END OF THE ROAD FOR FUNDAMENTALISM The following is an article written by a friend and pastor. I have added my thoughts in red. I am sure not the final authority, but this brother hit the nail right on the head, and I think we need to read this and think about our ways and the ways of Christ. ____________________________ II TIMOTHY 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. II TIMOTHY 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. I THESSALONIANS 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. REVELATION 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. One of the great themes of the New Testament is the importance of taking care to maintain truth in the face of attacks that come from every direction. It is a theme common to all of the scriptures but is emphasized in the “second” books like II Corinthians, II Thessalonians, II Timothy and II Peter. We are constantly warned that attacks on truth will often come from unexpected sources. Jude 4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” As things have played out in the New Testament era, the great enemies of the gospel have often been within more than from the outside. I believe that we witnessed such a phenomena in the 20th Century and that this phenomena still continues today and because it does, it is time that we sound the alarm for the enemy within. Why I am no longer and maybe never was, a Fundamentalist. Now before you decide that I have become absolutely apostate and have left the faith, allow me to say that I still believe the “fundamentals.” I believe in the inspiration and authority of scripture (KJV). I believe in the virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death burial and resurrection of Christ. I believe in the Trinity, the blood atonement, the imminent return of Christ and that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In short, I still hold to the fundamentals, but I am not a fundamentalist. The first thing that we need clear up is that the term “fundamentalist” does not mean a person who holds to the historical Christian faith. Far from it. Fundamentalism was a movement that developed out of the turmoil of the late 19th Century in which much of historical was deemed to be unimportant so long as a handful of “fundamentals” were kept. What I hope to show is that “Fundamentalism” and Historical Christianity are not the same. Then too, I need to point out that this statement has nothing to do with the principles that Billy Graham, Vernon Grounds and others used to establish what they called “Neo-evangelicalism” a few years ago. What they did was to establish an off shoot of fundamentalism denouncing what they perceived to be the “stigma” that came with fundamentalism while maintaining the basic position. To this observer, they only attempted to rename it and hope to get a better reaction from the lost. No, I am not renaming anything. As I have studied fundamentalism in the light of Scripture and historical Christianity, I have determined that I not only am not now, but I may never have been a fundamentalist. And this statement begs the question, “Why?” “How can a person say that he is not a fundamentalist when he believes in the fundamentals?” That is a fair question and one I will attempt to answer. By the turn of the 20th Century, historical Christianity in America was under siege as perhaps it had never been before. The attacks were coming from every direction and every blow was devastating. After the War Between the States, the nation was “reconstructed” in a manner completely foreign to and in opposition to the religious principles upon which the nation had been founded. Beginning with Abraham Lincoln, we had 6 Republican presidents who each seemed to try and outdo those who had gone before him in regards to the destruction of the Christian principles upon which the nation was founded. It seemed that every political doctrine founded on the Bible was attacked and abandoned. Even our foundational liberties were under attack. Things got so bad that preachers in some areas, were required to sign loyalty oaths and if a pastor refused to sign such, he was beaten or jailed. These abuses are not widely reported but there are documented cases where it did take place and probably would have taken place more often had not so many Christians compromised with the tyrants rather than opposing them. Today, Fundamental Baptists have sold their birthright, that is, to be ambassadors of Jesus Christ, for the less noble calling of being church house bosses. This is accomplished by calling the saints to salute the national flag, beat the war drums, and exalt the US Constitution above the Word of God. How is this different from signing on with Abe Lincoln? I hear someone singing "My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord" as these Baptist preachers promote George Bush and US War policy. The (un) Civil War did not bring in the Kingdom of Christ, and Bush wars in the Middle East have nothing to do with bringing anything glorifying to God except lower gas prices and banking connections in the Middle East. During this time we became an industrial nation with men like J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt and John D. Rockefeller amassing great fortunes. In fact, I have read that during this time 90% of the wealth of the nation came to be in the control of less than 2% of the people in the nation leaving 98% of the people to fight over 10% of the wealth. Whether or not these statistics are exactly true, the fact is that we went from being a nation without poverty and without extreme wealth to being a nation with both and