…and read this post by Ken Fields: “Should I Continue to Embrace the Fundamentalist Label?”!!!
It’s possibly the equal of one of Phil Johnson‘s critiques on Fundamentalism. Well thought through, carefully worded, and challenging — at the very least this post will cause you to think and evaluate where you stand on this issue.
My prayer is that it will encourage even more unity within the Body of Christ.
Thanks, Ken!
(Oh yeah, you might be interested in my response to his post. Comment #26 I believe.)
I really, really want to comment in length over this article, and you’re right– it’s really good. Just some cursory observations (especially between Ken Fields and Dan Fields) on continuationism and cessationism (which is a side argument on that thread, and also it is a good example of an application of ‘fundamentalist separation’). One, it is possible (IMHO, it’s necessary for true spiritual unity!) for a continuationist and cessationist to have personal fellowship. Two, it’s not necessary for the two to have ecclesiastical separation. Three, the separation isn’t necessarily over one’s beliefs on who holds the ‘fundamentalist’ title (which I’m assuming that the cessationist will probably more likely hold to). In other words, the issue of separation isn’t caused because one contends for a certain doctrine and labels another who holds contrary as being a compromiser. Let’s be really careful here; ecclesiastical separation isn’t necessarily defined by one’s ‘fundamentalist’ beliefs over the fundamentals and their separation over secondary doctrinal issues. If one separates from another over a secondary issue in the way/attitude/manner that one would separate from someone who denies any of the fundamentals is not a fundamentalist! Just because I (*personally speaking*) hold to cessationism doesn’t mean that I will separate (ecclesiastically) from a continuationist because I am a fundamentalist and would consider such secondary doctrinal issues (like cessationism/continuationism) as being the same as a primary fundamental doctrine. And, personally speaking, my pastor and I don’t see eye to eye on the issue, yet we are united as one in Christ in the same local church. I would also be careful in saying that any local church who holds to the title ‘fundamentalist’ is being unnecessarily pugnacious in separating (ecclesiastically) from a church who doesn’t hold to certain secondary doctrines. I wouldn’t, as a Calvinist, want to cooperate my church with another church who is Arminian. That’s not a bad thing to separate over, but it needs to be done in a gracious and understanding way. On the individual level, it behooves us to strive for unity with persons who may hold to Arminian soteriology and have fellowship with them personally. It’s just that we cannot agree doctrinally, even over secondary matters, and it wouldn’t be wise to worship in the same local church.
OK, I’m done for now….. just a thought….
Larry,
Good thoughts here brother. I definitely agree that there ought to be a great degree of unity possible even for those committed to the label.
And I don’t necessarily see it wrong to limit fellowship at the local church level to a certain agreement on secondary doctrines (like baptism, etc.).
What I see is that many elevate their allegiance to the movement of fundamentalism above their allegiance to first-tier, foundational doctrines of Scripture. Or at least they see an abandoning of the label as a hugely important thing.
If only more fundamentalists purposed to prize the areas where they agree (big doctrinal points) and agree to disagree on the minor points where they disagree. My post on “Together for the Gospel” dealt with this.
Glad you enjoyed the post I linked to here. And I’m glad we enjoy fellowship even though we differ on a few important points.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
By the way, I really am hoping to send that package to you this week. Sorry, I’ve been really busy with my job and this whole KJV Only series.
Definitely a good post! Thanks for directing me to it. Liked your comment. I left a rather lengthy comment myself. Since my theological development was in part a realization that the Baptist tradition is a modification of Presbyterianism, I was interested by his reference to the Presbyterian origin of fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism is in the eye of the beholder.
To the secular humanists, pretty much everybody in the Christian blogosphere is a Christian fundamentalist. Like the label or not, it will be applied.
I’m ambivalent to the entire topic. It really seems to get kicked around a lot over at SI.
“Should we keep the label?”
“Is Fundamentalism worth saving?”
