Our Fundamentalist Future
October 5th, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
I am admittedly no prophet, nor the son of a prophet. In fact, I don’t even believe the gift of prophecy is still active today. So, I won’t blame you if you balk at my attempt to predict the future of conservative evangelicalism. Nonetheless, I’m going to give it a try. This is purely my opinion. But with that as a disclaimer, here goes:
Some Historical Background
The year was 1878. Modernism was on the rise, and its attack on the church was full scale.
In response, a group of conservative Bible scholars established a set of fourteen doctrinal principles to outline what they believed was the essence of biblical Christianity. Known as the “Niagara Creed” (because it was associated with the Niagara Bible Conference of 1883–1897), these principles laid the foundation for a movement that would later be called fundamentalism.
On the broader front, the dispensational organizers of the Niagara Bible Conference were joined by non-dispensationalists like B.B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen in their fight against modernism. In 1910, the fourteen-point Niagara Creed was distilled into “five fundamentals” by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. These five fundamentals were as follows:
1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
5. The authenticity of Christ’s miracles (or later, by some dispensationalists, the imminent return of Jesus Christ)
It was also in 1910 that a wealthy Presbyterian layman, named Lyman Stewart, funded the publication of twelve pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. These pamphlets, which together consisted of 90 essays written by 64 authors from several denominations, were published between 1910 and 1915. The articles themselves expanded on the five fundamentals, and strengthened the fundamentalist stance against modernism.
Those who embraced the five fundamentals (and were thus associated with The Fundamentals pamphlets) came to be known as “fundamentalists.” They were those who held tight to the fundamental doctrines of the faith in the midst of modernist compromise.
As conservative evangelicals today, our spiritual and doctrinal heritage goes back to those men.
Will History Repeat Itself?
Fast forward 128 years from 1878.
Now it’s 2006. Yet the basic theological issues of today are not all that different than in 1878. The church of their day was faced with the temptation to compromise. The church today is faced with the very same temptation. The only difference is that we put a “post” in front of the “modernism.”
So it’s not really that surprising to observe the numerous similarities between the early fundamentalist movement (of the late 19th/early 20th century), and what is already beginning to happen in conservative evangelical circles.
The original fundamentalists rallied around core doctrines, desperately desiring to honor the Scripture, and vowing to stand firm against the advances of modernism. Interestingly, they found their rallying point not in denominational ties, but in a common love for Christ and a shared commitment to the truth. Their fellowship crossed denominational boundaries, finding an outlet in national Bible conferences like the one held near Niagara Falls. The movement itself was led by godly leaders from various backgrounds. It was undergirded by doctrinal creeds, and it was promoted through preaching and writing.
In the face of postmodernism, today’s conservative Christian leaders are again rallying around the same core doctrines as the original fundamentalists. Vowing to stand firm against the advances of postmodernism, today’s “fundamentalists” again cross denominational lines. Baptists like Mark Dever and Al Mohler, independents like John MacArthur, Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan, reformed charismatics like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney—they are standing united because something more important than denominational lines is at stake. The purity of the gospel is at stake.
Thousands of pastors across the nation are standing with them, as the success of modern Bible conferences (such as Shepherds’ Conference, Together for the Gospel, Desiring God, Ligonier, New Attitude, Resolved, etc.) continues to demonstrate. The organizers of Together for the Gospel have also developed a creedal statement—affirming key truths and denying key errors related to the gospel. This is precisely the approach of the original fundamentalists.
Like the original fundamentalists, these conservative evangelical leaders don’t agree on every secondary doctrine. But they do agree on the essentials. And that’s what makes them fundamentalists: they hold fast to the fundamental doctrines of the faith.
Now I’m not suggesting that the new fundamentalists call themselves “fundamentalists.” That name (in my opinion) has too much associated with it, in part because of the evangelical/fundamentalist split of the 1940s, and in part because the media has equated any type of fundamentalism with Islamic extremism. For that matter, I’m not suggesting they need a new label at all. (Though I do like the “Confessing Christian” term that the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has used, as well as Ian Murray’s “Old Evangelical.”)
But I do see history repeating itself, should the Lord tarry. And I think reflecting on the example of the original fundamentalists gives us motivation to mobilize and encouragement to stand strong.
Over the next fifty years, I believe that similar lines will be drawn, similar alliances made, and similar battles fought as were seen 125 years ago. May God give us the courage and resolve of the original fundamentalists, as we stand firm for the truth against the tempting tidal wave of compromise.
