Young Fundamentalist Survey Results now available

I agree. AS I have said many times, the landscape of today is so vastly different than it was in teh 20s, 30s, and 40s, that it is impossible to say who would have been where.

My comments were directed at the mistaken notion that early fundamentalists were not separatists. Many today want to say that fundamentalism is simply holding to the fundamental doctrines. They say that separating from others is not a part of that. W. B. Riley is evidence ot the contrary. I read somewhere, it seems (though I can't remember where), that Riley expressed lament that he had not withdrawn earlier. But I can't recall entirely. Separatism in early fundaemntalism was still taking shape, but even in the formation of the new evangelicalism, one of hte given reasons was the repudiation of separatism. That is de facto evidence that separatism was a part of early fundamentalism.

Today, the lines are drawn much differently; the issues of theology and obedience take different forms. That is why it is impossible to say what Dr. So and So from now would have been in the 20s, or how Dr. Such and Such from the 20s would have been now. We simply cannot know.

 

I am a product of fundamentalism as it existed in the late 1970's. As a student at Tennessee Temple University when it was under the leadership of Dr. Lee Roberson, I heard men speak in chapel who were NOT Independent Baptists, yet were fundamental (at least at that time) in their beliefs. We had a Presbyterian missionary speak in chapel one day. Another time James Robison (at that time SBC), yet another time Harold J. Smith (SBC) spoke at a Bible conference. Funny, no one back then criticized Dr. Roberson for that (at leasst to my knowledge). We even had Dr. John R. Rice who came and preached although Dr. Roberson and him did NOT agree on the issue of 'Storehouse tithing'.

We also had famous musicians who would come and play concerts for us from time to time, and as I recall they weren't all Independent Baptists either.

Sadly today, such would be, and is labeled 'compromise', 'progressive', or 'liberal'.

 

Exactly.

Not to make this personal, but I am considering working on a Ph. D. and have considered BJU.

I don't have this burning grudge against them, Larry.

Also, I still consider myself an historic fundamentalist despite what BJU thought 23 years ago.

Slowly I have watched my friends and relatives move my way. If I don't move, "fundamentalism" will soon pass me by!

Graduates of NBBC now pastor EFCA churches, attend The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and are members of BGC churches. And these are just my relatives!

Yes, I am an historic fundamentalist and so are my relatives, even though the non-existing gatekeepers would tell me and my relatives that we aren't!

In fact, that's what has gotten old fundamentalists so concerned. The young fundamentalists are "leaving" fundamentalism, so they claim. But we're not. We're just bringing it back to where it should be, in our opinion.

 

Don't you think that it is a little disingenious to call Riley a separatist when he didn't separate until he was 86?

Also, labeling everyone a new evangelical who doesn't separate as quickly or to the same degree as oneself is also disingenious.

There was and is a vast group of fundamentalists who don't agree with the "militancy" of some and the "dialoguing" of others, who were labeled new evangelicals simply because they weren't "militant" enough in disagreeing with those who sought "dialogue."

By the 1950s, for example, if you didn't take BJU's position on separation you were labeled a new evangelical even though you disagreed with the stated agenda of new evangelicalism.

I use "BJU" as an example, not because I am bitter, but because that is the orbit of fundamentalism I am familiar with.

BTW, my home church came out of the NBC/ABC and became independent.

 

Sorry, Thought you didn't know what I meant.

There were several responses to the "What do you feel the most guilty about" question that went something like these.

"Making out with a girl in the 7th grade"
(perhaps if this was a 30 year old and the &th grade is the age of the girl, I understand the heavy weight of guilt associated with it)

"kissing too much during dating"
(can I get some metrics here, how much is too much?)

"listening to bad music"
(Wagner, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Steve Green [shudder], Ron Hamilton?)

