Where are the young Fundamentalists?

gb, although I do not know what you are talking about, you do know that the SBC convention does not control churches right?

Please, PM me if you must, but don't continue this line of discussion beyond here.

My point was simply that the SBC fits the historic definition.

 

Hey I didn't know I talked to you Dr Bob.

Your list describes what IFB churches are like around here to a T.
I grew up a historical IFB. I'm 34 yrs old. Your list describes what i have been calling NeoIFB. Don't know if that is a right term, or even if it has already been taken.
It has gotten to the point that, although, i stand for the historical fundamentals, (and will fight for them), I'm ashamed to call my self fundamental because of all the extra-biblical baggage that NeoIFBs carry. That's one reason i'm ABC.

This is definately not your daddy's fundamentalism.

 

Right there is the problems with NeoIFBs.
the Extra-biblical Baggage.
How can you claim to only get your doctrines from the Bible when you can't prove them using the Bible.
The Young people of today are educated enough to see through statements like that.

Another thing that the new fundies are shouting is that they must be the only spiritual ones left because their church hasn't grown for a decade and has now became a "remnant"
The shout against the success of different churches and play the "poor little ol' me" card.

A church that does not baptize on a regular basis is a dead church. They are not scriptual, nor are they folloeing Christ's commands.

Only a growing church is in God's will.
Quit using the "remnant" excuse for a cop-out.
If you are not growing, you are not doing God's work. Period.

Some should be looking for their candlesticks!

[ March 13, 2004, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: tinytim ]

 

I grew up in the BBF and left for many of the reasons already listed. Basically I just got sick and tired of being told what to believe, nevermind we can't prove it biblically, just believe it and having every meeting start with a "Well, back in 50-whatever at the hotel in Fort Worth...." The fighting over stupid stuff like bible versions and women wearing pants grew oh so tiresome. Poltical power moves that cost missionaries valuable time and money trying to rebuild financial support and finally not being premill, dispensational closed the door on any chance of being allowed back into the fold. Not that I would want to be in that fold anyhow

 

Squire,

Let me preface my remarks with the fact that I greatly admire the VanGelderan family and the dedication of service for the Lord. They are an example of an unwavering dedication to service and holiness.

However, your mention of "paying the price" got me thinking. It does not really seem like there is much of a price to pay when you are part of a "name" family in fundamentalism. In a way, those really have it a great advantage.

There are young men who do really pay the price and have to watch their friends and classmates "make it." These are the "no-names" of modern fundamentalism. These are the children of men who never really make a name. They may struggle along faithfully in a small work or missionary effort that never really see much happen in the world's eyes. They see their parents attacked, betrayed, and lied about for staying faithful to the work where God has put them. Then, in spite of all that, they follow God's direction and seek to serve the Lord anyway. THAT is a tough decision. Intelligent, spiritual young men who could be a "success" in so many ways go back to difficult mission fields where they are constantly battling discouragement and financial woes. These, IMHO, are the young fundamentalist who are "paying the price." It is a high price, and not many are willing to pay it. These are the young fundamentalists whom I admire.

 

Well said C4K,however those open to much exposure and take the lead in any battle seem to come under greater attack and have a long way to fall.Anyone who is known nation wide when topled has few places to turn.Starting over can be tough .

 

I could give a LONG list of "no-names" who are doing what you ask, continuing on with second and third generation faithfulness.

There are "young fundamentalist" out there. They may not have the names, but perhaps our movement has been too "name focused" of late?

Perhaps this is part of the problem? Our movement was built in store fronts and rented school rooms. Maybe we handled our move to the forefront of society poorly? I know young men who say things like "I could never be like John VanGelderen" (only using that name because it is part of the conversation) and therefore feel inadequate.

The public spiritual collapse of some of our names have hurt the cause, but no more or less than the falls of many of the "no-names."

Sadly, I think, our movement has become so name focused that we are like the Corinthians in that regard. "I follow VanGelderen", "I follow Bell", I follow Bob Jones", etc.

This is put-offish to many young men. Their attitude often becomes "Why should I get involved in that mess?"

Obviously brethren, I am speaking as one of those no-names and that will slant my view so forgive me if you feel it is "over-slanting" them.

[ March 14, 2004, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]

 

Sorry, one more thought. This thread has really got me thinking, which is a dangerous thing .

If the meaning of this thread is “Where are the well, known, famous young fundamentalist?” I can see the point of the thread.

However, Shiloh, made a point earlier. While I disagree with his evidence of young fundamentalism, I agree with his contention. Kayla said the same basic thing. The young fundamentalists are out there. They are in our Christian schools and Bible colleges. They are on deputation. They are working part or full-time to support themselves while in a difficult church planting work. They are pastoring churches faithfully. They are serving on fields all around the world. They may be out of the world’s eye and mind, but they are not out of God’s eyes. They must be discouraged when people ask the question, “Where are the young fundamentalists?” They must feel like all the “whos” down in “Whoville” shouting “WE ARE HERE! WE ARE HERE!!! WE ARE HERE!!!” (Dr Suess reference) I praise them for their faithfulness!

This is NOT to say that the names don’t have a job to do. I respect them and their work and example. But perhaps we need to be reminded today of 1 Corinthians 1v26-31?

 

C4K,

What you have said really makes sense. I also know of many young no-names serving the Lord daily.

Jason (27 years old, called to the ministry)

 

Amen Jason!! Kep your eyes on the goal!

 

Sometimes, the simplest part of working out my own salvation can take a mind-numbing amount of time, pain and stumbling. With glimpses of Joy mixed in.

Round and round I go until I learn the simplest of lessons. Then to my amazement after I get a little lesson, it's on to the next lesson from above. Joy remains, but so do the endless lessons.

I'm 43 years old. I've been a believer for 24 years. I seem to know less today than I knew when I was 19.

Therefore, I try to be patient with everyone as they also work out their own salvation.

He is the Potter, I am the Clay.

Dave.

 

"Where are the young Fundamentalists?"

Our church is full of them...

 

Squire,

I must respectfully disagree with you about the Vangelderen clan. I have heard about 20 messages preached by one of the three sons, and I can recall (after reviewing the notes that I have) just two that did not wind up dealing with hair, dress, music, or other external issues.

I noted that one used the passage in which Samuel says, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" to defend the idea that we need to be very concerned about our outer appearance. I suppose if we would rather have our church members be more like David's older brothers than like David, then that's a pretty good conclusion.

I do not question their motives, but the externals-based preaching so common to fundamentalism is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the Vangelderen family. This is not to say that standards need to be abandoned, but rather that we are completely missing the boat on dealing with the internal, heart-based issues as primary concerns. Only by changing hearts can we hope to see lasting change.

 

I don't think this type of preaching is common at all any more, at least not in the fundamental churches/circles that I'm familiar with. Also, except for Wayne, the other two brothers are not pastoring churches and their messages, like most evangelists, will tend to be more limited in breadth.

The view from here is that preaching on standards has been abandoned. We need, as James says, both to cleanse our hands (externals) and purify our hearts (internals). I think we need to be honest with Scripture when we preach on these things, but let's not abandon them just because fundamentalism may have overemphasized them in the past.

Andy

 

Good thoughts Andy

 

Greg, your sentiments here are exactly the burden of the Frontline article and that of my pastor. He has said the same thing to me time after time. I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but there is a group of young fundamental ministers who are trying to address this problem. They are organizing a conference on Biblical Belief and Balance. There is a blurb about it in the latest issue of Backbone, a newsletter put out by the BJU Seminary.

http://www.bju.edu/resources/backbone/events

Andy