A blogging friend of mine, Will Dudding, recently shared some thoughts on his journey of the last five years or so, since he started blogging. His blog name is The Reforming Baptist, and he is a co-blogger with me on Re:Fundamentals and KJVOnlyDebate.com. After taking a break from blogging the past few months, Will came back to share some of his thoughts on where he’s at in a recent post. I want to excerpt some of his comments and discuss them here, below.
Since I have put blogging on the shelf for the last seven months, I have been learning some things that I needed to be quiet and learn. So, I’ll share them with those of you who have waited to see if I’d ever come back.
Originally, this blog was born out of my increased exposure to theology and ministry philosophy that was more God-centered than what I was accustomed to. So, I wanted to express what I was learning and kind of think through some issues in a public way in order to interact with others out there about it. However, I was very much a frustrated young man who was still struggling in my cocoon. As most of you know, I grew up in the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) environment. After being exposed to life outside of that group, I felt as though I had been hoodwinked all my life and I used my blog to express my frustrations and address all the myths, errors, falsehoods, etc.. that I had bought into. Inadvertently, I learned that I had a porcupine effect on some people. Eventually, I began to sense that very same spirit of dissent in a few members in my congregation. It was then, that I realized that my spirit had probably negatively effected some people whom I was supposed to be leading. We ended up losing one family shortly after I stopped blogging. It was really painful to see them go, but I had to wonder after the fact how much of their dis-satisfied disposition was caused by mine? It took a rebuke from someone close to me that got me thinking about this, and so I knew it was time to quit blogging. I needed to shut up and listen to what God needed to teach me.
Another lesson I learned these past months is that the IFB or Fundamentalist movement, network, culture (whatever you want to call it) is not going to be revived or reformed. Those loyal to it cannot and will not recognize the inherent and fundamental defects of the movement. It will continue to decline from relevance and influence on its own. God doesn’t revive or reform such things. He does so to individuals. There is no use trying to correct the course of Fundamentalism by reasoning with the Scripture because for the most part, Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the movement. So, I have learned that it is best to just leave it alone and get my head out of the clouds – I am not going to make a dent in reforming fundamentalism. All I will ever be is a burr in their saddle, an irritation to be put up with should I continue identifying myself with them – not my idea of purposeful existence. I don’t need to be identified with the Fundamental Baptists, the Reformed Baptists, the Southern Baptists or any other group. We can exist in happy obedience to God’s Word and in fellowship with anyone else who is striving to do the same That is truly independence!
I encourage you to read the whole post, as he has some more to say. But I wondered what my readers thought of his judgement of the IFB movement. In my blog’s subtitle for the last several years, I’ve had the phrase “Reforming Fundamentalism (IFB) through Reformed Theology”. Will hasn’t been a full-fledged proponent of Reformed Theology, but he has been a reforming fundamentalist. I maintain a Reforming Fundamentalists Blog Network, which I need to update, but still includes a list of like-minded IFBs & former-IFBs intent on working toward positive change. That was the idea behind Re:Fundamentals, which also needs updating. One could also argue that the large fundamentalist forums and blog, Sharper Iron, has as one of its aims, the reformation of the IFB movement.
Will brings up the question though, is all this worth it? Will the IFB movement change? Does it want to change? He says it doesn’t. But I think that depends on where you are in the IFB spectrum. Still the recent brouhaha over Chuck Phelps and ABC’s 20/20 show, and the revelation of what many (myself included) consider to be a misuse of pastoral authority, teaches us something. That even in the “sane” wing of fundamentalism, a top-down leadership style, and certain views on authority and sanctification, continue to have drastic consequences. Pastor Bob Bixby, who like Greg Locke, has also walked away from the IFB movement and the Baptist label, recently shared some of his thoughts about continuing problems in the highest ranks of BJU-style fundamentalism. Will and I could give you some stories of other fundamentalist groups that would raise the hair on the back of your neck. I don’t know if I’ve recounted horror stories, but the personal stories and testimonies I’ve shared will give you an eyeful. Here are four accounts for you: a distraught mother, Becca’s story, Greg’s story, and another reader’s story. For a wild ride through the heart of the most extreme version of fundamentalism, you should pick up James Spurgeon’s book The Texas Baptist Crucible: Tales from the Temple.