[...] Nathan Busenitz considers the similarities between Historic Fundamentalism and today’s Conservative Evangelicals in “Our Fundamentalist Future” [...]
Nathan I’m sure that you are right. Francis Schaeffer’s truly prophetic “The Great Evangelical Disaster” is a must read on this issue. He not only had a firm grip on the consequences of evangelical doctrinal compromise but also an eye on the moral and spiritual dangers open to those who do make a stand for the truth.
I do like the thought of a new generation of orthodox evangelicals (instead of fundamentalists). The term would of course be a value judgement on compromised ones.
I agree that the term “fundamentalist” is probably detrimental to the cause. I also truly hope that your prediction is right, and we see a genuine uniting of Christian leaders beneath the banner of the true fundamentals.
As with Nathan Busenitz and Andrew, I agree that the term “fundamentalist” has too many negative connotations. The term Christian doesn’t seem to work well anymore because Mormons and Catholics and other religions and cults claim to be Christians. A term that I think describes evangelical Christians really well is the term my Pastor uses: “followers of the Jesus of the Bible.” I believe that phrase to be a good choice because it clarifies 1) Who we believe in, 2) What our authority is, and 3) What our roll is.
Nathan, I misstated part of my comments, above. Could you delete that comment of mine, please?
In a sense I agree with you, Nathan, because the logic of Reformed theology seems to be pushing this contemporary movement beyond the hedges that once held it tightly as classic Westminster Calvinism. Through Piper’s influence, the divide between your camp and Arminianism seems to be getting trampled.
Essentially, the biblical substance behind Piper’s unfortunate idea that works cause final salvation lies in the NT writers actual teaching that, one, works do cause here and now deliverance/salvation (For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Ro 10:10) and two, works cause rewards of great magnitude that will last into eternity. (Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord Heb 12:14. In my view, the writer of Hebrews is, with a touch of hyperbole, teaching that there is a future access with the Lord in the next life that will come from suffering with Him in this one.)
To Piper’s credit, he is discarding certain caveats which never really arose from the text: the refrain that works don’t actually cause salvation but that they are evidence of an authentically regenerate person. (see again Heb 12:14) But by dropping that explanation and simply saying works cause final salvation and sin causes final condemnation and Hell, Piper and the young reformed movement is reviving old Arminianism. As an example, Piper blatantly tells young people that if they do not fight lust, then they will go to hell.
Don’t get me wrong, I read the fine print that explains how this fits into the Westminster model, but it is still a departure that boldly emphasizes those aspects that are in full agreement with Arminianism. Sin results in Hell. Personal holiness results in Heaven.
What I see is that if conservative Christians, churches and seminaries don’t carefully consider Free Grace explanations of NT issues, i.e. that the word salvation has more nuance than we tend to see in it, than your ‘fundamentalism’ will continue to go in a direction that pulls down barriers between your circles and classic Arminianism, Roman Catholicism and other traditions that may not teach full fledged works salvation but boldly teach a distorted version of grace that is a false gospel.
God Bless.
Jodie
Philip’s term is good but perhaps a bit long. Maybe ‘Biblical Christians’ and ‘Biblical Christianity’ would work. The liberal social gospel denominatins and churches are winning the PR war and have declared war on Biblical Christians. IMO we should respond boldly.
A large group of leading evangelicals including R.C. Sproul met about six years ago and called the results of their work ‘The gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical celebration’. They signed a document of core beliefs and included a list of not only affirmations but also denials of gross error of essential doctrines. Dr. MacArthur was on the endorsing committee.
Jodie, The free grace antinomian view of sanctification
was denied (see affirmation and denial #15).
I agree and remember being dissappointed with it.
#15:
We affirm that saving faith results in sanctification, the transformation of life in growing conformity to Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification means ongoing repentance, a life of turning from sin to serve Jesus Christ in grateful reliance on him as one’s Lord and Master (Gal. 5:22-25; Rom. 8:4, 13-14).
We reject any view of justification which divorces it from our sanctifying union with Christ and our increasing conformity to his image through prayer, repentance, cross-bearing, and life in the Spirit.
In truth, though needed to get leaders like MacArthur to sign, #15 brings us closer to the RCC and liberal denominations.
A Christianity Today writer spoke glowingly of anotehr document of that time, the Evangelical Catholic Together agreement:
“We rejoice that our Roman Catholic interlocutors have been able to agree with us that the doctrine of justification set forth in this document agrees with what the Reformers meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide)“.
In otherwords, Evangelicals are finding out that Catholic theologians approve of Dr MacArthur’s thought on the gospel and sanctification.
