fundamentalism by blunt instrument
Man, my brother and another pastor both sent me a copy of an e-mail from Matt Olson entitled "Open Letter to Friends in Ministry". I haven’t gotten my own personal copy, even though I know I am in Matt’s database. I wonder what that means? I think maybe we aren’t friends anymore.
Well, seriously, there are some issues between us, and I am still concerned about Northland and the direction it is going. Some of the things in Matt’s letter stretch credulity to the breaking point.
Kevin Bauder’s latest installment tells the history of separation from a point of view totally foreign to me. Essentially, he seems to be arguing that there has been a silent majority within evangelical Christendom that never was actually new-evangelical.
You know, I’d really like to see some evidence of these last two points especially. I see many ‘attaboys’ on SI about it, but really, shouldn’t we demand some evidence and not just rely on Bauder’s say-so?
A somewhat disturbing point is emerging about the new kind of fundamentalism we are supposed to be having. I am wondering if this point is a variant of something that has been criticized elsewhere as ‘Fundamentalism Plus’ (or ‘IFBX’, as in Independent Fundamentalist Baptist eXtreme).
The point that is emerging is that the new kind of fundamentalism is oriented around Calvinism to the exclusion of those who would consider themselves fundamentalists but non-Calvinists. It also may explain the overtures being made by fundamentalists towards certain conservative evangelicals.
Similar charges have been made before, only to be dismissed by the change agents. I admit some of those previous charges have been made quite clumsily (at best). Nevertheless, new evidence is appearing that suggests there might be something to the charges.
Consider the following:
Dave Doran wrote a post in response to my ‘phantom movements’ post. He continues to hold that there is no such thing as a fundamentalist movement any longer, and I continue to hold that there is an identifiable movement. (My claims should not be misunderstood to mean that I think the Fundamentalist movement is brimming with health, just that it exists.)
Dave’s major criticism of my piece centers on the way I expressed myself. First, he quotes my take on the objectives of both evangelicalism and fundamentalism:
The evangelical objective is cooperation with as many as possible while maintaining in some fashion the integrity of the gospel.
On the other hand, there is a group of churches, individuals, and Christian institutions that pursue separatism as an objective.
It really hurts to see your own words in pixelated print! Especially when your quoted words are followed with this critique:
More importantly, I believe he misses the mark on the objective of fundamentalism by making separatism the objective rather than the means to the objective.
I hate it when Dave is right like that! My statement of fundamentalism’s objective not only misses the boat entirely but it contradicts some things I have been saying here recently about separation plus non-cooperation.
Dave also criticizes my words ‘in some fashion’ with respect to evangelicalism’s objectives. I think my statement is somewhat awkward and unclear, but I don’t think it is as far off as my second statement with respect to the objective of fundamentalism.
First I’ll explain ‘in some fashion’ and then I’ll re-address both objective statements, hopefully with greater clarity on the one hand and greater accuracy on the other.
This will be the first part of my response to Dave’s critique of my last post. This part of my response will deal with an aspect of his critique that I think is incorrect. He does make a valid criticism that I will address in a subsequent post.
The first thing I would like to address is this point:
Ironically, both Don and I quote Webster dictionary as the basis for making our assessment. He does it in his post and I do it to make the opposite case in a post in October 2009. So, at least we can say that we agree that for a movement to exist there must be some unifying objective.
…
First, the reasons why Don and I can both use Webster to argue opposite points is that Don drops part of Webster’s definition. Now, to be sure, he acknowledges this—“Based on this definition, one could dispute whether there has ever been much of a fundamentalist movement, especially if the word ‘organized’ is emphasized”—yet dismisses this as a non-problem. But it is a serious, thesis refuting problem! A thousand people at the shopping mall to buy clothes for school all have the same objective, but nobody would consider them a back-to-school clothes buying movement, would they? Without organization and coordination of effort, there is no movement. When you drop the word organized from the Webster definition you actually change the meaning.
Dave is contending that my dismissal of the word ‘organized’ changes the definition of movement into something else.
My contention is that the word ‘organized’ in the definition doesn’t mean some kind of formal organizational structure across the length and breadth of a movement – it is impossible for such to be the case and I doubt that it has ever happened. That is not to say that there isn’t some organization that galvanizes, leads, influences, or directs movements, but that one really can’t expect a movement to have an over-arching organization.
