In addition, this comment did not interact with the post at hand, just took gratuitous shots at fundamentalism that are not very original (we’ve heard them all before) and without much charity. So…

Reform your language and identify yourself. Then we’ll post your comment.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Paul, I think the problem you are describing has to do with fundamentalists, not fundamentalism. This post is about defining fundamentalism, not evaluating the appropriateness of how certain fundamentalists have applied what they believe.

If you care to actually interact with what I wrote, that would be more helpful.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

It’s the often self-righteous and fruitless exercise of making distinctions from other Christians based on lists that are usually arbitrary that is the problem with fundamentalism.

Hi Dan

I am not sure what statement of Minnick’s you are referencing. And of course it is impossible to answer for someone else, so let me answer for me.

I think that the problem I have with Mohler, Dever, et al, is more under the category of #5, especially this category: “inclusivism, direct or in direct.” I would also have some concerns for #3, but I admit the subjectivity of that point. You are right that there are problems in application here because of disagreement over what constitutes ‘biblical conduct’.

I am not sure that separation is the automatic result of disagreements here. As I see it, commitment to fundamentalism means that I am not willing to ignore it if I think a brother is violating biblical standards of conduct. I will either speak up or distance myself (in some degree of non-participation) or both. If the violations are particularly egregious and have the potential to influence those under my care, and my attempts at influencing change are either futile or exhausted, then I will separate (i.e., cut off all contact and partnership).

In any case, I will grant your point that applications can become subjective and are varied. My point in this post is not about application, but about definition, however. The claim is made that fundamentalism as such is undefinable. It is more likely that those saying it is undefinable are unwilling to accept the definitions given.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

My question then is what a fundamentalist considers a violation of #3. How is biblical conduct defined? Do you separate from another Christian who goes to movies based on #3? Do you separate from someone who doesn’t necessarily go to movies but fellowships with a third party that goes to movies? Also, if one believes in a different mode of baptism, would that be considered not practicing biblical conduct? I think part of the reason why people ask “which fundamentalism?” is because fundamentalists all agree with #3 but have various interpretations of what that is. Once you broaden separation beyond reasons of apostasy, it is almost impossible to have consensus (which is why the early fundamentalists called themselves fundamentalists so as to distinguish themselves based on defined fundamentals of the faith rather than based on various interpretations of “biblical conduct”).

Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying. It’s funny to see you commenting back while I am working on all these posts. We had a great day today at our Canada Day picnic. Four small churches gathered together in a crowd of about 60ish people. It is encouraging as I told the folks, that they can see that even though we are in small churches, we aren’t all alone.

As for level-headed, I hope I am learning! It is easy to get heated and blast away, especially on the internet.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I was thinking of “limited participation” and “separation” and all the other tools of militancy as being tools that seem to be brandished internally as much as externally. And in this case I was thinking specifically of it being used between self-identified fundamentalists.

In any case, I think you have been pretty level-headed about the areas where you would like to see less infighting, so it wasn’t a comment toward you. I was just speculating that the very hypervigilant militancy that characterizes fundamentalism makes it more susceptible to triggering the fuse and becoming fractious in unnecessary cases.

I understand that people within fundamentalism can disagree while still fitting the definition, I was just speculating that these disagreements may appear to others as “different kinds of fundamentalism”.

Hi Charles,

No, I don’t think the FBFI is the only group that is fundamentalist, but they probably represent the largest fellowship among the side of fundamentalism in the Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Northland International University and Bob Jones University orbit. There are a few other schools that would be part of that also, but you will find the same leaders on boards in the various schools and on the board of the FBFI. There are other “orbits” in what could be called fundamentalism, my personal preference is for the FBFI version of it.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Hi Paul

Well, not sure what to make of your post. Of course life is about knowing God. However, that is not to say we should never talk about lesser concepts, is it? In wrestling with lesser concepts as they are taught to us in the Scriptures, do we not come to know God better?

The purpose of my post was to show that contrary to popular opinion among some, fundamentalism is a well-defined concept. It is the fruit of fundamentalists taking the time to think about what they are doing and why they are distinct from other Christians. You appear to think that somehow it is a trap for fundamentalists to do this? Is that it? Wouldn’t it be more of a useless and fruitless exercise to be off marching to the beat of a different drummer and not know why you were doing it?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Hi Joshua

I don’t think the essential definition is altered by differences in application. Fundamentalism as a concept is as it is described in these resolutions. But Fundamentalism as a denomination doesn’t exist. That’s to the good, in my opinion. It is better that we maintain our independence and be able to apply our doctrine and philosophy as unto the Lord above all, without regard to our political part in the pecking order.

As for ‘limited participation’ as expressed in the 2009 resolution, it is one of those statements that can be taken in different ways depending on your perspective. From what you say, it appears that you might be saying that it primarily applies to how a fundamentalist might relate to conservative evangelicals. (If it isn’t your view, please correct me! But it does seem that it is the way some could take it.) On the other hand, the way I take it is that it refers to relationships between self-identified fundamentalists. We don’t all see things the same way and there is no obligation that we must work closely with one another just because we share a label.

I personally would like to see fundamentalists exhibiting the maturity to let anti-Calvinists and Calvinists speak to their views without criticism, no matter how poorly or well the speaker might handle the topic. That is probably a vain hope, but it is mine nonetheless.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3