Comments on: "I am not Wimpy" or What is the Difference Between an Evangelical and A Fundamentalist

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:15:14 +0000

Good post. As a Neo-Evangelical who has “seen the light” and moved in the Fundamentalist direction, I too once shared your fear over being identified with fundamentalism. We used to call them “fundies” back in the 80’s, and I remember having many laughs while reading the all-time anti-fundie satire rag, Wittenburg Door.

But you know what? Evangelicalism is NOT, as you say, with the same “center” that it once had. It has definitely “progressed” into liberalism, and many who call themselves “Evangelicals” today would readily relinquish that title if less “wimpy” Evangelical leaders would stand up and call a spade a spade! You mention Evangelicals as accepting of Billy Graham, but I retort with, “Which? The old BG or the new BG?” When he says a Buddhist can be a Christian without realizing it, bells and sirens should be going off – at least in the conservative wing of Evangelicalism.

I propose a “fourth way!” Forget the old titles and all their baggage. How about the “Biblical Movement?” That’s how I view men like Piper, Packer, Mohler, MacArthur, etc. You can’t lump them in with the Evangelical progressive heretics, and they’re not hung up on all the social implications of fundamentalist separatism. Their thing is being biblical and calling the Church back to being biblical. Far from being wimpy, they are telling it like it is – and feeling the heat from both the Evangelical, Liberal and Secular Humanist camps. You gotta love these guys! May their tribe increase!

By: baby blog » Blog Archive » Linkathon 2009: The year in links, part 2 (plus Linkathon 12/30)

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:56:13 +0000

[...] Michael Patton defines the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist. Update: Patton clarifies and "recants" his remarks. [...]

By: 30 November 2009: Editing, Redux « English 101 Class Blog

30 November 2009: Editing, Redux « English 101 Class Blog — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:58:22 +0000

[...] C. Michael Patton text [...]

By: 16 November 2009: Punctuation Review and Practice on Summary « English 101 Class Blog

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:25:12 +0000

[...] C. Michael Patton Post [...]

By: EricW

EricW — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:57:26 +0000

Get Over It The current obsession with definition is too late to save evangelicalism.

http://www.patrolmag.com/opinion/1867/get-over-it

(Hat Tip to Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk – internetmonk.com)

By: JRZ

JRZ — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:12:06 +0000

Jeremy– so you are saying you are in AGREEMENT with separating from John Piper, Al Mohler, Chuck Swindoll, Mark Dever, etc.? Is this what you are saying? Because that is what Bob Jones University is teaching. And this, my friend, is in direct contradiction to the N.T. imperative to seek for unity amongst the brethren. BJU’s definition of separation has NOTHING to do with the “fundamentals” of the faith—but they separate over Christian Contemporary Music, etc. It’s nuts. It really is. And it is a SIN…and if we are going to call others out…they MUST be included in that.

Here is the definition of heresy:

Main Entry: her·e·sy
Pronunciation: ˈher-ə-sē, ˈhe-rə-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural her·e·sies
Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
Date: 13th century
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

I would say the supposed “doctrine of separation” fits into this definition very well. Very well. It IS 100% heresy…100%. Plain and simple.

What the separatist fundamentalist believe is also in direct contradiction to ANY OTHER religious evangelical group. The belief that you must separate from Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, men like John Piper, Al Mohler, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, John MacArthur, etc. is ridiculous and just plain WRONG on every front. And this leads to horrendous spiritual abuse (of all shapes and sizes) because this group is a VERY SMALL entity unto themselves.

*Just look at the venom in some of these posts and around the blog world. The IFB bloggers come out like rabid dogs…spitting and chewing up spiritual leaders in the community and other people with differing beliefs from them.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:53:59 +0000

JRZ,
you calling secondary separation a heresy is a bit over the top. You can disagree with it, but there is a biblical reason why individuals in fundamentalism hold to it. Paul rebuke the Corinthians for failing to separate from a disobedient brother. If one believes that an individual who denies otrhodoxy (virgin birth, inerrancy, deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, etc.) is a disobedient brother then separation is obvious. The Bible clearly teaches in 2 Peter that false teachers are dangerous and disobedient. If one does not separate from false teachers he is being disobedient and should be separated. You cannot call that heresy. The issue is not always clear cut and should be dealt with using much discernment and care, but there is biblical grounds for separation. There are issues in dealing with separation that go beyond this, but they are interpretive, philosophical, and practical differences. Not heresy. By saying that secondary separation is heresy you are falling into the same trap you accuse the fundamentalists of. You are reacting with overstatements and elevating minor issues to major issues. I have no problem with you differing with greater fundamentalism on separation. You are entitled to your opinion, but calling it a heresy is inappropriate and hypocritical.

By: JRZ

JRZ — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:24:12 +0000

Oh.my.goodness. I just read more of these comments on this post. I didn’t read all the posts when I made my last statement. This article is being linked from Sharperiron.org (a separatist fundamentalist website)…how I found it.

I was born and raised in this group and many of them believe that Billy Graham is a “compromiser” a “liberal” and a “heretic.” My website highlights the significant abuses spiritually, physically, emotionally and sexually within this group. This may be interesting to some on here. I don’t know. http://www.freedomfromabuse.net

By: JRZ

JRZ — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:11:50 +0000

Interesting discussion. I think what some on here are referring to (when mentioning Bob Jones Univeristy) is staying away from this idea of “Separatist” fundamentalist. These are the folks who believe in this so-called “secondary separation.” This is the heresy which leads them to “separate” from the likes of Piper, Mohler, Swindoll, Stanley, …. basically anyone who is not in some form or another an Independent Fundamental Baptist— although some go to lengths to disguise this. This is all very sad— when one of the primary teachings of the N.T. is to live in unity wherever possible. And this “separation” causes a whole host of problems within this religious sect.

If Piper is advocating joining forces with anyone who says they are a “fundamentalist” … ahhh, I’m afraid it would NEVER happen … because HE is the enemy these separatist fundamentalists are fighting against. *scoff**cough*

Which is very sad.

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:23:29 +0000

A quick personal testimony:

I credit the Lord’s use of a Fundamentalist church who pastor was a BJU alum for saving my parents’ marriage. I’m also eternally grateful for the safety net the narrowly defined boundaries offered me in my youth.

Most of us who grew up in Fundamentalist churches tend to be the older brother in Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son (i.e. Tim Keller’s “The Prodigal God”). I know am. And, my judgmentalism is a sin.

Praise the Lord for graciously putting up with my extremes. I doubt any of us deserve to be used by God for His glory.

All of this is to say, there is wrong in every movement. That every such movement is terminal is a good thing.

Finally, at 42 years of age and 20 years of pastoral ministry under my belt, I am enjoying the freedom of exulting, “Oh to just be a Jesus follower!”

The greatest contribution of Fundamentalism is her high view of Scripture. Our hope must have an anchor to know real joy and to fight disappointment.