Is there still a fundamentalist movement? An evangelical movement? Some are claiming that whatever movements could have been called such in the past, they exist as movements no longer. If that is so, what difference does the dissolution of these movements make in decisions about Christian fellowship?
The Merriam Webster dictionary gives us this definition of movement:
a series of organized activities working toward an objective also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end, the civil rights movement
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).
Based on this definition, one could dispute whether there has ever been much of a fundamentalist movement, especially if the word ‘organized’ is emphasized. Apart from some denominational fundamentalists in the early days (GARBC, CBA, OPC), my perception of fundamentalism is that it is largely a very loosely organized group of independent individuals and churches. By ‘very loosely organized’, I’d have to say ‘so loose as to not be organized at all’.
However, in the sample phrase the dictionary gives (‘the civil rights movement’), tight organization is not much more evident than we have seen in fundamentalism or evangelicalism, so I suspect the emphasis of the definition should fall on ‘activities working toward an objective’ or ‘effort to promote or attain an end’ rather than on the word organized.
In this sense, I think we can safely say there has been a fundamentalist movement and an evangelical movement.
In a relatively recent (but undated) press release, Central Baptist Theological Seminary announced that discussions of a proposed merger between Central and Faith Baptist Theological Seminary have ceased. Instead, some kind of cooperation between the two institutions will be pursued “short of a merger”.
Below the press release, links are provided to several ‘ethos statements’, also undated. They provide an interesting glimpse into the state of mind CBTS considers to be its “distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs”. *
In reading these documents, some observations come to mind. First, comparing the “Ethos Statement on Salvation & Sanctification” and the “Ethos Statement on Hermeneutics & Eschatology” with the “Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism”, a curious difference is immediately noticeable. The first two documents are full of phrases like this: “Some of us believe that…” contrasted with “while others believe…” or “while others understand…” The third document contains no expressions like this at all. One has to wonder how much these first two documents really distinguish the character or guiding beliefs of the institution. Some believe one thing, others believe another. Doesn’t sound like a statement of certainty to me. It seems that the third document, the “Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism” is more definitive than the first two.
Second, regarding the “Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism” specifically, my first impression is that it represents something new. It isn’t the way fundamentalists have typically expressed themselves in the last 60 years, but it does seem to be a summary statement of new views of fundamentalism that some have been advocating in recent years. Yet, this statement is perhaps less definitive than it appears because there remain several important unanswered questions.
The Baptist Church in Horse Fair, Stony Stratford, Bucks, England in the year 1790 covenanted together:
To maintain and hold fast the important and fundamental truths of revelation. These we apprehend to be such as respect the natural and moral character of Jehovah, and the various relations He stands in to His rational creatures; the original purity but present depravity of human nature; the total moral inability and yet absolute inexcusableness of man as a guilty sinner before God; the perpetuity of a divine law, and the equity of its awful sanction; the infinite dignity of the Son of God in His original character as a divine Person, possessed of all the perfections of Deity, and His all-sufficiency for the office of Mediator between God and man, in consequence of the union of the divine and human natures in one person; the acceptance of our persons with, and the enjoyment of all good from God, through His mediation; the proper divinity and blessed agency of the Holy Spirit in our regeneration, sanctification, and consolation; in one word, that our full salvation, from its first cause to its final consummation, is a display of sovereign goodness accomplishing the glorious purposes of Him, who worketh all things according to the Council of His own will, and known unto whom is the end from the beginning.
It is quite interesting to me that this church in 1790 uses the terms "fundamental truths". Also of interest are the specific list of doctrines noted as such. It seems that the ideas of fundamentalism are not such a new thing as some suppose.
* Quoted from Baptist Confessions, Covenants and Catechisms, Timothy and Denise George, eds., p. 188, emphasis mine.
Bob Bixby is at it again. In his article, among other things, he says this:
Go to an FBF meeting and look at their leaders beginning with the president and do a study of their adult children. (The last one I attended in 2009 it was obvious that most of the attendees were old enough to have adult children.) You will find that the second-generation of Fundamentalism results very frequently, if they are graced by God, in abandonment of their fathers’ ideology while retaining true fundamentals (thankfully) or, sadly, a whole-hearted plunge into antinomianism.
