Both of these sources come at the question from the evangelical side of the spectrum, in the case of Clawson and Olson, it is on the outside of conservative evangelicalism looking in, whereas George and Dockery are more or less on the inside of the movement. Both sources offer some interesting observations of the so-called ‘conservative evangelical’ movement.

Clawson and Olson

The thesis of this piece is that the conservative evangelicals are essentially fundamentalists, albeit a new kind of fundamentalist. They aren’t the same as the original fundamentalists, but are analogous to them.

I contend that this growing concern expressed by MacArthur and many other evangelicals represents a new movement within evangelicalism toward what I have termed neo-fundamentalism.  This is not simply a return to the original Protestant fundamentalism of the early-twentieth century, though it is analogous to it.

The difference between neo-fundamentalism and fundamentalism is those against whom they are reacting. Clawson sees both neo-fundie and fundie as simply reactionary groups. Neo-fundamentalists are reacting to postmodernism in a similar way that fundamentalists reacted to modernism a century ago. Neo-fundamentalism grew out of evangelicalism in the 70s and 80s, according to Clawson, out of a reaction to the massive culture shifts of the 1960s when James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson ‘became increasingly negative towards the culture’. This reaction morphed into neo-fundamentalism as culture itself shifted from humanism/secularism to pluralism/relativism. The new reactionaries “constructed a genuine neo-fundamentalist alternative to any evangelical accommodation with postmodernity.”

All of that seems reasonable enough and it is precisely at this point that the conservative evangelicals become attractive to fundamentalists. The conservative evangelicals are reacting to something that fundamentalists also eschew. Fundamentalists find themselves nodding in agreement at this point of congruence. (And since the dominant culture is now thoroughly post-modern, fundamentalist attention is often focused on this major point of agreement than on points of disagreement.)

Clawson goes on to cite as evidence of his thesis three of the ‘most influential’ leaders of ‘neo-fundamentalism’: John Piper, Albert Mohler, and Mark Driscoll. Driscoll? A reactionary? To post-modernism? Hmm… Even Clawson seems to recognize the weakness of including Driscoll in the list, for he says: “he seems to lack the level of hostility towards secular culture typical of fundamentalists.”

One might therefore assume that Driscoll is not in fact a neo-fundamentalist. And yet Driscoll often shares the stage at national conferences with other neo-fundamentalist leaders. And while many of the older leaders often have gentle criticisms for him (especially in regards to his language choices), Piper and others have made it clear that Driscoll’s doctrine is acceptable to them and that they are unwilling to kick him out of the camp over stylistic differences. Indeed, Driscoll theology is completely in line with the older generation of neo-fundamentalists on everything from gender roles, to biblical inerrancy, penal substitutionary

Driscoll makes the grade for his ‘strong masculinity’ and his alleged hostility to “the deeper ethos of a postmodern culture.”

Well… whatever! Clawson’s thesis makes some interesting points but his examples and the significant cracks in their separatism seem to erode his argument rather than support it.

But please note that Clawson likewise argues for a distinction between fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists (his term for conservative evangelicals).

George and Dockery

In the book, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, James Spivey writes a chapter on “Benajah Harvey Carroll”. In this chapter he makes this observation about Carroll’s theology:

Carroll’s theology was influenced most by other conservative Baptists, especially Boyce, Strong, Spurgeon, and Broadus, whose catechism he recommended highly. To say that he was a conservative evangelical is not adequate. Though the term was not yet in vogue, he could be described as a “Fundamentalist.” His doctrine agreed with the basic tenets of The Fundamentals (1910–15), and he thoroughly disdained modernists as “cuckoos of infidelity.” This antipathy was directed against Northern liberals when he encouraged a group of fundamentalist Illinois Baptists to seek admission to the SBC (1910). Led by Landmarker, W. P. Throgmorton, they had intended to align with Ben Bogard, a sympathizer with Carroll’s nemesis, Samuel Hayden. In spite of strong resistance from some Southern Baptists, they were admitted partly because of Carroll’s support.¹

The reason for highlighting this paragraph is not B. H. Carroll, but the observation Spivey makes about conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. Clearly, Spivey also sees a distinction between the two groups. Spivey implies that conservative evangelicals might not disdain modernists as thoroughly as Carroll did, and certainly not as thoroughly as fundamentalists do. Though there are similarities that might cause an outside observer to confuse the two groups, significant differences remain.

Conclusion

The first point I want to stress in conclusion is that evangelicals are able to see a distinction between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, even though many erstwhile fundamentalists seem to have a good deal of difficulty seeing the distinction themselves.

The second point is that if the conservative evangelicals are distinguished by their opposition to postmodernity, they maintain a general new evangelical  friendliness to modernity (but not modernism). Though they see the corruption of the evangelical church in its embrace of all sorts of worldly wisdom, yet they maintain a comfort level with the worldly wisdom of the 50s and 60s that birthed the new evangelical movement in opposition to fundamentalism.

And finally, if evangelicals are confused about the inclusion of Mark Driscoll in the ‘neo-fundamentalist/conservative evangelical’ orb, ought not fundamentalists continue to maintain their distance? The continuing failure of conservative evangelicalism to separate from Driscoll and his errors is an ongoing testament to the failure of neo-fundamentalism to have much of a concept of separatism at all. Praise the Lord that they seem to be seeing the dangers of cooperation with modernists. May they soon see the need to sever ties with hedonists and libertines.

