Not Naming Names
It is becoming increasingly more difficult to read some fundamentalist blogs without becoming fatigued with the almost constant quotation of three particular evangelical pundits. I have read, listened to, and reviewed the ministries of each of these men in an attempt to give them a fair shake. To be honest, they are obviously intelligent and seemingly Godly people. Still they reject, sometimes mock, and often readily oppose the beliefs of many I consider to be the finest Biblical thinkers of our day. While they are pragmatic, generally [generally] conservative evangelicals, they almost universally reject what they have decided are “old” methods of outreach and (often stridently) denounce personal and ecclesiastical separation.
During a day in which access to the teaching of truly great Biblical scholars is more available than ever, these lesser men gain continuing acclaim. I wonder at, and am dismayed by this seemingly new phenomenon, fearing it is a result of our perhaps being lesser men ourselves; we young fundamentalists. Thus, one question arises daily: what would our fore-bearers in the fundamentalist movement make of this habit of embracing, promoting and praising those that actively oppose the principles they spent a lifetime fighting for? Many of us have lost all understanding of their fight, having spent more time analyzing their faults and seeking so desperately not to repeat them that we have betrayed both the heart and principle of their struggle.
Am I making too much of all this? Perhaps one day in the past I would have said yes, but the problem has become too obvious. It has left me wishing I could say more, but too well aware that reckless negativity could be the result. That is why I am deliberately avoiding the “whom” and “what” of the story until (if ever) I am able to express it with the grace and tact it deserves.
5 Comments so far
Leave a reply
To what fundamentalists are you referring when you speak of our forebears? Do you mean those who contributed articles to the series called “The Fundamentals”? Do you mean men like Ketcham and Machen?
Or are we talking about the John R. Rice, J. Frank Norris, Jack Hyles fundamentalism?
I ask those questions because it would probably be a good idea to figure out who we are before we decide who we are allowed to listen to, learn from, and quote.
Hey Andrew,
This is a good question. I can only answer by saying some of these thoughts were brought to mind when I listened recently to a sermon by Robert T. Ketcham from the GARBC 75th Anniversary CD Set. They were also stirred by discussions about Bob Jones Sr. and his stand on separation.
Guess I can’t give you much more than that, as I did not grow up in the fundamentalist movement myself, but have simply gained an appreciation for the churches and institutions that grew from it as a result of my own study. Suffice it to say, I am not flying any particular banner; but I do recognize the difference between a ministry standing on tested, Biblical principles and a ministry searching for relevance by trying “new” things.
I don’t know if that helps or not, let me know.
Chris
Just a thought:
The article you linked contained interesting discussion as to the stand of Bob Jones Sr. on doctrinal separation. It contained nothing of his views on racial separation. Would it be correct to assume, then, that we are allowed to listen to, learn from, and quote Jones on the issue of doctrinal separation while eschewing his horrid and unbiblical ideas of racial separation?
If the answer to that question is “yes” (as it must be), then would it be correct also to say that I can listen to, learn from, and quote a certain pastor in Seattle as he combats the Emergent Church while at the same time not approving of his musical choices or the fact that he is not a strict cessationalist?
Another line of questioning, brought up by your comment. Is a ministry that tries new things automatically searching for relevance?
Yikes. I fear I’ve opened myself up to this line of questioning unwittingly by somehow tying myself to the men I mentioned. I should have known better!
1. Bob Jones Sr. is dead. The person you referred to in Seattle is (presumably) not dead. The living can (and should) be challenged, while only the ideas of the dead are open for debate. We can hammer Bob Jones all day long if you like, but few are being persuaded by his error today; not so for the alive, published and thriving.
2. A simple quote from or reference to almost anyone would be perfectly acceptable. I have no problems with quotation and appreciation that is offered within context. However, if we heavily promote a series of teachers we strongly disagree with on a daily or weekly basis without the slightest mention of people who actually get it right, this is a subconscious revelation of our affections. Can we agree on that?
3. Blogs are new. Twitter is new. Formulating ministry methods based upon cultural observation is not new. Those who adjust standards and formulate ministry philosophy by experience do so at their own peril; old or new.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I agree partially with #1, mostly with #2, and completely with #3.