I am finished editing the “About” page for this blog, so feel free to check it out. That basically finishes my editing work for now. The move to WordPress is now complete!
I have decided to post the “About this blog” section as a separate post below. I think it is my clearest attempt yet, at being specific in my critique of fundamentalism. It also discusses IFBx*—the label I give to the branch of fundamentalism I came out of.
About This Blog
This blog, being about me, is the place where my thoughts and views are expressed. But you already knew that.
Okay, so let’s begin with my blog’s name. Maybe that will clue you in as to what my blog is about.
Fundamentally Reformed. It means I am a reformed fundamentalist, as in no longer in the fundamentalist movement. It also means that I am one who now embraces reformed theology. In fact, my blog’s subtitle is “reforming fundamentalism (IFB) through reformed theology”, and so yes, I believe that reformed theology could reform many in fundamentalism.
Right about now it is important to define some terms. First, when I speak of fundamentalism I speak of independent Baptist fundamentalism (IFB). Some equate the term with Muslim extremism, while others with evangelical theology or Christianity in general. Neither of those definitions work.
Secondly, I need to give some of my background so you know from what “branch” of fundamentalism I came from. The fundamentalism I came from is often termed IFBx (extreme fundamentalism). I think the definition fits, although I tend to think an asterisk is called for. My alma mater, for instance, is not into the blatant man worship and ultra traditionalism which permeates those who rightfully own the IFBx label. They find Scriptural reasons (using sound hermeneutical methods, for the most part) for the standards and positions they adhere to. In fact, I am thankful for the emphasis on Scripture and a serious devotion to Christ that I inherited from this branch of fundamentalism.
It is the positions they hold and how tenaciously they hold them, which makes that branch of fundamentalism extreme. Some of the positions they hold, such as KJV onlyism and the teaching that women should not wear pants are extreme in the sense that there is so little clear teaching in Scripture which demands these positions. The few verses claimed to support them have other obvious interpretations available. Yet only one interpretation is allowed. Other positions which may have a larger Scriptural support, are held in such a way as to say that only their own interpretation is correct. If one is not pre-trib rapture, or if they hold to less than conservative music style, or if they hold to any form of Calvinism, they are not only wrong, but worthy of censure and separation. The broader movement of fundamentalism might limit fellowship to some degree over these issues, but they do not “write off” those who hold differing views to the extreme degree that IFBx fundamentalists do.
A further consideration here comes with regard to the extreme emphasis on loyalty and allegiance to personalities. IFBx fundamentalists view any departure from their list of required positions as compromise and disloyalty. This sector of fundamentalism also places an undue emphasis on authority. Any questioning of a position, however sincere and non threatening, is viewed as an attack and a threat to the leader’s ministry. Such a situation begs a complicit adherence to the authority’s list of do’s and don’ts and facilitates an unhealthy separation of external conformity and internal heart worship. With such a stress on outward conformity, it is easy to seek to gain acceptance by men while neglecting the matters of the heart. While the particular circles of fundamentalism I came from were not as extreme in this regard as other IFBx groups, they still hold an undue emphasis on loyalty and conformity, which again puts them as IFBx* in my book.
Within this branch of fundamentalism, there is no liberty to contemplate changing one’s positon on a point or two. Any capitulation from any small point is seen as a departure from fundamentalism en toto, and in reality a departure from the faith! Thus, any break from this branch of fundamentalism (at least a break made by someone who was whole-heartedly embracing all of the points to begin with) is necessarily very dramatic and often final. It also results in much pain in the one leaving. When one emerges from extreme fundamentalism, they do so with a lot of disorientation and a feeling that they will never fit in anywhere ever again! More than doctrinal positions and standards are left behind, one’s very identity is left behind. In a lot of ways, it is very similar to leaving a cult.
So having experienced all the difficulty and agony involved in contemplating leaving and actually leaving, including problems with family and friends, I wanted to hear of other’s experiences on the web, or to connect with some people to help me through this situation. I did not find much out there that dealt with this at all! So I started this blog to provide a place to deal with such issues, personally (by chronicling my journey and putting my rambling thoughts on all these issues down on paper), and to hopefully help others. I wanted to facilitate those who suspect that there are problems with fundamentalism but do not know where to look in Scripture for answers with a forum discussing the shortfalls of fundamentalism.
