I should have seen that one coming.
Several months ago, the internet was abuzz with a self-proclaimed non-fundamentalist's suggestions for Fundamentalism. As an outsider, he suggested several points in which he felt we would do well to improve. While I was a little puzzled why a non-fundamentalist would even care, I did spend some time thinking about his points.
One of his critiques of Fundamentalism was that there was a lack of "due process." By this, I understood him to mean that it's basically "one strike and you're out." His impression was that Fundamentalists are quick to cut off anyone who disagrees with them or who perhaps demonstrates a lack of judgment or discernment.
In theory, I agreed with him: separation is not punitive; rather, it should be exercised with the hope of restoration (Gal 6:1). Any cutting off of fellowship is always a painful affair, and not something to rush into. Our ideal goal is unity of doctrine and purpose. Perhaps the only hope for the next generation of fundamentalists would be for them to be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger (cf. Jas 1:19).
I thought this "due process" would extend to everyone. I thought that we would give other Fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt before we wrote them off. I thought that we would research carefully what was said before reacting to hearsay. I thought we would dissect the statements with which we disagreed and compare them to Scripture. I thought we would withhold judgment on those who critiqued us and our position. I thought that if we had a problem with an individual, we would go to that person and seek to understand what they said and why they said it. I thought we would refrain from name calling and ad hominem attacks.
But I was wrong— horribly wrong. This "due process" apparently only extends to people who agree with me.
Several months ago, the internet was abuzz with a self-proclaimed non-fundamentalist's suggestions for Fundamentalism. As an outsider, he suggested several points in which he felt we would do well to improve. While I was a little puzzled why a non-fundamentalist would even care, I did spend some time thinking about his points.
One of his critiques of Fundamentalism was that there was a lack of "due process." By this, I understood him to mean that it's basically "one strike and you're out." His impression was that Fundamentalists are quick to cut off anyone who disagrees with them or who perhaps demonstrates a lack of judgment or discernment.
In theory, I agreed with him: separation is not punitive; rather, it should be exercised with the hope of restoration (Gal 6:1). Any cutting off of fellowship is always a painful affair, and not something to rush into. Our ideal goal is unity of doctrine and purpose. Perhaps the only hope for the next generation of fundamentalists would be for them to be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger (cf. Jas 1:19).
I thought this "due process" would extend to everyone. I thought that we would give other Fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt before we wrote them off. I thought that we would research carefully what was said before reacting to hearsay. I thought we would dissect the statements with which we disagreed and compare them to Scripture. I thought we would withhold judgment on those who critiqued us and our position. I thought that if we had a problem with an individual, we would go to that person and seek to understand what they said and why they said it. I thought we would refrain from name calling and ad hominem attacks.
But I was wrong— horribly wrong. This "due process" apparently only extends to people who agree with me.
Comments
I don't see the connection between Phil Johnson and Dissidens. The guys at Remonstrans have never complained about "due process." Not sure where you're going with this post.
Careful, don't use the term "YF" on my blog or you'll get me in trouble with the YF Blog Police.
"Due Process" from the American Heritage Dictionary: "An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual."
It's comical (or at least ironic) that the article/speech in which Phil Johnson criticized fundamentalism for lack of "due process" was (if memory serves) the same article/speech in which he wrote off an entire movement based on a caricature which he based on dead men. Due process, indeed. My point is, the inconsistency started within seconds of the criticism.
As for the Phantom, I was shocked that he would criticize anyone for being arrogant or dismissive. More irony. I do see Greg's point: the guys at Remonstrans are equally vicious to everyone and make no claim to fairness, so we can't charge them with inconsistency.
(But remember, the Phantom can teach us much.) (????)
Mike, were you really "stunned" that people would write off 40 years of faithful ministry based on a cynical interpretation of a 20-second sound bite? I can see "frustrated," but "stunned"? Where have you been?? ;-)
Finally, I was disappointed that the Central guys & Scott were silent during the roast by Phantom & friends (unless I missed somethign). I'm not looking for allegiance to any man. However, they complained publicly when Dr. Doran carefully critiqued the Phantom, then said nothing when the Phantom & friends maliciously ripped Dr. McCune. What is THAT about?
Just wanted to make one comment on the goal of separation: Yes, it is not punitive, but No, it is not restorative. It is preservative. Separation and church discipline are two different things. The purpose of separation is to protect and preserve the flock of God that has been given to me, for the time that they are under my care.
That's my opinion anyway. I think a lot of the wrangling that goes on comes as a result of misunderstanding this point.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
What is the purpose of "that he may be ashamed" or the "admonish him as a brother" if one of the purposes for separation is not restoration?
