Emerging from Fundamentalism

[Yeshua1]

This is why you are not a fundamentalist:

Or does this describe you?
This is your typical ungodly tirade against "fundamentalism."
It is evil, wicked, unloving, and against the rules to post such things that are not done "in grace and without offense to others."

You have white-washed an entire movement by the actions of a few.
But remember you just described yourself by saying: "I am a fundamentalist" (in the same post as above).

maybe that is due to most of us only know Funamentalism as being Chrsitians who tended to take seperation and away from being associated with the world to such an extent that they would only fellowship and view themselves as being the 'true Christians?'

Also somehow seemed to be mixing religion and politics together, as almost wanted to make America "moden isreal"...

NOT saying that was/is the truth, but that was definitely the image tht seemed to be get pushed!

 

[Jerome]

It applies to most in the South. I actually attended a church in Pennsylvania which called itself a fundamental baptist, but held to none of the legalistic doctrines of a southern fundamentalist church. The pastor was an intelligent, Biblically competent man. . . .I told him that, in the South, his church & depth of teaching were the antithesis of a fundamental baptist church. He agreed.

Yep.

Jack Hyles's candid admission about the difference between Northern and Southern Fundamentalist Baptists:

http://jackhyles.net/books/1992-the-church/

General Association of Regular Baptists. . . .Conservative Baptist Association. . . .Both of these groups are splits from the Northern Baptist [Convention]. . . .They pulled out mainly over doctrines

Southern Baptist Fundamentalism
These are the groups that came out the Southern Baptist Convention. . . .I am talking about men like J. Frank Norris, who started what is now the Baptist Bible Fellowship. . . .This is where the action has been in fundamentalism.

The main issue of difference is on the matter of separation. The GARB and the [Northern] Baptists divided basically over doctrine.

When Dr. J. Frank Norris pulled out of the Southern Baptist Convention. . .[t]he Bible was not issue. . . .They pulled out over mixed bathing being wrong, [etc.]

 

[Yeshua1]

Yep.

Jack Hyles's candid admission about the difference between Northern and Southern Fundamentalist Baptists:

http://jackhyles.net/books/1992-the-church/

Are you saying that they would seperate over preferences/convictions, NOT over actual doctrines?

I saw evidence of them in AoG, as when a member there, had southern family move to Mi, and was gravely offended at mixed bathing in teen group, yet no problem with chewing/smoking tobacco!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I think it would be fairer to say Fundamental Baptists of the Southern variety primarly seperated from their convention on matters of worldliness. Though, there certainly were theological disagreements.

Are you saying that they would seperate over preferences/convictions, NOT over actual doctrines?

I saw evidence of them in AoG, as when a member there, had southern family move to Mi, and was gravely offended at mixed bathing in teen group, yet no problem with chewing/smoking tobacco!

 

[DHK]

It applies to most in the South. I actually attended a church in Pennsylvania which called itself a fundamental baptist, but held to none of the legalistic doctrines of a southern fundamentalist church. The pastor was an intelligent, Biblically competent man who wasn't afraid of having men in the church who disagreed with him on non-salvational issues. He understood that when you have a church where everyone believes the exact same as their pastor, they are blind followers at best & a cult at worst . I told him that, in the South, his church & depth of teaching were the antithesis of a fundamental baptist church. He agreed.

These churches are found in Tennessee and adjoining states. They are described as "the religious right." By the description given they are one of the major groups in "the South." Luke whitewashes fundamentalism as this link whitewashes "the religious right" or at the very least mainstream Pentecostalism. Take a look:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/snake-handling-religious-community-menace-045856360.html?vp=1

 

[John of Japan]

I thought of John of Japan when I read this. I THINK this is his brother.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2011/10/03/emerging-from-fundamentalism-andrew-himes/

Yes, Andrew is my brother. I think your thread title is misleading, though. Back in the late '60's Andrew did not just "emerge from Fundamentalism," he rejected all of Christianity. At one point he was even a Maoist Communist, working (peacefully, mostly) to overthrow the US government, and his thinking had no similarity to anything Christian whatsoever.

