I came across an excellent article written by Steve Whigham, a graduate of BJU (apparently) and former administrater/faculty member of Northland International University, now working for World Magazine. [HT: Sharper Iron] His thoughts come with the recent controversy at Northland where the university board fired and then subsequently re-hired Matt Olson as president. Steve points out what others have mentioned, that the controversy was precipitated primarily by Northland’s change in its music. Whether or not that charge (that music is what the controversy at Northland is most about) is correct, Whigham’s rehashing of the history of fundamentalism is worth reading. I have excerpted some of the good parts here, but encourage you to read the whole thing.
This brouhaha about Northland has served to remind me of my reasons for not being a part of the fundamentalist movement. As Whigham points out, the original fundamentalists, historic fundamentalism if you will, prized certain fundamental points of doctrine as worth unifying around and defending. The fundamentalist movement today is prizing doctrines that are not truly fundamental — such as one musical style over another, and unifying around and defending these sub-fundamental doctrines. This is something I don’t see as healthy or helpful. Some of the sub-fundamentals that are being prized may well be good and grand in themselves. But the essence of what fundamentalism entails — prioritizing and defending cardinal truths of the gospel — this essence is lost when something less than the gospel becomes the main thing. I tried to say something to this effect years ago in my post, “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.”
Here is the except from Whigham’s article, which you should bookmark as a helpful summary of the history and problem of today’s Christian fundamentalism.
In the late 1960’s and following, Fundamentalism mobilized its arsenal to a new battle front: sheltering the Christian faith from the worldly influences of an American culture run amok. Drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll were the targets… As it relates to practical Christian living, for many fundamentalists the mantra became, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.” So, many preachers began to wage campaigns against certain “worldly” behaviors and drew bold lines between the world and the fundamentalist norm. Women’s dress (skirts only, and must cover the knee) must be modest, “mixed” bathing (allowing girls and boys to swim together at the beach or pool) should not be allowed in order to protect each other from youthful lusts, men’s hair length (shouldn’t be over the ear), listening to rock music, smoking, holding hands for unmarried couples, and a host more, became not only expected behaviors within Fundamentalism, but was also touted as clear biblical mandates….
By the end of the 1980’s, the fight against modernism and German higher
criticism appeared to be over, but the fighting spirit of the movement continued… The battle lines were no longer being fought over the core doctrines of the faith (as was true in the early years) but rather over acceptable behaviors for a fundamentalist. The battles were no longer waged over theology, but over practical Christian living.Today, there’s a new generation rising up within Fundamentalism which has little to no connection to the historical roots of the movement. These young millennials see a community led by perpetually angry leaders obsessed and divided over issues that have little to do with the more important expressions of Christian doctrine. What they perceive instead is a movement that is more about arbitrary command and control tactics to subdue behavior than about Christ’s core intentions for mankind. It’s a battle that appears to them as having shifted away from morals to mores. Many younger members of fundamentalist communities are no longer seeing “the Fundamentalist Cause” as worth fighting for and are choosing to leave the community for less rancorous pastures. What Fundamentalism is currently experiencing is, with a few exceptions, a decline in church attendance, a drop in fundamentalist school enrollment, and even a sharp reduction in the number of fundamentalist pastors and missionaries being sent out.
Fundamentalism is shrinking quickly and losing its next generation. As Fundamentalism shrinks, the remaining voices in the movement are becoming more shrill. In their sermons and blogposts you can sense the desperation….
In the beginning, the issues Fundamentalism chose to rally around united a community. They united because: (1) the issues were authentic fundamentals and (2) unity was still valued as a vital doctrine of the faith. By today’s use of slash-and-burn rhetoric against anyone with a different take on a point of Christian liberty, unity has been devalued. In order to protect the enclave, Christ’s call for unity has been stripped of all its moral weight. Currently, the issues most “surviving fundamentalists” are now opting to rally around divide rather than unite. And as long as their current fields of battle remain the same, I cannot see the end of the shrinking anytime soon….
