Home » Posts tagged 'fundamentalist'

Tag Archives: fundamentalist

Douglas Wilson: “I Am Not A Separatist”

December 6, 2023 / 3 Comments on Douglas Wilson: “I Am Not A Separatist”

The Moscow Mood

One landscape of the evangelical internet blew up recently when evangelical reformed (Presbyterian?) Kevin DeYoung, leader in The Gospel Coalition, wrote a scathing article against Douglas Wilson and his Christian enterprise in Moscow, Idaho. He entitled it: “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood.” Now Wilson has answered him with an article at his blog: “My Rejoinder to Kevin DeYoung.” Many already have written posts on this highly visible skirmish.

I’m not going to give my assessment on this public conflict. I have a leaning in this intramural fracas, but I choose to center my attention on Wilson, because of something he wrote in his article:

I am a fundamentalist, in that I believe the fundamentals with all my heart. But I am not a cultural fundamentalist, and I am not a schismatic or separatist.

Wilson says, “I am not a . . . separatist.” Historically, fundamentalists are at least separatists, unless someone wants to redefine fundamentalism. Usually in the technical aspects of designation or labelling, removing separation makes Wilson maybe a “conservative evangelical.” Some would argue with even that because of the Federal Vision issue for Wilson. To put the doctrine of Federal Vision (FV) in shorthand, someone wrote last week:

The FV holds that all who are baptized are objectively part of the covenant of grace.

Federal Vision and Wilson

It’s thick, but you might read the article in which that sentence occurred to try to understand the issue. The authors entitled the article: “On Justification, Doug Wilson, And The Moscow Doctrine.” The same post reads in the conclusion:

As we witness and lament the waning of Christianity’s influence in American public life, Doug Wilson’s rhetoric has galvanized conservative and Reformed-minded Christians who, at the very least, are hungry for a vision of the future that has a strong Christian influence on the culture. Some have left faithful and orthodox churches for churches more aligned with “the Moscow mood,” while failing to discern the real danger of “the Moscow doctrine,” especially with respect to FV and its erroneous doctrine of justification.

People should ask what the Wilson doctrine of salvation is. Is it confused? Are paedobaptists such as Wilson preaching a true gospel? In a google supplied definition of the belief of paedobaptism, I can’t say WIlson would disagree:

Inherent in this view is the thinking that baptism is only rightly given to those who are regenerate, but that in light of God’s covenant promises, children of Christian parents may be presumed to be regenerate from birth, and thereby worthy recipients of the sign of the covenant.

Wilson says he is a fundamentalist and defines it as believing “the fundamentals,” whatever those may be. What are “the fundamentals” for someone associating with Federal Vision? Perhaps Wilson read an accusation of fundamentalism in DeYoung’s post. The words “fundamentalist” or “separatist” or even “schismatic” do not occur in DeYoung’s article anywhere.

Fundamentalism and Separation

I am pinpointing the language of Wilson, “I am not a . . . separatist,” perhaps Wilson equaling “schismatic” to “separatist.” True churches, which are true New Testament churches, are separatist. All true churches are separatist churches. Yet, Wilson proclaims, he is not a separatist. Even though he is a fundamentalist, he says, he carves off “cultural fundamentalist.” These are loaded words that Wilson does not define. What does it take to be a “cultural fundamentalist.” Wouldn’t someone be a “cultural fundamentalist” today if he opposed same sex marriage and supported delineated male and female roles.

Wilson argues for the patriarchy even greater or more strict than complementarianism. This is cultural. He criticizes complementarians as too soft or squishy. He defends “toxic masculinity.” He wrote last month:

God has determined that men should occupy the positions of leadership in each of the basic governments that He has established among men. These governments would be those of our civic life (Is. 3:12), our life together in the church (1 Tim. 2:12), and in the family (1 Cor. 11:3). In the first place, He appointed men to take glad and sacrificial responsibility in these areas, and by men, I mean males. In addition to that, He required the males that He placed in these positions of authority and responsibility to act like men, and not simply males.

