Crossway is releasing a new book and is encouraging people to take the following quiz. I thought I’d share it with my readers.
The book, Blind Spots by Collin Hansen (foreword by Tim Keller) is short, accessible and so far has been incredibly helpful. This book aims to promote Christian unity and understanding – and all in an effort to magnify the impact of our outreach to the world. I’ll be posting my review of this book next week.
Recently the question came up in a discussion group I’m a member in, as to what the term “IFBx” stands for. Defining that term is an interesting exercise and worthy of its own post.
I first heard the term from Ryan DeBarr, who was a regular at the FFF (Fighting Fundamentalist Forums) back in the day, and who had a blog back in the mid 2000’s. It stands for “Independent Fundamental Baptist extreme” or extreme IFB. I can’t remember all the details surrounding the use of the term, and I’m sure everyone uses it differently.
In my case, very soon after abandoning the IFB movement altogether, I came to realize that I was overstating things on my blog. I clarified my critique of fundamentalism to hone in on the IFBx part of fundamentalism more particularly. I have maintained since then (early 2006) that I do not believe everyone should abandon the IFB movement wholesale. There are healthy IFB churches and a positive trajectory to be found in many branches of the movement. Furthermore, Fundamentalism has much to teach Evangelicalism about the weightiness of truth and the importance of holiness. Far too often such matters are brushed off as “legalistic” without a second thought. That being said, there is much that is not healthy in IFB churches and particularly among those I would consider extreme fundamentalists.
To help flesh out more fully what I mean, I’m going to string together two excerpts from earlier posts that I think still capture the heart of what I believe should be understood by the term “IFBx”:
Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.
Hyperfundamentalists, also known as IFBx, elevate cultural standards to the level of doctrine, and separate accordingly. Many leaders in this group exert an inordinate control over the lives of their followers, and demand an almost cultish loyalty. This group also maintains extreme positions, often holding to an almost-heretical KJV-only position.
Admittedly, the division between these two groups can be somewhat arbitrary. And we are obviously speaking in generalities. There are similarities between both groups, and that is part of the reason why I have left independent Baptist fundamentalism altogether. But the differences remain. And these differences can be very large and defining…
The [branch of] 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.
Feel free to chime in and give your thoughts on what IFBx should or shouldn’t mean. Where are you in your assessment of the IFB movement, and more importantly, in your journey of faith?
Just wanted to call your attention to Justin Taylor’s brief history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that he recently shared on his blog. A key section in this brief history, which focuses on the years 1920 through 1962, is Taylor’s thoughts about “three approaches to separation.”
Three Approaches to Separatism
Emerging from this 1957 division, and continuing through the intra-denominational controversies of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention into the 1980s, there was conservative agreement that personal holiness was a necessity and that separation from moral sin was required. But beneath this general principle, there were three overlapping approaches to separation within fundamentalism.
First, there were denominational reformers who believed they should stay within a denomination and fight for its doctrinal and moral purity.
Second, there were denominational separatists who believed that faithful Christians should extricate themselves from denominations and professing Christians influenced by modernism and therefore apostasy.
Third, there were ecclesiastical separatists who were also secondary separationists, refusing to have fellowship with fellow conservative dissenters who did not withdraw from apostate denominations.
What must be noted here, and is often overlooked in discussions of fundamentalism, is that the original fundamentalists were in categories 1, and sometimes 2. But category 3 was largely the result of post-1957 fundamentalism and represents a new phase of development. (Read Taylor’s whole article)
I agree that historically, the third viewpoint on separation gradually grew over time. What fundamentalist critics of John Piper, Mark Dever, Tim Keller and others fail to note, is that often these conservative evnagelical leaders have a lot in common with historic fundamentalists who held to the first approacth to separation. The conservative turnaround of the SBC is testament to the fact that the second and third approaches to separation are not always necessary.