P.S. I recommend the book, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition as a good overview of the progress of Southern Baptist theology. There are a few non SBC men mentioned, but most are SBC. The list of men and their theologies reviewed gives an interesting perspective into the progress of theology in the SBC, at least on the (mostly) conservative side of the scale.

1. Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Timothy George and David S. Dockery)
   - Highlight on Page 177 | Loc. 4641-49 | emphasis mine

While the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples, propaganda in its original sense was neutral, and could refer to uses that were generally benign or innocuous, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to the police, among others.

Our church is located in an area of Greater Victoria that was once known as ‘the Western Communities’. Some recalcitrant old-timers (read ‘me’) still sometimes use the old term. The term has some negative connotations – our area used to be considered a little bit of ‘hicksville’, or ‘dogpatch’… not the choicest addresses in town.

All that began to change with rapid property development and population growth in our end of town. That’s when the propaganda machine went into effect.

The powers that be decided that a new term was needed so they began to refer to our area as “the Westshore”. The local Chamber of Commerce and our various civic government officials were all behind it. A good deal of the business community got behind it as well, including the local newspapers and such. These folks studiously avoided the old term and sometimes gently (!) corrected the rubes that still used it.

This propaganda effort has been going on for several years. The local mall has been renamed from ‘Canwest Mall’ to ‘Westshore Town Centre’. Our recreation centre was once the ‘Juan de Fuca Recreation Centre’, but now is ‘Westshore Parks and Recreation’. And on it goes. The new term is winning the day and the public image of the ‘Westshore’ is much more sophisticated and upbeat than the ‘armpit’ reputation of the old ‘Western Communities’.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with this, though the curmudgeon in me resists this kind of mumbo jumbo. For business people, I suppose there is a profit motive in upgrading the ‘brand’ of their region, but it all seems a lot of tomfoolery to me.

Words have a good deal of power to influence. Most of my readers know that I am identified as a fundamentalist and that I am not reluctant to wear the label. Now there is a term with baggage! A few years ago, one of my dear friends, Dr. Bob Jones III, floated the idea that we might need a newer and better term to represent a ‘sane’ sort of fundamentalism. He made no suggestions and got some resistance in a few quarters. Nothing much came of that suggestion.

Lately, a few fellows are consistently using a new term in their blogging on issues that would typically be considered fundamentalist in their philosophy and position. They seem to be studiously avoiding the term fundamentalist, although at least some of them (I think) would not be shy about accepting the label if someone else described them that way.

But it seems that they are busy in an attempt to rebrand their position. I’m going to provide a few links. They are almost all from the same group blog and I consider some of these fellows to be ‘on-line friends’. One of them is even a Facebook friend, how much closer can you get! Anyway, see if you can pick out the term. Tell me what you think of the effort. Can you think of a major source or influence behind this term?

Some efforts like this will fail because they don’t capture the ‘hearts and minds’ … they just don’t catch on. Time will tell what will become of this effort, if it is an effort.

Here are the links:

• Defending the Gospel (part of a 30 part series)
• Cultural skepticism, the opposite of worldliness (also reposted here)
• Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen
• We hold our worship views firmly, but not as firmly as clear statements from Scripture

Just wondering if anyone else is picking up on this … have you noticed it elsewhere?

What makes this one interesting is…

• That the author is a pastor in the Harvest Bible Fellowship, James MacDonald’s organization.
• That the author is a graduate of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
• That some of the author’s co-bloggers are also graduates of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. (One is the son of a very close friend from ‘back in the day’.)

Given those connections, the separatistic bent of the blog post makes a bit more sense. (Although it remains to be seen if actual separation will take place.)

Along with making the post make a bit more sense, these facts raise some interesting questions:

• How do graduates of DBTS end up in a Harvest Bible Fellowship church?
• How do graduates of DBTS end up attending Southern Seminary?
• What will these young men do now?

It seems that this incident is a bit of a wake-up call to the Conservative Evangelical wannabes we seem to be producing in fundamentalist schools.

These kinds of associations are the fruit of evangelicalism. If you move into evangelicalism, you will inevitably find yourself in some partnerships that are exceedingly uncomfortable, especially for someone who still holds on to at least some of their fundamentalist instincts instilled by their fundamentalist church backgrounds and schools.

It’s got to be a bit of a shocker for these young fellows. I’ll be interested to see if they do what they must do – break fellowship with James MacDonald.

It is common practice in the blogosphere to link to other blogs or articles online. This is part of the ‘netiquette’ of blogging, especially when you are writing a contrary opinion. The link provides context, your readers can go to your online ‘opponent’ to see what they said in context in order to decide whether they will agree with you or him or neither.

It is also common practice to link to news items of interest with a brief comment suggesting why the link was interesting to you.

I have occasionally linked to Christianity Today when I see articles of interest there, or when I wish to take issue with something said there. Some of my fellow fundamentalists have commented when I have done that without much of a disclaimer. I guess I don’t think a disclaimer is all that necessary when I am critiquing an article. It is pretty clear that I am not agreeing!  (Does anyone think I am ambiguous when I disagree?) And I don’t think a disclaimer is always necessary when I am just passing along a link to say: look at this, it’s interesting.

