Just posted on my blog. Thoughts anyone?

Let me preface this by saying that my qualifications to express an opinion on fundamentalism are not so much scholarly as experiential. I am not drawing on my rather scanty reading of studies of fundamentalism, so much as on the fact that my upbringing was among fundamentalists. Of my American acquaintances, the majority in my generation wound up going to Bob Jones University –or to institutions which considered BJU as somewhat deficiently conservative. Harold Sightler was a familiar voice from his sermons on tape: my father was an admirer of Carl McIntire. I believe the first theological topic I became conversant with was the doctrine of separation: and I first learned to pour scorn on labels by being taught to see through those who mocked the pursuit of purity in the church as “secondary separation”. For many years I have been part of a church with historic ties to Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley. In my own upbringing, it may suffice to point out that I did not enter a movie theater for the first time until I was in my twenties, and drinking, smoking, gambling, and listening to rock music were all placed on the same level of unbelievable and intolerable wickedness which perhaps someone might have done once years ago before they were saved. I believe, in other words, that I have enough experience among the fundamentalists to say something about them.
And let me say as well that it is not my purpose to undervalue fundamentalism. They have certainly opposed liberalism and apostasy and compromise. They have not been afraid to call error by its own proper name. They have been generous: they have sent out many missionaries; they have been certain enough of the Bible to stand out against contemporary culture on the strength of it. I think it is indisputable that without them the numbers of those who actually believe that the Bible is God’s word would be much smaller. In my own experience, the most shining examples of hospitality, of generosity, of prayerfulness, of zeal have usually come from my fundamentalist, rather than from my Reformed or broadly evangelical acquaintances
And yet it is obvious on the face of it that there are problems within the movement. Doctrinal minimalism (and at least at times a sort of anti-intellectualism) is one point that springs to mind. Instead of keeping a full-orbed confession, they have deliberately shaved doctrinal statements down to a minimum. In close connection with this, there has been a massive emphasis on points of external conduct, and many are more zealous for maintaining a code of standards than for upholding the law of God or preaching the Gospel of Christ. They have seized on ancillary points (sometimes legitimate, sometimes without even that) and elevated them to absolute criteria for fellowship, obscuring more fundamental concerns. Naturally in many cases this has led to a great deal of hypocrisy.
Obviously in many cases there has also been an undue belligerence. The separatists have become schismatic, and in an ironic turn have become those who cause divisions, whom, according to the apostolic precept, we must avoid (Romans 16:17). In connection with this must be mentioned the lack of self-control manifested in fits of temper and self-righteous outbursts which have plagued many adherents of the movement. And of course there is a great lack of love manifested in and strengthened by this tendency. And these points often show up in graceless, legalistic, browbeating preaching which is nothing short of spiritual abuse of the sheep of God’s flock.
But these, I think, with the possible exception of the doctrinal minimalism, are symptoms rather than the disease itself (in part because of the exceptions which I, and anyone well acquainted with fundamentalism of the variety I am describing here can easily come up with). There is a common thread which binds these different defects together, and is clearly seen in the grasping for power and control, the hunger for notoriety, which can often be observed within the movement. Closely allied to this is the spin, the way of excusing or justifying or concealing obvious abuses within the institutions. Dissenters are vilified: people who leave are sadly prayed for as being in spiritual peril, or denounced as spiritual traitors. Authority and influence (legitimate or illegitimate) are systematically used and abused for the preservation of people and institutions, to achieve the continued hegemony of a particular leader, organization, or platform.
Our Lord makes two statements which I believe sum up the root of the problems that fundamentalism has been plagued with since its inception (to pursue this further may I recommend the sympathetic history by David O. Beale called In Pursuit of Purity and published by Bob Jones University press). These words cut through the pretenses and lay bare the real suppurating wound in the heart of this Christian movement.
John 5:44 “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”
There is a real, in many cases a patent, ignoring or twisting of God’s word in order to maintain a certain position within the world of fundamentalism. Preachers who seem to be polar opposites in methodology and what theology they have, nonetheless invite one another to preach: politics dictates who is “godly” and “a good preacher” and “a great man of God”. Fawning introductions are given in introducing guest speakers. And of course this can only be sustained by a persistent refusal to look on anything except the outward appearance –and even that, only in a limited sense.
In what may seem like a paradoxical twist, the fundamentalists who are constantly mocked by the world, have developed a consuming concern for their own reputation for respectability. Many times this eagerness to be thought well of is concealed under or justified by an exaggerated concern to “have a good testimony”. This seems paradoxical, because of course many fundamentalists are perfectly willing to be scorned by the world and be written off as crazy, illiterate, behind the times, or fanatical. But those are not the points on which they pride themselves: their positive self-image does not depend on favorable views from the world. But it does depend on being perceived as godly, anointed, steadfast, fearless, in the right. This is the explanation of their externalism: “we must look godly.” This is the explanation for a lot of their rage: “those who might make us look bad must be so thoroughly discredited that no one who matters will ever believe them.” Hence the rather frequent question, “Are you going to take the word of some malcontent over that of these godly men?” But what if the malcontent has documents, recordings, witnesses? And what if the godly men aren’t actually godly?
In other words, my thesis is that the explanation for the defects of fundamentalism is almost brutally simple. They have fallen prey to worldliness. The pride of life has consumed them (see this previous post for a documentation of worldliness with regard to the ministry). Their zeal has become a zeal for their own righteousness –a paltry, external thing that must be propped up by unbiblical standards and maintained in the minds of other fundamentalists whatever the cost. We thought that in the last days men would be lovers of themselves (though we didn’t always see that it would be in their own self-righteous self-image); we knew that they would be boastful (though we haven’t always understood that it would be in how well they kept their precious standards); but what we didn’t see was that these people would be in the church, that they would have a very impressive form of godliness.
What if there was always a creeping worm of self-righteous pride at the back of this movement? And what if it has become a mighty dragon of worldliness, an insatiable longing for being acknowledged as godly? It would certainly not mean that there are no true believers within that movement: it does not mean that even among the leadership there are not many who will sit down in the kingdom with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, instances of people who having been redeemed by the Lord have become holy, and humble, and happy. But it does mean that many have lost their first love: it does mean that many have a name that they live and are, in fact, dead. And it does mean that we are called upon to turn away from such as have the form of godliness, but deny the power of it (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -George Orwell

