Glory & Grace

Five years ago Phil Johnson, of Grace to You, and I had an exchange over a presentation that he did which was entitled, “Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalim.” I’ve copied a portion of my initial response to Phil below (the full interaction can be found here.). It seems pertinent for two reasons: (1) it is fair to say that five years ago I was still trying to say something like, “Those other guys that you’re (Phil) critiquing are not really fundamentalists, but a distortion of genuine fundamentalism” whereas I’ve given up on that argument, not because it’s invalid, but it’s a waste of time; and (2) this section is basically what I’ve been saying on this blog (and other places) repeatedly in the past year or so. What’s interesting about that second point is that some of the folks who are alarmed by what I’ve written on this blog were quite positive about this response to Phil. Anyway, here’s a blast from the past.

Are We at a Realignment Stage?

            The history of Fundamentalism can be viewed as a series of challenges that provoke a response from committed believers. The first challenge was modernism. This happened within the denominations and was eventually met by resistance from those who held to the fundamentals of the faith. The first step of resistance was an effort to remove the modernists. When it became clear that this effort had failed, the next step was to leave the denominations.

            The second challenge was the rise of New evangelicalism. In reality, New evangelicalism was a reaction to Fundamentalism (not vice versa). Some orthodox believers came to the conclusion that separation was a mistake. They wanted to return to a position of fellowship with liberals in order to win back the denominations and influence the culture. They embraced forms of ecumenism that had been previously repudiated. Fuller Seminary, Christianity Today, and Billy Graham formed something of a New Evangelical triumvirate—a school, a publication, and a voice—that set the pace and tone for the movement. Profs at Fuller, like Carnell, turned their guns on the Fundamentalists. Graham deliberately drove away the Fundamentalists by including known apostates in his New York Crusade. Christianity Today tried to shape the hearts and minds of its readers according to the new ideology. The Fundamentalist response to this new movement held pretty solidly until the 1960s and then gradually began to unravel as the new movement grew in popularity and influence. By the early 1970s the unraveling reached something of a crisis over the question of how to respond to those who reject the New Evangelical agenda, but don’t break from the New Evangelicals. The movement fragmented and has never really recovered. On this point I agree with Johnson, although I believe he draws the wrong conclusion that one segment actually represents the whole.

            In my mind, this was the third distinct challenge, and the movement stumbled. I don’t know that it could have been avoided, and I certainly believe that God is in control of even this. I wonder, and it really is an unsettled point for me, if the coming battles within evangelicalism and fundamentalism don’t present a new challenge to biblical separatists. I believe there is a growing awareness that evangelicalism suffers from the very problems that Johnson has pointed out in Fundamentalism, namely the lack of definition, doctrinal clarity, and any clear system of due process. Open Theists are claiming the label of evangelical, so how can that movement be well-defined or have any doctrinal clarity? And they can’t figure out what to do with these non-evangelical evangelicals within groups like the Baptist General Conference and the Evangelical Theological Society (to name only two). When I read what Phil Johnson writes, I hear the growing realization that evangelicalism cannot exist for long like this (if it still does even now). The concept of separation is showing up in the writings of men like MacArthur, Grudem, Bock, and Carson. They are not all agreed with each other, but all seem to be realizing that the idea of separation from unbelief is a biblical subject and must be addressed. This is a good thing. I believe they find themselves in the midst of a 21^st century version of the modernist controversy. If they do not drive it out or pull out of it, their whole movement will be lost.

            A growing number of Fundamentalists who occupy the historic mainstream also realize that certain segments of professing Fundamentalism have soiled the name and have abandoned some of its truths. The time of toleration has past for these men simply because the Truth is at stake. Johnson is correct to call us to consistent application of our separatist principles and to point out that such consistency demands some housecleaning of the kind described in 2 Timothy 2:20-21. It is time to get this done. We need a fresh articulation of the fundamental doctrines, clearly identifying what these do and do not mean. Biblical truth must lead the way and set the standard.

