Why I No Longer Refer To Myself as a "Fundamentalist"
          I
 no longer refer to myself as a Fundamentalist. I will no longer even 
refer to myself as an independent, fundamental, Baptist. I now refer to 
myself as an independent, New Testament Baptist (following the lead of Dr. Phil Stringer of Ravenswood Baptist Church in Chicago, IL).
 The term Fundamentalist has no real objective meaning any longer. In 
most cases, those calling themselves by the term give it meaning to 
which I no longer want to associate. They can have the term. It has 
always been ambiguous anyway.
 There
 was a time in history when one was allowed to be an independent, 
fundamental Baptist and not be automatically associated with every 
aberration of theology imaginable. Today, that is no longer the
 case. One can still be an independent Baptist, but one cannot call 
oneself a Fundamentalist without being conjoined to numerous theological
 aberrations. This is why in January of 2011, twenty-five pastors and 
evangelists from around the upper Midwest met in the fellowship hall of 
Shepherd's Fold Baptist Church to formulate a doctrinal statement that 
would constitute the body of doctrine upon which would be built the 
Midwest Independent Baptist Pastor's Fellowship.
           There
 was a time in history when one was allowed to be an independent, 
fundamental Baptist and not be automatically associated with every 
aberration of theology imaginable. Today, that is no longer the
 case. One can still be an independent Baptist, but one cannot call 
oneself a Fundamentalist without being conjoined to numerous theological
 aberrations. This is why in January of 2011, twenty-five pastors and 
evangelists from around the upper Midwest met in the fellowship hall of 
Shepherd's Fold Baptist Church to formulate a doctrinal statement that 
would constitute the body of doctrine upon which would be built the 
Midwest Independent Baptist Pastor's Fellowship.  
Today we have Liberal Christians
 (an oxymoron) who do not believe in much of anything. We have New 
Evangelicals who will not separate from the Liberals, but separate from 
the Fundamentalists. We have Evangelicals who separate from the Liberals
 and Fundamentalists, but will not separate from the New Evangelicals. 
We have the soft separatists in the Conservative Evangelicals who really cannot decide what separation even is. Then we have the Fundamentalists practicing soft separatism
 towards the C.C.M. crowd, the Conservative Evangelicals, and 
Evangelicals while practicing militant separatism from the strict 
independent, fundamental, Baptists. This latter category seems to 
practice separatism very pragmatically rather than biblically. 
They are reaching out to the Conservative Evangelicals and the 
Evangelicals while, in most part, castigating independent, fundamental 
Baptist.  This is supposed to be reclaiming authentic Fundamentalism.     
This
 does not look much like the Fundamentalism I have known and been part 
of the last forty years of my life. In fact, we are told we can no 
longer hold the old    stalwarts of the faith in high regard because they had stinky feet and body odor. We all have stinky feet and body odor. Those old stalwarts
 of the faith were real spiritually empowered men who built great local 
churches that have stood everything thrown against them until those 
local churches were handed over to soft separatists. Then those local churches begin to slowing dwindle in numbers. The new leadership tries to prop them up with seeker sensitive
 methodologies and C.C.M. music. They do not realize that what built 
those local churches was not the men, but what those men believed, 
taught, and practiced. They think they can manufacture the kind of 
church growth that built those local churches by broadening the base 
through doctrinal inclusion. Then, they fill those churches with 
theological ambiguity that requires the pulpit to be silent on many 
doctrines. Slowly, but surely, the pulpit ministry of that local church 
becomes increasingly shallow and less definitive. Social issues and 
personal relationships now become the focus of that local church's 
ministry. We have all seen it happen. We all know that what I am saying 
is true.
 stalwarts of the faith in high regard because they had stinky feet and body odor. We all have stinky feet and body odor. Those old stalwarts
 of the faith were real spiritually empowered men who built great local 
churches that have stood everything thrown against them until those 
local churches were handed over to soft separatists. Then those local churches begin to slowing dwindle in numbers. The new leadership tries to prop them up with seeker sensitive
 methodologies and C.C.M. music. They do not realize that what built 
those local churches was not the men, but what those men believed, 
taught, and practiced. They think they can manufacture the kind of 
church growth that built those local churches by broadening the base 
through doctrinal inclusion. Then, they fill those churches with 
theological ambiguity that requires the pulpit to be silent on many 
doctrines. Slowly, but surely, the pulpit ministry of that local church 
becomes increasingly shallow and less definitive. Social issues and 
personal relationships now become the focus of that local church's 
ministry. We have all seen it happen. We all know that what I am saying 
is true.  