But what if I was writing an article listing a whole host of sites as “good resources for church planting” or “good resources for spiritual growth” or “good resources for theology”?

Suppose in writing such an article I listed exclusively evangelical sources with virtually no disclaimers of any kind. And suppose I wrote fairly positive mini-reviews of these sites, implying that these fellows are good brothers doing good work. Suppose that I wrote in a different post a generic disclaimer to my readers that “I don’t endorse everything I link to.”

I think I have a fairly well-known fundamentalist reputation. Ben Wright tells me I represent the fundamentalist wing of fundamentalism. (Thanks, Ben, I guess!) So if I were to write an article full of positive comments about the usual evangelical suspects with no disclaimers in that article itself… what would you think?

Would you wonder if my position had changed? Would you consider my ‘fundamentalist reputation’ maybe not as hard-line as you had earlier thought?

Fundamentalists are agreed that the way we are careful about fellowship is especially in the area of ministry cooperation – shared platforms, cooperative ministry opportunities and the like. We are apparently not so clearly agreed about internet endorsements.

The argument could be made that we will use books by evangelicals (or even others further ‘left’) in our seminaries without much of a disclaimer and a recommendation on the internet is very similar. And we see books by evangelicals in some of our Christian bookstores (like those at our Fundamentalist colleges).

So my question is this: when is a link not a link? When is it an endorsement? Or when is it perceived as an endorsement?

With the turmoil in fundamentalism over the apparent love affair many ‘young fundamentalists’ have with all things Calvin and all things evangelical, should we pause before we make what appear to be endorsements of popular evangelical ministries? What do we communicate when we make such links? Does the internet change our view of Christian cooperation? Is it limited only to active/physical cooperation in some kind of joint endeavour? Or can we give tacit approval to evangelicalism by the links we make?

A while back, I had a much longer blogroll in my side-bar. Some of the sites I listed were friends who weren’t necessarily so fundamentalist anymore. I still have a couple of links to blogs that are definitely not fundamentalist but are particularly interesting to me. But I did purge a lot of the links I used to have. I decided I didn’t want to promote them anymore – even though some of them were personal friends.

So what do you think? Am I merely a paranoid fundamentalist? (Keith, we already know that you will say ‘yes’.) Or is there some cause for caution and concern in the kinds of things we endorse?

If you don’t have time to listen to all, I would recommend the following as highlights:

All of Dr. Ed Nelson’s messages. Dr. Nelson was ‘on fire’ as I described it to a friend. He is a tremendous, faithful man of God who the Lord has used to establish many churches. He is in his eighties – 86? – and still a man being used of God.

The message by Brent Floyd, a word to young men from a young man was excellent.

And Tim Berlin brought a fantastic message on unity. Very well done,  had the right focus and is an example of how those who contend must not be contentious.

I’d also like to recommend the workshop by Jeremy Sweatt. Very interesting look at the thinking of younger fundamentalists.

Here is the whole list (in order of appearance):

Messages:

The Church: The Pillar & Ground of the Truth
Dr. Ed Nelson | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

Who Will Be Your King?
Dr. John Vaughn | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

Hope Deferred
Christopher Williams | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

Earnestly Contend for the Faith
Dr. Ed Nelson | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

But Continue Thou
Brent Floyd | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

Remnant Theology
Dr. Ed Nelson | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

Endeavoring to Keep the Unity of the Spirit
Tim Berlin | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

Jehoshaphat: Yahweh Judges
Rick Arrowood | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

How Do We Arrive at Truth?
Dr. Bud Steadman | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

Workshops:

The Heart of a Young Fundamentalist
Jeremy Sweatt | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

A Biblical Look at Our Church Music
Dr. Charles Phelps | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