Over my nearly six years of blogging, I’ve received on average one or two emails a week, it seems, from people appreciating my blog or sharing their own story of journeying through fundamentalism. Hundreds have shared their thoughts in the comments on my blog, but many more in private conversation to me. Many of these have found a new church, some are IFB churches which are much better than where they were before, but many walk away from the movement altogether.
Is the movement really changing? Are such stories decreasing in frequency? Maybe. I know this happened in other generations. Two of my uncles walked away from the IFB movement in the early 80s. Perhaps the internet is helping to escalate the problem. More and more have walked away or have awakened to the issues.
Does this mean we can write ICHABOD in bold across the moniker IFB? I don’t actually think so. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran, represent glimmers of hope. This conversation between them and Mark Minnick, reveals the heart of these new fundamentalist leaders. Sharper Iron is a place where many IFB pastors and thinkers are discussing issues and seeking positive growth. The Preserving the Truth Conference, even though I don’t agree with some of it’s central values, nevertheless represents a positive movement in fundamentalism. As does Calvary Baptist’s Advancing the Church conference. Standpoint Conference is a mix of those still holding the IFB name and those who are past it, but it is working for a positive expression of fundamentalism for the new century.
Historic fundamentalism is still needed. Independence can be a good thing, as long as healthy interdependence with other like-minded churches is sought out. And Baptist doctrine and practice has hundreds of years behind it, and has proven to be a faith that aims to be as Biblical as possible. So Independent Fundamental Baptists are not a bad thing. What needs to be improved upon, and ejected from the movement, is the man-centered, pragmatic trappings and the baggage from the last 80 years of the movement. One-upmanship, strong-arming, political maneuvering, grand-standing, arrogance and an abrupt dismissal of any church group besides your own — these are all too common in the IFB world. Along with these problems is a fear of education, a resulting ignorance of doctrine, and a love of piety over theology — these problems have conspired to spawn eccentric doctrines and shallow Christians completely cut off from the rest of Christianity (as Will describes). Finally, and most importantly, a legalism silently pervades the movement. Often good intentions mask this legalism: we want to please God and obey His Law, but this is not our means to being accepted by God (either for our salvation or our sanctification). A recovery of the Biblical concept of grace and of the Gospel as being the A-Z of the Christian life (not just the entrance exam) is desperately needed.
There remain many faithful IFB churches who stand on the Word of God and love people. May their tribe increase. To try to reform those who bristle at the mention of the problems I stated above, however, is pointless. I trust, however, that more and more IFB pastors and leaders are willing to admit the problems of their movement. May they be encouraged to reform and renew fundamentalism for the 21st Century and beyond.
Bob,
I’ve yet to get over to read Will’s post. I do have to say that I am having great doubts about redoing anything re:fundamentalism. In fact, I wonder what to do about RE:Fundamentals blog. Of course, time is an issue there, also.
My thoughts are that true, historical Fundamentalists need to work to show the importance of the Fundamentals against the liberal and emergent theologies, and against the (small “f”) fundamentalist non-theological, anti-intellectual legalistic stance.
The movement as a whole is not worth saving, I fear. I think true Fundamentalists simply need to stand for the Fundamentals and unite around those things to the glory of God in Christ.
Bob,
I think the IFB movement will not be reformed. The Hyles/Sword of the Lord crowd are not thinking through these issues in a contemplative manner. Their only concern is never to change – not moving the ancient landmarks, not compromising… Those within the movement who are attempting to Biblically ponder their movement are distancing themselves from the extremes and slowly but surely leaving. Men like Bauder, Minnick, and Doran show glimmers hope, but most of the men who follow them already have one foot out the door or are like me, already out the door but looking back. The “emerging middle” as my pastor likes to put it, will continue to grow. I see the “gospel-centered movement” (i.e. 9-marks, Gospel coalition, T4G, ect..) will be the fundamentalist movement of our time. Of course, there is dangers in every movement…
To both:
“I think true Fundamentalists simply need to stand for the Fundamentals and unite around those things to the glory of God in Christ.”
&
“The ’emerging middle’ as my pastor likes to put it, will continue to grow. I see the ‘gospel-centered movement’ (i.e. 9-marks, Gospel coalition, T4G, ect..) will be the fundamentalist movement of our time.”
I say AMEN!