 stalwarts of the faith in high regard because they had stinky feet and body odor. We all have stinky feet and body odor. Those old stalwarts
 of the faith were real spiritually empowered men who built great local 
churches that have stood everything thrown against them until those 
local churches were handed over to soft separatists. Then those local churches begin to slowing dwindle in numbers. The new leadership tries to prop them up with seeker sensitive
 methodologies and C.C.M. music. They do not realize that what built 
those local churches was not the men, but what those men believed, 
taught, and practiced. They think they can manufacture the kind of 
church growth that built those local churches by broadening the base 
through doctrinal inclusion. Then, they fill those churches with 
theological ambiguity that requires the pulpit to be silent on many 
doctrines. Slowly, but surely, the pulpit ministry of that local church 
becomes increasingly shallow and less definitive. Social issues and 
personal relationships now become the focus of that local church's 
ministry. We have all seen it happen. We all know that what I am saying 
is true.
 stalwarts of the faith in high regard because they had stinky feet and body odor. We all have stinky feet and body odor. Those old stalwarts
 of the faith were real spiritually empowered men who built great local 
churches that have stood everything thrown against them until those 
local churches were handed over to soft separatists. Then those local churches begin to slowing dwindle in numbers. The new leadership tries to prop them up with seeker sensitive
 methodologies and C.C.M. music. They do not realize that what built 
those local churches was not the men, but what those men believed, 
taught, and practiced. They think they can manufacture the kind of 
church growth that built those local churches by broadening the base 
through doctrinal inclusion. Then, they fill those churches with 
theological ambiguity that requires the pulpit to be silent on many 
doctrines. Slowly, but surely, the pulpit ministry of that local church 
becomes increasingly shallow and less definitive. Social issues and 
personal relationships now become the focus of that local church's 
ministry. We have all seen it happen. We all know that what I am saying 
is true.  
This reminds me of the question of the people of Israel at the second coming of Jesus stated in Zechariah 13:6 - "And one shall say unto him {Jesus}, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he {Jesus} shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." Yes, the answer to the question refers to Jesus' crucifixion by the leadership of national Israel, but there is a lot of wounding of Jesus going on today in the house of His friends. This is certainly true when people wound the Word of God by dividing it into consequentials and inconsequentials or essentials or nonessentials.
 Who in the world gave any one the right to decide which of God's truths
 are essential and which are not essential? This is nonsense.  Granted, 
not every truth carries the same weight of dogmatism or has the same 
impact upon how people live their lives in holiness before the Lord, but
 we better be very careful about telling people what is important and 
unimportant.  This silliness has evolved into radical forms of 
Positivism where almost any strict interpretation
 and application of the Word of God is marginalized as radical and 
identified as Legalism.  This is what Charles Swindoll did in his book Grace Awakening. This appears to me to be the direction Fundamentalism is heading. 
 
 
I still consider myself a militant separatist. I refuse to adopt the terms of  Centrism. I believe in right and wrong doctrine, not left and right doctrine. Left and right are political terms, not biblical terms.  Yes one can to be the right of right doctrine - that is adding to the Word of God. And, one can be to the left of right doctrine - that is taking away from the Word of God. There are not numerous variations of right doctrine. There is just right doctrine and wrong doctrine. 
"1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 3
 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the 
men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from 
among you. 4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day" (Deuteronomy 4:1-4). 
Yes,
 this text was given to national Israel as conditions of the "blessing 
and a curse" Mosaic Covenant. However, Deuteronomy 4:2 is a universal 
principle that transcends all dispensations and all covenants. We have 
no Pulpit Popes or Seminary professors who can abdicate a 
doctrine, marginalize a doctrine, or change a portion of the Word of God
 to accommodate diversity. We have no right to abdicate the dogmatism of
 the Word of God to be more inclusive. We can be kind when there are 
differences. We can love those with which we differ, but we have no 
right to make that which is white to be black or grey. We have no right to be satisfied with walking in the shadows when Jesus has commanded us to walk in the light and to stay out of the darkness. The shadows of theological ambiguity are part of the darkness.  
Orthodoxy
 will not be found in the myriads of numerous theological positions. 
Orthodoxy will be found in a right interpretation and application of the
 Word of God. Although there are many applications of right 
doctrine, there is only one correct interpretation of any given portion 
of Scripture. Our goal should not be to just get along with 
everyone. Our goal should be to arrive at that one correct 
interpretation. If there are variations that greatly impact how a person
 defines the Christian life and how a person enters into fellowship with
 God, then separation is demanded.  
The Fundamentalist Movement that grew out of the embattled struggle against Higher and Lower Criticism (Theological Modernism or Liberalism) was willing to formulate a handful of doctrines upon which they all agreed.
