Fundamentalism and Its Critics: A Response from Dr. McCune

In a previous post, I mentioned an inconsistency I had noticed regarding the response of some to Dr. McCune's remarks during a panel discussion at the recent ACCC convention. Dr. McCune has written this piece.

Dr. Rolland D. McCune is Professor of Systematic Theology at the
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, Michigan. He has written many scholarly articles in the seminary journal, along with a recently published book entitled Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism.



FUNDAMENTALISM AND ITS CRITICS
Rolland D. McCune

November 2005

Judging from some of the response to the comments I made recently about the so-called Young Fundamentalist movement (some confess the name and some disclaim it, but it is likely to stick for quite a while longer), I obviously exposed several raw nerves and evoked some further ongoing expressions of deep-seated contempt, dislike, if not unrighteous anger, toward fundamentalism. Allow me to enlarge my general thinking a bit, at least on some of the public outcries, rebuttals, and obvious antipathy to fundamentalists and fundamentalism. These expressions are not only from the younger men and women within the general pale of fundamentalism but are made also by the uninformed, ill-informed, learned and unlearned, of whatever ecclesiastical stripe or movement. Fundamentalism has been a favorite whipping boy of religionists for a long time. But generally I have in mind those on the left fringes of fundamentalism but also non-fundamentalists within the broader evangelical enclave.

To begin, too much of the ever-recurring criticism of fundamentalism comes across to me as extremely wistful illusions that one has a right to be free from 60 years of fundamentalist history and exegesis in order to build a "Make Your Own Fundamentalism" kit. But that will not and can not hold up, for self-evident reasons. Exegetical and historical documents have a persistent way of intruding themselves into the discussion, and they virtually scream out their right to be recognized. To ignore this mountain of evidence is sloppy scholarship and thinking at its worst. I have concluded that for many there is no amount of exegesis that will ever convince them of the fundamentalist position on the subject of ecclesiastical separation. The exegetically based preaching, writing, and reasoning by fundamentalists of the last several decades on 2 Thess 3, et al., especially about separation from compromising brethren, is almost routinely met with a DOA response by those determined on a contrary course. Proposals are sometimes made that what is needed is a truly comprehensive formulation that must supplant the supposedly bob-tailed doctrine of the last five or six decades, or some fresh, new insights to inject into the dying old doctrine and practice. That gets wearisome after a while. While there is no separation-made-easy NT doctrine and practice, these new ideas neither improve the doctrine nor truly enhance the fortunes of those would-be fundamentalists who adopt them. And make no mistake about it, the doctrine of organizational separation is still "the dividing line" that separates fundamentalism from what Kipling termed the "lesser breeds without the law." A denial of that patent fact nullifies one's right to participate in the public arena on the subject, fundamentalists (young, old, would-be, won't-be) and non-fundamentalists alike.

Similarly, no amount of historical evidence will ever be enough to bring certain ones up to speed on the fundamentalist separatist position. They ignore, seemingly wilfully, the controversy with the new evangelicalism in the 1940s and 50s, insisting instead on going back to the great controversy with modernism in the 1920s as the paradigm for fundamentalism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. That will not stand either. Such historical leapfrogging and revisionism is inexcusable; there is an abundance of contrary evidence readily available. Now it may be that for some it is just plain ignorance of history. If so, I would recommend they do their homework on the subject. For the rest, I can only marvel at their disingenuousness toward the evidence, if not their gullibility for the misinterpretation and/or misinformation out there, or downright dishonesty with the facts of history. This also gets to be very tiresome to some of us with more experience, longer memories, and far more extensive research in the subject. How much time can we give, or slack can we cut, for those who manifestly don't, and won't, ever "get it?"

The frequently-heard "sinking ship, beyond repair, lost battle, hi-jacked movement, I think I might walk away some day" mentality about the fundamentalist movement also begins to sound a little adolescent and desperate. Such can often be interpreted fairly as old-fashioned whining, cries of wolf, or not-too-veiled threats of some kind. Hopefully, this is not the case. These notes are especially compounded when they are founded on the aforementioned assertions and argumentation based on out-of-touch exegetical and historical presuppositions. This is not to question anyone's right to say and think as he/she may wish (is America a great country or what?), but it does call into question their right to be heard. This is because their vitae/credentials often are short and their qualifications suspect to be so vocal and opinionated in public discussion. My comment on those who are contemplating a shift to whatever new movement, person, or association is that their abandonment of the "sinking ship" would be to board a "sunken ship" of whatever shape or design. I further urge again that their new ecclesial quarters not be termed fundamentalism or a form of hyphenated fundamentalism. That would be misleading and unfair to everyone, including themselves. I have never seen anyone leave the ranks of biblical, historical fundamentalism for a stronger testimony to the truth. The opposite is the case; the downward trajectory of the switch is usually quite discernible in a year or two.