Christianity was left to deal with the problems that attend both. These things were serious and would have been devastating if they were only attacks coming. However, these were only the catalyst for some far more sinister attacks. The devastation done in some of these other attacks was immeasurable, and although these attacks seemed to come as a series of unrelated issues, their cumulative effect was that of a set of carefully choreographed and sequenced attacks. The first of the attacks I will mention, and I give these in no particular chronological order, was that of Charles Darwin with his theory of evolution. Although no reputable scientist holds to the Darwinian model today, his “Origin of the Species” was a bombshell when it came out. Christians had always assumed the Biblical account to be accurate and had paid little or no attention to the actual mechanic by which God had created the heavens and the earth. The only thing that mattered was that God did create out of nothing and because He did so, He was the sovereign God before whom all of us would someday stand. Now, that very foundational truth was under attack. Christians were “blindsided” by this attack and soon it seemed that the entire world of science embraced Darwin and left the Bible believer looking like an ignorant buffoon. To this day, Fundamentalist preachers frequently have no idea what the devices of the devil are with evolution. Some inform themselves, but it is far easier to ignore evolution and claim that if parents put their kids in a Baptist church school, the kids would be safe. Sooner of later, these kids hit the wall, and they do not have a clue what is coming. This has come to be the case with the cults. Most Fundamental Baptists do nothing to warn their people about the cults or how to witness to them. The reason is that these preachers are too lazy to do real research. Then, Karl Marx wrote “The Communist Manifesto” and in it he outlined the premises of having government and economics without any accountability to God whatsoever. Our founding fathers, some of whom were not even believers, would not have considered forming a government without asking for the blessing of divine providence. Suddenly there was a political theory that presented the possibility of government, not only without asking for divine guidance, but capable of operating completely outside of any acknowledgment of God. Both Republican and Democrats seemed determined to add as many of these principles as they could. Christians who would try to maintain the Biblical principles of government were ridiculed as relics of another age. And, the preacher said, "Follow me, and I will follow Jesus." How is that any different from practical Marxism or the Papacy? Sigmund Freud developed Psychology so that we could learn about the mind, find forgiveness for our transgressions and live happy lives without going through God and in short, learn to live at peace with all mankind without any reliance on God whatsoever. No longer was man a sinner in need of salvation, he was basically good and it was society, especially that part of society that would detract from a positive self-image, that needed to be corrected. In time, John Dewey developed an educational system that could do the same thing for education. God could be left completely out and it would not make any difference so far as Dewey and his followers were concerned. Under the guise of secularism, the public school system became a training ground for people who would do good without God. Fundamentalists, since about 1955, have been fleeing into brick and mortar. They have opened thousands of schools run by the local church. While these may serve a purpose in many cases, there was no mandate in the Epistles of "going out of the world." Jesus told Peter to feed sheep, and Paul told Timothy to teach. The story of the Lord's Church for 2000 years shows that those who flee into brick and mortar instead of teaching the saints to survive IN the world, end up making monsters. They also fail to prepare the saints for the onslaught of every day life. This now shows up most urgently in the practice of street preaching and "door-to-door" visitation. The saint is not eager to speak for Jesus at every opportunity because the church system has given him a time on the calendar to speak for Jesus. It is safer to be with others when speaking for Jesus, and it is approved by the "man of God." Fleeing to the real estate is NOT the New Testament picture. Fundamentalists are now told, "You should be here every time the church doors are open." "Hold the Fort" is the favorite hymn. It is impossible to "pull down strongholds" if one never walks where the enemy is. In religion, Unitarianism whose denial of the deity of Christ had stirred up the nation into such a fury that they started a war that killed 650,000 people, gave way to liberalism which denied the existence of a God at all. They could have a Christianity without Christ and now they wanted a religion without a supreme being. Fundamental Baptists have a supreme being, but the jack boot syndrome drives pastors to take absolute power over the saints. So do the Mormons and the gurus of India. They all have a Jesus of some sort. Baptist Fundamental preachers demand mindless obedience and thrash anyone who thinks for himself and studies the Word with a mind open to the Holy Ghost. This results in practical Unitarians who follow a man and ignore Christ. They give him mere lip service. Each of these attacks appeared to be independent of one another but in reality they were totally and completely helpless to exist without one another. You can’t have communism