You make an interesting point, but is there a line at which we draw any longer. Recently, I had a discussion with an individual that left his fundamentalist church, because (as he stated) “his church frowned on his drinking and dancing on Saturday nights and he wanted to got to a church that accepted him for whatever way he wanted to live his life, as all important thing was he loved Jesus.” Is there a line to be drawn, or can we, as believers, live any way we so desire all the while having no scrutiny from anyone?
There is a line that’s already been drawn, and it’s Jesus Christ. WE don’t draw any lines for our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and judge their spirituality based on how close or far they are from that line. Most Fundamentalists draw a line that’s stricter than God’s. The line of holiness, the line of righteousness is Jesus Christ. There is no other comparison to be made – He is line, He is our standard, and He is our judge.
So can believers live any way we desire while having no scrutiny from other believers? Yes and no. Yes, you can surround yourself in a local community of believers who won’t scrutinize little things about your life e.g. drinking or dancing on Saturday nights. No, you can’t stop every single believer from looking at you and scrutinizing your life. You can’t control other people, but you can control the people you are voluntarily around, like a church.
That individual was right about one thing: the most important thing is to love Jesus. Love is the fulfillment of the law, love is mentioned in the two greatest commandments, love is greater than both faith and hope. You can give your money to the poor, you can sacrifice your body to be burned, you can have otherwordly intelligence, but if you don’t have love, all those things mean nothing.
I would rather have love and do as I please than not have love and act like a Fundy – especially when the ‘do as I please’ part is something like drinking and dancing. It’s not like the man’s embezzling people of millions of dollars, or running a cocaine cartel, or managing a prostitution ring. He’s drinking and dancing.
So you draw a line at embezzling and being part of a drug cartel. Is that not being quite judgmental? How do you know that embezzler or drug cartel member is not a godly member of Christ’s kingdom and just needs us to love and understand him.
I draw the line at God’s line, which is fraud and theft. The examples are just specific, real-world examples of fraud and theft. And an embezzler or cartel man may very well be a believer, and they do need fellow believers to love and understand him. But that does not take away the fact that God requires obedience from them, obedience based on HIS line. The individual from your original post, to me, hasn’t overstepped God’s line. He drank alcohol, but has he gotten drunk? Drunkenness is God’s line. He danced, but has he….I don’t know, where’s God’s line for this, you tell me.
So in your line of thought we could snort coke just as long as we don’t get high… right?
Is snorting coke a transgression of God’s law? Is getting high a transgression as well? Use wisdom to apply God’s law to these instances. It’s not that hard, God has already drawn His line, no need to create our own.
I can’t find any place in Scripture that viewing pornography is strictly forbidden, The Scriptural principle is that we do not lust. So you’d probably believe pornography is alright just as long you don’t lust while viewing it. I assume we are always wrong to forbid any activity that is not specifically forbidden verbally in Scripture.
Gene,
There is a line – we don’t violate Scripture. I don’t hold an “anything goes” mentality. That being said, Scripture praises the moderate use of wine – which is God’s gift to man (see my posts on that subject here). When it comes to dancing, Scripture showcases it positively and negatively. There can be good and bad dancing and so yes, we need discernment. Not all dancing is benign. Plenty is sensual and not for those who are not married. Holding hands can lead to a lot more – but it doesn’t have to. We need to be careful not to out-legislate the Bible. A spirit of constantly checking people’s behavior and lording over them – that is not helpful. A spirit of anything goes, who cares, church is just this thing we do – that is not helpful either. There is a balance and good aim to push toward. I don’t shun all fundamentalists. Hopefully my comment here is clear. I think that fundamentalism generally tends toward a legalistic emphasis on secondary issues. Secondary issues have their place and so does personal holiness, but there is room to disagree charitably and in a way that fosters gospel unity.
I have noticed in my own life the more I focus on the gospel, meaning dwelling upon it’s realities and it’s beauty; the more I find it affects my outside behaviour.
However, I did go through a time where I focused on the “outside behaviour” hoping to reign in some things. I found I was not able to do it, I despaired.