Honestly, I don’t care. Embrace or shun labels, and you will still get labeled. Some will call you a fundamentalist; some will call you evangelical.
Also, separation is a two way street. Some Fundies separate from evangelicals over Bible translations, dress codes, music, etc.; yet evangelicals likewise separate from some fundies because they are KJVO, dress conservatively, and use traditional music styles.
Everybody separates. Everybody drives past church A on Sunday morning because they’d rather go to church B for any number of “secondary” reasons.
Apparently, “unity” is only defined and practiced by attending certain conferences. But when the conference is over, we’ll all still be separating from each other on Sunday morning.
I am an independent, fundamental, particular Baptist. Like it or not, the shoe fits. My only prayer is that God would use me to bring some redeeming value to any label affixed to me.
I agree, Joe.
Fundamentalism now there is a word. That term has been around as long as I can remember. Would that be the same as an Independent Baptist?
“The Fundamentalist” A paper I have received all my life. The men in that movement (J.F. Norris) have always been great men, who have loved the Lord. Even though I don’t remember that term been used in Seminary (Arlington)
This group are Baptist to the death. They do embrace the history of this movement. They would rather split than change. They are very KJV
and they still do wear ties when they preach.
This group as I see it has not changed with the latest cultural and ecclesiastical fads and tides as Ken mentions.
This group is still dispensational, they are pro Israel, they still believe the event in Revelation are still in the future.
They still have Sunday School, preach the Gospel, and have Sunday Evening, and Wednesday Evening service. Is this Fundamentalism?
They still love seeing Christ bring his elect to the Lord. Is this Fundamentalism?
They still have a problem with accepting sin as a normal practice of living. Is the Fundamentalism.
Many don’t like expositoral preaching, nor the NASV, nor the current trend of music. They still sing the songs that I sung 50 years ago.
And they still give an altar call following each time they preach. Goodness thank of that?
They still believe in the five core beliefs, really, they do.
There are several branches that have come from the same trunk. (Norris) They have adopted different points of view about methods and preaching.
Most are getting too old to fight like we used too. The old guys feel a need to keep the old faith. There are some new preachers coming up who are beginning to see a new method of preaching.
Terms can certainly get you in trouble. Every church has their slant on their view points. My fellow pastors who would read my Blog, would think I was not longer a Fundamental Baptist of the Norris branch. Nevertheless, I am not yet ready to give up been either..
Charles
yet evangelicals likewise separate from some fundies because they are KJVO, dress conservatively, and use traditional music styles.
No they don’t.
I think, Ryan, that when Evangelicals dig a little deeper and try to extend fellowship to fundamentalists. They are given the cold shoulder or taken to task.
Under such circumstances, many evangelicals shrug their shoulders and walk away.
Its not separation, necessarily. And I think this is a point to bring up here. Not having fellowship is not the same as separating. If you unite around particular secondary doctrines along with primary doctrines in the setting of a church, you aren’t necessarily deciding to separate from others. It just ends up that you have little fellowship.
What I have a problem with is fundamentalists who elevate clearly secondary doctrines to the point where there can be no gospel centered unity or Christian fellowship, because they choose to separate or scorn those who disagree with them. This seems to cnotradict Scriptural exhortations to unite, to agree to disagree, to not be overly engaged in disputable things, etc. See my verses at the bottom of each post, for instance.
Thanks all for the comments. I do agree that you’re gonna be labelled by others. But the question is, do you purposely limit your fellowship to people who fit what you term as fundamentalism? If their not KJVO or if they have slightly different music, or if they don’t agree with your stand on what is the definition of holiness as applied to some external question, do you not extend fellowship anyway.
Pls see this post about the relative importance of doctrines. And this post which includes my call to unite around Gospel truths.
Thanks for the interaction.
Blessings in Christ be to all of you.
Bob Hayton
Ryan said:
“No they don’t.”
Yes they do. I’ve experienced it.
