# The Fundamental Problem of Fundamentalism



## py3ak (Feb 16, 2008)

Just posted on my blog. Thoughts anyone?

Let me preface this by saying that my qualifications to express an opinion on fundamentalism are not so much scholarly as experiential. I am not drawing on my rather scanty reading of studies of fundamentalism, so much as on the fact that my upbringing was among fundamentalists. Of my American acquaintances, the majority in my generation wound up going to Bob Jones University –or to institutions which considered BJU as somewhat deficiently conservative. Harold Sightler was a familiar voice from his sermons on tape: my father was an admirer of Carl McIntire. I believe the first theological topic I became conversant with was the doctrine of separation: and I first learned to pour scorn on labels by being taught to see through those who mocked the pursuit of purity in the church as “secondary separation”. For many years I have been part of a church with historic ties to Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley. In my own upbringing, it may suffice to point out that I did not enter a movie theater for the first time until I was in my twenties, and drinking, smoking, gambling, and listening to rock music were all placed on the same level of unbelievable and intolerable wickedness which perhaps someone might have done once years ago before they were saved. I believe, in other words, that I have enough experience among the fundamentalists to say something about them.
And let me say as well that it is not my purpose to undervalue fundamentalism. They have certainly opposed liberalism and apostasy and compromise. They have not been afraid to call error by its own proper name. They have been generous: they have sent out many missionaries; they have been certain enough of the Bible to stand out against contemporary culture on the strength of it. I think it is indisputable that without them the numbers of those who actually believe that the Bible is God’s word would be much smaller. In my own experience, the most shining examples of hospitality, of generosity, of prayerfulness, of zeal have usually come from my fundamentalist, rather than from my Reformed or broadly evangelical acquaintances
And yet it is obvious on the face of it that there are problems within the movement. Doctrinal minimalism (and at least at times a sort of anti-intellectualism) is one point that springs to mind. Instead of keeping a full-orbed confession, they have deliberately shaved doctrinal statements down to a minimum. In close connection with this, there has been a massive emphasis on points of external conduct, and many are more zealous for maintaining a code of standards than for upholding the law of God or preaching the Gospel of Christ. They have seized on ancillary points (sometimes legitimate, sometimes without even that) and elevated them to absolute criteria for fellowship, obscuring more fundamental concerns. Naturally in many cases this has led to a great deal of hypocrisy.
Obviously in many cases there has also been an undue belligerence. The separatists have become schismatic, and in an ironic turn have become those who cause divisions, whom, according to the apostolic precept, we must avoid (Romans 16:17). In connection with this must be mentioned the lack of self-control manifested in fits of temper and self-righteous outbursts which have plagued many adherents of the movement. And of course there is a great lack of love manifested in and strengthened by this tendency. And these points often show up in graceless, legalistic, browbeating preaching which is nothing short of spiritual abuse of the sheep of God’s flock.
But these, I think, with the possible exception of the doctrinal minimalism, are symptoms rather than the disease itself (in part because of the exceptions which I, and anyone well acquainted with fundamentalism of the variety I am describing here can easily come up with). There is a common thread which binds these different defects together, and is clearly seen in the grasping for power and control, the hunger for notoriety, which can often be observed within the movement. Closely allied to this is the spin, the way of excusing or justifying or concealing obvious abuses within the institutions. Dissenters are vilified: people who leave are sadly prayed for as being in spiritual peril, or denounced as spiritual traitors. Authority and influence (legitimate or illegitimate) are systematically used and abused for the preservation of people and institutions, to achieve the continued hegemony of a particular leader, organization, or platform.
Our Lord makes two statements which I believe sum up the root of the problems that fundamentalism has been plagued with since its inception (to pursue this further may I recommend the sympathetic history by David O. Beale called _In Pursuit of Purity_ and published by Bob Jones University press). These words cut through the pretenses and lay bare the real suppurating wound in the heart of this Christian movement.
_John 5:44 “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”_
There is a real, in many cases a patent, ignoring or twisting of God’s word in order to maintain a certain position within the world of fundamentalism. Preachers who seem to be polar opposites in methodology and what theology they have, nonetheless invite one another to preach: politics dictates who is “godly” and “a good preacher” and “a great man of God”. Fawning introductions are given in introducing guest speakers. And of course this can only be sustained by a persistent refusal to look on anything except the outward appearance –and even that, only in a limited sense.
In what may seem like a paradoxical twist, the fundamentalists who are constantly mocked by the world, have developed a consuming concern for their own reputation for respectability. Many times this eagerness to be thought well of is concealed under or justified by an exaggerated concern to “have a good testimony”. This seems paradoxical, because of course many fundamentalists are perfectly willing to be scorned by the world and be written off as crazy, illiterate, behind the times, or fanatical. But those are not the points on which they pride themselves: their positive self-image does not depend on favorable views from the world. But it does depend on being perceived as godly, anointed, steadfast, fearless, _in the right_. This is the explanation of their externalism: “we must look godly.” This is the explanation for a lot of their rage: “those who might make us look bad must be so thoroughly discredited that no one who matters will ever believe them.” Hence the rather frequent question, “Are you going to take the word of some malcontent over that of these godly men?” But what if the malcontent has documents, recordings, witnesses? _And what if the godly men aren’t actually godly?_
In other words, my thesis is that the explanation for the defects of fundamentalism is almost brutally simple. They have fallen prey to _worldliness_. The pride of life has consumed them (see this previous post for a documentation of worldliness with regard to the ministry). Their zeal has become a zeal for their own righteousness –a paltry, external thing that must be propped up by unbiblical standards and maintained in the minds of other fundamentalists whatever the cost. We thought that in the last days men would be lovers of themselves (though we didn’t always see that it would be in their own self-righteous self-image); we knew that they would be boastful (though we haven’t always understood that it would be in how well they kept their precious standards); but what we didn’t see was that these people would be in the church, that they would have a very impressive form of godliness.
What if there was always a creeping worm of self-righteous pride at the back of this movement? And what if it has become a mighty dragon of worldliness, an insatiable longing for being acknowledged as godly? It would certainly not mean that there are no true believers within that movement: it does not mean that even among the leadership there are not many who will sit down in the kingdom with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, instances of people who having been redeemed by the Lord have become holy, and humble, and happy. But it does mean that many have lost their first love: it does mean that many have a name that they live and are, in fact, dead. And it does mean that we are called upon to turn away from such as have the form of godliness, but deny the power of it (2 Timothy 3:1-5).


