"Fundamentalism has a wonderful future because it is based on the truth of the Bible"

One thing that gets me every time I’ve ever read anything on “leaving Fundamentalism” is the subtle switch-a-roo that happens when they define “Fundamentalism.” It happens here, too.

Fundamentalism is truth:

Perhaps we have made too much of the unhappy defections from the truth we have witnessed in the past.

Those who leave Fundamentalism are immature and attention-starved:

Perhaps some immature souls are attracted to such things because of the attention it brings to those who commit them.

Leaving Fundamentalism is fighting against God Himself:

[L] et him simply do it, and not say things to cast reflection on Fundamentalism, a legitimate spiritual movement, “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:39).

These are pretty startling claims until you see what he does in the next paragraph. When people say they are “leaving Fundamentalism,” the usually mean they are severing ties with ministries and institutions that identify themselves as part of the Fundamentalist (capital F) movement. They are leaving the movement, or Association, or network, or whatever you want to call it. Now, Flanders is partially right when he redefines “Fundamentalism” in the sense of a “strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.” He (perhaps rightly) complains that “the new and popular way of defining Fundamentalism is intellectually dishonest.” But whether or not it’s intellectually honest or technically correct in the dictionary sense of the word, he is mixing denotation and connotation. The simple fact is, when people say they are “leaving Fundamentalism,” nine times out of then they are leaving the connotative sense of the word - the loose association of schools, churches, evangelists, and camps that make up the 21st-century Christian Fundamentalist movement. There are plenty of people who have “left Fundamentalism” who are still “fundamentalists” in the sense that they strictly adhere to those principles without which Christianity would fall flat on its face, but not “Fundamentalists” in the sense that they align themselves with an identifiable movement.

One can be a fundamentalist without being a Fundamentalist. Perhaps before complaining too much about the intellectual dishonesty of using the word “Fundamentalism” to apply to a very recent movement within Christianity, Dr. Flanders should first contemplate the intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting the motives and actions of well-meaning believers by substituting a different definition of “Fundamentalism” than what those believers would have used.

I’m not sure that it’s dishonesty as much as a kind of (and I hate to use this term, but I think it’s the only one that fits) schizophrenia over which Fundamentalism is being discussed or left. Look at what he says:

It is also dishonest to define Fundamentalism by just one of its many fellowships or networks. The Fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century has evolved and splintered into many diverse but truly fundamentalist movements. Some who think they are “leaving Fundamentalism” are actually disassociating themselves from one grouping of Fundamentalists. Their mistake is understandable because some such groups try to define Fundamentalism itself as their own group (see the warning in Luke 9:49-50). What are you saying when you say you are “leaving Fundamentalism”? Do you mean that you are quitting a fellowship, or renouncing a Bible college, or disagreeing with a church or ministry? If that is what you mean, just make the break you need to make (according to Ephesians 5:11), and don’t give the impression that you are leaving the truth of the Gospel and of separation to the Gospel. There is nothing wrong with Fundamentalism, although the men who have espoused it have been flawed, and the human movements that have promoted it have sometimes gone astray. The men and organizations you have defined as “Fundamentalism” are not what you are calling them. Fundamentalism is a far greater thing.

We’ve all agreed to the “famous five fundamentals”, but I don’t think that one can treat Fundamentalism as an organic unit when there are so many different streams of Fundamentalism, and to say that the HAC orbit of Fundamentalism is the same as the BJU orbit and the NIU orbit (or the GCC orbit) strikes me as a little disingenous, especially when he is arguing that the movement of Fundamentalism is alive and well. Some aspects of the varied ‘orbits’ in Fundamentalism are very clearly unhealthy, if not heretical, in aspects of their theology…FBC Hammond is a perfect example of some of those “Fundamentalists” that have horrid doctrine and should be repudiated by other, more doctrinally sounded Fundies.

The way to resolve that tension is to sit down and come up with a list of doctrines that are truly Fundamental - like redoing the original set of articles - but I don’t know if that’s a feasible project, especially when people that are making list start excluding sacred cows like the KJV thing.

Mounty, to follow your logic, Billy Graham, Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, et al, never left fundamentalism because they believed “those principles without which Christianity would fall flat on its face”. All their protestations against fundamentalism notwithstanding, we’d have to say, according to your thinking, that they were still fundamentalists.

My point is, simply holding to orthodox theology doesn’t make one a fundamentalist. In fact, if you deny separation, you are denying portions of the scripture, so on that point at least you have departed from orthodoxy.

My point is, simply holding to orthodox theology doesn’t make one a fundamentalist.