Perhaps I should’ve modified my statement with “some evangelicals separate…”
I have to admit that I was disappointed with the article. I have not had a chance to read your points Bob, I will try to do that tomorrow maybe.
Yet another man making public his separation from a movement that he even acknowledges he might not understand.
Ryan,
Thanks for dropping by. For the record, I don’t think everyone should leave fundamentalism, the movement. Or even shun the label.
That would be a simplistic and easy reaction. I am happy for fundamentalists who are reforming and those who don’t need reforming. I am concerned about hyper fundamentalism and the perpetuation of a culture and traditionalism over against the prizing of clear Biblical doctrine.
In Ken’s case, I don’t think it was a quick and easy decision. In fact I don’t think he stated he was going to opt out of the movement. He was looking for good reasons or arguments to keep the label.
Anyways, other posts on this blog give my opinion. I think it was a good article, but like any it doesn’t hit everyone and every form of fundamentalism.
Blessings in Christ to you, brother,
Bob Hayton
If you don’t think they separate, evangelicals, over our beliefs on perfect preservation, personal separation, etc., you’re wrong. They don’t know how to do it very well; they do it in an unscriptural manner, but they do separate. I was canned at SI because I believe in perfect preservation and local only ecclesiology. I would never be allowed to preach what I believe at any of their unity conferences, or I would go to them and preach it. They won’t darken the door to our church without ever giving a Scriptural reason. So, like Joe says, they do divide, separate on their doctrines.
Bob,
I actually have dropped by several times, just have never posted. I enjoy a lot of what you have to say. I too agree with you that fundamentalism could use a good dose of reformed theology. I would agree that there are many in fundamentalism that emphasize a “perpetuation of a culture and traditionalism over against the prizing of clear Biblical doctrine.”
But I realize that thare are many in fundamentalism that do have a biblical understanding of God’s sovereignty in salvation and do “prize clear Biblical doctrine.”
Regarding Ken’s post, I can see that this was a decision that he probably has spent much time over. I just felt as though he has rejected fundamentalism for the wrong reasons. He acknowledged that he might not understand Fundamentalism’s history or much of its current nature. And his reasons for rejecting Fundamentalism confirm that naivete. If I could compare it to those that I meet on the blogosphere who reject Calvinism because it is istic or believes God “drags people kicking and screaming to heaven.” I feel like if people want to reject the doctrines of grace then do it because of what it believes, not some convoluted misconception of what they think it believes. Similarly Ken is debating giving up a label and movement I feel he does not understand. Certainly there are many in our movement that would fit Ken’s description, but historically and essentially fundamentalism is so much different that what Ken is describing and rejecting. That is why I spoke up. On his blog I recommended a couple of sources that could help him. And on yours I felt that I should indicate my dissatisfaction since you had given the post such high praise.
By His Grace,
Ryan
Ryan,
Thanks for responding. I liked your comments over at Ken’s blog.
“I guess I understand some of your sentiment. I am not happy with much of where I see our movement going(if you can really consider fundamentalism a movement anymore). But rather than abandon a movement or a label to those who do not do its history and ideals justice, I choose to contend for it.”
I certainly am glad there are people like you fighting for change within the “movement”. Like I said before, I don’t think everyone should just toss the label. I thought Ken was bringing up some important points. I know others have been stressing the same thing. I hope Fundamentalism seeks to answer some of those critiques and seek self-reformation.
What bugs me about the label is the insistence by so many to make the label so important they don’t fellowship with others merely because of the label. I’m thinking of people very similar to MacArthur, for instance, who yet still remain aloof. I think Fundamentalism should be encouraging the growth of conservative evangelicalism, instead of always insisting that the conservative evangelicals aren’t good enough for them to be able to fellowship with them.
It is as if the conservative resurgence in the SBC, and other conservative movements that are happening outside the label/movement, are mainly a threat to fundamentalism. “If they are not of us, we should be suspicious of them.” is the wisdom of the day. That seems to minimize the value of the shared common faith in Christ. It seems to fly in the face of Luke 9:49-50.
