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.
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.
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.
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.