The distinction, it seems now, between complementarianism and patriarchy is that the former applies only to marriage and the latter to every institution in the world, as represented by Wilson in the above paragraph. If Wilson is a fundamentalist, he’s also a cultural fundamentalist.

Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism

Wilson can’t be a fundamentalist, because separation is a sine qua non of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists separate over belief and practice. They separate over fundamentals, whether doctrinal or cultural. A historian of fundamentalism, Kevin Bauder, covers this in his article: “The Idea of Fundamentalism.” You aren’t a fundamentalist unless you separate over your fundamentals.

Fundamentalism is a movement that began in early twentieth century United States with institutional separation. The Britannica entry on “Christian fundamentalism,” describing Carl McIntyre, says:

He argued that fundamentalists must not only denounce modernist deviations from traditional Christian beliefs but also separate themselves from all heresy and apostasy. This position entailed the condemnation of conservatives who chose to remain in fellowship with more liberal members of their denominations.

Later the article on Christian Fundamentalism restates this foundational characteristic of fundamentalism:

By the 1980s fundamentalists had rebuilt all the institutional structures that had been lost when they separated from the older denominations.

The Bible Requires Separatism

Be Ye Holy

The Bible teaches separatism all the way through. God separated Adam and Eve from the Garden. He separated Noah and his family from the rest of the world. He separated the nation Israel from all the surrounding nations. Separation verses abound all over the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14). God by nature is holy and holiness is separation. God says to His people, “Be ye holy as I am holy.” He is saying, “Be ye separate as I am separate.”

Wilson defines separatists as both “schismatics” and “cultural fundamentalists,” differentiating from himself. He gives no explanation for that, apparently thinking everyone reading “just knows already.” Of the unscriptural belief and practice of Wilson and his institutions in Moscow, Idaho, I reject his lack of separatism, both from the world and from false doctrine and practice. To explain the catholicity of Douglas Wilson, he advocated for this statement on such:

On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.

Catholic or Not Catholic

When he says he is not a separatist, ecclesiastically he means he is catholic. He doesn’t like what he sees going on, but he’s not going to separate over it. He’ll sit behind the keyboard and fire away, but that won’t stop him from staying together in a spirit of ecumenism with false doctrine and practice.

I thought Wilson’s statement on fundamentalism and separation to be a good teaching moment. As many readers know, I do not consider myself a “fundamentalist.” I without apology say, “I am a separatist.” God requires separation. Those who obey scriptural teaching on separation are separatists. Wilson says, ‘I am not one of those.’

Salvation and Separation

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 say:

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Jesus said in John 8:44, “Ye are of your Father the devil.” Someone must leave the one family, Satan’s, to join the new family, something shown in Galatians 3 and 4. The Lord says, “I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you,” and who does He say this is for? Those who come out from among them and be ye separate. Wilson says, “I am not a separatist.” Okay. According to scripture, what does that mean for the ultimate outcome for Wilson?

Pragmatism, Playing Games, and “Recovering from Fundamentalism”

December 15, 2021 / 9 Comments on Pragmatism, Playing Games, and “Recovering from Fundamentalism”

If you look at a picture of the attendees of a professional baseball game during the 1940s, you see the crowd filled with men in suits and ties. I don’t know if they called them fans then, but were they legalists? Anyone who would wear a suit and tie to a baseball game must be a legalist. That’s what I’ve heard about men today who wear that to church. They’re legalists.

On the other hand, if someone now wears skinny jeans and a t-shirt while he preaches, that, my friends, is, what I’ve been told, someone who understands the grace of God. He’s also recovering from fundamentalism. Maybe you didn’t think it was that simple, but that’s how men, who refer to themselves as “recovering fundamentalists,” do characterize those who wear a suit, shirt, and tie, when they preach the Word of God behind the pulpit.

Men who wore suits to ball games in the 1940s had their reasons. They didn’t wear suits everywhere they went and doing anything they did. Men for similar reasons in the 1950s wore suits when they traveled on an airplane or other kinds of public transportation. In many instances still today, men will wear a suit to a wedding or a funeral. This was a way to show respect in a culture that put a premium still on showing respect.