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

Thank you for posting this Ruben. I found much of what you had illustrated to be edifying. I have been reading a book called The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod written by a man named George P. Hutchinson. At the end of the section of this book that is concerned with the split between the BPC Columbus Synod (Buswell, Schaeffer) and BPC Collingswood Synod (Mcintier, MacRae), it provides interesting thoughts on Fundamentalism that I was reminded of in your own illustration.

I have spent alot of time researching some of the histories of the the "split P's" and confess I am very fascinated by figures like Mcintire, Buswell, MacRae, Barnhouse, etc.

I would like to reccomend a book (besides the one above which is great).
It is called A Brief History of the Bible Presbyterian Church and its agencies and it is compiled by Magaret G. Harden. It was written (I believe) around the time after the split by men in the Collingswood Synod. It is valuable because it gives you a topical glance of the history of that Denomination and of how they viewed particular happenings in their own history. Well, enjoy!

__________________
Josiah Lovett
Member of
Trinity OPC Bothell Wa.
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Westminster Standards

The problem with fundamentalism is this: nothing is 'fun' there is to much 'damn' and not much that is 'mental.'

Mike

__________________
Mike Renihan
~Pastor, Heritage Baptist Church, Worcester, MA, ARBCA
~Executive Director, Mission::Ireland, "Bringing the Reformation to the Emerald Isle one book at a time."
~Professor, Worcester State College, Dept. of History & Political Science
~Publisher, B & R Press, Auburn, MA
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend; inside of a dog, its too dark to read." --Groucho

A former pastor of mine wrote that the problem with fundamentalists is that they are not fundamental enough!

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon

I see there are some zippier answers to the question than mine. Josiah, thanks for the book recommendation. For those familiar with J. Frank Norris, he seems to me like an excellent example of the problems I am talking about.

It seems to me as well that part of the reason why Fundamentalists don't realize their worldliness is that they define worldliness very much in terms of sins that other people commit. And so they can preach against modernism, against legalized prostitution, against alcohol; but you don't often hear sermons against gluttony, against self-righteousness, against ecclesiastical politics or against the fear of man.

Of course, to be balanced we should get some other critiques as well. Perhaps we could ask Mr. McFadden to analyse broad evangelicalism and Mr. Greco to deal with the problems within the Reformed world.

Question: Can one be consistantly reformed (and reforming) and at the same time be a Fundamentalist?

