Drop the Title "Fundamentalist"?

[12strings]

Simple question with perhaps many complicated answers:

Is there any compelling reason for a church to continue using the term "Fundamentalist" as one of their primary descriptors?

My general opinion is no. Here's why:

Fundamentalism was born out of a response to modernism and liberalism within several Christian groups, and referred to those churches that believe the "Fundamentals" of the faith.

Unfortunately, the term now is usually not used in that manner, but instead in most people's minds refers to those churches that generally, for good or bad, take the issue of SEPARATION farther than most other Gospel-believing churches.

As such, when you combine (a) the last 50 years of SOME (not all) "Fundamentalist" leaders, churches, and groups advocating some obviously extra-biblical restrictions on Christians, and (b) the recent association of the term "Fundamentalist" with Islamist extremists...It seems that even if a church held to fundamentalism in the original sense of the word, that using the term today simply carries such a different meaning, that the explanation needed makes it a net negative, and unnecessary.

Finally, there is a much wider number of churches, which might be called "evangelical," or "Bible-believing", or "Gospel-Believing" churches that DO believe the original "Fundamentals of the faith." So I don't see the reason for using this particular term to differentiate from those churches, since the meaning most people have in mind is so far from the original.

Those are my thoughts. This is not mean to disparage fundamentalists...but question whether the term has any real need to continue in use. I think John Piper's commendations of fundamentalism are very good: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists

 

[Van]

If we do away with Fundamentalist, what other code word do we use for the KJVO/KJVP mindset? One person's extra-biblical doctrine is another person's gospel.

 

[Salty]

If Church A dropped the designation of Fundamental, than other Fundamental churches would say Church A went liberal

 

[InTheLight]

Is there any compelling reason for a church to continue using the term "Fundamentalist" as one of their primary descriptors?

I don't think there is any compelling reason unless it's like Van said, to let people know here is a church that uses the KJV exclusively, does not use modern, amplified music (certainly NO drums), preaches hyper-separation, etc., etc.

Along with using the term "fundamental" I wonder if these churches realize their outreach techniques are dated as well? I'm referring to cold-calling via door knocking, bus ministries, and the like. In the past couple of decades door knocking has become identified with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. People generally avoid answering their door when there are two men wearing ties on their doorstep. And who wants to send your kid away with strangers on a school bus for the three hours?

 

[evangelist6589]

Simple question with perhaps many complicated answers:

Is there any compelling reason for a church to continue using the term "Fundamentalist" as one of their primary descriptors?

My general opinion is no. Here's why:

Fundamentalism was born out of a response to modernism and liberalism within several Christian groups, and referred to those churches that believe the "Fundamentals" of the faith.

Unfortunately, the term now is usually not used in that manner, but instead in most people's minds refers to those churches that generally, for good or bad, take the issue of SEPARATION farther than most other Gospel-believing churches.

As such, when you combine (a) the last 50 years of SOME (not all) "Fundamentalist" leaders, churches, and groups advocating some obviously extra-biblical restrictions on Christians, and (b) the recent association of the term "Fundamentalist" with Islamist extremists...It seems that even if a church held to fundamentalism in the original sense of the word, that using the term today simply carries such a different meaning, that the explanation needed makes it a net negative, and unnecessary.

Finally, there is a much wider number of churches, which might be called "evangelical," or "Bible-believing", or "Gospel-Believing" churches that DO believe the original "Fundamentals of the faith." So I don't see the reason for using this particular term to differentiate from those churches, since the meaning most people have in mind is so far from the original.

Those are my thoughts. This is not mean to disparage fundamentalists...but question whether the term has any real need to continue in use. I think John Piper's commendations of fundamentalism are very good: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists

Great points, however Fundamentalist these days have allot of problems. John MacArthur has said some interesting things about them in his book(s) Reckless Faith, and The Jesus You Cant Ignore.

