I was reared in a Fundamentalist church, and we were incredibly proud of it. We were strident, largely uneducated (even dismissive of education), theologically censorious, separatistic, intolerant, and accusatory of every smidgeon of slight alteration. There were no questions; there were answers \”” and we had them. We saw our abrasiveness as a sign that the rest of the world couldn\’t count the cost; rejection proved we were right. I\’m embarrassed today mostly about what we were like as humans – we were ungracious if not unchristian.
The above are the reflections of Scot McKnight (the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago) (HT: Sharper Iron Filings). His recent post concerns a movement he sees among evangelicals who are pursuing a neo-fundamentalism. In the ensuing comments (very interesting to read through), Scot clarifies that he considers fundamentalism more a posture or attitude than a particular theology. One gets the feel that most conservative evangelicals who are somewhat uncompromising in their beliefs would fit the bill as neo-fundamentalist in his book. And his definition of fundamentalism could include some outside of evangelicalism as well.
My question relates to his own description of the fundamentalism he knew. Is that your fundamentalism? Take a step back and consider if that describes you. Most everyone who reads this blog would qualify as a fundamentalist (or neo-fundamentalist) in Scot’s book, so the question is for all of us. Yes, truth matters. But so does our posture/attitude. Are we know-it-alls? Do we bristle at questions and prefer to pontificate answers? Are we smug with who we are? Do we care about anyone not inside our movement? Is it us four no more?
I think his description is worth pondering, and not just pondering in the sense of earmarking others who fit his description. Think of yourself and your group, and ponder how his description fits or doesn’t. Let us, as fundamentalists, seek to keep a large measure of grace along with our truth. (See this post on Grace & Truthby Randy Alcorn, for some helpful thoughts in this regard.)
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 \”¢ Rom. 15:5-7
“We saw our abrasiveness as a sign that the rest of the world couldn’t count the cost; rejection proved we were right.”
Bingo. Well said. The ol’ “like-it-or-lump-it” attitude.
Been there. Done that. No more.
I don’t want to say that every Fundamentalist or every Fundamentalist church thinks and acts that way. But I do think the mindset that Dr. McKnight describes is present throughout Fundamentalism and underlies the whole system.
But I want to emphasize again that people can be in the system without realizing all that drives it.
Absolutely, Ryan. And I think you’d agree that even those outside historic fundamentalism could fit the bill. I’m thinking SBC people and other conservative groups. They could potentially fit the bill, although perhaps to a lesser degree.
Reg Joe,
Or as the saying goes, “My way or the highway”.
I thought it amazing how spot on some of Scot’s comments were to certain segments of fundamentalism. Although they could still apply to me and others outside the historic fundamentalist umbrella, in certain regards. So we must all constantly be watching out for those attitudes, especially if they have had a large part in influencing us in our past.
There are certainly people within the SBC to which the description would apply. And on certain issues, it would apply to nearly the entire Convention (alcohol consumption, for example).
However, I’ve never heard a Southern Baptist claim they were the only true church in their area. I’ve heard that time and again from Fundamentalists. Perhaps some Landmarkist Southern Baptists would say such a thing, but I’ve not personally encountered them.
Ryan,
You’re absolutely right.
You know, one of the blessings I have found now that I am outside of fundamentalism, are the numbers of other true churches around! Especially with regard to missions, I am encouraged by all I see happening. Most of what I see is not even noticed or appreciated by fundamentalists.
Bob,
Do you make a distinction between ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘fundamentalists’? I would take your definition of the term “fundamentalism” as being the current modern culture of IFBx-ism and “fundamentalist” as being the historical sense of the word. Am I correct?
Larry,
I honestly don’t know where you got that idea. I don’t make such a distinction, that I know of. I look at fundamentalism as the movement and fundamentalists as the members. Or from another perspective, fundamentalism as the ideal and fundamentalists as the subscribers to that ideal.
Most of the time when I refer to fundamentalism I am referring to those within the historic fundamentalist umbrella. This includes the IFBx types and the Sharper Iron types. I ususally do not use the term to refer to fundamentalist/ism in the sense of evangelicals who subscribe to absolute truths as I believe JI Packer and others use the term. For instance in this sense, MacArthur and Piper would gladly own the term. But both are aware of the movement fundamentalists or historic fundamentalists which would separate from MacArthur and Piper, and so they would not own the label in that sense.
These are the only two nuances of difference with the term that I use (rarely using it for conservative evangelicals, and mostly using it for people within movement fundamentalism). And most of the time I will define the term further by using “historic” or “hysteric/cultural” or distinguishing between IFB or IFBx to make sure to be especially clear.
