Hi Ellis,

I would agree that we have a tendency to see ourselves as hammers and every problem as a nail. God deliver us from pride!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

And that generally speaking these things are not even on the conservative evangelicals’ radar screen. I suppose some of them will reject the most egregious forms of Hollywood and music, but they are generally much more tolerant and accepting here than fundamentalists are willing to be.”

This is a good and accurate observation I think. Coincidentally, it mirrors a conversation I had with a friend after church last night (he also happens to be a board member of the FBFI). In Fundamentalism there is (sometimes) an “overreaction” or misapplication of plain Biblical principles. Whereas, even in Conservative Evangelicalism, there is often a lack of action when it comes to these things. Herein lies the frustration for guys like me. It seems that ofttimes some of these controversial matters come down to a perceived “all or nothing” decision.

To be clear, I am grateful for the FBFI putting out resolutions that are dealing with the necessity of striving for holiness and separation. I find some of the “peripheral” comments troubling (the things that seem to take up so much of the conversation today), but I appreciate the commitment to holiness and godly fellowships.

Thanks for the conversation here, Don. It’s….educational… :)

Hi Kent

The notion of “historic fundamentalism” as described is similar to the Catholic authority of “tradition”, don’t you think? i.e., since this is the way it was practiced by a certain segment of people in church history, this becomes the authoritative position, the ‘authentic’ tradition.

In a sense, everyone pretty well practices an ‘everythingism’. That’s why we have distinct local churches. There are reasons we don’t worship with another group of people down the street and it isn’t just so that our pastor can have a job. It is because we believe distinct things about doctrine and practice.

However, I believe that it is legitimate for local churches (or individual Christians) to cooperate with one another in endeavours beyond the ministry of the local church. For that to occur, we will have to tolerate some differences since we don’t all agree on everything. Fundamentalists have defined the limits of their cooperation by statements like the FBFI resolutions. For myself, I am willing to cooperate with other churches and pastors based on a general common ground represented by these resolutions. Most other fundamentalist efforts have established similar parameters, whether they have put them in writing or not.

And I think these parameters / resolutions are defensible from the Scriptures, which is our authority.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

It seems what you are describing Don is biblical. I don’t think I can put my finger on historic fundamentalism. It seems that there is commonly described the version that Watchman is talking about where we separate only on the fundamentals. I can’t defend that position scripturally. Certain fundamentalists defend it historically, but on what scriptural basis? I don’t get an answer from them, usually just silence or scoffing. Then there are fundamentalists that believe that history shifted with new-evangelicalism and fundamentalism adapted, so that separation over these cultural issues is now historic fundamentalism. It seems like it all depends on who you’re talking to.

I can defend separating over everything that our church teaches. Bauder would call that everythingism. I would call it something I can defend scripturally, and I labor that I might be accepted of Jesus.

Hi Joshua,

Ok, I see where you were going with that. I suppose we could say that the church body could join in a covenant together also as a matter of authority over themselves as well. And indeed that is exactly what some churches do.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I also like “wisdom demands” or “prudence demands”. Although, when we appeal to wisdom or prudence, it always implies a judgment call. On some things, the members of the congregation can make their own judgment calls. But on other things, the pastor will want to take the role of the shepherd, place fences around the congregation to protect them from the wolves, and ensure cohesiveness and consistency. So it seems appropriate to me that people would respect their pastors on these matters, even when there isn’t a direct or explicit biblical prohibition.

Obviously, this appeal to “respect the authority of the pastor” could be abused, and people can take the “shepherd” analogy too far. But it feels equally dangerous to insist that the pastor’s authority extends only to being a reciter of laws that were passed down 2000 years ago. But still tentative in my thoughts on the matter..

Thanks for the comment, Watchman.

I’ll not go into the specifics on alcohol here, I’ll save it for another post.

I think most FBF fundamentalists would agree that the Bible doesn’t strictly forbid drinking. I would agree with that view myself.

However, the FBF is pretty clearly against the beverage use of alcohol. There are a number of angles from which to preach that point and I think these angles are accompanied with varying levels of biblical authority. For example, we will preach it as a matter of wisdom. I think a pretty good case for that angle can be made here. I am hinting in my responses here that I think there is another angle that hasn’t (to my knowledge) been promoted. I think it has strong interpretational authority. But that is another post.

