There has been a lot of buzz in the blogosphere set off by a sermon preached at a FBF meeting in the south by Dr. Dan Sweatt; and the responses (Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. David Doran, FBFI, Bob Bixby, Chris Anderson) from several concerning that message. I would like to blog several posts about fundamentalism and its identity in light of this kerfuffle brewing amongst fundamentalism.
I am a committed historical, Biblical fundamentalist (not to be confused with terrorists, polygamists, wacky protesters, pulpit pounding, devil kicking, or foaming at the mouth fundamentalists that are out there). We recently hosted a conference on historical fundamentalism with keynote speaker Dr. David Doran and what he described as a historical, Biblical fundamentalist is what I am: “Historical, Biblical Fundamentalism–Biblical orthodoxy joined with militant separatism.” I once had a person tell me that my greatest strength was my no-nonsense approach of “telling it like it is.” I also had a person tell me that my greatest weakness is my “telling it like it is.” I agree with both. My greatest strength is my greatest weakness. Fundamentalism’s strength has always been its militant defense of the truth; this has also been its weakness. . . not a defense of truth, but a defense of what is perceived to be truth. I admire men of God who desire to stand firm on the fundamentals of the faith; but we must take a clear, logical, historical, and Biblical look at what truly is a fundamental of the faith. At the heart of fundamental truth is the Gospel. I fear that many fundamentalists have chosen to focus on external issues rather than the meat of the Gospel. No doubt many of them believe that they are honoring God by their defense of what they see as Truth, but good motives do not excuse fundamentalist pastors, Bible colleges, or organizations from mischaracterizing other people or positions, mishandling and twisting of Scripture to protect their personal positions, kingdom building, or a proud spirit that seems to say, “We have arrived, no need to question how we got here.” As a fundamentalist, I am “young and restless” (the title of Dr. Sweatt’s message linked above), not to leave fundamentalism, but rather to leave behind that brand of fundamentalism that claims the Bible as their authority and then preaches a message with very little Scripture and flat out dishonesty about other’s positions. I want to leave behind that pulpit pounding, spitting, angry branch of fundamentalism that separates from anyone and everyone. I desire a fundamentalism that is not focused on “hot-topic” issues, but instead is focused on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the authority of God’s Word (rightly and honestly interpreted), and the absolute glory of God. Too much of one brand of fundamentalism has been reactionary instead of saturated with the Word of God. When we forcefully react rather than thoughtfully act, we do much damage to the cause of Christ.
More on this in part 2
Amen! A fundamentalism without a focus on Christ is worthless.
I’m interested to read the rest of your comments on this, but I must confess I am not in the loop regarding the “kerfuffle.” Maybe that’s a blessing. 🙂
Ruth,
If you were interested, the links I provided are pretty helpful-it was hard for me to listen to the entirety of the message that sparked the whole thing because it was “preachin'” but not any type of exposition or exhortation from Scripture. It was basically a warning against reading or listening to evangelicals because they are calvinists. The response by Kevin Bauder was very interesting (In the Nick of Time-link on my blog). However, you are right that it is a blessing to sometimes not know of the weird things that fundamentalists do.