Over the past five to six years the internet has been abuzz with various self-identified fundamentalists decrying various “problems” within fundamentalism, past and present, perceived and real, and casting a pleasant look over the fence at evangelicals, particularly those closer to the fence. Allusions have been made that a “converging” of fundamentalists and these “conservative” evangelicals would be a good and necessary corrective to those above mentioned “problems.” Those who have articulated on this vein have been really rather quiet about the real doctrinal differences with those on the other side of the fence (see Dr. Bauder’s series starting here, warning there are 24 parts in this series; for full disclosure, Dr. Bauder does seem to retreat a bit here). Instead they have sought to downplay those doctrines and seemingly relegate them to some “step-child,” insubordinate status in things Biblical. Now we have some who are indeed actually calling for a “converging” of these two groups as recently posted at SI (link here). Still others have taken the plunge and engaged having evangelicals into their institution (links here and here and here and here).
But is this really a “converging”? Since the fundamentalist/new evangelical split of the 40’s and 50’s, the pronounced marker for their differences has been the fundamentalist’s militant adherence to the doctrine of separation and the evangelical’s repudiation of said doctrine or at best inconsistent application. With that said, this is not a “converging” but a “departure.” Those fundamentalists who wish to engage these evangelicals on an equal plain are not “converging” but “departing” from historic fundamentalism and a clear, Biblical view of the doctrine of separation just like the original new evangelicals of a generation ago did.
To those who desire to “depart,” I say, bye. It is time for some “house cleaning.” It is time for some robust trumpet notes of a certain sound. Will this be pleasant? By no means! Like the previous departure, friend will be leaving friend, partnerships will be severed, fellowships will be torn. This is necessary, though it may be hard. Paul told Timothy in II Timothy 4 to “preach the Word” and then tells him that there will be those who “will not endure sound doctrine.” This departing from sound doctrine has been ongoing since Paul’s day and has particularly raged and ravaged the church since the 1800’s.
For those who may wonder about “historic fundamentalism” and “the doctrine of separation,” I refer you to several books which form the basis for my understanding. First, and foremost, the Bible, then; Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, by Dr. Ernest Pickering; Contending for the Faith, by Dr. Fred Moritz; Be ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation, by Dr. Fred Moritz. For the historical context, A History of Fundamentalism in America, by Dr. George W. Dollar; In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, by Dr. David Beale; The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, by Dr. Ernest Pickering, and Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism, by Dr. Rolland McCune.
3 comments:
Brian:
Really appreciate what you've shared here. IMO, it is both: convergence and departure. Converging around Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. Departure from fidelity and militancy toward authentic biblical separation.
Those are the requisites to advance the cooperative efforts with the so-called conservative evangelicals.
Lou
Brian:
I was just thinking about the latest article by Kevin Bauder on a conference in Rockford, IL. Aside for now that he once again uses language to castigate fundamentalism’s conferences with a broad brush he did take measures to try to portray that those who are non-Calvinists and non-Lordship Salvation would be welcome and comfortable in the Reformed environment that is the makeup and bent of that particular conference. Really? I think the true test would be to ask Bauder and the conference organizer if they would have as a platform speaker a man who rejects all five points of Calvinism and furthermore rejects Lordship Salvation’s evangelistic message as a false interpretation of the Gospel.
Nevertheless, there is a departure and convergence going on within the ranks of fundamentalism. It has been going on for several years, just more obvious than before. I don’t have any problem with the Reformed men who still identify with fundamentalism having their own conferences or decidedly Calvinistic/Lordship themed conferences. They just should not be so naïve to think that men who reject those things are going to happily join them there or be comfortable with that kind of theme. It is naïve to think that men who reject Calvinism, Lordship Salvation and the new New Evangelicalism compromise of authentic biblical separation (to cooperate with non-separatists) being encourage and practiced by Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson are going to show at a conference where any of these men (KB, DD, TJ, MO) are on the platform.
BTW, I think one of the first tangible wedges driven in between men on both sides of the Calvinism issue in IFB circles came in the (2002?) FBFI national meeting in Troy, MI. That conference was a very uncomfortable setting for non-Calvinists because of the decidedly Calvinistic tones that were propagated from some of the platform speakers, in some workshops and made their way into some resolutions.
In more recent days Dan Sweatt and Kevin Bauder, both in 2009, created a chasm that IMO will not be recoverable.
Lou
Thanks Lou, for stopping by and posting. I think that this resurgence of reformed theology is and will be very much in the mix of this separation that is necessary. A spiritualizing approach to Scripture which is the basis for reformed theology and a literal, grammatical approach which is the basis for dispensationalism cannot walk hand in hand in harmony one with another. One or the other is wrong or they are both wrong but they both can't be right.
Post a Comment