Fundamentalist's Leader

Okay, I gotcha, Paul. But as I think you are seeing, you'll find very few to agree with you, either here on the BB or in scholarly circles. I've been going through all I have on Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism (which is quite a bit), and haven't found a single scholar who holds your opinion.

 

You may disagree, but I think that Revive Us Again by Joel A. Carpenter is making my point.

The children of historic fundamentalism are alive and well but going by the name conservative evangelical as he describes groups like Youth for Christ and World Vision.

Now I know others have read this book and disagree with my understanding of it, but then it seems that the camp of fundamentalism that we are in determines how we interpret what we read.

mea culpa

 

paidagogos said

I accept your clarification, however, I think that in looking to "strong, charismatic leaders of the past" as a template for leadership, you are misguided. The biblical template for leadership is servant-leadership. Since we have a healthy number of servant-leaders in fundamentalism, and since servant-leadership is being taught as the proper model for leadership (rather than the personal power politics that has been the norm so often in the past), I think that leadership in fundamentalism is strong and adequate.

 

Amen, swaimj.

In my experience, at least in my circles of Fundamentalism, the leadership does not have the outgoing bombast (not necessarily bad) of previous generations. Their job is different, their emphasis different. The previous generations of Fundamentalists won souls and built a foundation of 10,000 churches here in America. The current generation is working on spreading the Gospel to the world.

On our recent furlough I had good fellowship with the heads of several mission boards, the founder of a new minsistry to help Bible translators, administrators of several educational institutions, three Christian martial arts organizations and many pastors around the country. Each of these leaders and almost all of the pastors followed the servant-leader model, even if they didn't espouse it per se.

 

Well, I'd have to read the book before making a final judgment, obviously. However, from reading the reviews on Amazon, many of the individuals and institutions from the '50's and '60's being touted as "Fundamentalists" are exactly the ones who founded New Evangelicalism.

Billy Graham's "cooperative evangelism" meant cooperation with liberalism. See Cooperative Evangelism, the defense of Graham by Robert Ferm. Moody Bible Institute linked up with Graham in 1962, I think it was. Fundamentalist???

I was a little boy in Wheaton, IL, and both my parents graduated from Wheaton College. (Beautiful campus, what with that tower.) I know for a fact that evolution was being taught there in the '60's, and of course the Graham Center was approved by them in 1969. Believe it or not, for years until 1966 Wheaton allowed just anyone to come--you didn't have to be a believer! ( Wheaton College, by Paul Bechtel, p. 281) I remember being told to stay inside once as a child, since there was a "riot" at the college just blocks away from us. (Mom may have exaggerated!) Fundamentalist???

Fuller Seminary was the home of Harold Ockenga and Edward Carnell, the theological architects of New Evangelicalism. Read the story of the seminary in George Marsden's Reforming Fundamentalism. The very title shows you that they were departing from the Fundamentalism of the 20's through 40's. Harold Lindsell exposed the problems at Fuller in Battle for the Bible. Fundamentalist???

The NAE was essentially the cheering section for cooperative evangelism from the beginning. Fundamentalism???

Don't even get me started on World Vision and Youth For Christ. (And by that statement I do not mean that they are liberal, just New Evangelical in the sense Carnell and Ockenga meant.)

 

This is the key difference to me, JoJ. Early fundamentalists had to lead people out of denominations of which they had been members for generations. That is a tough task which requires a set of specific leadership skills. Modern leaders do not have such a task as the main focus of their ministry because fundamentalist ministries are established. The leadership dynamic is different today. We shouldn't beat ourselves up because we don't have "name-brand" leaders.

 

I accept your clarification, however, I think that in looking to "strong, charismatic leaders of the past" as a template for leadership, you are misguided. The biblical template for leadership is servant-leadership. Since we have a healthy number of servant-leaders in fundamentalism, and since servant-leadership is being taught as the proper model for leadership (rather than the personal power politics that has been the norm so often in the past), I think that leadership in fundamentalism is strong and adequate. </font>[/QUOTE]Good advice for this board, I think, is don’t make any assumptions. By “strong, charismatic leaders of the past” I did not mean the bombastic type of some lesser lights. It was not this type of hubris that I was referring. The “leaders” of the second tier were the ones who tried to replicate the works of the great men. They were the ones who led folks into excesses and folly. By “strong, charismatic leaders of the past,” I mean strength of character and personality. Among the real giants, there was a real genuine love for people as well as love for the Lord. For those of us old enough and privileged to know a few of these stalwarts, we can testify that they were men of compassion and true humility.

These men didn’t yell or scream or threaten but folks listened when they spoke. They had a charisma that caused people to gravitate to them. They were able to persuade and to lead. They were not despots but they held sway in pointing people in the right direction.