In one sense I identfiy with fundamentalism. I believe, for instance, in “doing battle royal for the fundamentals”. Everything that Sharper Iron defines fundamentalism/ist by, I subscribe to. But in another sense I see myself outside of the movement. I do not apply separation in the same way as movement fundamentalists do. In this way, I am similar to Phil Johnson, John MacArthur, or John Piper. (But I am no big name Christian leader like they are, but just one who attends their kind of a church).
Most of my experience in fundamentalism was in cultural/hysteric fundamentalism (IFBx), although it can be difficult to know where to draw the line between IFBx and IFB. I have seen many churches on both sides of the line through the years both travelling with College singing groups and travelling to raise support on deputation with my family. And I have seen many conferences and heard many preachers on both sides. But most of my experience was on the IFBx side of the line.
Hope this helps you understand my terminology better. In this article Scot McKnight is referring to possibly an even wider group within evangelicalism as being neo fundamentalist. Even wider than those like Piper and MacArthur, I am not sure though.
Well, I’ve mumbled on and on long enough now.
God bless,
Bob
Okay, now I understand. My assumptions were from other comments, and the fact that you post comments on SharperIron (and, in order to be a ‘member’ of SharperIron, you have to agree that you self-identify as being a fundamentalist). Essentially, we are in agreement with how we define ourselves as being either ‘conservative evangelical’ (i.e. historic fundamentalist, but not wanting to ascribe to the modern ‘fundamentalist movement’) versus being a self-identified fundamentalist. It’s sort of like being a fundamentalist without being ‘part of the cultural/theological’ state of being that most fundamentalists ascribe to. I don’t like being lumped in with the IFBx-ists, yet I am a self-identified fundamentalist. In practice and beliefs, I am likewise in alignment with MacArthur, Phil J., Dever, and Piper, who aren’t self-identified fundamentalists, but are historically ‘fundamentalist’ in principle.
I agree Larry. And in many locales, I may very well end up being in a movement fundamentalist church. Yet I have much less reservations with conservative evangelicals then movement fundamentalsits do. And I also see some of the things which define movement/historic fundamentalists as potentially harmful (emphasis on external conformity, over emphasis on separation, and in many cases, still a priority given to what we do or don’t do rather than an explicit gospel-centered focus). I tend to think of you as more optimistic concerning the movement than I. But perhaps you agree that such emphases are potential dangers and that they are very much present in many historic fundamentalists (those who do not wear the “x”). In some cases it is just the culture or structures of the movement which promotes these ideas, but there is still such a promotion taking place.
I may be wrong, and I know there are exceptions. So I remain hopeful. Yet perhaps not as hopeful as you.
Either way, we can enjoy fellowship, and understand one another to the degree that we can purpose to sharpen each other through our interactions.
You are a blessing to me Larry, and I have learned much from you. (And not only in respect to which beer to try!)
God bless,
Bob
Someday we should gather together and have a beer. I guess that makes us both ‘thirsty theologians’! I’m now beginning to find that Guinness is one of the best brews out there, and have a great appreciation for the more stout porters and ales. You just have to begin to appreciate the tastes of beer and see what you like. Some people love Budweiser (ugh! Egad! Awful!) and that’s fine, too. While out at dinner recently at an Italian restaurant, I had two bottles of Guiness and thought it had a slight resemblance to dry wine.
You could say that I’m optimistic about fundamentalism, at least more so than that of the more conservative evangelicals are. I’m actually optimistic about them, too, in that both ‘movements’ are essentially keeping around the ‘center’ of the historic biblical Christan faith, including historic fundamentalism. I just hope it’s possible that there would be more acceptance, cooperation, and fellowship between the two, although there seems to be some ambivalence in either group toward each other for the reasons you gave above for the conservative evangelical position. I’d agree that the fundamentalist ‘mind’ is difficult to overcome, and I do believe that some fundamentalists are completely unreasonable in their defense of ecclesiastical secondary separation. I do think that fundamentalists do have legitimate complaints about conservative evangelicals, too, but fundamentalists’ peccadilloes are far more numerous and serious. Your essay on Finney, for example, is excellent and is a must read for fundamentalists because of their ‘revivalistic’ leanings, which is a legitimate hindrance for conservative evangelicals to cooperate with some fundamentalists. There is more for fundamentalists to junk their ‘baggage’ than would conservative evangelicals, but both groups do have some problems.