Jodie,
Per your request, we deleted your original comment.
Also (to you and all of who comment) we would prefer to keep this thread from slipping into another dialogue about reformed soteriology vs. free grace.
We will reintroduce the lordship discussion on Monday, and are eager to dialogue about it more then. This particular article was not intended to address the lordship issue, so we would prefer to keep the comments here on topic.
Thanks so much.
Nate B. for Pulpit
A fascinating article. For a couple of years, several of us who would probably be classified as “Fundamentalists” have theorized that a group of Christians broadly known as “confessional” would eventually be pushed out of broad evangelicalism over loyalty to the Word of God. A phenomena on the radical right in fundamentalism is pushing a similar drift based upon faithfulness to the Word. Interestingly enough, this group of fundamentalists is also largely Calvinistic.
In both cases this is forcing a subtle reevalution of the doctrine of separation (which was at the core of the split between fundamentalists and evangelicals 40 years ago) and is driving the two groups closer together in the center.
We have not, as we pondered this, arrived at any general conclusions, although I personally believe it to be a good thing.
This is my first visit to your site. I am impressed and will probably lurk further.
MM
Nathan,
Greetings from a TCS student (The Cornerstone Seminary), where the influence of TMS is strongly felt.
I greatly appreciate your putting current evangelical events into historical context. I am a young pastor-in-training and my fellow brothers are feeling the ground swell beneath us and it is exciting. We are praying that God uses us to save the lost through a faithfulness to the fundamentals. I couldn’t make T4TG nor Shepherd’s this year and so I visited Desiring God. It’s amazing to see the diversity of styles (Piper, Keller, Driscoll, Baucham, etc.) and yet a unanimity of belief and passion for those beliefs.
One funny thing that I have to share: a close friend is candidating for a pastorate in Northern California. When he met with the church he brought along the T4TG statement of belief and said “this is music to my soul…can you get behind this?” Fortunately, they said “yes,” but what’s interesting is that they other man they are considering independently did the same basic thing. Here is a church struggling to find its way in the seeker-driven, emmergent mileau and two men, who don’t know each other are speaking in unison (they are both Master’s guys too).
Anyway, thanks again for the post.
Patrick
The reason that the evangelicals are having this fight today, is because their predecessors decided not to separate from the liberal compromises in their generation. Hopefully today they’ll realize the need for separation from those who think the gospel should bow down to the culture.
I agree, Nathan. The word “fundamentalism” has been hijacked and given a very negative connotation, but the battles are just as you describe. I read your article immediately after email and phone conversations with a fellow pastor who is battling against pragmatism in his denominational pastors’ fellowship.
The issue no longer is “what says the Lord?” Now it’s “Does it work?” or “Will people come?” I call it the Truth By Experience Syndrome, which I first coined in relation to charismatic issues, but it applies on many fronts.
Thanks for the info. I like the new version of Pulpit.
Jude 24-25,
Jim Harris
Lance,
Thank you for your comment.
If I am reading your comment correctly, you seem to be saying something like: “It’s about time the evangelicals realized that modern fundamentalists are right, and started separating like they do.” Perhaps I am reading too much into your comment. If so please forgive me.
If not, allow me to respond by suggesting that conservative evangelicals have no desire to embrace the hyper-separatism, anti-intellectualism, or moral externalism that characterizes much of modern fundamentalism. (Please note that I said “much,” not “all.”)
My point in the article is that conservative evangelicals share much in common with the original fundamentalists. In fact, I believe the conservative evangelical movement today has more in common with the original fundamentalists than the modern fundamentalist movement does. Much more in common, in fact.
Those who are the truest to original fundamentalist beliefs are not those who separate over secondary and tertiary doctrines (not to mention social issues). They are instead those who unify around the fundamentals of the faith. And that, I believe, is the key difference.
Thanks again for your comment,
NB
Nate,
Thanks for the great post. I would be interested to know if there is anyone among the historic fundamentalists that you would identify with. I come from a sect of “fundies” that I frankly want nothing to do with anymore, but have found some separated, intellectual, and level-headed fundies over the past few years. I guess what I am wondering is if there are any type B fundies that are in your orbit. Thanks for the article–very interesting.
Matthew Richards
Brother Nate,
An SI filing referred me over here. When you use the label of “conservative evangelicals”, are you referring to only conservative evangelical calvinists?
Would you include popular, evangelical conservatives like LaHaye, Rosenberg, etc. and some from Dallas as possibly also among the group as reflecting historical fundamentalism of the past?