This blog, then, aims to help others who are in their own journey within fundamentalism. The blog may help some leave fundamentalism totally. And it may give some needed help and support to those who already have left (or who choose to). It might also give others some perspective and help in leaving the more extreme corners of fundamentalism and settling into a more balanced wing of the movement. Let me be clear, I do not necessarily want to get everyone out of fundamentalism. I think the movement still has some value and there are many who are doing a great job in calling for reform. Sharper Iron, for instance, represents many different strands of reasonable fundamentalists who share a balanced perspective, a wariness of traditionalism, and a desire to save the movement.
So with all the above having been said, let me briefly mention some of the topics this blog discusses. I don’t harp on fundamentalism with each post. I discuss reformed theology, Calvinism, and covenantal theology often, and I include some devotional and general interest posts. I do discuss fundamentalism, separation/unity, standards, as well as specific issues like KJV Onlyism, and Music. And I like to highlight some of the newer music written today which has great and Christ-glorifying lyrics. While I like to practice armchair theology and talk about books and recommended articles and such, many times I merely reminisce about my own past or peculiar eccentricities of fundamentalism. I also share family and church news. In short, my blog contains a wide array of interesting topics. (Hey, I think what I write about is interesting, doesn’t everybody?)
Finally, let me link to a few posts from the past which can help you get a sense of the mission and direction of this blog, and of my particular take on fundamentalism. But before I do, let me state one more obvious thing. The best way to learn about this blog, is to read it!
- This post gives an introduction to blogging for the uninitiated
- This post lays out my commenting policy
- This post highlights my ultimate aim in all of my blogging
- This post and this post clarify my critique of fundamentalism
- This post explains my motto (“Striving for the Unity of the Faith for the Glory of God”)
- And finally, this post is my original “about this blog”, kept for posterity’s sake.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Bob,
Good article, especially outlining the often unbiblical attitudes within ‘extreme fundamentalists’ with their views of separation and non-essential doctrines. Recently, Al Mohler discussed the nature of relegating what kinds of doctrines to first, second, and third order doctrines. He starts out with the obvious “fundamentals” of the faith as being the essentials, or first order. Second order doctrines would be confined to denominational and eschatological views, and third order doctrines would be within the realm of practice and polity. Extreme fundamentalists usually place all three orders within the same plane and therefore demand unanimity to conform to ‘the faith’– their ideals of what is ‘fundamentalist Christianity’. On the other hand, Mohler makes a gratuitous shot at fundamentalists in stating that conservative evangelicalism (with ‘new evangelical tendencies’) being the best representation of biblical evangelical Christianity. It’s a worthy article, and he does make the case that the boisterous ‘extreme fundamentalists’ seem to have taken the mantle of representing fundamentalism, which it doesn’t.
Extreme fundamentalists don’t represent biblical Christianity because the ‘movement’ isn’t as biblical as some may want to think it is. The adjustment of some of the more ‘thoughtful fundamentalists’ to a more concrete Calvinistic soteriology has allowed such fundamentalists to regain the historical title of fundamentalism, and are the best representatives of the historical movement. Unity, and the acknowledgement of primary separation from those who deny the fundamental doctrines, is the historical framework and foundation to historic fundamentalism. The break away of new evangelicals from historic fundamentalism is well catalogued in Rolland McCune’s book, “Promise Unfulfilled”, and although the fundamentalists who correctly represent historic fundamentalism had to deal with problems within its own movement, those who represented historic fundamentalism still are contending rightly for the historic Christian faith. The extreme branch of fundamentalism eclipsed the historic fundamentalists in size and in influence due to its inherent histrionics and conspiratorial reactions to other branches of evangelicalism, and the fruits of this are evident in the stereotype of ‘Christian fundamentalists’: anti-intellectual, backward, culturally irrelevant, and obscurantist. The retreat of fundamentalism since the Scopes trial in 1925 came in two ways: the mutant inbreeding of extreme fundamentalism in one direction and the sterile irrelevancy of new evangelicalism toward the other. Conservative evangelicals are moving rightward, and thoughtful fundamentalists are moving leftward toward a cogent unity that recognizes the path of demise of both ends of historic evangelical fundamentalism since the early 1900’s, and the recognition that doctrinal purity is necessary, as well as a separation from apostacy. Either direction that runs to the extremes has caused historic fundamentalism to become anemic, both with new evangelicalism toward the left and obscurantist anti-intellectual extreme fundamentalism toward the right. To assert that historic fundamentalism is backward and anti-intellectual is purely a colossal mistake and reflects the ignorance of many, even those unbelieving detractors, who think that historic fundamentalists are not academics in their pursuits of theology and education. Our pursuit is the glory of God and the supremacy of Christ as Savior and Lord!