I do recognize the dangers in every movement too, though. And I do agree that certain parts of the IFB movement don’t seem “worth saving”, to use Bauder’s term with you.
Thanks guys,
Bob
I read the post no doubt he has some distance to travel but he is moving to some important realizations. The idea that it was his place to attempt some “reform” of the IBF movement was ludicrous, though. Sincere, maybe but rather vainglorious. In what position was he to do so?
If providence places a person where he is a leading voice, you might be where you can introduce reform (Just ask the former heretical Worldwide Church of God headed by the Armstrongs that is now Grace Communion International which embraced Christian orthodoxy) but Will Dudding’s disillusionment were due to his own misplaced ambitions. And btw, even in his enlightenment he should understand that while there are many doctrinally and practically unhealthy IBF churches it does not mean they are all that way.
The most promising view he expressed was:
“But when you first read John Piper, RC Sproul and other great writers, it’s easy to get enamored with them as if they can do no wrong (which is the same thing we did in fundamentalism). I guess what I’m trying to say is that I have learned that the Reformed camp doesn’t have all the answers and best solutions either. The body of Christ is multi-faceted and we all have a lot to learn from each other.”
And boy do does Reformed Theology and its pet guru’s have its legion of acolyte sycophants. But then when you learn that Piper and Sproul themselves were acolyte sycophants to Reformed theology (they had their Reformed/Calvinist epiphanies early in the formative years and have had little room for anything else, a demonstration of just what Dudding is growing out of) it is not surprising that their writing attacks such. No doubt there are many of those who seek guru’s or movements from which they can get all their answers, when they come to the realization that one guru of movement does not have it they practice extremes and simply opt for nothing all together or another guru or movement. Good for him that he will do some thinking.
Alex said…
“The idea that it was his place to attempt some “reform†of the IBF movement was ludicrous, though. Sincere, maybe but rather vainglorious. In what position was he to do so?”
Exactly. A fool’s errand. All I can do is my part to reform our church according to the Word of God. When enough churches seek this, a movement is inevitable. But when a movement becomes the central focus of survival, distinction, etc..it becomes an idol and “Ichabod” is already written on it.
If one could reform an IFB church, or even the whole movement, by the time the reformation was done it would no longer be IFB. It would look so different in the end that one would have to identify it completely as something else. I don’t think it’s possible (at least not with man, anyway). But, I thank those who try, as I still have family in the movement.
Interesting post and comments. It seems to me that the question of whether or not the IFB movement can be reformed is not important. The issue, for me, is can I be reformed to become as Biblically healthy as is possible for a Christian to be? Can my church? If, in focusing upon myself, and those whom God has placed under my care, I am also used by God to help and influence others who are not directly my responsibility, well and good! God is certainly able to do so, and godly love should believe the best that reform is possible. But who but God knows if reform of the IFB is in His plans? My responsibility is to be a Biblical as I can be, and leave the rest to Him.
Your blog post is very helpful and a warning to all those who feel an ‘injunction’, of God or otherwise, to ‘reform’ a church or movement.
The great flaw of any movement, church, or man, was when they began to leave their First Love, and Saviour Jesus Christ, for something or someone else. May God ever help us not to. That’s where the blessing ends and the problems begin. Reform of any church or movement then, is only reform inasmuch as it swings the pendulum back to Christ and Christ alone.
I’d admire all your honesty…our greatest enemy, in our out of any erroneous movement, will always be ourselves. As Piper once observed, commenting on that great letter to the Romans, “Satan is first mentioned in chapter 16.”
Bob,
I see Fundamentalism (call it IFB – but I’m not totally comfortable with the conspiracy that JZ has built with the terminology)by necessity (and hopefully) pulling apart in a few different directions:
1. A necessary split between the KJO/Hyles crowd and the rest of the group
2. A three-way split in the worship wars (1) those who want to do nothing and remain obsolete (I would even lump those who listen to some forms of CCM – but who make the claim – “here and no further” – i.e. no Christian rap – into this category), (2) Those who want to move back to the psalmic/hymnic tradition handed down to us from the early church (Conservative Christianity), (3) Those who allow for anything within the worship service
I see Category 1 as most of the older pastors of today. I see category 2 as a very small group (including both Baptists and Presbyterians, and only about 6-10 churches of which I am aware). I see category 3 as the likely future of fundamentalism (but undesirable in my eyes – I would lump myself within the second category – but I fully recognize your right to place yourself in the third – and the church that you pastor).