Yes, there are many good men out there today but I don’t see them in the same mold of leadership. I do have a definite concept of leadership—it is not a buzz word with me—and I don’t think I am misguided. Most, not all, men who are seen as Fundamentalist leaders today are more caretakers and administrators than innovators and leaders. A leader is one who forges ahead into new territory. He understands issues and trends. He is able to formulate a course and lead people along that direction. I cannot find this type of decisive leadership among our leaders today. They are good faithful men doing a good work but they are not the same cut of cloth as the old giants.

 

swaimj and Paid,

You guys seem to be very well versed in the IFB spectrum. I am Southern Baptist, yet I greatly enjoy reading the monthly Baptist Bible Tribune magazine. I have not heard anyone cite the leadership of the BBFI. I really enjoy the magazine, and many of the writers are leaders in the BBFI. I have noticed that the BBFI and some of the historically hardlined fundamenalist have come together in some of their conferences. What is the relationship between IFB and BBFI, and is there not a capable leader from the BBFI to be the "spokesman" for the independent segment?

Curious about you guys' thoughts.

 

Earlier Fundamentalists were faced with positions antithetical to their orthodox faith—i.e. liberalism and modernism. It was a face-to-face battle along drawn lines of combat. Armies marched against armies in rank formation using standard well-developed tactics and distinct boundaries. We were defending well-defined fundamental doctrines of the faith. Later Fundamentalists faced new issues with the rise of New Evangelicalism and it became guerilla warfare. The issues that we defended were less well-defined and agreed upon per the example of what constituted Biblical separation–e.g. first-degree, second degree, etc. The lines of formation no longer existed and it was difficult to identify the enemy many times. Today, the battle is more like terrorism. We cannot pick out the enemy among us and we have difficulty agreeing upon and formulating the issues. Who is a Fundamentalist today? Witness the disparity of views on this board alone. What positions define a Fundamentalist? We cannot agree upon this. Therefore, IHMO, Fundamentalism is fragmented and floundering as a movement although there are tremendous works and men in the various sectors of Fundamentalism.

In the past, the leaders were able to bring together diverse orthodox theological positions (Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Bible Churches, Brethren, Pentecostals (old line) & Holiness groups, etc.) into a single effort against modernism and liberalism. Today’s leaders are powerless to do this. You have Baptist Fundamentalism that has pretty much separated from the other Fundamentalist groups and fragmented itself into Baptist Brides, Reformed Baptists, KJVO, non-KJVO’s, KJV preferred, anti-KJVO, MV (modern versions), Hyper-Calvinists, Hyper-dispensationalists, etc. What is the common enemy today? Furthermore, has Fundamentalism as a movement served its purpose and we are beyond it? What are the issues or characteristics separating the Fundamentalist entity from Evangelicals, New Evangelicals, Charismatics, etc.

One of the relative weaknesses of Fundamentalism, IMHO, is the inability for us to see ourselves realistically and criticize our own weaknesses. Out of loyalty (a strong point of Fundamentalism) to our beliefs and friends, we tend to speak in superlatives when it is only average and we tend to turn a blind eye to our relative shortcomings. Because I love Fundamentalism and the people who make up the movement, I believe that we ought to be honest with ourselves. If we recognize our weaknesses, then we are on the road to remediating them. Saying the emperor is naked has not always been well received. Any criticism that I make of Fundamentalism is with the best intentions of recognizing and addressing our weaknesses and spurring us forward to greater efforts for the cause of Christ.

IMHO, the Fundamentalist missionary movement is one of the strongest and brightest points. Having waned greatly during the last part of the twentieth century, I am seeing resurgence comparable to the missionary effort of the 1950’s. However, I am still saddened and dismayed each time a missionary returns from the field in disgrace because of some sin. The same is true regarding well-known pastors or evangelists. Furthermore, there are some bright spots in evangelism and church growth but troubles are there too.

If we are seeing a turn from the super national ministries to a local church emphasis, then I welcome it with open arms. Being a strong local churchman, I have always contended that the way to build is from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

This is the key difference to me, JoJ. Early fundamentalists had to lead people out of denominations of which they had been members for generations. That is a tough task which requires a set of specific leadership skills. Modern leaders do not have such a task as the main focus of their ministry because fundamentalist ministries are established. The leadership dynamic is different today. We shouldn't beat ourselves up because we don't have "name-brand" leaders. </font>[/QUOTE]There is much merit and good sense in what you say. However, we must be careful least this becomes justification for the status quo.

 

I don't know how many ministries you are familiar with, and while in many ministries this may be true, I am acquainted with ministries that are quite progressive in their methods and approach. You can't do successful and effective church-planting and be stuck in the past. Your comments seemed to be based upon your experience, so they are self-validating I would assume. However, I have experience that argues otherwise, so I simply disagree.

BTW, I note that you are in the south and in the Bible belt. I was born and raised in NC, so I know that that area is not a cornucopea of church planting since it is the Bible belt. I now live in the north, specifically in Philadelphia. This is NOT the Bible belt. I have to drive a pretty long way to find another fundamental Baptist church. It is very different here. Perhaps that explains the difference in our perspective.

