In my last major post, I outlined a major reason why I am a fundamentalist: what I see is the biblical imperative for ecclesiastical separation. I also went into the history of fundamentalism and how it was born out of defense of the innerrency of scriptures. Early fundamentalist leaders revered the scriptures too much to stand idly by while other religious leaders attacked them. In a sense, fundamentalism was born out of a love for the scripture, it was a Bible based movement.
Fast forward to today.
Many of the leaders of fundamentalism routinely preach messages anchored in nothing more than their own opinions. It is common practice for a preacher to read a text, pull it completely out of its context, and in violation of the laws of grammar, the laws of logic and the laws of hermeneutics use it as the basis for their sermon. In other words, preachers run right past the questions they should be asking: “What does did the author mean in the orginal writing?” “What does this mean in light of other scripture?” “How does the original meaning apply to us today?” They bypass these questions to get to their own misfounded question: “Will it preach?”
This is dangerous (think atomic bomb dangerous) for so many reasons:
In my opinion, every single problem that fundamentalism is grappling with today flows from our movement’s weak spot for charasmatic speakers who refuse to limit themselves to “rightly dividing the word of truth”.
And it perpetuates itself. If a fundamentalist leader who runs a Bible college refuses to just “preach the word” then how can his college possibly teach young preachers to with any kind of authority. Some fundamentalist colleges don’t even require their pastoral students to take Hermeneutics. At least these colleges are consistent. Listening to some popular college presidents preach, I wonder how they reconcile their catalogue and their president/pastor.
This is by no means everyone in fundamentalism. No matter what your opinon of Crown College, they teach (or at least they did me) a solid curriculum of expository preaching flowing from a careful interpretation of scripture. Dr. Sexton, though not an “expository” preacher (he preaches textually) is still consistently careful to lift up scripture and to be fair in his interpretation of it. Other fundamentalist colleges also seem to have similar programs and leaders. West Coast Baptist College, Pensecola Christian College, and Bob Jones are all major fundamentalist schools that seem to be properly emphasizing hermeneutics and biblical preaching.
While I am personaly grateful for this, I wish they would take it further. I wish that being fair to scripture would be a requirement for speaking from their platform. I’m afraid too many young preachers are beguiled enough by a winsome chapel speaker to be confused about what they are learning in homiletics and hermeneutics.
We live in a day of unprecedented access to information. At some point, every young fundamentalist preacher is going to realize that expository preaching and traditional hermeneutics are being championed by a lot of people who would not label themselves as fundamentalists. Even people criticized by evangelicals (like Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller) seem to have a more solid grasp of hermeneutics than many a fundamentalist pastor.
Who cares more about the Bible, the guy who is studying it hard and teaching it verse by verse but doesn’t label himself a fundamentalist, or the guy who is militantly whacking his Bible on stage while spewing his own opinions and taking verses out of context to support them?
Young people aren’t stupid, and as long as this kind of stuff is tolerated and encouraged while biblical preachers outside of fundamentalism are unfairly criticized, we can expect young guys to be running for their lives.
Feel free to comment, but if it’s ugly it won’t stay up for long:
Fantastic, Ryan! Exactly! A return to serious exposition of the Scriptures is exactly what is needed–careful interpretation and careful application, in that order. For leaders to begin modeling it in preaching, counseling, and writing would be extremely helpful. That’s where the authority is!
Mike says: I agree. This post (and the ones before it) describe a few of the many reasons I am one of those “young guys…running for their lives” (while still practicing Ecclesiastical Separation). It is not just the young guys. I have become acquainted with a few “old” guys who are running too.
You are right on, brother.
But this begs the question: Is ecclesiastical separation more important than hermeneutics?
The other day you said, despite all the criticisms, you will “always” be a fundamentalist because of ecclesiastical separation.
Why not separate from a movement with poor hermeneutics, then? Separate from a movement riddled with disillusionment (as per another post).
I’m trying to understand why you would want to hold on to an identity with a movement you yourself said has wrong emphases in so many areas.
So, if separation is really that important, I suggest you consider re-thinking that “always” clause and consider separating from fundamentalism.
Damien,
There is a very simple answer to that question: I am the product of fundamentalists. It was fundamentalists who led me to the Lord, who loved me through my teenaged years and who helped me with my education. I was an apprentice to a fundamentalist for five years (and still count him as a father).
Further, my experience as a pastor and church staff member have taught me that not all who are members of fundamentalist churches are people who would identify with the movement of fundamentalism. It’s true I have a lot of problems with the this nebulous thing called fundamentalism, but I have no problems with the principles and heritage that make people fundamentalists and I have a lot of loyalty to those people.
I also know of many fundamentalist pastors who don’t fall into these areas. These men are striving to preach the word week after week and be true to God’s word while building God’s people.
