Has Fundamentalism Died?

[Deacon]

I'm not a Fundamentalist so I won't post this on the Fundamental Baptist Forum here at the Baptist Board
but I'd like input from the few self-identified fundamentalists.

I read an article from the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal called:
“The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism,” by Rolland D. McCune [Volume 1 1 (Spring 1996): 9].
Written almost 30 years ago!

Part of it can be read on the Galaxy Software site HERE
A name caught my eye...

The article begins...

Dr. William R. Rice was trained for the ministry in the 1930s and 40s at Bob Jones University, a clearly militant fundamentalist institution, and at Grace Theological Seminary, then also an outspoken fundamentalist school. He began his pastoral ministry in the post-World War II era when fundamentalism’s identity was not only self-assured but recognized outside its own confines as well. Over the years he witnessed many of his friends and former classmates leave the ranks of fundamentalism for the more congenial and inclusive camp of new evangelicalism. But his identity as a fundamentalist and that of his ministry of well over forty years were never in doubt nor questioned.

Today, fundamentalism is said to be in an identity crisis. It is allegedly trying to discover what it is. New self-definitions are being heard which say that a fundamentalist is one who is faithful to expository preaching, practices church discipline, repudiates easy believism, and is aggressive in evangelism. Or some imply that a fundamentalist is one who believes in inerrancy and does not cooperate with Roman Catholics, or is one who believes the “fundamentals” but is less militant and separatistic than formerly thought. The truth is that these are things that new evangelicals and self-proclaimed non-fundamentalists also believe and practice, leaving a distinctly fundamentalist self-identity completely vacuous. This all points up the fact that many are simply confused, and this includes would-be leaders as well as followers and well-wishers. Judging by some of the prevalent ambiguity, one is sometimes tempted to ask, Will the real fundamentalist please stand up?
​

So my questions are:

1) What is a Fundamentalist today? What separates a Fundamentalist from other Baptist believers?

and

2) Do we really need a separate Fundamentalist Baptist Forum anymore?

Rob

 

[DaveXR650]

1) What is a Fundamentalist today? What separates a Fundamentalist from other Baptist believers?

I'd say:
Exclusive use of King James Version.
Rejection of all Calvinism.
Abstaining from all alcoholic beverages.
Separation from other denominations.
Aggressive "soul winning".
Dispensational and pre-Trib rapture teaching.

When I was one we abstained from movies in general, rock and roll music, and officially, you weren't supposed to even eat at an establishment that served alcohol, even if you didn't buy any. There was also the obsession with clothing and hair but that was the '70's and early '80's. That said, the congregation was loving, welcoming to new people, and all the prohibitions were done in a good hearted manner with even some humor and always with love. We left because we moved out of the area.

Oh yeah. They had the best pot luck dinners ever, anywhere.

 

[xlsdraw]

Real Baptist Fundamentalism doesn't die. It gets Raptured.

Then it's enemies can celebrate it's absence during the Tribulation. Enjoy.

 

[Deacon]

The so-called fundamentals are in reality the core beliefs of orthodoxy/evangelicalism but should not be equated with fundamentalism as such. There have always been a few voices who would equate fundamentalism simply with the fundamentals. But this is too broad an approach. However, the point here is that there is a certain complex of orthodox doctrine to which other distinctives must be appended to account for the phenomenon of fundamentalism.
Rolland D. McCune, “The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 1 1 (1996): 19.​

Fundamentalism is not simply belief in a core set of fundamental doctrines!
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have similar doctrinal positions on the basics.

What makes them different?

1) The article notes that the main distinctive characteristics of Fundamentalism are militancy and separatism.

...the most clearly observable distinctives of the movement are militancy and separatism. Separatism did become a point of controversy, and thus to some degree a question of fundamentalism’s self-identity, in the 1970s when John R. Rice dogmatically rejected “second degree” separation. Rice took fundamentalist separatism on a different tack, but it was Jerry Falwell who seriously challenged fundamentalism from within when he became very critical of old-line fundamentalism. ibid. 10.​

2) The lack of identity has served to dilute Fundamentalism to such a degree that the term "Fundamentalism" has lost its meaning.

In the now-famous Christian Life article in 1956, the conclusion was that “fundamentalism has become evangelicalism,” a tacit admission that up until then the new evangelicals considered themselves fundamentalists. Vernon Grounds wrote in 1956 that “undeniably evangelicalism is fundamentalism, if by fundamentalism is meant a tenacious insistence upon the essential and central dogmas of historic Christianity.” ibid. 12–13.​

3) Fundamentalism has also become further associated with "stuck in the mud" obstinance; a refusal to advance or learn, an unwillingness to listen to anything new or remotely different.

4) As noted by DaveXR650 in the second post, separation from modern social life.
Fundamentalism has become associated with a legalistic, pharisaical self-righteousness.
I live among the Amish and Old Order Memmonites in south-eastern Pennsylvania. Has Fundamentalism's separatism created a novelty group, identified by antique characteristics?

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

Oh yeah. They had the best pot luck dinners ever, anywhere.

…then you’ve never been to a PB potluck

 

[DaveXR650]

…then you’ve never been to PB potluck

Well then I might just have to. Next thing you'll be telling me that they sing real hymns instead of mindless choruses accompanied by drums and an electric guitar.

 

[kyredneck]

Well then I might just have to. Next thing you'll be telling me that they sing real hymns instead of mindless choruses accompanied by drums and an electric guitar.

It’s beautiful harmonious a cappella.

 

[DaveXR650]

3) Fundamentalism has also become further associated with "stuck in the mud" obstinance; a refusal to advance or learn, an unwillingness to listen to anything new or remotely different.

In all fairness, while it's true that fundamentalism, as broadly defined, has lost it's clout since the days of Jerry Falwell, the simple fact is that the things they predicted about the general path of society have come true.

And what I see in the modern YRR movement is an obsession with anything new and different. So we have our theologians growing billy goat beards and with enough tatoos to limit their job prospects to the carnival if they leave the ministry. There is a weird fascination with craft beer and cigars. And even worse, many of the leaders are being swept into embracing CRT and wavering on homosexuality.

As our society gets weirder, Christians are going to look weirder without deliberately doing anything. You can resist this openly and deliberately or be swept along. There are things we can all learn from the Fundamentalists.

 

[xlsdraw]

We'll be worshipping tonight, Wednesday night, in the very same fashion as we worshipped when I was a child in the 1960s.

Same goes for Soul winners knocking doors this afternoon. Soul winners knocking doors Saturday morning. Bus workers working their routes Saturday morning. Sunday School and Morning Worship Sunday morning. Evening service Sunday night.

The fatalistic musings and opinions of a modernist man in the Northeast are utterly inconsequential to the reality that we know.

The Old Paths are still God's Paths.

 

[Marooncat79]

It’s beautiful harmonious a cappella.

do you guys do lining?

 

[Marooncat79]

In all fairness, while it's true that fundamentalism, as broadly defined, has lost it's clout since the days of Jerry Falwell, the simple fact is that the things they predicted about the general path of society have come true.

And what I see in the modern YRR movement is an obsession with anything new and different. So we have our theologians growing billy goat beards and with enough tatoos to limit their job prospects to the carnival if they leave the ministry. There is a weird fascination with craft beer and cigars. And even worse, many of the leaders are being swept into embracing CRT and wavering on homosexuality.

As our society gets weirder, Christians are going to look weirder without deliberately doing anything. You can resist this openly and deliberately or be swept along. There are things we can all learn from the Fundamentalists.

In some ways you are correct

I believe they mean well

 

[kyredneck]

do you guys do lining?

No, not this bunch, up in the mountains some still do, there's an 'Old Regular' Baptist church (NOT Sovereign Grace) about 20 miles away where I attended a funeral that still line sang, but they were excruciatingly SLOW, I could hardly set through it. I've listened to some very good line singing on CD though.

I love a cappella where the congregation takes the song service very seriously and makes no bones about 'showing their stuff' when it comes to harmony. Lexington Church is a superb singing congregation. So is Louisville and Cincinatti.

[add]

Campbellites (Church Of Christ) split off from the Old Baptists back in the 1830s, they retained the 'no musical instruments' practice from the Baptists. As a child my Granny used to take me to her CoC Sunday evening services, and it was beautiful singing. They took the song service very seriously and 'showed their stuff'. It's a shame they corrupted the healthful teaching though.

 

[kyredneck]

We sent our daughters to the Cincinatti Church singing school back in the 80s. They harmonized and sang like angels, we've several CDs of them singing, a cappella and guitar accompaniment.

 

[37818]

Fundamentalism has become associated with a legalistic, pharisaical self-righteousness.

The accusations of the anti fundamentalism liars.

 

[robt.k.fall]

One must differentiate between Biblical Fundamentalism and Cultural fundamentalism.

 

[Deacon]

One must differentiate between Biblical Fundamentalism and Cultural fundamentalism.

Define the two and note the differences.
The article noted doctrinal equality between evangelical theology and fundamentalism.

Im sure there are more differences than good singing and great chicken.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

The accusations of the anti fundamentalism liars.

Ah, is that fundamentalist militancy?
I’d just call it “being rude.”

Rob

 

[Logos1560]

Exclusive use of King James Version.
Rejection of all Calvinism.

Almost all the Church of England makers of the KJV were Calvinists so how would exclusive use of the KJV be a complete rejection of all Calvinism?

Use of the 1560 Geneva Bible would be an older path than the newer 1611 KJV.
Use of the original 1611 edition of the KJV would be an older path than the use of post-1900 KJV editions.

 

[DaveXR650]

Almost all the Church of England makers of the KJV were Calvinists so how would exclusive use of the KJV be a complete rejection of all Calvinism?

I was just putting up a list of things, not trying to say one had to logically follow another. We were KJV only, even to the point of one of our pastors saying that the old Scofield reference bible was good but the new Scofield reference bible was bad.

Regarding the Reformers, for instance, we were taught re Calvin, "he was wrong on baptism, wrong on the Lord's supper, what's the use of listening to him". And while many fundamentalists like John R. Rice considered themselves "Calvinistic" or "moderate Calvinists" they rejected the TULIP especially limited atonement, which to many people, is the apex of Calvinism.

There are churches today, and some would be considered fundamentalist in the broad sense, who circulate literature that instructs members to be on the lookout for key words that those with Calvinistic tendencies tend to use, so that it can't get a foothold. That is what I call a complete rejection of Calvinism.

 

[37818]

Ah, is that fundamentalist militancy?
I’d just call it “being rude.”

Rob

We all should be militant for the truth. I agree we should not be rude.