 Fundamentalism formulated these few doctrines in order to avoid 
fractionalizing itself in the opposition against the rapid advancements 
of Liberalism. Therefore, the Fundamentalist Movement was born out of a 
humanistic view that Christianity needed numbers to be victorious
 against the enemies of God. The Fundamentalist Movement formulated a 
pseudo-unity in order to be victorious against Liberalism. That is a 
matter of fact! They just keep on with new variations of their 
pseudo-unity.
Many within the Fundamentalist Movement were not comfortable with the obvious compromises. They knew it was compromise. They began to create different camps within the Fundamentalist Movement. Almost immediately Fundamentalism began to fractionalize into hundreds of camps. Camps within camps
 developed. Some were (in my view) completely nonsensical because they 
added to the Word of God personal preferences. However, according to 
their interpretation of various texts, they believed they were right and
 others were wrong. They thought they were doing what they believed was 
right before the eyes of God. Therefore, we would be wise to let them be
 judged before the eyes of God. I may need to warn about what they are 
doing if what they are saying or doing endangers the local church I 
pastor in a negative way.  That does not mean I will condemn all that 
they do for the cause Christ.  
There are many independent, fundamental Baptists still trying to function within that dynamic of compromise within the Fundamentalist Movement. The reason I say they have a dynamic of compromise
 is because they have subjectively agreed to give themselves permission 
to fellowship with anyone that believes in a specified group of 
doctrines - the fundamentals.  These fundamentals are defined generally and lack any real specificity.  
We have Baptists who were once willing to die because they refused to compromise the ordinance view of baptism by immersion who are now cooperating with those holding to the sacramental view in infant and adult baptisms whether by immersion, affusion, or sprinkling. We have those who believe that the sign gifts
 have ceased for the rest of the Church Age who are now cooperating with
 Pentecostals and Charismatics. If either the gift of tongues or the 
gift of prophecy have not ceased, the Cannon of Scripture is not closed 
and there is ongoing revelation from God.  
We
 have those who believe in the independence and autonomy of the local 
church and congregational polity who are now cooperating with those who 
hold a Theonomic view of the Church. These are MAJOR contradictions that
 greatly impact how a Christian is to live his life and do "the work of 
the ministry." There are the Dispensationalists who believe in 
maintaining a distinction between the Church and Israel now cooperating 
with Covenant Theologians who believe the Church replaces national 
Israel as a Theonomic entity. Dispensationalists believe God will end 
the Church Age with the rapture of the Church, the seven year 
catastrophic judgment of the nations, and the battle of Armageddon with 
the second coming of Christ to the earth to rule and reign bodily for 
one-thousand years.  How can they cooperate with people who believe that
 the Church will finally be victorious over the world, defeat Satan, and
 usher in a utopian kingdom on earth (literally heaven on earth)? Those believing in a catastrophic view of the end of the Church Age understand the urgent mission of every local church is to evangelize. Those believing in the utopian view
 of the kingdom on earth are aggressively involved in political activism
 whereby the nation of Israel must be annihilated if there is to be 
peace on earth. These are radically different views that demand 
completely different efforts on behalf of those believing them.  
About
 twelve years ago, I was asked to preach at a state Baptist fellowship 
meeting. Almost every man there was an independent, fundamental Baptist.
 I warned those to whom I was preaching that Rick Warren was possibly 
the most dangerous man in Evangelical Christianity of that time. I was 
amazed at a number of young pastors who rebuked me after that session 
for making that statement. I kept track of a number of those young men 
over the years. Most of them destroyed the local churches they were in 
or left their churches because their congregation would not follow where
 they were trying to lead them - ASTRAY!  
I am saddened by what I see going on within the Fundamentalist Movement. I am saddened because many of those I once considered compatriots
 in the battle for truth have decided that certain truths are no longer 
truths for which they will fight. I am saddened that people I once 
respected have decided that it is more important to have many 
disagreeing friends than it is to be definitive about "the faith"for which we are to contend.  
 This kind of thinking has taken biblical Christianity away from a battleground mentality into a playground mentality. On the playground everybody is supposed to  get along. Those on the battleground understand there are real enemies of the Cross and sometimes they dress in the same uniform as we do. The battleground is for battling. The playground is for playing. For those who are not willing to see the distinction, let me give you a simple message.
This kind of thinking has taken biblical Christianity away from a battleground mentality into a playground mentality. On the playground everybody is supposed to  get along. Those on the battleground understand there are real enemies of the Cross and sometimes they dress in the same uniform as we do. The battleground is for battling. The playground is for playing. For those who are not willing to see the distinction, let me give you a simple message.  
Get off the battlefield and quit pretending you are a warrior!
Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.
 
 
 
 


 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