Would a LaHaye, let’s say, reflect a historical Gabalein (I know, butchering the spelling.)
The doctrine of substitionary atonement certainly seems to be at the forefront of the battle we face. Listen to most “testimonies” today. You will hear things like “I got saved” or “I asked Jesus into my heart.” Many times I wonder if the people are actually hearing substitionary atonement. Thanks for the article!
Patrick,
I live in Northern California. I’m interested in knowing the name and location of the church you are talking about.
Thanks,
Tommy
I was going to ask the same thing.
Unfortunately, Sac. and the Bay Area are also considered northern Ca. but I live in far northern Ca. in Shasta County. We haven’t found a solid church here in 16 years. Is anyone familiar with a good church anywhere near us?
Prophet Busenitz,
uh, I mean BROTHER Busenitz…uh, yup. I would agree with you that the similar struggles of the early 1900’s are back wearing new fruit-of-the-looms.
I remember reading (I think it was in “the battle for the Bible”) that it seems that there is a major theological debate/revival every 3-4 generations (or however long it takes for ideas to travel, be accpeted, be refuted, die and then be reborn in a new and rhetorically different form).
There’s the people who encounter a heresy and take a stand against it; preaching, writing, starting schools and coining new terms.
Then their children enjoy the unity and doctrinal purity won them by their parents, and even transmit their theology to their children. The children sing the songs their parents wrote, go to their schools, by books from their publishing companies and hold to their creeds. BUT, since they’re not fighting the same battle, they don’t fight for the truth in the same way that their parents did and consequently transmit the theology to their children, WITHOUT the history of why it’s important.
Then the grandchildren inhereit this wonderfully rich tradition of truth, but with no real understanding of where it came from, they start wondering about their ‘truths’ and start exploring other ideas, seeking “something more” than the tradition that they have received. They end up eventually discovering and embracing the NEW version of the heresy that their grandparents originally fought.
The great-grandchildren then end up fighting against that NEW version of the old heresy, and the cycle begins again with new sermons, books, schools and whatnot all fighting the ruling heresy(s) of the day.
I’m not saying that this is totally true, but I definitely see it happening in the circles that I travelled in, in Canada. My old Bible college ended up now embracing some of the things that it was originally formed to stand against. It’s like everyone in Christendom failed “Intro to Church History”.
Super article though…
I agree with many here that this is a superb article. I do wish that we are seeing a “rerun” of original fundamentalism.
If so, a couple observations/questions.
1) What is the contemporary remake of The Fundamentals? It seems that it would be good to have something like this today, is there anything out there already? Or do you think we don’t need anything like this?
2) Is this rerun of fundamentalism to be Calvinist-only? It appears most of those you mention are Calvinist. Can we not join together with Biblically minded, theologically conservative, non-Calvinistic brethren? And along this line, do you think this is already being done? I know the Together 4 the Gospel Affirmations & Denials did not explicitly shun contemporary Arminianism.
3) Should there be a push for us to unite around something like the T4G Affirmations & Denials statement mentioned above? Could we try to get diverse groups like the Association of Confessing Evangelicals and other couterpart groups to join in affirming some basic fundamental document? Would this help the movement or hinder it?
Great article, and I will be linking to it from my blog to see if I can get some discussion along these lines there too.
May God further the cause of unity in the gospel,
Bob Hayton
Fundamentally Reformed
[...] Nathan Busenitz over at Pulpit Blog(an online magazine/blog published by John MacArthur’s church) gave us a must read article yesterday entitled “Our Fundamentalist Future.” In it he compares what is happening today within conservative evangelicalism to what happened more than one hundred years ago in the rise of the fundamentalist movement. I encourage you to go give his article a read first, but I’ll whet your appetite with a few excerpts here below. Then come on back and see if we can discuss the article here. Fast forward 128 years from 1878….Now it’s 2006. Yet the basic theological issues of today are not all that different than in 1878. The church of their day was faced with the temptation to compromise. The church today is faced with the very same temptation. The only difference is that we put a “post” in front of the “modernism.”… [...]
I wonder, Nathan, how you would respond to some of the questions in this 4th point of discussion I raised on my blog relevant to “mainstream” fundamentalists:
4) Can mainstream fundamentalists really join the push for a modern re-run of original historic fundamentalism? Would they want to/be willing to? Would conservative evangelicals even let them? What could be done (from either side of the aisle) to widen the movement to include mainline fundamentalists? How exactly could joining such a movement be a capitulation from the ideals of rigid separatism? And if it is, how then can you defend the original fundamentalists for doing the same thing? Why shouldn’t separatists unify with others around these causes?