I think Fundamentalism desires the right thing (holiness) They just don’t realize it comes through the gospel. We feed on glory…..this was a great discovery to me.
My .02 🙂
I would agree with you Bob except for the consumption of alcohol… I have never seen in my life a single time where it was beneficial for anyone….. In my line of work I’ve had to drag faceless, limbless, scalped, and decapitated bodies out of cars or worse, comfort bloodied spouses and children, give advise to families where members drink up the entire paycheck, and bar patrons fighting and killing over the most ridiculous things because of alcohol. There is nothing good about it, and EVERY person that has EVER told me in my decades of work they can drink moderately, NEVER do. Therefore, I’ve taken a strict stand on the issue and those that I have influence over. I’ve come to realize the things you allow in your life in moderation your children will take to excess. IF my children ever drink they sure did not learn it from their parents, because, yes I have, taught them it was a sin to drink………….. I won’t go into the experiences I’ve had with those who disagree with me on this point, and taught their children thru there own actions that moderation was the key…….amazing the people who have approached me and told me in “hind-sight”, “I sure wish I’d listened to you….now my kids are………………..”
Sorry, I meant to include the link to my posts on wine:
https://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/category/wine/
I don’t discount your testimony. There is an argument from wisdom to be made. But we have to be careful to not go beyond what is written. God created alcohol and certainly knows how it can be misused to ill effect. Yet he chose not to legislate against all uses of it – and actually praises the moderate enjoyment of it. Teaching kids an taboo not tied to clear Scriptural statements may perhaps leave them more insecure than modeling how to prudently enjoy God’s good gift of wine – as I have done for my kids.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
I would take issue with you that God made alcohol. It appears nowhere naturally in the world, but has to be made by man utilizing the decomposition processes of items to purposely produce the beverage. If we condone the utilization of alcohol because we make it ok by believing God made it, then we’d have to be consistent by telling everyone that to utilization of anything is ok because God made elements that mankind uses to produce all sorts of things. Cocaine comes from the coca plant, marijuana comes from the Cannabis plant etc…. etc… etc…. There are certain ages that we must come to grips that while something may be lawful it may not be expedient. My parents dealt with this issue nearly 50 years ago….. my mom’s relatives vilified her for her stand on alcohol telling her that her kids would rebel with such strict standards of telling her kids it was a sin to drink. Her relatives she was told would teach moderation to her children and teach them how not to abuse it…….while she just “knew” that my mom would deal with kids that would “do it” anyway. We’ll 50 years hence none of my moms kids touch the stuff…..and my mom’s relatives kids have been in and out of rehabilitation numerous times because of how they “moderately” used alcohol……………………. I will continue proclaiming to my family that alcohol is sin and that no one the calls themselves a believer should drink alcohol. If when I stand before God, and He tells me I was wrong, then I assume I’ll have to deal with those consequences then, and ask forgiveness.
Today, there’s a new generation rising up within Fundamentalism which has little to no connection to the historical roots of the movement. These young millennials see a community led by perpetually angry leaders obsessed and divided over issues that have little to do with the more important expressions of Christian doctrine. What they perceive instead is a movement that is more about arbitrary command and control tactics to subdue behavior than about Christ’s core intentions for mankind. It’s a battle that appears to them as having shifted away from morals to mores. Many younger members of fundamentalist communities are no longer seeing “the Fundamentalist Cause” as worth fighting for and are choosing to leave the community for less rancorous pastures. What Fundamentalism is currently experiencing is, with a few exceptions, a decline in church attendance, a drop in fundamentalist school enrollment, and even a sharp reduction in the number of fundamentalist pastors and missionaries being sent out.
Bryce,
Before you begin defining morals for Christians I’d suggest you not plagiarize Steve Whigham without giving him credit and make it appear that comment is your own.
He hits it right on the head, but I do fear many of the younger generation are just as much if not more militant than the leaders in the fundamentalist churches and schools. Some question the methods and mindset of their leaders, but those who don’t seem far to often to only pick up the worst of what it means to be a fundamentalist. I’m losing hope that the coming generation of leaders will be any better than what is currently dominating the movement.