Fundamentalist's Leader

Disloyalty!

Compromise!

One more attack like that and you're out of my movement, too!

BTW, you guys who have a connection to Boscoe Bible Skool, let 'em know I now need an honorary doctorate so that the movement has proper credibility.

--
Pipedude III (a.k.a. "Dr. Pipe")

 

Disloyalty!

Compromise!

One more attack like that and you're out of my movement, too!

BTW, you guys who have a connection to Boscoe Bible Skool, let 'em know I now need an honorary doctorate so that the movement has proper credibility.

--
Pipedude III (a.k.a. "Dr. Pipe") </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, okay, Fearless Leader. Pipe down, sign my Bible and I'll talk to the Dean at Boscoe about that honorary doctorate. (Anybody know BBS's current address?)

 

Having been raised in Fundamentalism I found this topic interesting. My father came under the influence of Dr. Hyles' ministry so for me Dr. Hyles was one of the leaders, along with Dr. Rice and Dr. Bob Jones Sr. The older I get and the more Fundamentalists I come in contact with, I find a variety of influential pastors all of whom are great men and worthy of their status.

A troubling component of this discussion is the fact that so many Christians still have not learned the lessons that Paul wrote about in I Corinthians. It is very true that we are to be followers of Christ and not of men. This has been reiterated over and over in this forum, mostly by people whom I hope only SOUND as though they are taking a "holier than thou" attitude.

In truth however, God does provide for human leadership in the New Testament. Would anyone argue that Paul was NOT a leader of the early church? Or Peter? Certainly God used these incredibly influential individuals to coalesce disparate groups and factions of the early church into an effective organized movement such that the people of Antioch began referring to them as a group as "Christians".

Today's Christian leaders serve a less organizational role, serving instead as a rallying point for like-minded individuals. Dr. Hyles' true legacy as a leader was not that he influenced the doctrine of a great number of fellow preachers, but rather that he provided a forum for fellowship. I do not personally know a single pastor (although I am sure some exist) that would purport to wholeheartedly agree with every one of Dr. Hyles' teachings, whether they be doctrinal or methodological in nature. However a great number of pastors were able to find enough common ground to establish friendships and relationships with other pastors who were part of what some would call "the Hyles camp". To this end, I believe Dr. Hyles' leadership will be missed.

Today, a great number of the pastors who were part of the "Hyles camp" find it difficult to "follow" Dr. Schaap, simply because most of them can remember when Dr. Schaap was a nobody, a college student dating the daughter of the venerable Chancellor. I personally do not face this difficulty as I am young enough that Dr. Schaap was one of my teachers at Hyles-Anderson College.

There is a dearth of leadership in Fundamentalism today but I am not sure this is a bad thing. So long as Fundamentalists can find some common ground and continue to fellowship with each other so that we do not become a fragmented and ineffective segment of Christianity. More importantly I think we should remember that ultimately our followship should be centered on Christ. If a group of Fundamentalists finds a pastor around whom they can rally and maintain fellowship, then I don't believe others should criticize them, so long as they don't lose sight of Christ.

 

Too late

 

Why is that too late?

 

Pipe,poof you are a Dr.!Rhet I understand.

 

Do I honestly have to tell you the IFB movement is fragmented beyond repair?

Certain sects within the movement are not but the movement as a whole is divided beyond fellowship much less effectiveness as a whole.

 

Do you mean support or pay their way?

How does your organization compare to Wycliffe Bible Translators. I have been told they are larger then the SBC.

 

No it isn't. Fundamentalism isn't really a movement to be fragmented. But the idea of fundamentalism is alive and well, reaching people, planting churches, content to do the work rather than build monuments.

I think your take of IFB is severely misguided.

 

"How does your organization compare to Wycliffe Bible Translators."

Doubt they are anywhere near the sbc total of people, and they haven't been near fundamentalism for years. They might be considered evangelical yet, but some of their practices make one wander where they are.

 

No it isn't. Fundamentalism isn't really a movement to be fragmented. But the idea of fundamentalism is alive and well, reaching people, planting churches, content to do the work rather than build monuments.