It seems that you recognize that fundamentalism does survive, even thrive, when fundamentalists are united in the faith, but are divergent in their views that aren’t pertinent to the fundamentals. I also came out of a similar kind of fundamentalism, but thankfully the educational institutions that I had graduated from are now also moving away from the extremist fundamentalism that hamstrung its effectiveness in training men for ministry and educating men and women for vocational (non-ministerial) service that is far more excellent than the educational standards of secular institutions.
Larry,
Good comments. I agree there is a big difference between IFBx and those who try to represent historic fundamentalism, or as another blog described it recently, historic versus hysteric/cultural fundamentalists.
A case in point is the different experiences of my brother and I. My brother went to Northland and he shared most of my convictions when he got there. He slowly began changing his positions one by one. Pants on women, KJV onlyism, he accepted Calvinism, he began to have different ideas of separation. It was a slow and gradual process. It had an effect on him, but not a dramatic and wrenching effect.
I, on the other hand, was not at liberty to seriously contemplate changing even one of my core positions. Doubts and quetions began to build up concerning many of my positions. Eventually, when my views on KJV onlyism and Calvinism began to change, almost all of my positions fell with them. The result was catastrophic. It was extrememly hard to cope with such a change, and others found it hard to believe I could change so much so fast. This change resulted in my being written off by friends and former churches, and being misunderstood. And there was a strained relationship with our family, too.
Yet, I want to stress that I do think that historic and hysteric fundamentalists share much in common. While I am glad for the historic fundamentalists and the direction they are pushing the movement, many of the methodologies and positions of the hysteric side of the movement continue to have a lasting and in my view negative impact on the other side.
First, let me present a case in point. Back to my brother and I: we both were given to learning and to asking questions and growing during our time at college. And we both ended up bumping into the authorities of the college in a way the college did not like. Both of us were taken aside by the leadership and basically given an “or else” charge. Compromise, tone down your views, “or else” face serious consequences. David faced this over the issue of Calvinism. Eventually the new president of the school interceded for him, and he was able to finish and graduate; but he had to be much less vocal about his beliefs on Calvinism. His friend had to finish his last year at Pillsbury. There had to be a scape goat, or so it seemed.
IÂ on the other hand, ran into trouble over my views of John MacArthur. The school started emphasizing a strict censurship policy that I did not agree with. We could not use MacArthur’s works as sources or risk flunking. There were other sides to the whole story, but basically a power play was made which resulted in me and some of my friends being scared into conformity. There were some very wrong tactics employed, too.
But when you step back and look at both situations we encountered, a similar theme is seen. Rather than the authorities believing it was their position to help mold us and shape us, they saw the level of nonconformity to their own ideas as a threat. Loyalty and the reputation of the school were just too important to take a soft approach. Winning us over in a gentle spirit and by means of Christian persuasion might not have been as effective, and thus, this option was pushed aside in favor of the hard line approach.
The experiences I mention are just representative of the problem. I agree that historic fundamentalists do not hold some of the more extreme positions, and they do not hold to some of their positions in such an extreme manner. Yet they have an extreme movement-preserving modus operandi. They refuse to acknowledge that anyone outside of their movement is worthy of full fellowship. Such is patently an isolationist and elitist position. I see the discussions at Sharper Iron, and often groups or leaders outside fundamentalism are written off merely because they are not fundamentalists.
