In case you missed it, this is a story from today’s foxnews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html
In short, this church goes around the US protesting the funerals of gay soldiers holding up signs that read things like “I’m glad he’s dead.” Fox News simply identifies the church as a “fundamentalist” one. Now, obviously no fundamentalist I know would claim them as their own, and I am not even sure they would call themselves fundamentalist. What I am trying to say in this blog is that that doesn’t matter. If you check out their website (google it — Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS — you’ll die when you read the name of the site) you’ll notice that they are unashamedly 5-Pointers. Do they soil the good name of Calvinism–sure. But here’s the point: Fox News doesn’t call them Calvinists. They call them fundamentalists. If they had called them Calvinists (I doubt very many people at Fox could tell you what a Calvinist is anyway) I would would hesitate ever using that label again. I could argue all day long that they don’t represent REAL Calvinism and would get nowhere. After my rant they would ignore me and still call them Calvinists. It would be time to abandon my label no matter how much great tradition was associated with it. Just a thought.
Since we are on the subject of fundamentlism, check out JP’s recent response to the FBFI’s resolution against him.
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/891_praise_god_for_fundamentalists
Hey Bob,
Check out the recent CT article on The Crisis of Modern Fundamentalism at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/octoberweb-only/143-52.0.html
Our old friend Tim Baylor is quoted. Apparently a classmate of his wrote it.
G
Now it makes sense why Piper just now responded to the FBFI….he probably had no idea that he had a resolution out there hanging over his head (is that like a warrant??) before the CT article. How would you feel if you woke up one morning and realized that some group had resovled (resolutioned, resoluted?) against you several years ago. You have people who are mad at you and you didn’t even know they existed
Bob,
Nice call. I saw this group a while ago and just cringed. But I think it is an illustration of how the church has responsibility not only to history but also to culture. Thus, even if one has continuity with the original plight of the 1950’s fundamentalist, it probably isn’t very culturally intelligent to tout one’s self as a fundamentalist in a country which has declared war on islamic fundamentalism.
Mike Bird also has some thoughts on Fundamentalists. He is careful at the end to clarify that not every Fundamentalist is characterized by the serious flaws he lists, but he is convinced that the group as a whole has serious problems. No matter how much we are different from those perversions, it’s becoming increasingly impossible not to lumped in if we tout that label.
Sorry, the link is http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2007/11/praise-god-for-fundamentalists.html
I’m with you on all this, Bob. Remember the days when our (college) alma mater’s president tried to rally support for changing the term from “fundamentalist” to “biblical preservationist?” IMHO, it probably would’ve caused controversy in its own right, not in secular society so much as among biblical Christianity, in terms of divisiveness. After all, calling yourself biblical preservationist means that others (see evangelicals that ALSO believe and practice Scripture) are put in the awkward position of either joining you and your movement or risking coming across as unconcerned with preserving Scripture. Labels…you gotta love ‘em. I honestly can’t understand why some of our brothers are so intent on maintaining the label of “fundamentalism.” Baylor, you’re right on about the cultural baggage. This seems to be as good an illustration as ever of the potential perils of non-contextualization of the gospel and theology.
BTW, speaking of labels, Michael Patton, one of the editors at Reclaiming the Mind, is arguing we ought to axe the term “evangelical” as well in favor of – you guessed it -”historic evangelical.”
Sorry, I guess Garrett and I are having the same problem with linking. Here’s the aforementioned post: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/10/24/can-i-just-start-a-new-tradition/
In the history of the church, what Bible believing, evangelistic organization has never had its name defamed? What new name would not be misrepresented by the media or claimed by fanatic heretics? Is it scriptural to separate from Christian brethren over a name?
Jim – no, you’re right, and (speaking for myself) I don’t see it as right to separate merely over a name in most any case I can think of. But I don’t think that’s the point being made here. It’s not separating from INDIVIDUALS who call themselves by a particular term (‘fundamentalist’ in this case). It’s the term itself that’s the issue. The issue isn’t separation from people; the issue is jettisoning a label. These are two different things. I think what Bob is implying (and I would certainly agree) is, why do we want to maintain a term that has been soiled to such an extent that it has cultural connotations that do not serve the furtherance of Christ’s kingdom, which we all (you, me, everyone here) are seeking to advance? I think you’re probably correct in your assertion that true, orthodox believers have, as a general rule, been slighted and maligned throughout history, b/c of fidelity to the lordship of Jesus. But that is not analogous to what we’re discussing here. We’re here talking about the relative merits of the label ‘fundamentalist.’ While it may at one time have had a degree of correspondence with what the movement actually believed, it is no longer apprehended by general culture (not JUST the media) in these terms. As such, I think we’re just trying to say that it doesn’t make any sense for a fundamentalist to describe himself by such a label, even if he still maintains a ‘fundamentalist’ stance on all the issues related to the movement itself.
