Fundamentalism's Failings

Fundamentalist involvement

The early Fundamentalists were very involved with the culture. Have you ever read of the early Fundamentalist crusades against vice, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, etc.? Furthermore, whom do you think founded the orphan homes, rescue missions, alcoholic rehab homes, homes for unwed mothers, etc.? Most certainly not the Liberals and Modernists. Even recent surveys have indicated that conservative evangelical, yes even Fundamendalists, contribute more to charitable causes than the liberal or main-line churches. Fundamentalists are still interactive and involved with the culture but there is a difference. They are willing to confront the culture, expose the problems with the underlying sin and work for remediation or change. Most of those on the side of cultural relativism are more likely to accommodate the culture and call it tolerance. Christ confronted and challenged his culture.

 

Growing up as a Baptist Fundamentalist, critical thinking was always bread and butter at my table. I think you will notice that my posts are a few degrees off-center here on BaptistBoard. I have never known your swallow and regurgitate scenario but I do know a few places where it is expected. However, I think you are promoting a stereotype of Fundamentalism that is not wholly accurate.

 

Teaching truth is indoctrination......................

The stereotype of Fundamentalism is that it is pure indoctrination--swallow and regurgitate. This is not true, although it may be descriptive of some ministries or parts, but Fundamentalism is too broad and diverse to be characterized by a single picture.

Then, there is the time element. Which era of Fundamentalism are you describing? Riley, Rice, and Jones not only represent different consituencies but they represent overlapping but distinctly different states in the development of Fundamentalism. Furthermore, there were vastly different cultural and sociological forces confronting and shaping Fundamentalism at different times and different places.

To be fair and even-handed, we must judge Fundamentalism in the context of its own cultural environment and time. No, I would not say overall that Fundamentalism is at the indoctrination end because you have great diversity of doctrine. The only indoctrination common to all of Fundamentalism is the reaffirmation of the essential or cardinal doctrines of Christianity as pretty well defined in The Fundamentals. The only exception would possibly be the premillennial eschatology.

If this is indoctrination, then Christianity by its very nature must require indoctrination to remain Christianity. There must be minimal requirements of belief to maintain Christianity as a distinct and separate faith. Otherwise, we are in the quagmire of postmodernism--all faiths are culturally based and none is superior to the others. What do you think?

 

Not offended

Rhett, you are always very kind and gracious, even in your critiques. I am not offended at all. However, my point is that some segments of a movement are more noticeable than others. For example, the loud, brash elements are always noticed and become the style associated with the movement whereas the less noticed, quieter parts are soon forgotten although they may actually represent the majority and are more representative. My heart is with the common, humble folks--the rank and file.

 

Well said, Paid. Along this line, it appears not to be widely known that the "city rescue mission" movement is largely Fundamentalist. A rescue mission is a place in the inner city where a church operates or churches cooperate to support a ministry to the homeless. They have food, lodging and other ways to help the homeless, in particular alcoholics or drug addicts. They also have preaching and soul-winning efforts. Rescue missions in many different cities operate quietly and without fanfare, working to put faith and charity into action. I've been in a number of these over the years, starting as a child in the mid-1950's when Dad took me with him when he preached at the famous Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago.

Another illustration of this is the bus ministries of many fundamentalist churches, especially in the 1960's-1990's. Many fundamental churches did much to help the poor through these ministries. Before coming to Japan I visited hundreds of homes for our local church bus ministry, oftentimes poor and needy folk.

Liberals talk a great game about helping the poor, but they like to do so at a distance through the government or social action. Bible believers are the ones who actually help the poor in a hands-on way.

 

Well said, I have seen the same thing. In our small city we have more poor and former social out cast in the IFB churches than in any of the liberal, or that was true as of July of last year if the pastors are correct.

The liberal pastors in our city are into having the government do what ever and they vote for the government to do it, rather than get out and do it themself, for the most part.

 

I had finished my undergrad degree and had not yet begun to work on my grad degrees. I was preaching a revival at my dad's country church. After the sermon one day one of the deacons of the church had a word of testimony. He said something to the affect of, "This young man has been to the Bible college and has his degree, but his education didn't go to his head, it went to his heart." I thanked God. There is nothing wrong with education. Just make sure it gets to you heart as well as your head.

 

This thread is about fundamentalists failings. So, I am curious, you complain about the 'liberals' and their failings. This made me curious, what are the fundamentalists doing to help the poor and social outcasts?

 

Evangelism that is a-theological is no evangelism at all. Theology shapes the Christ we share, how we share Him, how we believe people come to Him, why they need Him, etc. Watering down the gospel does no good for the sinner nor the church.

 

Let's stay on topic...I need to heed that myself

 

Fundamentalists are socially active, not just talking!

We have jail and prison ministries, help the poor in the community with food, medicine, heating and clothing, provide aid to widows and the elderly, provide assistance to Third World Christians, etc. Also, we have special needs ministry to the deaf and blind. Furthermore, we work with the children from poor, unchurched families, many of them minorities or immigrants.

Personally, my wife and I spent almost a decade in children's home work and rescue mission ministry. Also, we have been active in guardian ad litem programs and proactive in many social issues. My family, as well as my Fundamentalist friends, privately and anonymously help many individuals and families with food, money, clothing, etc. without prompting whenever there is a known need. However, we have stayed away from the politically correct causes because these are much ado about nothing.

What more do you expect? BTW, this is typical of my brand of Fundamentalism; I don't know about the circles that you may move within. As I have previously stated, Fundamentalism is remarkably diverse. What do you say?

If this is off topic (failings?), so be it. I contend that it is highly biased and prejudicial to speak only of failings without considering the successes as well.

 

Please pay attention. I just mentioned the city rescue mission movement, which is largely fundamentalist.