The Jesus You Cant Ignore (16)

Many at the forefront of that movement seemed to have little understanding of what was truly fundamental and what was secondary. In other words, they were not fundamentalist in the original sense of the word. They had an uncanny knack for straining at gnats while swallowing camels. Thats not authentic fundamentalist but a corruption of it. In fact, it is one modern embodiment of the pharisaical spirit.

HOWEVER, they are better than the compromising New Evangelical, and why MacArthur and others should spend more time dealing with them over the problems in the Fundamentalist movement.

 

[evangelist6589]

I don't think there is any compelling reason unless it's like Van said, to let people know here is a church that uses the KJV exclusively, does not use modern, amplified music (certainly NO drums), preaches hyper-separation, etc., etc.

Along with using the term "fundamental" I wonder if these churches realize their outreach techniques are dated as well? I'm referring to cold-calling via door knocking, bus ministries, and the like. In the past couple of decades door knocking has become identified with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. People generally avoid answering their door when there are two men wearing ties on their doorstep. And who wants to send your kid away with strangers on a school bus for the three hours?

There is some fruit in those ministries and SC is one of them. However I generally agree that door knocking is a bad way to do evangelism. However I believe that God brings the converts and not men, so more power to those that do this type of evangelism.

 

[Salty]

... However I generally agree that door knocking is a bad way to do evangelism.....

and why is door knocking a bad way....?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Except there are plenty of Fundamental Churches which are neither KJVO or KJVP.

If we do away with Fundamentalist, what other code word do we use for the KJVO/KJVP mindset? One person's extra-biblical doctrine is another person's gospel.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

We Need A NEW Movement/Title Altogether

I don't really fit anywhere well these days. I have the heart of an Independent, I attend a conservative SBC church, and frankly, I'm not too big these days on ANY denominational loyalties. I also agree that the term "Fundamentalist" or "Fundamental" has probably outlived its usefulness. I will say that I am a Baptist because I think that New Testament People are to be Baptistic in their doctrine and practice in order to be BIBLICAL. While I do respect people and churches that are "Protestants" IF they follow Biblical practices, I do believe that they were all originally Protestant because they found themselves in disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church and rebeled against it. Respectfully, many paid the price for that with their lives. Pure Bible believeing baptistic people were NEVER a part of that and never had to "come out" of that mess, but during those days it didn't matter...if you bucked the Papists and got caught, you paid dearly. Most of those protestant denominations are making inrounds back into the fold of the RCC today as the One World Church begins to come together. I also firmly believe that as time goes by we will see some of those who embrace calvinism go the same route just based upon the associations of some with the mainline denominations. That is my opinion based on some of the things I have read by David Cloud and others (who I know must be hated by some here).

All that said...I'd be happy to see the rise of a new "moniker" such as:

"DEPENDENT BAPTISTS" (DB's) - (because we should be HUMBLE and dependent on the Lord for everything)...imagine THAT!

or

"FULLY DEPENDENT BAPTISTS" (FDB's) - (We need a title that MAKES US remember Who is in charge)... I hope I don't really have to say who that is to be......!

Just something to think about in my humble opinion.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't think there is any compelling reason unless it's like Van said, to let people know here is a church that uses the KJV exclusively, does not use modern, amplified music (certainly NO drums), preaches hyper-separation, etc., etc.

Along with using the term "fundamental" I wonder if these churches realize their outreach techniques are dated as well? I'm referring to cold-calling via door knocking, bus ministries, and the like. In the past couple of decades door knocking has become identified with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. People generally avoid answering their door when there are two men wearing ties on their doorstep. And who wants to send your kid away with strangers on a school bus for the three hours?

Yousummed it up quite nicely:thumbsup:

 

[PeterM]

If not "Fundamentalist" would the term "Separatist" fit?

 

[evangelist6589]

and why is door knocking a bad way....?

Its a very dated method that most associate with door to door sales types.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

As the Spirit leads....!

Its a very dated method that most associate with door to door sales types.