Not that they could not reference real sin, they certainly could, but they reflect the common IFB young person's approach to holy living. I understand where the are coming from because I have been in institutions and situations that foster guilt for such things as listening to John Denver, men wearing shorts, women wearing sandals, going to see Finding Nemo at the theatre, etc. The responses in some cases could be a tongue in cheek sarcasm, or they could be generalized indocrinated canned responses caused by years of professional training in what christians are. I graduated from a IFB institution and got married as a professional christian, with a heart that was in rebellion. Since I had dealt with most of the obvious outward rebellion I dealt with in high school, I didn't even really know that till God did some work in my heart through some fellow christians and the Word. I could easily have continued on washing the outside of the cup in many IFB churches being the ideal christian family, working in every ministry I could manage, tithing, wearing my suit and tie and singing in the choir, and not done a lick about the dirty inside of the glass.

That is the root of the "rejection" of modern fundamentalism by the younger generation. They look at history objectively, decide that while the docrines that were in jeopardy in the early modernism movement are important and should be defended militantly, there is no basis in the scriptures or in logical reasoning based on the scriptures for much of the baggage that is hauled around by their "mentors" in the IFB movement.

The problem is what do they call themselves. There are people who do not consider one fundamental who doesn't hold the line on slacks on women, the show, or the KJV. Right or wrong, they feel like they are being pushed out into either a separate group, or the conservative neo-evangelical crowd. I have chosen to identify with fundamentalism, and agressively attack any attempt to pile on the baggage, but I am in the top half age wise, I am not sure that the younger IFBs will share my optimism in being able to marginalize the wacko fringe.

I hope my response is taken in the right way here. I still do struggle with anger when I hear some things that frustrate me to no end about where many IFB churches and institutions have taken the movement. I tried to kill the sarcasm and my own smart alec tendancies as much as possible.

 

Not to make this personal, but I am considering working on a Ph. D. and have considered BJU.

I will take your word for it. Some of the things you have said were somewhat troubling ... but I will take your word. Not to indulge in continued personal stuff, but I too am considering a doctoral program. I am trying to decide exactly what I want to do. The PhD at BBS in Clark Summit is attractive, and the DMin at Southern is. I am leaning slightly towards the DMin right now because I am not sure I want to do the academic work at this stage of my ministry. It would take so much time away from what I need to do here in this small church.

But he did separate didn't he? And over the very reasons that fundamentalists have always separated ... doctrine and obedience. He separated from the NBC because they were willing to tolerate in fellowship those who denied basic doctrine. That sounds to me like what is today called secondary separation ... separating from someone over who they refuse to separate from.

I agree. In fact, I don't know anyone who disagrees.

 

According to the letter Riley wrote to the NBC detailing his reasons, the picture looks different to me. The NBC did not deny the virgin birth, but tolerated those who did. And I believe that is one of the reasons Riley himself gave.

It is primary separation ... all separation is. But most people have called it secondary separation, and that is unfortunate. I deny any form of secondary separation, personally. All separation is primary.

 

I am not sure I agree with you here.If my thinking is wrong, please set me straight.

Hopefully this poor illustration will help to make my thinking clear-

As I see it, primary separation is separation from direct contact with doctrine or practices you do not believe in. I have a Pentecostal preacher friend, but I do not go to his church (during services) to fellowship and he does not come to mine. Sometimes we might get together for a cup of coffee and a chat in his or my office or at a restaurant during the week. I practice primary separation (and he does also) by not putting a stamp of approval on his/my ministry by attending his/my church during services.

Now, if some of my IBF preacher friends knew I did this, they would separate from ME, just because of my supposed association with Pentecostals. THAT is secondary separation. At least as I understand it.

 

To use your illustration, when someone separates from you because you do that, they are separating from "direct contact with doctrine or practices (they) do not believe in" (to use your words). In other words, in their mind, they are separating from you because of your disobedience (in their mind). That is primary.

I am not saying they should separate from you over that. I am simply using your illustration.

 

Your logic is correct, Larry.

However, the belief described above was not a "fundamental" of the early fundamentalists.

The Fundamentals don't address this "belief" that must be held in order to be a proper fundamentalist.

 

I duck into the BB from time to time, and every time I do I find Paul33 reliving his experiences at BJU two decades ago. Paul33, you always paint BJ as the villain. I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your attitude in most of the posts here seems to be the type that would be a lightning rod for conflict with the administration at ANY school.

