{"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

In with the new\u2026<\/h3>\n
The \u2018gospel\u2019 as the grounds of separation<\/h5>\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

\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

\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

Repudiation of \u2018revivalistic Fundamentalism\u2019<\/h5>\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

\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>\n

\u201cSignificant aspect of the movement\u201d??? One could make a case, I think, that the historic fundamentalists (those pre-1940 who were the \u2018pure laine<\/a>\u2019 fundamentalists) were by and large \u2018revivalistic\u2019. Scan the authors of The Fundamentals<\/em>. Consider the position of the general editor, R. A. Torrey. Examine the philosophy of many of those in the Northern Baptist Convention who went through the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Fundamentalism owes an incredible debt to revivalism.<\/p>\n

While I am no defendant of the excesses of revivalism as such, I don\u2019t look at it with scorn as the self-named \u2018historic fundamentalists\u2019 of today do. If one is to be an \u2018historic fundamentalist\u2019, it could be argued that you must be a revivalist. ((By the way, if the new fundamentalism is to eschew the \u2018revivalist rump\u2019, there won\u2019t be much of anything left, even with the rise of \u2018historic\u2019 fellows who also are enamored of \u2018reformed theology\u2019.))<\/p>\n

In any case, this disdain of the \u2018revivalist aspect\u2019 of fundamentalism is new. The early fundamentalists were largely revivalists. Many, if not most, of the institutions that remained in the fundamentalist camp after the new evangelical defection were built by revivalists and ministered through successful revivalist practices. The historical reality is that non-revivalists cooperated with revivalists as fundamentalists for the cause of a pure church (at least as pure as men can make it).<\/p>\n

My point is that this disdain of revivalism is an innovation. It is new. Certainly some revivalist practices need correction. Some of its practices have been overdone and have caused spiritual harm. But there are godly men of a revivalist persuasion, preaching the true gospel, who ought to be encouraged and appreciated, not cast aside.<\/p>\n

The new attitude towards a certain segment of evangelicalism<\/h5>\n

It is true that a certain segment of evangelicalism has made significant changes in their stance. They have tightened up their fellowship in some aspects of a generally open attitude towards aberration. The new-evangelicals swayed most of the Bible-believing church into a new attitude of cooperation and toleration of egregious spiritual error. This robbed the church of almost all of its moral authority in our society in the last 60 years. A certain segment of evangelicalism is now aware that the new evangelicalism went too far.<\/p>\n

This segment is called the \u201cConservative Evangelicals\u201d. They are indeed making strong statements about certain kinds of gospel-compromising errors. Talk, however, is cheap. I have noted many times in the past that these men will speak up against such things as Open Theism, but retain denominational bonds with them. They will speak out against such things as ECT ((Evangelicals and Catholics Together)) yet maintain their cooperative relationships with its signatories. They will even, in some cases, sign on to such ecumenical efforts as the Manhattan Declaration, another vehicle of cooperation between evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox \u2018Christians\u2019. There is no need to go on listing their continued compromises, I have mentioned them many times in these pages.<\/p>\n

The Central statement, in spite of these kinds of ecumenical errors, says:<\/p>\n

\n

Nevertheless, we find that we have much more in common with conservative evangelicals (who are slightly to our Left) than we do with hyper-Fundamentalists (who are considerably to our Right), or even with revivalistic Fundamentalists (who are often in our back yard). In conservative evangelicals we find allies who are willing to challenge not only the compromise of the gospel on the Left, but also the pragmatic approach to Christianity that typifies so many evangelicals and Fundamentalists. For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship<\/strong> are possible. ((Emphasis mine.))<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

By fellowship, let it be said, this new ethos means to say that some kind of cooperative efforts are now possible. That is to say, though the Conservative Evangelicals are still guilty of serious ecumenical errors, it is now suggested that fundamentalists can cooperate with them in some ways.<\/p>\n