Door knocking, Bus ministries , street preaching, tract distribution, and other such "old school" evangelism methods may or may not be AS effective as they once were but no matter....if the Spirit of God leads you to employ such methods and the Gospel is being delivered and heard and the "seed" of the Word is being planted in the hearts of those who are exposed to it, the God has promised that that word will NOT return void. All of these methods still largely involve person to person contact and God will give the increase in His way and His time. I would NEVER discourage ANYONE who wants to serve the Lord from employing whatever honest means he/she has at their disposal to spread the Gospel. God will honor the prayers and work of an honest witness. I also think we ought to be open to any new ideas or means of spreading the truth. On-line witnessing is another means. Regardless...the results are in the Lord's hands.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Maybe...but...!

If not "Fundamentalist" would the term "Separatist" fit?

Being a "separatist" is definitely a component of sincere Bible Fundamentalism but it also would probably be just as scary to some as the term "fundamentalist". It carries the idea or hints at "isolationism" to some. We should be "separatists" in relation to worldly practices and doctrinal purity but we still need to be ready, willing, and capable of engaging with the people in this world to show them that God loves them and be able to demonstrate that love to them in the way that we talk to them and treat them with kindness in every way possible without partaking of their sinful ways. IMHO In keeping with my previously posted ideas we need to show them that we/they can depend upon God and the He alone is worthy of our trust.:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[saturneptune]

I would be against any church avoiding the name they practice. The same problem exists our local area with the name "Baptist." Some churches have changed the name to a "Worship Center." Others make big, bold lettering on the name, the word Baptist is in very small letters.

I do not see Catholics, Presbyterians, JWs, Mormons, or anyone else running from their name. By golly, if you are going to belong to a church, stand up for its beliefs and wear it like a badge of honor. Otherwise, find a church that meets your spineless courage.

 

[evangelist6589]

Door knocking, Bus ministries , street preaching, tract distribution, and other such "old school" evangelism methods may or may not be AS effective as they once were but no matter....if the Spirit of God leads you to employ such methods and the Gospel is being delivered and heard and the "seed" of the Word is being planted in the hearts of those who are exposed to it, the God has promised that that word will NOT return void. All of these methods still largely involve person to person contact and God will give the increase in His way and His time. I would NEVER discourage ANYONE who wants to serve the Lord from employing whatever honest means he/she has at their disposal to spread the Gospel. God will honor the prayers and work of an honest witness. I also think we ought to be open to any new ideas or means of spreading the truth. On-line witnessing is another means. Regardless...the results are in the Lord's hands.

Bro.Greg:saint:

I agree, however I just do not prefer door knocking evangelism, and much rather prefer street evangelism. I will go out witnessing regardless if I get support. True many ministries and churches may not support me because there are no visible results, but its okay as God supports me and provides the money so I can buy tracts, or get them for free as is the case with Fellowship Tract league and Pocket testament league. One ministries is IFB KJVO, and another new Evangelical. Regardless I use both their tracts to reach the lost. I prefer WOTM, but I believe God can use other tracts to reach the lost.

 

[PeterM]

Being a "separatist" is definitely a component of sincere Bible Fundamentalism but it also would probably be just as scary to some as the term "fundamentalist". It carries the idea or hints at "isolationism" to some. We should be "separatists" in relation to worldly practices and doctrinal purity but we still need to be ready, willing, and capable of engaging with the people in this world to show them that God loves them and be able to demonstrate that love to them in the way that we talk to them and treat them with kindness in every way possible without partaking of their sinful ways. IMHO In keeping with my previously posted ideas we need to show them that we/they can depend upon God and the He alone is worthy of our trust.:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg:saint:

Bro. Greg, That's why I made the suggestion. I see the terms "missional" and "fundamental" as being two distinct things... much like "reformed" and "arminian". People who are missional, seek to engage the culture while those who are fundamental seek to be separate from the culture. I am not attaching right and wrong to those things in this discussion, but I do believe the moniker "separatist" fits the movement on multiple levels in any number of different subjects.