 

[John of Japan]

:tear: Such venomous words from some here that claim to be the enlightened and compassionate ones. Until you (or I) can say we did as much as Dr. Rice did to win so many into the Kingdom then I think silence (or the absence of the use of ones keyboard) would be more appropriate. The "atheists" and the "gay rights" crowd call US intolerant bigots....and then we get on public forums and demonstrate that maybe in some ways we are. It is never "legalism" to live in obedience to the Word of God. I will grant though that it can be "legalistic" to promote dogmatic "standards" of conduct that cannot be based on the clear teaching of specific scripture. I think though, from what I know of Dr. Rice's ministry, that his main mission was seeking to win the lost to Christ. To criticize him here is inappropriate. He had a good legacy...and I am also of the opinion that that is part of the reason that his grandson, John of Japan, doesn't post much here anymore. Sometimes it can be like "casting pearls before swine". I've probably said too much...I'm done.

:tonofbricks:Bro. Gregraying:

You are correct, Greg, about my reason for not posting much here anymore. This "Fundamental Baptist Forum" in particular, and the BB in general, is currently more hostile to Fundamentalism (and less understanding of what it is) than at any time since I joined (2005, I think). The "Fundamental Baptist Forum" is no longer a welcome place for us, but a place for bile against us.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

These churches are found in Tennessee and adjoining states. They are described as "the religious right." By the description given they are one of the major groups in "the South." Luke whitewashes fundamentalism as this link whitewashes "the religious right" or at the very least mainstream Pentecostalism. Take a look:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/snake-handling-religious-community-menace-045856360.html?vp=1

That's a whole different kind of crazy. I'm not sure how that applies to fundamental baptists, though. However, it should be noted that the passage on picking up serpents & healing by the laying on of hands is a part of the Great Commission. Baptists tend to shy from this fact, adhering to only one gospel account of Christ's commission to the apostles. Don't we?

 

[John of Japan]

As DHK has pointed out, some who don't belong in this particular forum of the BB, not being Fundamentalists, have chosen to break the rules and spill vicious bile on this thread about Fundamentalism. This is without even a basic historical understanding of the movement. (The idea that simply believing the fundamentals makes one a Fundamentalist is ridiculous on the face of it, otherwise all evangelicals would be Fundamentalists--including those prominent and intellectual ones who began as Fundamentalists and then openly and strongly rejected the term such as Francis Schaeffer, etc.)

This thread ceased very quickly to be anything about my brother's essay on compassion towards Fundamentalists (very little compassion being shown here). I recommend the thread be closed posthaste.

 

[preacher4truth]

As DHK has pointed out, some who don't belong in this particular forum of the BB, not being Fundamentalists, have chosen to break the rules an spill vicious bile on this thread about Fundamentalism.

OK. What in your mind makes these not true fundamentalists? You've accused, and I await proof. Tell us your rules of being a true fundamentalist. You've accused much, now elaborate.

This is without even a basic historical understanding of the movement. (The idea that simply believing the fundamentals makes one a Fundamentalist is ridiculous on the face of it, otherwise all evangelicals would be Fundamentalists--including those prominent and intellectual ones who began as Fundamentalists and then openly and strongly rejected the term such as Francis Schaeffer, etc.)

So tell us what MORE it takes than believing in The Fundamentals to be a true fundamentalist. Tell us which rules, and other things we must also adhere to to be 'true'.

This thread ceased very quickly to be anything about my brother's essay on compassion towards Fundamentalists (very little compassion being shown here). I recommend the thread be closed posthaste.

Honestly you've shown the same amount of compassion in return J J. You've denigrated ANY who do not adhere to what YOU believe a 'true' fundamentalist is. Elaborate and tell us what other requirements must be met than adherence to The Fundamentals, being Baptist aside. There is no need to call for the thread to be closed, it is pure emotionalism on your part to make that call, as you've made no case, and you've also failed to prove that those other than you are not 'true' fundamentlists, and you've failed to prove as to why.