Just look at how this branch of fundamentalism bends over backward to discredit MacArthur. He had Albert Mohler speak, and Albert Mohler a long time ago cooperated in some degree with Billy Graham. So even though MacArthur never cooperates with Billy Graham, since he approves of Mohler, he is out. He is way too neo, for fundamentalists. I know that many attend his conferences and have a more nuanced view of his ministry, but there is still a gigantic taboo surrounding his ministry.
And he is just one example. I know that Mohler and others lump the two groups of fundamentalists together. But you have to give them some leeway. Remember Mohler himself is discredited by almost every branch of fundamentalism because of supposed ties to Billy Graham. If historic fundamentalists do not hold all three levels of doctrines as vitally important, they still do not have virtually any measure of fellowship with anyone outside their movement. So if they don’t in theory hold all doctrines equal, it appears in practice that they do. Sure, they can prioritize doctrines to enable fellowship with one another, but never with those outside their movement.
This is a big area that I see as inconsistent and wrong with historic fundamentalism. Another area is less clear. It relates to a holdover from hysteric fundamementalism on the emphasis of external conformity to the do’s and don’ts. Righteousness includes do’s and don’ts, don’t get me wrong. But it is more than that. Their are structures to the movement of fundamentalism as a whole which tend toward an emphasis on externals, in my opinion. This is not to say that people conscientiously try to develop such structures, but they remain nonetheless. A performance based value system is easily “caught” through the emphases of fundamentalism. I want to steer clear of that. And this had a big role in my deciding to not join myself with 4th Baptist in Minneapolis, but rather with Bethlehem Baptist. Such problems may be bigger than fundamentalism, but I think they are there. The emphasis is on conforming and holding to standards, rather than on a conscious serving Christ from the heart. That may be a simplistic and incorrect belief of mine. And I am sure it is much less true of many elements of fundamentalism of which I am not as familiar with.
Anyway, I hope the above makes clear my view in all of this. I appreciate and respect historic fundametnalists. I hope the best for them. I hope they succeed in saving their movement. I just see that there are still problems and a similarity they share with the extreme/hysteric branch.
Thanks again for commenting, Larry. God bless you and yours.
Just FYI… Mohler’s ties to Billy Graham are real and not just supposed. The school of evangelism at Southern Seminary is called, “The Billy Graham School of Evangelism.”
But the bigger stink is that Billy Graham came to do a Crusade in Louisville, and Mohler supported it. He supported it on the condition that Roman Catholic clergymen and liberal clergymen be excluded from participation. However, he allowed Southeast Christian Church to cooperate. This upset people because they assumed that Southeast was Campbellite.
I know, first hand now, that while Southeast comes out of a Campbellite tradition, they do not teach Campbellite doctrine. When I say I have first-hand knowlege, I mean that I interviewed for a job there a while back and had to enquire about these things. From what I gathered, they believe simply that baptism is to accompany salvation, and that a person who refuses to be baptized has a serious problem and should not be admitted to the church.
But the reality doesn’t matter. The Fundamentalists assumed Mohler was cozy with Campbellite doctrine.
Thanks for the clarification Ryan. It still seems like they are making a mountain out of a mole hill, doing anything to come up with a reason to maintain the aloofness of their movement.
Well, it’s a lack of due process, at least. Mohler is friendly toward Southeast Christian Church and “Christian Church” sure sounds Campbellite, so they assume that Mohler endorses or tolerates the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.
They could have went on Southeast’s website, or called Southeast, to see what they really believe. Instead they went around saying that Mohler has no problem with heresy.
It’s really sad how quick they are to believe things like that about evangelicals. Conservatives at Southern Seminary were literally spit upon in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. The “conservative takeover exacted a severe emotional toll on Dr. Mohler. Yet they so easily ignore all of that and claim he doesn’t care about doctrine, blah blah blah, and latch onto anything they can find. It disgusts me, actually.
P.S., I know people on the other side of the fence, people who were at Southern as the takeover happened. The idea that Mohler is weak or reluctant to deal with doctrinal disputes would make them laugh. Some of these people are very conservative and just think Mohler was too harsh, too “fundamentalist” in his actions. There’s probably some truth to what they say, but Southern had some real problems and I’m glad they were addressed. My point is that people familiar with the situation, who went through the 1990’s at Southern Seminary, would be dumbfounded by the idea that Mohler is anything but willing to do “battle royal” for the fundamentals of the faith.