            Would these simultaneous developments produce a new movement that is united on the fundamentals and a common commitment to separation from unbelief? Possibly, but it is not probable. There are still too many unresolved issues, some of which I have already alluded to. The historical reality is that there are no clear lines of separation anymore because both movements are something less of a movement than they were when Fundamentalists pulled out, for example, of the Northern Baptist Convention to form the GARBC. The day of associations is probably past. We have entered into an era that values networking, not formal organizations. I agree with Johnson on this point—independence is good. My local church beliefs lead me to conclude it is even more than good; it is the best option.

            What this new development may mean, practically speaking, is that the standard labels could lose some of their significance. If some of the conservative evangelicals become committed separatists (i.e. in belief and practice), repudiating the position of the old New evangelicalism, then we may need to view them differently than we have. Likewise, if some of the currently professing Fundamentalists continue on as they have been, then that label will mean nothing in terms of whether fellowship with them is proper. I recognize that the prospect of either of these is unsettling to folks across the board, but changing times demand discerning application of timeless biblical truth. If neither group recognizes this, both seem headed for serious trouble.

I am going to grab my sticks and beat this drum again—as we stand here in 2010 there is no such thing as a fundamentalist movement. There is also no single conservative evangelical movement and no coherent and distinctive new evangelicalism either. There are remnants of the older movements, but many of them are severely mutated and, therefore, clearly different than the original movements. The constant need to affix modifiers to whatever “movement” we are addressing should be clear enough indication that we’ve got a taxonomy problem.

If you don’t get ulcers easily, take a few minutes to work through the comments that follow Kevin Bauder’s essay at SI. Here’s what stands out to me: (1) it is impossible to make accurate categorical statements about such a broad collection of people and ministries; (2) there is no agreement on what principle would serve as an effective means for categorizing people and ministries (hence the introduction of things like Lordship Salvation, cessationism, translations, gimmick-driven ministry); and (3) the glaring hypocrisy of what is tolerated under the banner of fundamentalism (though I applaud the comments that called on folks to reject this).

For sake of argument, let’s suppose I attempt to rally the troops to the fundamentalist movement. What happens then? Bob and Lou think I teach a false gospel. Jeff Fugate believes I use a perverted Bible. Ron Comfort thinks I’m the poster boy for Calvinism. I could go on, but I am sure you get the point. And I haven’t stated it in terms of my concerns (which are many!). There will never be unity in a group like this. Never.

You say, “Right, so work with the guys you do agree with.” I reply, “Correct, that’s what we’re doing. But why even bother trying to argue for something larger than that which is a pipe dream? Why waste the time and energy chasing an illusion?” In reality, I think the answer to that is that too many folks are using fundamentalism as a means to an end. They are concerned that something specific which matters to them (a mission board, an educational institution, a fellowship) will die if the concept of a fundamentalist movement dies. So they have to keep making everything about fundamentalism so that they can rally people to what they think is the true expression of it. IOW, it is more like a faux call to fundamentalist unity and really a call to support whatever entity is issuing the call. And the same thing can be done by those who are constantly in attack mode on fundamentalism, i.e., they aren’t really interested in some broad based unity like historic fundamentalism, but are after some more narrow theological or ministerial agenda.

Let’s be clear about this—I don’t have a problem with anybody wanting to promote a ministry or idea that they believe in. Go for it. But I think it is time to stop couching it in terms of saving the fundamentalist movement or as forming some new emerging middle. Restore the local assembly to the center where God intended it to be. When your local assembly engages in Great Commission work outside its walls, find some folks you agree with and get busy doing it. Unity is built on agreement about the truth, not by politics. Few things are as political as trying to preserve movements once they have fragmented theologically.

As far as I’m concerned, you can have the movements. I want friends and ministry partners who agree on what the Bible teaches about itself, the gospel, the nature and mission of the church, and separation. Time to move along.

Just when one might think that the waters were getting calm, Kevin Bauder decides to do a cannon ball in the fundamentalist pool! Since I imagine the conversation will pick up quickly, let me say right up front that I agree with most of what he wrote. I would imagine that most of what we agree on is recognizable to those who are familiar with this blog. So, I’ll jump right to the place where I slightly differ with what seems to be his main point, which I take to be the claim that conservative evangelicals are not new evangelicals. I’ll state my difference right up front—I believe that this discussion is too complicated to make that assertion at this point. Let me suggest at least two reasons for why I think this.