I see almost no fellowship happening between the Hyles/KJ crowd and the others. I see limited fellowship among the categories of worship. Realize that some of us will be uncomfortable in churches of categories 1 and 3.
With respect to fundamentalist theology – I have Calvinist leanings – but I’m not a full fledged Calvinist. I have many 5pt friends (Many in my church are 5 pointers). I have a few friends who lean towards Arminianism. I can learn from a Covenant Theologian (and I hope a CT person can learn from me). While many of these issues (including views of Sanctification) are important, I can put them aside for the purpose of fellowship – they may limit our fellowship in some areas, but not fully.
Chris,
My recent post on music referenced this comment. The three choices you give don’t exhaust the gamut, by any stretch. And there should be a category between allowing anything within the worship service and a contemporary style that excludes Christian rap.
Only 6-10 churches, seriously?? There are many more than that, I’m sure who have a similar approach – think Reformed and Presbyterians and others. I don’t like how you reserve “Conservative Christianity” as the label for your desired preference in music.
As for you thoughts on fellowship, I would hope that churches could fellowship with one another despite musical preferences. Is it really about being “comfortable” in worship? I can gladly give up my comfort and quibbles to give the right hand to a brother who cannot even understand my preference in music (and I’m talking from both sides, here). We should be willing to put that down to fellowship.
Anyway, I’m interested in your thoughts on my blended worship post (which followed this one).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and we do have to get together sometime….
Bob
Bob,
I had a nice, long response written, but Chrome just reset on me and I lost it all. I’ll check out the post above.
Just to come to the defense of my friend, Will Dudding, to the person who thought it vainglorious to want to reform the IFB: If one humble individual doesn’t have the right to want to effect reform then who does? People said the same thing of Luther, of the Puritans, and of John Wesley. Thousands more have been unsuccessful and unheard of, but it should be our holy ambition (not vainglorious) to want to effectuate quality reform wherever we are. I applaud Will’s original vision and I concur with his developing conclusions. Sometimes certain groups will not reform. Period. To want to reform our own circles, however, is noble.
Definitely agreeing on all fronts here, Bob. Thanks for dropping by too.
Bob Hayton
Earlier in this thread Brother Kevin wrote, “Men like Bauder, Minnick, and Doran show glimmers hope, but most of the men who follow them already have one foot out the door or are like me, already out the door but looking back.â€
I have no known reason to include Dr. Minnick in the following comment. As for Bauder and Doran, however, the “glimmers of hope†you speak of are shown by them in the form of compromising authentic biblical separatism, which results in their growing documented track record of tolerating, allowing for, ignoring or excusing the extremes among so-called “conservative†evangelicals. Extremes including ecumenical compromise, doctrinal aberrations, CCM/RAP/Hip-hop, non-separatism, etc.
“One foot out the door†no doubt, but more like both feet and it won’t stop there. I say to Bauder, Doran, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan and their followers, “If and/or since your minds are made up: Keep going!†For over two years I’ve asked the angry YF’s, “What are you waiting for?†Leave, depart, and go; join the evangelicals- if that is where you find your comfort zone. Go to them! Join their fellowships, attend their conferences.
I do not appreciate the problems in Fundamentalism that truly exists. Men are fallible, we will have our foibles. I ignore the crazies among us. I’ll do what I can to be a positive influence where I am. I will not follow the pathway of compromise and tolerance for error (for the sake of fellowship around Calvinistic soteriology in the form of Lordship Salvation) that Bauder and Doran are blazing and encouraging others to follow them down.
LM
Bob:
In your article there are elements that I appreciate. I mean that sincerely, I do read and listen to reasoned concerns. In the article you wrote:
“Sharper Iron is a place where many IFB pastors and thinkers are discussing issues and seeking positive growth.â€
Bob, bear with me, I am going somewhere with the set-up to follow.
For nearly two years I have put out an open challenge both in public and in private communication. My challenge has been for the leadership of SI to point to one main page article that was thoroughly positive toward and edifying on Fundamentalism. As recently as a week ago I asked Aaron Blumer for what must be the third time for even one such example. To date, not one SI person has been able to reply with that single main page article from SI. I invite you or any of your guests to link to even one main page article at SI that was thoroughly positive and uplifting end-to-end on Fundamentalism.