Bob,
As a rejoinder to your comments, I would add that your description of the tendencies toward the “rules-oriented” uniformity within ‘historic fundamentalism’ as being a compromise toward the more histrionic xFundamentalism is very applicable. Understandably, our experiences with the academies (colleges, seminaries) of both kinds of Fundamentalism are to be taken as being descriptive and subjective of our collective observations when we were undergraduate students. I attended all four years of my undergraduate degree at Clearwater Christian College, and the xFundamentalist allegiances were somewhat important to the administration at that time (in the early 1990’s). Despite that, there was great latitude in what the students openly believed, and there was no interference from the college administration to bend students’ beliefs to conform to what they wanted us to believe. Believe it or not, the Bible department professors held allegiance to Reformed soteriology (Calvinism). On the other hand, the culture of fundamentalism that was foisted upon us students as being the ‘hallmarks’ of fundamentalism were a bit stifling to say the least. For example, the issue of CCM was pretty hot at the time, and the college administration seemed to push their agenda in order to conform to the current cultural fundamentalist ‘uniformity’ that was prevailing within fundamentalism at large, especially toward the beliefs/histrionics of the xFundamentalists.
At Clearwater, we had several students who belonged to SBC churches and attended SBC churches– and the administration at Clearwater did nothing to hinder those students who went to SBC churches. Although about two thirds of the students at Clearwater went to IFB churches, the other one third were represented by other denominations (or, non-denominational churches) including Bretheren, Bible Presbyerians, Independent Methodists, and a few students from Pentecostal churches. At the time I matriculated into Clearwater, I was a member of the United Methodist Church (from my high school days when I lived in Kentucky, when I was a member of a UMC church which was led by an evangelical pastor who knew the Lord) and stated that on my application to enroll at Clearwater. My first year at Clearwater I went to a Wesleyan church. Nothing was said to me from the administration about my associations with these types of churches, nor was any attempt made by the administration to cooerce me otherwise. I am thankful that the administrators at Clearwater weren’t so ‘overhanded’ like their peers at other fundamentalist colleges. I’ve recently met the new President of Clearwater Christian College, Dr. Richard Stratton (as well as his wife, Holly), and I’m more than ever delighted that they are there. My confidence is that Clearwater will ever remain fundamentalist, but will hopefully continue to detach their associations with xFundamentalism.
Larry,
I appreciate your response and am glad to hear of progress being made at Clearwater.
I agree that both of our perspectives are shaped by our associational history. And I admit I have much less experience in the spheres of historic fundamentalism as described above than you do.
Thanks for continuing the conversation charitably, and I mean it when I say that I am encouraged and hopeful for that wing of the movement. Yet I still have some differences of opinion.
God bless you and yours,
Bob Hayton
Bob,
Thanks for linking over to this post from your critique link.
I appreciate your perspective and insightfulness. You said yourself
“Hey, I think what I write about is
interesting, doesn’t everybody?”
Yes, I do, but then again this is coming from a guy that enjoyed Political Theory class in college. In the words of my pastor “Joshua enjoys to watch paint dry” (umm, I wouldn’t take it that far.)
It’s sad to see people sending their kids to colleges that rob them of their biblical beliefs. So now modesty, music and inerrant scripture doesn’t matter. Hopefully one day parents will wakeup and figure out the college was never ordained by God.
Lance,
I am not sure what you are getting at here. The college I went to made me more strict than my parents. It took a few years after college before I was able to reevaluate my beliefs and discard some of the man made ones.
Pants on women is not a “modesty” issue. Believe me that coulottes are almost universally immodest, at least the way they are worn. Oh, and people who do not think the KJV is the best translation do not at the same time believe Scripture is errant. They stand for inerrancy like other evangelical Christians do. I agree the college wasn’t “ordained by God” but neither was elementary school or high school, for that matter. God gives us leeway to apply God-given wisdom to matters not Scripturally dictated, and it is fine if people utilize the “college system”.