Some still consider events and places sacred. You’ve heard the question, “Is nothing sacred any more?” Events and places once treated sacred are not any more. A culture where little is sacred surrenders its means, its symbols and expressions, for treating anything sacred. It blurs the distinctions between the sacred and the profane.

More than ever today being comfortable and casual is more important in priority than respect and sacredness. Men come as they are. In 1 Corinthians 13:5, Paul teaches that love does not behave itself unseemly. Something unseemly is unfitting of the occasion, like having bad manners. If something can be unseemly, it can obviously also be seemly.

Personal comfort is about yourself. “You do you.” Respect, which relates to something else besides you, is less important, of lesser value, than you. Love is fruit of the Spirit. Love seeketh not its own. That’s God and not you. Many, if not most, worship the idol of “you.”

IFB Off-Ramp

In a very recent youtube video entitled “The IFB Off-Ramp,” Mark Ward interviewed, whom he identified as one of the “recovering fundamentalists” (RF), whom I don’t know. His interviewee had debated a Ruckmanite IFB over “KJV Onlyism,” also abbreviated KJVO. Behind the RF in the interview was a piece of modern artwork with a row of varied abstract headstocks of guitars, promoting also a kind of modern music.

The RF says he wants to help and encourage men to be scriptural. The commonality between Ward and the RF was replacing the King James Version with a modern version. In the comment section, John Brock, perhaps the former academic dean of Maranatha Baptist University or a close relative, wrote:

Mark, good vid. I appreciate your spirit and the work you do. I would love to see Nathan’s organization change its name to something less demeaning to the IFB faithful. “Recovering” is commonly used for sinful vices and applying the term to Bible believing Christians/churches is more apropos to the enemies of the cross. Your ministry is special and done so well. I appreciate the sensitivity that you have. The average believers in fundamental Baptist churches are sincere brethren and demeaning them with broad strokes is unhelpful and can be unloving. I also would tend to respect the common dress expectations of a church (when invited as a speaker) rather than to parade differences on things of lesser significance. Keep placing the emphasis on lovingly, respectfully but courageously affirming the truth regarding our precious Book.

Mark Ward answered also in public:

I totally understand where you’re coming from. I think I’ve made my peace with the name, because as an internet writer (blogs and YouTube) I have come—a bit reluctantly—to realize that some amount of “clickbait” in one’s headlines is part of the game. I say some amount because me and my old editor at the Logos Blog agreed we would never promise something that didn’t come true. But we knew we were fighting for eyeballs. You can see that in my video title here: “The IFB Off-Ramp.” That’s probably a bit more attention-getting that strictly necessary.

Brock presented at least two criticisms: (1) Change the name of RF because of wrong aspects especially about the meaning of “recovering” and how it demeans independent Baptists, and (2) respect the common dress expectations of a church.

Ward dealt only with argument one. He justified to Brock the titles Recovering Fundamentalist (RF) and IFB Off-Ramp because they were (1) clickbait, (2) part of the game, and (3) fighting for eyeballs. You get a bigger crowd if you use the methodology.

Mark Ward didn’t answer either of Brocks points. He essentially said that you’ve got to do certain means and methods to reach a certain end. The end justifies the means. Some might be familiar with this as pragmatism.

Pragmatism?

Do modern version advocates, most often critical text proponents, follow scripture as the basis for what they do? Both Ward and the RF say that’s what it is. I don’t hear anything scriptural in particular coming from either of them in the interview, except for Ward’s brief reference to 1 Corinthians 14:9 and his intelligibility argument. I’m not going to address that again here.

From my observation and many others’, IFB has been steeped in pragmatism. They’ve used gimmicks or carnal means to attract crowds. They’ve been doing that for decades, because it was a good way to get eyeballs. It is proverbial “clickbait” and “playing the game.”

This IFB pragmatism also either followed, led to, or paralleled a superficial, 1-2-3 pray-with-me “gospel” for numbers. The two feed off each other. You can’t keep a crowd attracted by superficial means with an in depth presentation. It also must carry with it certain characteristics fitting of the spirit of this age.