without evolution. Psychology depends on education without God, etc. And so in time the aggregate attack on Biblical Christianity was something beyond anything Christians were prepared to deal with. To be sure, it is easy to sit in the 21st Century and criticize our forebears for the directions in which they took Christianity. After all, we have a real advantage in several areas men like Henry Morris and John Whitcomb have completely and totally blown Darwinianism out of the water. Jay Adams and the Nouthetic Counselors have shown that Biblical counseling is far more effective than Psychology. Christian schools and home schools have shown the humanistic education system to be completely and utterly failed in giving a quality education. Indeed, God has raised up men to take on some of the individual “tentacles” of this “octopus” that has attacked us making it easy for us to wonder how they could have ever been so fooled. But we need to be careful. Francis Schaeffer, who sadly wandered into Fundamentalism about a month before dying, entered the battle zone and took on the adversary in his camp. We do not have men like this today. It is impossible to take down a stronghold and stay in the fort. So, while home schools and church based schools serve a purpose, they foster a siege mentality in Fundamentalism. Were Fundamental Baptists always this way? NO For all his warts, J. Frank Norris took on the Southern Baptist Convention, whipped off track betting, and brought the poor off the streets to be ministered to in the church house. Today, we hear this tagged "social Gospel" by the gold bricks of Baptistdom. To say that there was an all out attack on historical Christianity would be the understatement of the century. The attacks were coming from every side and they did not have the Creation Scientists, the Nouthetic counselors or the Christian educators to help them along. The attacks of that day, no doubt, left many a Bible believer in a daze wondering and what would come next if he was the only one who had not “bowed the knee to Baal.” But if the attacks of the enemy from the “outside” were not enough, they also came from within. Biblical Christianity was under attack from the “Pietists.” These were people who “majored on minors” often ignoring the major tenants of Christianity only to go to seed on issues that had no real importance whatsoever. They also ignored the real war, which the writer makes very clear. Not only were they not predisposed to fight the real war, they virtually punished and ostracized anyone who went down town alone instead of with the "street preachers" and got into it on the INSIDE of the local university or Christian Science Reading Room. One example of people with Pietist thought were the Abolitionists who believed that the abolishment of slavery and the doing away of alcohol would bring in the Kingdom of God. Another was the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, who believed that all of the ills of our nation could be traced to alcohol and if we were to abolish the manufacture and sale of alcohol all of our problems would be solved. Perhaps I am getting ahead of the writer, but fighting abortion and demanding Caesar pray in the school house is just as much sub-Christian abolitionist as the above. The way one saves a nation is to exalt righteousness in the market place and preach Jesus Christ ONE ON ONE. Anything else is a Band-Aid on a malignant cancer. It is important that we emphasize the difficulty of the day because otherwise it would be easy to sit back with a critical spirit, one that would say, “Had I been there, I would never have done what they did.” I don’t think that there is any question that the majority of Bible believers in that day did what they did believing that they were doing the best thing. However, hindsight, being what it is, will show that what they did in response to all of the attacks was not the Biblical thing to do. At any rate, it was out of all of this that Fundamentalism was born. It is difficult to know just when Fundamentalism started but for sake of our discussion we will use the books by the Stewart Brothers entitled “The Fundamentals” as our starting point. When Lyman and Milton Stewart sent out their series of books to every pastor, Sunday school teacher and Christian worker they could find, they at least gave a name to a new movement. The premise of this movement was to marginalize every issue except the very most basic issues of Christianity. To give you an idea of how much the Fundamentalists tried to cut down on the issues of Christianity, we can compare the “fundamentals” with the London Baptist Confession of 1689. In that year, the Baptists of England got together and established some 31 planks, each with several sub points, as the issues that they agreed upon. The Presbyterians had a similar document, “The Westminster Confession of Faith.” These “confessional groups” chose a very broad basis for fellowship. The writer neglected to note that the Roman Catholic Church, while recently trying to be cozy to Christendom in general, has never dropped any of its "Fundamentals." Why is it the those on the narrow way find it so easy to drop ANYTHING taught in the Word of God. In contrast, the Fundamentalists chose to take all of these issues and narrowed them down to about 5 or 6 issues and basically said that the rest were not worth making any fuss over. They narrowed Christianity to the lowest common denominator. In essence, the Fundamentalists established the “minimum standards” for Christianity in an attempt to become as inclusive as they could. In school that is called letting the kid pass