 

[John of Japan]

OK. What in your mind makes these not true fundamentalists? You've accused, and I await proof. Tell us your rules of being a true fundamentalist. You've accused much, now elaborate.

So tell us what MORE it takes than believing in The Fundamentals to be a true fundamentalist. Tell us which rules, and other things we must also adhere to to be 'true'.

Honestly you've shown the same amount of compassion in return J J. You've denigrated ANY who do not adhere to what YOU believe a 'true' fundamentalist is. Elaborate and tell us what other requirements must be met than adherence to The Fundamentals, being Baptist aside. There is no need to call for the thread to be closed, it is pure emotionalism on your part to make that call, as you've made no case, and you've also failed to prove that those other than you are not 'true' fundamentlists, and you've failed to prove as to why.

I have not denigrated anyone. I haven't called anyone a name, I've used no adjectives, I've not done anything except point out some viciousness--and I didn't even name you or anyone else out as an offender.

I really don't care if you or anyone else here is a Fundamentalist. In fact, I'm puzzled as to why you would want to be called one when there is a perfectly good term to describe one who believes in the fundamentals but is not a Fundamentalist: evangelical.

I would simply like some consideration of the rules of this forum. And I would like some here to understand the movement with historical accuracy. My definition is that one must not only believe the fundamentals, but must take a stand defending them. This definition comes from a lifetime (I'm almost 62) of being a Fundamentalist, studying the scholarly works on the subject, and knowing and talking to many of the leaders of the movement both in the past (John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, etc. etc.) and present.

No scholarly historian or theologian that I know would define Fundamentalism as simply believing in the Fundamentals. If you can come up with such a source I'd be happy to listen to you.

George Dollar: "Historic Fundamentalism is the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes" (A History of Fundamentalism in America, p. xv).

Francis Schaeffer points out the "total and deliberate distortion of the word fundamentalist" (The Great Evangelical Disaster, p. 71). And a thorough reading of his book will reveal his definition of Fundamentalism as congruent with mine.

I could give various other quotes concerning the real meaning of Fundamentalism, but I'll await scholarly sources which prove your apparent definition.

 

[agedman]

John, I do understand.

I would be considered a "militant fundamentalist" and have been ridiculed by some concerning what I hold as doctrinally sound and as Scripturally principled.

Just as you, I have witnessed when legalism supersedes sound principle teaching. Such was most characteristic in some independent Baptist churches between the 60's and 90's. But, there were a majority that did not chase down that rabbit trail of shame.

Just as you, I have been dismayed at the temperament of some threads on the BB.

Just as you, I have contemplated if being a dinosaur to the "modernist driven fundamentalist" hasn't been shown as unprofitable.

True historic fundamentalists of the past stood against the evils of society and desired that folks remove themselves from the world and embrace a pure walk with Christ - avoiding even the appearance of evil.

Sure some were not to my liking.

Those from the Frank Norris background (Hyles is an example) and I would lock horns as quickly as any modernist. I long disputed "easy believism" type "soul winning."

In general, I sense that some on the BB don't care for principled churches. Churches that not only agree with the fundamentals of the Scriptures, but are urging a separation from worldliness to Godliness - who set a standard of conduct based upon what they consider Scriptural principle; that encourage true worship and shun much of the emotionalism; that God is not to be approached in some casual manner, but by a sincere heart of truth. Such churches are no longer being esteemed, but mocked, and resigned to the archaic - assigned as no longer relevant.

Some on the BB would ridicule historic fundamentalists, who certainly had feet of clay, and openly endorse participation in the "pleasures of this world" even bringing them into the assembly.

Some schooled writers have published derogatorily toward the men of the past, not considering the true heart of the person, not accounting for the cultural distinctions, and not giving credence that most did what they really considered right - despite societal/political pressures.

But, John, is there not a cause?

Does the Lord not call watchmen, such as you?

Watchmen, who show balance and call for a principled stand.