Anyway, I will try to read that article you linked to by McCune. And again, dissent is welcome. It challenges and causes us all to dig deeper and become more persuaded or possibly to abandon our persuasion accordingly. This is all part of sharpening one another.
Thanks for reading my blog. I’ll be checking yours out too.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Bob,
I agree that for many the label is more important than doctrine or practice. If someone calls himself a fundamentalist that is good enough for far too many. Personally, there are many conservative evangelicals that I would be more comfortable with than those that use the label “fundamentalist” yet should not because of unorthodox doctrine or practice. For many a mere adherance to the “five fundamentals” is all that is required. And that seems inconsistent since we separate from men who are more sound in doctrine (including adherance to the “five”) because they do not use the label for themselves. That to me is a problem, as well as something I try hard not to do.
I am glad for the conservative resurgence in the SBC, I watch it wondering how far it will go. I think highly of men like MacArthur and Mohler and Piper. I am not suspicious of them, but I do not think that they are being faithful to all of what the Bible requires. None of these men call themselves fundamentalists, and none practice what to me seems to be a hallmark of the movement-secondary separation. And really they are weak on any form of ecclesiastical separation. But that is for another day. I do rejoice in the shared common faith in Jesus Christ, I rejoice in many of these men’s diligent defense of reformed soteriology (T4G), but to me the faith that we share is not only to be rejoiced in, but defended. And when Mohler supports Graham, and Piper does not pull out of a confrence that tolerates Boyd’s open theism I feel as if the faith is not being defended by some of its most eloquent leaders, and I feel they are neglecting its defense at its most crucial points.
By His Grace,
Ryan
Pastor B., the main reason you were “canned,” as you put it, at SI is because of your sometimes seemingly belligerent and combative tone, not because of your positions on preservation and ecclesiology, both of which are held by some men on that forum who still retain their memberships and posting privileges. As I’ve said before, I disagree with the decision to remove you, especially since I believe some combat is necessary for sharpening, but they obviously want to keep that within bounds that are obviously too restrictive for you and other men like you, for whom combat is a way of life.
As far as not giving scripture, that is simply not true. When it is pointed out by other men that they do not agree with your interpretations of Ps 12:6-7, I Cor 12:13, or Deut. 22:5 (among many others), and explain why, you simply discount their scriptural reasons.
When men choose not to “darken the door” to a church like yours, in many cases, “In vain do you worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” is scriptural reason enough. But why should that bother you? Separation works both ways. If different men are serving God in different ways, and cannot walk together to do so, separation is then the only option, and an honorable one.
Anvil,
You are wrong on why I was released at SI. I’m fine with being ejected from there; I was making a point. Jason emailed me, explaining why I was expelled. I wasn’t speculating. I’ll answer the rest later, because I have to go teach.
Pastor B., I’m obviously not privy to any email communication between you and Jason, but I am going from the “official,” public version that all SI members could read. If that information is incorrect, I apologize.
There are certainly still members there that hold “perfect preservation” and/or “local only ecclesiology” positions, so holding those positions alone must not be reason enough to be “expelled” from SI, assuming, of course, that the standard is applied equally.
If you remember, I was expelled when I simply pointed out the slanderous attack made by Doug Kutilek. When I did that, I was dismissed. If you were to read that thread, you would see that I didn’t say anything belligerent. I don’t remember ever being belligerent with you. I’ve been belligerent with Bob here, I know :). I don’t know if we should be discussing that here, however, this thread. The standard isn’t applied equally. You have to tip-toe around the subject to be allowed to talk about it SI. You know that. Some tip-toe; others, myself, didn’t.
Regarding this paragraph by you:
As far as not giving scripture, that is simply not true. When it is pointed out by other men that they do not agree with your interpretations of Ps 12:6-7, I Cor 12:13, or Deut. 22:5 (among many others), and explain why, you simply discount their scriptural reasons.