Here’s how I understand it now (let me take a rabbit trail)… I’m currently finishing off my M.A. degree in Theological Studies from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA). I’m now taking a course via DVD correspondence called “American Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism” taught by Mark Farnham. He uses a white markerboard located in the classroom to mark out where evangelicalism is today. Imagine a left to right format, where ‘liberals/modernists’ are located on the left. Going rightward, you then have neo-orthodoxists. Rightward again, you have New Evangelicals, then conservative evangelicals, then fundamentalists, then IFBx-ists. The ‘demarcation line’ of ‘correct and biblical Christianity’ (historic fundamentalism) is located between the conservative evangelicals and the moderate fundamentalists. This is my conjecture about where ‘personalities and academic instutions’ are on that line, but JMac, PJohnson, Dever, and Piper are located just left of that line. Clearwater, BJU, DBTS, Central, and Calvary are just right of that line. If you go further right, that’s where the IFBx ‘fundamentalists’ are (like Pensacola and Hyles-Anderson), and much further leftward, you are in New Evangelical-land (Fuller, BIOLA). My own church, Grace Community Bible Church is probably on the left side of that line. Personally, I’m there, too. Yet, I have no problem in distinguishing myself as a self-professed fundamentalist, yet I do have problems with some of the ‘cultural taboos and nuances’ of historical fundamentalists. In taking my DVD courses, I can sense that Mark Farnham and the other (unseen) students in the class lean toward the biases of cultural fundamentalism, which both IFBxers share as well as the more moderate fundamentalists. Specifically, what I’ve noticed is that they still share a disdain for drinking alcohol, which is an example of the sympathies of the moderate fundamentalists toward cultural fundamentalism (which is not good).
One good book to read is Rolland McCune’s “Promise Unfulfilled”; it’s required reading for my class. I thought it was a must-read, although I’m sure that you and I will agree on some things that we’d disagree with some of McCune’s thoughts. Overall, I do agree with him, though, and it is a highly technical book from about the last half of the book, so have a dictionary ready.
Larry,
I’m with you. That “line of demarcation” marking out Biblical Christianity seems awful biased to me. Why is it always their own movement which is the measure of “Biblical Christianity”? Piper, Macarthur, etc. don’t measure up to them. Doesn’t this sound elitist? Oh, and all the cultural fundys get a pass! Ruckmanites and those who raise such issues as pants on women, KJVO, alcohol, and 3rd or 4th degree associtation to the level of essentials for fellowship certainly have problems as big as some of the supposed problems of conservative evangelicals. They are schismatics, often.
It is exactly this kind of thing which troubles me about historic fundamentalism. And I am sure it troubles you too.
Hey, I’d love to meet and sample your beer collection. (Or do you keep any around long enough to collect??) Got to go.
Cheers,
Bob
Well, I do think that the ‘elitism’ extends toward conservative evangelicals, too. In 2002, I went to Cornerstone Church of Skippack, PA, and the pastor there, Fred Zaspel, had a contempt toward fundamentalists, and it striked me as being a bit elitist and high-minded. He is a conservative evangelical, not a fundamentalist (he’s a Reformed Baptist). That was my own personal (and subjective) experience, and it seems to me that the elitism goes both ways, not just within fundamentalism.
As I had mentioned before, the ‘line of demarcation’ wasn’t used to delineate those who, being to the right of that line, were more ‘biblically correct’, it was actually intended to delineate those who are closest on both sides (conservative evangelicals to just the left and moderate fundamentalists to just the right) as being the closest to biblical fundamentalism. Either side was still had their share of errors, right or left of this ‘ideal demarcation line’. I ‘forgot’ to mention that there was a ‘zone’ in which conservative evangelicals and moderate fundamentalists share. Farnham’s thoughts (and to an extent, Calvary Baptist’s position) is that both sides are striving to remain as close to that ‘theoretical center’ of biblical Christianity and historic fundamentalism. Essentially, it was their belief that both ‘camps’ of fundamentalist thought share a whole lot in common, although there are still some differences. I don’t think that I was clear about that in my earlier post.
I agree, Larry. Thanks for clarifying that “line of demarcation” thing. In that sense, I am not so upset with his presentation. And perhaps for both groups limited fellowship with the other side tends toward misunderstanding them and thus marginalizing them.
Good discussion, lots to think about.
For now, I am really busy, and will leave for a trip tomorrow morning. I won’t be back to post or respond to comments until maybe as late as Wed. So for now, God bless.
Just one more thing…. while watching another class on DVD last night (#12 in a series of 26 one-hour courses), my professor, Mark Farnham, had a lot of compliments about John Piper. Although there would be some disagreement between us ‘dispensationalist/premillennialist’ Baptists and the stance of Covenant (post-mil or a-mil) Baptists like John Piper, there is a lot of admiration for Dr. Piper and his efforts at exposing open theism. I thought to pass that on.
Larry,
One little thing. Piper actually is a historic pre-mil. Although, I am sure he would identify more with covenant Baptists than dispensationalism.
Thanks for the insights into the respect Prof. Farnham has for Piper. Very encouraging.