When almost the entire infrastructure and happenings around an apparently serious dealing with scripture is modernistic, worldly, compromising, and casual, that affects the message. As someone famously wrote: the medium is the message. All of the surrounding and environment and context affect the understanding. It’s like blowing an uncertain trumpet. The message will lose its intelligibility. This all relates to Christian worldview.

What does it mean to recover from this brand of fundamentalism? Does it mean going to more that is superficial, like the modern art, pop music, and casual and worldly dress? Many adherents to evangelicalism want a church with a modern version. It’s a prerequisite that goes along with all the other pragmatism that is used to get eyeballs. Most everyone in the theater seating doesn’t care what the underlying text is.

Mark Ward is willing to associate and fellowship with Recovering Fundamentalists. The real deal breaker would be if they used only the King James Version. On the other hand, if someone preaches a true gospel, evangelizes in a scriptural way, and has a reverent assembly with robust expository preaching, even using the original languages, but it uses only the King James Version, that divides Mark Ward. The RF are Mark Ward’s bedfellows. These are his people.

Attacking the “Fundamentalists”: Bravo to John MacArthur and David Cloud, Bombarded by C. J. Mahaney and Fred Butler

September 8, 2014 / Leave a comment

When an evangelical wants to take a shot at someone, he will call him a “fundamentalist.” That’s supposed to be an ultimate insult. I read it coming from two men aimed at two preachers in the last three or four days for the same reason. In one, I read C. J. Mahaney affronting John MacArthur in a post by Brent Detwiler, and in the other Fred Butler assaulting David Cloud. These two are very, very similar, and they both illustrate how “fundamentalist” is used as an invective by evangelicals, to discourage men from standing against certain corruption. I read what Mahaney and Butler did, to be identical to each other. They are dealing with similar situations and using “fundamentalist” as a means to discourage it.

The first example relates a situation with John MacArthur confronting Mark Driscoll and being opposed then by Mahaney. This is reported by Brent Detwiler, who was there. Here’s how Detwiler tells it:

Fundamentalist tendencies cannot ultimately be restrained [This was a slander. Mahaney was saying MacArthur would not back off or change his view of Driscoll because of “fundamentalist tendencies.”]

Driscoll has a large movement – trying to protect from Driscoll’s worldliness [MacArthur is trying to protect those following Driscoll from his “worldliness” which Mahaney discounts as a fundamentalist concern focused on externals.]

Stumbles over shirt he is wearing [MacArthur stumbles over the shirts Driscoll wears.]

There is finally a small chance Mark Driscoll will be held accountable for his reign of terror. He should have been disciplined and removed from ministry years ago for multiple traits and actions that violated the clear qualifications of Scripture in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Instead he was held up as an example by “all the high-profile Calvinist leaders involved with The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel” except for John MacArthur who was dismissed by Mahaney as a fundamentalist.

Here you can see that Mahaney calls MacArthur a fundamentalist because of what MacArthur says about Driscoll’s worldliness, concern focused on externals, and his shirts. Fred Butler writes about David Cloud:

Bro. Cloud is one of those screeching fundamentalists who likes to pound his pulpit against the encroachment of modernity in churches. Such modern things like contemporary music in worship or the use of the ESV by parishioners. So, if he is not railing against the worldliness of CCM artists from 25 years ago, he’s blasting away at modern Bible versions.

I’m focusing on Butler’s calling Cloud a “screeching fundamentalist” for opposing the contemporary music, which the men, including MacArthur, at the Strange Fire Conference, by the way, said is the primary entrance into the Charismatic movement. Both MacArthur and Cloud are dealing with worldliness, that they see as a problem in Christianity.

Is there irony here? Very much so. Fred Butler works for John MacArthur. For a Driscoll or a Mahaney, this kind of thing has to be confusing or loony. If you’re not going to be consistent and if you are not going to come at this from a foundational or philosophical basis, then it all comes across as entirely subjective. If you are open to talk about Driscoll’s shirts, then someone else should be able to talk about music. The music is directly worship and the shirt is related, but not directly like music is.

The critics want their own way. They want their music. They want their dress. They want their worldliness. And they use name-calling as an argument. Notice it. It really is typical of these evangelicals.

WHAT IS TRUTH

Tag Archives: fundamentalist

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH