I would like to say in preface to this article that it is based largely off my experience and observations with several different circles of Fundamentalism and in my research on the movement as a whole.
I consider myself to be a Reforming Fundamentalist. By
Reforming, I mean much more than those doctrines associated with the Protestant
Reformation. For me, the idea of reforming is essentially a radical return to
the Bible and using it practically as our final source for faith and practice.
It is one matter to have the phrase “final source of faith and practice” in our
creeds and quite another to experience it in our own lives. In his letter to the
Thessalonians, Paul assures his readers that he is quite convinced that they
are elect, “chosen of God.” In what does he ground his assurance? In that the Word
of God came not in word only, but in “power and in the Holy Spirit in full
conviction.” He also states that the Thessalonians became “imitators of us and
of the Lord.” If we are to have any hope of our faith being tested and proven
to be true faith, we must look in part to the sanctifying work of the Word and
Spirit in our lives.
My observation has been that the
Reformed Resurgence is affecting the Fundamentalist Movement in a perceivable
way. Popular Reformed figures such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever,
R.C. Sproul, and Mark Driscoll are affecting the movement in a very noticeable
way. In my experience, the influence of these and others are splitting the
movement into mainly three groups. On the far right, you have the diehard
conservatives. In their mind, orthodoxy is synonymous with what they have been
taught. There are no gray areas or “nonessential doctrines.” Every doctrine-
from the virgin birth to music preference to premillennial dispensationalism-
is considered essential. To deny one is to give way to “liberalism” and puts
one in danger of espousing heresy. The group resists the influence of popular
evangelical and Reformed leaders out of a misplaced pursuit of doctrinal
holiness and to walk to “narrow path” of sanctification. Popular non-Fundamentalist
leaders are consistently misquoted, demonized, and caricatured to assure
loyalty to the movement and prevent any sort of fellowship or association. Many
would rather associate with an unbeliever than a Reformed Christian or pastor.
A second group that has formed is
one that I would call the rebel group. It is composed mainly of younger
Fundamentalists that have grown tired of Fundamentalist inconsistencies and
novelty doctrines and act largely in reaction to it. The biggest danger with
this group is that it is by and large a reactionary movement and not
necessarily a theological movement. In trying to distance themselves from the
traditional Fundamentalist group, many lose the familiar pietistic flavor of
Fundamentalism. Very often among these people, the major issues have nothing to
do with theology, but much of the teaching and preaching have to do with
justifying participation in vices and social taboos such as smoking, drinking,
going to movies and the like. The mantra of this group is “freedom in Christ,”
but very often it results in judgment and condemnation of even loving
conservative people. If the first group is the older brother in Luke 15, this
group could certainly be associated with the prodigal.
A third group, and one with whom I
hope to associate, is what I would term the Reforming branch, and which is
perhaps the smallest. The Reforming branch is the theologically driven portion
of the movement (whereas I would say the first is tradition-driven and the
second is largely reactionary). This portion of the movement is driven by
people who have truly Biblical concerns with the direction of the
Fundamentalist movement and are trying to return to a functional reality of sola
Scriptura in the local church. Many in this branch are rediscovering the
precious truths of the Reformation and are finding great theological help from
the Reformed Resurgence, even while rejecting certain aspects of practice. It
is with this third group that I have my main concern and my brightest hopes for
truly reforming Fundamentalism.
Along with the hopeful signs from
Fundamentalism, there are many dangers and pitfalls for those who would try to
reform. The most obvious pitfall to me is the danger of it slowly degenerating
into reactionary theology. Closely tied into that danger is that of
intellectual snobbery. Fundamentalism has long been accused (and rightly so) of
anti-intellectualism so as to create a stigma on the vast majority of
Fundamentalist preachers and teacher. This makes it very easy to simply write
off any Fundamentalists as intellectually crippled and disregard anything that
they may have to say. If I may be allowed another observation, many of the most
loving and godly men and women that I have known have been conservative
Fundamentalists Christians. Although I believe some of them may be wrong in
certain areas of Biblical teaching, God does not promise to sanctify us based
solely on our theological knowledge. That is the strange and wonderful thing
about grace. Especially among young Fundamentalists who claim to hold to the
doctrines of grace, my prayer is that those same doctrines would humble us and
make us more loving.
