Thanks for the honest and insightful look at some of the problems to which Fundamentalism as a movement is prone. I would just add that the whole idea of movementss not to mention denominationalism, and so on lends itself to problems. When people are quicker to say I m a Fundamentalist, or oIm an Evangelical,e than they are to say, I am redeemed by the blood of Christ just as you,n then there is an underlying problem. The necessity of clarity and precision on doctrinal points should not be minimized, and the purity of the gospel should be maintained as the standard by which to accept anyone as a true Christian or not. But within the ranks of Christians (i.e. those who believe the gospel) we should recognize that all of us without distinction are saved sinners who still retain inconsistencies both in thinking and living, and who need each other to grow into the image of Christ. I can think of few things quicker to divide one needy Christian from another in the same geographical region than the idea that Iam a fundamentalist, so Ill find other Fundamentalists to fellowship with,f or Iim a Presbyterian,h I,m a Baptist,r and so on. If we all recognize that were saved by the same Christ and believers in the same gospel, and still needing the same exhortation/encouragement from all other Christians, then differences in non-essential matters will be a lot less likely to divide. Our unity is not in shared membership in any movement, but shared membership in Christhs body. When will we see a day when all genuine Christians in a city, no matter how different doctrinally, will be meeting together in love, ready and willing both to be the instrument of change in the lives of others and to be changed themselves when confronted by the word of God?

Theres a lot to be said on this subject, and I plan on writing a similar but different piece on my own blog. Pitchford brings up a good point, though. nEcumenical is only a bad word when it involves partnering with the unsaved to somehow accomplish tGods work.  It is wrong, then, to pretend that unity is the end-all of the church, just as it is wrong to assume Gods blessing on militant separation from other grace-bought believers.It was telling in a blog I was reading where a well-known Fundamentalist said that we should separate from the world, apostasy, anddisobedient brothers. It is obvious from his fundie-representative blog that much practice is hinged on the latter. The Scriptures he cited for the 1disobedient brother separation are Matthew 18:15-17, 2 Corinthians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15. Out of order: 2 Cor. 5 has nothing to do with the subject, so perhaps thates a typo. Matthew 18 is the famous reconciliation and church discipline passage. It definitely applies to a person who turns out to probably not be a brother,m based on the suggestion to then treat him like a Gentile and a tax collector.f Because of the unwillingness of the brother to change and the opposite, desired result of gaining a brother,o the person typified in that passage was probably not a true believer. The 2 Thessalonians 3 passage is probably the strongest of the two (three?). If a brother does not obey, Paul tells us to not associate with him so that he will be put to shame.t This very clearly teaches a certain level of separation from disobedient brothers. However, verse 15 just as emphatically states yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.Since the worlda and apostasye dont apply to other Christians who believe the same things about God and man, I must assume that the fundamentalists are relying on .disobedient brothers to endorse separation from those with different personal standards, from those with a different name on their sign, and from those who logically and biblically disagree on a variety of topics not even addressed in the efundamentals. Regardless of all of this, even a truly disobedient brother (one who disregards the clearly stated principles of Godes Word) is to still be treated as a brother.The real issue is that fundamentalists want to exclusively define disobedience. If your hairs too long, youtre disobedient. If you drink alcoholic drinks, youre disobedient. If you baptize babies, youre disobedient. If you visit the movie theatre, youIre disobedient. Theres an internal list, too, that separates the spiritual fundamentalists from the posers. This is not what Inm dealing with here, but to mention a couple: if you dont walk down the aisle regularly to drededicate, surrender, or get assurance, yousre a poser. If you dont go to Christian school or at least camp, youhre a poser. If you dont go on the yearly missions trip, you re a poser. If you dont show up every time the doors are open, youere a poser. These are a sampling of the things that are not necessarily worth separating over for the fundie, but are strong indications of a backsliddeni Christian.On the other side of the coin, though, I see a danger in other circles of excluding the fundamentalists because of their legalism and oddity. This is a struggle I have and it is just as wrong. I could make the point that from my perspective, theyre the ones who are disobedient because theyeve set their own standards above Christs love, and thereby we should separate from them. As good of a case as I could make for this line of thinking, it really boils down to the same problem: a different flavor of legalism. My iron-sharpening admonition here is to see the problem, abhor the problem, and by no means let the problem rear its ugly head in our own churches. Obviously, I feel like the issue needs to be addressed, but I donht believe that any names should be mentioned or any backs bit.

