Where are the young Fundamentalists?

I believe before this thread is over the original question will answer itself. You have already experienced in a page and a half why young fundies are leaving never to return. I would fit in that category myself. Modern fundamentalism has defined itself in a way that excludes many of us.

Oh well. Guess whose not losing any sleep over it???

 

Concerning the redefinition Scott addresses, the link below documents how versions and other matters of preference have been injected into the definition of fundamentalism in very recent decades. They are not part of the historic distinctives of fundamentalism.

Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism

This redefinition is strikingly similar to how homosexuals are attempting to redefine marriage. I do not mean to suggest that KJVO's are the precise moral equivalent of perverts, but the tactic is not altogether different.

Greg is right to suggest that we need to keep this from degenerating into a version debate, but we do need to define precisely what is this fundamentalism that needs to be continued. I'm not interested in a bunch of rhetoric about the KJV, but I would be very interested in someone showing where in the writings of the early 20th century fundamentalists a KJVO mindset appears.

 

SBCbyGrace,

Your point is well taken that it answers the question of why people are leaving the movement, but not why they are abandoning the principles.

The problem is not that we need to find another group to associate with, because whatever group you choose is going to have its own problems. The SBC has problems that strike at the core of doctrine every bit as much as fundamentalism does, but the difference is that for the time being the more biblical wing of the denomination is defining the group (unlike fundamentalism). If the political power shifts, former fundamentalists who left for the SBC are right back at square one.

Bottom line: the principles must take priority over the associations.

 

But, we are not abandoning the priciples. We are just accused of that.

 

Boy what a mess,Its a sad day when the few posting on this page can't even agree what a fundamentalist is.In 1971 when i got saved the church i attended taught that fundamentalism was simply believing the bible from cover to cover,EVERY Jot and EVERY tittle,which are hard to be found in some of todays modern versions,and then living the life it demanded !!!!!Standards were a must in order to serve in the church,and we had real growth.
I think the most common words spoken at pastors conferences these days are "how many you runnin ".A little church standing on truth and real morals are frowned upon and a large group looking and acting like the world are cheered and applauded as what Christ expects.Spirituality usually comes in small packages these days it seems to me.
I gave up debating a while back,and just comment once in awhile,forgive my narrowmindedness.

 

er1001,

Good post, especially paragraph two.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to. What price did the Van Gelderen's pay?

Andy

 

Good question Andy. Have been familiar with the family for years. Had Dr Van Sr to dinner in our home years ago, admire the works of the sons, one is a supporting pastor, etc.

But price?

 

How many of us youngsters would pay the price of the late Wayne Van Gelderen's boys?
I would like to hear what the price is also.

 

Here is one example why many young people are leaving the fundamentalist camp. As another poster said, majoring on the minors.

 

I am right here. I am a young one! What am I Nobody?

 

I think that one reason young folk might be leaving fundamental works,if thats really the case, is because of the churches accross the street shouting you can come as you are,and are being sold a bill of goods that God doesn't care about such things.

 

Don't many of the fundamentalists demand their view of separation or it isn't legitimate?

Didn't the SBC leadership stand up for and contend for the faith?

Their sin is that they are not as separated as others.

I actually do disagree with their separation stance, but don't they fit the historic definition?

On a related note, as the SBC has become more and more conservative, they are seeing the need to separate. For example, they are finally leaving the worthless BWA.

 

I also think that the Hyles types have done as much to destroy the foundation of fundamentalism as anything else. Yes, he must be named and blamed.

Hyles was the radically opposite form of Rick Warren. Both are very much into methodology. Hyles and his clan, errrggggg, kool-aid drinkers, errrrrgggggggg, lost puppie followers just patted and still pat themselves on the back because they just tell it like it is (which is code for - I am too lazy to actually know what I am talking about so I will just shout louder than others).

With a shift back towards theology like Siegfried has mentioned, the rift will only go deeper (at least hopefully).

 

The SBC said a lot and did little.

I pastored a church that was in the habit of allowing the Mormon bishop to preach for at least 20 years. The SBC said and did nothing about it. They even told me that they could not help me. So I fought it with the help of some other local pastors including pentecostal. It was a tough price to pay for myself and my family. The leaders of the church I pastored didn't like me very well.