If you think I am writing these things because I harbor ill will toward fundamentalists, you couldn’t be more wrong. I am writing these things because of loyalty to the many, many God-fearing people who have influenced me. I am writing these things because I feel if someone articulates our problems in the right spirit it will go a long way toward helping people.
Please don’t forget that evangelicalism has it’s problems too. For every fundamentalist preacher with no care for hermeneutics there is an evangelical using carnal church growth tactics, preaching psychology, having Bible study in a pub or writing ever more vulgar christian sex books.
Just as you probably take offense to being characterized with deviants within evangelicalism and feel that the right path is to call attention to their error from within evangelicalism, I take offense to being characterized with the deviant outgrowths of fundamentalism and feel like my best course of action is to bring their error to people’s attention.
Oh, believe me, I understand. There certainly is sentimental value in the circles that nurture our faith in Christ. And I don’t think you harbor any ill will – in fact, I see you doing what I was trying to do a few years ago before I left, and many others have as well. We all, with the best of intentions, tried to impact change in fundamentalism. What I’m proposing to you, though, is that change is not going to happen. Either you’ll be a maverick fundamentalist the rest of your ministry or you will wind up going somewhere else that gives you more solid food.
I wonder a bit about this statement:
“Please don’t forget that evangelicalism has it’s problems too. For every fundamentalist preacher with no care for hermeneutics there is an evangelical using carnal church growth tactics, preaching psychology, having Bible study in a pub or writing ever more vulgar christian sex books.”
First, I am fully aware of evangelicalism’s problems. In one sense, evangelicalism’s bigness gives it more room for apostasy. In the same so-called evangelical movement exist prosperity preachers along with solidly conservative ministries. On the other hand, the bigness of evangelicalism allows for circles inside of circles that can center around distinct doctrines.
For example, I am no more associated with Joel Osteen or Joyce Meyer even though the media would dub them evangelicals while I am an evangelical than you are associated with Westboro Baptist Church because they’re Baptists and you are Baptist. There are kinds of evangelicals, kinds of fundamentalists, and kinds of Baptists, etc.
Second, I just wonder about this sweeping generalization. If I limit my focus group to only those in, say, The Gospel Coalition or the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (of which I am a member), then I’d have to disagree with your statement. Yes, there are expositors in fundamentalism, and thank God for them! But they are the exception.
By the way, not sure what’s so wrong about having a Bible study in a pub; the Reformation swept across Europe by those very means. But anyway. . .
Anyway, I hope you read these things with the spirit in which they are given. I am not trying to cause a big argument but to have a conversation about how best to deal with these things, because I think we’re thinking alike in a lot of ways.
I believe that it’s important that we align ourselves with others. After all, Christianity is a corporate faith, not a ruggedly individualistic one. I think it applies to the local church as well as the church universal, and that’s why I do think it is important to strive for unity outside of our own churches within movements, circles, fellowships, or denominations (in response to Mike’s comment below about “isms). Yes, “isms” have been divisive but they have also divided where necessary. Simply following Christ is great – but we need to do it together, not as solo acts.
Mike says: I understand “isms” may have their place, but the divisiveness comes when following after an “ism” takes precedence over following Christ. I get condemned by fundamentalists for not subscribing to fundamentalism; the fact that I am simply following Christ and upholding the weightier matters of faith and the fundamentals is not even considered by them. In their eyes, I am apostate for distancing myself from their “ism”, thus, the “ism” has become unnecessarily divisive.
I agree we need to do it together, but sometimes the “solo act” is an unavoidable byproduct of pursuing the truth.
Brother Mike,
I am very grateful to be pastoring across town from you. The truth is, I have always dreaded becoming a pastor because I knew how I felt about mainline fundamentalism and always felt like there would be conflict. I can foresee a time when, if things continue on their course, some of our local fundamentalist pastor friends want nothing to do with me. Not because I’ve changed doctrines or goals, but just because of my strong opinions about things like hermeneutics, soul liberty and the importance of bible preaching.
I appreciate you and pray for you and totally understand your position.
Mike says: Is evangelicalism the only alternative to fundamentalism? Why not drop all of these “isms” and follow Christ? Seems like Paul had something to say about that…
Yes, fundamentalists led me to the Lord and taught me many things; but those same fundamentalists nearly destroyed me spiritually. I praise the Lord for delivering me from that.
My dear brother, you say you are writing these things because of loyalty to man. Loyalty is allegiance and devotion. To me, that borders man worship. The only One Who deserves our loyalty, allegiance, and devotion is God.
I do not see enough good in mainline fundamentalism to remain. Too many people have been hurt, too many lives have been destroyed. If (while talking to an unsaved person or someone hurt by fundamentalism) I claim to be a fundamentalist, and have to explain what I mean by that in order to keep the person from running away from me, something is not right. Yes, people have been hurt by churches…but will eventually find another church. People who have been hurt by fundamentalists stay very far away from fundamentalists.
