Fundamentalist's Leader

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
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.

Paul, what are you calling secondary separation? The separation of the 1950's was from BG and the New Evangelicals. This pretty much distinguished the Fundamentalists from the Evangelicals who did not separate from the New Evangelicals. Separation from those who did not separate from New Evangelicals (i.e. secondary separation) did not come until the late 1960's & early 1970's. It was in the 1970's that the separation wars raged.

Do you believe in separation from New Evangelicals who cooperate with liberals and modernists?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
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.

The nonbelieving world? They think Fundamentalists are associated with Islamic extremists and terrorists.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
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

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.) </font>[/QUOTE]As has been pointed out previously, the difference between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism is more of an attitude or mindset than theological differences. There’s a lot of blending and bleeding across the boundaries so that it is impossible to make a clean surgical line. However, one can ask whether some of the individuals, Charles Fuller and Billy Graham for example, were ever really Fundamentalists at heart or were they just fellow travelers?

People do change too. Eddy Dobson is saying an entirely different line than during his student days at BJU. Ernest Campbell graduated from BJC (BJU) and attended Union Seminary to later become pastor of Riverside Church, Fosdick’s old church. He was fond of saying, “I got my wife at BJC but I got my theology at Union.” A lesbian college professor in NY, who espouses a lesbian feminist theology, is a BJU graduate. While surfing the Internet one day I came across a web site from a BJU alumnus who was openly espousing a homosexuality agenda. His daughter and son-in-law had recently graduated from BJU. I don’t get it! Why would a homosexual send his kid to BJU and then cuss the school because they don’t tolerate homosexuality? One former Biblical Seminary prof is a profane open homosexual today. ad naseum

What is my point? Things just don’t fall out into straight lines—some come out crooked. You just can’t categorize everything into neat little pigeonholes.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
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.

Paul, what are you calling secondary separation? The separation of the 1950's was from BG and the New Evangelicals. This pretty much distinguished the Fundamentalists from the Evangelicals who did not separate from the New Evangelicals. Separation from those who did not separate from New Evangelicals (i.e. secondary separation) did not come until the late 1960's & early 1970's. It was in the 1970's that the separation wars raged.

Do you believe in separation from New Evangelicals who cooperate with liberals and modernists? </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Paid,

I agree that full blown secondary separation reached its pinnacle in the late 60s and 70s. But in the 50s, fundamentalists who didn't agree with Billy Graham's alleged compromise did begin to separate from other fundamentalists/evangelicals who didn't separate from those who supported the Graham crusades or were sympathetic to neo-evangelicalism.

I think we agree. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Paid, even in the 50s there was a growing awareness of the difference between fundamentalists, evangelicals, and new evangelicals. I think you stated that well.

Obviously, the seeds of secondary separation were sown in the 50s and bloomed in the 60s.

Now my point is that "evangelicals" who don't fellowship with liberals and apostates but do have friendships with some who might are still fundamentalists despite being labled new evangelicals by some of their brethren.

 

[Paul33]

Paid, to answer your question about separation. My answer would be yes and no, for the same reasons who just listed. Things aren't so easily categorized.

Some so-called new evangelicals aren't and I would fellowship with them. Some so-called fundamentalists aren't and I wouldn't fellowship with them!

I think you are right about the attitude thing. I look for people that I can fellowship with. Others look for people that they must separate from.

Do these differing approaches have anything to say about who is a fundamentalist and who is an evangelical?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
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."

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. </font>[/QUOTE]No, modernism and liberalism are fairly well defined theological positions. Just because people misuse the words does not negate or invalidate the meaning.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Some so-called new evangelicals aren't and I would fellowship with them. Some so-called fundamentalists aren't and I wouldn't fellowship with them!

Paul, this is the first time I've seen you intimate that some of us who actually call ourselves Fundamentalists might actually be heirs of the original Fundamentalists. Are you slipping, or do you really recognize this?

And please tell me why the Fundamentalist who refused to participate in the Graham New York crusade of 1957 is a secondary separationist, but when you refuse fellowship with some who call themselves Fundamentalists, that is not secondary separation?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Pipedude:

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

Well said.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
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.

I'm going to agree with these statements, paidagogos. There is no one in Fundamentalism today of the caliber of Bob Jones, John R. Rice and Lee Roberson and others (except that Dr. Roberson is still preaching--however he no longer has any leadership roles). I don't know about BJU nowadays, but the current leaders of the Sword of the Lord and HPBC/TTU are not the caliber of their founders.

My take on the reason for this? Fundamentalism is much larger nowadays than it was in the days when these men founded and led their ministries. Therefore, the influence of a Fundamentalist leader in these days seems to be limited to his particular branch of Fundamentalism. (I want to start a thread someday on how many groups call themselves fundamentalist nowadays.)

"There were giants in the earth in those days." Nowadays we seem to have the seven dwarfs!

Having said that, I still think that a good portion of Fundamentalism is now in its maturity in the sense that world evangelism is much more important to us than it was in the 1950's and 1960's.

 

[Rhetorician]

To all who have an ear to hear:

Can we have a summary statement of what has been discussed?

My original question was this:

"So who then, shall the rank-and-file Fundamentalists of all tints and hues and persuasions turn towards for leadership? And probably a more important question is--WHY--this particular person?"