Book Details:
• Author: Jeremy Walker
• Category: Church & Ministry
• Book Publisher: Evangelical Press (2013)
• Format: softcover
• Page Count: 128
• ISBN#: 9780852349687
• List Price: $11.18
• Rating: Highly Recommended
Review:
The resurgence of Calvinism in the English speaking world in the last few decades has recently attracted a lot of attention. Christianity Today devoted an issue to the “Young, Restless, [and] Reformed” movement, and Time magazine dubbed the “new Calvinism” as one of the top ten ideas changing the world in 2009. And like any movement it has its detractors. Liberals inside and out of evangelicalism, are alarmed by its bold stand for complementarian (as in, non-egalitarian and anti-feminist) family values. Theological progressives deplore its “barbaric” insistence on penal, substitutionary (and by nature, blood-y) atonement. Mainstream evangelicals — charismatics, Baptists and non-denominationalists alike — are suspicious of the movement’s unabashed celebration of Calvinism. Groups who are more similar to the new Calvinism often decry the movement the loudest. The Reformed (with a capital “R”) are tempted to begrudge or belittle this movement: they were real Calvinists all along (and don’t see any need for a resurgence) and by nature, they are suspicious of anything not grounded in a several-hundred year-old Church confession or creed. Fundamentalists and those of their ilk, see a real threat in this movement: it can’t be easily pinned down and there is too much variety and not enough healthy separation from error.
New Calvinism is not exactly new anymore. And like any movement, it isn’t perfect. There are blind-spots, foibles and let-downs. Yet no one can deny the infusion of spiritual life that has accompanied this wide-ranging return to the Reformation. New and revitalized churches, a no-holds-barred approach to evangelism and mission, and a passionate advocacy of theology (and truth) are hallmarks of the movement. Even if you have quibbles with where some land on any number of doctrinal or practical issues, you should appreciate that by and large, the heart of this movement is one that yearns for God’s glory, that prizes a gospel of Grace, revels in the freedoms won by the cross of Christ, and both reveres Scripture and listens to the moving of the Spirit.
While the “new Calvinism” as it is often called, is mostly an American phenomenon, its influence is spreading to the United Kingdom and beyond. And it is from England that a new critique and thoughtful evaluation of new Calvinism has come. Jeremy Walker, a young pastor who contributes to the influential Reformation21 blog, has written a short examination of the movement: The New Calvinism Considered: A Personal and Pastoral Assessment (Evangelical Press, 2013).
This work is the first book-length critique of new Calvinism I have read, although throughout its pages Walker refers to countless internet discussions where critiques first surfaced. Having lived online through my blog, and interacting with some and reading others of the discussions first-hand, I can appreciate much that Walker is saying that some readers may miss. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
The book attempts first to characterize and classify the movement of new Calvinism. This in itself is a chore, I’m sure. And after he helps readers have a better sense of what he is talking about, he begins by pointing out several good qualities and positive effects of the movement. He then rounds out the book with cautions, concerns and his concluding counsel.
At the onset, Walker lays out his motives and the nature of his critique – a personal and pastoral assessment. He understands that he won’t be able to avoid generalizations, but does a good job underlining the fact that there is a broad spectrum in this movement and that not every critique will be valid for all. That being said, we must still evaluate how successful he is in his attempts to fairly characterize the movement. In describing new Calvinism, I felt that Walker’s Britishness hampered his ability to clearly assess and comprehend the movement. He acknowledges as much when he claims “I have something of an outside perspective on those [American] aspects of it” (pg. 11). This is evident as he points out the movement’s tendency to lift up individuals as standard-bearers to rally around – a very American trait which is as common among most of new Calvinism’s American critics as it is in new Calvinism itself. For every critic who singles out someone like John Piper as being a personality around which people “fawn” and hang on his every word, there is an equal part of adulation for someone like John MacArthur and his ability both as a teacher and as one who points out the flaws in parts of the new Calvinism movement. Another example where Walker misjudges the movement is in his criticism’s of the movement’s pragmatism and commercialism. It could be argued that a significant portion of the movement has made great strides in pulling themselves and their churches away from the pragmatism-driven American Church circus of the 80’s and 90’s. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren aren’t new Calvinists, and it is their influence among others, that has propelled a market-driven approach filled with business practices that John Piper has so eloquently decried in his book Brothers, We are Not Professionals. The Together for the Gospel conference can look big, staged and pragmatic from afar, but in comparison to some of the over-the-top, marketing-focused, gimmicky Church growth conferences that abound in America, it is really quite tame.
