{"id":1724,"date":"2010-08-25T08:04:57","date_gmt":"2010-08-25T16:04:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2010\/08\/25\/a-new-fundamentalist-manifesto\/"},"modified":"2010-08-25T08:04:57","modified_gmt":"2010-08-25T16:04:57","slug":"a-new-fundamentalist-manifesto","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2010\/08\/25\/a-new-fundamentalist-manifesto\/","title":{"rendered":"a new-fundamentalist manifesto?"},"content":{"rendered":"
In a relatively recent (but undated) press release<\/a>, 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 \u201cshort of a merger\u201d.<\/p>\n Below the press release, links are provided to several \u2018ethos statements\u2019, also undated. They provide an interesting glimpse into the state of mind CBTS considers to be its \u201cdistinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs\u201d. *<\/p>\n In reading these documents, some observations come to mind. First, comparing the \u201cEthos Statement on Salvation & Sanctification<\/a>\u201d and the \u201cEthos Statement on Hermeneutics & Eschatology<\/a>\u201d with the \u201cEthos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism<\/a>\u201d, a curious difference is immediately noticeable. The first two documents are full of phrases like this: \u201cSome of us believe that\u2026\u201d contrasted with \u201cwhile others believe\u2026\u201d or \u201cwhile others understand\u2026\u201d 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\u2019t sound like a statement of certainty to me. It seems that the third document, the \u201cEthos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism\u201d is more definitive than the first two.<\/p>\n Second, regarding the \u201cEthos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism\u201d specifically, my first impression is that it represents something new. It isn\u2019t the way fundamentalists have typically expressed themselves in the last 60 years, but it does seem to be a summary statement of new views<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It has been pointed out elsewhere<\/a>, but I think it is worth noting here that \u201cthe gospel\u201d isn\u2019t the central focus of fundamentalist separation. For example, consider a series of articles<\/a> on the Bob Jones University website on separation. The introduction<\/a> defines ecclesiastical separation this way:<\/p>\n Ecclesiastical separation involves, positively, identification with groups faithful to the truth of God’s Word. Negatively, it is the refusal to be identified with any teacher, church, denomination, or other religious organization that does not hold to and contend for those fundamentals of the Faith concerning the Bible, Christ, and salvation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Note that this is much more comprehensive than simply separation over the \u2018boundaries of the gospel\u2019, the defining edge of the separation the Central ethos statement repeatedly asserts. For example, see it\u2019s second sentence:<\/p>\n To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I would suggest that the statement from the BJU article represents a more accurate and more historic expression of the fundamentalist ethos than the Central statement. In this sense, then, the Central statement is a new approach.<\/p>\n The Central article clearly repudiates what it calls \u2018revivalistic Fundamentalism\u2019. While the article acknowledges that this \u2018version\u2019 of Fundamentalism has \u2018always been a significant aspect of the movement,\u2019 ((hey, I thought the movement was dead? But I digress\u2026)) the Central article calls it a \u2018threat to biblical Christianity\u2019.<\/p>\n Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nIn with the new\u2026<\/h3>\n
The \u2018gospel\u2019 as the grounds of separation<\/h5>\n
\n
\n
Repudiation of \u2018revivalistic Fundamentalism\u2019<\/h5>\n
\n