I suppose, however, that one of my
greatest concerns, and the main cause for this article, is that many young
Fundamentalists see no cause for reformation at all. The growing consensus
among many Reformed Fundamentalists is to join other denominations, especially
Southern Baptists and Presbyterians. There are many reasons for people who do
so, including a growing disbelief that successful reformation is possible.
Despite the difficulties I see with reforming the movement, I believe that it
is the hard work that we must do in order to be faithful to God. I also think
in doing so we prevent ourselves from falling into the same snare that
traditional Fundamentalists fall into. As I said earlier, one of the ironies of
tradition-driven Fundamentalists is that they are often more loving to
unbelievers than they are to those whom they view as “liberal” Christians, or
more broadstream evangelicals. On the same hand, many coming out of the
Fundamentalist ranks are more loving and friendly to non-Christians than they
are to traditional Fundamentalists. I think there are several factors in this
relationship that we must balance. On one side of the coin, the popular thing
in Christianity today is to minister to the younger brother. We go and search
for the wretched, sin-torn heathen that has been long enslaved to his sin and
provides us with a remarkable example of God’s grace. Far less remarkable to us
is ministering to the older brother, who has lived his life in self-righteous
trust and needs to be rescued from his own righteousness and brought to faith
in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. So one the one hand, many do not consider
reaching out to the older brother as an attractive part of ministry. We want
the dramatic conversion stories, not the boring churchy ones.
On the other side of the spectrum,
there is a certain kind of separation we must have from radical
traditionalists. Kevin Bauder, one of the leading voices of Reforming
Fundamentalism, has said in his chapter in Four Views of Evangelicalism
is that while many recognize the need to separate from those too far to the
left, many do not recognize the need to separate from those too far to the
right. If there is a conservative who holds views that may be detrimental to
the cause of Christ, such as extreme King James Onlyism or manipulative
easy-believism, it is our responsibility in being faithful to Christ to limit
our fellowship with them. Just as many people will be kept from entering
through the narrow gate to radicals on the right as radicals on the left, to
which the Pharisees provide testimony.
So what is left? Where are we
supposed to go from here to reach out to the world and our Fundamentalist
brothers? My proposition is that thoughtful, loving engagement is what is needed
in trying to reform Fundamentalism. The answer is not trying to “sneak into the
ranks” or pretend that we are just alike except for one little area. In most
cases, although it is most easily seen in one area of theology or another, the
difference is more in worldview and theological orientation. What is needed is
a radical rediscovery of the Gospel! In many cases, the situation is
complicated by those who hold radical views of secondary separation and thus
are unfavorable towards engaging or being engaged. The Protestant Reformation
created a huge rift within the Catholic Church with the lynchpin teaching of
justification by faith alone. In other words, the Gospel was the centerpiece of
the message. So also in our efforts to reach out and seek reformation within
the Fundamentalist movement, our central message must be the Gospel. We cannot
preach and teach peripheral things and hope for any sort of transformation. If
we hope to find change in the peripheral issues, we must start with the heart
of the matter and hammer home the Gospel.
OF all the things that we can do and
of all the solutions we can offer, however, I would say the biggest way that we
can effectively change and reform is by being faithful to our Lord Jesus
Christ. Many of the caricatures of evangelicals, especially Reformed
evangelicals, construe them to be conceited, intellectually-driven men
motivated more to promote their Reformed theology than to reach out to a lost
and dying world. One of the greatest ways that we can speak to Fundamentalists
is to simply be faithful to Christ, to grow in holiness, and grow in love for
the world and other believers.
No comments:
Post a Comment