But what I am saying is that fundamentalists, even those who will concede that the Bible doesn’t strictly prohibit alcohol consumption, still will contend for a position that is antagonistic towards beverage use of alcohol. I think I get that from your own comments, or am I reading you wrong?

And my overall point is that fundamentalists can be marked out by contending for certain conduct in the personal life. It is reflected in our attitude towards music, movies, booze, drugs, tattoos, piercings, etc. We will speak against them in general (though with some ‘nuances’, admittedly). But the mark of fundamentalism is that when it comes to conduct, you can discern a distinction between the fundamentalist and the conservative evangelical.

Does that make sense? Am I reading you right?

Or am I completely out to lunch? (Always a possibility… and I was eating lunch as I typed all this so… )

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

While I would not describe my position as supporting drinking, I am fully convinced that the Scripture does not forbid it completely. Drunkenness, certainly and repeatedly. Drinking, well no. The difference is quite clearly spelled out in Timothy where we read “not given to much wine” when it could easily have said “not given to any wine” if that were meant to be the standard. But like you I’m not really interested in debating that point.

What I’d like to address is whether I am still a fundamentalist given my position on this issue. I think so. Your mileage may vary. I’m certainly not an FBFI fundamentalist (either Sweatt or Bauder varieties), but I believe in and support contending for the fundamentals…just not for the ancillaries (almost said secondaries, but that might be too big a little joke).

Hi Ellis and Joshua,

I want to write some posts specifically on alcohol later. I have been thinking about it lately with respect to New Testament teaching. I am coming to believe that the New Testament is much stronger against it than has been commonly thought. However, that is for another post. Josh, your summary would be close to my take from Jaeggli’s book, but I would say that “wisdom demands” the position rather than “leadership has determined”.

With respect to music, I realize that not all Christians, including not all Fundamentalists, draw the line in exactly the same place. What I am defining here is not where the line is but that there is a line. Fundamentalists are going to separate with people over music. This can be as mild as the notion of “limited participation” where you might just withdraw from close contact to an all out line-in-the-sand we-aren’t-going-to-go-there public rebuke and stance against a church or individual who is promoting unacceptable music.

Your comments on Hollywood, Ellis, bolster this point of view. Fundamentalists are going to make fellowship decisions and public pronouncements about cultural issues. Music and Hollywood are just two areas (sometimes overlapping) where those positions and decisions are going to be made.

In the end, that is what my post is about. Fundamentalism applies its principles in every walk of life, including culture. I am not saying that we will always be entirely consistent with one another or even that our applications will always be entirely correct. What I am saying is that this is the way Fundamentalists think.

And that generally speaking these things are not even on the conservative evangelicals’ radar screen. I suppose some of them will reject the most egregious forms of Hollywood and music, but they are generally much more tolerant and accepting here than fundamentalists are willing to be.

It is a marker, and where you see people resisting the mark, you see people ‘leaving’ fundamentalism.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I’m glad you covered this topic. I have noticed that the “cultural” restrictions are the restrictions that vary the most between fundamentalist churches. The same goes of Jewish Synagogues, for that matter. As an example, there is a church near my hometown that forbids the use of any worship instruments other than those listed in Psalm 150, stating “Psalm 150 refers to a large list of instruments that we are commanded to use in praising the Lord”. The pastor argues that it is sin to use any instruments not commanded in Psalm 150.

As another example, many of my friends growing up went to churches who permitted listening to Christian rock music, while we were taught that even Christian rock was sinful (and perhaps worse than secular rock). Of course, we weren’t explicitly taught that my friends were apostate, but some in the congregation would argue such.

I have never had a problem with pastors imposing cultural restrictions on the congregation, and I would consider them remiss if they didn’t. But I am puzzled by pastors who go through scriptural gymnastics to justify such prohibitions as being direct scriptural commandments.

Isn’t it the pastor’s job to shepherd the flock, and the congregation’s job to respect and follow the pastor? The Bible gives the pastor significant latitude to set restrictions and regulations that will be beneficial in molding and protecting the moral character of his flock.

From your book review, it seems like the case for alcohol prohibition is not, “Scripture forbids any drinking of wine”, but is instead something like “Scripture commands that we not be worldly, intemperate, or self-destructive; and given our current cultural milieu and understanding of science, the leadership has determined that consumption of wine is incompatible with those commands.” And that seems like a perfectly defensible statement.

What am I missing?