With that in mind, along with the other problems with fundamentalism, it is not worth it to me. My loyalty, devotion, association, and affiliation is purely to God and His Word…not an “ism”.
Mike says: One more thing. “Isms” are man made. What is wrong with walking away from a man made thing if it means reaching more people for Christ? (I recently read a blog post from a pastor who said that pastors are fools for departing from fundamentalism.)
I only say this because I have observed (too often) “isms” being divisive – driving people away from Christ, destroying lives, and ruining ministries. Fundamentalism being one of them.
It may have gotten us through a pivotal point in our nation’s history, but it is not what it used to be. I will continue to fellowship with the “good” remnant of fundamentalism, but I am not a fundamentalist.
Mike,
I appreciate your candor and your friendship and agree that our loyalty should be to Christ and his Word. Loyalty as a principle to determine belief isn’t a good thing.
However, I have to disagree with you on two points.
First, loyalty isn’t man worship. I have a feeling that Timothy would have a hard time disassociating with Paul because Silas started doing dumb stuff. I’m not saying I want to be a part of mainline fundamentalism (I don’t), but if I come out and say I’m not a fundamentalist, I am going to be distancing myself unnecessarily from some men God has used to greatly in my life.
Second, while I agree with you about the manmade nature of labels, they are are a necessary part of the human experience. Even if I didn’t call myself a fundamentalist or a baptist, I’d still be labelled as one because of my principles (which have nothing to do with the ism) and I think you will be too.
I admire you for your independence and I think we agree here more than you’re thinking.
Mike says: Bro. Ryan,
Taking into consideration your experience in fundamentalism, I can understand and appreciate your opinion and reasoning. I beseech you kindly to consider mine. I was badly burned and almost spiritually and emotionally destroyed by fundamentalists. When I took a step back, I began to see the “evils” of fundamentalism (many of which you have touched on in your blog posts). My opinion and reasoning come from my experience.
I realize I may be called a fundamentalist some day, by someone, but it will be for the RIGHT reasons! Because of my experience, I know how recovering ex-fundamentalists and unsaved people who have been burned by fundamentalists feel toward fundamentalism. I have a burden for those people; I feel for those people! By putting “fundamental” on my tract, sign, or website, I do not want to risk driving those people away. To me, it just doesn’t mean what it used to. (I’m not trying to discount the power of the Holy Spirit in drawing men to church, but God has given us discretion and the ability to make choices that can affect things. I believe this is the direction I ought to take.)
I will agree to disagree on these things we have discussed so far; but I do realize we BOTH agree on this: the good and evil sides of fundamentalism. You have decided to stay close because of the good; I have decided to distance myself because of the bad.
Judging what I know of you, I trust you are the kind of fundamentalist that will be able to fellowship with this kind of non-fundamentalist.
Dave says: Great discussion here! Personally, I hate labels–passionately. I don’t give myself the title, “Evangelical,” “Baptist,” “Calvinist,” “Covenantal” or anything else. Do I line up with conservative evangelicals? Yes. Am I a Baptist in practice? Yes. Do I hold to the historic doctrines of grace? Absolutely. But, do I care about what label I have? Not one bit.
Too often, labels unfortunately become a place of boasting in Christian circles, when they ought to serve as means to find common ground with other Christians. This was precisely the problem with the church at Corinth: “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,” I am of Christ.” They weren’t using the label to identify their doctrine; they were using it as a means to boast. Carnal.
It is a sin to boast in anything but Jesus Christ and him crucified, “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 6:14).
However, when I was a Fundamentalists, that’s ALL I heard–boasting–boasting over a stupid label. It’s especially predominant in college settings and Bible conferences. Boasting in standards. Boasting in a Bible version. Boasting in a bus ministry. Boasting in numbers. Boasting in money. Boasting in doctrine.
Sickening.
There are no Baptists in heaven. Neither are there fundamentalists or evangelicals. Why? Because every denomination, group, or sect of Christianity has its “worts.” Some groups have more, some others less. I think we are all going to be shocked how “off” we all were in certain areas, be it practically or theologically. Only arrogance could lead someone to believe that there sect has arrived and has no room for error. (Yes, conservative evangelicals have their issues too).
Don’t misunderstand. Dogma is a good thing. Anybody who knows me, is aware that I’m extremely dogmatic and convinced about what I believe. I’m passionate about what I believe, because I’m convinced that what I believe exalts Jesus Christ more than anything else. But passionately believing is one thing and proudly waving a long banner with capital letters is another.
Labels are only be about convenience. Jonathon Edwards astutely explained in the preface of his “Freedom of the Will,” that labels are a shortcut to help Christians concisely let people know where they stand without having to spend a lot of time explaining their position.
May all our banner be Jesus Christ and nothing else.
Ryan Hayden