with a "D". Fundamentalism changed the emphasis of Christianity from revival to evangelism. To see the difference, one needs to compare at the difference between the results of the preaching during the Great Awakening and that of the recent Fundamentalists. When Edwards, Whitfield and the great preachers of the Great Awakening preached, in time the Colonies were turned to a Biblical basis for government, economics, education and every area of life. The recent Fundamentalists were only interested in “nickels and noses.” They cared not a whit for government, or economics so long as souls were being saved and Christians ceased to drink and smoke. Christian colleges and Bible Institutes were built but many included Psychology departments and taught The Gap Theory or other compromises in their science departments. Calling the world a “sinking ship” they were, in many cases, content to turn everything over to the devil so long as souls were being saved. This is spot on! The net effect was to get the souls saved and then send them to the fold of the hireling to be fed and raised. The world, the flesh, and the devil were on faculty at the Bible college, and they sent out preachers to local churches who preached the Gospel all the time, and, for variety, they hauled bus loads of lambs to Bill Gothard's Basic Youth Conflicts seminar to come home with a big red book written by Bill's sodomite brother. Later, they sent their men to Promise Keepers to learn worm training so they could come home and lay on the carpet and be a worm in front of their wife and kids. But, they are saved, brother. You will see more clearly how this compromise was so devastating as we look into some of the things that Fundamentalism marginalized. Several years ago, when I first began to think about this issue, I realized that they left out, counted as unimportant. The Baptist Distinctives.
I am a Baptist! Down through the centuries Baptists have suffered and even died because they held to these doctrines. In fact, it was these doctrines for which people suffered for the faith. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in history who died for any of the “fundamentals,” but history stands replete with the testimonies of those who suffered and died because they held to adult baptism, the autonomy of the local Church etc. This should include far more than only Baptists. The Covenanters died for similar "side issues". The Anabaptists, who pre-dated the Baptists, as well as the Waldensean, and all the way back to the Donatists died for "side issues". These were NOT Baptists. The title "Baptist" did not exist until somewhere in the 1600s in England. To claim all those others were Baptists is to marginalize honest research and raw truth. The "Trail of Blood" (Baptist exclusiveism definition) is a classic Mother Goose notion which has caused Fundamental Baptists to totally ignore the true history of Christ's Church. These men who wave the King James Bible will not admit that God handed it to them courtesy of Puritans and Anglicans. There was not a Baptist in sight. The writer is correct in principle though-- few saints in the Church Age have died for the "Fundamentals." Hey, Pope Benedict XVI believes every one of them. It is the "nonessentials" where the Pope damns his soul. It is virtually impossible to define a Baptist with the Word of God, for Baptist traditions by the score end up being extrapolated from the pure Word by these tricky boys. In the end, a thousand varieties of Baptists emerge, and every one will tell you he is the only one that is a pure Baptist. It is mad to feel loyalty to such a slop hog mash bucket when we have the sincere milk of the Word by which to define ourselves. I would not want to ascribe any sinister motive to the founders of fundamentalism, but in truth, they were saying that our Baptist forebears suffered and died for unimportant “peripheral” issues. The things that they died for were not worth dying for! Preach it! So, I believe most Fundamental Baptists lack anything they would die for. You will pardon me, but I have a problem with that. I am not prepared to tell the Pilgrims who suffered great deprivations and even death because they believed in the Autonomy of the Local Church. I am not prepared to try to explain to John Bunyan that he was wrong in spending 12 years in Bedford jail because he believed in the Priesthood of the Believer. And I could spend a lot more time on this point, but you get the point. The problem is, most Fundamental Baptist preachers do not believe in the priesthood of the believer, at least on a practical basis. They teach "pastoral rule", and anyone who thinks for themselves, any man who is priest of his home, is attacked from the pulpit for not following hard on the popelet in the three piece suit. Too much thinking for himself will get a saint "churched" out the front door, and it is now done by the pastor without any discussion with the aged men. Over the years I have watched as the name “Baptist” has fallen into disrespect by many both within and without. There are many who call themselves “Baptist” who know nothing of the distinctives or the history and so it is easy for them to discount the importance of these issues. But I still hold to the historical Baptist positions that Fundamentalism leaves out. I hold to the historical position-- The Word of God in print is the ONLY manifestation of Christ in the earth. He is the Head, and the saints are the Body. To even claim to be a Baptist, instead of a Bible believer, is to depart from the biblical fold. The fold contains ANYONE who is in Christ, and to give myself a special name, one not