Would you venture any thoughts here?
Thanks,
Bob Hayton
Nathan,
I certainly agree with much of what you are suggesting–including the discomfort with the name “fundamentalist.” But even Bob Jones III has expressed that discomfort. The problem is to find a label that both denotes and connotes the right things. Tough job.
It’s probably not appropriate to define fundamentalism in terms of the Niagara Creed or “The Fundamentals.” While those documents represent a movement out of which fundamentalism eventually emerged, that movement was (as Marsden notes) more properly an inchoate proto-fundamentalism than it was historic fundamentalism.
Much better to accept Curtis Lee Laws original definition of fundamentalism, which included an emphasis both upon affirmation and upon attitude. “We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals of the faith [affirmation], and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals [attitude], shall be called fundamentalists.”
From the very emergence of fundamentalism as a distinguishable movement (late teens and early twenties), attitude was always the thing that set fundamentalists apart from other evangelicals. The fundamentalists not only believed the fundamentals, as many others did, they were willing to do “battle royal.”
That battle took two forms. First, there was a genuine, intellectual struggle for the ideas. Second, and more visibly, there was a power struggle for the control of Christian institutions. Fundamentalism has always been characterized by a determination that Christians cannot make common cause with apostates in the work of the Lord.
You picture J. Gresham Machen at the beginning of your article, and he is an excellent example (for all of his hesitations about populist fundamentalism). Machen was not content with the mere affirmation of the fundamentals. He fought to get liberals out of the PCUSA, and failing that, he established new institutions.
Machen’s most bitter enemies, however, were not the liberals. They were the people whom he called “indifferentists.” Indifferentists believed the fundamentals, but they were decidedly NOT fundamentalists. They were the orthodox believers who wanted to keep organizational peace that they made peace with the liberals. They believed the fundamentals, but they could fellowship with people who did not.
When Machen left Princeton, it was not because Princeton had become liberal. It had not. It was because Princeton had become indifferentist. People like Ross Stevenson and Charles Erdman taught the fundamentals, but they objected to the “bad manners” of Machen and others who attempted to expel liberals from the denomination.
The indifferentists find their counterparts in the neo-evangelicals of the 50’s and 60’s (a la Billy Graham), as well as some of the SBC “moderates.” Some of the moderates were genuine apostates; others were orthodox but had no trouble fellowshipping with the apostates.
I would be very interested to see a version of conservative evangelicalism that would make a vigorous case against indifferentism. In fact, this might be an interesting topic to discuss: what would such an evangelicalism look like?
Kevin
Actually, part of the problem is that they define important issues as ’secondary’. So some evangelicals won’t separate from denominations ordaining women and homesexuals (just one example of many). If we don’t separate on Biblical issues, then we are saying that what the Bible says isn’t really important. My main problem with modern fundamentalism is that they’ve gotten too liberal and have conformed to culture too much, instead of standing on Biblical issues.
Dr. Bauder,
Thanks for your insights here. The added historical info you provide is very helpful. Militancy is indeed a key component of early fundamentalism. And I probably should have emphasized that more.
In response, let me make two initial observations.
First, my article was attempting to show the similarities between what I believe is a growing movement among conservative evangelicals (still at its earliest stages) and the growing movement that became fundamentalism in the late 1800s. This current movement is not exactly the same as “proto-fundamentalism” or “historic fundamentalism,” but the similarities are (in my opinion) remarkable. As this modern conservative evangelical movement continues to develop, I think it will become more and more like historic fundamentalism. Just as fundamentalism was still just developing during the years of the Niagara Bible Conference, so this new movement is still in its formative stages.
Second, I don’t believe that the conservative evangelical leaders I mentioned above would qualify as “indifferentists.” MacArthur, for example, is certainly not an indifferentist (as I have attempted to show elsewhere.) The affirmations and denials of the Together for the Gospel conference were also anything but indifferent. Moreover, if the contemporary movement (as I see it) continues to go in the direction it is going, it will only become less and less indifferent. (This, again, parallels the history of fundamentalism, which became increasingly definitive as it developed.)
Anyway, I hope this makes sense. Thank you again for your pertinent insights.
- NB
Nate, your response to Bauder is helpful to me.
I am still wondering though which would be more in parallel with the history of fundamentalism . . . a Chuck Smith or a C.J.Mahaney.
In sunny California, Chuck would list his church in the phone book as independent fundamental? But would he still be outside the fold of this new conservative evangelicalism movement in America?
