As I try to sum up these couple of posts on Fundamentalism, I want to give a few concluding points, framed as best I can, in a positive light. (I am not by nature a very positive person, but that is something I'm working on.)
Local Church Focus
Jesus Christ promised to build his church (Matt 16:18). This church is the pillar and support of God's truth (1 Tim 3:15). This church, the Body of Christ, is reflected around the world in local congregations. It is over these individual congregations that God has raised up leadership (1 Tim 3:1-13). There are no present-day apostles or bishops who have jurisdiction over the Body of Christ, papal claims notwithstanding. The custodianship of God's Truth in this age is the responsibility of local churches.
Much of the hubbub surrounding discussions about Fundamentalism today claims that "the movement" is dead or dying. Some give the broadness of "the movement" as their reason for abandoning or redefining Fundamentalism. Granted, there is great divergence of opinion among all who claim the appellation "fundamentalist." I'm sure I could find many Fundamentalists on which I do not agree on many things.
However, since (at least in my understanding) Fundamentalism denotes a belief in and practice of biblical separation from the world, unbelief, and disobedient brothers, I identify myself as a Fundamentalist. This does not mean that I agree in every point with every other person who identifies himself as a Fundamentalist. For example, I also identify myself as a dispensationalist. That word describes my hermeneutical starting point and assumptions, although I do not agree on every point with every one who has ever called himself a dispensationalist.
I do not need (or want) a national "movement" to propagate Fundamentalism. That is the responsibility of local churches, yours and mine. I believe this is where Fundamentalism should focus its efforts. Colleges, fellowships, or associations are fine insofar as they go; but my focus as a Fundamentalist is not on preserving Fundamentalism in this nation, or in the world, or even in my state; my goal is to pass on biblical truth in my local body of believers. I think this is the way we can best and most biblically "guard the deposit [of truth] entrusted to us" (2 Tim 1:13-14) and entrust it to faithful men (2 Tim 2:1-2).
Separation and Fellowship
A misunderstanding of separation that I see projected on Fundamentalism is that there are only two categories: those with whom I fellowship and those from whom I have separated. If I read an author and disagree with his conclusions, I scratch him off the "fellowship" list and put him on the "separated" list (and throw his book in the trash). This is simply not biblical separation.
In my little experience, I have come to suspect models of ecclesiastical separation that are either simplistic or overly complex. If somebody tries to make separation seem easy, I think they are oversimplifying (e.g., do they support a certain school or group?). If they make it sound incredibly complex, I suspect they are trying to discredit it (e.g., the "fourteenth-degree separation" argument).
However, it does not seem to be quite that cut and dried. Separation and fellowship are proportional; to the degree I am separated from someone or something (whether by geographical distance, language, or doctrinal belief), I cannot have fellowship. The converse is also true: to the degree I have fellowship, I cannot be separated. There are many good men across this country and around the world with whom I do not have fellowship. This does not mean I have separated from them. However, I believe the Scripture teaches that I should avoid fellowship with unbelievers or disobedient brothers in spiritual ministry. Oftentimes, it seems a good defense is the best offense: avoiding unwise fellowship (maintaining distance) can prevent a difficult separation later. Gracious discernment is needed; oftentimes history can help us.
Our View toward Fundamentalists of the Past
Again, there seems to be two extremes: the extreme more often heard is that Fundamentalists of days gone by were angry, uneducated, mean guys. The other extreme is a worship of men of the past: what would the founding pastor or former president do? I am advocating neither of these extremes.
As a younger man, I am thankful for a godly heritage. I wonder if I would have had the backbone or discernment to do what they did. I hope to be able by God's grace to look back on a life of faithful service as many of them can do. I hope to advance the cause of Christ, and not just maintain it (or allow it to slip away).
My mind often runs to the proverb, "The glory of young men is their strength, but the splendor of old men is their gray hair" (Prov 20:29 ESV). Someone or something's "glory" is what sets them apart. It is what they have to offer that others do not. For example, a giraffe's glory is not its four legs and tail, but its extraordinarily long neck. The glory of young men is their strength, their energy, their ability to work long hours, to think "outside the box," to use their creativity and excitement to bring change and breathe new life into something. That is what young men bring to the table. Older men, on the other hand, have gray hair. That is their glory. They have been around, seen ideas come and go, found out by experience what works and what does not. Their knowledge and experience can help younger men avoid the same mistakes they have already made. That is what older men have to offer.