1. I love McCune, and would defend him if I thought he needed it.
2. Mike was doing a nice enough job.
3. When's the last time I posted at remonstrans, anyway?
Scott, I was hoping you would step into the fray over at Remonstrans. Since you had been vocal in your praise of dissidens, I had hoped you would correct him in this instance.
You do provide "glowing" links to Diss & Co, and have gone on record defending him. Just an observation.
All:
I still contend that the criticism leveled at the attitude of the "YFs" (to use a label being used by others- I still think it is a foolish, derisive moniker that few use to identify themselves) is not limited to the seemingly more progressive ideology. The "Dissidens Divines" seem just as contentious and critical of their Fundamentalist elders, if not, as evidenced by the referenced discussion, more so.
Truth be told, I didn't even see that particular entry, and didn't even notice the discussion that was going on until just yesterday! My good friend Mike didn't even tell me what was going on. You see, beside his infamous talents for being able to fall asleep with dignity during classes ("Mike, wake up! You're going to poke your eye out with that pencil!"), Mike has this nack for disapearing (or at least his e-mail box disapears) quite often! :)
By the time I saw it, it was all over. I think I must have been eating again. I miss out on everything when I'm eating.
And Greg, as for the "Dissidens Divines" and all that, there's some guy over at my blog calling Joel and Ryan Scott-o-philes now, too, so I guess anyone who defends someone else is then a worshiper of them. So I guess Mike is a McCunite. Hey, now that's a title I'd carry with pride!
Public, passionate defense, when connected with active promotion and endorsement, does seem a bit like grounds for perceiving an active connection and identification.
Hey, it's worked for lumping in quite a few people and their ideologies together when referring to the "YFs at SI." I guess things are being consistent...
Funny- when the shoe is placed on the other foot...
...or perhaps I should just begin working on the latest installment of "Uncle AllKnowing sails the Karabean Sea" parody/satire series...
What was it my friend Chris said, once- Deja Vu? :)
However, it was defense of ideas, not persons, and attacks against reasons for discrediting a person's ideas (anonymity, presentation, etc.).
I do have to admit, though, that I like you, Greg. I'd defend you... [oops]... your ideas any day.
I like you, too, Scott- really, I do. You've made me think about a great deal since I discovered your site. But I do think all of us in our demographic (not even excluding myself) could stand to check and recheck our tones when it comes to leveling criticism.
The due process topic is still pertinent.
You're right, of course. :)
Clearly there is a sense in which the term is used to describe a demographic – those 35 and younger who self-identify as a fundamentalist. The age is arbitrary but that’s where Jason drew the line for his survey and it has seemed to stick. It bums me out because I’m 41 but I’m learning everyday other ways in which I am no longer young.
On the other hand, the term also refers to a mindset. Jason can say, for example, back at the NLC in February that “I find young fundamentalists of all ages.”
If someone were to take the time to go through the posts on SI, I think we would see lots of guys self-identifying as young fundamentalists, referring not to their age as much as their concerns with or attitudes towards the fundamentalist establishment. If that mindset was not recognizable, no one would be talking about it. Nevertheless, I don’t like using the term because (1) it confuses the issue (it’s about a mindset not an age) and (2) it lumps perfectly content and committed fundamentalists who happen to be young into a group that they don’t belong. I’d prefer to use the term “progressive fundamentalist” but that really does come across as pejorative and, frankly, it doesn’t seem to have caught on. We may be stuck with “young fundamentalist” just like we are stuck with CCM.
It wouldn't take much "due process" to look through some of his materials and see that he is an ardent defender and proponent of Fundamentalism. He is not trying to "run anybody off."
To ignore this vast body of literature and focus on a few sentences from a panel discussion seems, in my opinion, to be a grave violation of "due process."
Andy, I grant the "that he might be ashamed" point, but that would be in the context of a local church. And Mark, I grant that there is a relation between discipline and separation, but they are not ultimately the same thing. The relation is that they may be legitimately practiced over similar issues, but the difference is the context.
Historically, do you think the early fundamentalists who came out of the denominations were doing so in the hopes of "shaming" their opponents into repentance? Hardly. They left because there was no other option. They had to preserve what they could.
The same could be said of the history of the 50s and 60s and the rise of evangelicalism. The separation from Graham et al was not done with any illusions that Graham would change. The hope was that Graham would not taint those who followed the separatists. For that generation, the separatists were largely successful. We have been somewhat less successful in the current context. (Although this may be due to a more vociferous minority, I can't quite tell.)
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
(As I said in my previous comment, that kind of separation is an application of church discipline--- I did not say they were the same thing. You said that.)