You don’t need to answer. I am just thinking out loud.
Btw, I think Smith and Mahaney ought to get together sometime for lunch.
And I wouldn’t consider MacArthur among indifferentists.
Nate…I think you have made some good observations here regarding the similarities between the two, and I think you are right. I commented similarly after the T4G conference last year.
However, I would like to see you push a little farther beyond the historical observation (on both counts). When a set of doctrine is put forth like the “fundamentals” (and such as the T4G statements), you will have two kinds of people.
The first are the easy ones: those who dissagree and think the affirmations and denials are wrong. As, I believe, the T4G guys have stated, “You either agree or you don’t.” However, it isn’t quite that simple, which is what the fundamentalist / evangelical split was all about.
It won’t take long before those who stand and affirm the standard fundamental doctrines (whatever form they take) are repudiated for their overly narrow view of what is orthodox. In some cases this is already happening (see the conversation regarding NeoFundamentalism and “JesusCreed” on my blog).
The second group of dissenters is the more challenging. These are the ones who think the fundamentals (whatever that becomes) are “articulated in such a way as to limit fellowship with genuine believers.” This concept becomes the catalyst to divide those who think the fundamentals should be accepted fully and those who think room should be made for “slight” variations.
As the rhetoric is notched up, the divide between the “narrow” guys and the “accepting” guys becomes more clear. The accepting guys want to bring the dissenters into the fold by softening the rhetoric, arguing that they may be moved toward a better view. The narrow guys see this as a slippery slope, arguing that to soften the rhetoric is to undermine the doctrine.
Now, those who are teaching false doctrine are the enemy of both the narrow and the accepting guys, but the accepting guys begin to side with the “more reasonable” false teachers so that they can be won over. This ultimately blurs the distinction that the “fundamentals” were originally written to make.
In the process, the doctrine of separation becomes the point of contention, and this is what fundamentalists have wrestled with for the last few decades. Truly, some have jumped off the deep end, but many have thought through these issues thoroughly. By dismissing them, the tendency will be to chart your own path toward the same problem and repeat history for yourself.
Regardless, any movment into a type of fundamentalism (as opposed to minimalism) will have to deal with both separation (what we do with false teachers) and with secondary separation (what we do with the ones who want to soften the rhetoric and broaden the doctrine).
Fundamentalism’s big mistake was the same as Evangelicalism’s, but they were on opposite sides. Both made separation an either/or issue, rather than recognize and adopt a graduated separation perspective. If this insipient fundamentalism is to have any better success than the first, they must wrestle with this issue directly. Simply dissmissing “secondary separation” isn’t going to address the nature of the problem, especially when it comes to those who agree with us but want to act in such a way as to include the false teachers.
In any case, those having tea with the enemy shouldn’t complain about friendly fire.
[...] Nate Buzenitz made some interesting observations over at “Pulpit” that echo some of what we have observed recently (here, here, and here). While Nate’s observations are good, they don’t go far enough. I agree that there is an incipient fundamentalism coming, but they continue to hold the on / off view of separation that refuses to recognize any form of secondary separation (or limiting of fellowship). This is going to need to be addressed. [...]
Nathan,
You are quite correct that conservative evangelicals now find themselves in a kind of replay of the late 19th and early 20th century. The varieties of unbelief have changed to some degree, but the basic issues are still the same.
For the record, I would never accuse MacArthur, Piper, Sproule, Dever, Mohler, and other conservative evangelicals of indifferentism. Nor would I accuse them of being neo-evangelicals (as if we even had neo-evangelicals today). They are at least as far from neo-evangelicalism as they are from fundamentalism.
But we certainly have indifferentists today. Evangelicalism is full of them.
What I would like to see, therefore, is a serious and sustained attempt on the part of the conservative evangelical movement to address the problem of indifferentism. It is one thing to address unbelief and apostasy; it is another thing to address orthodox believers who are willing to make common cause with unbelievers and apostates in the Lord’s work.
Frankly, I think that this is the major barrier between conservative evangelicals and mainstream fundamentalists. I sense a good bit of respect on both sides, but this question remains: what do we do about indifferentists? Lots of us would really like to know how the M&M Club will handle this question.
NeoFundy,
Good to see you here as well as in other places online. Unfortunately for me, I am losing track of just what the various terms mean, including primary and secondary separation, indifferentists, etc. Somone needs to create a primer with definitions, including variations on the words neo-orthodox, neo-evangelical, and neo-fundamentalist.