Helping Teens in a Changing Culture
Dan Fitzgerald | 2011 FBFI Annual Meeting

~~~

May the Lord make these words profitable to all who hear.

For the sake of summary, simplicity and specificity could someone (perhaps RPittman, who last used this phrase) list some of these many problems of CE’s?

I responded with a list of four items that came to mind immediately, but I’d like to expand on that list a bit here.

Let me note a couple of things before getting to the list. I am not trying to say that CEs are evil, apostate, the spawn of Satan, or anything anywhere close to those epithets. I began my response to Ron Bean with this paragraph:

Ron, let me first acknowledge that there are many valuable contributions to Christian thought and life by Conservative Evangelicals. I think most of us who have problems with them do appreciate their ministries (to varying degrees).

What I am trying to outline is some items that remain significant barriers to ministry partnership. These are real differences between us. We aren’t just playing party politics as some allege. It’s not just that CEs haven’t gone to ‘our schools’ or aren’t in ‘our tribe’ or aren’t located in ‘our spot’ on the map. These differences involve objectionable beliefs or practices that all conservative evangelicals share in some combination or other.¹ They reflect an essential difference in philosophy of the ministry that manifests itself in the various problems I am noting.

Here are some of the problems from my perspective:

1. The growing influence of charismatism

The charismatics have major problems when it comes to inspiration, inerrancy and the canon. They either believe in ongoing revelation (denying a closed canon) or they believe the Bible is in error when it expressly says that Agabus spoke his prophecy by the "Spirit". The influence of charismatism has widely altered the shape of evangelicalism at large.

The infatuation with charismatism led John Piper and C J Mahaney to a friendly relationship with the Toronto Vineyard "Laughing Revival" phenomenon. Mahaney reportedly led his church in the ‘Toronto Blessing’ in the 90s. Have either Mahaney or Piper publicly repudiated these connections with serious error? I don’t know of any such repudiation.

As I am writing about this, an announcement arrives from 9Marks about some speakers at Together for the Gospel next year. One speaker will be one of the Sovereign Grace men, Jeff Purswell, who will be teaching from 1 Cor 12-14. What do you suppose will be the topic of discussion?

I ran across an article from the UK, sounding the alarm about the rise of charismatism in conservative circles because of the ‘Reformed’ connection in the case of Sovereign Grace. The article is a sermon preached at a conference in Northwest England called ‘God’s Glory Our Joy’. The message came from the 2009 conference, links found here. The message in question is called " The Charismatic Legacy: The impact of the renewal movement 40 years on". It is available as a Word file on the page linked.

The charismatic influence on ‘conservative’ evangelicals is a serious concern. It is not something to be dismissed. One could say that a large part of the collapse of evangelicalism at large is the growth of charismatic influence in its midst.

Because of this influence, fundamentalists need to give the conservative evangelicals a wide birth.

2. The continuing relationship between CEs and the Billy Graham organization itself.

The most conservative CE of them all, John MacArthur, has spoken in recent years at Graham’s training center, the Cove, and has published articles in Graham’s Decision magazine. The connections between Southern Seminary and the Graham organization are well known. Mark Dever is chairman of the board at Southern. Dever, Mohler, and others continue to affirm the necessary corrective of New Evangelicalism – needed to correct the ‘excesses’ of fundamentalism – and yet claim that we don’t need a new New Evangelicalism. Still, we see continuing errors like the signing of the Manhattan Declaration by many well-known conservative evangelicals.

3. The inconsistent complementarianism

Complementarianism is the doctrine of male headship / leadership in home and church. The doctrine has been ably defended and promoted by conservative evangelicals, yet its tenets are inconsistently applied. I noted this in an earlier post, but John Piper, the ‘grand-daddy’ of complementarians (editor of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) participated as one of six expositors preaching through Ephesians at the recent Lausanne conference. Two of the other expositors were women. The 9Marks organization recently announced a foray into the Phoenix area in a church that has a woman deacon and a woman on the ‘ministry staff’. (This latter may be an un-ordained person who is named distinctly from the elders of the church.) Still, one wonders how committed these men are to biblical complementarian ideals.

Ironically, complementarianism has given rise to a number of women speakers and writers. They have been promoted for their support of complementarian ideals. And of course they speak at ‘women’s conferences’ or at ‘women’s sessions’ in otherwise ‘male’ conferences. But we find their books and even their messages recommended to men. One recent conference elicited a male recommendation of a female message as “one of the very best I have ever heard.” So much for complementarianism.

4. The tolerance of worldliness on many levels

The tolerance of worldliness would include the widespread tolerance of men like Mark Driscoll, and such discussions as you see on SI where gambling and drinking are openly approved. (In moderation … of course.)

In this same category would be the widespread use of worldly music that undermines the gospel message being preached. Almost all the CE ministries usually touted as exemplary are affected by this.

These examples serve as a quick catalog of my concerns with conservative evangelicalism. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but simply to show objectively some definite differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

From a fundamentalist perspective, I think these differences preclude any kind of ministry cooperation. The fundamentalist approach to ministry is just too different from the evangelical approach. I think the evangelical approach leads in a direction I don’t want to go, nor do I want the people I serve to head in that direction because of my failure to maintain a clearly distinct ministry.

1. That is to say, all CEs are marked by several of these characteristics, though not necessarily all of them.

“of, relating to, or common to a system”

“systemic” in Frederick C. Mish, ed., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).

The discussion on the fundamentalist blogosphere lately has been very heated over stories of scandal and sexual abuse in or connected with ministries widely viewed as fundamentalist. (I phrase it that way because some may dispute the fundie credentials of some of these ministries.)

