{"id":1589,"date":"2010-01-27T21:45:10","date_gmt":"2010-01-28T05:45:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2010\/01\/27\/twisting-the-tail\/"},"modified":"2010-01-27T21:56:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-28T05:56:00","slug":"twisting-the-tail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2010\/01\/27\/twisting-the-tail\/","title":{"rendered":"twisting the tail?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/strong><\/p>\n

A few days ago I was incapacitated<\/a> while comments on an earlier post<\/a> piled up. I\u2019d like to respond to each one individually in the order in which they were received, so I thought I would do it in a post. I\u2019ll close the comments on the original post and all subsequent comments (if any) can be posted here.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

First off, a comment from:<\/p>\n

Lou Martuneac<\/strong>
Submitted on 2010\/01\/22 at 5:42am<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Don:<\/p>\n

At Chris\u2019s Two Cents blog you wrote, \u201cFurther, I am complaining about the way complaints like this are used to slam fundamentalism and justify leaving it\u2026 Complaints like these are pretty shallow justifications of leaving the fundamentalist position.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n

Most of those who complain about fundamentalism have left for evangelicalism already. They keep a presence in fundamentalism, they try to retain the \u201cfundamentalist<\/i>\u201d label; why I do not know. Maybe they think they can embrace the practices of the so-called \u201cconservative<\/i>\u201d evangelicals and call it \u201cfundamentalism<\/i>.\u201d <\/p>\n

In any event, last summer just before the FBFI annual conference I was speaking to one of its leadership. We discussed the angst and anger of some YF guys. He wondered what could be done. I said, if they want to leave for the ce<\/i> camp, let them go.<\/p>\n

You wrote, \u201cFundamentalism is\u2026defined by a commitment to defending the gospel against its denial or betrayal<\/i>.\u201d A good partial definition. And here we have men who want to identify with fundamentalism, but they have already begun to embrace, promote and attend conferences sponsored by certain evangelicals who hobnob with the \u201cenemies of the cross of Christ<\/i>\u201d (Phil. 3:18<\/b>), i.e. those who deny the Gospel.<\/p>\n

Is it possible that their problem is not so much with the preaching in fundamentalism? Isn\u2019t it possible they are attracted to evangelicalism, want to be evangelicals, are committed to evangelicalism and simply need to legitimize the shift, and complaints about preaching ease the transition for them?<\/p>\n

Lou<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My response:<\/p>\n

Since my post on \u2018pinning the tail on the fundamentalist\u2019 is not directly related to Chris\u2019 post on preaching and the following comments, I want to broaden your question in the last paragraph:<\/p>\n

\n

Is it possible that their problem is not so much with the XXX in fundamentalism?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In other words, it is more of a \u2018fill-in-the-blank\u2019 (represented by my XXX) for the complaint against fundamentalism. There is a tendency to blame some error or weakness in fundamentalism for motivating some to leave. These errors may be real or imagined, but they become the stated reasons for disenchantment.<\/p>\n

The problem, however, is not the errors themselves, but that the ones \u2018leaving\u2019 never embraced fundamentalism in the first place. If they embraced fundamentalism, they wouldn\u2019t leave, or seek to redefine it, but would try to overcome the errors by various means. The reality is that the complainants don\u2019t believe the defining militancy of fundamentalism is biblical, or, if they accept that it is biblical, they don\u2019t think that it is biblically applied by fundamentalists.<\/p>\n

In the end, I agree with your comment in the main. You are saying what I am saying.<\/p>\n

Keith<\/strong>
Submitted on 2010\/01\/22 at 9:47am<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI thought of simply deleting your post since it really is kind of a snide remark that doesn\u2019t advance any discussion.\u201d <\/p>\n

Don. It was a joke. Lighten up. And, for goodness\u2019 sake, is your entire post really anything more than a snide remark? You weren\u2019t being snide mentioning background choruses of \u201cO to be like thee\u201d?<\/p>\n

But, since you asked for better . . . <\/p>\n

Your position that \u201cFundamentalism is a position or state of mind or philosophy taken by Bible-believing Christians in active opposition to certain but not all error,\u201d and the way you apply it, is fairly worthless in regards to the larger discussion. Here\u2019s why:<\/p>\n

