In the last several months, a group of discontented young men have begun to make themselves heard. While not a cohesive group in any sense, this collection of mostly younger men who have grown up in Fundamentalism has expressed a desire to reform the Fundamental movement. Some of these men are younger men, but not all. This "young fundamentalism" is a very broad and loose coalition.
I enjoy the fellowship of several outstanding pastors in the Ohio Bible Fellowship, many of whom are both "young" and "Fundamentalists" in every sense of the word. The discontent that many of these "young fundamentalists" are voicing is not shared by the young men in our fellowship. In fact, I recommend you read the following outstanding articles that deal with the "young fundamentalism."
I would like to address all three of these issues in future posts. There's plenty here to read and get caught up on the debate.
Follow-up Posts
I enjoy the fellowship of several outstanding pastors in the Ohio Bible Fellowship, many of whom are both "young" and "Fundamentalists" in every sense of the word. The discontent that many of these "young fundamentalists" are voicing is not shared by the young men in our fellowship. In fact, I recommend you read the following outstanding articles that deal with the "young fundamentalism."
- "The Young Fundamentalists: Déjà Vu" by Pastor Chris Anderson of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, Ohio, published in the Ohio Bible Fellowship Visitor in May 2005.
- "The Concerns of a Young Fundamentalist" by Pastor Dave Saxton of Falls Berean Bible Church in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, published in the Ohio Bible Fellowship Visitor in April 2004.
- "Understanding Fundamentalism" by Pastor Andy Rupert of Bible Community Church in Mentor, Ohio (check out his blog, Isle Kerguelen).
- "Three Fundamentalists I Have Known" by Dan Greenfield of Orwell Bible Church in Orwell, Ohio.
I would like to address all three of these issues in future posts. There's plenty here to read and get caught up on the debate.
Follow-up Posts
Comments
First of all, I enjoy your blog. Keep it up.
Secondly, the articles you list are good, and raise good points. I, too, would recommend that they be read.
However, I would like to point out that many of the articles criticizing the so called "young Fundamentalist" movement tend to center on certain (for lack of a better descriptor) "liberal" or "progressive" tendencies present within our generation. As I monitor the conversations in the blogosphere, I am beginning to see just as much dissatisfaction being expressed with fundamentalism by young Fundamentalists because it isn't serious enough about doctrine, separation, worship, and so on.
Examples of what I'm seeing include...
Remonstrans
Unknowing
Gravitas
Kara Ministries
Murg
LilRabbi's Blog
...particularly in some of the comment threads of the blogs mentioned.
While the specific positions and solutions may be light years apart from one another, I do think that some of the discontent being expressed here has something in common with the unrest you, Dave, Chris, and others are commenting on more specifically. It would be interesting to see both extremes examined and contrasted.
Looking forward to reading the subsequent posts.
I don't want to steal my own thunder, but I think my comments are going to be directed mainly toward the historical side of things. The fact that so many sidestepped Chris's points demonstrated (in my little brain) that either (1) they are ignorant of the history of fundamentalism, or (2) they do not have a clear understanding of the complaints they are raising or their ramifications.
Again, as has been brought up before, we in the OBF live in a blessed little "bubble," and it is hard for us to understand the dissatisfaction that Fundamentalism isn't "serious enough." I first realized this problem when I went to college at the age of twenty. I thought every preacher preached solid, expository messages until I heard the chapel speakers.
That being said, the reason that Chris, Andy, and Dave (and I) are not complaining about the current state of affairs is due to the blessings that we enjoy following the footsteps of godly men who were serious about doctrine, separation, worship, and so on. Again, I am not against striving for a more obedient and Christ-honoring life and ministry.
I appreciate your "monitoring" this conversation in the blogosphere and invite you to stop back anytime.
I would be tempted to agree with your simplification, but I wasn't going to begin there! Thanks for dropping by--- come back anytime.
P.S. It would serve you right if some of your young students in Systematic Theology slept through a class or two of yours. I suppose you could pull out the "Jesus was sleeping in the boat--- like our brother in the back."
This is the problem with trying to pigeonhole "young fundamentalists" as represented by "Sharper Iron." No two members are alike- and to casually paint the picture that all are the same seems to me to be a convenient way to assume the moral high ground for your own position.