In addition, what is the solution to the potential limitations that fundies can put on fellowship? Why not clearly define secondary separation?
[...] Nate Busenitz and Kevin Bauder (among others) are having a compelling conversation comparing Conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism in the comments of“Our Fundamentalist Future” [...]
There has been some good discussion here but I feel like there is an elephant in the room. The big separation between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists was Billy Graham. So with this new “thing” arising how does it deal with BG and/or how will it deal with the next person who behaves like this? I have heard conservative SBC types say that Graham “has been faithful to the gospel.” So then I have to ask what kind of definition of the gospel are they using. Dr. Bauder says that Mohler is not indifferent yet he spoke at a BGEA meeting didn’t he?
This is a real point of struggle. Early fundamentalism was about struggling in the institutions to bring them back. But when are you struggling and when are you floating along with the stream. Eventually fundamentalism came to look down on anyone who was still in SBC, PCUSA, UMC, etc.
Back to my original question. No one wants to stand up and say that Billy Graham, the religious grandpa of America has blown it and given away the gospel in exchange for “commitment to Christ.” Until any movement is able to stand up and lovingly but strongly confront appostacy and indifference to appostacy it will be able to earnestly contend for the faith.
This sounds more like an anti-BG diatribe than I intended. How do we really fight for truth and not come across as raving lunatics?
Brother Nate, I don’t have the book with me here at this libary computer; but it is the latest collection of papers by BYU profs. I think the book is called The New Testament, 2006 Sperry Symposium (BYU & Deseret, 2006). These papers are being discussed this month.
Robert Millet’s latest paper again quotes John MacArthur (two of his books, both connected with the Lordship debate).
I will try to get specific details to you. Sorry about not having the name of the paper in front of me. But again, this is greatly vexing to me in the intermountain area of the West. The issue is not going to go away. And as brother Bauder has used the label, indifferentists complicate the matter. I have been praying over how to respond to all this.
Nathan, in all your past responses on this particular issue, I position myself as a close ally, in solid agreement. Thank you.
Blessings. May God’s glory fill the West as we face fundamental issues in the days ahead.
E.T.
http://www.heartissuesforlds.org
The book is Sperry Symposium Classics: The New Testament (SLC: Brigham Young University and Deseret Book Company, 2006) edited by Frank F. Judd Jr. and Gaye Strathearn
Robert Millet’s paper in this book is “Walking in Newness of Life: Doctrinal Themes of the Apostle Paul.” I wonder if this is an updated version.
Millet utilizes MacArthur’s books, The Gospel According to Jesus and Faith Works.
Nathan, I believe you have given a public resonse to Millet before. Can you email me your past response? I had read it at one time and now misplaced it. I need to engage with those in my own community.
thanks
Please forgive the length of this post. I think I’m more evangelical than fundamentalist, but can see that in some cases, separation is essential. I have the following observations:
1. It’s wise for us not to participate equally with pseudo-Christian organizations—not to be members of such churches, nor to partner with them for worship, evangelism or missions.
2. Separation, even from such organizations, needs to be used with wisdom. For example, I was once an active participant in a United Church of Christ, though I was not an official member. Through God’s grace, that church left the UCC and joined the Church of the Foursquare Gospel. The Foursquare denomination would not have been my first choice for them, but it’s much, much more biblical than the UCC. I like to think that my presence with them was a small factor in leading them away from the UCC.
3. There’s a difference between participating with a humble Christian who has bad theology, and participating with a false teacher. False teachers should know better. The more experienced, trained and polished they are, the more they should know. We must shun such people. On the other hand, individual believers may be in very odd places. I think of “Victor,” who was one of the most sincere Christians I’ve ever met. He was also a member of a cult in which he’d grown up: The Worldwide Church of God, in its old days. (It’s since left behind its false teachings.) Over a period of years, he came to realize that there really were Christians outside his group, and eventually came to realize that he could be part of a more mainstream church.
4. There’s a difference between being a temporary visitor with a group and participating as a full member of the group. I recently went to the Roman Catholic funeral of a friend. The friend had made it clear that his primary trust was in the Lord — not in his church, nor in his system. I participated in the worship, except for the parts which I believed were not right. On the other hand, I would not want to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church, for a number of theological reasons.
5. There are different kinds of cooperation with unsound groups that may or may not be permissible and wise. Consider the following list of kinds of cooperation. I believe each would require more agreement, as you go down the list:
–Working with other groups to influence legislation on a specific issue, with no implication that we agree on anything else.
