The trouble with Fundamentalism is...

It is possible to believe the fundamentals about Christ and yet not know Him personally. And then there are those who have their own brand of 'Fundamentals' (touch not, taste not, wear not, go not, etc.)

 

Problem from the OP (opening post):
//There are no clearcut highly visable fundamentalist
evangelists in public view today.//

Problem from THE FUNDAMENTALIST PHENOMENON:
//6. Overdependence on dynamic leadership.//

Perchance God has performed a miracle in this regard
and the 'problem' of 20 years ago has been reduced???

 

Good point... too many people were watching men instead of Christ...

But we will always have this..

 

In this blog:
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

it says:

Isn't it strange how some folks see the rest of us?

Not to mention Wade Burleson sees the relationship of the IFB and SBC
a lot like I do:

Of course, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

 

If the first one is accepted as true, why is there a need to list the next 4?

 

The practice of making lists of the fundamentals goes back to the millenarian movement of the second half of the 1800's. Ernest Sandeen (The Roots of Fundamentalism) pegs the beginning of fundamentalism to then rather than the publication of "The Fundamentals" in 1910.

There is no "official list" of the fundamentals of the movement, since it is not a denomination with elected or appointed leaders. Pretty much everyone has their own list. Ed's list is very close to the one first adopted in 1910 by the Presbyterian General Assembly:

(1) the inerrancy of Scripture, (2) the Virgin Birth of Christ, (3) his substitutionary atonement, (4) his bodily resurrection, and (5) the authenticity of the miracles.

The reason the specific items were added after the first one is to directly combat the liberals among the Presbyterians who attacked the Bible on these very points. :type:

 

Brother Ed, this sounds like historical revisionism to me! I've read that Machen did not like the term fundamentalism and did not want to be called one. However, he was aligned with the conservative forces among the Presbyterians who took a stand against liberalism.

He left Princeton because of modernism and founded Westminster Theological Seminary. He then established an independent Presbyterian mission board, and was drummed out of the denomoination for his troubles in 1936! He and 16 others then founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Who Was Who in Church History, revised ed., by Elgin S. Moyer, pp. 263-264).

 

Originally Posted by Ed Edwards
//The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism:

//1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

//Christ is mentioned in each statement save the
first one. The 'scripture' is full of God & Christ.//

Alcott: //If the first one is accepted as true,
why is there a need to list the next 4?//

Because somebody else will think that the 4 MAIN fundamentals
are diffferent from what fundamental Baptists have picked.

Carismatics will put emphasis on speaking in tongues
as a proof of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

7th day groups will put empahsis on Sabboth keeping

Personally I find a lot of Personal Salvation in the
New Testament part of scripture. Fortunately that is what
the 4 rules are about. In fact, I've even presented the
FOUR STEPS TO SALVATION using these 4 FUNDAMENTALS.
(Insead of the ROMAN ROAD, or FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS,
or THE ABCs of SALVATION, or etc.)

 

In other words, because some may believe scripture is inerrant but still understand some tenets or commands differently. In that case, perhaps it's those other 4 instead of the first that really mark fundamentalism, or one facet thereof. ["Understand" is my preferred word over "interpret," as seems to be more commonly used.]

 

Let's put it this way. All evangelicals should believe in an inspired (preferably verbal-plenary) and inerrant Scripture. Fundamentalists don't just believe this, they believe in fighting to defend it!

In the early days of the Fundamentalist movement, many evangelicals did not believe in fighting the liberals/modernists for the control of their denominations. An example of this is missionary Jonathan Goforth, a Presbyterian in China. When liberals first showed up as missionaries in China, he cooperated with them in the field presbytery. However, he was deeply distressed by the liberals in his denomination and the battles going on (Machen, B. B. Warfield, Carl McIntyre, Francis Schaeffer and co. ag. the liberals).

Eventually a battle arose on the mission field over this very issue. It is at that point he became a Fundamentalist and was then accused of intolerance. "'Intolerant,' he exclaimed, 'if you saw one under mining the foundation of a structure you, and others with you, had given the best of their lives to build, would it be intolerant to use every ounce of strength in combating the wrecker?' Mr. Goforth utterly refused to give his vote that both sides, fundamentalists and modernists, be allowed to preach and teach as they felt led" (Goforth of China, by Rosalind Goforth, p. 233). In 1917 after losing the vote he resigned from the mission board (but not the field).

 

Please pardon me for butting into the fundamentalist forum.

I believe that this is part of the problem with Modern Fundamentalists.
They often fail to distinguish between the role of inspiration and interpretation, fighting for things that are best left alone.

Rob

 

I agree with you that some modern fundamentalists are that way. But once again fundamentalists have been painted with a broad brush. There are something like 10,000 independent Baptist churches in the US alone, in fellowships such as the FBF, SBF, BBF, GARB, WBF, MBF, etc. This is not to mention non-Baptist fundamentalists. Which kind of fundamentalist are you talking about? :type:

 

Exactly. For example, both the FBF and GARB churches are in my experience much less likely to be KJVO than IFB churches from the southern roots.

In fact, there is quite a bit of difference between the GARB and the FBF! For just one example, the main GARB boards (BMM and ABWE) have field councils, but BWM, which I am with, does not have them and in fact opposes them.

In the southern tradition, the BBF came out of the WBF and travelled somewhat different paths. Again, the BBF is quite different in some ways from the SBF, of which a group has recently been cooperating with the SBC. I could go on and on. So folks, please don't generalize about this thread.

