Originally posted by John of Japan:
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.
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.