BTW, thanks for the interraction. I've enjoyed it.

 

IFB is the larger set and BBFI is a subset--one af many, many subsets within IFB.

My understanding of IFB history is that the BBFI originated in the south and mid-west as followers and associates of J. Frank Norris. BBFI leaders at some point had a falling out with Norris (is there anyone who ever worked with him who didn't?!?)and started their own organization. My observation of the BBF is that, among IFBs, they are the closest to being a denomination. They stick to themselves, their own schools, seminaries, mission boards, conferences, etc.

Because of their exclusiveness, I can't picture a BBFI guy being a spokesman of IFBdom as a whole.

 

If not fellowshiping with modernists and liberals is the criteria of whether or not one who holds to historic Christianity is a fundamentalist, then conservative evangelicals are "fundamentalists."

I will ask the question again. Does anyone seriously believe that Swindoll, LaHaye, or Macarthur fellowships with liberals? If they don't, they are historic fundamentalists of the 1920s stripe!

Now if they are historic fundamentalists, what does that make those independent fundamentalists who won't fellowship with them? Hyper-fundamentalists?

The problem with today's modern fundamentalists is that they have chosen to separate from most of the other fundamentalists who are out there.

But I will submit again, that these folks are not the healthy children of the 1920s fundamentalists, but rather the stunted children of the 1950s secondary separationists.

There clearly are two strands of fundamentalists: historic fundamentalists who practice primary separation which includes today's conservative evangelicals; and 1950s fundamentalists who practice secondary separation and have splintered their movement into so many factions it would make the I am of Peter, Apollos, Paul, and Christ debate look tame by comparison.

 

The problem is, the definition of "modernist and liberal" is typically "what you are and I am not". For example, you see KJVOists making accusations of liberalism all the time, despite the fact that KJVOism is, by definition, a liberal viewpoint.

 

Fundamentalists of the '20s fought the battles of the '20s. Those of the '50s fought the battles of the '50s, but they weren't the same battles; they were different battles requiring different tactics.

How would the Fundamentalists of the '30s fight the battles of the '50s? We can find out by looking at the very men who spanned that era, and by looking at their closet proteges.

If someone today uses the same strategy which the Fundamentalists of the '20s used, but deplores what those same men did in the '50s, should he be called a historic Fundamentalist?

I think that it is an error to call someone a Fundamentalist today just because he does not belong to any organizations where liberals are welcomed. That might have sufficed in the '30s, but "the end-time apostasy" is in constant mutation, and where it presently rears its head, there must the Fundamentalist of today strike. If he retreats, he shouldn't be called a Fundamentalist.

New Evangelicalism was made up of good men--in some instances, great men. But it is a philosophy formed in opposition to Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalism stands in opposition to it. We will differ among ourselves as to where to draw the lines, but never let it be said that the lines shouldn't be there.

$.02

 

Pipedude,

You make a good point.

But, what if the fight in the 20s and 30s was so debilitating that it caused some of the combatants to become bitter? Then, instead of focusing on the unity that they once shared with other fundamentalits, they began to focus on the differences - minor doctrinal points AND what they could manufacture in regards to not being separated enough.

Yes, some of the fundamentalists of the 20s embraced secondary separation in the 50s. But a lot of them didn't and were accused of being new evangelicals.

 

Who is a new evangelical? That's another way of framing the debate.

I believe that conservative evangelicals who do not fellowship with apostates and liberals are in fact historic fundamentalists.

To the nonbelieving world, they most certainly are. For the purposes of our discussion, secondary separationists would say that they aren't.

 

No, not really. In the early days (20s-40s), fundamentalism and evangelicalism was the same thing. There was no difference. The term "fundamentalist" was coined in 1915 by Laws (I believe the date was 15). In those days there was no difference between evangelical and fundamentalist. In fact, that is why the New Evangelicals called themselves that. They were delineating themsevles from the "old evangelicals," the fundamentalists. Marsden's "Reforming Fundamentalism" explains this evolution. That book is the history of the New Evangelical movement, which actually came some 10 years or so after Fuller started, as I recall. </font>[/QUOTE]That's Marsden's view as an outsider. He has never really been able to fully understand the Fundamentalist mindset and he was unable to distinguish between Evangelical and Fundamentalist regardless of his much touted acumen in historiography. Fundamentalist is more of an attitude, as someone has mentioned, than a theology. The difference became apparent as Fundamentalism evolved. The Fundamentalists left the mainline denominations to establish their own schools, mission boards, and fellowships whereas the Evangelicals remained in the denominations as conservatives. Therefore, we say that Fundamentalism is inherently separatist. Many orthodox believers, such as Machen, repudiated the Fundamentalist label although they believed essentially the same things.