Fundamentalism divides Christians, Carter tells Baptists

Baptist Standard Publishing Co ^ | August 5, 2005 | Ken Camp

[kittymyrib]

Jimmah and President Hansen of the ELCA surely have it in for Bible-believing Christians. Just because they can't believe the Bible, they don't want anyone else to and are warning against the evil "fundamentalists." The only religion given a pass on "fundamentalism" is that great ROP, Islam.

[Texas Eagle]

Jesus treated women as equal to men--a view dramatically different from prevailing practices, Carter said. But some Baptists "want to keep women in their place."

My gag reflexes prevented me from reading the rest of the article. Did St. Funk of Malaise offer any specific examples?

[P-Marlowe]

I am not supportive of unforgiving intolerence.

And who practices that? I suspect that the MSM creates these stereotypes of unforgiving Christians and then labels them fundamentalists, whereas I really don't think I've met too many of those people. The intolerant churches are the ones who don't like fundamentalists in their ranks. If you believe that homosexual behavior is against God's order, you are labeled an intolerant fundamentalist bigot.

Frankly I consider that a compliment. But frankly who are the separatists? It is the post modern neo-secularist lefties that have caused the division. Not the conservative fundamentalists. All they want to do is to hold fast to their profession of faith without wavering. If that upsets the apple cart, then the apple cart is filled with rotten fruit.

[jude24]

I suspect that the MSM creates these stereotypes of unforgiving Christians and then labels them fundamentalists, whereas I really don't think I've met too many of those people.

I have. Heck, I used to be one myself.

If you believe that homosexual behavior is against God's order, you are labeled an intolerant fundamentalist bigot.

That may be. Neo-evangelicals would say that homosexuality is sin, but would emphasize that we should be accepting of homosexuals without condoning their behavior, rather than railing against the Sodomites, as the Fundamentalists do.

It is the post modern neo-secularist lefties that have caused the division. Not the conservative fundamentalists. All they want to do is to hold fast to their profession of faith without wavering.

Look at the Presbyterian splits of the 1930's. Those are considered the key case study in the Fundamentalist-modernist contraversy. The Fundamentalists, when they split the PCUSA, first of all abandoned the denomination to slide deeper and deeper into ruin, and while Westminster Theological Seminary is a good seminary, Princeton was abandoned to the liberals. Fundamentalists backed themselves further and further into an academic ghetto, and only recently have schools like Baylor and Wheaton been able to extricate themselves.

And then there was the Presbyterian split. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which split from the PCUSA, itself fragmented to create a second Presbyterian denomination, the Bible Presbyterian Church. This split - over relatively minor issues like premillenialism and prohibition - was so acrimonious that it actually shook Francis Schaeffer's faith and turned him atheist for a brief time period.

Now, I tell this tale of woe, not to dump on the Presbyterians - I am a Bible Presbyterian myself - but to explain where fundamentalism failed - and it's true across denominational boundaries.

[xzins]

And who does that?

It's more than the MSM, PM. We've met some here on these pages over the last 6 years who we know are not very welcoming of those different than them. And, yes, I am speaking of those who would otherwise be called "biblical."

There is something to the notion that some have "lost their first love."

There was then, and there is now, the word "pharisee."

[xzins]

Ping to #45

[solafiducia]

"---"Fundamentalism" is merely a buzzword used to marginalize people who believe the things that Christians have always believed.--- "

Boy is THAT the truth!

[Frumanchu]

The SBC is the only major denomination in America to successfully overcome the liberal-modernist stranglehold. You are correct that the Presbyterian Church's takeover was the prime example of a conservative denomination being taken over by liberals. The takeover was not overnight though. It was slow and methodical. By the time the Presbyterians (the real ones) abandoned Princeton, it was more a realization and acknowledgement that it had already fallen long ago.

The single biggest point of failure for fundamentalists is the inability or unwillingness to impose negative sanctions against institutional covenant breakers.

Or as I like to say, "What we have here....is a failure to excommunicate."

[suzyjaruki]

Or as I like to say, "What we have here....is a failure to excommunicate."

LOL, you are so right!

[FederalistPhred]

I believe you're pointing out that the desire to split theological hairs -- to "be right" about relatively minor issues -- can lead to hyper-sectarianism. I agree, but I suspect that many people have heard "fundamentalist" used so often by the enemies of orthodox Christianity that the word makes them highly defensive.

In a fallen world, there is a tension in any church between two poles -- between the rigidity that can fracture a body into sects with little or no real difference between them, and the "inclusive" tendency that will open the door to the kind of heresy seen in the mainline denominations.

An example of the first tendency is the continuing Anglican groups in North America, which are split into at least a dozen rival bodies, and therefore appear unable to offer an effective alterntive to ECUSA. The various conservative Presbyterian churches can also illustrate this (I belong to a conservative Presbyterian "splinter group", so I mean no offense here.)

The obvious examples of the second, "big tent" tendency are the ECUSA and PCUSA themselves.

You can probably predict that I think it is a lesser evil to lean toward the doctrinally rigid end of the spectrum. The reason orthodox churches end up dividing over issues of theology is because they care about theology in the first place, which is a good thing. The sectarian divisions between conservative Presbyterians are a waste of human and financial resources, but at least a "seeker" walking into one of their churches will hear Bibilical Christianity. We're all well aware that if the "seeker" walks into a PCUSA congregation,there is no such guarantee.

In my own congregation I am a "liberal", because I believe that Catholics can be Christians and that religious artwork is not always idolatrous. I choose to belong to a body that is slightly more "fundamentalist" than I am, rather than one where people are asking, "You don't really believe that stuff, do you?"

As for the agonizing issue about when to "abandon" a church or seminary to liberals, I don't have an easy answer to that one. I became a Christian in the 90's, so I don't have personal or family history that binds me to one of the mainline churches. I believe that there is a point when the only option is to leave, but all I can do is pray for believers who are wrestling with whether their own church has reached that point. I do note, however, that if enough orthodox Presbyterians had followed Machen out of the "mainline" church, Bibilical orthodoxy would now be the "mainstream" of Presbyterianism, and the neo-Unitarians would now be the "splinter group."