Young Fundamentalist Survey Results now available

Having been associated with a few different churches and "fellowships", I can agree with Paul that fundamentalists know who is "in" and "out". Maybe I've been exposed to the "older" element rather than the new. I've been told where the line is drawn many times. In fact, I have been told the seminary I'm applying to may become a liability in some people's minds.

*sigh* I think of myself more as conservative evangelical.

One thing I observed about the survey was lots of struggles with sexual temptations. Of course, this is typical for that age. God gave my wife and I lots of grace in that area, and we had a very honorable dating relationship in Bible college.

 

Hi Larry,

I have deep roots in the fundamentalism of NBBC and BJU. I'm not bitter.

I agree that BJU is moving in my direction. I was one of the first im my circle of fundamentalism to disagree with the hyper separation of BJU. There are now many who hold to the same position I hold to.

When BJU denies reenrollment because a student wants to attend DTS, they have shut the door on that student.

When others in fundemantalism then buy into that process, they have effectively shut the door.

NBBC did not have problems with DTS until BJU did. Then NBBC followed suite. That effectively shut me out. DTS was acceptable in my circle of fundamentalism until BJU said it wasn't.

There are gatekeepers in fundamentalism. You may not know who they are. You may not care because it doesn't affect you. You may be a "young fundamentalist."

As to the term "fundamentalism," there are several definitions and in context I use the term broadly or narrowly as required.

Everyone knows that there is a narrow brand of fundamentalism and a broader brand.

So Larry, I know exactly where I fit. In the growing sub-group of moderate young fundamentalists who see no reason to separate from Piper, MacArthur, etc. How do I know? Because I was one of the early few who led the way!

 

I agree. In fact as a Historic Baptist, I am hard put to allow the Citadel-on-Wade Hampton to define who or what is a Fundamentalist. I am going to continue in the direction my spiritual forefathers pointed me. If BJU and I agree on certain matters, that's ok. If we don't, life is life sometimes. </font>[/QUOTE]Squire, I agree too. But I don't think that is the point Larry is making. Within subgroups there are always gatekeepers.

Larry's point is that he knows of no gatekeepers. But you just mentioned one. BJU.

 

I mean that there was some evidence that some of those who responded gave some indications that their consciences were operating on some faulty standards. A common problem among IFB young people, especially those who are 2nd generation christians saved at a young age.

 

I think the survey would seem to indicate that in some cases this is the exact attitude of these young people, but some of them will or have rejected many of the trappings of the modern IFB movement.

I am a young fundamentalist, and my answers are included in the survey results. I absolutely agree with where you are drawing the definition of fundamentalism, and that is why I would say the same thing you do about following my spiritual forefathers in most areas of doctrine, while at the same time, shaking my head in disgust/disgrace/disbelief at some of the positions being taken by many so-called fundamentalist institutions and individuals. I don't know or care what BJU, NBBC, Maranatha, Clearwater, DBTS, Central, Faith, whoever agrees with me on. It matters little. I understand why these kids feel the way they do, I know broadly why they fell that way in many cases. I do think that certain circles do exactly as paul was describing, in separating from or ostracising those who are more cut from the historic IFB cloth than they are, but I again don't care. Not being a Pastor helps, I mean like 5 people know who I am, but it wouldn't matter if I was. I don't look to institutions or individuals to determine my direction, I look at their positions and attempt to evaluate them biblically and logically. My church is one that I can commit to, and can influence, I cannot do anything about what BJU chooses to think about a matter.

 

Paul, why would BJU deny you admittance b/c you wanted to attend DTS? Didn't one of the Jones's attend Notre Dame? what am I missing here?

 

I do not see the fundamentalists of the past as equivalent to the fundamentalists of today. I truly believe the fundamentalists of today are often closer to a rigid liberalism than they think. The typical term of a liberal is often someone who does nto believe the Bible. But those on the opposite end can be so judgmental that they are approaching the only people Jesus condemned.

Anyone who has confronted liberalism and hyper-fundamentalism knows that he often gets the same sort of rigid responses.

Liberals and fundamentalists lie in the same bed, just on opposite ends.

That survey would have biased results because of the population. It did not include mainstream evangelicals who would declare themselves as Bible beleiving Christians who are actively practicing their faith in obedience to scripture.

 

Orvie,

Excellent question.

Notre Dame is not considered a "Christian" university by BJU. Therefore, one can attend and not compromise ecclesiastical boundaries.

Attending DTS, however, is a Christian seminary, and therefore attending DTS compromises the established ecclesiastical boundaries. If you attend, you are no longer with us. They actually told me that they did not want their label linked with DTS's label. In other words, we don't want you to earn a B.A. from us and a Th.M. from them.

BJU would bring in secular unsaved artists for our cultural enrichment, but would never dream of bringing in anyone who claimed to be a Christian if they didn't also agree with BJU's stand on issues/separation. Therefore, the leading Christian counselors were off limits to BJU.

Things may be changing some now, but this was how it was 23 years ago!

 

There are so many kinds of fundamentalists now it is hard to keep track. Of course each group stays within itself and rejects others as a form of separation.There is a lot of legalism and KJVOism going in in a lot of these groups which has nothing to do with fundamentalism (which will be a shocker to them).I think it would be a good idea for anybody who wishes to call himself/herself a fundamentalist to read "The Fundamentals" edited by R.A. Torrey and find out what a real fundamentalist is.

 

Deep and intriguing ...

 

(John 17:21 KJV+) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

(Ephesians 4:3 KJV+) Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.


(2 Corinthians 12:20 KJV+) For I fear, lest when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:

Seems we Christians always walk backwards. Sad...very sad.