Great post, Fitzage. I really appreciate your effort to define fundamentalism. I understand Pitchfords point about movements, but let us remember that fundamentalism defines itself as a movement, and often uses itns self-definition as the rule for fellowship.Let me add my thoughts here about fundamentalism. I will try to be brief in my ramblings.First, as King of Pop (Nathan) mentions, we should desire unity with fundamentalists. To that end, let me clearly present some good points about fundamentalism. Fundamentalists typically have a genuine desire to follow Gods Word and love Christ. They may be misguided but are often sincere. They further go to great lengths to prove their devotion to God and to obey Godbs demands for obedience. While we should enjoy Christian liberty, let us not forget to be serious in our pursuit of holiness, too. And finally, fundamentalists uniformly desire to not follow human philosophy or worldly wisdom, but rather the clear teaching of Gods Word. If only more segments of evangelicalism really felt this way.Second, it should again be stressed that fundamentalists have in reality stolen the title. Historic fundamentalism adhered to the five points Fitzage (Matt) mentions in his post above. In the authoritative publication of this fundamentalism (The Fundamentals edited by R.A. Torrey), many of the 11 points stressed by the American Council of Churches (a self-described Fundamentalist institution) were also defended. Yet the movement which today claims the title fundamentalist in its attempt to repudiate the New Evangelicalism advanced in the 40ts and 50s, began to add to the list. While the original fundamentalist movement was broadly interdenominational, the resultant modern movement is increasingly less interdenominational and more sectarian. Historic fundamentalists vowed to do battle royal for what they considered was truly fundamental (it is interesting to note that Baptism was not considered fundamental) fighting against openly apostate and clearly heterodox modernists and liberals. Modern fundamentalists with their expanded list of fundamentals (see fitzages list under his discussion of Unity) use the same militant vigor to oppose openly Christian and clearly orhodox evangelicals! The fact that modern fundamentalists claim to be the true representation of historic fundamentalism is in truth a moral travesty and a sham!Todayns fundamentalists, though, do not see this. Instead, many refuse to see anything as truly fundamental. Fundamental means primaryh or vitaln, most important,. Yet many modern fundamentalists have an extremely hard time admitting that any teaching of Gods Word is in any sense aoptional, fsecondary or kless important. This understanding is a direct contradiction of the driving force behind historic fundamentalism.I could go on butThird, fundamentalists should be challenged over their aberrant views of separation. Fitzage does a good job on this in his post, but again I would like to add some ramblings. I have been frequenting some fundamentalist forums, particularly Sharper Iron. And I have often been frustrated by fundamentalists claims that conservative evangelicals do not believe in separation or do not separaten. As I have noted in my blog, just because conservative evangelicals draw their lines of separation differently than fundamentalists does not mean they do not believe in separation. There are many things fundamentalists believe are scriptural (see fitzages list under unity) which conservative evangelicals see as a personal preference issue at best. Since they do not view such things as clearly taught by Scripture they do not separate over them. Therefore it is absurd to claim that because conservative evangelicals do not separate over some of these things they do not believe in separation. They clearly do not believe in those positions, but that does not reveal what they believe about separation. The very purpose of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is a recognition of the need for unity around truth, and thus separation from error.My brother (Dave) recently said something which really rings true and troubling at the same time. He said, basically, that what we separate over should be defining, or we are defined by what we separate over. This is true. This is why the historic fundamentalists had no qualms about ndoing battle royal for the fundamentals, because they were defined by them. They separated based on the fundamentals because they were not ashamed to be defined by them. But this is troubling, in that so many modern fundamentalists separate over such trifling things. The pants-on-women issue has the scantiest of Scriptural support. At best it is based on an application of one of at least three valid interpretations of Deut. 22:5. To raise such an unclear teaching of Scripture to the level of a fellowship/separation issue is to make it defining. But what did Christ say should define his followers? A rigid law-keeping mentality? Or a heart of love resulting in a noticable unity among believers?I think King of Pop (Nathan) is right in focusing on the Biblical basis for separation from believers. Clearly the large emphasis throughout Scripture is on the call for unity among believers. The 2 Cor. 5 typo you are talking about has to be 1 Cor. 5 which is in the same light as Matt. 18. 