinguishing some evangelicals from other evangelicals as well as some fundamentalists from other fundamentalists.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Standards of Conduct

When evangelicals think about fundamentalists (which is not often), they typically consider them to be rather legalistic. When fundamentalists think about other evangelicals (which is nearly constantly), they usually consider them to be quite worldly. The purpose of the present investigation is not to endorse either indictment but to identify what each party has in mind when it levels its accusation against the other.

What do fundamentalists perceive about evangelicals that seems worldly to them? What do evangelicals see in fundamentalists that seems legalistic? The answer to these questions primarily revolves around two areas: (1) standards of conduct, and (2) methods of ministry. Each of these areas is significant enough to warrant at least one essay of its own.

By “standards of conduct,” I do not mean to suggest that one party possesses standards while the other does not. Both parties agree that the Bible says something about how people should live. Both parties recognize that biblical commands and principles, rightly applied, require or prohibit particular activities. Both parties will, at some point, use some external standards of conduct as mechanisms by which to gauge spiritual wellbeing.

Making such evaluations is not necessarily legalism. Legalists believe that their external conduct actually secures some measure of standing with God. That is a different matter than recognizing that external conduct often reflects one’s relationship with God.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Legalism and Worldliness

Over the decades, fundamentalists and other evangelicals have played a kind of game. It is a contest of mutual recrimination. To fundamentalists, evangelicals have often said, “You are legalists.” Fundamentalists have generally replied, “You are worldly.” Both parties seem to find pleasure in this game, though neither has ever really won it.

Of course, most evangelicals are not conservative evangelicals. In common with other evangelicals, however, conservative evangelicals still tend to view fundamentalists as unnecessarily legalistic. For their part, many fundamentalists are not even willing to recognize a difference between conservative evangelicalism and other branches of non-fundamentalistic evangelicalism (usually classed under the broad label, “neo-evangelical”). These fundamentalists believe that any evangelical who is not a fundamentalist is a new evangelical and simply must be worldly.

An uninformed observer might wonder what all the fuss is about. One group observes some strictures that the other does not. Why worry about it?

The answer is that Christianity is more than a set of doctrines. Christianity is also a life lived for the love and to the glory of God. Just as some doctrinal affirmations or denials are not compatible with the gospel, so also some ways of living are not compatible with the gospel.