Well, simply holding to orthodox theology doesn’t make one a Fundamentalist (in that it doesn’t necessarily mean one is associated with the movement), but in the literal, strict meaning of the word, it does make one a fundamentalist (in that those beliefs that are foundational to Christianity are characteristic of orthodox theology).

And this proves my point - there has been a conflation of the Big F and the Little F to the point that we can’t hardly have a conversation about one without being tied to the other. All Fundamentalists are fundamentalists, but not all fundamentalists are Fundamentalists. Or, in an expanded form, all those within the Christian Fundamentalist movement believe in the core doctrines of Christianity, but not all those who believe in the core doctrines of Christianity are associated with the Christian Fundamentalist movement.

So, to answer your question, as a layman and one who is not intimately familiar with every point of doctrine that those men you mentioned held through the courses of their lives, I would say that Graham, in particular, was not a Fundamentalist, although I believe his beliefs were Orthodox and if we’re dealing with the strict meaning of the word “fundamentalist” then yes, he could be considered a fundamentalist. Just not a Fundamentalist.

Mounty,

You’re just playing word games. Those I mentioned who left fundamentalism made it clear they were not fundamentalists. But they also made it clear they believed the fundamentals of the faith at the time.

You seem to be trying to eat your cake and have it too. Can’t be done.

Let’s start over, then, because I think we pretty quickly got bogged down in semantics outside what the article was stating.

Flanders proposes that people who by their own admission “leave Fundamentalism” are spiritually immature, attention-seeking people who are turning their back on the whole body of truth. He arrives at this conclusion because he (incorrectly, I believe) teaches that Fundamentalism, the movement, is the only place where Bible-believing Christianity is to be found, the only organization that places weight and importance on the fundamentals of Christianity. (Hence the Big F and Little F discussion.)

The reality is, for whatever reason, people will sometimes choose to disassociate themselves with Fundamentalism, the movement, even though they still believe and hold dear the foundations of Christian faith. Whether or not they can be called “fundamentalists” by someone with both an OED and OCD (talking about myself!) is not really the issue. The issue is, can someone leave Fundamentalism, the movement, and still be considered a spiritually mature, humble person in search of the truth of God’s word? I say yes. Flanders says no.

is what Flanders is doing. Not so much dishonest as sloppy, at least in my opinion in this case.

[Don Johnson]… simply holding to orthodox theology doesn’t make one a fundamentalist.

So the sole unique characteristic of fundamentalism then is [your brand of] separation?

[mounty] All Fundamentalists are fundamentalists, but not all fundamentalists are Fundamentalists…

I actually understand this, because in certain circles or parts of the country, IFBism means Hyles, or Falwell, or Graham. One can get tired of explaining the term and associations, and it may be at that point that it is more trouble than it’s worth.

Personally, I’m stubborn and will fight for what it means historically. We have enough words in our language that have lost their meanings or have been twisted beyond recognition, so I just feel like digging in my heels on this one.

I agree with Moore in that some who announce they are leaving Fundamentalism do sound like petulant children who are taking their bat and ball and glove and going home and they aren’t going to play with us anymore na-na-na-na-na-na.

[Susan R]

[mounty] All Fundamentalists are fundamentalists, but not all fundamentalists are Fundamentalists…

I actually understand this, because in certain circles or parts of the country, IFBism means Hyles, or Falwell, or Graham. One can get tired of explaining the term and associations, and it may be at that point that it is more trouble than it’s worth.

Personally, I’m stubborn and will fight for what it means historically. We have enough words in our language that have lost their meanings or have been twisted beyond recognition, so I just feel like digging in my heels on this one.

I agree with Moore in that some who announce they are leaving Fundamentalism do sound like petulant children who are taking their bat and ball and glove and going home and they aren’t going to play with us anymore na-na-na-na-na-na.

And some are just exhausted by stuff like this:

Don Johnson wrote:
… simply holding to orthodox theology doesn’t make one a fundamentalist.

[Dan Burrell] And some are just exhausted by stuff like this:

Don Johnson wrote:
… simply holding to orthodox theology doesn’t make one a fundamentalist.

He’s so exhausted!

Are you saying that a guy like, say, Carl Henry was unorthodox in his theology? I am not.

Are you saying therefore that a guy like Carl Henry was a fundamentalist? He would not.

And to DavidO, No, I am not saying that to be a fundamentalist someone must match up to my brand of separation. I am saying that by definition, fundamentalism involves militancy which results in separation. Those who left fundamentalism in the past repudiated militancy / separation. They ceased to be fundamentalists at that point.

