12 Comments »

  Dan Harney wrote @ April 12, 2008 at 11:44 am

I love that you decided to blog…period!! But more so that you’re blogging about this topic. I hope that it incites much healthy dialogue and growth.

I must admit that I was a good paragraph into a comment on your blog before I realized that I was doing precisely what you didn’t want done on this site. I was standing on my respective edge looking at the other side with a scornful eye at my brothers. (Sorry - old habits!) Perhaps the starting point for any bridge building here is that first acknowledgement - that this issue concerns our family. Yes, I have very differing views and convictions than many of my “fundamentalist” brothers, but at the end of the day they are still, in fact, my brothers.

At any rate, I look forward to where this conversation brings us. Though I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to hoping a blog title of “Jesus - Not a Member of the GOP” would appear in one of the next editions of “the recovering fundamentalist”!!!!

  PhilipT wrote @ April 16, 2008 at 12:03 am

I come from a similar background to yours, I am sure. I got to see firsthand how some (not all, or even most) fundamentalists ruined ministries, marriages, and lives. My grandparents were married for nearly fifty years until my grandfather began seeking after extreme King James Only views. His acceptance of Ruckmanism was a first step into divorce. Now a major portion of my mom’s side of the family are radical KJVO’s and are always fighting about who is more KJVO and anathematizing each other. Neither their familial bond nor their spiritual bond is enough to bring the siblings together.
My church, during my preteen years, was a medium-sized fundamental church. I always heard messages on service and sacrifice, but rarely on Christ and Grace. Only after moving and joining a church that is more Grace/Gospel/Christ-centered did I really see just how legalistic the former church had led me to be.
I see that many of these results are indicative of some branches of fundamentalism. I fear that hyper-separation will kill the good portions of fundamentalism. Separation is good when qualified by biblical principles, but many fundamentalists (myself included…I still struggle with this stuff) often assert their preferences as a reason for separation. Part of my struggle with separation is defining what worldliness really is. Is it actions the unsaved do, is it what they wear, or is it something deeper?
Just as hyper-separation is a major problem with fundamentalism, so is lack of identification. As a preteen, teen, and ministerial student, I really couldn’t discern what fundamentalism was all about. I know what it used to be about, but I think that we have lost our identification. All we have is a name. We have no central theme but separation (from what?). It is too bad that Fundamentalists lost the practice of creating statements of faith in their early Bible Conference days (when I read about those days in fundamentalism from Beale’s book, I nearly broke down. Why can’t we be like that again?).
I know my comments seem a little harsh, but I still consider myself to be a fundamentalist. I have watched over half of the ministry-minded guys I graduated with accept the label of evangelical and turn their backs on their fundamentalist heritage. Do I blame them? No. Watching some of the mindless rabbinical bickering and legalistic preaching they were subjected to, I cannot help but understand their choice in direction.
Why do I hold to a fundamentalist title? I simply believe that fundamentalism has a somewhat safer theological position (if maintained in the original manner) than do the evangelical positions; I would love to work towards a broader unity with evangelicals who have, to a strong extent, separated themselves from false teachers. I hold to fundamentalism because there is a baby with the bathwater. Many of my close friends have thrown out all the ideas of fundamentalists they can possibly find only to find themselves either extremely liberal or even outside of Christianity’s moral framework. I hold to fundamentalism for what it stands for. I know that we are not supposed to use this type of illustration, but I will: Muslim fundamentalists kill thousands because they believe the fundamentals of the Koran. Mormon fundamentalists establish polygamist ranches because they believe the fundamentals of the teachings of Joseph Smith. What do/should Christian fundamentalists do with the fundamentals of the Scriptures? My generation may very well redefine the past. I do hope that we do not over correct the mistakes of previous generations, that we remain committed to the doctrines of scripture, and that we remain willing to separate from doctrinal error for the purity of the truth. With these goals in mind, I am excited about accepting a more progressive fundamentalism.