First, it is not very clear what constitutes conservative evangelicalism. Among the names cited by Dr. Bauder are men with beliefs and practices that differ significantly in relation to classic new evangelicalism. John Piper and Bethlehem Baptist Church (BBC), for example, seem to take a position quite similar to many of the original new evangelicals on matters of ecclesiastical separation and social issues. Namely, they will speak out for biblical truth, but have chosen to maintain ecclesiastical partnership within an association of churches which formally declined to expel the error which Dr. Piper spoke out against. Also, BBC was fully engaged in the Rock the River Tour last summer that was put on by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Others in Dr. Bauder’s list would no doubt feel uncomfortable with both of these moves.

If one uses the signing of the Manhattan Declaration as any kind of measuring stick, it would seem to me that there would be at least four distinct kind of responses found among the men listed by Dr. Bauder as conservative evangelicals: signers who don’t see a problem with signing it; signers who signed hesitantly and defend it with careful qualifications as to the secular nature of it; vocal opponents of signing the document; and silent non-signers. I’m not trying to nitpick here, just trying to show that there doesn’t seem to be a conservative evangelical position that is clear. And if the conservative evangelical position isn’t clear, then it seems hard to make definitive statements about how it is different from new evangelicalism. I, like Dr. Bauder, am encouraged by many of the signs that I see, but it seems premature to come to firm conclusions yet.

Second, and something of the flip side of the first reason, is that it is not really clear how we are defining new evangelicalism in the main assertion of Bauder’s article. If it is being defined strictly based the matter of separation from false doctrine and false teachers, then most of the men, ministries, and movements cited are different to some degree from classic new evangelicalism. The question really comes down to what degree they differ from the original position. The early new evangelicals like Ockenga and Henry, even Carnell, were very much opposed to Catholicism, for instance. The original faculty at Fuller was very staunchly inerrantist and a main motivation for Lindsell’s Battle for the Bible was to argue this point. The original new evangelicals were more theological solid and prone to vocally defend that theology than we fundamentalists sometimes give them credit. What they originally were repudiating was any necessary change of relationship when men and ministries persisted in theological error. I wonder if there is anything like consensus among the conservative evangelicals about this point, and I wonder how some of them differ from the early new evangelical views (i.e., those which held sway between The Uneasy Conscience and Graham’s 1957 NYC crusade).

And if the full original agenda of new evangelicalism (as articulated, for instance, by Ockenga) is used as the standard, then I would suggest that many of these men and ministries are much closer to new evangelicalism than fundamentalism. IOW, they agree with the original vision and are intent on fulfilling it. The Gospel Coalition was very clear about its desire to do so. Russell Moore (of Southern) has written very aggressively in defense of Carl Henry’s views and the very title of the book seems to make his view clear—The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective.  Al Mohler too has written clearly in defense of the idea that evangelicals may engage in co-belligerence outside of gospel boundaries for the sake of social issues.

It is beyond my point here to engage the question of whether the other stuff on the new evangelical agenda was acceptable or not, but I think it is worth noting that the issue of separation was not the only thing that mattered to either the new evangelicals or the fundamentalists.

I guess I find myself back at a spot where most of these discussions end for me these days. I think they are all handicapped by the use of labels from the 20^th century which no longer fit and, therefore, don’t serve the discussion well. By thinking of three circles—new evangelicalism, conservative evangelicalism, and fundamentalism—all of the energy of the discussion goes into who’s in and who’s out. The unavoidable problem, though, is that nobody can define in and out at this stage of the game. So, where I differ with Bauder is that I don’t think that we can say anything definitive about a group. We need to look at individual men and ministries, find out what they believe and how they apply those beliefs, and then draw our conclusions.

Dr. Bauder is certainly correct in reminding us that these men are not our enemies. We may not agree with one another on important issues, but these disagreements are between brothers. Some disagreements, though, can adversely affect fellowship even among brothers.