Fundamentalism was originally an ecumenical movement. They united over the fundamentals. Hence, dozens of denominations were represented at an institution like Bob Jones in its early years. They disagreed on a lot of things, but could fellowship around the fundamentals.

Things were tripping along nicely until Billy Graham and his comrades forever muddied the waters between conservatism and liberalism. Fundamentalists were the only ones who seriously opposed Graham's methods (because he was putting the fundamentals in jeopardy). They were right about Graham. Unfortunately, his methods introduced a host of secondary issues. In my opinion neither fundamentalism nor evangelicalism has adequately handled the fallout. Fundamentalism over-corrected; evangelicalism didn't really care.

I think it is odd that you maintain that it is inconsistent for a Christian to separate from other Christians yet still engage with unbelievers. This suggests that you haven't thought seriously about the fundamentalist critique (and the exegetical arguments they put forth). You can disagree with the things that some fundamentalists separate over, but biblically I don't see that you can write off the whole idea of separating from disobedient brothers.

As for your thesis that NBBC is a puppet of BJU, I don't buy it. After years of resisting accredidation, what was the major catalyst in BJU warming to the idea? It was that BJU's closest sister college--NBBC--was seeking accreditation. Likewise this year BJU followed Northland's lead and is allowing girls to wear shorts for sporting activities. Personally, I think that baptist pastors influence all of the fundamental institutions nearly as much as any other power group. I think you would find that our colleges would look a lot different without wacko baptist pastors intervening.

 

But it seems to me that Riley did exactly that, and regretted that he had not done it earlier. When Laws talked of those willing to do "battle royal" for the fundamentals, it certainly seems that this was a part of that when the time came.

But again, it is hard to peg people in particular spots 80 years later. Who knows where they would be today.

 

Palmetto Boy,

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. I know for a fact that NBBC would like to make changes to some of their rules but are afraid of the fallout from "whacko pastors."

And yes, recently NBBC has started to forge their own path. That is a good development.

And I won't comment on your "every time" statement except to say that most mature adults don't use that kind of inflamatory language.

I think BJU has done alot of things well. I think they do some things wrong. I'm glad NBBC/BJU are starting to allow kids to dress normally. Coullottes had to be one of the dumbest things they ever forced on the female sex. I'm not sure about the spelling, I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

What BJU did to me personally was rediculous. But I'm not bitter. Why should I be. I transferred to Grace College, met my darling wife, and the rest is, as they say, history!

I will forever be grateful to BJU for denying me the right to finish my last semester and graduate!

 

But it seems to me that Riley did exactly that, and regretted that he had not done it earlier. When Laws talked of those willing to do "battle royal" for the fundamentals, it certainly seems that this was a part of that when the time came.

But again, it is hard to peg people in particular spots 80 years later. Who knows where they would be today. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

 

So how many kinds of fundamentalism is there?What do you consider real fundamentalism?

 

Palmetto

I could not have said it better.

 

I will, since I don't consider myself to be a mature adult most of the time.

Palmetto visits the BB occasionally, and "every time" he is here, he is defending or beating us about the head regarding the virtues of BJU. Everybody has a point of view on issues and institutions, and while I may not agree with Paul's assessment of BJU, I don't view Palmetto as the paragon of objectivity on the issue either.

I don't see the puppet strings to NBBC from the mother ship, I do see it to some in IFB circles, specifically churches for the most part.

I really wish folks would see the value in a diversity of perspective. A church staff would do well to be made up of individuals from BJU, Maranatha, Clearwater, Northland, or perhaps even from slightly outside these circles, rather than being almost sectarian about these schools. Or using the phrase "they just arent in our camp" when they talk about various issues. Fundamentalism in some circles has become a much more divisive element than even its founding fathers intended.

 

It's not just BJU that has a history of seperating itself from others.
It happens the other way around as well.
If my parents had come in contact with BJU in it's seggregated period than they would have seperated themselves from it in a heartbeat.