On the other hand SI is littered from end to end with articles, Filings, forum entries and commentary that has been at times fair and legitimately critical of certain aspects within the broader fundamentalist movement (Schaap, Hyles, et.al.) There have been however, overt attempts to redefine, besmirch and demonize Fundamentalism with the broad brush from its main page and throughout the site. A notable example would be Kevin Bauder’s three successive highly negative and caustic articles on the legacy of Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice in Summer 2009 (which I responded to from my blog). Those were written by Bauder and published at SI right before the 2009 FBFI national conference. Furthermore, from that years FBFI Q&A Symposium on conservative evangelicalism- without warning and with no provocation whatsoever Kevin Bauder took several minutes away from the topic at hand to grill another panel member in a context to openly besmirch and malign BJU.
All of that to get to this: SI in the opinion of many is NOT a place for “seeking positive growth†in Fundamentalism. SI is a place that has driven off and alienated fundamentalist men like myself who do recognize the foibles in Fundamentalism, will discuss them openly, but not at the expense of being gang-tackled by SI members and moderators, admins and the site publisher for simply stating our appreciation for and defense of those things which are dear to us, the very best of what can be found in Fundamentalism.
Kind regards,
LM
Lou,
There are defenses of separation, and positive articles on parenting and any number of topics that don’t get into the self-critique mode. I think you’ve just got a chip on your shoulder and are seeing everything through your particularly dim glass.
Bob:
You wrote, “I think you’ve just got a chip on your shoulder and are seeing everything through your particularly dim glass.â€
Forgive me for asking, but doesn’t that seem much like the kind of thing(s) you said needs to be, “improved upon, and ejected from the movement….�?
In any event, if there is any main page article at SI that is thoroughly positive and edifying on and about Fundamentalism, share the link with me.
LM
I rarely read much of this type of discussion. What it points out so emphatically is the main lack of unity in the body of Christ universally. If this one segment of “the Baptists” has such a problem within it’s ranks no wonder the body of Christ in total. It is the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ, and in the end it is He who will bring us all together in unity. Until then we need to lay down our words of war fare (I’m totally right and you’re totally wrong)…and learn to love one another.
1 Corinthians 13:12
The Message (MSG)
12We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us!
bob bixby says:
June 21, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Just to come to the defense of my friend, Will Dudding, to the person who thought it vainglorious to want to reform the IFB: If one humble individual doesn’t have the right to want to effect reform then who does?
____________
This is what poor reading will do to a person, namely lead them to answer a charge no one has made.
No one (which is me since it is my post to which you are referring) said it was vainglorious to “want” to reform the IFB. I said the “attempt” was so and specifically because of the seat from which Mr. Dudding was hoping to do so.
So, please take the time, always, when defending someone to understand exactly that to which you are responding and you might find no defense is needed. BTW Mr. Dudding has displayed some very admirable sobriety in his responses.
I think it’s rare for an entire chain of associations to its collective faults and simultaneously reforms en masse. Has that ever happened? If it has, I think it must be very rare.
Repentance and reform always causes splits, because there will always be those who won’t repent or reform.
Independent Baptist fundamentalism is severely & chronically diseased, because of its movement-wide rebellion against the Word of God. The Bible teaches humble pastoral leadership, while the IFB movement celebrates Diotrophean-style leaders. The IFB movement rejects the Biblical teachings about original sin, total depravity, and spiritual inability, and so as a result it is horribly shallow and legalistic on every level — evangelism and discipleship. This starts with the altar-call system and the Sinner’s Prayer.
It uses a simpletonian, “all-or-nothing” way of thinking about other Christians, when it ought to follow the Bible’s limited list of doctrinal and moral essentials, then evaluate ministries in terms of degrees of Biblical soundness. It teaches the Carnal Security soteriology (my own preferred term instead of “free grace”), and as a result confirms godless Baptists in their unbelief.
Its preachers take true Biblical teachings about separation then uses them as a means of anathematizing anyone with whom they dsiagree, thus teaching offended Christians to regard the real separation principle with mockery. And the KJV Only thing is a cult.
I think that only individual people can be reformed in these areas. Reform happens through sincere, consistent Bible study, plus the iron-sharpening-iron effect of Christian ministries (spoken and written) which are not IFB. The reform you want to see, Bob, is happening, but maybe one thing it’s doing is erasing the IFB movement, the way antibiotics erase germs.