 

Why is it that when we hear fundamentalism, we automatically think of IFBs? Why not COG, or Pentecostalism? Fundamentalism started with the presbrytarians...(sp?)

Is it because the IFBs have been the loudest?

I consider myself fundamental.. I hold to all the fundamentals, and will fight for them... And I am ABC/USA.

I think one problem with fundamentalism is being addressed here right now... The IFBs (whatever fellowship) do not own the fundamentals..

One problem is the image that people have... It has become distorted from where it was even 30 yrs ago.

So that today when someone hears the word "fundamentalist" they either think of:

1) IFBs.

or

2) Islam

I mean, take me for instance.. who here associates ABC/USA churches with fundamentalism... but when you get to know some ABC churches, you will realize there are many of us who stand on the fundamentals... Actually, I know that all in the WVBC do!

Fundamentalism needs some work done on the public relations side of things.. to get it's good image back.

 

Tinytim: // One problem is the image that people
have... It has become distorted from where it was even 30 yrs ago.//

During which 30 years many of us were working on getting
many SBC churches to get back to the the Fundamentals.
(obviously not moderate organizations like
the Mainstream Baptists, Texas Baptists, Virginia Baptists,
etc.)

Yet despite that 30 year adventure, people here at BB will
tell me I'm not Fundamentalist??? I didn't move my
beliefs in the last 30 years.

 

Right... Somehow, the view of what it means to be a fundamentalist has been changed over the last 30 yrs.

JoJ said that in order to be a Fundamentalist, you must be willing to fight for the fundamentals of the faith... and he was right...

The problem is some started fighting over their interpretation of the fundamentals instead of fighting for the fundamentals...

Take seperation...
Some list this in the 5 fundamentals...
but now we have those that believe "secondary seperation" is worth fighting over... therefore they have made this a fundamental in their mind. When in reality, it is just their interpretation of the doctrine of seperation.

I myself don't believe seperation ranks high enough to be one of my top 5 fundamentals...

My 5 are...

1) The Bible is inspired
2) Jesus was born to a virgin
3) Jesus lived a sinless life
4) He died an atoning death and rose again
5) He is coming back again...

Another problem with the fundamentals is the different definitions of what they are...

edited to add: I thought there was a list of the classic fundamentals as a sticky at the top of this forum... Or am I imaging something? If not, can a mod make one and sticky it?.... That way when we talk about the fundamentals, we are all on the same page...

 

Good posts, tinytim.

An IFB leader I know once said that Baptist polity lends itself more to fundamentalism. I think that is true since that Baptists don't usually have the denominational structure that, say, the Presbyterians do. That's not to say Baptists don't have politics! :laugh:

I've been fascinated to get to know you through the BB and learn that the ABC has folk especially in your area willing to stand for the truth, a resurgence if you will of a form of fundamentalism. :thumbs:

 

I'm going to go outside the box, as the saying is these days, and give an answer about fundamentalism generally. Most people just hate the idea of unchangeable "fundamentals," while fundamentals form the basis of so many things, far more than in theology. Obviously some people somewhere do strongly support fundamentals, but this will inherantly be in only one area. Thus, Christian fundamentalists are non-fundamentalists about the U.S. Consitution, environmentalism, and the 'peace movement,' even though each of these does have a strong relation with certain scriptural principles (but are secondary, of course, to the fundamentals of the gospel). The ACLU and like organizations seek to be fundamentalists on the Bill of Rights, and thus are very anti-fundamentalists about their own religious beliefs (many do have religious beliefs), the fundamental principle of warfare ["kill or be killed"], and the fundamental of capitalism [anything goes as long as it's profitable]. Environmentalists just replace 'fund' with 'environ' and place a total priority on green trees, wildlife, clean air and water, to the extent that business profit, conveniences, and religious goals (unless they incorporate environmentalism) must all take a back seat. Fundamentalists of any kind also tend to believe "the end justifies the means" if it the 'end' is one of their fundamentals. Thus, Christian fundamentalists think fudging on the US Constitution's "no law respecting [their] establishment" can be stretched; the ACLU thinks 'equal opportunity' does not preclude "affirmative action"; and environmentalists drive their gas-guzzling SUV's all over the country to push their agenda.

There are, of course, "fundamentalists" in less important endeavors, such as sports. Vince Lombardi had a reputation for preaching "fundamental football," which means he drilled his team to run the same plays hundreds of times in practice rather than drawing up new strategies to deceive, and he did quite well against the more 'razzle-dazzle' coaches like Tom Landry and Sid Gillman. Woody Hayes taught "3 yards and a cloud of dust" and disdained the forward pass and won big that philosophy. Yet he was degraded as "colorless" and too unchanging... because people don't naturally like fundamentalism, even if it's shown to work. People like "flashy," "colorful," "imaginative," et al; new ideas, new approaches. Science fiction fans dislike the fundamentals of science-- thus, science fiction, where the impossibility of faster-than-light travel is ignored.

But I think it's also possible to be the paradoxical fundamentally moderate. If being 'in the mainstream' is the most important element for you, you could be so characterized. All in all, people tend to be fundamental about what's most important to them; therefore anti-funadmental about everything else. So the fundmentally moderate hates anything "extreme"-- terming those who support any such views as "fundamentalists," in this case a term of derision.