I really don’t want to get into a “fact-finding-fault-finding” scream-a-thon here. But Bob Bixby brings the word ‘systemic’ to the discussion and others have said similar things. By systemic, Bob says he means

I think it is right to say that she was wrongly treated because of a systemic abuse of victims in fundamentalist circles. I insist on the word “systemic” because I do not think that IFB people consciously scheme about how to make people suffer.

…

I do agree that abuse is systemic in the culture of IFB. It is systemic because of the general IFB understanding of church, discipline, sin, authority, and the Bible.

So… systemic… “of, relating to, or common to a system”

(Now, before we go on, let’s note that Bob is broadening the topic from sexual abuse to ‘abuse of victims’ and that this issue is ‘systemic’ because of the IFB “understanding of church, discipline, sin, authority, and the Bible.” Bob is painting with a very broad brush and using the current scandal to attack his favorite whipping boy, independent Baptist Fundamentalism.)

But is ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘child abuse’ systemic to Christian fundamentalism?

A friend of mine sent me a few links tonight about another very very tragic and disgusting story about another independent Baptist and another scandal. I’m not going to include any links, its just a completely disgusting story. In this case, it appears there is a serious sin issue, this time on the part of a pastor. That’s all the details I’ll give.

But the story gave me pause. Not another one! And then again, this question came to mind: is ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘child abuse’ systemic to Christian fundamentalism?

Because if it is, every right thinking fundamentalist needs to GET OUT, fast.

How to test this out? I decided to do a few searches on Google. The first was for ‘evangelical underage inappropriate’; ‘fundamentalist underage inappropriate’; and ‘school teacher underage inappropriate’.

The results:

1. EUA = About 415,000 results (0.09 seconds)
2. FUA = About 319,000 results (0.26 seconds)
3. STUA = About 1,830,000 results (0.15 seconds)

Please note that the terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘evangelical’ are loosely used in the press, so for instance my search on ‘fundamentalist …’ picked up hits on Mormon Fundamentalism right at the top of the page.

Also, while these search terms are perhaps a little generic, if you look at the searches, you will be able to see that they pick up stories and articles of the sort we are talking about. So I think the terms are ‘good enough’. I didn’t want to get too specific for fear of picking up sites that are themselves inappropriate. It is possible that some of them are still included in the lists these searches give, so use with caution.

I certainly don’t have time to sift through 2.5 million Google hits, but I did look at one article that led me to another. The first article is entitled Sexual abuse within fundamentalist and other evangelical churches. The site is sort of religious, but not Christian. It starts off citing the Catholic scandals that came to light since 2000, mostly in North America and Europe. They make this significant statement in the second paragraph:

Sexual abuse is found throughout society. Approximately 1% of girls are so abused by their fathers before puberty, and about 1% by their step-fathers. Abuse of boys is at a lower level. There is really no reliable data which demonstrates whether religion plays a role in this phenomenon. We have never located any trustworthy evidence that sexual abuse of pre-pubertal children is higher or lower in fundamentalist/other evangelical churchees (sic) when compared to the Roman Catholic Church, other faith groups, or in society as a whole.

They go on to cite someone’s report of a Focus on the Family program and note that the vast majority of sexual scandal in evangelical churches involves inappropriate relationships of staff with adult parishioners.

Now… a caveat: I am not sure how reliable the statements on this site are. They are reasonably stated, but I have no way of verifying them.

This site also links to several lists of cases in various denominations that appear on another cite. Here are the lists:

• 147 Baptist pastors
  
• 251 fundamentalist/evangelical pastors
  
• 140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers
  
• 38 Lutheran Ministers
  
• 46 Methodist Ministers
  
• 19 Presbyterian Ministers
  
• 197 misc. Church Ministers

I think all the cases cited here are accurate, but I haven’t attempted to go through all the stories and read up on the supporting documents. I have no idea if these lists are exhaustive or if they are limited by only a certain time period.

I cite them to note that the ‘religious’ site linking to them under the heading ‘Sexual abuse within fundamentalist and other evangelical churches’ is pointing to precious few, if any, actual fundamentalist churches. Go ahead and sift through the list (if you can stomach it). I think you will see that my observation is correct.

What is the point of all this?

I think that we can say that child sexual abuse is not systemic to fundamentalism or evangelicalism or even to Catholicism.

Please note especially the number of hits I got with my searches, comparing evangelicals, fundamentalists, and school teachers. We could say, simply based on the number of hits, that such behaviour is much more systemic of the educational system, could we not?

But really, I don’t even want to say something like that. I will say that child sexual abuse seems to be systemic to the human condition. I don’t know if it is more prevalent in Europe and North America than elsewhere, who can tell? I suspect that it is on the rise because of the widespread over-sexed culture we live in. Men (and women) are immersed in sexuality, have established deep habit patterns in their souls and are twisted and perverted in their thinking.

It is no surprise that such sins show up at church.

And we make no excuses for covering such sins, or allowing perpetrators to ‘get away with it’. As pastors, we must be vigilant in so many ways: vigilant over ourselves, vigilant over our church leaders, over all volunteers, over every program of the church involving children.

But can we make a plea to drop the ‘systemic’ claptrap? It is completely unhelpful to the problem in general and does nothing to provide aid for any current specific case. It is just a cheap shot at fundamentalism by several who are exploiting a tragedy currently in the news for the purpose of furthering their own animus towards fundamentalism.

UPDATE: In the comments I mention a Canadian columnist, a Catholic, defending his church against the charges of abuse. He makes some significant points that relate to the ‘systemic’ charge. Before you leap to condemn fundamentalism on this point, you should consider what he says:

The vast majority of sexual abuse occurs in the family, generally by step-brothers and boyfriends of mothers.

The next highest amount comes from teachers. These two institutions and people account for more than 75% of all charges, compared to less than 2% for the church.