For older men to "throw cold water" on the ideas and excitement of youthful enthusiasm would be foolish. I know there are countless older men who are excited about the passion for ministry and exegetical study many young men share. Many probably wish they could be young again and have the energy and drive these young men have. They see this youthful vigor as a Godsend.
Likewise, for younger men to look down on the warnings and cautions of experienced men would also be foolish. I realize that older men may not always be quick to make changes, but not to consult them is not to avail oneself of years of experience. I thank the Lord for older men who are willing to share their wisdom with those of us who are just starting out in ministry.
Focus on the Word of God
Finally, Fundamentalism must put a focus on God's Word. It must emphasize exegetical preaching: correctly interpreting the Word of God and then applying it to daily living. The Word of God must be the focal point of our ministries. If we believe the Bible (as we claim to), then we believe it when it says that the Bible is sufficient for salvation and for sanctification (2 Tim 3:15-17). The Bible gives instruction for daily living, both by command and principle.
I grow weary of the "show me where the Bible says I can't" crowd. The Christian life is not a free-for-all bounded by a few overarching commands. God does have a very specific will for our lives. For example, since God wants us to be holy, then our goal should be the most holy life possible, not the lowest passing grade. We often come asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking, "What's wrong with it?" we should be asking, "How can God be most glorified and how can I be most pleasing to him?" When our goal is a Word-soaked life (Col 3:16), a lot of these "gray areas" will be cleared up.
I obviously do not have all the answers (my glory is not my gray hair!), but these are some of my guiding thoughts regarding Fundamentalism.
Local Church Focus
Jesus Christ promised to build his church (Matt 16:18). This church is the pillar and support of God's truth (1 Tim 3:15). This church, the Body of Christ, is reflected around the world in local congregations. It is over these individual congregations that God has raised up leadership (1 Tim 3:1-13). There are no present-day apostles or bishops who have jurisdiction over the Body of Christ, papal claims notwithstanding. The custodianship of God's Truth in this age is the responsibility of local churches.
Much of the hubbub surrounding discussions about Fundamentalism today claims that "the movement" is dead or dying. Some give the broadness of "the movement" as their reason for abandoning or redefining Fundamentalism. Granted, there is great divergence of opinion among all who claim the appellation "fundamentalist." I'm sure I could find many Fundamentalists on which I do not agree on many things.
However, since (at least in my understanding) Fundamentalism denotes a belief in and practice of biblical separation from the world, unbelief, and disobedient brothers, I identify myself as a Fundamentalist. This does not mean that I agree in every point with every other person who identifies himself as a Fundamentalist. For example, I also identify myself as a dispensationalist. That word describes my hermeneutical starting point and assumptions, although I do not agree on every point with every one who has ever called himself a dispensationalist.
I do not need (or want) a national "movement" to propagate Fundamentalism. That is the responsibility of local churches, yours and mine. I believe this is where Fundamentalism should focus its efforts. Colleges, fellowships, or associations are fine insofar as they go; but my focus as a Fundamentalist is not on preserving Fundamentalism in this nation, or in the world, or even in my state; my goal is to pass on biblical truth in my local body of believers. I think this is the way we can best and most biblically "guard the deposit [of truth] entrusted to us" (2 Tim 1:13-14) and entrust it to faithful men (2 Tim 2:1-2).
Separation and Fellowship
A misunderstanding of separation that I see projected on Fundamentalism is that there are only two categories: those with whom I fellowship and those from whom I have separated. If I read an author and disagree with his conclusions, I scratch him off the "fellowship" list and put him on the "separated" list (and throw his book in the trash). This is simply not biblical separation.
In my little experience, I have come to suspect models of ecclesiastical separation that are either simplistic or overly complex. If somebody tries to make separation seem easy, I think they are oversimplifying (e.g., do they support a certain school or group?). If they make it sound incredibly complex, I suspect they are trying to discredit it (e.g., the "fourteenth-degree separation" argument).
However, it does not seem to be quite that cut and dried. Separation and fellowship are proportional; to the degree I am separated from someone or something (whether by geographical distance, language, or doctrinal belief), I cannot have fellowship. The converse is also true: to the degree I have fellowship, I cannot be separated. There are many good men across this country and around the world with whom I do not have fellowship. This does not mean I have separated from them. However, I believe the Scripture teaches that I should avoid fellowship with unbelievers or disobedient brothers in spiritual ministry. Oftentimes, it seems a good defense is the best offense: avoiding unwise fellowship (maintaining distance) can prevent a difficult separation later. Gracious discernment is needed; oftentimes history can help us.
Our View toward Fundamentalists of the Past
Again, there seems to be two extremes: the extreme more often heard is that Fundamentalists of days gone by were angry, uneducated, mean guys. The other extreme is a worship of men of the past: what would the founding pastor or former president do? I am advocating neither of these extremes.
As a younger man, I am thankful for a godly heritage. I wonder if I would have had the backbone or discernment to do what they did. I hope to be able by God's grace to look back on a life of faithful service as many of them can do. I hope to advance the cause of Christ, and not just maintain it (or allow it to slip away).
My mind often runs to the proverb, "The glory of young men is their strength, but the splendor of old men is their gray hair" (Prov 20:29 ESV). Someone or something's "glory" is what sets them apart. It is what they have to offer that others do not. For example, a giraffe's glory is not its four legs and tail, but its extraordinarily long neck. The glory of young men is their strength, their energy, their ability to work long hours, to think "outside the box," to use their creativity and excitement to bring change and breathe new life into something. That is what young men bring to the table. Older men, on the other hand, have gray hair. That is their glory. They have been around, seen ideas come and go, found out by experience what works and what does not. Their knowledge and experience can help younger men avoid the same mistakes they have already made. That is what older men have to offer.
For older men to "throw cold water" on the ideas and excitement of youthful enthusiasm would be foolish. I know there are countless older men who are excited about the passion for ministry and exegetical study many young men share. Many probably wish they could be young again and have the energy and drive these young men have. They see this youthful vigor as a Godsend.
Likewise, for younger men to look down on the warnings and cautions of experienced men would also be foolish. I realize that older men may not always be quick to make changes, but not to consult them is not to avail oneself of years of experience. I thank the Lord for older men who are willing to share their wisdom with those of us who are just starting out in ministry.
Focus on the Word of God
Finally, Fundamentalism must put a focus on God's Word. It must emphasize exegetical preaching: correctly interpreting the Word of God and then applying it to daily living. The Word of God must be the focal point of our ministries. If we believe the Bible (as we claim to), then we believe it when it says that the Bible is sufficient for salvation and for sanctification (2 Tim 3:15-17). The Bible gives instruction for daily living, both by command and principle.
I grow weary of the "show me where the Bible says I can't" crowd. The Christian life is not a free-for-all bounded by a few overarching commands. God does have a very specific will for our lives. For example, since God wants us to be holy, then our goal should be the most holy life possible, not the lowest passing grade. We often come asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking, "What's wrong with it?" we should be asking, "How can God be most glorified and how can I be most pleasing to him?" When our goal is a Word-soaked life (Col 3:16), a lot of these "gray areas" will be cleared up.
I obviously do not have all the answers (my glory is not my gray hair!), but these are some of my guiding thoughts regarding Fundamentalism.
Comments
In Christ,
Pastor Frank Sansone
You correctly infer that I view biblical separation as the defining mark of Fundamentalism. It is what distinguishes Fundamentalism from evangelicalism. Remove biblical separation from a Fundamentalist and you have an evangelical. An evangelical holds to the Gospel (the evangel) and the fundamentals of the faith. However, he differs in the area of biblical separation. This is what I think Dr. McCune was saying and also what I tried to say in an earlier post about labels. As long as we try to define Fundamentalism as holding to the fundamentals we are going to be frustrated at the lack of unity and agreement among that group.
I agree completely with what you stated in your response that, given the importance of biblical separation, we must understand and define it carefully and completely. Obviously, we are not all coming to the same conclusions, and that will have practical ramifications on the amount and kind of fellowship that we can enjoy.
Take for example, the KJV-only person: he feels that an English version is grounds for separation, and I do not. Therefore, our fellowship is severely limited, if not precluded. He may claim that I am not a Fundamentalist or that I am a compromiser. This really isn't a problem for me because I want to focus on the local church level, not a broad, variegated coalition. In order to work closely, there must be essential agreement (Amos 3:3).