I think your take of IFB is severely misguided. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, I wish that what you posted was true but it is not. Fundamentalism is not alive and well—it is faltering and floundering. I am well connected to the many factions of Fundamentalism and we have problems. One of our biggest problems is that we cannot admit our problems and face them. The best approach that we can take is to recognize and to face our problems.

1. We are in a leadership crisis because we do not have successors to the strong, charismatic leaders of bygone days. Much of Fundamentalism has hinged on leadership. Some have responded that Jesus Christ is our leader. This is a truism but God raised up men to carry on His cause. We simply do not have the Fundamentalist giants of past generations. Fundamentalism has followed the path of 3 M’s—a man, a movement, and a monument. We are still looking to our monuments of Norris, Riley, Shields, Rice, Jones, et. al. for leadership. We have lost leaders who forged whole segments of the movement and no one has stepped forward to shoulder the load and take their places. Some great leaders who are still living (Lee Roberson for example) are too old and infirm to bear the load they carried in their prime. Some of the upcoming leaders are more restricted in their appeal to a smaller circle and have limited rapport with the masses of people.

There are still good men in the fight but their ministries and influence cannot match the size and scope of the last generation. There are long lists of leaders from every sector of Fundamentalism who are no longer living or active and no candidate has filled their slots. Where are the men to replace the likes of Noel Smith, Ford Porter, Lester Roloff, Dallas Billington, Bob Ketchum, R. V. Clearwaters, Myron Cedarholm, Oliver B. Greene, Bob Jones, Sr., Bob Jones, Jr., Monroe Parker, Harold B. Sightler, G. B. Vick, Bill Rice, M. R. DeHaan, et. al.?

Furthermore, Fundamentalism has fractured into cliques and followings of these first great leaders. It is I follow Peter, or I follow Paul, or I follow Christ thing all over again. HAC churches support missionaries from HAC, BJU churches support BJU missionaries, TTU churches support TTU missionaries, and now PCC churches support PCC missionaries from their very own mission board. MMBC and PBC churches look for people with their own label too. My son is a missionary and gets turned down because he graduated from WXZ or holds the wrong position on the KJV or is under the wrong mission board. It has nothing to do with him as a Christian, a missionary, a preacher, or his doctrinal beliefs. It’s all about a label. Somehow, I have been able to travel within all these groups and find it distressing how they are putting down the other set of Fundamentalists.

2. We have lost our direction. A quarter of century ago, we realized that we were in a struggle but we knew who our enemy was. Today, we are stilling fighting but the cause is no more than a memory. We have not refocused and identified the relevant issues for this generation. We are uttering clichés that no longer matter because the battle has shifted to a new front. For example, we are still cussing the likes of the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches when these organizations are no longer any viable threats to Fundamentalism. On the other hand, we have failed to confront the heresies of the Word of Faith movement and healing shows so that a local Baptist pastor attends a Benny Hinn crusade and reports being really blessed. We must refocus and refine our vision.

3. We have lost contact with the masses of people. At one time, there was a kind of underlying Christian consensus in America. Most people believed in God and agreed upon what was right and what was wrong. During the past couple of decades, the American mindset and value system has shifted to incorporate a thoroughly humanistic and non-Christian paradigm. No longer can we count on people knowing the basics of Christian morality and rudimentary Scriptural knowledge when we go soul-winning. The post-modern mind is real and it is prevailing in America. It is going to take more patience, work, teaching, and perseverance to win the modern masses. Furthermore, modern man has many more distractions. Soul-winners are competing with all the entertainment and materialism binge of American society.

4. We have been mortally wounded by the excesses, the financial and moral scandals, the abuses of power and confidence, the demagoguery, and the empire building of the past decades. Our credibility is on the line. Our testimony is in question because others have brought reproach upon Fundamentalism and the cause of Christ. Let's face it and deal with it.