Of necessity, Walker points out concrete example after example to illustrate his concerns. And while they do help gain a sense of where he is coming from, they can also blunt his critique when the example doesn’t quite fit, or the context of an incident is missed in his use of it. Several times he singles out Mark Driscoll as an someone who embodies his particular critique. I don’t know many new Calvinists who are total Driscoll fan-boys. Many of us have concerns with some of his ministerial choices and don’t hold him as a true bell-ringer for this movement. Another problem with his examples is that at times it feels like he is rehashing blog-wars in a book to expand their influence. Often the blog-wars are dirty and statements and events are blown out of proportion to make a point, and this book suffers from the same problem at times. John Piper is taken to task for inviting Douglas Wilson and Rick Warren at different times to his Desiring God National Conference. Yet the nature of such conferences and the way they are handled at Desiring God, is a forum for discussion more than a blanket endorsement of the speakers. And while, Walker admits that the new Calvinism is not a denomination or a Church, he laments that no official action is taken for errors or misjudgments like this. The Gospel Coalition’s lack of [enough] action in the case of the Elephant Room incident where James McDonald and Mark Driscoll invited T.D. Jakes and treated him like a brother in Christ (not directly challenging him on his anti-trinitarianism and prosperity gospel teachings) is a case in point. The Coalition can’t really act, and respects the privacy of its inner workings. Not long after the incident both Driscoll and McDonald stepped down from official positions with TGC. And TGC’s leaders, Tim Keller and Don Carson drafted a statement about the matter explaining their actions taken. This isn’t enough for Walker, and it wasn’t enough for many bloggers either. But it is some action, and it is short of an official churchly action precisely because TGC is not a church.
As an appreciative member of the “Young, Restless, Reformed” movement (although the middle descriptor doesn’t exactly fit, I think), I cannot but speak in defense as I have above. But let me stress, there is much in this book that is worthy of your time. He does point out some important issues, and we do ignore thoughtful critique of our movement at our own peril. He points out the openness to the charismatic gifts and a looser, more open view of culture as areas of concern. Both areas are places where one can easily drift along in the movement unthinkingly following the ethos of others. Each item warrants thoughtful and personal study of the Scriptures and we ignore this to our peril. His other most poignant critique hits hard on the area of sanctification and holiness. In new Calvinism’s zeal for the gospel of grace, he fears we run hard to the opposite error: antinomianism. Having been freed from legalism, we tend to view laws of any kind as the problem, rather than our hard hearts. He makes the intriguing parallel that while many profess to be recovering Pharisees, almost no one admits to being the “recovering tax collector” (pg. 79). He is worthy of quoting on this point:
Again, let me point out that legalism is the pursuit of obedience with the intention of earning acceptance or merit and not the pursuit of obedience in accordance with God’s law as one redeemed by grace….
My fear is that this view will become very attractive to people who want the privileges and benefits and eased conscience of a Christian profession without the demand for holiness being pressed into their hearts resulting in the vigorous pursuit of godliness. Clearly this is not the intention of the new Calvinists by and large… But my concern is that this teaching may create an atmosphere in which liberty is made a cloak for license. (pg. 82-83)
Walker challenges his readers to just “be Calvinists” (pg. 107). He wants them to stay true to God’s Word no matter what movements swirl around them. His call is right even if some of his criticisms are ill-founded or off-base. We do need to be careful to pursue godliness. We should be wary of the deceitful pull of ecumenism and the dangers of an arrogant triumphalism that some are seeing as a byproduct of new Calvinism. We serve Christ not the latest fad. I do have confidence that much that has been gained through the rise of new Calvinism is not mere chaff to be blown around with the winds of change. I have seen lives transformed as they discover the gospel of Grace and the doctrines of Grace through the writings and ministry of many of the new Calvinist leaders. I trust that while I became a Calvinist through this new movement, that I will remain true to the Word of God and “be a Calvinist” no matter what happens as seasons come and go.
Walker’s admonition to his audience of people not quite sure what to do with new Calvinism can be equally applied to those of us who are tempted to bristle at any criticism of our movement:
We are not called, first and foremost, to spend all our time worrying about other shepherds, but more to give ourselves to following the Great Shepherd in our convictions and actions. We must look first to ourselves in this regard and ensure that our doctrine and our practice marry, that we manifest degrees of heat and of light that are coordinate with and complementary to one another. We neither know all we should, nor do all that we know, and it is in the equal march of faith and life, knowing and doing, telling and showing, that we gain the platform that will enable us to serve our friends who differ from us in other respects. (pg. 107-108)
This kind of thoughtful reflection and eloquence of speech characterize this work. Walker is bold and forthright but he aims to be fair and charitable. His message deserves to be read widely, and his conclusion heeded by all on every side of this. May we all be found faithful, and my the Lord’s work continue, come what may.
About the author
Jeremy Walker was born to godly parents and was converted to Christ during his teenage years. he serves as a pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church, Crawley, and is married to Alissa, with whom he enjoys the blessing of three children. He has authored several books and blogs at Reformation21 and The Wanderer.
