Simple question with perhaps many complicated answers:
Is there any compelling reason for a church to continue using the term "Fundamentalist" as one of their primary descriptors?
My general opinion is no. Here's why:
Fundamentalism was born out of a response to modernism and liberalism within several Christian groups, and referred to those churches that believe the "Fundamentals" of the faith.
Unfortunately, the term now is usually not used in that manner, but instead in most people's minds refers to those churches that generally, for good or bad, take the issue of SEPARATION farther than most other Gospel-believing churches.
As such, when you combine (a) the last 50 years of SOME (not all) "Fundamentalist" leaders, churches, and groups advocating some obviously extra-biblical restrictions on Christians, and (b) the recent association of the term "Fundamentalist" with Islamist extremists...It seems that even if a church held to fundamentalism in the original sense of the word, that using the term today simply carries such a different meaning, that the explanation needed makes it a net negative, and unnecessary.
Finally, there is a much wider number of churches, which might be called "evangelical," or "Bible-believing", or "Gospel-Believing" churches that DO believe the original "Fundamentals of the faith." So I don't see the reason for using this particular term to differentiate from those churches, since the meaning most people have in mind is so far from the original.
Those are my thoughts. This is not mean to disparage fundamentalists...but question whether the term has any real need to continue in use. I think John Piper's commendations of fundamentalism are very good: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists
Drop the Title "Fundamentalist"?
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by 12strings, Jun 23, 2013.
Page 1 of 2
-
If we do away with Fundamentalist, what other code word do we use for the KJVO/KJVP mindset? One person's extra-biblical doctrine is another person's gospel.
-
If Church A dropped the designation of Fundamental, than other Fundamental churches would say Church A went liberal
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Along with using the term "fundamental" I wonder if these churches realize their outreach techniques are dated as well? I'm referring to cold-calling via door knocking, bus ministries, and the like. In the past couple of decades door knocking has become identified with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. People generally avoid answering their door when there are two men wearing ties on their doorstep. And who wants to send your kid away with strangers on a school bus for the three hours? -
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Great points, however Fundamentalist these days have allot of problems. John MacArthur has said some interesting things about them in his book(s) Reckless Faith, and The Jesus You Cant Ignore.
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
Except there are plenty of Fundamental Churches which are neither KJVO or KJVP.
-
We Need A NEW Movement/Title Altogether
I don't really fit anywhere well these days. I have the heart of an Independent, I attend a conservative SBC church, and frankly, I'm not too big these days on ANY denominational loyalties. I also agree that the term "Fundamentalist" or "Fundamental" has probably outlived its usefulness. I will say that I am a Baptist because I think that New Testament People are to be Baptistic in their doctrine and practice in order to be BIBLICAL. While I do respect people and churches that are "Protestants" IF they follow Biblical practices, I do believe that they were all originally Protestant because they found themselves in disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church and rebeled against it. Respectfully, many paid the price for that with their lives. Pure Bible believeing baptistic people were NEVER a part of that and never had to "come out" of that mess, but during those days it didn't matter...if you bucked the Papists and got caught, you paid dearly. Most of those protestant denominations are making inrounds back into the fold of the RCC today as the One World Church begins to come together. I also firmly believe that as time goes by we will see some of those who embrace calvinism go the same route just based upon the associations of some with the mainline denominations. That is my opinion based on some of the things I have read by David Cloud and others (who I know must be hated by some here).
All that said...I'd be happy to see the rise of a new "moniker" such as:
"DEPENDENT BAPTISTS" (DB's) - (because we should be HUMBLE and dependent on the Lord for everything)...imagine THAT!
or
"FULLY DEPENDENT BAPTISTS" (FDB's) - (We need a title that MAKES US remember Who is in charge)... I hope I don't really have to say who that is to be......!
Just something to think about in my humble opinion.
Bro.Greg:saint: -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
If not "Fundamentalist" would the term "Separatist" fit?
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
As the Spirit leads....!
Bro.Greg:saint: -
Maybe...but...!
Bro.Greg:saint: -
I would be against any church avoiding the name they practice. The same problem exists our local area with the name "Baptist." Some churches have changed the name to a "Worship Center." Others make big, bold lettering on the name, the word Baptist is in very small letters.
I do not see Catholics, Presbyterians, JWs, Mormons, or anyone else running from their name. By golly, if you are going to belong to a church, stand up for its beliefs and wear it like a badge of honor. Otherwise, find a church that meets your spineless courage. -
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I don't disagree that Christ-Followers should follow the command to "be Holy as I am Holy" I guess we would have to agree upon what encompasses holiness. If all holiness boils down to what I do and what I don't do (ie behaviors), I would reject that as a definition. I would also contend that while not all those who define themselves as "fundamental" are angry per se, my perception of the movement is that it is driven by an anger or bitterness.
You used the term "isolationist"... I think that would fit as well... maybe not all but some. -
Last week our tiny fundamentalist church brought in almost sixty children during VBS. Three of those children were the children of two of the group leaders helping, one was dropped off by her mother, one was the pastor's grandson, and two were the grandchildren of another lady helping out. The rest all came via bus ministry. Our church is located in a very poor, semi-rural area and most of the children who attend on Sunday mornings and during VBS come from the trailer parks surrounding the church. If it were not for our church bus ministry, these kids and teens wouldn't be in church at all. If it weren't for door knocking, nobody would know who to contact to sign a consent form for the child to ride the church bus.
Furthermore, plenty of parents nearby are more than happy to let a local church "get their kids out of their hair" for a couple of hours once a week. Our bus children are fed breakfast, attend Sunday school, and then go into children's church after our congregational hymns and announcements.
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 1 of 2