----------



## Josiah (Feb 16, 2008)

Thank you for posting this Ruben. I found much of what you had illustrated to be edifying. I have been reading a book called _The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod_ written by a man named George P. Hutchinson. At the end of the section of this book that is concerned with the split between the BPC Columbus Synod (Buswell, Schaeffer) and BPC Collingswood Synod (Mcintier, MacRae), it provides interesting thoughts on Fundamentalism that I was reminded of in your own illustration. 

I have spent alot of time researching some of the histories of the the "split P's" and confess I am very fascinated by figures like Mcintire, Buswell, MacRae, Barnhouse, etc. 

I would like to reccomend a book (besides the one above which is *great*).
It is called _A Brief History of the Bible Presbyterian Church and its agencies_ and it is compiled by Magaret G. Harden. It was written (I believe) around the time after the split by men in the Collingswood Synod. It is valuable because it gives you a topical glance of the history of that Denomination and of how they viewed particular happenings in their own history. Well, enjoy!


----------



## JohnTombes (Feb 16, 2008)

The problem with fundamentalism is this: nothing is 'fun' there is to much 'damn' and not much that is 'mental.' 

Mike


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2008)

A former pastor of mine wrote that the problem with fundamentalists is that they are not fundamental enough!


----------



## py3ak (Feb 16, 2008)

I see there are some zippier answers to the question than mine. Josiah, thanks for the book recommendation. For those familiar with J. Frank Norris, he seems to me like an excellent example of the problems I am talking about.

It seems to me as well that part of the reason why Fundamentalists don't realize their worldliness is that they define worldliness very much in terms of sins that other people commit. And so they can preach against modernism, against legalized prostitution, against alcohol; but you don't often hear sermons against gluttony, against self-righteousness, against ecclesiastical politics or against the fear of man.

Of course, to be balanced we should get some other critiques as well. Perhaps we could ask Mr. McFadden to analyse broad evangelicalism and Mr. Greco to deal with the problems within the Reformed world.


----------



## Josiah (Feb 16, 2008)

Question: Can one be *consistantly* reformed (and reforming) and at the same time be a Fundamentalist?


----------



## py3ak (Feb 16, 2008)

Not in my view. For instance, one hallmark of fundamentalism is the insistence on "standards". However, as in the very clear instance of alcohol, this is practically to treat the Bible as insufficient for our instruction. The Bible does not teach teetotalism; but most Fundamentalists insist on that. In so doing, are they not tacitly acting as though they were wiser than God? Are they not _functionally_ denying that Scripture is sufficient? A Reformed emphasis on the perfection of God's revelation, on the completeness of the law, on the sufficiency of Scripture, and on the liberty with which Christ has made us free, is inconsistent with the imposition of such extraneous standards. So that while many Fundamentalists are Calvinistic, I would be most hesitant to call any of them Reformed.


----------



## Josiah (Feb 16, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Not in my view. For instance, one hallmark of fundamentalism is the insistence on "standards". However, as in the very clear instance of alcohol, this is practically to treat the Bible as insufficient for our instruction. The Bible does not teach teetotalism; but most Fundamentalists insist on that. In so doing, are they not tacitly acting as though they were wiser than God? Are they not _functionally_ denying that Scripture is sufficient? A Reformed emphasis on the perfection of God's revelation, on the completeness of the law, on the sufficiency of Scripture, and on the liberty with which Christ has made us free, is inconsistent with the imposition of such extraneous standards. So that while many Fundamentalists are Calvinistic, I would be most hesitant to call any of them Reformed.



I was shocked to hear about people who were fundamentalists that also said they were reformed. Most of the rub when i embraced the reformed faith came from fundamentalist friends in the church. Your 100% right about teetotalism not being biblical. Every time i have heard an argument against the consumption of alcohol from a Calvinistic Fundamentalist, it always seems to hinge not so much on scripture but moreso on the fallacious guilt by association argument. It goes something like this: "I am not binding your conscience I just think its wrong for Christians to drink, because drunkards drink, therefore no drinking". Some even will insist that since the wine in Jesus' time had less alcohol content in it, it was ok to drink, but since its stronger now we shouldnt.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 16, 2008)

Ruben, 

Thanks for this post. Much, if not all, of what you have said rings true from my personal experience with fundamentalism and BJU. There is no true love of God in fundamentalism, because they have completely forgotten the words of Lord, in "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets.:


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2008)