–Cooperating on a food pantry
–Cooperating on evangelism
–Merging two congregations for a special worship service
–Merging two congregations permanently
I see no reason that we should not cooperate with pseudo-Christians in order to promote a piece of legislation. I see a very good reason not to cooperate with them in evangelism. (If they don’t have the right gospel, they are not really evangelizing, are they?)
[...] Pulpit Magazine » Blog Archive » Our Fundamentalist Future [...]
Bob Hayton,
There has already been a remake of the Fundamentals.
It was entitled ‘The Fundamentals for the Twenty-First Century’ and was edited by Mal Couch. It is published by Kregel and features authors such as Robert LIghtner, Gary Habermas and Arnold Fruchtenbaum.
God Bless
Matthew
Our church received in the mail today a sample copy of a booklet “Christmas: The Miracle Of God With Us”, daily devotions by Billy Graham, John MacArthur, & others, including Graham’s daughter. When I see items like this, I scratch my head in confusion. If Dr. MacArthur & his church refused to participate in a Graham crusade, then why associate your name with Graham in this booklet? Doesn’t that send a mixed message? Wouldn’t it be better and more helpful not to participate completely, thus drawing clear attention to Graham’s mistakes in ministry philosophy? It is examples like this booklet which create doubt among Fundamentalists about just what the conservative wing of evangelicalism really believes. Perhaps Dr. MacArthur didn’t have any control over the use of his writings for this booklet. But it would be helpful to know.
Wally,
Great question.
As you noted, Dr. MacArthur did not have any control over the use of his writings for the booklet in question.
Thomas Nelson, who publishes many of John’s books (and thus holds the copyright on much of John’s material), put those booklets together without our permission.
Our ministry has taken a strong stand against the ecumenism of the BGEA. We would not have allowed John’s material to be used in the booklet if we had been given a say in the matter.
Thanks,
NB
In line with Wally’s question and Nate’s response. “Fundementalists” need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about things before they recieve all the facts. This is unwise and proverbs makes mention of such a thing on a number of occasians. We are to love our brothers and not seperate over something that is not even true (when gather all the information). I am not saying Wally is doing this but I am just saying we need to be careful.
I hope you believe that God is able to speak through you into specific situations. God has you in a place, and uses you. that IS in fact prophesy. I just got stuck on the fist sentence of this article because I know for sure that God speaks to me, and if I allow it, he will give me specific things to say about specific situations and specific people. there is nothing spooky about this, or unusual as a christian dont you think?
Well, give this a thought, and if im wrong, God, deal with me about it.
WOW, interesting discussion to say the least. Caused me to add a new post on my blog as well, i’m not truly even sure what a fundamentalist is anymore. I grew up in evangelical circles, but have always found that they seem to sway to and fro with however the wind blows. I want to make clear this is my personal experience with the evangelical church and not in any way a reference to Every evangelical church in the world today. I am drawn more and more to the writings of the old time theologians, such as Spurgeon, Luther etc. Because of the way the church today has polarized. It seems that along the way somehow, the Gospel was hijacked, and again this is my personal experience by two camps. Both of which hold truth, one seems to have taken on a spirit of pharaseeism (Is that even a word) and the other a spirit of Post-Modernism. I see so much beauty in both and so much to dread at the same time. Anyway it is 4 am and I need sleep so i’m sure when I wake up and re- read this I will be shocked at what I wrote. Anyway heres a snippet from the blog being as I wrote it when I was more alert:
Perhaps the reason a church isn’t growing is because instead of falling on its face before the Lord and crying out for your city, and the lost around you, you are spending time studying what the spirit is doing in those churches that are falling on their faces. I was shocked when I mentioned to my Pastor how I felt we needed to have a prayer meeting to call out to the Lord and was met with “You don’t understand, I have Pastored many churches and no one ever comes to prayer meetings” UGG, which is why matthew78 was born. God never EVER said my house will be a house of preaching, Or a house of a great mens fellowship, He did however say in Isaiah 56:7 “For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.” I cannot believe that His office is filled with all these books on organizing small groups, yet he fails to recognize the most important small group of them all, men and women of God, on their faces, calling out the the creator of all that His will be done in a community. So what if only 2 people show up, it is enough to start with two and grow from there.
“Now it’s 2006. Yet the basic theological issues of today are not all that different than in 1878. The church of their day was faced with the temptation to compromise. The church today is faced with the very same temptation. The only difference is that we put a “post” in front of the ‘modernism.’”
I will have to disagree with this statement.The church isn’t tempted, the church has already compromised.