I don't disagree that Christ-Followers should follow the command to "be Holy as I am Holy" I guess we would have to agree upon what encompasses holiness. If all holiness boils down to what I do and what I don't do (ie behaviors), I would reject that as a definition. I would also contend that while not all those who define themselves as "fundamental" are angry per se, my perception of the movement is that it is driven by an anger or bitterness.

You used the term "isolationist"... I think that would fit as well... maybe not all but some.

 

[BlessedWife]

Along with using the term "fundamental" I wonder if these churches realize their outreach techniques are dated as well? I'm referring to cold-calling via door knocking, bus ministries, and the like. In the past couple of decades door knocking has become identified with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. People generally avoid answering their door when there are two men wearing ties on their doorstep. And who wants to send your kid away with strangers on a school bus for the three hours?

(Emphasis mine)

Last week our tiny fundamentalist church brought in almost sixty children during VBS. Three of those children were the children of two of the group leaders helping, one was dropped off by her mother, one was the pastor's grandson, and two were the grandchildren of another lady helping out. The rest all came via bus ministry. Our church is located in a very poor, semi-rural area and most of the children who attend on Sunday mornings and during VBS come from the trailer parks surrounding the church. If it were not for our church bus ministry, these kids and teens wouldn't be in church at all. If it weren't for door knocking, nobody would know who to contact to sign a consent form for the child to ride the church bus.

Furthermore, plenty of parents nearby are more than happy to let a local church "get their kids out of their hair" for a couple of hours once a week. Our bus children are fed breakfast, attend Sunday school, and then go into children's church after our congregational hymns and announcements.

Great points, however Fundamentalist these days have allot of problems. John MacArthur has said some interesting things about them in his book(s) Reckless Faith, and The Jesus You Cant Ignore. <snip>

John MacArthur has written a great deal of things I agree with, but I also disagree with his Calvinist leanings and the fact that he believes divorced and remarried men are eligible for the pastor- or deacon-ship. I do not take much stock in his views on fundamentalism.

 

[InTheLight]

(Emphasis mine)

Last week our tiny fundamentalist church brought in almost sixty children during VBS. Three of those children were the children of two of the group leaders helping, one was dropped off by her mother, one was the pastor's grandson, and two were the grandchildren of another lady helping out. The rest all came via bus ministry. Our church is located in a very poor, semi-rural area and most of the children who attend on Sunday mornings and during VBS come from the trailer parks surrounding the church. If it were not for our church bus ministry, these kids and teens wouldn't be in church at all. If it weren't for door knocking, nobody would know who to contact to sign a consent form for the child to ride the church bus.

Furthermore, plenty of parents nearby are more than happy to let a local church "get their kids out of their hair" for a couple of hours once a week. Our bus children are fed breakfast, attend Sunday school, and then go into children's church after our congregational hymns and announcements.

That's great! I'm coming from the perspective of a city dweller, so I stand corrected on the use of bus ministries in your circumstances.

 

[evangelist6589]

(Emphasis mine)
John MacArthur has written a great deal of things I agree with, but I also disagree with his Calvinist leanings and the fact that he believes divorced and remarried men are eligible for the pastor- or deacon-ship. I do not take much stock in his views on fundamentalism.

Why dont you agree with Calvinism? Being a Dispensationalist I am a moderate Calvinist. Are you a 5 point Arminian? I am aware of his views on the 2nd subject so I cannot comment. But frankly Calvinism/Reformed Theology is good, however like anything there are issues. One of the issue is the extreme dogmatism and bigotry towards those that do not agree with them. Many bloggers and FB types really tick me off by their libel and attacking fighting words. Some of them have also attacked me, and always ignore it when someone responds. Praise the Lord its only the ignorant and bigoted Reformed that are this way, as MOST are not.