found in the King James Bible, is to damn saints who are not under my banner. The only banner I have is that of Christ-- named LOVE. Song of Solomon 2:4 (KJV) He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love. John the Baptist was not a denomination. His title, Baptist, was a personal title identifying him to a time and place in prophetic history. If Jesus and Paul never called themselves Baptists, then it is insane to call the faithful true Church Baptists. But it is not only the Baptist Distinctives that were left out. Fundamentalism determined that the purpose for man being on the earth was unimportant. The Westminster (1) Catechism began with the question, “What is the chief end of man?” The answer is, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” By saying that this was not important, Fundamentalism has opened the door to those who believe that “soulwinning” is the chief end of man and that has opened the door to unbelievable compromises to the point where Contemporary Christian Music is as sensual as anything in the nightclub. We go to John Knox and the Presbyterians to find a biblical man made "confession" which vastly predates the first Baptists. But the writer suggests a superior pedigree in Baptistdom. Some of us have spent time in England, on the missonfield, and with those persecuted for their faith in other parts of the world. 95% of them were NOT Baptists. Indeed, that is still the case. Baptists are the first to run when the going gets hot on the missionfield. I have watched BBF missionaries in situ personally, and virtually two thirds of them played all the time. Some were absolute jerks, making the Gospel look like a goon show at the circus. The only Baptist missionaries I ever met who truly committed themselves to the country, learned the language, and behaved like they were ambassadors of Christ were Evangelicals, NOT Fundamentalists. This impression was gleaned from Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and stories from missionaries I have fellowshipped with from around the world. I am an authority. Your war stories from you favorite missionary on furlough be damned. It is time to take our diaper off and dress for the real war. Any saint who stands his ground in faithfulness to the Word of God is my brother, and I will fight back to back with him. (1) The author had the word "Baptist" here instead of Westminster. I changed it under the assumption he meant to write Westminster. I checked the original Baptist Confession, and I found nowhere that they copied the Scots, much as I believe they should have. We, at Blessed Quietness Journal, damn all man-originated confessions and allow only one confession: KJV 1611, Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. Literally speaking, if a "confession" carries weight, and rules the affairs of the local church, it damns the user to hell according to Revelation 22. The whole issue in this article is unstated in the ultimate by the writer. I do not fault him, for he implies the thing well. The issue is this-- If even ONE teaching or doctrine in the whole Bible is tagged as "nonessential", that act of diminishing or redacting the Word of God damns the arrogant ass who does so. The whole Bible, cover to cover, every jot and tittle, is "Fundamental". If God promises to preserve it, and if we really believe the modern bibles are trash for taking away parts of it, how dare we degrade the Truth into "essential" and "nonessential" categories? When did Jesus do this? There are many other doctrines that we could and perhaps should deal with but I hope that my point that there are and were some major doctrines left out by Fundamentalism has been sufficiently substantiated. At the same time, the narrowing of Fundamentalism opened the doors to some groups who would never have been known as Orthodox in historical circles. For example, Pentecostalism. The Pentecostals qualify as “Fundamentalists” and have been embraced by Fundamentalism. However, their doctrine of Salvation where it is a mixture of grace and works, saved by grace, kept by works, has no basis in historical Christianity. Their “God on a leash” position that our actions manipulate God and what He does is equally contrary to historical teachings. Their Pharisaical attention to dress and hair would qualify them as pietists but not as historical Christians. And of course, women preachers, which are today, the mark of liberalism and feminism, have their roots in Fundamentalism because of this movement. But I suppose that nowhere did Fundamentalism do a better job of straining at gnats and swallowing camels than it did in the matter of alcohol. Now remember, this is a day when Liberalism, Evolution, Psychology, Communism, etc, when we're pushing God out of every area of life, but the great preachers of Fundamentalism like Billy Sunday could find nothing more to preach on than booze. Even if you believe in total abstinence and that there is not even a medicinal purpose for alcohol, the alcohol problem is a minor one compared to the other problems that went unchallenged in that day. Amen! But, you see, it is cheap preaching as long as you don't have any boozers in the audience. Furthermore, you don't have to preach in the bar and get a bottle in the head if you damn the boozers out of hand. This is where Baptists become Calvinists, that is, when they try to make a damnation ghetto of some group of sinners or backsliders they don't want to deal with. I have lead two queers to confess faith in Jesus Christ. I have never told any Baptist before I wrote it here. Do you know why? They would damn me for even talking to queers, and some