One wonders how such a full scale attack can be launched against DMD, KB, etc. partially(especially?) because of their calvinistic (or in some minds so-called LS)soteriology but Minnick is given a pass. One might wonder, “why the pass?” Careful listening to or reading of Minnick reveals a soteriological bent of DMD’s & KB’s brand. (Horrors!) Also, in the matter of ecclesiastical separation, in the dialog at PTC at FBCT Jan 2011, Minnick admitted that his reasons for not speaking at MD’s invitation indicated that DMD “took a harder line than I did.” DMD’s response earlier as to why he did not accept any invitation from MD was:
.
So, wouldn’t an historic, separatist fundamentalism launch some full scale vendetta against Minnick? He looks the same soteriologically, and using some people’s logic, is failing to defend the Gospel, and is weak(ening) in his separation stance. (He turned down MD for reasons which indicated that he had less separation anxiety than DMD about the matter.) Shouldn’t M have engaged in a pre-emptive separation with KB and DMD? After all their forthcoming participation in ATC was well known by then. There must be myriads of young pimply-faced Bible students and seminarians who are plodding, nay, sprinting down the road to the so-called LS view and to greater and greater levels of compromise–all because of Minnick! Is there not a champion? If we are going to reform fundamentalism, then we need to be consistent with ALL the malefactors! Bring Minnick down! 😀
To me, the following quotation says it all. Fundamentlist preachers wrap themselves in the role of orthodoxy defenders, when a great deal of the time all it is, is: “the reason I won’t come and preach is because I don’t agree with stances that you’ve taken.” But they often can’t defend from Scripture that the thing they disagree with is a disfellowshippable offense. Or they seem to think that doctrinal error is a germ that will jump off someone who is two steps down the ecclesiastical row and so might jump onto me and take over my mind.
E.g., John Piper’s past positive comments about N.T. Wright are nonsensical. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to adopt them, by reading John Piper’s books. There is an underlying assumption by IFB preachers that everyone is an idiot but them.
If I may I’d like to offer the following for consideration. In the 2009 FBFI national fellowship the final day closed with a Q&A Symposium discussing conservative evangelicalism. I was in the audience. I’d like to share some of Dr. Minnick’s remarks as they have some bearing.
Dr. John Vaughn asked the panel: “What is the difference between a “conservative†evangelical and the Fundamentalist?â€
Dr. Mark Minnick, in part, said:
“He [the evangelical] is not drawing all the lines like I am. When you engage some these [ce] men in conversation and you come to understanding where he is and you are you realize the point to which he is willing or unwilling to go when it comes to those issues and there is a point at which you realize we are very close here at the top of the mountain. But there is a line here [Minnick gesturing] that he is not willing to cross when it comes to his associations. And until he will cross that line…as long as he is going to associate with organizations and individuals who don’t see this watershed issue of absolute disobedience to Scripture of uniting in any cause with non-evangelical people…we are on opposite sides of that line.â€
“The heart is separation…the line of demarcation. Fellowship with non-evangelicals is the watershed issue; worldliness factors in, but harder to define….†The evangelicals have not settled the issue of separation.â€
There is much I’d like to say here, but let me leave this for consideration.
On the matter of separation: Who’s changing? The evangelicals or self-described (militant) separatists? Are the evangelicals moving closer to fidelity to the God-given mandates for separatism from unbelievers and/or the disobedient among us? No, they are not changing, but the lines have been crossed for certain men in FB circles to converge with non-separatist evangelicals. So, who’s changing? Who’s crossing the line of demarcation? Is it possible that one time “militant†separatists have drifted from the moorings they once wrote on, spoke of and defended for the sake of crossing that mountain top?
LM
No, what they did was understand from Scripture that they were taught wrong views of separation, and are now trying to follow the Bible more accurately. Hopefully, certain conservative evangelicals will toughen up on their side of things, too. Nevertheless, once one comes to realize that rejecting Christians who don’t reject all the Christians that you reject (which is the IFB practice) is anti-biblical, one can’t live that way anymore.
Or follow the wrong notion that preaching in someone’s church means that you are giving the host church unconditional and unqualified blessing.