Of course the term fundamentalism is often in the eye of the beholder. It is a term that in some sense is about as precise as conservative or evangelical, which is to say that sometimes it is not very precise. To illustrate--no doubt some in the PCUSA or other mainline churches would see those in the OPC or PCA as fundamentalists. Likewise Southern Baptist conservatives are derided as fundamentalists by "moderate" Southern Baptists and the sympathetic media will often refer to a "fundamentalist takeover" of the Southern Baptist Convention. That's the use of the term more in line with it's original use in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy from the beginning of the last century, which was not without its own reductionism, usually in the form of the famous five fundamentals. But of course this isn't the usual connotation today (especially with those of more evangelical convictions), which generally has to do with the concerns over separation and "worldliness" that Ruben has noted. Those fundamentalists would never mistake a PCA or SBC member or minister for a fundamentalist, even if, especially in the case of many in the SBC, they may happen be teetotalers.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 16, 2008)

When I think of fundamentalism I generally think of Bob Jones University (the bastion of fundamentalism since its founding) and all who follow their practices who are mostly Baptists now, though the founder of BJU was Methodist.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 16, 2008)

According to Dr. George W. Dollar (author of, A History of Fundementalism in America: Bob Jones University Press, 1973)--

"Historic Fundamentalism is the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes."

Does anyone see a problem with this definition?


----------



## Barnpreacher (Feb 16, 2008)

In my estimation there are fundamentalists and then there are ultra-fundamentalists. See Peter Ruckman for an example of the latter. It almost becomes cultic. Sad. When I look back at how I used to think....I don't even know how to finish the sentence. I'm just thankful for God's grace. At the same time most of these folks are brothers and sisters in Christ. Let us try and remember that and pray for them just as we all need prayer.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 17, 2008)

Josiah, I have heard all of those. As a very experienced grape-juice drinker, all I can say is that if Psalm 104:15 is a reference to grape juice I am very disappointed in the quality of modern grape juice!

JBaldwin, if you are distinguishing _fundamentalists_ from _fundamentalism_ then it would certainly be easier to accept the statement that there is no true love of God in it. As I hope my original post made quite clear, I have seen quite a lot of true love to God in many fundamentalists.

Chris, I am thinking of people who would not mind describing themselves as fundamentalists --obviously, as JBaldwin points out that would include BJU: it would also include SWORD of the LORD, Pensacola Christian College, the FBF, and quite a few other groups.

Sterling, I do see a problem in that definition. That definition sets out an admirable goal --but it is not a goal which self-identified fundamentalists have, in fact, kept. For instance, the doctrinal minimalism necessitates that at some point they are not literally expounding all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible. Or take again the example of teetotalism: far from maintaining literally the Biblical attitude that wine is a gift from God to be used with joyful moderation, they take a firm stand for Prohibition.

Mr. Barnhart, there is undoubtedly a continuum. I once came across a site called "Balaam's Ass" from Phil Johnson's links page. I returned a couple of times in sheer disbelief. I believe my fundamentalist friends and relations would join in reprobating that man. Most of the fundamentalists I currently have any degree of acquaintance with are Calvinists: they are very severe against the SWORD of the LORD types. But I think that to the degree that one embraces calvinism, and the Reformed mindset, to that degree one is leaving fundamentalism for greener pastures.


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 17, 2008)

py3ak,

That is interesting that you mention the "fawning introductions" and grasping for notoriety. I recently went to a men's conference (breakfast) at a nearby Independent Bible Church. I went with a man from the church I shepherd and a retired Presbyterian Minister who was the interim Pastor for 6 months before the church called me in January. 

The speaker was given a VERY overdone introduction (Senior Pastor, Dr. Jeff VanGoethem - - East White Oak Bible Church) and then displayed the most pompous behavior during his lecture on revival and after word.

Much of his lecture centered around "Praying Hyde" - the Presbyterian missionary to India . Some of his comments were to the effect of; "There were six Presbyterians in a room praying and I think that was more Presbyterians praying than I have ever heard of." This was meant to be funny buy my friend the very prayerful retired Presbyterian minister was not likely as amused as was the speaker. "In my home town in Northern Michigan there were 75% Catholics, 24% mainline denominational churches, and 1% Bible believing churches..." My other friend, the very committed member of my church who was pleased at my coming primarily for the return of a biblical preacher in the pulpit of his home church did not listen to much that was said after that comment... 

After he spoke I shook his hand and after I introduced myself as the Pastor of First Congregational Church of Peru, IL (you know, one of those heretical mainline churches) he just glanced over my shoulder and began looking for someone else to stroke his ego...

Much of the content of his lecture was good but his ego really got in the way!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 17, 2008)

Wow! Great analysis Ruben. I think there's some other observations that spring from your basic assumption but I'm pretty tired right now and will try to throw in on top of some of this. It is really fascinating to have just completed Galatians and to be reading some of your observations that smack of a movement that has made the "Gospel + ____" the thing they are most known for. When people think of Christians in America, many un-Churched first think of those with "cleaned up lives". The movment is the Church of morality but not Christianity.

My injunction today to the congregation:


> I just want to urge you personally, one last time, not to think for a minute that you are immune from the temptation to go back into dead works. The Christian Church is surrounded on every side by people who call themselves Christian teachers who would put you into the same slavery that the Judaizers were. Get the message of the true Gospel into your bloodstream. Learn to know what it is. Never be allured by the temptation to think that your works add the least bit to your acceptance before God. The only thing that counts is that God sent His Son to become a Curse for everyone who believes. It begins and ends with faith in His work and that begins in you by the new creation that God has wrought in your lives by the preaching of the Word.
> You’ll hear it in altar calls that tell you to consider whether or not you’re really dedicating your life as you ought, you’ll hear it from Pentecostals that will tell you that you’re not really blessed until you’ve been baptized in the Holy Spirit, you’ll hear it in people that tell you that you must add a purpose-driven life to it, and you’re going to hear some new twist a year or two from now – yet another version of the Law dressed up to seem like innocent advice on how to live better lives so God will accept you.
> But the story is as old as Scripture: you can’t add to the Gospel. It’s all Christ. It’s all His work and we contribute nothing to His work to save us. Even our being made holy by Him is sealed and assured by His finished work. Stand in it and don’t be enslaved to other principles.