would think I am a queer to even want to talk to them. I hope some Baptist damns me too. I need that to my credit when I stand before my Savior. Fundamentalists piously removed themselves from music, art and culture. These things were declared to be “worldly” and “secular” and as such beneath any possibility of Fundamentalist involvement. Fundamentalists now bewail the fact that music, art and culture have become almost completely pagan, base and corrupt, blaming the ungodly without recognizing that at least part of the cause for our demise in these areas is because we refused to take part in the them. Because Fundamentalists refused to be “salty” the wicked have been able to take over with little resistance. Being salt is a bother. It is dangerous. It is too much like getting out of the trenches and taking San Juan Hill. Another reason why I no longer want to be called “Fundamentalist” is because of the political agenda that Fundamentalism has embraced. Although many would deny it, there has, from the beginning, been a political agenda for Fundamentalists and it has not been a Biblical agenda. The father of the Fundamentalist political agenda would have to be William Jennings Bryan. I intend to write a more complete account of his political agenda in the near future but for sake of the present discussion, I will limit my comments to just the Constitutional amendments that began as his ideas. According to his autobiography that he was working on when he died, Bryan was the originator of the ideas behind the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These amendments would be for Income Tax, Popular Election of Senators, Prohibition and Women’s Suffrage. Even a cursory understanding of these amendments would leave historical Christianity wondering how a Christian could ever embrace such wickedness. Yes even the 18th amendment was wicked as clearly yet briefly seen by the following. When the Constitution was written it was the law for the government and there was no provision in it that the common citizen could violate. This changed with the 18th Amendment as anyone involved in the manufacture or sale of alcohol was considered to be outside of the law. The sinister nature of this is the fact that a police force had to be created in order to enforce this new “law.” I am not a lawyer, but as I understand the issue, the BATF, IRS, CIA and all of the other alphabet soup federal police forces find their legal basis in the 18th Amendment. At the very least, one has to admit that the political agenda of Bryan was clearly no longer the political agenda that our Christian forebears had fought so hard to bring about. As the enemy swept in like a flood, the Fundamentalist reaction was not to go back to Biblical patterns of government but to try and “Christianize” the various non-Christian political agendas that were taking over. Remember once again, our nation was reeling from the attacks of the various “godless” groups who were taking over but Fundamentalism did not answer with historically Biblical political philosophy, but with attempts to “Christianize” Marxism. This process of christening Caesar and his documents has made it a slippery slide down to beat the drums of war in the church house. The wars are NOT about defense, they are about conquest, banking, and oil. After taking Afghanistan, we are defending no more of it but the pipe line through that nation. The Baptist preachers wave their Bible and rage against "them towel heads and sand niggers," and Caesar loves it. The marriage between the Church and Caesar has ALWAYS ended in torture and pain since Constantine stayed to pray with the Whore of Rome. Mark it down-- Baptists will be attacked one day because they finally stepped back from promoting Caesar's wars and diminishing of privacy. After Bryan, Fundamentalism “withdrew” from the political arena, declaring it to be “secular” and purposing to have nothing to do with it. And then, in the late 70’s and early 80’s we had the birth of the Moral Majority. Here was Fundamentalism attempting to impact the political process. However, as in so many other ways, the Fundamentalist solution was no more Biblical than the humanistic problem it was trying to fix.
Not one of the “Moral Presidents” has turned a hand to stop abortion or do anything else to turn America back to righteousness and even when legislation has been proposed on such issues, it has usually been unbiblical and foreign to what our forebears gave us. In short, the political agenda of Fundamentalism has been unbiblical and has created infinitely more problems that it has solved. And the amazing thing to me is that even after 100 years of failure, most Fundamentalists have not a hare’s notion of the contradictions they have created There is only one word, in the vernacular, for Fundamental Baptists-- SUCKER ! I often wonder how people who name the name of Christ could be so ignorant and then I am reminded that for many Fundamentalists, “Ignorance is next to Godliness.” This is not exaggeration my friend. There is a systematic movement in Fundamental Baptist circles to be dumb as snot and proud of it. This is an escape mechanism for men who know they have missed the mark and don't want to look for the lost arrow. When you look at historical Christianity, you find that education was of primary importance, especially in the leadership. It was recently pointed out that perhaps the reason the Anabaptists got into such false teachings and practices was that the educated leadership was martyred very early leaving the movement open to false teachings and practices that eventually destroyed its effectiveness. So, they