I don’t really want to say much more on the Strange Fire Conference. I have already said my piece. But I’m compelled to just add a bit more to my original post.
1) The Strange Fire Conference did include some nuance.
I’m happy to concede that there was some nuance and admission that not all charismatics are of the devil. This insider’s summary of the conference puts the best spin possible on it, and I am happy that there is some nuance evident.
2) But Strange Fire also overstated the problem.
The build up to the conference bills it as dealing with the charismatic movement as a whole, and numerous quotes from the conference itself seem to make that same case. It was claimed that 90% of the charismatic movement held to a health/wealth prosperity gospel. And in MacArthur’s last session he said the charismatic movement is made up mostly of unbelievers. Earlier he claimed the movement had contributed nothing good in terms of worship or theology – nothing that came from the movement itself.
This can be nothing but broad brushing. And while many have decried cessationists in similarly broad strokes on the rebound, it is clear that a mischaracterization of the movement was perpetuated through the conference. Proof enough of that is the fact that I have yet to see a charismatic who did not perceive the conference as a slap in the face and who did not see this conference as attacking the movement as a whole.
3) Generalizations are tricky things.
I understand how difficult it is to criticize a movement, as I often have had to backtrack and clarify my own critiques of fundamentalism. The shoe doesn’t fit everybody, and the movement is bigger than you think – once you learn more of it. The same goes for critiquing charismaticism. The charismatic movement is bigger than Benny Hinn. There are rank and file charismatic believers who eschew the prosperity gospel, who avoid the anti-trinitarianism of some sectors of the movement, and who are faithful to the gospel. I contend that this group of churches and believers are largely not Reformed – so they are not just a small wing represented by the C.J. Mahaneys, Wayne Grudems, and Sam Storms of the world. They are a big group who make up the majority of charismaticism, at least in America. Now it can sure seem that most charismatics are heretical. Equally so, it can seem that most cessationists are jerks. But neither of these perceptions are the truth.
4) Controversy is not necessarily bad.
It is right to stand up for truth. Controversy cannot be entirely wrong. But a consistent controversialist should be ignored, and rightly so. Can it be that MacArthur has more fundamentalist in him than we thought? Is controversy being peddled for its own sake? I don’t really think so. I give him the benefit of the doubt. The problems the conference addressed are real and clear. And he has consistently spoken out against them over the years. Just because he is bringing the ugly wing of charismaticism to light, shouldn’t make him the enemy.
5) Are “Bashing” conferences helpful?
Do we need more “bashing” conferences? Baptist blogger Dave Miller explores that question in a helpful post. (As an aside, his reaction to the conference was perhaps the most helpful I’ve read.) How helpful is a conference really going to be when it claims most of what it addresses are the antics of unbelievers? Would it have been better to include Reformed Charismatics, who could add weight to the critique of pentecostalism run wild? Would John Piper or Sam Storms add more to the expose of the Word of Faith problem? Solidarity across party lines for the sake of truth would sure seem more convincing and may lead to less wagon-circling and more soul-searching.
6) What’s a charismatic to do?
With this conference, was there any pathway given for the one who has seen miraculous gifts manifest in their church experience? Are they supposed to assume such an experience was necessarily strange fire and doubt their salvation? Should they have a crisis of faith? God can be God — that seems to have been stressed in the conference: but what do we call it when God acts in such a bold way? It seems an emphasis on discernment and a more measured approach could prove more helpful than a wholesale dismissal of anything remotely charismatic in flavor.
7) I long for unity and dream for a convergence.
This whole debacle leads me longing for more tangible unity in the body of Christ. Yes I realize it is lofty to type such words. I don’t want to claim too much for me and my position. I just think there are many who would agree with me, that unity is something we can desire. Even admitting one side is right and one is wrong, still I wish for more unity – isn’t that biblical?
I will go beyond just wishing for this, and recommend a book – it’s what I do best around here. I would recommend that my cessationist friends (and most of my friends are cessationist) pick up a copy of Sam Storms’ Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist. In that book he tries to show how both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The church needs the doctrinal clarity and Scriptural knowledge of the cessationist and the emotional realism and simple love of the charismatic. Each side can learn from the other and a biblical convergence is possible.
May God bring about such a day and encourage each party to appreciate the other in a sincere attempt to understand and appreciate what they bring to the body of Christ as a whole!