  Cory wrote @ April 16, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Here’s why I don’t think you should use those illustrations:
Muslim fundamentalists don’t necessarily kill because of the Koran. They most likely kill because of hate. Sometimes it’s the hate of others (i.e. Muslim extremist convinces young boy to martyr himself), but it’s root is hate none-the-less.
Mormon fundamentalists establish polygamist ranches because of lust, not obedience.
What is the underlying motive? Is it obedience to God or simply sin? Do we seek Scripture to support what we believe or do we seek Scripture to find the truth?

One problem I have with this is that there are many people who say that Scripture is inerrant or infallible, which it very well may be, but that doesn’t mean that our interpretation of it is necessarily correct. So maybe if one day there is a new fundamentalist movement the fallibility of man’s interpretation of Scripture could be a new #2 Core Doctrine.

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” (Luke 6:37)

If you feel like you need to separate from a Christian brother because their sin is going to cause you to sin, that’s one thing. Separating because if you don’t you’ll be in danger, either physically or emotionally, might be okay too. But over what doctrinal beliefs should we (fundamentalist or evangelical or whatever) separate over? Just those five fundamentalist core doctrines? Or are there others?

Seek the truth. Love doesn’t fail.

  PhilipT wrote @ April 16, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that different people may behave in certain ways for deeper reasons than their system of belief, but we do have to admit that we do see major trends in fundamentalist groups to emphasize the fundamental teachings of their value system that have been lost/ignored by the more politically correct elements of their religions (Muslims-Jihad; Mormons-polygamy). I don’t know their hearts and I suppose that their founders had some of the anger/lust problems you describe. I was merely trying to avoid being called judgmental, but I would concur with you on what you said in regard to their deeper reasons as far as I can guess.

As far as the ability of Christians to understand Scripture goes, it seems evident that believers are able to understand the truths of the Word of God (I Cor. 2:14-16). Why would God give us His Word if it couldn’t be understood or agreed upon to the extent that is necessary for faith and practice? Although Christians have debated with each other throughout the centuries on minor points of doctrine, a number of points have been defined as orthodox and others as heterodox. Obviously the five core doctrines are part of the orthodox doctrines, but we must be willing to admit a degree of breadth in orthodox doctrine beyond these five. The five core doctrines do not, for example, deal with views on Calvinism and Arminianism. Both J. Gresham Machen (Calvinist Presbyterian) and Bob Jones Sr. (Arminian Methodist) viewed each other as orthodox in their battle against modernism. Our willingness to avoid separating over matters of interpretation often fall into categories such as this one. Does Calvinism and Arminianism divide some fundamentalists? Yes. Should it? Probably not. Why? Because Calvinism (not hyper-Calvinism) and Arminianism (not hyper-Arminianism) are matters of minor points of interpretation of different passages and their manner of practice is within the realm of orthodoxy. Obviously, the development of matters of orthodoxy and interpretational divides demands that we accept the inspiration/infallibility/inerrancy of Scripture as necessarily and logically prior to such a debate. I honestly believe, maybe I’m being too generous, that most Christians who truly believe in the inspiration/infallibility/inerrancy of Scripture will, in general, agree on a realm that is orthodox. Sure, some of us may admit some gray areas (New Perspective; Open Theism; Feminism; Theistic Evolution…), but as we work together and search the scriptures, these areas will either be ruled out as heterodox or be accepted as orthodox by Bible believers. Throughout church history this trend has been the case (i.e. Bible believers accepting/rejecting certain doctrines as orthodox/heterodox). We don’t have to agree with each other on the minor points (Calvinism vs. Arminianism; Pouring vs. Immersion; Pastor vs. Elder; Majority Text vs. Eclectic Text vs. TR; other matters of interpretation), but we can have fellowship one with another if we walk in the light of truth and orthodoxy. I say all that to say, the five core doctrines of fundamentalism may very well determine the outer wall of orthodoxy, but divisions over minor interpretational elements (recognized as such throughout the orthodox community) are part of the breadth and diversity of orthodoxy and should be so of fundamentalism. If one feels that he can get more sound preaching under a pastor of a Calvinist persuasion (or visa versa) and therefore separates himself from a more Arminian congregation he should be willing to still acknowledge the other individuals as orthodox while still maintaining his belief in the correctness of his scriptural interpretation.

