During the Vietnam War, much of the political debate centered around the arguments about the reality or mirage of the Domino Effect. As some may remember, the Domino Effect theory held that if Communism was allowed to go unchallenged in one country then other neighboring nations would be next to fall to it until whole regions were brought under its domination. I believe that a kind of Domino Effect is at work in the hearts of too many Fundamentalists. Because certain areas of their lives are allowed to have uncritical infiltrations of non-separatistic Evangelical compromise, they continue to surrender more and more territory to that compromise until no Biblically commanded separatism remains.
A part of the definition of Fundamentalism is to be separated in one’s cooperations, fellowships, affiliations, and associations with those that either deny or compromise the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Consequently then, will a Fundamentalist who looks for his own spiritual growth and insight primarily from those from which he is Biblically commanded to be separated remain a Fundamentalist? This post will seek to provide some answers to that as I examine the next question in this series which is the following: Whether Fundamentalism should be actively listening to, dialoguing with, or learning from those outside of itself for the purpose of better spiritual growth and maturity.
Considering the media rich times in which we now live, there are a multitude of ways for Fundamentalists to glean from non-Fundamentalists. If we desire anonymity, we can tune them in via traditional, satellite, or even Internet radio. We can watch them via television or yet video feeds as convenient as a click on our computers. We can be old-fashioned and read their print magazines, books, or newsletters or be up to date and do it all through the Internet. Furthermore, the Internet provides unique forms such as blogs. Blogs also opens up endless opportunities to interact and dialogue with others on an array of subjects. Finally, we could be more daring and choose to attend their conferences or seminars especially large national gatherings that provide a measure of less conspicuous attendance.
For some Fundamentalists the argument about any or all of the above hinges on the claims of its great spiritual benefit to them, and they see the negative comments by others concerning such activities as based more in exaggerations rather than facts. As could be expected, certain advocates including the current critics of Fundamentalism would claim that this positive effect is not just a benefit but indeed a necessity because of a perceived dearth of serious scholarship in Fundamentalism. However, to others the argument is more about the need for great discretion and caution because of the hidden dangers lurking in the Evangelical brew.
For those grounded in the Biblical basis of Fundamentalism gaining selected information occasionally from non-Fundamental sources can happen without any additional allurement to Evangelical thought. However, to others, who are untaught about the Biblical doctrines that affirm Fundamentalism or that follow certain men who are determined to undermine historic Fundamentalism from within, beginning a steady diet of Evangelical thought is the fall of the first domino and more will fall in time leading these ones away from a stance of militancy and separation.
There is a well-known cliché that says, “You are what you eat,” and just as surely, “You will think the thoughts to which you repeatedly expose yourself.” As I said in the first part of this series, there is a reason why Evangelicals of whatever label new, conservative, or left are not Fundamentalists. What we cannot fail to clarify is that if militancy and separation are sound Biblical doctrines then the Evangelical’s rejection of them for his own preferred position is nothing less than disobedience against the truth. That disobedience by them will transfer into their ministries because they will never teach that any Scriptural passage teaches militancy or separation since no man is in the usual habit of so knowingly condemning himself. The consequences of such gaping omissions of these important parts of the whole counsel of God are greater than most can immediately imagine, but it is evidenced in the steady leftward drift of Evangelicalism since its inception.
The suggestions by some that certain present darlings of the so-called conservative branch of Evangelicalism are exceptions ministering above the fray of the mess created by the New Evangelicals is mere conjecture not based in fact. (I would direct you to material posted by Mr. Lou Martuneac at his blog In Defense of the Gospel as further evidence that this is true.) Even Dr. John MacArthur who is seen by some as a type C+ Fundamentalist was himself a part of a group brought together by Mr. Charles Colson to frame a “clarification” to ECT which some saw as providing cover to the original Evangelical ECT signers. 1 So much for these men being the “foremost defenders” of the Gospel today.
Since Evangelicals compromise Biblical truth for the opportunity to maintain greater fellowship circles, those who believe that the Scriptures teach otherwise must be very wary of looking to them for spiritual growth and maturity. An indifference toward this necessary caution will result in an indifference to militancy and separation. We should never allow men even those who call themselves Fundamentalists to deceive us by leading us to believe that we can grow spiritually from those who disregard Biblical truth lest the first of many dominos fall.
Domino number two. Some, who have already entrenched themselves into firmly believing that conservative Evangelicals are spiritual “giants” who have much to offer to us Fundamentalists, are now openly advocating that we should be dialoguing with these “giants” of the Faith. Compromise not faithfulness will be the product of dialogue with those that are in clear disobedience. Truth is not something to discuss; it is to be Biblically defined, boldly declared, and faithfully defended.
Domino number three. The walls of historic separation now seem out of place to those who have already experienced the falling of dominos one and two. This will be examined in more detail in the next part of this series.
-
See several articles in the Calvary Contender such as “ECT a Little Divisive,” 15 July 1995. Viewed at http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/7-15-95.html and especially this one “MacArthur, Stowell Endorse ‘Clarified’ ECT?” 1 May 1995. Viewed at http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/5-1-95.html.
November 19, 2011 at 12:20 am |
Evil communications corrupt good manners.