The point I am trying to make (and continue to hold to) is that the common thread is some form of discontent with the status quo. Perhaps, instead of authoring yet another piece criticizing our peers, we should begin to constructively offer solutions in which that energy can be directed to renew our commitment to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before us. Turning on one another, especially at this juncture, just doesn't seem to be particularly useful to any purpose.
Please understand, I am not criticizing guys like Scott. I am arguing that there are similarities between his reaction and how others of his generation have reacted to the problems they perceive within Fundamentalism. Both would say, for example, "that much gospel music is insipid." Both depart from established practice in Fundamentalist churches. While you (and I, for that matter) may deem Scott's position and solution to be the right or better one, common threads still exist.
My observation has been that many of the type of people you are identifying (MacArthur loving CCM headbangers... :) ) at best take the Fundamentalist label- young or otherwise- reluctantly. Another fact to consider is that many of the most vocal people articulating this "discernible trend at SI" have already made their departures from openly Fundamentalist churches for greener pastures in conservative evangelicalism, convention churches, emergent-type churches, and so on. To define the benchmark of "Young Fundamentalism" by their conversation is a misrepresentation, I believe.
Another point worth noting is that the music/MacArthur issue has certainly not been limited to our "young" generation in Fundamentalism. My friends in the GARBC have wrestled with these specific issues for at least 15 years. We are aware of the controversy that elder statesmen like Frank Hamrick and Les Ollila have faced on this issue in the last several months. To villainize YFs for these things is not accurate.
1. What we're calling "Young Fundamentalism" (for lack of a better name) is not a demographic, but an attitude. This attitude is characterized, in my opinion, by a disagreement with the principles and application of separation, a dissatisfaction with Fundamentalism's social program (or lack thereof), and a lack of understanding of the history of Fundamentalism. Not everyone who is "young" and a "Fundamentalist" falls into this category. I would except myself from this category, although I am both young and a Fundamentalist. I also cited articles by four other young men in Fundamentalism.
2. This attitude is not monopolized by Sharper Iron. I think that would be obvious (but maybe not), since I cited Chris Anderson's article that he posted on Sharper Iron. The "Young Fundamentalist" attitude is not restricted to SI, although that forum has revealed a good deal of this thinking.
3. The "music and MacArthur" comment was made tongue in cheek, but it smarts because those two things are watershed issues. Very few (if anyone) has no opinion on those two things. There could be a general trend that shows a concurrence between a "Young Fundamentalist" attitude and their opinions on those issues. However, it is not a litmus test one way or the other; again, these issues reveal the thinking.
4. "Young Fundamentalism" is not anybody who wishes they could change anything about Fundamentalism. There are many things I wish I could change, both in the past and present. However, I hope to demonstrate in future posts that the changes this "young fundamentalist" mindset wants to make are pillars of historic Fundamentalism. The issue is not tweaking minor cosmetics or a facelift, but the very heart of what Fundamentalism has historically stood for.
5. This mindset is not unique to the last year and a half. To the contrary, I want to demonstrate that this thinking has already been tried and found wanting.
Perhaps that will alleviate some of Greg's angst. If we have are in agreement on these points, we do not need to continue to rehash them.
I'm going to close my thoughts with a quote (ironically enough) from MacArthur's commentary on Matthew 1-7 (p.239):
A leading news magazine reported a few years ago that Americans tend to see themselves as potential saints rather than real-life sinners. Another leading magazine reported, "Today's young radicals in particular are almost painfully sensitive to... wrongs of their society, and they denounce them violently. But at the same time they are typically American in that they fail to place evil in its historic and human perspective. To them evil is not an irreducible component of man; it is not an inescapable fact of life, but something committed by the older generation, attributable to a particular class or the establishment and eradicable through love and revolution" (Time, Dec. 5, 1969).
Greg's right: I (and probably Mike and Mark) have some similar concerns as the "young fundamentalists," things like whether we are applying separation consistently and correctly and whether our music fits our own critiques. The difference is in the approach to correct the problems.