Not in my view. For instance, one hallmark of fundamentalism is the insistence on "standards". However, as in the very clear instance of alcohol, this is practically to treat the Bible as insufficient for our instruction. The Bible does not teach teetotalism; but most Fundamentalists insist on that. In so doing, are they not tacitly acting as though they were wiser than God? Are they not functionally denying that Scripture is sufficient? A Reformed emphasis on the perfection of God's revelation, on the completeness of the law, on the sufficiency of Scripture, and on the liberty with which Christ has made us free, is inconsistent with the imposition of such extraneous standards. So that while many Fundamentalists are Calvinistic, I would be most hesitant to call any of them Reformed.

I was shocked to hear about people who were fundamentalists that also said they were reformed. Most of the rub when i embraced the reformed faith came from fundamentalist friends in the church. Your 100% right about teetotalism not being biblical. Every time i have heard an argument against the consumption of alcohol from a Calvinistic Fundamentalist, it always seems to hinge not so much on scripture but moreso on the fallacious guilt by association argument. It goes something like this: "I am not binding your conscience I just think its wrong for Christians to drink, because drunkards drink, therefore no drinking". Some even will insist that since the wine in Jesus' time had less alcohol content in it, it was ok to drink, but since its stronger now we shouldnt.

Ruben,

Thanks for this post. Much, if not all, of what you have said rings true from my personal experience with fundamentalism and BJU. There is no true love of God in fundamentalism, because they have completely forgotten the words of Lord, in "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets.:

__________________
J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27

Check Out My Blog: http://reflectjoy.blogspot.com/

Of course the term fundamentalism is often in the eye of the beholder. It is a term that in some sense is about as precise as conservative or evangelical, which is to say that sometimes it is not very precise. To illustrate--no doubt some in the PCUSA or other mainline churches would see those in the OPC or PCA as fundamentalists. Likewise Southern Baptist conservatives are derided as fundamentalists by "moderate" Southern Baptists and the sympathetic media will often refer to a "fundamentalist takeover" of the Southern Baptist Convention. That's the use of the term more in line with it's original use in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy from the beginning of the last century, which was not without its own reductionism, usually in the form of the famous five fundamentals. But of course this isn't the usual connotation today (especially with those of more evangelical convictions), which generally has to do with the concerns over separation and "worldliness" that Ruben has noted. Those fundamentalists would never mistake a PCA or SBC member or minister for a fundamentalist, even if, especially in the case of many in the SBC, they may happen be teetotalers.

When I think of fundamentalism I generally think of Bob Jones University (the bastion of fundamentalism since its founding) and all who follow their practices who are mostly Baptists now, though the founder of BJU was Methodist.

According to Dr. George W. Dollar (author of, A History of Fundementalism in America: Bob Jones University Press, 1973)--

"Historic Fundamentalism is the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes."

Does anyone see a problem with this definition?

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

In my estimation there are fundamentalists and then there are ultra-fundamentalists. See Peter Ruckman for an example of the latter. It almost becomes cultic. Sad. When I look back at how I used to think....I don't even know how to finish the sentence. I'm just thankful for God's grace. At the same time most of these folks are brothers and sisters in Christ. Let us try and remember that and pray for them just as we all need prayer.

__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton

Josiah, I have heard all of those. As a very experienced grape-juice drinker, all I can say is that if Psalm 104:15 is a reference to grape juice I am very disappointed in the quality of modern grape juice!

JBaldwin, if you are distinguishing fundamentalists from fundamentalism then it would certainly be easier to accept the statement that there is no true love of God in it. As I hope my original post made quite clear, I have seen quite a lot of true love to God in many fundamentalists.

Chris, I am thinking of people who would not mind describing themselves as fundamentalists --obviously, as JBaldwin points out that would include BJU: it would also include SWORD of the LORD, Pensacola Christian College, the FBF, and quite a few other groups.

Sterling, I do see a problem in that definition. That definition sets out an admirable goal --but it is not a goal which self-identified fundamentalists have, in fact, kept. For instance, the doctrinal minimalism necessitates that at some point they are not literally expounding all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible. Or take again the example of teetotalism: far from maintaining literally the Biblical attitude that wine is a gift from God to be used with joyful moderation, they take a firm stand for Prohibition.