Next are sports coaches, with some horribly infamous cases in hockey.

Other sports are equally bad, with one swimming coach in the United States being moved from team to team even after he was revealed as a pedophile.

Secular youth groups such as Scouts also experience abuse, as do synagogues, mosques and Protestant churches, foster homes, youth clubs and pretty much anywhere else.

In fact, a Catholic Church today is arguably the safest place for a young person to be. But the church is held to a higher standard and that is entirely appropriate.

I’d like to offer some reflections on the reflections. I want to see if others think I am getting Dave’s arguments right and whether they think my criticisms/agreements might be valid or invalid.

So here we go…

Reflection on Article 1: “Reflecting on Applications”

First off, it appears that one of Dave’s major premises is that separation as practiced by Fundamentalists today is largely a matter of matching labels, or identity cards. If you are ‘in’, you are OK, if you aren’t ‘in’, you are ‘out’, even ‘way, way out’.

To remedy this problem, Dave suggests "drawing some theological boundaries for our kind of fundamentalism", but he doesn’t do a lot to define the parameters of his ideal boundaries.

He does refer to some messages he gave at conferences around 2005 and refers to another post where he made some points toward drawing theological boundaries:

• “This is our historical identity and provided our strongest, best days. …”
• “A pragmatic-practical core has almost always required compromises that eventually send the movement into decline. The amount of resources needed for cooperative efforts almost always leads to a bigger tent than is wise.”
• “The pragmatic-practical core faces a couple of significant obstacles: (a) finding something big enough … and (b) all of the already existing activity centers will feel threatened by some new super cause …”
• “The time is ripe for a clear statement of beliefs to capture the hearts and minds of younger fundamentalists…”

A few questions…

• If fundamentalism’s historic identity is as a ideological/theological movement, how do you explain the covenant/dispensationalist; Calvinist/Arminian; multi-denominational expressions of it, historically?
• Are you arguing for a smaller tent? Isn’t that actually more fragmentation?
• Actually, where is the pressing need for or cry for some kind of unifying fundamentalist principle that will draw disparate groups of fundamentalists together in a noble cause? Is that the question anyone is asking?
• How will you capture the hearts/minds of younger fundamentalists who largely don’t seem that interested in fundamentalism? How will some kind of narrower parameters of belief energize them for separation, if it is actually separation (and non-Calvinism) that is turning them off?

In any case, back to “Reflections on Applications”… Dave says he came to see that his was not the prevailing view, no one got too excited about his proposals. Dave doesn’t seem to define what his proposals are (the specific theological parameters), just that we should have them – at least, he isn’t doing so on the blog, and I haven’t heard of any such proposals in reporting on his speaking engagements. He just says we need these parameters and hints around at what they should be. I really would like to know what these theological parameters for Fundamentalism would look like.

I suspect that the reason no one is too excited about the proposals is that they think Dave wants to draw the circle too narrowly.

Reflection on Article 2: “Reflections II”

In this article, Dave raises two doctrinal complaints. I am glad there are some specifics, at least. The complaints are that Fundamentalism in general is guilty of tolerating serious errors. The two examples cited are:

• Jesus blood not human but divine (or something)
• KJVO issues

Actually, I am with Dave on both of these points. He’s right to criticize them. But… a couple of caveats:

In his complaint about the ‘blood’ issue, Dave cites 1 Jn 4.1-6, applying it to the error and errorists. I’m not sure I want to go that far, unless you want to say that those who taught/teach it are ‘false prophets’ (1 Jn 4.1)? And that those who taught/teach this error are not ‘of God’ (1 Jn 4.2-3)? And are imbued with ‘that spirit of antichrist’ (1 Jn 4.3)? And they are ‘of the world’ instead of ‘of God’ (1 Jn 4.4-5)?

Do we really want to apply 1 Jn 4.1-6 to these men? I’m not sure that I do.

With respect to the versions issues, Dave admits "letters were written; resolutions were passed; and even a video was made" – could more be done? Well, Dave concludes, "at the end of the day, too many people wanted the translation issue to just go back away." He’s right about that, but I have a few criticisms of my own about that:

1. The video that was made was largely Dave’s idea, no? And it was boring. And then the video wars were over. And we heard not so much about it anymore. So who quit talking? Dave has mentioned it off and on, but it appears to me that he gave up banging this drum himself, pretty well. He gave up his position on the FBF board, where he had a hand in some good resolutions against the versions issues. But no more. So… who quit talking?
2. Some people who make complaints about the versions issue want to go too far. I don’t know for sure if Dave is in this number, but some want to cut off almost any kind of KJ view. There are many good guys who have a KJO position. While I am willing to let them cut me off by being outspoken for modern conservative versions, why must we deliberately draw the circle so narrow as to exclude all of these men? How does that fit the fundamentalist ethos historically? I don’t think it does.

Dave closes this article by saying he could raise more doctrinal controversies, but these are enough to make his point. Well, no, not really. Is that all there is to this complaint? Why is this language always so nebulous? "Some doctrinal controversies" "more that I won’t mention now"… that all sounds ominous. Is it? Is there a “there” there?

Reflections on “Reflections III”

I don’t have that much on this article. Just a couple of points. In the article, Dave posits a young DBTS grad pursuing support for church planting, says Fundamentalists won’t have him because of theological peculiarities, and on the other hand, ‘non-Fundamentalists’ who believe the same as him [including about separation] but don’t wear the label will support him. Well…

1. How real is this scenario?
2. Are these ‘non-fundies’ really all that separatist?
3. If this is real, isn’t it partly because the ball has been dropped on the KJO issue by certain people? (see above)

The above point isn’t a major complaint, just an observation. My anecdotal knowledge of some situations like this is that some DBTS grads have a veritable chip on their shoulder towards Fundamentalism, especially non-Calvinist Fundamentalism, and certainly any kind of KJ position. This is not true of all, one of my best friends (as they say) is a DBTS grad. And, hey, we support him! With real money! Hard currency! Better than the Yankee buck these days! But I digress.