1) It could be applied to evangelicals too. Which essential doctrines of the faith do they deny?
2) It could be a description of various denominations.
3) But mostly, because it basically amounts to, \u201cThose who oppose the right things are fundamentalists.\u201d While, of course, the whole discussion is over what should be opposed. Should goofy preaching be opposed, or only the debils music? Should KJVO be opposed, or only the dread neos? Etc.<\/p>\n

You say \u201cFundamentalism isn\u2019t a movement.\u201d Why the \u201cism\u201d then? And, you sure do spend a lot of time defending this non-existent movement. You sure do seem to give guys who are a part of this non-movement much benefit of the doubt while giving guys who are not a part of this non-movement little to no benefit of the doubt. You talk about things like \u201cclose fellowship\u201d and \u201cbranches\u201d and \u201ccamps\u201d. Those all seem like movement language. One can\u2019t leave or be \u201cout\u201d if there is no \u201cin\u201d.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, even if you aren\u2019t a part of movement fundamentalism, I don\u2019t see how you can with a straight face claim that there is no such thing as movement fundamentalism. There is clearly a recognizable, describable sub-culture that can be labeled Christian Fundamentalism. Are you saying that no one is allowed to comment upon it or challenge it \u2014 even from within? That too sounds like movement mentality.<\/p>\n

But, even if one were to concede your point that Fundamentalism is not a movement, your argument would fall apart. Because, you see, then the same thing applies to evangelicalism. On your terms, evangelicalism is no more of an organization or a movement than fundamentalism is. So, how in the world can someone \u201cgo to a branch of evangelicalism\u201d as you say?<\/p>\n

Of course, maybe you have come over to the dark side yourself. You wrote: \u201cSo some fellow (claiming to be a fundamentalist) cooperates with or actually participates in something I consider to be an error \u2013 so what? What difference does someone else\u2019s error make to my own philosophy or position?\u201d Just swap in evangelical for fundamentalist and you sound just like a neo.<\/p>\n

And I say all of this without any anger or bitterness.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Keith, I thought of interspersing my thoughts among your comment, but decided I would leave it in its entirety and make replies here. Hopefully I can make the context clear enough.<\/p>\n

You said:<\/p>\n

\n

Don. It was a joke. Lighten up. And, for goodness\u2019 sake, is your entire post really anything more than a snide remark?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Fair enough, and I can see how some might think my entire post was a snide remark. It was an attempt, however feeble, to address a problem with some humour. Of course, humour for one is snide and sniping to another.<\/p>\n

Further:<\/p>\n

\n

Your position that \u201cFundamentalism is a position or state of mind or philosophy taken by Bible-believing Christians in active opposition to certain but not all error,\u201d and the way you apply it, is fairly worthless in regards to the larger discussion. Here\u2019s why:<\/p>\n

1) It could be applied to evangelicals too. Which essential doctrines of the faith do they deny? <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I suppose I could have defined the \u2018certain\u2019 error. Fundamentalism teaches that certain categories of error are the grounds for refusing fellowship or for full separation. Evangelicals might agree with the principle, but they would certainly differ on the kind of error to which this applies. Since the general disposition of Fundamentalism is fairly well known, I didn\u2019t think it necessary for my point to define the errors I was talking about. My point was that Fundamentalism doesn\u2019t demand separation\/refusal of fellowship on every point of error<\/em>. Those that do have been called \u2018Hyper-Fundamentalists\u2019 or \u2018Fundamentalists-Plus\u2019. Examples of this latter category might include KJO fundamentalists, or No-Pants-On-Women fundamentalists, or what have you.<\/p>\n

Finally, I am not suggesting that evangelicals (in the best sense of the term) are denying essential doctrines. Our beef with them is that they are indifferent to those who do deny essential doctrines which is thus a betrayal<\/em> of those doctrines, rather than a denial.<\/p>\n

\n

2) It could be a description of various denominations. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Again, see my answer above. Fundamentalism is defined by taking action because of certain categories of error. Denominations may take similar actions based on certain distinctives, but that doesn\u2019t necessarily make them fundamentalist denominations.<\/p>\n