5. We have suffered a kind of implosion instead of explosion. We have focused our attention upon ourselves within our own circles. For some, we lost that soul-winning zeal. This inward focus has resulted in skirmishes among our factions for pieces of a diminishing pie. To grow, Fundamentalism must take a strong Gospel message to a lost world instead of fighting for market share of Fundamentalism.

Whereas my analysis may be dismal, there is HOPE! We still serve a great God who has brought His saints from many hardships and trials of bygone centuries. God is faithful. The problem is that we are so faithful.

 

Well spoken Paid. We do agree on some things.

 

Jack Hyles certainly lost influence in Fundamentalism during his later years but he maintained a significant following that borders upon adulteration even unto today.

You are right that Fundamentalists are church oriented in embryonic form. Like all things, Fundamentalism has undergone growth and development. It does coalesce into a movement with association around a unifying theme, usually a college or Bible school. In the early days, it was a Bible conference or camp meeting that brought the local churches together in a cooperative venture--now it seems to be a college. The evolution of Fundamentalism may be expressed in a three point outline—a man, a movement, and a monument. Please give me credit if you preach this next Sunday—I may even tell you where I stole it.

 

The issue of Civil Rights, while still being an issue that needs to be dealt with, is no longer in a place in history where it needs to be a movement, or have a leader. It's now in the hands of each and ever one of us, individually.

Those who try to resurrect the movement come off looking like buffoons.

Likewise, fundamentalist Christianity is no longer in a place in history where it needs to be a movement, or have a leader. It's now at the individual level.

Those to preach "fundementalist movement" come off looking like blowhards and buffoons. Those e few who adopt christian fundemantslism, confusing it with fundemantalist Christainity, come off looking like disjointed and disoriented extremists. Actually, IMO, those folks do a bit of harm to mainline Christianity.

 

Paid, I agree with much of what you said to some degree. But I do think there are some other issues.

The movement may have depended on these leaders, but the idea does not. As I said, I don't think fundamentalism is a movement any more precisely because they don't have recognized leaders (among other reasons). We don't need them. Fundamentalism today is a local issue, among local churches and local fellowships. Perhaps in your areas it is not strong. But in others it certainly is. There are many healthy, self-critical discussions going on in fundamentalism.

As an unapologetic fundamentalist committed to the idea of historic fundamentalism, I am not looking for a leader. I enjoy the influence of other men, particularly the older generation who have "been there, done that" long before there was a T-Shirt for it. But I am committed to what I believe the Bible teaches, and for that I don't need a strong charismatic leader.

In most cases it is about doctrine. These schools turn out people who believe certain things. I wouldn't support a missionary from many of these schools for that very reason. But this is not a weakness.

But compare this point to #1. You complain about a lack of leaders while complaining that it is all about leaders. I think there is an inherent contradiction there.

Then I would suggest you find it. "We" have not lost our direction. You may have and you may know some who have. But the fundamentalists I know are very clear on their direction and committed to carrying it out regardless of what others do. We aren't sticking our fingers into the wind to see how it blows. There are disagreements about some things, but we know what we are doing. And I think that I stand in the mainstream of historical fundamentalism based on what I have seen and read and experienced.

Sounds like you run in the wrong circles. This is the first I have heard about the WCC or NCC in years. And I have heard Hinn and the WOF movement directly addressed.

I agree that we need to focus and refine our vision. But in my neck of the woods we aren't lost.

This is a cultural problem with all chruches, not just a fundamentalist problem.

And all of us need to address it.

To some degree, but far less than other evangelical circles, I would imagine. I think we need to face the problems and I know of men who have done that and who are doing it. They are taking great heat for it. But they are willing to do it. There have not been a lot of financial scandals. Fundamentalists never had much money. There have been some moral issues, demagoguery and the like. But I see far less of that now than before.

I disagree to some extent. I do think the best way to preserve fundamentalism is to create a new generation through evangelism. We, like all churches, need to focus on the gospel. We need to quit trying to keep people who don't want to be a part of us anyway.

I take great hope in this.

 

But Hyles left fundamentalism. Any following he had and might have today is not a fundamentalist following.