Phil Johnson of Pyromaniac (and now Pyromaniacs) fame caused a furor in the IFB blogosphere through his treatment of Fundamentalism last year at the Shepherd’s Conference held by John MacArthur’s church. Phil is a staff elder there, and his original message was entitled “Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism”. I briefly blogged about it here, where you can get the link to the original lengthy (I mean LENGTHY) discussion.

Well, he has done it again! This year’s Shepherd’s Conference featured Phil giving a second part of his critique of Fundamentalism “Dead Right: Part 2”. You can read his whole presentation here compliments of Sharper Iron (the scene of the first blog-war over Phil’s comments).

Let me stress, if you are interested in Independent Fundamental Baptists and if you are currently evaluating their exclusivistic claims whether from inside or outside the fundamentalist bandwagon, you need to read this article. You probably will want to read the discussion that ensues as well. For the benefit of my readers I will reproduce my initial comment on this article, but do not neglect to read at least Phil’s presentation in full, it will highlight many of my concerns with fundamentalism which I mention here and elsewhere in my blog.

I am going to reproduce my entire comment below, but rather than using a blockquote style, I will offset it with horizontal lines. So here goes…

---

Phil’s 3 Points

I would like to see the discussion focus more on Phil’s 3 points.

1. IDEA vs. INSTITUTION
2. FUNDAMENTAL vs. SECONDARY issues
3. SEPARATION vs. SECTARIANISM

Whether or not Phil wears the badge, he presents a valid critique. Bauder and others within fundamentalism seem to be pointing out these very same issues. Johnson’s critique deserves thought. His claims might prove to be unfounded and baseless, but only if shown to be so through reasoned treatment and engagement. Agree or disagree but bring the arguments to the table. A “head in the sand” approach is both foolish and perilous.

I have actually left the fundamentalist movement/institution but like Phil, cherish the ideas/principles of fundamentalism. So it will not surprise you to find that I agree with his assessment. But as one who has viewed fundamentalism from the inside out (albeit from mostly a moderate “IFBx” variety), Phil’s views resonate with my own personal experience (which encompasses many different camps and varieties of fundamentalists).

Phil’s points 1 and 3 seem to be basically the same point. And it is an extremely important point. Fundamentalism while claiming to be merely an idea and claiming to stand for a Biblical position of separation clearly has become a movement which uses separation as a means to preserve its sectarian identity. This use of separation is subtle and tricky, but it is predominant in all spheres of fundamentalism (in my opinion). Fundamentalism has set itself up as the living expression or embodiment of Biblical Christianity. Since Fundamentalism = Biblical Christianity, to not attatch oneself to or respect the Fundamentalist movement is to denigrate Biblical Christianity. This in turn warrants separation. In short, if you are not part of the movement, then ipso facto you should be separated from by the movement. Phil sees this approach as not merely incorrect but WRONG. Can anyone else see it as prideful and unnecessarily divisive too?

Phil claims he believes in separation, and he lists numerous groups he believes practice separation as good or better than fundamentalists do. I contend that most conservative evangelicals do have a belief in and practice of separation. They obviously do not separate over the same issues as fundamentalists (since they disagree with the weight certain issues possess, such as worship/music style, secondary separation, dress, KJV, etc.) and do not separate in the same amount of time (or at the same point in the process of interaction [a Matt. 18 like interaction]) as fundamentalists do–BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY DO NOT SEPARATE. Yet fundamentalists often claim that conservative evangelicals (like MacArthur, Phil, Piper, Sproul, etc.) do not practice separation and are therefore worthy of being separated from. In other words, unless you subscribe to the exact fundamentalist variety of separation espoused in one degree or another by the fundamentalist movement, the movement chooses to have no fellowhip or unity with you at all. For most fundamentalists, they do not have the time of day for conservative evangelicals (albeit the interaction with Phil presents a happy exception). Yet in every fundamental/vital doctrinal point in relation to the gospel such conservative evangelicals are more than allies with fundamentalists–they are brothers. The fundamentalist movement is much more charitable to conservative evangelicals of yesteryear, however. But are we really to assume that Spurgeon and other heroes of olden days really would own the extreme version of separatism that fundamentalist’s espouse?