Watchmen, who are tenderhearted, who grieve over those who are religiously righteous, yet kiss the worldliness?

Watchmen, who get discouraged, run to the cave to find God already waiting for them, letting them know they are not alone?

Watchmen, who have not just seen and heard and learned, but are doing the work of the Lord?

I understand, John.

I don't know that we have met, but from your writings, and the heart exposed in your work, I sense "Grandpa" would be pleased both in your maturity in Christ and your grief in the work, for I perceived in him the same.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I apologize. The last thing I wanted was to encourage or take part in any slander. It's my habit to look for a medium between the two sides in a discussion.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, Andrew is my brother. I think your thread title is misleading, though. Back in the late '60's Andrew did not just "emerge from Fundamentalism," he rejected all of Christianity. At one point he was even a Maoist Communist, working (peacefully, mostly) to overthrow the US government, and his thinking had no similarity to anything Christian whatsoever.

Forgive me, I have to backtrack here. The title "Emerging from Fundamentalism" is not yours but my brothers. Sorry about that!

But perhaps Andrew should have chosen another title, since he "emerged" from Christianity as a whole.

 

[John of Japan]

I appreciate your post. Thank you for the encouragement. For the sake of space I'll just comment on selected portions.

John, I do understand.
...
Just as you, I have been dismayed at the temperament of some threads on the BB.

It's an unfortunate development. Hopefully some stricter administration can correct the problem. Surely the BB doesn't want to be known as "the Fundamentalist bashing Forum." There are already some of those out there.

Just as you, I have contemplated if being a dinosaur to the "modernist driven fundamentalist" hasn't been shown as unprofitable.

I came to the conclusion that I'll be a Fundamentalist until I die.

True historic fundamentalists of the past stood against the evils of society and desired that folks remove themselves from the world and embrace a pure walk with Christ - avoiding even the appearance of evil.

I believe the doctrine of personal separation is an important Fundamentalist distinctive. Unfortunately, it is the most-maligned but least understood distinctive of the movement.

Sure some were not to my liking.

Those from the Frank Norris background (Hyles is an example) and I would lock horns as quickly as any modernist. I long disputed "easy believism" type "soul winning."

I knew Jack Hyles, sat in his office, heard him preach many times, corresponded a little with him, even spoke in his training union once. Jack had his problems as we all do, but he was never as nasty when speaking about New Evangelicalism or even liberalism as the Fundamentalist bashers on the BB are when speaking of us. If these guys are an example of their kind of Christianity, I'm much better off being a Fundamentalist.

But, John, is there not a cause?

Does the Lord not call watchmen, such as you?

Yes there is and yes He does. My main theater of operations for that, though, is here in Japan in our churches, our pastor's fellowship and in other ways.

Watchmen, who show balance and call for a principled stand.
...
Watchmen, who have not just seen and heard and learned, but are doing the work of the Lord?

I understand, John.

I don't know that we have met, but from your writings, and the heart exposed in your work, I sense "Grandpa" would be pleased both in your maturity in Christ and your grief in the work, for I perceived in him the same.

Thank you for your kind words. I believe Grandpa is cheering me on as he portrayed in his sermon, "Spectators in the Heavenly Grandstand."

 

[John of Japan]

I apologize. The last thing I wanted was to encourage or take part in any slander. It's my habit to look for a medium between the two sides in a discussion.

I didn't see anything in your posts to object to except that you may be using the word "legalism" improperly, as do most here on the BB when speaking of Fundamentalist personal separation. Simply having rules and objecting to some worldly practices is not legalism. The proper theological definition of legalism is that it is the belief that such practices make us holy, rather than that God makes us holy through Christ. Some Fundamentalists do believe that way or give that impression, but in my experience the typical "legalism" charge here on the BB is mistaken. Rules of behavior, even preached from the pulpit, are not legalism, otherwise every church constitution would be legalism.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I didn't see anything in your posts to object to except that you may be using the word "legalism" improperly, as do most here on the BB when speaking of Fundamentalist personal separation. Simply having rules and objecting to some worldly practices is not legalism. The proper theological definition of legalism is that it is the belief that such practices make us holy, rather than that God makes us holy through Christ. Some Fundamentalists do believe that way or give that impression, but in my experience the typical "legalism" charge here on the BB is mistaken. Rules of behavior, even preached from the pulpit, are not legalism, otherwise every church constitution would be legalism.