Occasionally one hears the idea that the number of complaints against fundamentalism, or the alleged exodus of our brightest and best, is cause for a reassessment of the whole movement. This presupposes some kind of census theology, that the number of criticisms and/or dissidens determine a movement's lack of worth. But there are multiplied millions who object to Jesus Christ and the biblical path to heaven. These we rightfully dismiss as the thinking of determined unbelievers. The number-of-complaints objection bears no weight and is a worthless criterion of truth.

On those bases I have made the suggestion that for the critics within our ranks it is probably time for them simply to make the break with fundamentalism and get it over with. What is the point of staying in a fellowship that is so foreign to their aspirations and understanding of Scripture and history? This is not to indict, judge, and sentence particularly, or to single out especially, the younger thinkers in the general fundamentalist fold. But it does appear to be patently advisable for those who seem continually to be dissatisfied with the fundamentalist movement and who are still wallowing in some kind of anguish over the likes of J. Frank Norris, Jack Hyles, or others to whom they may point, most of whom are now dead. Isn't it about time for them finally to "get over it?" For some to say that they are fundamentalists and will always be fundamentalists, but then come perilously close to enunciating near hatred for the movement, is to engage in double talk and sheer nonsense. They appear to want to craft a new and different fundamentalism of their liking in distinction from the historic movement. May I remind us all that these were the precise thoughts of Harold John Ockenga, the father and high priest of the new evangelicalism: "Doctrinally, the fundamentalists are right, and I wish to be always classified as one" (Evangelical Roots, ed. Kenneth Kantzer [Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1978], p. 40). As well, the founding of Fuller Theological Seminary and the whole new evangelical experiment was an effort at "reforming fundamentalism." Merely clinging to some doctrinal "fundamentals" did not, and does not, constitute one a fundamentalist or give him a moral platform to cleanse the fundamentalist movement of its perceived structural sins.

To be sure, fundamentalism has had those who did not live up to its biblical and historic ideals, but so does any group--- evangelicalism, hyphenated evangelicalism, independency, et al. Even NT Christianity itself has more than its share of such. Is it thereby a "sinking ship?" It has been criticized by myriads of dissatisfied people, some even within its own ranks, has suffered numerical shrinkage, and is destined to continue doing so until the eschaton. But so what? What is that supposed to mean in terms of the legitimacy of the movement and its future? Obviously nothing. Is the servant greater than his Master in this regard? We have long inveighed against those who will not become genuine Christians because "there are hypocrites in the church" that they knew or heard about second- and third-handed. Why do we object to, and reject, that tired old unbelieving bromide? It is because hypocrites do not define Christianity. Neither do anecdotal incidents of inconsistency define fundamentalism, or any movement. Through the years I have witnessed plenty of disturbance among Bible-believing people that emanated from Hammond, IN and the "big-bus" innovations, as well as the rather unique church elder polity that came out of sunny California. Preachers have come back from various conferences all buzzed up by new proposals of some kind. Many faithful people have had to pick up the pieces of their churches after the tornado of new ideas or fads hit town, and I have been called in on occasion to help some of them regroup and forge ahead. It happens all the time. No movement or following of a skillful leader can escape its sometimes overzealous and/or unsavory devotees. This works both ways, for fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists alike.

Those who are stuck in a 1920s definition of fundamentalism and/or whose focus is on the bad examples within its ranks cannot prescribe the beliefs, boundaries, and fortunes of the 21st century struggle of truth with falsehood. Mature minded and teachable fundamentalists, young and old, can see through all this. I would counsel the chronic complainants in our midst to begin to do likewise because they will find the exact same problems in their new ecclesial surroundings, whomever, wherever, or whatever their new-found fellowship may be. History and human experience, if nothing else, point unmistakably in that direction.

I have taught and worked in the seminary arena and have interacted with hundreds of young fundamentalist students for nearly 40 years. I am fully cognizant of the improvements we all can make and must say that I and my fundamentalist colleagues have been working with diligent self-awareness to upgrade fundamentalist scholarship in order to bring doctrinal, exegetical, and historical accuracy, text-based expositional preaching, and the formation of a biblical philosophy of ministry and doing church. Other fundamentalists could say the same. It is disheartening, therefore, to see and hear those who would discount our movement on the basis of a personal peeve, insult, or some other reason that is not really justifiable. And, quite frankly, none has been more contentious and uncharitable than some from within our own professing fundamentalist movement.

My response here may seem a bit forward and blunt, but after our movement has suffered more than 60 years of hearing essentially the same questions asked and the same objections made repeatedly, maybe straight talk by someone is appropriate. If so, I make my own appeal to the principle that the apostle Paul spelled out in his patient associations with the problem-laden and divided church at Corinth: 1 Corinthians 4:21.