I’m curious… is separation really a doctrine? Certainly, it is a practice and even a command, but a doctrine? That’s like saying moderation or chastity are doctrines. As one who makes his living analyzing how words are perceived by the public, I can’t help but think this might be an intentionally loaded and misappropriate use of the word.
Also, are we primarily commanded to separate from false teaching, or are we moreso commanded to oppose it, which might (or might not) result in separation?
What I’m getting at is the absolutist, airtight manner in which fundamentalists frame the separation issue.
If we’re commanded to oppose false teaching out of love for the church, then we’ll discern an appropriate course in light of the pervasiveness of the teaching and a number of other factors. But if we’re explicitly commanded to always separate, then there is little room for debate.
I would argue that the overarching truth pervading the New Testament is we are to oppose false teaching, which might necessitate our separating from a particular church body, organization or individual, but might also require us to stay put and contend for the faith in an redemptive and reformative efforts.
I recommend Wayne Grudem’s writings on Unity and Separation in his “Sytematic Theology” for a thorough and balanced handling of this topic.
I may elaborate later, but let’s just say that I tend to agree with Will on this one.
Furthermore, while I still respect some good sincere folks that are within historic fundamentalism, I find extreme fundamentalism (Hyles, Sword, PCC, etc.) to be an absolute blight. I myself have left fundamentalism entirely and have not looked back.
Well glory!
🙂
Josh:
You’ve left fundamentslism for…?
LM
Gentleman:
With the Piper/Warren convergence, the Mahaney/SGM revelations and the Mohler/Duncan rush to give cover to Mahaney its obvious the evangelicals are in serious need of reform; wouldn’t you agree? Chances they will? Slim to none, IMHO.
LM
I would argue we are ALL in need of reform… an ongoing gutcheck as to how well reflect both the character and compassion of Christ.
I feel the greatest “blight” of fundamentalism (and much of conservative evangelicalism, for that matter) is our constant need to find the church, organization or personality who is “getting it right.” Well, that church, organization and person doesn’t exist.
Please consider reading Grudem’s section on separation and unity from his sytematic theology. Perhaps the most concise and balanced (biblical?) approach to these issues I’ve yet encountered.
Peace,
WM
I would venture to guess that we all see the need for reform from time to time.
The difference I see is that fundamentalism is not worth the time since they see no need to reform their errors.
WM:
Thanks for the references. I would suggest Dr. Ernest Pickering’s Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. And secondly, The Tragedy of Compromise.
LM
Josh:
No one in fundamentalism sees the need to reform? Are you it is accurate to broad brush to whole of Fundamentalism? Just asking.
And I’m still wondering what you have left fundamentalism for; what greener pasture have you found for yourself?
LM
Although I have left fundamentalism entirely, I should have been more specific—thanks for catching that. The fundamentalism that I am most familiar with because of my background is Hyles/Sword/PCC/KJVO. And, no, for the most part they seem too arrogant to even realize that they major on minor issues and are essentially modern-day Pharisees.
I left fundamentalism and now attend a Baptist church that has ties the T4G crowd. I am okay with that—our pastor believes in solid, expository preaching and doesn’t preach his cultural preferences, either. So, yes, it is Gospel-centered more so than any fundamentalist church that I have ever been associated with—a greener pasture, if you will. 😉
Will:
I like your note on that no church, organization or person is getting it (exactly) right. Our churches are like our marriages. There is no perfect marriage because there are no perfect people. So, as in marriage the church must strive to be a good church while not settling for imperfection. We’ll have perfection in Heaven.
Lou
I’m an IFB’er and I think it can reform. I desperately want it to.
You have to be careful that you don’t place all of Fundamentalism in the same category. Many of the newer Fundamentalist Colleges are not as focused the issues that are plaguing the movement. I do not think the school that I graduated from is perfect, but I greatly respect the Leader of my school and others for their desire to remain in the movement yet avoid issues that are plaguing fundamentalist churches. I want to believe the movement can be steered back towards its original foundation upon the scripture. We may not agree on every issue of methodology, but we must agree that our world is in desperate need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thanks for commenting, Ben. I try not to lump all fundamentalists together into the “discard” pile. I do think the movement can be reformed. But to do that, it has to distance itself from the problem cases like Fairhaven. Key leaders need to think long and hard on these issues and work for positive change.
Thanks for dropping by,
Bob