The main thrust of Reflections III, however, seems to be a bit of dismay at Dave’s experience at BJU and the discovery that other fundamentalists are not like William Rice. I heard Rice speak at BJU and in some classes (Church Planting??? can’t remember exactly.) I think he was a fine man, very accomplished. But… his is the only model we should follow? Isn’t that kind of an insular view? Why must everyone conform to Dave’s image of what is right and Dave’s view of how we should practice?

On to article 4:

Reflections on “Reflections IV”

In this article, Dave makes some interesting assertions. He says that fundamentalism was right in 1921 and 1961. But apparently it isn’t right in 2011. Well, actually, he says there is no fundamentalism. A lot of people disagree with him on this point. I think Dave disagrees with himself. If there were no fundamentalism, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Dave wouldn’t feel the need to justify his position, his changes of application. If there is no fundamentalism, then who cares about all this argumentation?

He seems to be saying that the fragmentation of fundamentalism today invalidates Fundamentalism as such, and that such fragmentation creates ‘shibboleths’ that become the Secret Decoder Rings to getting ‘in’ the right crowd. Well… ‘King James Bible’ is an important shibboleth to some, I’ll agree. And ‘no pants on women’ and on and on.

Dave sees these shibboleths as characteristic, apparently, of all ‘fundamentalisms’, and says that these are examples of fence building way too far away from the edge of the cliff. We look ridiculous standing behind our fences five miles from any hint of a cliff.

Let me concede that this is partly true. See named shibboleths two paragraphs up. And let me also concede that you can build a fence so far away from the cliff that you are smack dab up against the mountainside with no room to breath.

But are we only worried about precipices in our fence building?

Let me say that denial of the fundamentals (list of 5, list of 18, what have you) would be to take a leap into the dark over the cliff edge. That is what fundamentalism was about in 1921. Fundamentalists said, whoa, we can’t go there. A pitched battle was fought and eventually the Fundamentalists emerged with a fence on the edge of that precipice, that sheer drop right off the continent called Christianity.

But not all dangerous hills are precipices.

Do you know about Stone Mountain, GA? Stone Mountain is a hill that is more of a dome. It has sheer edges, but before you can get to them there is a subtle and gradual change in elevation that is very deceptive and dangerous. You can walk out on that slope (past the fences) and get to a point of no return. You’ll start sliding, and you won’t overcome the law of gravity. You’ll obey it.

Well, it seems to me that is the fence of 1961. Were Henry, Ockenga, Graham, Carnell, etc, so far gone theologically? No. They were orthodox. But Dave says the Fundamentalists were right and they were wrong in 1961. That fence was a correct fence.

Alright then… what is the question for 20011?

The Question for 2011

It seems to me that it is all right to look at a reflection if you want to straighten up the one producing the image. Do we have things in and among fundamentalism that needs correcting? Sure. We’ve got quite a bit of hair out of place. A good combing job is in order. (I’d say a shave too, but everyone knows that fundies don’t wear beards.)

But we are talking about direction here. Where should fundamentalists be heading? Should we now be associating and joining in ministry with conservative evangelicals? That is THE question!

While we reflect on needed correctives of ourselves, let’s offer the same kind of scrutiny of the beckoning evangelicalism. Let’s offer serious scrutiny to specific proposals for a ‘theological parameter’ by which those like Dave would suggest for us. Let’s really look carefully at where we are going, not just where we are and where we have been.

Dave closes with this: "will the self-professing fundamentalists build a fence that excludes people who won’t limit their fellowship to only those who claim the label of fundamentalism? Is that label so tied to the essence of the biblical position that to not wear it means you fall on the wrong side of the fence?"

That’s really not a fair question. It isn’t a label game. The question is, are conservative evangelicals any different now than they were in 1961? If so, how?

P.S. My dad used to say, “Don’t look back unless you want to go that way.”

Very interesting.

For context, I am going to quote from two of my correspondents. I’ll link to the comments of each so you can see the whole context. First, from Larry:

on the KJVO thing, there are two points: (1) KJVO people deny what the Bible teaches about itself and therefore have denied a fundamental of the faith; as fundamentalists, if there were ever a cause for separation surely this would be it. Fundamentalism’s willingness to tolerate doctrinal aberrancy in this situation is why many people are leaving it. (2) I am for not making it an issue. KJVO people make it an issue which they have done by their vocal stands. I am fine if someone uses only the KJV or believes it is the best translation or believes that the TR is the best text. I can and will work with that kind of person. There are no problems there for me. I would only make an issue of it if they did. (Full comment here.)

We should be willing to speak out about "us" just as freely and strongly as we do about "them." People should not get a pass on doctrine or practice simply because they separate from the same people we do. (Full comment here – different comment from above quoted paragraph.)

And from Dave

The issue with the "nutbars," as you call them, is not that they haven’t separated from mainstream fundamentalism themselves, but that they have not, by and large, been clearly repudiated by mainstream fundamentalism.  …

Even brothers can be noted and avoided that they may be ashamed, and fundamentalism should clearly do this with the extremists, just as they do with the NEs.  Not dealing with the extremists on the right absolutely contributes to the young people then not believing what is said about those on the near left, especially when what they hear from them is much sounder doctrinally than the preaching they hear from those on the right that are tacitly accepted. (Full comment here.)

You can see, I think, a common thread. Larry and Dave are arguing that Fundamentalism by and large has tolerated errors on its right, leaving itself open to the charge of inconsistency and hypocrisy. Larry uses phrases like “denied a fundamental of the faith” and “doctrinal aberrancy.” Dave uses the term “extremists.”

Regular readers will not be surprised that I don’t think Fundamentalism is guilty as charged. In fact, I think quite the opposite.