The other thing that always makes me chuckle is that these "young fundamentalists" think that they are the first to notice these problems in fundamentalism. Some young fundy writes an article that gets passed around a lot, and everyone thinks these are new critiques. They're not! The McCunes and Bauders and Dorans and Hardings before us have been fighting the same battles for years.
Do you remember quotes like this one? "The difference between our generation and the one before us is that we looked up the verse."
This is the kind of attitude that makes me distain the "young fundamentalist" moniker.
Unfortunate things have been said (such as the "look up the verse" comment, which, if memory serves me correctly was retracted or at least explained more fully). But Scott, something you just said should give you pause when such statements are made. You refer to the "McCunes and Bauders and Dorans and Hardings..." Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the men you cite save one minister primarily in the eastern part of the lower peninsula of Michigan! I grew up in a "Bible Believing Fundamentalist" home, but I've got to be honest- I had never heard of any of those men until I was nearly ready to graduate from college in the late 1990s. Now, I am glad you had the opportunity to be influenced by such Godly men- but please don't assume that the rest of us had it quite that good (or as good as you guys who grew up in the OBF). I sat under evangelists who preached messages comparing the space shuttle to the tower of Babel, who decried UPC barcodes as being the "mark of the Beast," and who declared with absolute certainty that pants on women were an abomination because she was wearing "that which pertaineth unto a man." I needed to look up some verses (and thank God, I eventually found some older men who helped me do just that)!
Regarding "attitude"- the tenor and tone that even you have have displayed, Scott (sarcastically dismissing those who have said your church's music "lacks joy" becuase you don't sing the gospel songs they are accustomed to) could be described in a similar fashion as you describe your "more progressive" peers. After all, haven't many of the musical mentors and influences of your youth endorsed similar lines of thought?
I am not justifying the attitudes of either "side." But it seems to me that we all have some room for compassion and allowance for maturity to develop both for those we minister to and those who we serve with as contemporaries.
In addition, it doesn't matter to me whether we call the attitude "young fundamentalism" or not. I am addressing the attitude that is being displayed, not a demographic or one segment of Fundamentalism. This post was merely an introduction to my further response to the attitude. My main point in doing so is to point out that these things have been heard before (as Scott pointed out).
I appreciate your zeal for SI, Greg, but my posts go far beyond the scope of an internet forum. I want to address some incorrect thinking that is being given audience in many forums. This is not about Sharper Iron.
This attitude is real; to expose it as unbiblical and/or historically naive is not to "fight shadows." Rather, following the purpose of my blog, I want to bring every thought captive to obey Christ. I want to test everything by Scripture. I do not demand that you agree with every conclusion I draw or even that you read what I say!
Maybe others have said it before; I wouldn't be surprised at all if others have said it better. I want to examine an attitude that is lacking. Let's cut through all of the superficial arguments and deal with the attitude.
Forgive me, as well, for apparently mistaking your desire not to identify this "attitude" as Young Fundamentalism. The post title seemed to indicate a different intention.
I would challenge you to consider, however, that at least part of this attitude you are exposing is youth gaining experience. I have asked the same questions about "MacArthur and Music" as my peers are now. Asking the questions isn't an "attitude," though. Where you end up when you draw your conclusion is what matters. If we want to truly "obey Christ," perhaps we should be a bit slower to label, categorize and condemn, and quicker to listen and give thoughtful answers.
BTW- It's not superficial to consider how best to communicate so your point may be heard and considered by those who aren't necessarily in your "amen corner." I am passionate about this topic overall because I do agree with your basic surmisal- and I don't want those who need to hear it most to tune it out because they feel they are being dismissed out of hand because of their age and their questions.
God Bless.
However, if your biggest concern is how SI figures into this and what label I use, then you are missing my point. SI is a forum; many ideas and attitudes are demonstrated there. I used the label "young fundamentalism" (always in quotation marks) because it has been used before. It is simply a label and is limited. I am not broadbrushing every young man who identifies himself as a Fundamentalist (because I include myself in that category).
I am indeed directing my discussion to my "amen corner," as you so pejoratively put it. I want to warn and inform my flock, my students, those whom the Lord has given me to shepherd. If others want to read along, they are more than welcome (after all, this is the internet!).