2 Thess. 3, also, seems to have primarily a specific sin in view. The sin of just loafing around and doing nothing, and expecting the church to feed you. What I find amazing is the level of disobedience or misconduct which was found among New Testament churches without any examples of separation recorded! Consider the Corinthian church. All modern fundamentalists would have separated from the church, long before they took the time to write the church to encourage it to be sound in the faith (I speak with some overstatement, but you get the point!). Yet even in the face of such clear perversions happening in Corinth, Paul prefaces his letter with these words,nTo the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christtheir Lord and ours: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every wayein all your speaking and in all your knowledge because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful. I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. (vs. 2-10 ESV).While in some cases, separation from believers is warranted I believe, from Scripture. It should be a sad thing, and should also be something where we still ewarn them as ta brother. This is exactly what the modern fundamentalist mentality on separation does not do. In fact, by and large, modern fundamentalists see no need to unite with other Christians, but rather delight, often, in maligning them. Often, when conservative evangelicals attempt to fellowship with fundamentalists, they are treated with such disdain that it becomes very difficult to continue to genuinely attempt to foster unity and fellowship with fundamentalists. We still should try to unite with them, and there are some varieties which are more conducive to this. But, by and large, modern fundamentalists do display an aberrant view of separation. (This is not to say that conservative evangelicals could not do for a bit more of separation in certain arenas, but our errors do not make less the errors of modern fundamentalists.)Fourth, let me discuss Fitzageos point about legalism. I remember being absolutely amazed that people would claim that we (I was a rabid IFB then) fundamentalists were legalists. I used to think such claims were based on a complete ignorance of what legalism was. But I have come to see how saddeningly true this claim really is. Legalism has to do with ones gaining favor with God thru the keeping of laws. There are some who are legalists with regards to justification, notably Roman Catholics or many who have the idea that the better of a person you are, the more of a chance you will get to Heaven. And there are many who are legalists with regards to sanctification. This is where most modern fundamentalists are, sadly.Fundamentalismas emphasis on external (and internal, although the internal is most often judged based on the external) conformity to a list of dos and donets (most of which are not clearly stated in Scripture, but rather merely inferred from it or from a faulty understanding of it) results in a performance based system. People are judged based on their performance (law-keeping). The way they relate with God, with others in their camp, and the way they view their self worth depend on their performance. When the performance is good, they are confident and joyful, but when the performance is poor, they are fearful and weary. While it is important to obey and conform to Gods standards of holiness, such obedience and conformity does not constitute our acceptance with Him. Jesusp blood and righteousness do. The common misuse of authority among fundamentalists (I will leave that topic for another day and another rambling :-} ) enforces the list and fuels the great feelings of guilt in those who do not measure up to their idealized requirements. Rather than an environment which fosters a dependence on the mercy and faithfulness of God, modern fundamentalists in effect advance the cause of legalism in the hearts and minds of believers. More can and should be said about legalism, but I guess I should do that over on my own blog (and not tax Fitzages readers too much with these unasked for ramblings :-} ).Again, great post. Thanks, and keep the posts coming!Bob Hayton