Sorry for going off-topic)....I hope these divisions, fights, never reachs my country

 

THAT would be a shocker for some!! They would find out that some of their long held issues are not Biblical fundamentals but rather 'doctrines of men'.

 

Dave, This was just a restatement of your original point. I was asking what you were talking about.

 

With respect to BJU, they are not a gatekeeper, except in the minds of those who allow them to be. And to me, that shows that some people are allowing the rather large shadow of BJU to affect them. I don't ... I am a fundamentalist because of what I believe and what I do. I don't agree with BJU on everything, and in fact, sometimes on not much at all. But they are one aspect of fundamentalism. They don't keep any gates, unless someone is small enouhg in their convictions to allow them to.

With respect to DTS, whether or not Paul was denied enrollment for that reason is not entirely clear. We have to realize that we are hearing one side of a story from a disgruntled person. That's fine ... There may have been reasons other than that; there may not have been. In my thinking, BJU made some very unfortunate statements about some places and people. I think in recent years, BJU has tempered on that. For that to be an issue 23 years later is problemmatic. If you are not bitter, Paul, then why bring it up? And who really cares? You made a choice; BJU made a choice. Why do you get to make a choice and then you want to deny them the right to make a choice?

As for "the leading Christian counselors" being off limits to BJU, that reason is several fold I am sure. I would assume the foremost reason was these counselors commitment to unbiblical counseling methods. Why would you bring someone into speak or teach who contradicts what you believe to be one of the most fundamental truths about God's word? I can't see how that is a problem. And if that ever changes, I would have to question the fundamentalism of BJU.

In the end, historic fundamentalism was made up, in Laws' words, of those who held to the great fundamental doctrines and intended to do battle royal for them. That was clearly a statement not only about what one believed, but also about one's willingness to "do battle," to expose, be militant in their defense, and separate. The separatistic element of fundamentalism goes back to the 30s. In fact, that is why New Evangelicalism was started ... the "old evangelicals" (fundamentalists) were too separatistic. You can see that documented in any good history such as Marsden, Beale, Carpenter, McCune, etc. For one to come along and say that "historic fundamentalism" is not about separatism is simply historical revisionism.

With respect to Piper, MacArthur, etc ... It is too easily forgotten that these men are separatists as well. They separated from fundamentalism by their own admission. Again, let's not revise history. There are many fundamentalism who have made great contributions to the Church and theology. That doesn't make them fundamentalists. Some have "over separated." Some have cowered in fear from the "gatekeepers" and allowed themselves to be concerned with what Bob Jr, Bob III, or someone else would say. That is nothing but the fear of men. Historic fundamentalism is not characterized by that.

My plea is that we not distort what historic fundamentalism is. Everyone who claims it isn't one ... on both sides. The hyper separatists aren't fundamentalists, and the conservative evangelicals aren't either. Don't let people's bad experiences rewrite the history. If you got hurt, get over it. Deal with it. Move on. But don't try to redefine what historic fundamentalism is and has been.

 

Larry,

We've had this debate before, so I won't go through it again.

I simply want to say that Larry defines fundamentalism to reflect his moderate position. Today, BJU, NBBC, MBBC, etc. also attempt to reflect their own view of a moderate position. For example, anti-KJVO, but we only use the KJV in the pulpit.

But fundamentalism encompasses a broad group of people. It depends on what side of an issue one is on that determines how one defines it.

Historic fundamentalists were often NOT separatistic. Riley, for example, stayed in the NBC right up until his death. Only then did he withdraw.

Finally, the poison pill of fundamentalists is to label any person who disagrees and points it out as "bitter."

It amuses me that a person can't share his experience without being branded bitter.

I am disappointed that BJU has the influence it has on NBBC, but that is a different story.

 

I have no desire to do that either. I simply want to point out that we can't revise history, though.

And you try to define it to reflect your position. But history gives a verdict. By and large, BJU stands in the mainstream of what fundamentalism is and was. They have made some unfortunate (read dumb) statements and take some bad positions over the years. Who hasn't? But you are trying to make them more than they are.

And you make my point exactly. He withdrew. He separated, and if you read his remarks about it, he separated because he was a fundamentalist. Some of his remarks about the doctrinal defection and financial support concluded "What shall we do then? Either correct the entire policy or divide" (Beale, p. 282). In his letter of resignation of memebership in teh NBC, he says "I am no longer a young man, having seen my eighty-sixth birthday, and I should be ashamed to die in the fellowship that semmed to me un-Biblical, and consequently un-Baptistic" (in Beale, pp. 394-95). He cites 2 John 9-11 and 2 Cor 6:14, 17 in support of his separatism.

In short, Riley was a separatist in the 40s because of his fundamentalism. To say that separatism is a modern invention of fundamentalism is plainly revisionistic.

In the early days, some of those men wanted to hang on and try to save the denominations and structures. Bob Jones Sr. and Bob Jones Jr were involved in the NAE and with Graham until such a time as they could not longer be obedient to God and continue that relationship. Only then, after much work, did they separate. These men found they could not change the flow of unbelief and compromise and so they separated because they were fundamentalist.

I see very few fundamentalists use that term in the way you imply. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a fundamentalist use it to describe someone who disagrees with them. Your comments here, over the past year or so (as I recall the time frame), indicate that you have a residual grudge against BJU for what you perceived to be a slight. There is nothing amusing about it, to me anyway. You have made some very negative statements about BJU. If you aren't bitter, then why would you bring it up? You say they drove you out of fundamentalism. But they didn't. They have no power to do that. Fundamentalism consists of far more.

But to the main point, you don't get to redefine fundamentalism. Your own example of WB Riley refutes your point. He did separate, for the very same reasons that fundamentalists historically have. Some have certainly taken it too far. But that does not indict the correct separation.