\n

3) But mostly, because it basically amounts to, \u201cThose who oppose the right things are fundamentalists.\u201d While, of course, the whole discussion is over what should be opposed. Should goofy preaching be opposed, or only the debils music? Should KJVO be opposed, or only the dread neos? Etc.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Of course, this is the question. What should be opposed?<\/p>\n

Let me turn the question around: Is goofy preaching necessarily an example of denial or betrayal of essential doctrines? I think the answer is not necessarily so<\/em>. Thus it, or any of the other examples you mention, are not grounds for repudiation or refusal of association on the basis of the fundamentals. It isn\u2019t a fundamentalist question.<\/p>\n

I might choose to limit my relations with goofy preachers who are otherwise not denying essential doctrines. But I don\u2019t make that choice based on fundamentalist considerations. And I don\u2019t abandon my fundamentalism because of their goofiness.<\/p>\n

Next point:<\/p>\n

\n

You say \u201cFundamentalism isn\u2019t a movement.\u201d Why the \u201cism\u201d then? And, you sure do spend a lot of time defending this non-existent movement. You sure do seem to give guys who are a part of this non-movement much benefit of the doubt while giving guys who are not a part of this non-movement little to no benefit of the doubt. You talk about things like \u201cclose fellowship\u201d and \u201cbranches\u201d and \u201ccamps\u201d. Those all seem like movement language. One can\u2019t leave or be \u201cout\u201d if there is no \u201cin\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I am accepting Dave Doran\u2019s and Kevin Bauder\u2019s observations that fundamentalism isn\u2019t a movement when I make these statements. The observations are noting the reality that fundamentalism isn\u2019t going anywhere.<\/p>\n

Fundamentalists sometimes talk about \u2018taking a stand\u2019. That isn\u2019t the language of movement.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know if I actually use all those terms you mention, but regardless, even if I do, I am attempting to defend an idea or philosophy rather than a whole movement<\/em> or group<\/em> of people.<\/p>\n

But it really doesn\u2019t matter. Call it a movement if you want. I am just not disagreeing with Doran or Bauder on this point.<\/p>\n

Finally, you say:<\/p>\n

\n

Of course, maybe you have come over to the dark side yourself. You wrote: \u201cSo some fellow (claiming to be a fundamentalist) cooperates with or actually participates in something I consider to be an error \u2013 so what? What difference does someone else\u2019s error make to my own philosophy or position?\u201d Just swap in evangelical for fundamentalist and you sound just like a neo.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Remember, you have to define what errors I am talking about. If some erstwhile Fundamentalist denied<\/em> the virgin birth or inerrancy or some such doctrine, then it would matter. Then there would be full-scale repudiation. If, by his associations, demonstrated indifference to such errors, then there would be severe (or even total) limitation of fellowship.<\/p>\n

And, for the record, I don\u2019t see KJO errors as falling in this category, for the most part. They aren\u2019t denials or betrayals, they are errors of a different category.<\/p>\n

David Barnhart<\/strong>
Submitted on 2010\/01\/22 at 1:25pm<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Actually, my thinking was similar to Chris\u2019 \u2014 although his post really didn\u2019t exhibit what you were decrying, it did look to me as if his post (and the comments following) were the proverbial \u201clast straw\u201d that caused you to post. Obviously, I was reading into it, and it was just the timing that caused me to think that. I hadn\u2019t even seen Scott\u2019s post yet, though I now want to go read it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Hi Dave<\/p>\n

Well, I know the coincidence is there. I don\u2019t deny that the comment thread on Chris\u2019 post certainly seemed to fit what I was complaining about. But the fact is that I began thinking about the topic several days prior, made various attempts at writing it and finally came up with my little \u2018pin the tail\u2019 gimmick just as Chris was putting up his post.<\/p>\n

Thanks for the comment.<\/p>\n

Sam Hendrickson<\/strong>
Submitted on 2010\/01\/23 at 9:15am<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Don,
I\u2019ll take credit for the \u201cgood on ya\u201d remark\u2013that was mine. And it stands. Thank you for referencing it here\u2013it brings no shame properly understood. I guess your post here didn\u2019t<\/i> address CA\u2019s post, but your exegetical comments about your own post do<\/i> address CA\u2019s post? <\/p>\n