In my reading of the debate on Sharper Iron from last year concerning Phil’s first treatment of Fundamentalism, this issue–the movement vs. the idea/separation vs. sectarianism–seemed to be at the heart of the debate. When Phil and Dr. Doran went back and forth on separation, and when Dr. Doran admitted he had more in common with MacArthur and his church than with many fundamental churches he associated with, the main stumblingblock to Doran’s having fellowship with Phil was this issue. Phil is an outsider. While many reasoned fundamentalists of the Sharper-Iron/BJU variety have conscientously set aside some of the more extreme and less Biblically based elements of fundamentalism, they nevertheless do not bend at this point. If you are not one of us, we CANNOT be seen to fellowship with you OR ELSE. Eyebrows are raised if you are seen to even contemplate such fellowship (with non fundamentalists). Why is this? Is there some verse which says fellowship with fundamentalists only? In my own reading of the threads here at Sharper Iron, I continually run across the sentiment that it is a no-brainer that we should separate from anyone who is not a fundamentalist (since they are obviously not a separatist and probably are a closet neo-evangelical). This “binary thinking” mentality is alive and well in some of the best versions of fundamentalism and it is this issue which Phil and many others decry as WRONG and full of sinful sectarianism.

Phil’s 2nd point deserves attention too. In my perspective, many fundamentalists of the Sharper Iron variety have only reduced the number of essential doctrines (shedding KJV-onlyism, and pants-on-women, etc.) rather than pointing out that some doctrines are more essential than others. Again if someone is not Dispensational or Pre-Trib, or if someone has a different music philosophy, or (in some circles) if one is Calvinist or Arminian, he has denied the faith! Really? Does not Scripture teach that some doctrines are vitally important to the doctrine, and others are less so? Romans 14-15 addresses both teachings and practices. 1 Cor. 15 says the gospel doctrines are “of first importance”. A very common sentiment among fundamentalists is that every doctrine is vitally important and none are non-essential. Yet carried to its logical outcome this view would necessitate separation from every different doctrine (pre-trib vs. post-trib, Calvinist vs. Arminian, Dispenastional deluxe variety A vs. Dispensational variety B, the view that Jesus died on Wed. vs. the view Jesus died on Thur. [or Fri.], etc.). Do we really see that diehard approach to separation in Scripture?

In other words, Phil takes issue with fundamentalism’s practice of separation. He sees it as performed in relation to fundamentalism as a movement or sect and without regard to the relevant weight of different doctrines.

I contend that Fundamentalism may have a good many reasons for limiting their fellowship to fellow fundamentalists. But such reasons are pragmatic not Scriptural. It is always easier to just operate in the mentality of “Us 4 no more”. That way is safe. But Scripture calls us to interact and to be concerned for the body of Christ as a whole. It calls us to have a real visible unity with others. The “unity of the faith”, the “unity of the Spirit”, is to be pursued (Eph. 4:3, 13). We are to welcome one another so that God may be glorified (Rom. 15:5-7).

Let me give a brief case in point. My brother joined Bethlehem Baptist Church (John Piper is its teaching pastor) soon after graduating from Northland Baptist Bible College. He had great respect for some of the professors at Central Baptist Seminary and hoped to be able to take some Master’s classes there, during his time in Minneapolis. Yet he was denied the opportunity to take classes merely because he was a member at Bethlehem. He would have valued the teaching of some of Central’s profs more than what he could have received by correspondence from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary or elsewhere. He absolutely agreed with Central on many core doctrinal truths, but because Bethlehem is not “fundamentalist” (or maybe because they are not die hard cessationist in respect to charismatic gifts–although tongues, etc. are by no means practiced there) he was denied the fellowship, unity, and edification he could have received from them.

To deny fellowship with a church and its people should be a huge, huge thing. Check it out, but the vast majority of the passages on separation in context refer to the denial of clearly essential/fundamental (ie. major) doctrines. To say we cannot fellowship with people because we deem them very sinful to the point of possibly doubting their salvation is big indeed. Yet sadly, this kind of situation is the default and normal position taken by fundamentalists with no more concern than if they were separating from a bunch of Roman Catholic Jesuits.

I have rambled on long enough, but I am interested to see if fundamentalists take the time to consider these points (raised by Phil) and seek to clarify or soften their stance on separation. If the reasonable wing of fundamentalism were to embrace the Biblical stress on unity around the doctrine of the gospel, much good could be realized in many areas of conservative evangelicalism for sure.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God–Eph. 4:3,13 Rom. 15:5-7

---

So, what are your thoughts about this presentation by Phil? Feel free to join Sharper Iron and post (as long as you hold to the fundamentals of the faith and agree to their doctrinal statement, etc.), but go ahead and discuss this here as well. Thanks!

---

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7