Comments

Scott Aniol said…
The straight talk was, indeed, appropriate. And appreciated.
Chris Anderson said…
Very timely, Dr. McCune. Thank you.
Unknown said…
Years of experience allow someone like Dr. McCune to speak with a whip as did Paul. I think this is very timely and regardless of the result believe that it needed to be said.

Arguing with non-fundamentalists has proven to be unprofitable for the most part. Sure, I hope some will choose to join us, but it would be best for many to leave. Church splits are not always bad.
Mark Perry said…
Brian, it seems like there is a whole segment of Christianity who would heartily agree with your position: conservative evangelicalism.
Greg Linscott said…
Brian,

Help me here. What is the difference bewteen the direction you are referring to and say, the trail blazed by Jerry Falwell and the folks at Liberty U, for one specific example?
Mark Perry said…
Good point, Mike.
Don Johnson said…
Brian, you said:

"Today, however, if you don't hold to a strict secondary separation position, you can't be considered a true fundamentalist."

Could you define for me a "strict secondary separation position"? If you mean what I think you mean, then you are mistaken in your understanding of fundamentalism, from the 1920s on. But I just want to be sure of your definition before I start throwing rocks!!!!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don Johnson said…
Brian,

Dave is right. You need to soberly rethink where you are going.

Now let me ask you another question. When Bob Ketcham refused to go back to the meetings of the National Baptist Convention, did he or did he not break fellowship with men who were true believers?

These events happened in 1928, the era of the 'historic fundamentalists'. The men involved walked away from brethren who would not join them in separating from apostasy. Were they right or wrong?

Your question about MacArthur reflects the fact that you have not truly understood what happened in the 20s. The events of the 20s established the philosophy of fundamentalism.

The reason we have difficulties with MacArthur is that he has been and is less discriminating about his associations than we would like. How would we separate from him today? We wouldn't go down the same path, hang with the same crowd, attend his meetings (especially when they are "ecumenical lite", like when he appeared on a platform with Franklin Graham, Anne Graham Lotz and Greg Laurie), etc. We wouldn't support him if he showed up in town to preach in a local evangelical congregation (as he has done here). We wouldn't recommend his books, at least not without a caution.

Why would we do this? To affect MacArthur? Hardly. To be a responsible minister to the flock God has given us.

You have influence over God's people, Brian. Your statements, associations, and so on will affect their spiritual lives. That's why we take these things seriously and mark out errors where they exist.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don Johnson said…
Brian - the following is from your reply to me:

"When Bob Ketcham refused to go back to the meetings of the National Baptist Convention, did he or did he not break fellowship with men who were true believers?"

Sure he did, but he had fellowship with him to begin with.


I don't understand your answer, and I suspect that you are missing my point.

You seem to be arguing that separation is only legitimate when we are separating from apostates. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

My point was that Ketcham et al separated from true believers right from the beginning. The so-called "Historic Fundamentalists" practiced "secondary separation" in the beginning of the movement. I am trying to make the case that separation is not as narrowly limited as I think you are saying.

Is that idea getting through, whether you agree or not?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don Johnson said…
Brian

Ok, I think I see what you are saying. A few comments:

My point of contention with secondary separation is that we "separate" from people with whom we have no affiliation to begin with. Such separation seems needless and pointless and lacks biblical support, although I am seeking to understand why "warning" and "marking" people is considered separation by some.

So are we talking about semantic confusion? I would suggest that the way we use the term 'separation' is to make it a sort of umbrella term that covers all of these other possibilities. It also appears to define a mind-set that will govern how a fundamentalist will function. It seems to me that you are trying to press the meaning of separation here too woodenly, and not acknowledging the current use of the term as it reflects our history.

I always thought that separation from disobedient brothers was the final act of a deliberative process established in Matthew 18 for a local church in an attempt to restore them to fellowship.

That is not what Ketcham did. He quit going to the NBC. There was no local church deliberative process. It wasn't a local church decision. It was his decision. I think you are wrong to attempt to limit this to local church only. I suppose that is a debate for another place. Perhaps I should look into your threads on separation passages on SI.

I just don't see any biblical rationale for "separating" when there is no contact with the person being separated from. Seems to me to be more of a postering, many times to compare against others' posturing to see who is the most separated.

I do agree that there is a lot of foolish posturing that goes on. I once got a letter from a guy whom I had never met informing me that he had separated from me. I tell you, I was so-o-o-o depressed!!!

I mention that to say that I completely understand this frustration. I am a separatist, a fundamentalist, and proud to identify myself as such. But we are often our own worst enemies. I think there are many in leadership in fundamentalism today who are labouring to minimize that kind of foolishness.

But I don't see that kind of foolishness as reason to give up on the concept. Or to jump ship!

Anyway, I do understand what you are saying a bit better, I think, and will interact with you more elsewhere I am sure. Blog on!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3