On the topic of separation, the Bible teaches that believers must separate from sin (II Cor. 6:17), false teachers (II John 1:10), and ungodly brethren (II Thess. 3:6). The category of false teaching applies to heterodoxy and those who believe and teach it (in John’s case gnosticism).

I know I will be accused by some as being too broad and by others as being too narrow, but I would prefer to look at truth and error in biblical terms, as light and darkness, and, by extension, orthodoxy and heterodoxy. If something does not clearly fit in one or the other, let the orthodox approve that which is excellent (Phil. 1:9-10).

“…that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and all discernment.”

  kevin wrote @ April 16, 2008 at 11:24 pm

correct me if i’m wrong…isnt there a place that paul talkes about separation from a brother who is sinning show some sort of weakness in the separating brother? i might be twisting that a little, but paul does say, not to let another brother bring you down, but if we’re all afraid of being brought down, then who is ever going to help that ‘weaker’ brother become strong again?

so if i struggle with sex and porn and and my stronger brother is offended or eaisly falls because i bring up my issues, then isnt my stronger brother in this situation really just as weak as me?

i realize this is a spin off of what was orginally talked about, but i think form the last post by cory, that it merits some thought…and i guess i’m always a little confused by the stronger/weaker passages.

  PhilipT wrote @ April 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Brother Kevin,
Very good topic to bring up! The passages in question are Romans 14:1-15:1 and I Corinthians 8. These passages are still difficult for me to follow even though I have been trying to study them and find modern day application for years!

Part of the difficulty in understanding these passages is their historical context. Here, the church is in a transition period between the Old and New Covenants, between Law and Grace. The church was still struggling with those who wanted even Gentile Christians to obey certain elements of the Jewish Law (e.g. circumcision and dietary laws). The Jewish element seems present in Paul’s discussion of doubtful activities in Romans 14. Another element of the historical context of what Paul is dealing with is the salvation of “heathen” Gentiles. Corinth was like the “Sin City” of Greece. Here you have a bunch of people getting saved out of all kinds of wickedness and satanism and are trying to figure out how to live a God-honoring life. Obviously a lot of them weren’t doing so well with it (I and II Corinthians show this fact well). In the same church, you have saved Christians with a lot of maturity who know that idols aren’t anything and you have newly saved individuals who are still very sensitive to idol worship.

With the historical setting in mind (two separate settings for two separate passages), let’s take a look at what is going on. Romans 14 begins (v. 1) with a warning not to receive the “weak” into “doubtful disputations.” Here, weak appears to indicate a new believer who has no position on any/few of these matters. With that in mind, Paul moves on to put his answer to the first of three issues. (1) Vegetarianism (vv. 2-4). Paul uses the word weak to indicate that the believer who eats only “herbs” does not realize that such a life is no longer mandated for him by the Bible, but admonishes the stronger brother to leave him alone. The stronger brother did not have to stop eating other things just because the weaker brother was a vegetarian. (2) The Lord’s Day (vv. 5-6). Paul terms neither group (those who celebrate on Sunday and those who celebrate on every day or, those who rested on Saturday and those who didn’t [2nd option probably better]) as weaker or stronger. He just encourages them to be “fully persuaded” of their direction in the matter. (3) Eating Ceremonially Unclean Meat - Pork Chops! (vv. 13-23). Paul begins by declaring that all things (foods, in context) are clean (cf. Acts 10:9-17). Paul demonstrates that the person who is strong knows that ceremonial meats are unclean and the person who doesn’t know/believe that is weaker. The lesson of this passage seems to be that a stronger brother should not pressure a weaker brother to partake of ceremonial unclean meats and thereby defile his conscience. Paul observes that if this weaker brother takes the meat against his conscience (influenced by Mosaic Law), he is in sin (v. 23), and if he does this act because his stronger brother told him to do it, the older brother is in sin also (vv. 15, 21). Obviously these three specific problems during the time of transition from Mosaic Law to the Church age are no longer big deals. The best application I can come up with is that there are varying degrees of activities in which Christians participate and these actions are often influenced by certain portions of Scripture (e.g. some believe that women should not wear jewelry - I Peter 3:3). It is not my place to tell them that their interpretation of Scripture is faulty if their activity is not sinful. These issues are not always that of weaker and stronger brothers (e.g. Sabbath day debate); therefore, I should treat them with respect and not try to force them to change their minds or go against their conscience in that area.