Understood. Rules are important, I understand that.
When I say legalism, I usually mean when the more debatable stuff, such as KJO, is given undue emphasis, taught with a huge emphasis in a church's sermons. That had been the case in my childhood church at the point when I began to question whether I was getting spiritually fed there or not.
Perhaps legalism isn't the right term for that, though?

In any case, I have family and relatives, and a few friends, who are fundamental and believe some things that I no longer agree with, including KJO. But we still share the same core beliefs. My aunt and I were having a discussion on music, and her views on it are different and much more restrictive than mine. I chalk it up to Romans 14. We are told to respect those kind of differences. My aunt is awesome and I don't have to agree with her on everything.

That's harder to achieve on a forum where no one is speaking face to face so that we lose that feeling that we are talking to another person to some extent. So I can be more argumentative online, although I try to watch myself.
But we are all one in Christ, and it does bug me that those on this forum seem to forget that sometimes. I forget it sometimes, although I try very hard not to.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have not denigrated anyone.

John, I've come to respect you on BB. However, you have insulted others here with your prior statement.

I haven't called anyone a name, I've used no adjectives, I've not done anything except point out some viciousness--and I didn't even name you or anyone else out as an offender.

Well, if what I've said offended you, I don't know what to tell you. I am being as honest as you are in my assessment. I don't see the vile behavior you refer to. I do however see that behavior from one of your own in this thread. It's shameful and I've learned to simply avoid him as it only costs one and isn't profitable.

I really don't care if you or anyone else here is a Fundamentalist. In fact, I'm puzzled as to why you would want to be called one when there is a perfectly good term to describe one who believes in the fundamentals but is not a Fundamentalist: evangelical.

I adhere to and defend the fundamentals but I don't need to be called one and I don't really want to be called one due to the ugliness of what it has become. But what I am equals fundamentalist nonetheless. What rules must I adhere to in your definition to be a true fundamentalist?

I would simply like some consideration of the rules of this forum. And I would like some here to understand the movement with historical accuracy. My definition is that one must not only believe the fundamentals, but must take a stand defending them. This definition comes from a lifetime (I'm almost 62) of being a Fundamentalist, studying the scholarly works on the subject, and knowing and talking to many of the leaders of the movement both in the past (John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, etc. etc.) and present.

Yes, the rules. Shouldn't everyone obey them, as one from your camp in this thread is being quite vicious, do you mean him as well or just those you don't believe to be fundamentalists? Or is your statement only directed at those you deem to not be your definition of fundamentalists?

John, you make pretense that others don't defend the fundamentals and label these types 'evangelical'. That's unfortunate. John, to be honest, this brings back that old and tired essence of polemic fundamentalism in your statement, one that reeks of the 'holier that thou' attitude that is rampant in IFB circuits, and reminds of the old preaching, stomping and snorting nonsense when comparing one to another. It's shameful, it's self-righteous and it's plain ugly.

No scholarly historian or theologian that I know would define Fundamentalism as simply believing in the Fundamentals. If you can come up with such a source I'd be happy to listen to you.

You've erected a straw man John. Can you show me where I've ever stated that it is only believing in the fundamentals?

George Dollar: "Historic Fundamentalism is the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes" (A History of Fundamentalism in America, p. xv).

That's good but this doesn't prove that not going to movies, KJVO, women not wearing pants, not wearing wire framed glasses, not drinking from a long neck root beer bottle, among other things are defending Bible affirmations.

Francis Schaeffer points out the "total and deliberate distortion of the word fundamentalist" (The Great Evangelical Disaster, p. 71). And a thorough reading of his book will reveal his definition of Fundamentalism as congruent with mine.

