The Real Fundamentalists
I grew up in what I thought was the fundamentalist movement. In my formative years I was enamored with the Sword/Hyles branch of fundamentalism and what it supposedly represented. As the years went by I began to see that this movement (which I now affectionately label 'IFBx') was only a caricature - a mean-spirited shallow one at that - of what fundamentalism once was at its conception. When I compare the modern Church to the Church of 100 years ago, the group that now labels itself 'fundamentalists' in many ways does not resemble its forebears. I know that I run the risk of painting with too broad a brush, but that's okay. Maybe the fact that I do will enliven the conversation.
I'm no church historian, but there are two things that I see that I think you have to be in order to call yourself a fundamentalist properly. You must have two characteristics. The first is an adherence to the fundamentals of the faith as historically defined by that movement. The second is a certain tenacity in defending those truths and other essential doctrine within the world of Christianity at large. In short, it is not enough to be fundamental. One must be a fightin' fundamentalist or one is not a fundamentalist at all.
Please don't think I am endorsing the mean-spiritedness embodied in IFBxers of today. I'm not talking about fighting over non-essentials. I'm not talking about secondary ecclesiastical separation and beyond. I'm not talking about the splitting into groups over personality cults. I'm not talking about earnestly contending to keep 'canned' music out of our worship services.
What I am talking about is earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. It is a lost art in our post-modern world. I am talking about polemics.
The Puritans did it. The early Baptists thrived on it. People used to believe something and chomp at the bit to expound upon it and defend it and expose error. But we're too squeamish for that now. We'd rather all just get along. We live in a day of peace at any price.
Once again, I am not calling for mean-spiritedness. But I do wish we still had some guts and could show those guts in a gentle way.
Anyway, as I look out from my admittedly minimally advantageous vantage-point (don't you just love oxymorons?), I think there are some fundamentalists still around, but they don't use that label. I see men like John Piper writing books defending the orthodox view of God's omniscience and sovereignty against the heresy of the Open View. I see R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, John Piper, John MacArthur and others like them standing up to the dumbing down of sola fide embodied in documents like ECT. I see John MacArthur speaking out, writing books calling the Church to come back to a sound soteriology and away from creeping decisionalism, quick-prayerism, and easy-believism. I see the call for a re-emphasis on biblical methodology and a plain proclamation of the gospel along with a call for an exposition of Scripture from our pulpits.
My point is, that real fundamentalists are still around, they just go by other labels now.
What reminded me of all of this was reading a series of posts written by Phil Johnson on his Pyromaniac blog.
Here are the links: { Didn't transfer in link form. God to http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com }
Real Spiritual Warfare Is Not Like a Round of Doom
Picking Up Where We Left Off Tuesday
Now, Let's Get Personal
Spurgeon On Warfare, Compromise, and the Sword of the Spirit
More About the Weaponry of Spiritual Warfare
Why Not Follow the Simple Strategy God Gave Us?
As I was reading those posts I was saying to myself, You know, that Phil is a real fundamentalist.
I grew up in what I thought was the fundamentalist movement. In my formative years I was enamored with the Sword/Hyles branch of fundamentalism and what it supposedly represented. As the years went by I began to see that this movement (which I now affectionately label 'IFBx') was only a caricature - a mean-spirited shallow one at that - of what fundamentalism once was at its conception. When I compare the modern Church to the Church of 100 years ago, the group that now labels itself 'fundamentalists' in many ways does not resemble its forebears. I know that I run the risk of painting with too broad a brush, but that's okay. Maybe the fact that I do will enliven the conversation.
I'm no church historian, but there are two things that I see that I think you have to be in order to call yourself a fundamentalist properly. You must have two characteristics. The first is an adherence to the fundamentals of the faith as historically defined by that movement. The second is a certain tenacity in defending those truths and other essential doctrine within the world of Christianity at large. In short, it is not enough to be fundamental. One must be a fightin' fundamentalist or one is not a fundamentalist at all.
Please don't think I am endorsing the mean-spiritedness embodied in IFBxers of today. I'm not talking about fighting over non-essentials. I'm not talking about secondary ecclesiastical separation and beyond. I'm not talking about the splitting into groups over personality cults. I'm not talking about earnestly contending to keep 'canned' music out of our worship services.
What I am talking about is earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. It is a lost art in our post-modern world. I am talking about polemics.
The Puritans did it. The early Baptists thrived on it. People used to believe something and chomp at the bit to expound upon it and defend it and expose error. But we're too squeamish for that now. We'd rather all just get along. We live in a day of peace at any price.
Once again, I am not calling for mean-spiritedness. But I do wish we still had some guts and could show those guts in a gentle way.
Anyway, as I look out from my admittedly minimally advantageous vantage-point (don't you just love oxymorons?), I think there are some fundamentalists still around, but they don't use that label. I see men like John Piper writing books defending the orthodox view of God's omniscience and sovereignty against the heresy of the Open View. I see R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, John Piper, John MacArthur and others like them standing up to the dumbing down of sola fide embodied in documents like ECT. I see John MacArthur speaking out, writing books calling the Church to come back to a sound soteriology and away from creeping decisionalism, quick-prayerism, and easy-believism. I see the call for a re-emphasis on biblical methodology and a plain proclamation of the gospel along with a call for an exposition of Scripture from our pulpits.
My point is, that real fundamentalists are still around, they just go by other labels now.
What reminded me of all of this was reading a series of posts written by Phil Johnson on his Pyromaniac blog.
Here are the links: { Didn't transfer in link form. God to http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com }
Real Spiritual Warfare Is Not Like a Round of Doom
Picking Up Where We Left Off Tuesday
Now, Let's Get Personal
Spurgeon On Warfare, Compromise, and the Sword of the Spirit
More About the Weaponry of Spiritual Warfare
Why Not Follow the Simple Strategy God Gave Us?
As I was reading those posts I was saying to myself, You know, that Phil is a real fundamentalist.
Comments