Thanks everybody for the interaction. I’ve been away from my PC and getting over jet-lag for a few days so sorry for not getting back sooner.
Jim: you bring up an excellent point. The tricky part, however, is how we use the word “name” in “what Bible believing, evangelistic organization has never had its name defamed?” If, with “name” we mean “identity,” then I agree that the world will treat us the church just like our Master. They defamed and hated Him and will defame and hate us. If, however, we mean “label” when we say “name,” that is another story. A label exists exclusively to communicate. The goal in communication is to do everything possible to avoid being misunderstood. To determine whether or not a label is “good” or “bad” we have to ask the question whether or not it succeeds or fails in communicating the desired message. So the question is, if you want to communicate that you believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the reality of Biblical miracles, salvation by grace through faith, and a willingness to fight for and separate over these doctrines, is the label “fundamentalist” the right label? Does that label do everything in its power to communicate these ideals? Or does that label no longer accomplish what a label is designed to do—do everything in its power to avoid being misunderstood.
Jeremy: thanks for clarifying the separation from individuals versus dropping a label thing. I was trying to figure out how to clarify what I was thinking and then you did it for me
And yes, I remember “biblical preservationists”….good times.
Here’s an example from history:
In 1534 a group of extremist Anabaptists seized the city of Münster and established a theocratic rule. These guys weren’t your peace-loving type Anabaptists—but rather millenarian, polygamist, Münster-is-the-New-Jerusalem type Anabaptists. After the Anabaptist rule was overthrown and all the leaders executed the very term “Anabaptist” was linked to the Münster rebellion. Move into the 17th century. The Baptists in England are defamed because their label (Baptist) was too close to “Anabaptist.” Even though their IDENTITY was nowhere near the Münster whacko’s, their LABEL linked them to the extremists. I don’t know my history well enough to know whether or not “Baptist” was a label they chose for themselves or one that was ascribed to them. The point is, though, that it was their LABEL not their IDENTITY that gave people reason to distrust (and eventually imprison, torture, and kill) them. Of course I’m not saying that their martyrdom was just a big understanding, and there clearly isn’t a one-to-one parallel between them and us today. Just food for thought.
Bob, I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but apparently you aren’t the only one whose blog has been fried:
http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2008/01/commentary-on-nt-use-of-ot-outstanding.html
Baylor,
wow….he must have a lot more free time than my professors did in seminary to be able to scan the blogosphere meticulously to find any and everybody who disagrees with him.
bob,
i wish you could’ve been here this past semester at teds…
i took a course on evangelicalism and fundamentalism with a prof [john woodbridge] who grew up at fuller, went to wheaton, “fell away” and went to europe (taking his degree from france). upon returning, he got some help from trinity’s president, and is now in his 38th year teaching at teds.
his dad studied with machen at princeton and in germany with harnack.
as i’m sure you can imagine – this made for some interesting stories.
in any case, the semester was quite unusual – in that there were several former fundamentalists in the class (a statistic which, according to my buddy in admission, seems to be on the rise). there was a guy who got his ph.d. from bob jones, zichterman (ph.d., pensacola), and me. naselli gave the jonesian interpretation, zichy shared some pensacolian insights, and i introduced him to detroit, rolland mccune (jeremy brown’s middle name – oh!), and his book – Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism.
woodbridge was astounded (to say the least). he knew that george dollar (bju) had named teds as one of several compromised schools, but didnt know that there were so many others that think we are neo-evangelicals. he kept using Word of Life as his reference for fundamentalism, until i shared that where i grew up – we separated from WOL on the grounds of “mixed bathing” and contemporary music. i wish you could’ve seen his face!
i also wish you could’ve heard a guy who did his m.div. at princeton share his thoughts on Beale’s book: Pursuit of Purity.
interestingly, i think Piper is actually quite well informed (and aware) of fundamentalists/fbf. his father was on the board at bju, etc.
as for his views on separation, i’m still waiting to meet the fundamentalist who will admit that it is hypocritical to condemn piper while condoning w.b. riley – who did the same thing.
lastly, any place we can check out your church?
is there a website, or a link i missed?
was so glad to hear of your opportunity, and know that you
will be a blessing to those who hear you. perhaps you can make
up what is lacking in piper’s sufferings by being denounced by the obf.
(maybe you could gauge your impact that way).
okay, gotta run.
grace and peace,
scott
Hey Scott,
sorry, took me a while to respond to this post….been in the middle of moving and such. that sounds like a SWEET class to be in
Send me an email (huperekperissou{at}gmail{dot}com) so i can send you my contact info.
talk to u!
bob