A Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving

I am a self-identified fundamentalist.  I am one by conviction.  As I understand its history, fundamentalism became a movement in the early 20th Century to fight the modernism that was permeating the educational institutions and Bible-believing denominations.  The deity of Christ was in question.  Miracles were considered myths.  The literal interpretation of Scripture was mocked and maligned.  Good men from different denominations bonded together to fight this epidemic.  They drew up a list of five fundamentals of the faith and vowed to defend them militantly and separate from those who denied their truth.  This is the fundamentalism I espouse.

However, I am at a pivotal part in my journey as a fundamentalist.  Instead of fighting against modernism and its ideals, today’s fundamentalist has seemingly chosen to direct his militant tendencies and radical separatism against a new target, brothers in Christ.

  Rather than the denial of the fundamentals of the faith, today’s battles are too often fought over areas like:

1) Translations of the Scriptures
2) Musical Styles
3) Secondary Separation
4) Modes of Baptism
5) Dispensational Differences

Because of the prolificacy of these actions, fundamentalism has fragmented into so many smaller factions that it has become impossible for the movement to regain its unity and national prominence.  The Fundamentalist was like a glorious ship, not unlike the Titantic, which has now hit her own iceberg and is sinking.  No amount of bailing will save the movement now.  By the way, I am not a happy member of its competition, reading the news from the paper on shore.  I am on the ship.

Why has fundamentalism become a movement that is not worth saving?  My sad conclusion is that we have become a proud movement.  The Bible itself warns that destruction follows pride.  Through the years as the fundamentalist movement grew, large institutions, both ecclesiastical and educational, have sprung up across our country.  While many have been equipped and trained through these institutions to go into the world preaching, teaching and making disciples, many different philosophies of ministries have also been developed and refined.  Interestingly, many of these philosophies have become associated with single biblical terms like holiness or excellence or heart.  Subtler has been the steady elevation of institutional standards to the level of doctrine.  As a result, the practice of separation has been employed time and time again against fellow fundamentalists who don’t “measure up” or have “high” enough standards.  We have become proud.

As we have become a proud movement, we have also allowed our movement to cultivate a culture of fear.  Some of you may be surprised to learn that I am not opposed to standards.  In fact, I believe every Christian must develop them.  However, strong-willed institutional leaders have not permitted liberty in areas of standards.  I have heard of and even witnessed many instances when believers have been berated publicly for their lack of adherence to certain standards.  (Point of Clarification: I am referring to standards that are not sourced in Scripture directly or indirectly.) We have become a scared movement.  We are afraid to speak out against wrongdoing because of what repercussions might result.  When our movement needed a reformational call to a fear of the Lord, we chose rather to embrace the fear of man.  As a result, our love has waned.  Perfect love casteth out fear.  There is no fear in love.  We have been mocked by the world for this lack of love.  Even they know what we are supposed to look like.

There will be those reading this who will respond, “This is not true in my corner of the world.”  And yes, I will be the first to admit that historic fundamentalism does exist in pockets around this country and others.  However, if one is to look at the topics being discussed at the national fundamental conferences, it is all too apparent that we are horrifically fragmented.

There will be others who will respond, “Well, if you feel you don’t belong, why don’t you jump ship and run to evangelicalism with the rest of the disgruntled fundamentalists?”  My answer?  I firmly intend to jump ship.  The ship is going down.  There is no alternative.  But, I will remain on this ship until the last possible moment before the bow slips under the surface.  The evangelical ocean liner just a few hundred yards away appears very attractive.  It is very modern and has every convenience on board.  But there are very few on that ship who are committed to doctrinal purity the way my fundamentalism has been.  (There are some.)  I do not plan to make my bed there.

There are many different lifeboats going off in many different directions leaving the Fundamentalist as she sinks.  I will most likely get on board one of them.   (I admit it is fun watching many different lifeboats try to claim the "true" fundamentalist name.) I will grieve the passing of the movement, but cherish the memory of being a part of it.  Many great battles have been fought and won for the cause of Christ.  I suspect He is pleased with much of what fundamentalism has stood for in the past.  Fundamentalism served its objective well.

But now, we live in an era when fundamentalism cannot be defined even among its own.  Even worse, most fundamentalists will attribute the importance of separation to the movement, but we can’t seem to find consensus on this topic either.  We’ve been told that we can’t define fundamentalism historically because we would be guilty of ignoring 40-50 years of recent history.  Fundamentalism has evolved, in other words.  Unfortunately, as in the creation/evolution debate, fundamentalism has many “missing links” in its definition.  So, how we define fundamentalism today may depend on whether we use the “FBF defining method”, the “OBF defining method”, the “Greenville defining method” or any other number of perspectives.  Interestingly, our predicament parallels another contemporary conflict.  Do we interpret the US Constitution according to the intent of the founders or has the Constitution become a living and flexible document that can be adapted and interpreted according the contemporary context?  Oh well!  At least, we don’t have a Fundamentalist Supreme Court to keep staffed!  (or do we??)

Although I grieve over the hurt to the name of Christ through our mistakes and inadequacies, I am not overwhelmed with the sinking of the Fundamentalist.  You see, I am a Baptist.  Remarkably, most of what I consider precious about historic fundamentalism is preserved in my Baptist distinctives.  Of course, even there we have problems with definition!!  I am an independent, fundamental (historically), dispensational (progressive) Baptist.  There, that’s better!

By the way, my remarks do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other members of my local church leadership.  They are my ramblings—I alone am accountable for them.  My intent with this article has not been to provide an academic paper on the history of the movement or to accuse anyone specifically of sin.  These are simply thoughts put into writing for discussion.  I am not looking for a solution to the problem.  The only action step I would propose is that we determine what to do for wide-scale fellowship and discussion in a post-fundamentalist era.