Also, I agree wholeheartedly that one of the purposes of separation is preservative. It is the business of maintaining a pure church.
Todd, I'm not wanting to reopen this debate, especially when it's probably a minor part of what Mark was trying to communicate and when other more capable men have discussed it. However, I don't think my initial comment was particularly unfair.
Johnson doesn't write off the era or individuals you mention as the "extremes" of fundamentalism, but as the "rule." Sure, he excepts from his criticism Dr. Bauder, Detroit and even BJU (which is interesting since, again, if memory serves, he took a shot at "Bob Jones-type fundamentalism" the previous year). But he makes these men and anything else good in the movement the "exception" (see his discussion with Dr. Doran or Dr. Doran's quip that there were a lot of "exceptions" taking place at the recent MACP).
But the movement at large? Johnson says the following:
* "What I have in mind are the kind of fundamentalists who wouldn't even attend a conference like this because they consider John MacArthur and Grace Community Church as 'New Evangelical.'" (p. 1)
* He spends pages 3-5 discussing dead men, whose likeness he does indeed try to paint onto the movement today. For example: "Fundamentalism has always seemed to favor men who were both doctrinally shallow and flamboyant in their personal style. J. Frank Norris and Jack Hyles are probably the two most famous examples. (Norris shot an unarmed man in the pastor's study of his church in Fort Worth.)...But if you want to see more ordinary examples of what I'm talking about, sit in the chapel services at almost any fundamentalist school and watch the parade of preachers that come through....That kind of thing ["karate experts, gospel magicians, gospel clowns, young Jack-Hyles wannabes, and other assorted characters"], sadly, epitomizes how most of the fundamentalist movement in America has dealt with the fundamentals of the faith." (p. 15)
* "But there is something seriously wrong with what most of the Amercan fundamentalism has become." (p. 8)
* Here's a whopper: "No doctrine is more essential to the gospel than the principles of justification by faith, the imputation of righteousness to the believer, the imputation of the believer's sin to Christ, the forensic nature of justification, and a right understanding of the principle of sola fide. But within the visible fundamentalist movement today, you can hardly find a pastor, much less a trained lay person, who is prepared to give an accurate account of any of those doctrines, even at the most basic level." (p. 14)
* "Fundamentalism should have
been a literate movement, theological, devoted to doctrinal instruction, and (to borrow language from Titus 1:9) 'able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.' Fundamentalism as a movement has historically exemplified none of those things." (p. 14, emph. his)
* "There is a decidedly anti-intellectual strain in American fundamentalism that has dominated the movement for the past fifty years or more. Many fundamentalists are openly wary of scholarship, suspicious of anything too academic. They dislike historical theology; they have no taste for doctrinal teaching; they prefer preachers who
specialize in emotional rants against the evils of rock music or movies or some other aspect of popular culture.
Now, I know there are some blessed exceptions to that rule [and here he mentions Detroit, Dr. Bauder, Central, BJU]....But I have to say that in my experience, men like that are all too rare in the fundamentalist movement. The mainstream of the movement often regards them with deep suspicion, because they are too academic; too Calvinistic; not sufficiently devoted to the exclusive use of the King James Version of the Bible; not vocal enough in their criticism of John MacArthur, whatever. I am grateful for the influence of men like Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran in the fundamentalist movement. But they are not really typical
fundamentalists. [emphases mine] The drift of most of the fundamentalist movement is decidedly in the opposite direction." (p. 16-17, last emph. his)
He continues throughout the paper to make dead men the representatives of fundamentalism and living men the exceptions. And I say that lacks any hint of the "due process" he calls for on p. 19 and following.
Do I agree with the need for due process? Absolutely, and I'm not suggesting that it has always been practiced by our movement, myself included. However, the irony I was pointing out is represented by this quotation which ironically circumvents due process while simultaneously arguing for it:
"Meanwhile, the public face of the fundamentalist movement is dominated by too many petty men with big egos who think "earnestly contend[ing] for the faith" means back-stabbing one another or sniping at other Christian leaders who come too close to the fundamentalist movement without
actually being in the right "camp." That's cultish. It's wicked. It's carnal and it's
fleshly. It's not righteous behavior. But it happens every week in the fundamentalist
movement. The culture of American fundamentalism seems to thrive on it."
Hence, Mark's statement: "This 'due process' apparently only extends to people who agree with me."
Anyway, enough of that. It's old news, and I don't think Mark intended the thread to be about Phil Johnson. But it is ironic.
Ditto. Sign my name to that. That's all I was trying to say, Scott.
