Then there's tertiary, quaternary, etc. separation. You separate from people who aren't separated enough. It gets a bit ridiculous after a while. There are people I grew up with in church who will have nothing to do with me now, because I am a Southern Baptist and am going to a SBC seminary. I'm not separated enough.
The result of all this separation is that you have a group of people who have absolutely no influence in society. They won't work with anyone outside their camp of fundamentalists because of "doctrinal impurity" — though most of that involves women wearing pants, men having long hair, and contemporary music. Modern fundamentalists have so secluded themselves that they cannot have any impact on society at all.
One accusation that is commonly made about fundies is that they are trying to make Jesus come back. This is the root of George Bush's foreign policy. It's why the Left Behind books were so popular. And it's totally wrong.
One thing modern fundies have in common is premillenial eschatology. That means that Jesus comes back before His 1000 year reign on earth. Normally, they are also pretribulational as well — the return comes before the "time of great tribulation" that the Bible talks about. This involves the secret Rapture that Tim LaHaye talks about.
It's important to note that they believe that nothing at all can 'make' Jesus come. It's entirely up to God when Christ comes back. We can't do anything to make it happen. That is what fundies believe and teach.
The idea that we need to do something to make Christ come back is closer to post-millenialism. It's rooted in a philosophy called Christian Reconstructionism, that teaches that Christians need to take over civil government and "redeem it" for Christ. No fundamentalist believes that, though you'd never know it from accounts in the MSM.
Article comments
1 - Warren
And the link to the last article doesn't work anymore. I'm not even sure I can find it, but I'll try, and then edit the post.
2 - The Duke
Interesting read. I gave up on religion long ago, there are levels of faith which they (denominationalism) plain and simple, do not approach.
The need to not take Offence, slothfulness (losing your craving or passion -- not laziness), and the Love you need to keep in your heart for those aflicted by the ravages of the king of the world (Satan). Religion doesn't talk on those important things.
What is normal Christian behaviour? Read James, read the Epistiles, read John.
If you're a new Christian or one beginning anew... don't go off reading Genesis or Revelations or the Prophets. There is meat there but the tender stomach of the born again needs the milk. Not strong milk.
Religion doesn't "do it" for a lot of people. That is the failing of religion. TV doesn't do it either. Kill the television, find a local church that has a living feel to it, a celebration, but also a teaching and digging attitude in regard to scriptures. Study those recommended chapters above... then grow. Pray with passion, in praise, and worship God. Don't practice a pitiful attitude with God, He brings glory into the lives of all who worship Him and walk in his word.
Many will shun you, many will throw completely wrong statements at you, many will murmur at you behind your back. They count, but are put there as a stumbling block to your walk with God. Do not fail in your Love, and God will reward you. He's not here to punish you, that's Satan's goal, God will wash you and cover you with His pinions, but the authority over Satan comes with the attitude of a champion, not a confused defeated christian.
I hope and pray someone reading this will have a revelation. will be awakened and will ask the Lord, Jesus and the Holy Spirit into their lives, and be richly rewarded through the peace and the love that is manafest in this union. Thank you Jesus, Thank you Lord almighty, thank you... we worship you and love you and bless you Lord for you providence unto us. Through Jesus Christ I pray. Amen.
3 - The Fifth Dentist
I would characterize Pat Robertson as more of a jerk-off/ass-wipe than a post-millenial fundementalist but perhaps the semantic distinction isn't significant.
4 - G. Oren
IInteresting post. I hope that more unchurched lefties will read your post and understand that evangelicalism and fundamentalism are not the same thing. Having been raised in a small SBC church in West Texas, I miss the days before the more fundamental elements gained control of the SBC (ca.1979). Baptists are generally a tolerant lot and not given to hair splitting over interpretation. But, hair splitting and divisiveness have proliferated over the past 25 years. The moderate Baptist church of which I am now a member withdrew from the SBC some years ago because they had given a woman an associate pastor role and because they did not insist on rebaptizing Methodist etc.. who wanted to join (something I never realized was a requirement).