This is new. If we put a time-frame on the fundamentalist movement as such, one could argue that modern fundamentalism really began to form in the late 1890s. Fundamentalism was rocked in the late 1950s by the new evangelical compromise. One could argue that the fundamentalists of its first half-century were never really confronted with ecumenical error, but they were forced by the circumstances of the battle to part company with moderates<\/em> in their old denominations, men who claimed to hold to the fundamentals but would not separate over them. The fundamentalists of its second half century were of course confronted with ecumenicalism amongst their erstwhile brethren and had to make a choice concerning them \u2013 and we all know which way that choice went.<\/p>\n

Now we are being told something new. We have conservative men who have taken some strong stands against some errors, but continue to entangle themselves in ecumenical compromises. These men are still \u2018anti-separatist\u2019. Yet now we are told that \u2018historic\u2019 fundamentalists have \u2018more in common\u2019 with them than with other fundamentalists, even those \u2018in our own backyard\u2019. Incredible! Shall moderation win? Can anyone deny that this is a new position for fundamentalists to take?<\/p>\n

Remaining questions\u2026<\/h3>\n

Besides innovations, the Central ethos statement fails to define all that it is saying. Many questions remain and it is unclear exactly what is meant in all that it purports to advocate.<\/p>\n

1. What is meant by terms like \u2018subvert the Christian faith\u2019 and \u2018this is not Biblical Christianity\u2019 as applied to \u2018some fundamentalists\u2019?<\/em><\/p>\n

Do these terms mean that, say, men who hold to a King James Only position are not Christians? What about the \u2018revivalist fundamentalist\u2019? Is he subverting the Christian faith? Is he outside the bounds of the gospel?<\/p>\n

This is very strong language. It should not be uttered loosely and the folks at Central who stand behind this ethos statement should very<\/em> clearly define just who they are talking about and exactly<\/em> what they mean. It isn\u2019t sufficient to raise innuendos about \u2018many versions of professing Fundamentalism\u2019 and leave it at that. Fundamentalists who differ with Central\u2019s innovations ought to demand an answer to this question.<\/p>\n

2. What are these \u2018careful, limited forms of fellowship\u2019 that Central now thinks are possible?<\/em><\/p>\n

How do you stop separating from anti-separatists and not get entangled in their anti-separatist errors? Why is the Central ethos so much couched in generalities, if an ethos is \u201cthe distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution?\u201d *<\/p>\n

Until those espousing this new careful, limited form of fellowship are plain in their speech and open about what they mean, the rest of fundamentalism remains in an unsettled turmoil, uncertain what this means and undecided how it should respond. Fundamentalists deserve an answer to this question, one that does not equivocate with waffling weasel words, but one that is clear and straightforward.<\/p>\n

3. What is intended by the terms \u2018refine\u2019 and \u2018restate\u2019 when it comes to Biblical fundamentalism?<\/em><\/p>\n

If the Central ethos is the historic Fundamentalist position, what is left to refine and restate? If it is not the historic Fundamentalist position, what is it? Is it a new kind of Fundamentalism? Is it Fundamentalism at all?<\/p>\n

These questions remain unclear. Fundamentalists deserve a much more clear answer to these questions than have so far been proffered. What do the men standing behind the Central ethos have in mind? Should the rest of us fall into step behind them? How can we make such decisions without clear answers to these questions?<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

I appreciate the arrival of this document. It does help to clarify some of the new direction that some want to take fundamentalism. Some objectives appear to be plainly stated.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, significant questions yet remain. Until they are answered, the rest of fundamentalism is restless. Agitators for similar positions (sometimes just as loosely and vaguely defined) continue to make noise for change. Some of us express alarm at these proposed changes. But so far, a lot remains unclear. And we wait for other leaders of Fundamentalism to stand up and answer the challenges being made to the whole movement. Still only the advocates of change are speaking, albeit not with an entirely certain sound.<\/p>\n

I asked the question, in my subject line, \u201ca new-fundamentalist manifesto?\u201d How do we answer? A manifesto? Not yet. It is an uncertain sound, but getting clearer.<\/p>\n

\"don_sig2\" <\/p>\n

* \u201cethos\u201d, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary., Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 \u201cshort of a merger\u201d. Below the press release, links are provided to several \u2018ethos statements\u2019, […]<\/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":[105,37,71,77,44],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2fYWj-rO","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1724"}],"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=1724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}