[mounty] The reality is, for whatever reason, people will sometimes choose to disassociate themselves with Fundamentalism, the movement, even though they still believe and hold dear the foundations of Christian faith

Well, maybe I should qualify that… I haven’t read Flanders article yet. So maybe he is saying that.

But I think that if challenged on this point he would acknowledge the error of such a statement. I think most historians of fundamentalism would agree that there were and are men who still believe and hold dear the foundations of Christian faith. That is not really in dispute at all.

I hope you aren’t denying that people can and do leave fundamentalism for immature and unspiritual reasons.

I’m arguing with Flanders, Don. Maybe we should both be on the same page before we argue with each other. :)

[Don Johnson] I hope you aren’t denying that people can and do leave fundamentalism for immature and unspiritual reasons.

Of course not:

[mounty] The issue is, can someone leave Fundamentalism, the movement, and still be considered a spiritually mature, humble person in search of the truth of God’s word? I say yes.

I’m asking if we can at least consider the possibility that someone leaving Fundamentalism, the movement, is nevertheless spiritually mature and humble and interested in searching out the truth. If I was arguing that no one had ever left the movement for immature and unspiritual reasons, I would have said something like:

[mounty from an alternate universe] The issue is, when people leave Fundamentalism, the movement, do they always do so for mature, humble reasons, always searching the truth of God’s word? I say yes.

:edit:

I’ll throw in some statements, Don. Maybe I’m reading more into them than what he’s saying, but then again maybe not:

Whatever the people are doing who are “leaving Fundamentalism,” it is bad.

Surely you do not mean that you are giving up truth because men who have taught it have been found to be less than spiritual all the time.

However, he may be making the big mistake of abandoning the wisdom of the godly of former days and jumping to conclusions that are wrong.

Sounds to me like he feels people who abandon Fundamentalism, the movement, abandon truth for error. So yeah, I think he kinda is making that argument.

Personally, I believe it is an error to repudiate fundamentalism. I think Henry, Ockenga, Graham et al made grievous errors in doing so. I wouldn’t impugn their spiritual character, however, especially Henry and Ockenga. They made errors but I think they made them in all sincerity. Some could argue that Graham erred at least partly for the sake of a crowd, which might discredit him to some extent.

Ok, I’ll go read Flanders now so that we can argue on the same page!

In general, I would say that I agree with the sentiment. I think the article has some flaws and isn’t necessarily as well argued as it could be. (I say that knowing full well that the same could be said of my writing.)

I think there is an error in the following statement - it could be a matter of misunderstanding or simply an idea poorly expressed. Here is the statement:

[Rick Flanders]
Evangelicals believe in the pillars of the Gospel, but not all of them insist that these doctrines are fundamental (essential) to the Gospel. Those who do are properly called Fundamentalists. Evangelicals who are willing to recognize Liberals as Christians are not Fundamentalists. Years ago “New Evangelicals” began saying that although they believe in the tenets of the Gospel, they recognize that some true Christians do not accept them all. This is why the New Evangelicalism refused the label “Fundamentalist.”

First, I would say that most evangelicals (especially the more conservative variety) do insist that these doctrines are fundamental (essential) to the Gospel. Most of the currently popular evangelicals are orthodox in their theology. (By currently popular, I guess I mean ‘currently popular amongst left-leaning but still self-proclaimed fundamentalists.’) But men like Dever, Mohler, Piper, Mahaney, Grudem, and even the execrable Driscoll find no doctrinal complaint from me. That is, on the essentials. We probably disagree on particulars, but we also disagree on particulars amongst fundamentalists.

Second, the distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists is not theology (except on one point) but it is primarily philosophy (how you apply that one point). That point is sometimes called separation, but it is more properly called militancy. And I will grant that some evangelicals are militant at some points, but we are talking especially about ecclesiastical relationships, not necessarily limiting the focus of militancy to the fundamentals but to a holistic approach to Christianity - the fundamentals and the applications flowing from them, including orthodox theology and orthodox living, sometimes called orthopaxy. We will speak of separation from error and separation from the world. Separation is the end of the line for militancy, not the beginning. We are vigilant on those points and will even call our friends and brothers to account for things they say and do.

Third, I think Flanders statement of how New Evangelicals differed from Fundamentalists is a bit simplistic. It was more than what he says here. But it is true that they ultimately did grant Christian recognition to people they shouldn’t have.

On this last point, although it is not a focus of the article, or our discussion so far, I’d say that one of the problems with the current ‘conservative evangelicals’ is that they don’t really seem to see how grievous the New Evangelical error was. They see New Evangelicalism as a necessary corrective to Fundamentalism. If they could actually come around to seeing the New Evangelical error for the betrayal of the Gospel that it was, we could make some real progress.

I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, however.