I didn’t say people didn’t give Scripture; if you look up at my short post, I said they didn’t separate Scripturally. Scripture is clear about how separation is to work, and they do not do it Scripturally. I don’t think it is possible for them to do so. I don’t ever discount Scriptural reasons that people give me. On those issues, they usually don’t give Scriptural reasons, and if they do, there are holes in their presentation, which I will not get onto here. For instance, I don’t discount the gender issue—it was a legitimate, knotty argument. I studied it and found out it was a non-issue, so the proximity argument came back to the forefront. When I pointed that out, most on the “people” side won’t even admit that they see the point. What do you think of that?
This quotation by you—“In vain do you worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men‗was belligerent. The Pharisees taught works salvation. They taught a merit system. Making application of Biblical principles and clear commands is continents away from adding to the law hand-washing, which is what Jesus was specifically speaking about in that context. The disciples didn’t wash their hands before they ate. There was nothing in the OT law that told men to wash their hands. There was a law for the priests to wash, and the Pharisees added a command for everyone sheerly because they wanted to.
Do you see that you are actually taking this passage out of context in applying it to me?
Pastor B., I apologize for not being clear. My paragraph on scripture was about not giving a scriptural reason for coming to your church, not about separation itself. I guess it wasn’t clear which part of your post (#14) I was referring to. If one disagrees with you on the issues represented by those scriptures (i.e. perfect preservation, local-only, or pants on women), and they know your positions, that disagreement over interpretation is enough scriptural reason to not take part in worship with your church. That is not unscripturally-applied separation.
Regarding the “in vain” passage I quoted, I believe it is still applicable to those who in addition to making an application from a passage essentially declare their application to be equivalent to scripture in authority. Your comments on SI in the various “pants” threads indicated that you believed yours was the only possible scriptural application and that others were disobedient. When one does this, I believe that that passage applies to them as well as to the pharisees, because then one’s application becomes a doctrinal teaching and a command to those under the authority of that person.
In fact, my exact statement was “When men choose not to “darken the door†to a church like yours, in many cases, “In vain do you worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men†is scriptural reason enough.” As you can see, I did not apply that to you directly, but it *was* my implication that some would do so when choosing not to come to your church, as your positions on some of these issues are well-known, and many good men have come to different conclusions/applications on the meanings of those passages without drawing from them the commands that you do.
As you say, perhaps this is not the best place for this discussion. I probably should have avoided commenting in the first place.
I am an evangelical and have been for a few years. I’d say I’m fairly well familiar with evangelicalism. The number of instances where a person has been separated from for being a King James Only or for conservative preferences in music and dress has to be extremely small relative to the frequency of Fundamentalists separating from people. I know Southern Baptists who are King James Only, and I’ve never heard of anyone being disciplined for it. Usually they get mad and leave when the rest of the church doesn’t go their way. That isn’t exactly separation.
In some instances people with conservative tastes in music have been muscled out of a church by a pastor or group who wanted to go contemporary. That’s not common practice.
I still believe it falls short of the situation in Mark, Anvil. The Pharisees made it an issue of salvation. This is new teaching, that an application of a Biblical command is not authoritative. If we can’t apply Scripture, the Bible becomes meaningless. In Titus 2:15, Paul told Titus to rebuke in areas that he had just taught “with all authority.” I think many are getting sucked into this kind of thinking; we can make applications of Scripture authoritatively. In the Dt. passage, it is a command. There is only one application to that clearly worded command. There can’t be two. It is an abomination to violate the command. I have found that it is not an application problem, but an interpretational one—that there should be several views of interpretation of the one passage. I actually don’t hear men giving an alternative application to the passage if they agree on the meaning. They simply disregard it. The differences are on what the verse says. If you want to discuss this, go to my blogsite, about two posts ago and we can discuss it.
Ryan,
Like Joe, I believe a kind of separation exists from the other side, just not done in a Scriptural way. I don’t doubt some of the things that you said.