Fundamentalism is enslavement to elementary principles.


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 17, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> But the story is as old as Scripture: you can’t add to the Gospel. It’s all Christ. It’s all His work and we contribute nothing to His work to save us. Even our being made holy by Him is sealed and assured by His finished work. Stand in it and don’t be enslaved to other principles.





> Fundamentalism is enslavement to elementary principles.



Those are great words, Rich. I've said often that fundamentalism is more of a methodology than a theology.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Sterling, I do see a problem in that definition. That definition sets out an admirable goal --but it is not a goal which self-identified fundamentalists have, in fact, kept. For instance, the doctrinal minimalism necessitates that at some point they are not literally expounding all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible. Or take again the example of teetotalism: far from maintaining literally the Biblical attitude that wine is a gift from God to be used with joyful moderation, they take a firm stand for Prohibition.




Excellent observation. 

Dollar's definition again: "Historic Fundamentalism is the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes." 

In my observation, and experience with so-called "fundamentalism," I have found their approach to "literalism" to fall woefully short of the mark of true biblical exposition.

Further, a problem I see is the use of the word "militant." It's one thing to "be set for the defense of the gospel," and quite another to condemn all those around you who don't hold to each tiny idiosyncratic doctrine and practice that is part of your tradition. 

Sadly, fundamentalism has become the "lunatic fringe" of our day. Hardly, are the FUNDAMENTALS of the FAITH proclaimed by them without their insistence that you must do this, or must not do that...or else we must separate from you!

Biblical separation is a wonderful thing, but these fundies have twisted and perverted it to mean that "if you smoke, drink, dance, go to movies, _______ (fill in the blank w/ the "thou shalt not du jour), you are not my brother and I can have no fellowship with you."

May God save us from such legalism!


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> JBaldwin, if you are distinguishing _fundamentalists_ from _fundamentalism_ then it would certainly be easier to accept the statement that there is no true love of God in it. As I hope my original post made quite clear, I have seen quite a lot of true love to God in many fundamentalists.



I am speaking of Fundamentalism as defined by George W. Dollar, and not of every individual in fundamentalism. When I speak of no "true" love of God I am speaking of a misunderstanding of God's love, especially to the believer. What drives fundamentalism is a fear that God does not really love as much as He says He does, so, like the Pharisee, one must be concerned about every fine point of the law, not out of personal love for God, but out of fear punishment if they do not obey. So when I speak of "true" love, I am thinking in terms of fundamentalism's view of God and His love. 

For 12 years, I sat under the ministry (3 sermons a weekbible classes and plus chapel) of a close friend and follower of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. and Jr. I attended fundamentalist schools until I was 21. I never heard the love of God preached as I see it in the Scriptures. It was "militant" (if I may borrow Dollar's word). To the fundamentalist, God loves by striking out when there is sin, but He does not reach out with grace to the believer who is struggling with sin. The only answer is repentance and fixing it yourself. If you go to God for help with your sin, you are weak. 

What I see of God's love in Scripture is His love that drives us to holiness, not our fear, nor His anger.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 17, 2008)

Great article!

I attended a Indy Fundy Bible School for 1 year and never had so many arguments with anyone. I like bashing the Fundies becuase perhaps that means all the arguing wasn't just my fault!


----------



## Barnpreacher (Feb 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Mr. Barnhart, there is undoubtedly a continuum. I once came across a site called "Balaam's Ass" from Phil Johnson's links page. I returned a couple of times in sheer disbelief. I believe my fundamentalist friends and relations would join in reprobating that man. Most of the fundamentalists I currently have any degree of acquaintance with are Calvinists: they are very severe against the SWORD of the LORD types. But I think that to the degree that one embraces calvinism, and the Reformed mindset, to that degree one is leaving fundamentalism for greener pastures.



 - "Balaam's Ass" is a very fitting name for that website. Back when I was one of those ultra-fundamentalists I went around and around with the guy from that site. Of course I was defending Ruckman to him because he couldn't stand Ruckman. That's the thing with so many fundamentalists, they can't even get along with each other. Try finding someone David Cloud has anything good to say about on his website. These guys are out to protect Christians from everything and everyone it seems, except from themselves.

I heard Al Mohler on his show once say that the problem with fundamentalists is that they separate themselves to so many degrees that the only person they can talk to and fellowship with is their own self. So true.

I thought your blog was very true as well, Ruben.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 17, 2008)

JBaldwin, thank you for the clarification. It is quite common in the Free Presbyterian church in North America for believers from more typical fundamentalist churches to come to the Free churches, by their own admission, "burned out" by the legalistic mindset at the fundamentalist churches, and ready to hear some preaching about Christ. That is basically a paraphrase of a testimony I've heard more than once.

Pergamum, I'm glad to have freed you from guilt! I too enjoy speaking evil of those who cannot defend themselves.

Rich, I'll look forward to whatever you have time to add later on. 

Rev. Surber, I'm afraid that your experience is not uncommon.

Sterling, I think this could be worked out in much more detail: but it is remarkable to me that according to Scripture, we ought to separate from many of the fundamentalists. Of course in a lot of cases they have beaten us to the punch!

