I don’t know how I missed this post when I was searching through your archives recently, but I did. It is really very insightful.

My experience, over the past few years, has been that many who belong to, or participate in fundamentalist ministries are adopting the “conservative theology – moderate philosophy” approach. I am absolutely baffled by this turn of events, and keep asking: “shouldn’t our doctrine affect our methodology?” The mere question has often brought about a smug grin and a gentle accusation of unsophistication or naivety.

As much as this approach causes me an discomfort, it also leaves me grasping for proof of results. “If we hold to a conservative doctrinal position”, they say, “but moderate our methods, we will reach people by the millions!” Really? I would like to see some examples, please.

I do not question the motives or commitment level of the “moderate fundamentalist”, but I do disagree. When they espouse the magnificent effectiveness of their endeavors, I usually begin scratching my head and wondering if they can prove it. My typical conclusion: they can’t.

Chris

“What part of that definition do you believe is no longer true.”

I am not approving his comment since he isn’t giving his name, but I’ll address the question. Future interaction will require real names.

The definition offered:

A demand for Protestant orthodox theology with a strong emphasis on the great commission, including lapsed Christians.

… is adequate as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. It may be sufficient to describe an evangelical philosophy, but it doesn’t describe evangelicalism as a religious political movement. For that, many other facets must be examined and the distinction from fundamentalism is essential. Consider the wikipedia entry on “Evangelicalism“. One can define either movement as a philosophy fairly simply, but all kinds of arguments are made against the simple definitions, so more detailed definitions are necessary.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The broader and more positive definition of an evangelical belongs in an older time frame, unfortunately. Certainly at least as far back as the earlier part of the 20th century.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. I do prefer names, not nicknames, on posts.

The latter clause gets you all your negatives but framed in a positive sense:
— Evangelizing lapsed Christians requires talking to them, hence a weak doctrine of separation and ecumenicalism
— By mentioning orthodoxy without orthopraxy you see the tolerance of forms of worship and opposition to legalism

Philosophy is the way we do things. It is the rationale for our policy.

If you look back to various religious controversies, there have frequently been people who have affirmed orthodox or conservative theology, but philosophically were moderates willing to tolerate varying degrees of error. If you study the Presbyterians and the Baptists involved in the ‘Fundamentalist-Modernist’ controversy, you will find many who ‘stayed in’ even then, unwilling to join the fight and in fact voting against the militants when it came to crunch time.

You can see this in Spurgeon’s Downgrade Controversy, when many conservative men voted against him. Joseph Parker, for example, and others. Spurgeon’s own brother seconded the motion against Spurgeon, if I recall correctly.

You can see this in the Southern Baptist ‘Conservative Resurgence’. A few years ago I used to participate on a forum on Compuserve called SBCNet. There were SBs of all stripes there. Some who appeared to be theologically liberal wanted to be called moderates. Others who professed conservativism were quite willing to join in with the more liberal and call for moderation, love, Christian tolerance and attack the conservatives.

There have always been people who don’t like fights and would rather the controversy would just go away. That is the moderate philosophy.

Does that help?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

2) Even though I’m not exactly sure what you mean, I think I’m on the right track in inferring that you think fundamentalists should have a philosophy that is the opposite of moderate (radical, extreme, ?). I also don’t think I’m far off in assuming that you think that at some point in the past fundamentalists did, on the whole, have this non-moderate philosophy. So, I’d say the real $64,000 question is — And, what exactly did this non-moderate philosophy accomplish?

[Edited for ‘phonics’ as per Keith’s subsequent post alerting me! “There”, “Their” and “They’re” … I do it all the time. You’re welcome!]

What does that make them?

Not fundamentalists, in my opinion.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3