hFundamentalisms emphasis on external (and internal, although the internal is most often judged based on the external) conformity to a list of doos and donts (most of which are not clearly stated in Scripture, but rather merely inferred from it or from a faulty understanding of it) results in a performance based system.I think thatks a pretty thorough synopsis in one sentence of what modern fundamentalism has become. I have heard the leadership at the college I went to say Right actions lead to the right heart. as justification for a long list of strict [biblically unsupported] standards. This focus on the external affects the other areas mentioned above: separation, legalism, et al.Good stuff.

I would say, speeding by at 60 mph, that the gravest error that Fundamentalism has developed almost to an art is Pharisaism. Letter and scripture versus action and intent. Ask any eight year old what Jesus said, and then ask yourself if that’s what you believe.

Just in a drive-by sort of way, I would like to add my two cents worth. I would agree that a lot of Fundamentalists take issues that by rights belong under the “standards” heading and try to put them under the “doctrine/theology” heading. For a dumb example (and referencing one of the items on Matt’s list), women wearing pants. I wore pants all summer to a church where I was probably the only female wearing pants. Someone told me I was being rebellious, and another friend told me jokingly that I was a “heathen.” I would just like to know, since when did dress code, or music (although music can be a greater indicator of where your heart is than what you wear), or any other thing not referenced in Scripture come to be equated with holiness? I would agree with my brothers that that is one of Fundamentalisms glaring faults...the tendency to judge by outward appearance rather than inward integrity. However, I do understand that while God judges the heart, man does judge the outward appearance/actions, and while that understanding should not be my sole focus in life, it is important. Does that make sense? Although we are, and should be, striving to become more like Christ every day (and thus look on the heart), we are still human. We look on the outside. Thus, our outside needs to show as much as is possible what is inside our heart.

One last example: I have do not hold with a lot of Maranatha’s (where I attend college) rules and standards. In fact, I spent the week before school started somewhat blatantly breaking a number of them. But for the most part I understand why they are there and do my best to keep them when I am under Maranatha’s authority. Does keeping the rules or breaking them make me any better or worse of a Christian? For the most part, not really. Wearing pants to church does not make me a “heathen,” no more than wearing a skirt and hose makes me “Christlike.” What I’m trying to say is, that some Fundamentalists, like me, don’t do the things we do because we believe it makes us more Christlike, although certain things can help, but because, well, we want to. I know some people can’t understand that I willingly choose not to listen to CCM or smoke or drink, even though I might not be convinced that those things are “wrong” or “evil.” I just choose not to do them. Does that make me better than someone who does? Not really. Does it make me worse? For sure no.

I don’t know if those two paragraphs were really related; maybe I’ll go into it more in my own blog. I just thought they were both relevant.

Problems within IFB churches

The Independent Fundamental Baptist movement is a small group within true Christianity, but it’s devastating and often times damaging effects are large. Although they claim to be solely bible based and many are, their main focus often times is Pharisaical and legalistic to the point of hurting many new believers, turning unbelievers off, or just hurting the name of Christ as a whole.A good example of this can be found on Pastor Andrew Teesdale’s of Everett Washington ... Fighting Fundamental Forum and his Baptist Board forum. It seems the only people who can control these forums, are those who are related or friends in some way or form to Andrew Teesdale.

If an outsider comes in who actually knows the bible or takes a stand on the IFB legalistic ways and how they have hurt many under these types of pastors leadership, they are immediately attacked and called names and basically ridiculed off the board if not banned. Not for name calling or attacking the messenger, but for their own views on doctrines other than their own. That can be fine and dandy if it were not for the fact that the ones who attack (often times pastors themselves) are FOUL MOUTHED, slanderous, lie about the poster, personally attack the messenger and not the message, (because they know they cannot) sarcastic, or just don’t know the bible....bottom line is the forum owner plays favorites while innocent well meaning good Christians get hurt....much like what goes on within their churches. Their tactics in the church and off are the same.

Some of their legalistic teachings are King James Only bibles, women MUST wear dresses or they are not godly, no mixed swimming, no dancing, no drinking, women must not have their own opinions, that is the husbands job, or men in general. Basically the outward determines your right standing with God not your heart, and your own walk with him. With so much focus on the outward and not the heart (out of the heart spews ones true self and is evident on these forums) it is no wonder so few attend IFB churches. 

jdsbxnwkoubd95ra