Men, young and old, leave associating with other men or churches, or movements\u2013without leaving the idea of fundamentalism. I don\u2019t run in your circles geographically, but I do by association (with the churches that support or have supported you.) I\u2019ve heard enough of what CA was describing to make me stop associating with some men & churches & even movements, but never with the idea\u2013in fact the kind of stuff he described drove me to know better and express better the biblical ideals of f\u2019ism. <\/p>\n

The kind of stuff CA was writing about is not what defines f\u2019ism (as an idea), nor is it part of what makes f\u2019ism as a movement powerful and God-pleasing. It is what removes power, in some cases mocks the Spirit, and makes some men think twice about whom they will associate with. That is what many are expressing when they say they \u201cleft.\u201d I.e., they are not leaving the idea, just the people who promote elements of the very thing they claim to be against. <\/p>\n

Setting aside whether this makes men \u201cleave\u201d or not, is it not good and right that we TAKE GREAT PAINS to examine ourselves, and those we claim to be in harness with, and see if we pass biblical muster? True, so many express their critique poorly, even self-centeredly, and as you noted, some are perhaps \u201cblameshifting\u201d but CA did not\u2013and at this point, even if he had been guilty of that, [and he was not], is not the rigor of a biblical searchlight and examination ALWAYS needed? Whatever else others are doing \u201cout there\u201d we ought to look and act for excellence \u201cin here.\u201d If anything, f\u2019ism ought to be the first to be hard on our method and message; i.e. hard on our men. The CE\u2019s et.al. should be able to look to us and see a standard worth emulating\u2013because it is a biblical standard\u2013not some evidence of a lack of respect for the pulpit, the Word or God\u2019s people. And CA seemed to be referencing men who often seemed to have ill regard for all three.<\/p>\n

If this isn\u2019t what \u201cgot you started\u201d, then why reference my and other\u2019s \u201catta boys\u201d? That makes it seem (at least to this slow-thinking guy) that you had CA\u2019s post in mind somehow in the first place. If not, then I\u2019m just not getting the subtleties, maybe I\u2019m not postmodern enough :D. If I am wrong, then you pinned me and \u201cgood on ya\u201d\u2013and I need to learn something, and it\u2019s not wrong, prideful, etc. to tell me I\u2019m wrong if I am. Unless one sins in how that work is done. Maybe you agree with me, and I just don\u2019t see that you are\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sam, thanks for your comments.<\/p>\n

First, as to your first and last paragraph and your \u2018good on ya\u2019 comment, I assume you are referring to my earlier reply to Gary. The string of kudos I quoted came from a private e-mail from a friend who was stringing them together in response to my post. On his part and mine it was an attempt at humour which apparently falls flat in the wider world and also lead to some confusion. I think at least some of those remarks were seen in the responses to Chris\u2019 post, so it naturally seems to tie the two posts together.<\/p>\n

As to your question: \u201cI guess your post here didn\u2019t<\/i> address CA\u2019s post, but your exegetical comments about your own post do<\/i> address CA\u2019s post?\u201d, well, it is so hard to keep track of what one says where that I am not sure. You might be right, but short term memory loss is real and as I am rapidly advancing in age, I will plead that as my answer.<\/p>\n

I thought this paragraph of yours was very interesting:<\/p>\n

\n

Men, young and old, leave associating with other men or churches, or movements\u2013without leaving the idea of fundamentalism. I don\u2019t run in your circles geographically, but I do by association (with the churches that support or have supported you.) I\u2019ve heard enough of what CA was describing to make me stop associating with some men & churches & even movements, but never with the idea\u2013in fact the kind of stuff he described drove me to know better and express better the biblical ideals of f\u2019ism. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I think this describes the other side of the coin to what I am complaining about. Your comments reflect exactly what happened to me as a young fundamentalist. I was exposed to various ignorant antics by some who were known as fundamentalists (late 70s, early 80s) and was not impressed. In that day, the big names that were intriguing the discontented young fundamentalist were Chuck Swindoll and John MacArthur. I listened a lot to both. Read their books. But I came to the conclusion that I didn\u2019t want to go in their direction. I wanted to maintain fundamentalist convictions while distancing myself from some fundamentalist whack-jobs.<\/p>\n