Mr. Barnhart, did you ever run across a man named Rick Miesel, with "Biblical Discernment Ministries"? He was in many ways a classic example of the strong fundamentalist type.

"Discernment" and "good testimony" are two of the buzzwords of fundamentalism. But I think that in many cases they are simply political language for legalism and the fear of man. Having said that, though, it were as well to remind myself that whether fundamentalism's defects are a beam to my mote, or a mote to my beam, I must be more concerned with rooting out my own sins than anyone else's --how grating or lampoonable soever they might be.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Of course, to be balanced we should get some other critiques as well. Perhaps we could ask Mr. McFadden to analyse broad evangelicalism and Mr. Greco to deal with the problems within the Reformed world.



I always like to hear from the very erudite Rev. Greco. However, what I might add could be of more questionable value. Currently, I am at my eldest son's house with our new grandson, having just returned from three days of funeral activities for my older daughter's mother-in-law. I want to reflect upon your EXCELLENT blog a bit before weighing in. 

At this point, however, just a couple of notes. Despite its protestations, the fundamentalist mindset (at least among professing Christians) seems rooted in hubris, fear, and legalism. That is to say, it does not comprehend the audacity of grace nor does it truly accept the implications of sola fide and sola gratia. As Rich has pointed out elsewhere, it is a sub species of the Galatian problem.

* Hubris enters in making the fundamentalist self-consciously proud NOT to be a worldling, a denominational man, or an eccumenist. That pride will get you every time.

* Fear motivates a "burrying your talent in the ground" type of relationsihp with God. Fundamentalists are so fearful of straying across the "line" that they build fences around lines to prevent accidental transgressions.

* Legalism animates the spirit of the fundamentalist because it represents the opposite of the message of the Gospel that we are saved by God's grace and NOT by our own works.

Of course, much of this comes to us disguised because it lies burried in layers of God-talk, pious platitudes, and oleaginous unction. One has a difficult time arguing with the fundamentalist who masks his anger behind such soft earnestness.

BTW, I purchased the digital version of Sal Waldron's PhD dealing with departures from sola fide in "evangelicalism." He deals at length with Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and Don Garlington. I think that there is more than an incidental bearing on this current thread. Much of Dan Fuller's error came out of his struggling with Galatians and the meaning of the obedience of faith. Reading Waldron's account yesterday, makes me think that it would be a useful resource for this thread.

When there is more time, I would like to reflect more substantively upon the interaction between fundamentalism and broad evangelicalism, employing Bebbington's typology for understanding evangelicalism.

Thanks, again, for a GREAT and thought provoking thread.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Sterling, I think this could be worked out in much more detail: but it is remarkable to me that according to Scripture, we ought to separate from many of the fundamentalists. Of course in a lot of cases they have beaten us to the punch!



All too true!




> "Discernment" and "good testimony" are two of the buzzwords of fundamentalism. But I think that in many cases they are simply political language for legalism and the fear of man. Having said that, though, it were as well to remind myself that whether fundamentalism's defects are a beam to my mote, or a mote to my beam, *I must be more concerned with rooting out my own sins than anyone else's *--how grating or lampoonable soever they might be.



Amen. Good counsel for all believers, fundamentalist or otherwise. 

Jesus said, "By their fruits, you shall know them." Sadly, all too often the tendancy is to become "fruit inspectors" in someone else's vineyard.

R. C. Sproul wrote, 


> "Though Christians should be solemnly warned not to be schismatic in spirit or given to divisive or quarrelsome spirits, they must also be warned of the obligation to separate themselves from false or apostate communions.



The tendancy of many fundamentalist is toward a kind of secondary separation which becomes more schismatic and divisive, where all are pronounced unworthy of fellowship who are not able to pronounce their shibboleth.

Our Biblical concern should be for the purity of the church, yes--but also for her peace!


----------



## MW (Feb 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Not in my view. For instance, one hallmark of fundamentalism is the insistence on "standards". However, as in the very clear instance of alcohol, this is practically to treat the Bible as insufficient for our instruction.



I fail to see this conclusion. The "application" of biblical instruction to life requires taking biblical principles and examining how these bear on situations which are necessarily broader than the original scenario in which they were given. In this sense all biblical application goes beyond the Bible.

Also, the issue of alcohol abuse came before the churches prior to the rise of fundamentalism.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 17, 2008)

Mr. McFadden, thank you for your thoughts. I'll look forward to what you can tell us about broader evangelicalism. I didn't mean to put you on the spot: I just don't want to fall into the mistake of bashing one group for their errors while giving another group a free pass.

Sterling, I think there are sometimes differences of definition of what "secondary separation" is. In one sense, it is not hard to see the logic of it.
1. Scripture commands separation from disobedient brethren.
2. Brethren who will not obey that command are disobedient.
3. Non-separatist brethren are to be separated from, even if that is their only error. We can see that playing out to some degree in the FV controversy. It is not enough for someone to indicate that he has no sympathy with the FV: he must also be unwilling to tolerate them, or he himself will not be tolerated (see the 697 comment thread on Lane's blog for an instance of this). Obviously, this could easily be abused. But I've never seen a convincing rebuttal of the principle that in circumstances where separation is commanded, failure to separate can be willful, persistent disobedience itself to be separated from.

Mr. Winzer, thank you for weighing in. I hope I am not against application, but perhaps I can clarify my point a little bit more. Obviously application depends upon a principle being Biblical. If what one is applying (and imposing upon others) is a non-Biblical or anti-Biblical principle, then no matter what protestations are made of a literal approach to Scripture, it is clearly not the Bible directing us. And when churches or organizations are imposing such standards, is it not clear that they are behaving as though the Bible were insufficient? 