Mr. Barnhart, there is undoubtedly a continuum. I once came across a site called "Balaam's Ass" from Phil Johnson's links page. I returned a couple of times in sheer disbelief. I believe my fundamentalist friends and relations would join in reprobating that man. Most of the fundamentalists I currently have any degree of acquaintance with are Calvinists: they are very severe against the SWORD of the LORD types. But I think that to the degree that one embraces calvinism, and the Reformed mindset, to that degree one is leaving fundamentalism for greener pastures.

py3ak,

That is interesting that you mention the "fawning introductions" and grasping for notoriety. I recently went to a men's conference (breakfast) at a nearby Independent Bible Church. I went with a man from the church I shepherd and a retired Presbyterian Minister who was the interim Pastor for 6 months before the church called me in January.

The speaker was given a VERY overdone introduction (Senior Pastor, Dr. Jeff VanGoethem - - East White Oak Bible Church) and then displayed the most pompous behavior during his lecture on revival and after word.

Much of his lecture centered around "Praying Hyde" - the Presbyterian missionary to India . Some of his comments were to the effect of; "There were six Presbyterians in a room praying and I think that was more Presbyterians praying than I have ever heard of." This was meant to be funny buy my friend the very prayerful retired Presbyterian minister was not likely as amused as was the speaker. "In my home town in Northern Michigan there were 75% Catholics, 24% mainline denominational churches, and 1% Bible believing churches..." My other friend, the very committed member of my church who was pleased at my coming primarily for the return of a biblical preacher in the pulpit of his home church did not listen to much that was said after that comment...

After he spoke I shook his hand and after I introduced myself as the Pastor of First Congregational Church of Peru, IL (you know, one of those heretical mainline churches) he just glanced over my shoulder and began looking for someone else to stroke his ego...

Much of the content of his lecture was good but his ego really got in the way!

__________________
Pastor Chris Surber, M.A.R.
First Congregational Church
Peru, Illinois USA
[url]www.1stperu.org[/url]
"Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life." - Jonathan Edwards

Wow! Great analysis Ruben. I think there's some other observations that spring from your basic assumption but I'm pretty tired right now and will try to throw in on top of some of this. It is really fascinating to have just completed Galatians and to be reading some of your observations that smack of a movement that has made the "Gospel + ____" the thing they are most known for. When people think of Christians in America, many un-Churched first think of those with "cleaned up lives". The movment is the Church of morality but not Christianity.

My injunction today to the congregation:
Fundamentalism is enslavement to elementary principles.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Those are great words, Rich. I've said often that fundamentalism is more of a methodology than a theology.

Excellent observation.

Dollar's definition again: "Historic Fundamentalism is the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes."

In my observation, and experience with so-called "fundamentalism," I have found their approach to "literalism" to fall woefully short of the mark of true biblical exposition.

Further, a problem I see is the use of the word "militant." It's one thing to "be set for the defense of the gospel," and quite another to condemn all those around you who don't hold to each tiny idiosyncratic doctrine and practice that is part of your tradition.

Sadly, fundamentalism has become the "lunatic fringe" of our day. Hardly, are the FUNDAMENTALS of the FAITH proclaimed by them without their insistence that you must do this, or must not do that...or else we must separate from you!

Biblical separation is a wonderful thing, but these fundies have twisted and perverted it to mean that "if you smoke, drink, dance, go to movies, _______ (fill in the blank w/ the "thou shalt not du jour), you are not my brother and I can have no fellowship with you."

May God save us from such legalism!

I am speaking of Fundamentalism as defined by George W. Dollar, and not of every individual in fundamentalism. When I speak of no "true" love of God I am speaking of a misunderstanding of God's love, especially to the believer. What drives fundamentalism is a fear that God does not really love as much as He says He does, so, like the Pharisee, one must be concerned about every fine point of the law, not out of personal love for God, but out of fear punishment if they do not obey. So when I speak of "true" love, I am thinking in terms of fundamentalism's view of God and His love.

For 12 years, I sat under the ministry (3 sermons a weekbible classes and plus chapel) of a close friend and follower of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. and Jr. I attended fundamentalist schools until I was 21. I never heard the love of God preached as I see it in the Scriptures. It was "militant" (if I may borrow Dollar's word). To the fundamentalist, God loves by striking out when there is sin, but He does not reach out with grace to the believer who is struggling with sin. The only answer is repentance and fixing it yourself. If you go to God for help with your sin, you are weak.

What I see of God's love in Scripture is His love that drives us to holiness, not our fear, nor His anger.