First, one has to say that “Fundamentalism” is a catch-all term that encompasses various groups and individuals who have similar, but not identical, positions on many issues. So when one says, “Fundamentalism hasn’t taken a stand on this”, it is easy to get nods of agreement from many critics of “Fundamentalism.” After all, it is easy to find Fundamentalists who tolerate the error or even promote the error. Other Fundamentalists are “in” Fundamentalism with them, and are easily tarred with the same brush. No matter how much the “other” Fundamentalists protest that they “have too” taken a stand against error, the critics can sagely smile and call their protests hypocritical. (I am not saying that this is what Dave and Larry are doing, but the fact is there is no monolithic “Fundamentalism” that can “do” anything about this error. I think both Dave and Larry know that.)

The main issue in contention here is, it is presumed, the King James Version controversy. Larry explicitly names it, and I suspect that Dave may have it primarily in mind, although other ‘extreme’ issues may also come into play. For the sake of this discussion, I am going to limit it to the King James Only error, although I don’t want to get into an argument about the King James Only position, for or against.

So my second response to these charges is that the segment of Fundamentalism I identify with, i.e., the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, has indeed spoken to this issue. Please note the following statements:

1995 FBF Resolution:

The FBF, while recognizing that God has used the King James version of the Bible in a special way in the English speaking world, reaffirms its belief that the original manuscripts of Scripture are the documents which are inspired by God and that Bible translations may be considered trustworthy only if they accurately reflect the original manuscripts (II Timothy 3:16). In light of the considerable discussion among Fundamentalists about the issue of manuscripts and textual theories, no particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core Fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalists may hold the doctrine of inspiration with equal strength without embracing the same belief about textual criticism. Additionally, proper evaluation of the doctrinal integrity of any particular English translation can only be done by examining its faithfulness to the original languages, not by comparing it to another English translation. While the process of comparing it with other translations may be profitable for matters of clarity and readability, this process cannot pass as the test of doctrinal accuracy since it is illegitimate to check one copy by another, one must compare the copy to the original. In a day when translations abound, Fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both the selection and rejection of translations. Some professing Fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God’s Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of Fundamentalism. Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of Fundamentalism must be rejected.

1996 FBF Resolution:

The FBF rejects the heresy that the King James Version contains "advanced revelation" not available in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and the heresy that salvation is possible only through the incorruptible seed of the King James Version being planted in an unbeliever.

The FBFI states that its resolutions are a snapshot of the consensus viewpoint of the fellowship at a given point in time. Both of these resolutions represent the FBFI position as of 1995 and 1996. I don’t know of any change in the FBFI viewpoint, although perhaps it is time that the statements be reviewed and reaffirmed, or strengthened as needed.

But really, what more could be said regarding the Versions issue? There is a rejection of a heretical position with respect to the King James Version. There is a careful definition of the doctrine of inspiration, one to which almost all who are lumped under the label of “King James Only” would assent to. Consider these points of the 1995 resolution:

• The original manuscripts alone are inspired
• No particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core Fundamentalist belief
• Fundamentalists can hold to an orthodox view of inspiration while disagreeing on theories of textual preservation
• Proper evaluation of any English translation must be by a comparison with the originals, not by comparison with other versions
• Some professing Fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God’s Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of Fundamentalism.

These are the essential points. Can any complaint be made about these points? What more could be said? Note that the 1996 resolution repudiates the heresy of Ruckmanism.

I would submit, then, that my branch of Fundamentalism has made its view clear. We are not willing to repudiate all who might be called King James Only, and we are not willing to be intimidated into acquiescence or support of any particular view of preservation over another.

Third, let’s address the issue of associations with men who some would call ‘extremists’. I’ll leave off the specific names, I am sure some readers can supply them for us in the comments if they wish. I have a few points to make about problematic associations:

• No one is likely completely consistent on every matter of association. Situations arise where for one reason or another, you find yourself on a platform or inviting in a speaker that may not maintain absolute consistency with your own philosophy of separation. This is unavoidable, unless you never go anywhere or never have anyone in to speak.
• Some circumstances may trap you into an association that is problematic, but you can’t discern a way out of the situation without causing great embarrassment. You decide that the greater good is served by enduring the connection for the time being.
• Problematic or inconsistent associations ought to instruct us for future practice – ‘There is no education in the second kick of a mule.’ (attributed to George S. Patton)
• Overall patterns of behaviour are the mark of consistency, not individual aberrations from stated policy or philosophy.
• Deliberate associations with problematic individuals when the problems of association are well known and clearly established ought to give pause to the individual making the association and prompt the protest of Fundamentalists observing the association.

I don’t think every Fundamentalist leader could say that he had never made any mistakes in implying his endorsement of other ministries or ministers. I believe that such recent mistakes as have been made (and widely noted) will not be repeated. They are not a pattern of behaviour.

Those critics who want to excuse their departure from Fundamentalism over such alleged inconsistencies need to take heed lest they fall into greater error themselves. There will be plenty of time for them to display their own inconsistencies. And there will be plenty of time for the fruit of anti-fundamentalist error to show itself in life or ministry.