Perhaps I'll read it someday. I simply asked you what other rules some must obey to be what you feel is a true fundamentalist.

I could give various other quotes concerning the real meaning of Fundamentalism, but I'll await scholarly sources which prove your apparent definition.

I think you can see by my system of thought that I am a fundamentalist. I just don't adhere to the traditions and commandments of men that have been added and distort what it truly is. I'll put it to you like this. I heard the Gospel and was saved in a fundamental Baptist church in the North East. It was a solid Bible preaching church. There was nothing said about versions from the pulpit, nothing said about public bathing, nothing said about pants on women, nothing about the sins of going to movies (although wickedness in movies was probably preached against) albeit we did have a few divisive persons who held to KJVO, pants, movies &c but they held no strong influence in the church. Once we moved to go to school, we came to the Bible belt and were introduced to the backwards fundies in these parts and all their rules, vitriol and divisiveness.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have not denigrated anyone. I haven't called anyone a name, I've used no adjectives, I've not done anything except point out some viciousness--and I didn't even name you or anyone else out as an offender.

Oh John you have made a terrible mistake. You have had the gall to post something that is in opposition to a Calvinist on the BB. Therefore you must be destroyed. That is all there is too it.

 

[DHK]

OK. What in your mind makes these not true fundamentalists? You've accused, and I await proof. Tell us your rules of being a true fundamentalist. You've accused much, now elaborate.

What makes you think you are?
First, according to your definition, the Christian Missionary Alliance, like you, believes in the Fundamentals and cannot even post in the Baptist section much less the Fundamental Baptist section. The same is true of Plymouth Brethren, and even a good percentage of Pentecostals believe in the Fundamentals. Therefore, you draw the conclusion. What makes "Fundamentalists" different, and do so without disparagement.

Secondly, why was this forum set up in the first place if all Baptists (like yourself) believe in the fundamentals and are therefore by definition, "Fundamentalists." Does this make sense to you? Don't you think that the Administration had something particular in mind when they set up this forum in the first place--as distinct and separate from the other Baptist forums? In what ways was it to be different? Why? If all Baptists are fundamentalists it seems redundant to have a "fundamentalist" forum. It makes no sense does it?

So tell us what MORE it takes than believing in The Fundamentals to be a true fundamentalist. Tell us which rules, and other things we must also adhere to to be 'true'.

Go to your history books, Baptist history preferably. There have always been groups of Christians that have separated from mainstream Christianity on two basic fronts: moral corruption and doctrinal corruption. That is the reason Montanus separated and the Montanists began. Christianity had become corrupt and he wanted to bring the church back to a state of purity--both morally and doctrinally. You will find that thread all throughout history.
If you go to the beginning of the modern Fundamentalist movement again you find the same thing. But the main battles were fighting against the inroads of liberalism--the attacks on the fundamentals of our faith such as the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, etc.

Fundamentalism has never been about legalism. It has been a fight about purity and against corruption--moral and doctrinal.
If churches preach holiness and urge their people to live holy lives why would you consider it to be wrong? On the one hand many here believe in Lordship salvation (I don't), and on the other hand (it is ironic), the same one's go out and live like the world if not the devil. And that is Lordship??

David Beale, in his book "In Pursuit of Purity," said that Fundamentalism is "not only believing ALL the Bible, but obeying ALL the Bible."
The evangelicals are great at giving lip service. But when they walk like the world, talk like the world, look like the world, listen to the same music as the world, etc., they are, for all intents and purposes "of the world."
That is exactly what historic fundamentalism has fought against. You call it legalism. It isn't. It is holiness; moral purity.

you've made no case, and you've also failed to prove that those other than you are not 'true' fundamentlists, and you've failed to prove as to why.

I think the case has been adequately made.
Someone in the Other Christian Denominations Forum suggested: "Do you think that the "Apostles Creed" would contain the minimum number of "fundamentals" that all Christians could agree on?"
With that we could unite with the Catholics couldn't we?
The definitions for fundamentalism are given in the first three threads of this forum.