It is good to know that some are addressing the doctrine of unity. I went a-look-in for your paper, found the site from last years conference, but no paper on unity. Can you point me to it?

For His glory,
Christian Markle

I agree that some of this is academic. So, in that sense, is there really a fundamentalist movement or are their fundamentalist movements that vie for copyright of the title?

Is the BJU movement the same as the Hyles-Anderson movement in any meaningful way? Are those two groups really any more similar than BJU and John Macarthur? Are they even as similar? What about BJU and Pensacola types? What about southern gospel music singing types and Central seminary types? What about KJVO and ESV enthusiasts who still wish to call themselves fundamentalists?

Who gets to claim the title? Does it matter what they separate from? Or, as long as you separate then you’re in? What is the point?

Hi Keith

I agree about the ‘common usage’ in general, but when I said ‘in common usage’ in my article, I meant when the two terms are used together. I realize that the term ‘evangelical’ by itself is ambiguous given the current level of ignorance in the hoi polloi, but when the terms are used together they are not meant to be synonymous.

I would also agree that some do make decisions about separation contradictorily, meaninglessly, and simplistically based merely on labels. I would agree with Dave Doran that such is bad practice.

Nevertheless, I disagree with the notion that there is no longer a fundamentalist movement. In the end, this is probably an academic question, and it isn’t the basis of separation or whatever other level of non-cooperation one might espouse. But still, I think there is a movement and it seems somewhat foolish to deny the fact. In fact, some of Dave’s language in past posts indicate that he still thinks in terms of a movement. I am not sure what he gains by saying there is no movement, but he seems to think it is important to the questions we face about our associations.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

For your and everyone else’s information, last year at our Word of Truth Conference I did a session on unity. The paper that went with it was 35-40 pages. I’m doing something again on unity this year that is dealing with John 17. That one is 17 pages.

Most of the people who claim to be about unity the most, in my opinion, actually are not, because they give up real unity for a a faux, unscriptural unity.

This is true of the “common usage” of fundamentalists and theology/church history wonk evangelicals. However it is not “common usage” of the english speaking peoples. To most people, evangelical and fundamentalist are synonyms. Much to the chagrin of many of us evangelicals.

“I have read conservative evangelicals acknowledging new evangelical mistakes while at the same time crediting the new evangelical efforts as necessary correctives of fundamentalist excesses.”

I’ll acknowledge these things.

Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for these historic movements to lose their coherency and “movementness”. Much of what you point out about the fundamentalist movement is true, but isn’t it also true that there is now very little agreement about who gets to use the title? And, isn’t it true that, in spite of that lack of agreement, the title gets used simplistically (or even contradictorily or meaninglessly) to make decisions on that very important matter of separation?

Hi Christian and all. First, an update, attached to the end of my article above:

UPDATE: Dave Doran has responded here. He makes some valid points but I still disagree with his major premise. I’ll write a post later outlining where I think his criticisms are on target and where I differ, but this update will have to suffice for now. (Please note that Dave has been having some technical difficulties with his blog today. You may have to fiddle with the link to get to his article.)

Now, to Christian:

I actually don’t think it matters whether there is a movement or not. I agree that movements can lose momentum. I don’t think that is so of fundamentalism, but even if it is so, it still doesn’t remove the substance of objections. More later.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

One wise crack deserved another :-)

I trust that our readers will understand that we both are dead serious about the content of our posts, but able to jibe each other without personal offense. We do this at the danger of emulating the description of Proverbs 26:18-29. Some of us live dangerously :-)

The following is are very quick summaries of my thoughts on the practical but non-biblical aspects of this thread. Feel free to disregard them as man’s wisdom — for they are. There may be biblical parallels, but I have not fleshed them out in my thinking yet.:

On Labels:
– They are valuable.
– They are only as valuable as they are accurate.
– They become deceptive/misleading when they are not accurate.
– Human error and depravity make the prospect of perfect accuracy foolhardy.
– This danger only diminishes their value; it does not eliminate it.
– Those in the most precarious position of spiritual carnality (1 Corinthians 3) and practical misunderstanding are those who are so wrapped up in a label that it becomes their core identity. Only one thing/person deserves that role (1 Corinthians 3:23).

On movements:
– organizations are segments of movements.
– You officially join an organization; participation in a movement is more fluid.
– movements are ideas in motion (people-plural, leadership, initiatives, programs, tools, etc).
– a movement looses force when the ideas are overcome by the motion.
– Sadly this HAS happened in fundamentalism.
– I do not believe fundamentalism is hopeless, but it is not ideal Christianity!

For His glory,
Christian Markle

Hi Jim

I was replying as you posted this last so I changed the time on your post to make them appear in order. I also corrected that spelling error and deleted your corrective post.

Notice that you are using, though, the term “the true” in place of “independent fundamentalist”. This is tacit acknowledgment that the term Baptist can need clarification. I would suggest that “independent fundamentalist” would be more descriptive than “the true”, because even false Baptists would claim to be true Baptists.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

Take the term IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist)

In the IT world (Information Technology) we sometimes use the term “deprecated” in an IT sense.

An example is here

From the above take the FONT tag in HTML. It once meant something and was used regularly. Now it is obsolete and is not used.

Back to IFB. If I am a true Baptist why do I need the terms “Independent” or “Fundamental”. A true Baptist believes in the fundamentals of the faith and because he (I) view the Bible as the supreme authority I will practice Biblical separation.

Add to that fact, fundamentalism as it has morphed has come to mean some things that is never meant before. One man’s fundamentalism is completely opposed to the doctrines of grace. Another man’s fundamentalism has standards (some would call it legalism but I won’t) about personal holiness that I have never held and never will (I am not advocating licentiousness!). Another one’s fundamentalism is version specific to the extent that every one who uses a different version really does not submit to the authority of the Word of God!

In conclusion: 1.) a true Baptist does not need the term fundamentalist; 2.) the term has morphed to the point that it is near meaningless

@ Christian

Touche!

You know I was just kidding with the “more verses” crack, right?

@ Jim

Let me answer your question with a question. Look back to the definition of ‘movement’ from Merriam Webster. They use as an example the term “civil rights movement”. How do you join the civil rights movement? How do you get out of the civil rights movement?

You don’t join the civil rights movement, but if you are working for civil rights goals with a civil rights philosophy and methods, you are in. If you stop, you are out.

Same thing with the fundamentalist movement. Movements aren’t institutions. They are usually made up of disparate individuals working concurrently on a common cause.

Would you agree that there is a rising Calvinist movement of some sort today? How does one get in or out?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3