Moving on to I Corinthians…. Paul begins with a warning against spiritual pride (vv. 1-3). Paul is basically saying: “Don’t get puffed up just because you already know what I’m about to say.” Next, Paul teaches that idols are nothing (vv. 4-5). Furthermore, he points out that not all believers recognize this fact (v. 6). Finally, Paul shows stronger believers that when they do eat the meat that it does not really make them spiritually stronger (v.7). It really makes no difference whether you eat or not. Because the eating of the meat poses no spiritual threat, does it mean I can do whatever I want with eating meat? No (vv. 10-11). A stronger brother is one who knows that he can eat his idol-meat, but limits it in a way that his brother will not partake in the meat and fall into sin (vv. 12-13). These limitations are given in chapter 10 verses 19-29; the limitations are shown in three different circumstances. (1) Should I eat idol-meat in an idol temple (10:19-22)? No. This is just as bad as worshiping the idols. (2) Should I try to find out if the meat is offered to idols when I am in the marketplace (10:23-26)? No. One should simply purchase the meat and take it home. (3) Should I eat meat offered to idols given to me at the house of an unbeliever (10:27-29)? Yes and No. If he says nothing about the meat, I can eat it. If he tells me that it is from the temple, I should abstain in order to be a good testimony. As far as I can tell, these passage seem to apply, in principle, to actions that could make a new believer/believer who struggles with a certain sin fall into a certain sin. For example, just because I have never had had problems with drinking alcohol, should I then take a struggling alcoholic to a restaurant that serves alcohol? The environment doesn’t harm me, but it could bring my brother back to his sin. For his sake, I’ll go to Arbys (not a bad choice, I might add…now I’m thinking about curly fries and Arby’s Sauce, this is so not good!).

As far as the counseling scenario goes, I would not recommend that you go to a brother for counseling who struggles with lust just because you mentioned your hypothetical struggle. I would recommend a brother who would not have problems with the topics you bring up (this doesn’t mean that he hasn’t dealt with the same issues in his past). I don’t know that the terms weaker/stronger necessarily apply in this case (all the biblical examples indicate that the problem is an amoral issue (ceremonially unclean meats, vegetarianism, sabbath day celebrations, and meat offered to idols [technically amoral]) rather than a moral issue (lust). If we wanted to use the “weaker” and “stronger” labels, I think that the weaker brother would be the one in need of help and the stronger brother would be the one offering help. This is just my suggestion.

Should we separate from brothers who struggle with sin? No. Even though we must, as Christians, avoid sin (II Cor. 6:17), we should not shun brothers who struggle with sins, but should strengthen them with our edifying words of counsel. If, however, the Christian is not struggling with sin, but is actively participating in sin and is beyond the point of caring what the Bible has to say about his sin, we are told to “note” him, “have no company with him,” and in every opportunity that you do have to speak with him, you should “admonish (or, counsel) him as a brother” while avoiding looking at him as an “enemy” (II Thess. 3:14-15). Our goal should not be to do this with just the average brother who struggles with sin, but only with those who practice a lifestyle of sin. We could launch from here into a discussion of church discipline, etc., but I leave this topic here for now. I hope I have clarified the topic of weaker/stronger brothers to some degree and I hope I have answered your questions about counseling brothers with sin struggles. If not, let me know where I missed some of your points. Thanks!

  Mark Culton wrote @ April 18, 2008 at 7:45 am

Well, with all the buzz about this polygamist ranch in Texas that was raided, it just further drags the fundamentalist name through the mud, no matter what type of fundamentalist you are.
Unfortunately, the average person does not know much difference between fundamentalist Mormons and fundamentalist Christians.
Which leads me to distance myself even further from the label.
Don’t get me wrong - labels are not always bad.
I will never reject the label of Christian, even though there have been plenty of “Christians” who have blemished the church’s reputation.

But I am certainly not going to fight to retain a label that is extraneous, that does not tie me to Christ.