At any rate, having spent many years in the charismatic movement, then gravitating back to a moderate Baptist church, I am quite familiar with the doctrinal differences that separate many Protestants. I much prefer to emphasize the common ground of "Mere Christianiy" and the humility of spirit that accepts a great deal of doubt as to the importance of many areas of scriptural interpretation. That the effect of fundamentalism is to draw an ever smaller circle around what are acceptable practices for fellowship cannot be a good thing in the long run. That much of the church is so taken with certain aspects of prophecy and end times eschatalogy is also not a good thing. That the Left Behind series has perhaps had a positive evangelical impact can be well argued (Salvation as fire insurance), But such a focus inevitably leads to disappointment as the difficulties of a daily walk with Christ preclude prophetic manipulations.
The whole-hearted entry of evangelicals into the political arena has sharpened the awareness of many as to the cultural divide between Christian groups and between Christians and non-Christians. That politics is like medicine for the sick and not food for the soul should be remembered by many of our more strident "leaders".
5 - The Fifth Dentist
On behalf of all unchurched lefties let me alert you to the fact that we don't recognize any meaningful distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists. And I'm fairly that confident that Jesus doesn't give a shit either.
6 - Steve S
I divide it in two ways. THose who want to practice their religion and keep it to themselves and those who want all of us to practice their religion.
At the end of the day, those are the only distinctions most of us make.
7 - Warren
Well, Steve, I could agree with you, except that that's not really an option available to Christians who take the Bible seriously. CHrist's last words were for us to "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, teaching them to obey all things that I have commanded you." Variations of that are in all four Gospels and the book of Acts. When something is repeated that way, I tend to take it seriously.
I DO agree that there are ways to do it that are much better than the ways many people have been known to do it. Like helping out in disaster relief efforts (the SBC was the third largest group of volunteers in the gulf coast after Katrina. No proseletyzing, and no asking for money. MSM has yet to pick that story up, unfortunately). But the command is still there.
8 - Warren
"On behalf of all unchurched lefties let me alert you to the fact that we don't recognize any meaningful distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists."
Then enjoy your willful ignorance. The fact remains that true fundamentalists are not politically active, and every time you call aomeone like Pat Robertson a fundamentalist you display your ignorance of the subject.
9 - G. Oren
Well Warren, it seems you got to have the last word on the fifth dentist - gotta laugh about that contrariansim. At any rate, I'm curious about your take on the The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which seems to be something of an alternative to the SBC for moderate churches. Also, what are your insights about the latest "statements of faith" regarding the subordination of women etc.. from the SBC. It's ironic that the charismatic movement so easily accepts women in teaching and pastoral roles while maintaining literalism in most things, while the SBC seems intent on maintaining strict interpretation - at least with regard to labels (pastor, minister).
10 - Warren
I actually don't mind Fifth Dentist at all -- people like that keep me sharp.
I think for a moderate church the CBF is perfect. I still consider myself conservative, so I probably wouldn't be comfortable (or welcome) in many CBF-style churches.
I think a lot of the subordination issue was taken too far on both sides. The passage in question gives a LOT more responsibility to the men in the relationships -- we love our wives as Christ loved the church. IIRC, He died for the church. How many husbands are willing to do that? That's what we have to believe if we look at the passage as a whole.
One thing that was ignored in the whole discussion (on both sides of the issue, unfortunately) was the roles that women CAN have. We focus too much on what women "can't' do, I think. My Sunday School teachers growing up were all women, and had a huge impact on my life. There are a LOT of ministries that women can have within the SBC. I don't think that the whole women as preachers thing is a major issue, though. From what I can tell, there are more things that divide the CBF and the SBC. I DO think the CBF places a lot more emphasis on the concept of soul liberty than most Baptists have historically.
11 - JW
Not all us fundies believe in Secondary Separation. Actually I think that is more of a dying fad, along with those who think wire rim glass and women in pants are the devil.
12 - Warren
JW -- There is a definite group of fundies (see the folks at www.sharperiron.com for an example) who are trying to reform fundamentalism, and secondary separation is one of the things they are trying to do away with. There is still a pretty sizable group that believes in it, though -- check out the Nationwide Independent Baptist Fellowship for an example (http://www.nationwidefellowship.com/).
13 - Gordon
I find your research lacking. I hope none of this is in your dissertation, nor in any defense there of. It will not go over well.