fell back on "plain clothes" and external rules to define their spirituality. Sound familiar? Baptist standards? Short hair on men, no pants on women, and a three piece suit if you are popelet? The enemy has not had to martyr the leadership of much of Fundamentalism. With a few notable exceptions, Fundamentalism has been very proud of its ignorance, fearing education and choosing to enter the battle of wits only half armed. And even where there has been the attempt to educate, it has often not been a Biblically based education. For example, most Bible Colleges and Institutes have Psychology departments and often the social worker who is working so hard against the home is a graduate of a Fundamentalists school. Some will teach the economics of the sodomite, Lord John Maynard Keynes rather than a Biblical economic system. The science departments teach the gap theory or other compromises, the history department teach from an Abolitionist point of view. The Baptist type Fundamentalist teaches the official line of some school he went to, or his preachers camp meeting. This is not because he has reasoned his way through the issue. It is because that is how he can earn his way up to carry a satchel full of fame around from camp meeting to camp meeting. Lee Roberson may even use him as a sermon illustration! Sigh, and hubris in abundance all around! Because of this unbiblical teaching or no teaching at all, the average Fundamentalist winds up being a “knee jerk reactionary” being easily maneuvered from one position to another. I recently heard a man speak at a home school convention from Bryan University who presented a world view quite different from that of William Jennings Bryan. I talked to the man in the hallway after his speech and to remind him how different his positions were from those of Bryan. He answered me by telling me that there would only be about 3 professors at that University who would vote for Bryan if were running for office today! We flop around like fish out of water. Finally, I suppose that the greatest problem with Fundamentalism is in the fact that it has accomplished just the opposite of what it set out to do in the beginning. Remember, the purpose of cutting out so many historical beliefs was to limit differences and allow for unity in facing the enemy. In reality however, just the opposite has happened. False teachings and practices have entered like a flood and the result has been the splintering of Christianity rather than the unifying of it. Amen! Whether it be eschatology, ecclesiology or whatever “ology” you can imagine, Christianity has splintered a thousand ways. Crazy notions and silly ideas are held to with maniacal fervor while historical beliefs are marginalized. If you think the Medieval Monks were silly for arguing the number of angels who could stand on the head of a pin, what do you do with the Fundamentalists who argue over the number of people who will be taken in The Rapture with creative formulas or those who argue that Christians will have to spend tie in Hell before getting to heaven, or declaring Sadaam Hussein to been the anti-Christ and on and on. Try disagreeing politely with a Fundamental Baptist preacher on some cardinal biblical doctrine, and he will wag his head in concern and ask you to read this and that Bible passage. Fine, that works. Now, make a quiet comment on the character of Jack Hyles and his cozy ways with his secretary, and BANG you will be drop kicked right out the front door of the mausoleum. Or, ask your BJU pastor boy why Dr. Bob Jones Sr chose so many Freemasons for the original board of directors of BJU. Pow, excommunicated. Jesus, the Word of God, is NOT the first thing to defend in Baptistdom. Historical Christianity has always had differences, but it is hard to imagine a time when the differences were sharper or more serious than today. The attempt to unite by limiting has created division beyond belief. Allow me to say then, that in light of these things, “I am not, (and maybe never was) a Fundamentalist.” It is time to understand that we must neither claim Fundamentalism nor Baptistism. This is because both are all tangled up in one another, and Church history tells us that no group, once it departed the narrow way, ever went back to its roots in sound doctrine. To try to "save" Baptistism is no different than the Presbyterians who stay in that denomination to "save" it. It will NOT be saved. Entities, clubs, denominations, and universities are not saved because the Blood of Jesus Christ ONLY saves sinners. So, get out of Baptistdom NOW, or you will be part of the problem instead of the solution. Why do so many men feel obligated to salute a name, Baptist, regardless of how filthy the name is at this time in Church history? There is NO biblical basis for any name other than Christ Jesus, the only name by which salvation is secured. It seems that one must claim Baptistdom, or one will lose the attention of the people he is writing to. For the record, I am no longer a Baptist NOR a Fundamentalist. I am a Bible believer. I wish the writer would finish his trip out of Sodom-- I like his zeal and his observations. He has done much thinking and study and is near the door to liberty in Christ Jesus. I suppose I should be honest though, once I left Baptistdom and Fundamentalism, I found myself at the First Church of Cherith. It can be lonely to leave organized church and go "outside the camp". Many people have done so, and it is hard to find fellowship. Correction, there is One outside the camp who is very good company................. Hebrews 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
|