Scott said: "However, it [his defense of Diss] was defense of ideas, not persons, and attacks against reasons for discrediting a person's ideas (anonymity, presentation, etc.)."
Okay, Scott. But Dr. McCune's person and ideas and presentation were unfairly attacked and discredited. And I'd suggest that our footing when defending him and his ideas is much more solid than we are defending a condescending stranger who disdains fundamentalism. Right? I didn't understand why you & Unk & Dull Sodder would go to bat for Diss and his ideas, then let him and others misrepresent & criticize Dr. McCune and his ideas so. You say you were eating? Fair enough. :-)
I was glad to see Mike Riley offer a good answer. Well done. But to see others posting on the thread without saying "boo" about the jabs from Diss and TJ was disheartening.
That's all. Food for thought. I imagine that this whole "whose side are you on?" wrangling isn't very beneficial anyway.
On a side note, this thread & it's sister at Unknowing have degenerated into a junior high girls' sleepover: "I like you. Do you still like me? Good, because I still like you, too." Yuck!
FWIW, I like you all, okay? Do you still like me???
Call this a defense of myself, or the "dissidisciples" who don't go to the blog often enough to stay on top of threads like that. Scott's excuse is good enough though. He was eating. Who can fault him?
Continuing the little side conversation re: the Donut-ist defense:
Just one thing on this comment: "Don, the difference here is between separating from an unbeliever (the early Fundamentalists) and separating from a disobedient brother. The latter is fairly analogous to church discipline."
Do you recall that the early fundamentalists who pulled out of the denominations left behind not only unbelievers but also believers who would not pull out? Separation (as a fundamentalist idea) has always involved separation from disobedient brethren. The concept was clarified with the evangelical compromise, but it was always a part of the the fundamentalist idea.
And on this, "(As I said in my previous comment, that kind of separation is an application of church discipline--- I did not say they were the same thing. You said that.)"
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thank you for your gracious reply. It seems that we're very close in our understanding.
I'm pleased that Johnson (not you, Don) changed his mind, and yes, I was aware of the visit he had with Dr. Minnick and others. Again, it's just ironic that the man critiquing our movement for lack of due process was willing to throw out a "BJ-type fundamentalist" comment without first doing his homework. I'm grateful for his being teachable on the issue, and we all say things we regret (I'm working on a PhD in it). His criticism may be true; in fact, I think it too often is. He's just a funny guy to level it.
That said, we should work to correct the problem regardless of who brought it to our attention. So Johnson's inconsistency doesn't get us off the hook.
I think that would be really funny. Seriously. I just warn you, you do this and Brutha Unk may just go and kick Sharperiron off his blogroll . . . I doubt it could rival the superb audio quality of the Unk Audio Productions.
Before my ordination counsel, Pastor Ashbrook offered some comments about my doctrinal statement. About separation, he said something like, "We separate because God commands it." That has to be the primary motivation.
Here's how I view it: The first motive for separation is love for God which is revealed in obedience. The second motive is preservation (purity) and the third is restoration.
I agree that restoration is not given much thought because of the attitudes of those from which we separate. We pray they repent, but have little hope due to the individual's past record (1 Tim. 1:20).
For example, a resolution against Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, or even John MacArthur are not intended so much for their ability to bring the errant brother to repentance, but for the protection of our own people who may have been influenced by them.
Mark, might we also add the following: "...and a warning to those with whom we have influence"?
Taking note of our "target audience" is important. Sure, Warren probably couldn't care less about a resolution we pass about his errors, but it may help protect people in our churches, pastors with whom we fellowship, etc., especially if it is done well.
What's funny about that comment is this: I've been about as unenthusiastic about resolutions as anyone. "No one's paying attention anyway" and that sort of thing. I'm seeing the profit, however, in issuing well-thought-out and carefully-researched resolutions on issues affecting the church today. And I appreciated the way the FBF included with their resolutions articles (like Mike's) that explained their concerns more fully.
___________
Andy, your defense of separation as motivated by obedience, purity/preservation and restoration is spot on, but often neglected (say, in discussions at SI). Yes, we want to reclaim a sinning brother. But we also want to obey Scripture, to maintain a clear testimony before the world, to protect the people to whom we minister from error, which is a major emphasis throughout the NT. These goals must be met, even if restoration never takes place.
Anyway, you're right, and though it seems like an obvious point, it needs to be made more clearly. Do you "feel an article brewing?" ;)
Oh, I almost forgot: Andy, I like you.
I think you are getting to what I was trying to say. And I think that the preservation/purity point is largely missed by those who cry about 'secondary separation'.
I too 'feel an article coming on'. I'm going to have to get my own blog going!
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3