  PhilipT wrote @ April 18, 2008 at 10:25 am

I agree. The label isn’t everything; the heritage, core doctrines, and even the early spirit of fundamentalism are the parts worth retaining. Maybe we could begin suggesting possible names for such a movement?

  kevin wrote @ April 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm

thanks philip…i understand what your saying in your thoughts about romans and cor…i think part of my point is trying to say that i’ve often found that fundamentalist ‘freak out’ when it comes to a friend sinning and try to fit someone into a counseling system. OR they freak out because they have the ‘bible knowledge’ to tell someone a few verses and send them on their way, but have no concept on how to actually guide someone out of their sin. we use the bible as a hammer…ouch that hurts sometimes in inapproprate ways.

  PhilipT wrote @ April 18, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Ur right. Some of them do; however, my current pastor is a fundamentalist, but he is awesome at preaching, teaching, and counseling in grace. Often the fundamentalists who come down hard on people are trying to uphold the part of Jesus’ (and the Apostle’s) teachings that were hard on sin, but miss the boat when it comes to the love and concern that he showed. Often the critique is returned that the evangelicals show lots of love, but don’t try to point out sins for fear of hurting people’s feelings. Personally, I think that both sides should learn from each other, and that is pat of why I am blogging here.

For a biblical example of these extremes, check out Revelation 2. In verses 1-7, you’ve got Ephesus, a church with a lot of doctrine and “bible knowledge,” but they are accused by God because they “left their first love” (v. 4). Now, skip down to verses 18-29 and take a look at the church of Thyatira. This church had a lot of love (v. 19 - “charity” KJV - note the parallels and lack thereof between this verse and verse 2), but their doctrine was weak; therefore, they began to let in false teachers (vv. 20-23). Obviously, not all of them were part of this doctrinal delusion (v. 24). When I read this passage, I cannot help but see these polar opposites and wonder, what if these churches had learned from each other? If the church at Ephesus had retained their doctrine but had added the love that the church at Thyatira had? What if the believers in Thyatira kept on loving like there was no tomorrow, but added the correct doctrine that the Ephesian believers had? Clearly these churches would not have had anything against them. Although association with teachers of wrong doctrine is not characteristic of all Evangelicals, it is of some Evangelicals. Although lack of love is characteristic of some Fundamentalists, it is not characteristic of all of them. As we work to synthesize the two groups, let us take the purity of doctrine found in fundamentalism and the power of love found among evangelicals! Love and doctrine need not be mutually exclusive.

  Tim wrote @ April 22, 2008 at 10:36 pm

I wonder if it’s even benefitual to hold onto these labels anymore. The fundamentals of the faith are timeless truths, but whether we like it or not the term “fundamentalist” has picked up a very negative conontation in our society. As it is more frequently associated with radical Islam and radical mormonism, I think the average person associates the term with “radical” and even “cult-like”. Evangelical on the other hand is a very general term, but it is the term the average person associates with a conservative Bible-believing Christian. It’s a term with a history back to the Reformation and it speaks to the heart of who we are. We believe in the need to evangelize and in the need for each individual to make a personal decision for Christ. Personally I think it’s a good term and I have no problem being considered an evangelical, but as I said, it is a broad term. Sure there are many evangelicals that I would disagee with on many points, but are they essential (fundamental) points? I think we need to be cautious with labels, both cautious not to hold on to them to tightly and also cautious not use them to make sweeping generalizations.

  adam wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 11:10 pm

I can’t help but suspect that even the term “Evangelical” has quite a negative connotation in our society, at least for ‘left wing’-leaning secular people who have nothing to associate with the label other than ‘hypocritical televangelists’ and ‘zealots’ who care more about winning converts than individuals’ personal lives, if i may indulge the stereotypes. I don’t bring this up to discourage anyone from identifying with the term Evangelical, or even any term for that matter, but maybe to ask: “In the context of ’soul winning,’ might labels get thrown out the window, since evangelism seems, to me, to be part deconstruction of misconception and part information, (notwithstanding the work of the Holy Spirit and the role of scripture)? Does the question of what to call oneself concern ‘interChristianity’ alone, or is it relevant to the broader context of community outside the Church?

Your comment

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>