The Fundamental Problem of Fundamentalism

[JBaldwin]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.