It is not the history of the Church's response to alcohol abuse, but rather the specific line taken by the fundamentalists which led me to employ that as an example: and it seems to me that there is less variation on this point among fundamentalists than on many other examples that might have been chosen.


----------



## MW (Feb 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Mr. Winzer, thank you for weighing in. I hope I am not against application, but perhaps I can clarify my point a little bit more. Obviously application depends upon a principle being Biblical. If what one is applying (and imposing upon others) is a non-Biblical or anti-Biblical principle, then no matter what protestations are made of a literal approach to Scripture, it is clearly not the Bible directing us. And when churches or organizations are imposing such standards, is it not clear that they are behaving as though the Bible were insufficient?



Ruben, in the "persuasion" of the fundamentalist there is a belief that the principle is "Biblical" and hence as far as self-consciousness is concerned they would regard their method as depending on Scripture. It is "second-guessing" to arrive at a conclusion which contradicts their own professed values and goals. Rather than second-guess it seems to me to be more prudent to simply evaluate their arguments and see just how "Biblical" or "non-Biblical" they might be without calling into question their attachment to the Bible.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 17, 2008)

Mr. Winzer, thank you once again for your clear, charitable remarks. I had hoped in my original post to make quite clear that while I have problems with the fundamentalistic system, nonetheless I hope to truly appreciate the very great grace which God has poured out upon them in many ways. I did not want to call into question their commitment to the Bible. Rather my contention is that the end result of some of their approach is inconsistent with the sufficiency of Scripture. And this I do believe I can substantiate in two further points.

One is that, whether this is typical or not, I do know some fundamentalists who acknowledge that in the case in point the Bible does not require teetotalism --and yet they do not hesitate to impose it anyway. It is their view that they have the right to impose requirements not authorized by Scripture --but perhaps these fundamentalists were somewhat exceptional.

The second is that many fundamentalists have views on "finding the will of God for my life" which do not treat the Bible as sufficient, because I must "have a verse", often taken out of context, or I must "have peace" which often seems to come and go, or I must "have a sign" which directs me to do this or that.

Perhaps what I say misses the point of your remarks. I guess I am not altogether clear on the relation of criticism of the objective practice vs. the subjective "persuasion" of the fundamentalists (or of any group). Is "second-guessing" simply another term for pointing out an inconsistency between their profession and their practice?


----------



## MW (Feb 17, 2008)

Ruben, I think fundamentalism is rightly criticised for its separatism. Also, where it insists on a total abstinence position on alcohol, then yes, it is amiss there. But the fact that the Bible "permits" or even "encourages" the use of one of God's natural gifts does not bind all times and places to give the same permission or encouragement. There are other biblical principles which must be observed, and an insistence on those principles might lead a certain group to determine it is "best" not to use alcohol or other natural gifts of God where they are deemed to bring more harm than good. Now if the fundamentalists to which you refer are doing this, then I don't think they are going beyond the Bible either in fact or by persuasion. However if their conviction leads them to lay down abstinence laws and to make them terms of communion, then at that point they are going beyond the Bible. However, at this point it would need to be shown that this extra-biblical law-making is true of fundamentalism in general, and not simply certain groups within fundamentalism. If it's not true of the group as a whole then the problem is something more particular.

"Second-guessing" isn't pointing out an inconsistency, but drawing a conclusion from an inconsistency which the advocate would repudiate.


----------



## ww (Feb 17, 2008)

*Bju*

Hi Ruben,

Having graduated from BJU in 1992 as mentioned in my Introduction this evening I can certainly tell you a few things regarding the Fundamentalist World View. I was a Preacher Boy, Hall Leader, and a demerit-less Student  

In general the Fundamentalist of the BJU variety feels as if the more you do the greater favor you will receive from God. We always made reference to those who prayed more and were more "spiritual" than the rest of us, etc. We held our Heroes in High Regard and we viewed anyone who was not a BJU Fundamentalist as a lesser Christian. Those in the SBC, PCA, or other Evangelical denominations were "new evangelicals" which was a derogatory term. Ian Paisley who is a Godly man and a powerful speaker preached in Bible Conferences primarily against the Roman Catholic Church and not much else.

It was quite an experience and I have some life-long friends of course. And if it wasn't for BJU not sure where I would be because it was there that I discovered Calvinism (really Supralapsarianism vs Infralapsarianism, etc) from a Bible Doctrines Text Book and then the influence of a Free Presbyterian who was on the same floor as I in the dorm. But as far as the legalistic, works-righteousness tendencies they are all there and more which makes Fundamentalism falter as an accurate Biblical Worldview.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 17, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Ruben, I think fundamentalism is rightly criticised for its separatism. Also, where it insists on a total abstinence position on alcohol, then yes, it is amiss there. But the fact that the Bible "permits" or even "encourages" the use of one of God's natural gifts does not bind all times and places to give the same permission or encouragement. There are other biblical principles which must be observed, and an insistence on those principles might lead a certain group to determine it is "best" not to use alcohol or other natural gifts of God where they are deemed to bring more harm than good. Now if the fundamentalists to which you refer are doing this, then I don't think they are going beyond the Bible either in fact or by persuasion. However if their conviction leads them to lay down abstinence laws and to make them terms of communion, then at that point they are going beyond the Bible. However, at this point it would need to be shown that this extra-biblical law-making is true of fundamentalism in general, and not simply certain groups within fundamentalism. If it's not true of the group as a whole then the problem is something more particular.
> 
> "Second-guessing" isn't pointing out an inconsistency, but drawing a conclusion from an inconsistency which the advocate would repudiate.




Having lived in the midst of Baptist fundamentalism (not sure of other branches), this "extra-biblical law-making" is a general practice right down to what music you can listen to, how you should dress, who you can and cannot associate with, etc., etc., etc. Since the Baptist version of fundamentalism (I believe, I could be wrong) is now the largest group of fundamentalists, at least in the US, I think that Ruben is right-on.


----------



## MW (Feb 17, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> Having lived in the midst of Baptist fundamentalism (not sure of other branches), this "extra-biblical law-making" is a general practice right down to what music you can listen to, how you should dress, who you can and cannot associate with, etc., etc., etc. Since the Baptist version of fundamentalism (I believe, I could be wrong) is now the largest group of fundamentalists, at least in the US, I think that Ruben is right-on.



That may be, and Ruben's analysis might be right-on here; but something more is needed than the subjective criteria of "who" has experienced "what" in "which" situation. It needs to be proved that this is the result of "fundamentalist" thinking, and not of some other peculiarity which may have entered into a certain strain of fundamentalist thinking.


----------



## Iconoclast (Feb 18, 2008)

whitway said:


> Hi Ruben,
> 
> Having graduated from BJU in 1992 as mentioned in my Introduction this evening I can certainly tell you a few things regarding the Fundamentalist World View. I was a Preacher Boy, Hall Leader, and a demerit-less Student
> 
> ...



Hello Wayne,
Welcome to the PB. Your post shows once again the need to be patient with other christian brothers who might not have been instructed to know that God has his people at work in many different denominations.
I am more than sure God will use you to help disciple others into a fuller understanding of His word.
Having seen the teaching first hand, and the sincerity of the people holding on to a legal mentality, what has been your most effective way of planting seed with some in this camp?


----------



## py3ak (Feb 18, 2008)

> However, at this point it would need to be shown that this extra-biblical law-making is true of fundamentalism in general, and not simply certain groups within fundamentalism. If it's not true of the group as a whole then the problem is something more particular.
> 
> "Second-guessing" isn't pointing out an inconsistency, but drawing a conclusion from an inconsistency which the advocate would repudiate.





> That may be, and Ruben's analysis might be right-on here; but something more is needed than the subjective criteria of "who" has experienced "what" in "which" situation. It needs to be proved that this is the result of "fundamentalist" thinking, and not of some other peculiarity which may have entered into a certain strain of fundamentalist thinking.



Mr. Winzer, I think I am finally beginning to catch on to what you are driving at here, and in principle I think I agree with you. However, I am not aware of any fundamentalist group which would not reflect this sort of thinking. Obviously my data base may be wildly inadequate; but if that sort of mindset is endemic to fundamentalists (which I realize is at the point at issue, and contrary examples of which I would be glad to hear) surely the cause may be sought within fundamentalism? Has anyone encountered a group which self-identifies as fundamentalist and does not make total abstinence from alcohol (except for medicinal purposes) a requirement for membership?

Thank you as well for the clarification on "second-guessing". I think it was an appreciation of that point which led me to state that it was a _functional_ denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. 

Wayne, way to go on the demerits! I'm glad the Lord has brought you into greener pastures. The fact is that if what we have heard on this board, and what I have heard in many other connections is true, people in fundamentalist groups are often suffering under doctrinally anemic, heavily-handed moralistic preaching. So we should be ready to understand where our fundamentalist brethren are coming from, and how we might be able to minister to them without mockery.

Here are two further instances from my wife's experience:
A chapel sermon from a fundamentalist college:


> The chapel sermons were largely directed to moralism -- not an application of the law of God even, but simply to being as unlike the world as one could. The world became the (negative) standard, rather than the law (a rather ironic and inverted form of worldliness). For instance in one chapel sermon the minister lined up a row of folding chairs: the world was supposed to be closest to one end of the line. His whole sermon was illustrated by his sitting in the chair furthest away from the 'worldly' end -- and then in the chairs closer and closer. If the father sits this far away, the son will sit this much closer etc. So to ensure the maximal holiness of future generations we must sit as far away as possible from the world. There was no application of a positive moral standard, of the law.



And the treatment of a student who had been divorced before attending that college:


> We are not going to allow _________ into the dormitories, because a divorced person might steal something.


----------



## ww (Feb 18, 2008)

Hi Anthony,

The most effective way of planting a seed has been to keep in touch, show respect when they speak, and in one instance I purchased a book and sent it to my Fundamental Baptist Pastor friend. He had just read a book attacking Calvinism and I in turn asked him to read a book to get the other side. It was at the height of the Dave Hunt attack "What Love is This". Really it took years to reach him but eventually he came over, and I think that is the Best Advice, expect to take years building a friendship for anything to come to fruition.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 18, 2008)

I have also noticed that since there is often only a hazy grasp on systematic theology, that many fundamentalists will be quite open to having things shown to them from the Bible as long as the historic labels are not used.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 18, 2008)

I am not certain if I completely understand what Rev. Winzer is saying but, it seems to me, that he's saying that you cannot name the "fundamental" problem with fundamentalism on the basis of personal experience. Perhaps not alone but experience is like a data point - it's a fruit. If every Fundamentalist you run into has a common legalistic tendency then it can be identified as a fruit but is it, in fact, the fundamental problem?

Of course, it's obviously hard to pin the tail precisely on every fundamentalist and yesterday's fundamentalist has morphed into something completely different today. It's become rarer to find the "died in the wool" types.

I would agree, in the main, that _today's_ problem with fundamentalism is worldliness. It is grounded today in the elementary principles of the world and seeking to attain perfection in the flesh. In many cases the teaching has moved further than Rome did with Trent in the direction toward Pelagianism. Grace is not only not necessary for the decision for Christ but remaining in grace is equally a matter of dedicating one's life to Christ.

There is also always a strange dichotomy in these movements between people who, on the one hand, eschew most dogmas in doctrine as divisive (...we only speak where the Bible speaks...) but then they are dogmatic about a few things:
1. Believer's baptism.
2. Baptism by immersion. In many cases this is _instrumental_ to salvation.
3. Pre-Mil Dispensationalism
4. A few deadly sins: mainly tobacco, alchohol, dancing, and card playing.
5. Remaining dedicated to the Gospel by impeccable conduct.

Hence, they have their dogmas but most of these dogmas are related to disputable things and they're not necessarily well argued but simply assumed. They're not interested in growing in their understanding of these things generally but simply asserting them and then supressing any conversation of them with the idea that "...we only speak where the Bible speaks..." and everything esle is adiophora and has no bearing upon these foundational principles so don't sow discord by getting your head full of theology.

It's funny because they are not always against everything. They're not against many areas of faulty or even heretical thinking in certain theological categories. What is telling is that most of the theologically "core" subjects are up for grabs as "indifferent" in regards to some details but when you start hitting on the things above then the group think takes over.

It is a strange mix then built around a general lack of concern for theology and not caring what you think but then a profound concern for their dogmas and absolute control over what you think.

Unfortunately, the underlying reason why they think this way is a focus upon the carnal: man's ability to come to God and keep himself that way and a belief that it is in the conduct of a man that he is found acceptable to God and that his witness to the world is not the vicarious atonement of Christ but the Christian's impeccable character.

I think, then, that Ruben has hit upon a fundamental problem where fundamentalists find themselves today. It really is a movement not grounded in the Gospel but a variation of moralism. Whatever they believe of beginning in the Spirit is completely overshadowed by their belief that one is perfected in the flesh - the altar call being the most obvious expression of their second plank of justification.


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> I am not certain if I completely understand what Rev. Winzer is saying but, it seems to me, that he's saying that you cannot name the "fundamental" problem with fundamentalism on the basis of personal experience. Perhaps not alone but experience is like a data point - it's a fruit. If every Fundamentalist you run into has a common legalistic tendency then it can be identified as a fruit but is it, in fact, the fundamental problem?



I'm taking "fundamentalist" in its essence as holding the teaching that we must separate from institutions which don't maintain the fundamentals of the faith. Now, on that basis you would have numerous Presbyterians which share this essential fundamentalist tenet to a greater or less degree. This is especially the case since the evangelical revival which has led to many Presbyterians seceding from liberal churches. These days they don't just throw their children into public school. In fact, some of them won't even submit them to so-called Christian schools. These ones *might* also have a tendency to make extra-Biblical laws -- I don't know. But it needs to be proven by something other than limited experience of a certain kind of fundamentalist that the doctrine of separatism naturally inclines towards extra-Biblical law-making. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 18, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I am not certain if I completely understand what Rev. Winzer is saying but, it seems to me, that he's saying that you cannot name the "fundamental" problem with fundamentalism on the basis of personal experience. Perhaps not alone but experience is like a data point - it's a fruit. If every Fundamentalist you run into has a common legalistic tendency then it can be identified as a fruit but is it, in fact, the fundamental problem?
> ...



OK. I think the difference is expressed in sort of what I was getting at. Whatever it might have started out as, the movement is much different almost a century later - at least those that are simply known as Fundamentalists. Machen, even though he had some partners that called themselves fundamentalists, found the movement too narrowly focused and didn't identify himself as that per se.

I think what Ruben is dealing with is Fundamentalism's modern incarnation and not necessarily going back to its genesis to find the core issue. I read him as saying that the core problem with fundamentalism _today_ is this .... Whatever else fundamentalism is when it started it is not that today.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 18, 2008)

Mr. Winzer, just to clarify my own take, I was not attributing the negative factors I identified to the doctrine of separatism, or taking issue with the principle. Rather I was looking at those who self-identify as fundamentalists, and commenting on certain issues that seem to be rather glaring. It was not an attempt to relate those problems to the doctrine of separatism (where I don't think the blame lies) but rather an attempt to pursue the root problem manifesting itself in the various objectionable phenomena.


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Mr. Winzer, just to clarify my own take, I was not attributing the negative factors I identified to the doctrine of separatism, or taking issue with the principle. Rather I was looking at those who self-identify as fundamentalists, and commenting on certain issues that seem to be rather glaring. It was not an attempt to relate those problems to the doctrine of separatism (where I don't think the blame lies) but rather an attempt to pursue the root problem manifesting itself in the various objectionable phenomena.



Thanks, Ruben, for the clarification. I suppose evangelical Presbyterians don't identify themselves as fundamentalists -- even though they are obliged to acknowledge it to some degree. So in that case I concede your remarks are applicable to certain baptistic groups. Blessings!


----------



## py3ak (Feb 18, 2008)

I think that in the U.S.A. only the Bible Presbyterian and Free Presbyterian groups would self-identify as fundamentalists, and I am not sure whether the Bible Presbyterians would continue to use the term.

Of course, even among the baptistic groups there is a sense that with the increased usage of "fundamentalism" as a label for consistent muslims, that perhaps a different term would be more appropriate. So Bob Jones III suggested "preservationists" a little while ago, but it does not seem to have caught on.

Oddly enough, a related conversation took place recently on the Bayly Blog.

Thanks again, Mr. Winzer, not only for the sharpening of the thinking but for the reminder of intellectual charity and fairness.


----------