So what you describe is exactly what I see myself as doing. I don\u2019t say that criticizing fundamentalist errors means that someone is therefore leaving fundamentalism. What I am criticizing is the notion that \u201cyoung men are leaving fundamentalism because of error XYZ.\u201d That just isn\u2019t the case. If they are actually leaving fundamentalism, it is because the philosophy\/doctrine\/theology of fundamentalism is itself not sufficiently important to them.<\/p>\n

I agree with your next paragraph up to this point:<\/p>\n

\n

That is what many are expressing when they say they \u201cleft.\u201d I.e., they are not leaving the idea, just the people who promote elements of the very thing they claim to be against. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While it is true that this could be true of some, I don\u2019t believe it is true of all who make these kinds of statements. I would say it isn\u2019t true of most<\/em> who say they have \u2018left\u2019. I think in fact that most of the \u2018blame the fundamentalist\u2019 crowd have indeed left the idea.<\/p>\n

Last, you asked:<\/p>\n

\n

Setting aside whether this makes men \u201cleave\u201d or not, is it not good and right that we TAKE GREAT PAINS to examine ourselves, and those we claim to be in harness with, and see if we pass biblical muster?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yes, exactly, we must do this.<\/p>\n

However, I am not sure what exactly we should do<\/em> about some of these internal errors. Some surely should be publicly rebuked, warned against, etc. I am not sure how often that needs to be the case and some recent instances (last summer) seemed quite over the top to me.<\/p>\n

You go on, seemingly thinking that my protestations were inadequate for not using this post to respond to Chris\u2019 post. Well, what can I say? I hope my additional comments here will persuade you. If not, I guess we\u2019ll just have to leave it as a disagreement.<\/p>\n

Again, thank you for commenting. I think we are largely in agreement on these points.<\/p>\n

Kent<\/strong>
Submitted on 2010\/01\/23 at 4:28pm<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Don,<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t have a problem with pinning the tail on the fundamentalist. I do it all the time and I name names. Rather than leaving it to guess for better deniability (except for Andy Naselli, who puts a link to a BJU conference sermon\u2014he doesn\u2019t stand for that kind of criticism of evangelicals). But you\u2019ll notice that I pin the tail on the evangelical far, far more. I\u2019ve noticed that when I do, I get either attacked by or no support from fundamentalists. As a result, the adulation for evangelicalism grows in the midst of fundamentalists. When an evangelical has the tail pinned on him, he has a different sort of response. I would think some really great expositors, who preach right and well, would give you some exposition in answer. Instead, they attack you, usually with ad hominem. I noticed this to be the case with most of the fundamentalists that love them too. This is my honest evaluation. I really do hope the best for both groups, and like them better than most others, like \u2026, etc.<\/p>\n

[Note: the elipsis refers to a ‘Rev.’ who is a well-known activist. I don’t want search sites to pick up this name or for the name to sidetrack in anyway so I have marked it out with the elipsis. Suffice to say that this individual would represent a very liberal form of Christianity, if it is legitimate to use the term ‘Christianity’ in reference to the individual\u2019s beliefs. — DonJ.]<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Kent, you certainly are a fundamentalist in practice, if not in name. I appreciate your willingness to make your case. I don\u2019t always agree with all your conclusions, but I do appreciate how you go about things. Hope you don\u2019t mind my deleting the last name you used in the comment!<\/p>\n

~~~<\/p>\n

To all, thank you for your patience. I hope this method of replying is adequate. With the passage of time, I thought it would be hard to keep straight everything I was saying if I simply made a long reply at the end of the comments in the other thread.<\/p>\n

If you have anything to add or more questions, have at it.<\/p>\n

\"don_sig2\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A few days ago I was incapacitated while comments on an earlier post piled up. I\u2019d like to respond to each one individually in the order in which they were received, so I thought I would do it in a post. I\u2019ll close the comments on the original post and all subsequent comments (if any) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[37,71],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2fYWj-pD","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1589"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1589"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1589\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1593,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1589\/revisions\/1593"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}