To which I responded with this:
Don Johnson, on August 19, 2010 at 12:07 pm Said:
Bob, your shot at fundamentalists and their children is really unkind. Do you think that fundamentalists are the only ones who have problems with their adult children? Do you think adult children is what Jesus meant when he said you can judge a tree by its fruit?
Your ranting once again vents spleen and speaks more about you than about those you attack.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3
Immediately afterward, another commenter added this:
Hope said on Legalism is the Slippery Slope
August 19, 2010 at 1:41 pm
In response to Bob Bixby on August 19, 2010 at 10:50 am:
The man who today forbids what God allows, tomorrow will allow what God forbids. ~ R.B. Kuiper I want to push back. A Fundamental Baptist pastor has alerted his people to the dangers of Bob Bixby, saying that I am a New Evangelical and have opened the door to compromise and worldliness. I think a […]
Amen to what Don said!
You will look in vain for this comment. Apparently Bob doesn’t want you to see it. Bob replied to me:
Bob Bixby, on August 19, 2010 at 2:08 pm Said:
Don, in the interest of Christian civility I deleted my longer response and will stick to this:
You are the one that is inconsiderately derailing the conversation by your ad hominem argument. You know as well as I do that biblically these teachers are open to scrutiny and, yes, it is right to look at a man’s adult children to consider the long-term effect of his teaching. It is not an wild attack to raise the question when some scholars even believe (though I do not think I can fully agree) that a man is potentially disqualified from ministry if his adult children are not believers. My point is that my invitation to check these men out is not outside of the God-given parameters.
Please do not post on my blog again. Your modus operandi with me is never discussion but an immediate attempt to discolor the whole thing so that people miss the point because you actually have no substantive argument in response. This is typical of fundamentalism.
To this comment, I offered these words:
Bob, do you think that Jesus meant adult children when he said, "by their fruit ye shall know them"?
As for your request, you are free to delete anything I write. It does seem somewhat contrary to the spirit of the blogosphere which you have espoused in the past. I am not anonymous, your site is not moderated, and I don’t think I have said anything untrue.
And you haven’t dealt with the heart of my question.
BTW, if it is right to attack a man for his adult children, then you will have a field day with many of your evangelical friends.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3
You won’t find this comment either. I don’t know how long it was up, but Bob soon deleted it.
You may make your own conclusions, but my opinion is that it is at best unkind of Bob to make personal attacks in trying to make his point, however dubious. Please note, I am not concerned with Bob’s opinion of me, or anything he has said of me. I am referring to the personal attacks he is making in his post, attempting to demean fundamentalism by mud-slinging against some of those with whom he disagrees.
The fact is, I have often agreed with Bob in the past on various points and have commended him for those points, both on his blog and in private correspondence. I do think Bob is often intemperate in his speech and I don’t mind saying so. He cheapens his own arguments by such intemperance.
Now, is Bob correct about some of the problems that he says are in fundamentalism? Certainly. There are problems of all sorts, including abusive pastors, legalistic churches, shallow preaching and the like. Are there none in fundamentalism addressing these problems, or tying to hold to a higher standard? Of course not. There are a lot of good men who try to model biblical ministry within fundamentalism.
But really, read Bob’s post again. His first paragraph tells you what it is all about. Someone called him a New Evangelical. So Bob reacts with a diatribe against all fundamentalism. Why the vehemence, Bob? Why not the grace to turn the other cheek? What does it matter what others say, are you answerable to them? And why do you so easily and willingly resort to personal attacks in trying to defend yourself?
P.S. In my comments section, a reminder that I won’t tolerate abusive speech or those who simply want to distract with sneers and jibes. You know who you are.
One of the books I read this spring is Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman by John R. Muether. My son gave me this book about a year or more ago and I decided it was high time I read it. This is the first biography of Van Til that I have read. A friend who also read it said that it was a good book to fill in some background that other books missed. He recommended reading some of the other books in addition to this one.
While I will put this post in the ‘book reviews’ category, this article isn’t really a book review. I do recommend this book and think it will be worth your while to read if you are interested in Van Til at all.
One of the things that I learned from this book is that Van Til was definitely a separatist. But he wasn’t your fundamentalist type of separatist. He had his own branch of separatism, making himself distinct from both evangelicalism and fundamentalism.
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments