The Dangers of Fundamentalism In Leadership

Reading the article it does not take long for the extreme prejudice of the author to become apparent which lends strong discredit to his thesis. What is that, specifically? Glad you asked, he stated (bold mine):

I have a confession: I am a fundamentalist at heart. I am a lover of truth, and I am a rule follower.

His definition of a fundamentalist is flawed. He might be describing a certain kind of fundamentalist but as part of the basic formula for what a fundamentalist is, “rule following” is neither historical nor practical regarding any definition of a fundamentalist.

But more problematic is what specifically is a “rule follower”?

Now to his next assertion which is muddles in generalities and inconsistencies:

Fundamentalism has a varied history. In the early 20th century, the fundamentalist movement was responsible for directly and rightly combating the modernest heresies springing forth from within many of that day’s primary theological institutions. Yet, like the Ephesian church, while it began as a right and just movement against doctrines and practices that were contrary to Scripture, the fundamentalist movement has more recently become known more for its attacks on those within and outside the church than its love for the Lord and for his people.

So “the good old days” didn’t have Fundamentalists known for attacking errant teachings and leaders within and outside the church? Need I give an exhaustive list? RU Kidding?

However, with the good will above suspended, I reject this general description of both those during Fundamentalism’s past history and its current history (though I do accept that there was an era during the 70’s-early 90’s were, in some quadrants, fundie leaders failed miserably and though they may have been head-hunters they were far worse than that which was the least of their problems). The word, attack, denies the truth in describing the acts of many of these men. It fails to communicate that often, very often, their efforts were defenses of attacks against them by non-fundamentalists within and outside the church.

But more to the criticism of these men based on the Rev. 2 text. Let’s look at what it does say regarding the relevant portion:

2 “‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. 3 I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary.

Unlike the author who seems happy to disparage these leaders for their “attacks” against errant men, oddly such criticism is missing from God’s evaluation of the church at Ephesus. The criticism is not for testing false teachers and opposing those who are evil because they are false teachers (unlike the author of the article who seems to treat this as a bad thing) rather that they had “abandoned the love you had at first”.

Did he say be ashamed of confronting false teachers and their doctrine? No! Rather that their first love, Christ, was less their motive than it should have been. The work, itself, was not criticized, simply the motive which caused them to not be complete in their ministry.

And to the author’s credit, this one thing he does mention in the article, that we are not to be singular (my words), but Revelation 2 to the church at Ephesus is a far cry from how he has attempted to apply it to Fundamentalism.

Of course he is at Mars Hill so what is to be expected? Right, he needs to worry about the gross problems in his own backyard, but I suppose it is more comforting to sound the drums, raise up straw men and then beat them down

This is what happens when we(churches) begin to use terms that are not biblical, or are ambiguous. Terms such as conservative, traditional, old-fashioned, orthodox, fundamentalist, etc. should be avoided. Instead, if we are addressing right moral behavior/conduct, we should use words like righteous, holy, pure, obedient, self-controlled, respectable, submissive, etc.

Likewise, if we are talking about wrong moral behavior/conduct, we should avoid using terms like liberal, modern, seeker friendly, casual, unorthodox, etc.

We should say it as it is, carnal, worldly, sinful, evil, impure, sensual, disobedient, false, irreverent, etc.

We should see the world as God sees it. And in this world, there are two types of men. And he does not divide these men by political affiliations, worldviews/philosophies, denominations, etc. They are either godly or ungodly, righteous or wicked, children of God or children of the evil one.

This is what happens when we(churches) begin to use terms that are not biblical … Terms such as conservative, traditional, old-fashioned, orthodox, fundamentalist, etc.

Don’t forget trinity and, um, church.

we used such Biblical terms as Heresy and Apostasy? These two terms would adequately describe and denote many on the scene today and yesterday.

[DavidO]

This is what happens when we(churches) begin to use terms that are not biblical … Terms such as conservative, traditional, old-fashioned, orthodox, fundamentalist, etc.

Don’t forget trinity and, um, church.