If you truly wish to understand fundamentalism, I suggest you click on the link and do some studying. Many moderates believe fundamentals live for only a few things. I have tested all that David Cloud has stated against the scriptures. You offer no proof of that in your refuting of "fundies." Truly, if you can find one thing in the Bible that refutes anything he has printed in any of the hundreds of articles, or any of the many books, pamphlets, or teaching manuals, I would really like to hear it. With all sincerety
14 - Warren
Gordon,
I'm laughing right now over the idea that this would even be a part of any serious, scholarly work, much less a dissertation. I also wasn't trying to "refute" fundies. I'm trying to show people the difference between classic fundamentalism, modern fundamentalism, and evangelicalism.
I've also tested what David Cloud says against the Scrptures and against reality, and find him lacking in discernment in both cases. I understand fundamentalism quite well -- I was baptised by Shelton Smith at Open Door in Maryland (sorry for those who aren't aquainted with fundamentalism for the name-dropping -- if Gordon really is a fundie he'll know exactly who I'm talking about). My sister graduated from PCC. I'm well aquainted with the various camps in "independent" fundamentalism. I know whereof I speak, sir. My research was my life, and the people I knew and talked to. I don't need Cloud's pamphlets to teach me anything.
15 - Steve
Interesting article Warren. Being a Canadian Christian, but not a member of a Baptist church, I can't comment on the various branches of Baptists in the US (or anywhere else for that matter lol).
However, I do agree that many in the media do paint the leading figures of the Christian faith in the US with a broader bigot's brush than actually fits the reality. Your comments on the differing prophetical schools are spot on. I think it's important to point out that only about 10% of evangelicals are postmillenial. That's approx. 9 million people in the US (given 300 million for total population, which I'm rounding off for simplicity's sake). Of course, it's usually foolish to expect most reporters to do their homework on religious issues, they look for the heat, not the light.
I think, Warren, that Steve S meant FORCE 'all of us to practice their religion'. That is not a biblical command. I agree however, that the Gospel is not to be 'kept to ourselves' but has to be proclaimed as per Biblical command with people, but not forced on anyone.
16 - Rodney Welch
Warren,
It's always good to hear this subject addressed by someone who knows what the heck he's talking about.
My father was a generally conservative, evangelical Southern Baptist minister who also worked for a short period of time for Campus Crusade for Christ -- and the differences between our church and family and fundamentalists were fairly obvious. The general principles as you outlined were basically the same; so much so that for a short, unhappy time, my parents even sent me to a fundamentalist Christian school. But the bitter fundamentalist sense of separation from popular culture of any kind was far, far stronger than it was in my family or in our church.
We kept tabs on fundamentalist thought (or what passed for it) by way of a little fundie tabloid we got in the mail; it was called "The Sword of the Lord," and it came from the ministerial association of the late John R. Rice. At that time, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, John R. Rice, Bob Jones, Jack Hyles and the pre-famous Jerry Falwell were very much the face of fundamentalism as we knew it -- and we found them immensely entertaining, as they railed against absolutely everyone and everything that didn't tow their particular line. Favorite targets were Billy Graham, Jimmy Carter, the Southern Baptist Convention, Hollywood and rock music.
By their standards, ours was an exceedingly liberal family where neither movies, TV nor Led Zeppelin were forbidden, and I admit it felt nice to be considered heretical by at least someone; it was the only time my super-square, teetotalling, three-services-a-week Baptist family ever seemed even remotely hip.
The distinctions between two different classes of Protestants were muddied when Jimmy Carter was nominated for President, at which point that popular misnomer "born again" came into play and words like evangelical and fundamentalist seemed to mean one and the same thing.
17 - Warren
Rodney,
Thanks for your comments. I know the Sword quite well -- I grew up in a church that regularly held "Sword Sunday" when we all got a free copy and were encouraged to subscribe, and I know the current editor quite well. Their targets of choice are still the same -- one of the reasons that it's influence has decreased over the years. Growing up, I'd have probably been one of the people calling you a liberal -- amazing what some maturity and a little perspective can do to someone's outlook.
18 - Collin Brendemuehl
The modern fundamentalist is now subdivided.
First, there's the traditional fundamentalist,
holding to the points of doctrine and application that you mentioned. These are your basic Baptist churches.
Then there is the "fundamental" groups that add on the King James Only issue and place renewed issue on separation. This is the BJU and Bible church crowd.