It is ironic that you are calling for me to be more patient with young men. You say I should be "slower to label, categorize and condemn, and quicker to listen and give thoughtful answers." I have identified no one by name; I am calling attention to an attitude. I have condemned no one. I have listened to the attitude for months. Perhaps my writing is intellectually lacking, but I have done the best I can with what I have been given.
Meanwhile, you have jumped all over my introductory post with assumption after assumption. Am I the exception to this patience you call for? I am a young man too!
Mark, what I am trying to emphasize is that by herding people into this category (and not naming any names) leaves it ambiguous, and therefore, not particularly helpful or solution-oriented. To my knowledge, the only people who have used the term "Young Fundamentalism" in the manner you use it have been men from your own fellowship. Used in other contexts, the term has been used to describe a demographic, not an attitude.
I suppose another thing that has motivated my interaction with you is what I would like to see is an article along this vein. All the others you mention (published in the OBF Visitor) do well at identifying a problem to those who share a common perspective. They are not seem particularly effective at persuading those who are "on the fence" on why they should consider separation, etc. something worth holding to tenaciously. In the end, saying "we've been here before" is just a more roundabout way of turning up the nose and saying with a sneer, "You Neo!"
Fundamentalism is the right idea. Separation is the right position. Fundamentalists need to be seen as being ready to help those who are seeking to do right.
Read this "Old Fundamentalist's" perspective. Ketcham gives a good view of the compatibility of separation with encouraging others to assume said position.
I’ve said my piece. Thanks for reading and considering my thoughts.
I'm ceratinly not condemning the OBF for publishing the Visitor, nor the articles referenced in theses series of comments targeted to the constiuency that reads it. My observation (to Mark- it is, after all, his blog) was simply that the "warn and inform" role has already been done a few times on this topic in recent days- why not take a different angle?
This particular entry (the author, as Iunderstand it, is familiar to some of you, anyway) what I had in mind. Problems are noted, but the emphasis is made more through proposed solutions and direction than labeling and defining. And all without compromise! :)
What I'm saying, men, that if our positions and convictions are indeed the right ones, at least some effort should be made to encourage those who are making the same journey that you men have.
BTW- I apologize if I'm coming across more contentious on this topic than I intend to. I look forward to reading the subsequent posts in Mark's series.
PS- Dan, regarding your citation of JJ's YF article- he doesn't use the term to define an attitude, but notes a broad generalization of the "older" having concerns for the "younger." The survey recently released demontrates, if nothing else, a great diversity in the demographic in regards to "positions." As to "attitude," see my initial response in this thread- I still believe that there is an attitude among our generation that transcends positions.
I guess I just couldn't/can't understand why all the stink because you thought another approach would be better. Feel free to write your own article.
I hope to get to conclusions and solutions (not that I have tons of great wisdom to impart), but I haven't had time.
I also outlined three characteristic complaints that I have repeatedly heard in recent months. I am attempting to write more on each of those three issues, but can't seem to get past the comments on my introduction. I probably should have just waited until I had all three done before I posted anything.
If you take the time to read my post on the separation issue, you will notice that I don't even use the term "young fundamentalist" at all. As I have said several times in these comments, I am addressing an attitude, not a cohesive group or self-identified movement.
As for your list of six things that you think I might think and then give answers you think might refute them: if only it were that easy! I will ignore the straw man and continue working on my subsequent posts.
There is a difference between saying "young fundamentalists are discontented" (which you claim I said) and saying "a group of discontented young men have begun to make themselves heard" (which is what I actually said).
As I said before (why I keep repeating myself, I don't know), I do not think that there is nothing in Fundamentalism that needs to change. The three changes that some are advocating and that I'm addressing, however, I do not believe need to change. This is not the same as being defensive.
Maybe you could start your own blog and give your view of the OBF's view of separation. I would really rather you not fill up my blog with what you think someone else thinks.
I wonder if you misspell so many words because you type quickly or if you do it on purpose--- because it really is disarming. It's hard to slam a guy who misspells "we'll." :-)
Oh, we OBF guys can be defensive--- just start giving Chris Anderson some grief about how long he preaches!
I'm going to pour some gasoline on the fire and stick my neck out again. If you'd like to take your discussion there, feel free.