Can some of you who are good @ summary "draw the net" for me?

sdg!

rd

 

[Rhetorician]

To all who have an ear to hear:

One personal observation may suffice.

I am a union member. (Please don't strike me vocally!).

But, it seems to me that when something goes from "Movement" status to "Institutional" status, it becomes part of the mainstream and looses the impetus for why it was begun in the first place. I know that many would not want to grant that there is any sociologic understandings of the "Bible" & doctrinal discussions at hand. But, some of those constructs fit the analysis nonetheless and can further the understandings of who we are and why we do what we do!!

The "organizing" of non-union people into the unions, the Civil Rights "movement," and possibly the "fundamentalist's" movement seem to have b/c somewhat organized or at least "mainstream." Although, some want to "keep the dream alive" and the fervor alive.

There also seems to be (in my way of seeing things) a pararllel (sp?) with the "fundamentalist's" movement and other movements. The first generation of leaders die and the "movements" seem to harden into a level of institutionalism after that.

Just some observations that I think may be appropo for our discussions here.

sdg!

rd

 

[paidagogos]

John of Japan said: I'm going to agree with these statements, paidagogos. There is no one in Fundamentalism today of the caliber of Bob Jones, John R. Rice and Lee Roberson and others (except that Dr. Roberson is still preaching--however he no longer has any leadership roles). I don't know about BJU nowadays, but the current leaders of the Sword of the Lord and HPBC/TTU are not the caliber of their founders.

Perhaps my age has something to do with my perception. Dr. Dickie Straton, President of Clearwater, was a little junior high kid when I was in college. He would come with his soccer ball on weekends and say, "Guys, can I play soccer with you?" Our response was, "Go away, Dickie. We don't want to mess around with no kids." If he persisted in bugging us, we would put him in the goal and knock him down a few times shooting on goal just to make him want to go home.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
To all who have an ear to hear:

One personal observation may suffice.

I am a union member. (Please don't strike me vocally!).

But, it seems to me that when something goes from "Movement" status to "Institutional" status, it becomes part of the mainstream and looses the impetus for why it was begun in the first place. I know that many would not want to grant that there is any sociologic understandings of the "Bible" & doctrinal discussions at hand. But, some of those constructs fit the analysis nonetheless and can further the understandings of who we are and why we do what we do!!

The "organizing" of non-union people into the unions, the Civil Rights "movement," and possibly the "fundamentalist's" movement seem to have b/c somewhat organized or at least "mainstream." Although, some want to "keep the dream alive" and the fervor alive.

There also seems to be (in my way of seeing things) a pararllel (sp?) with the "fundamentalist's" movement and other movements. The first generation of leaders die and the "movements" seem to harden into a level of institutionalism after that.

Just some observations that I think may be appropo for our discussions here.

sdg!

rd

A man, a movement, and a monument!

There’s a lot of sense in your observations. John of Japan has emphasized the new world-wide evangelistic thrust of Fundamentalism. It appears that Fundamentalism, which has been purely an American phenomenon, may become an international movement. This would be the revitalization of the whole movement, IMHO. The Philippines Fundamentalists, I understand, are sending out missionaries in droves. At this point, it is too early to tell where the movement is going. Time alone will tell although I think that we can give it a little nudge here and there.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
Some so-called new evangelicals aren't and I would fellowship with them. Some so-called fundamentalists aren't and I wouldn't fellowship with them!

Paul, this is the first time I've seen you intimate that some of us who actually call ourselves Fundamentalists might actually be heirs of the original Fundamentalists. Are you slipping, or do you really recognize this?

And please tell me why the Fundamentalist who refused to participate in the Graham New York crusade of 1957 is a secondary separationist, but when you refuse fellowship with some who call themselves Fundamentalists, that is not secondary separation? </font>[/QUOTE]Not participating in the Graham crusade in NY may have been primary separation if the reason was separating from liberals and modernists.

The fundamentalists who aren't that I won't fellowship with are the KJVO crowd.

 

[Paul33]

Nah, I would probably even fellowship with them if they would let me!

 

[MikeinGhana]

We won't let ou fellowship with us Paul se you are probably a Packer fan! LOL.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So who then, shall the rank-and-file Fundamentalists of all tints and hues and persuasions turn towards for leadership? And probably a more important question is--WHY--this particular person?

My answer is to find a pastor of a local church that is committed to preaching God's word and living God's way, get behind him, pray for him, follow him, support him, participate in the ministry with him. Why? Because hte local church is God's way of doing things.

 

[bapmom]

There's no reason that all "rank-and-file Fundamentalists" have to find one leader who encompasses every tint and hue....except Jesus Christ of course.

We all have our local churches, and the vast majority of us really are not concerned with having some sort of national or world figure who we all look to as the leader(s). We're a little too busy to be worrying about that.

 

[bapmom]

Hey, Im both KJVO AND a Packer fan..........what does that mean for me in here? lol

Paul, Im sorry you won't talk to me now, I liked reading your posts.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:

There also seems to be (in my way of seeing things) a pararllel (sp?) with the "fundamentalist's" movement and other movements. The first generation of leaders die and the "movements" seem to harden into a level of institutionalism after that.

Just some observations that I think may be appropo for our discussions here.

sdg!

rd

Hi, Rhetorician.

I have my ears on, but I'm not sure what you mean. Will you please explain your idea of Fundamentalism as an institution a little more?