Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism, Part Nine

As I intend this to be my final post in this series on Fundamentalism, I will answer the last remaining question poised in part one and then make some concluding remarks.  The question under consideration here is whether we are actually now in a post-Fundamentalism era and in need of something new namely Paleo-Evangelicalism.  I believe that an excellent way to tie my prior post in this series to this one and also definitively answer the question at hand would be to reprint in its entirety an article written by Dr. Doug McLachlan entitled, “Fundamentalism-What’s in a Name?”  That is not possible nor practical so here is some of what he wrote about Fundamentalism’s separation in that article,

In the simplest sense separatism means the willingness and the moral courage to draw a line or set a limit beyond which we will not go based solely on a carefully defined, critically exegeted Bible absolute.  While this is a teaching which should be warmly supported by the people of God, it has lost some of its luster in this part of the 20th century due to a couple of responses which have served to tarnish it:

Of course, there is much more that could be said on this issue, but at rock-bottom historic, biblical fundamentalism is all about absolute loyalty to absolute truth.  And that is why I celebrate and embrace it.  For all its faults, the mainstream of historic biblical fundamentalism has struggled to honor, defend and proclaim truth.  A fundamentalist church or school is a passionate truth base where God’s absolutes provide the rudder for life and ministry.  Nothing is more important than that in a postmodern, anti-truth world.

1. Dispositional Offensiveness.  Unless we are extremely cautious, it is easy for us to take the shape of assaulting everybody who disagrees with us with the result that we end up projecting a very ugly disposition.  Too often this looks much more like “the works of the flesh” than “the fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:19-23).  It is something which grieves the Holy Spirit.
2. Defective Lines.  Unless we are committed to critical exegesis of the text of Scripture in its context, it becomes very easy for us to draw lines that are not anchored to Bible absolutes but personal preferences.  New “qualifiers” which were not originally a part of the equation, and which are not sourced in Scripture, begin to reshape our definition of fundamentalism and unnecessarily alienate people from it.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that absolute truth matters deeply to committed and serious Christians, and they are prepared to draw lines and set limits on the basis of it. The biblical teaching on separatism is something which must be recovered and practiced in this generation or fundamentalists, too, will fall prey to the thinning of theology and the marginalizing of truth which is now well documented in huge segments of evangelicalism. 1

He draws his article to its conclusion by writing,

Solomon was right to say: “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Proverbs 23:23).  We need a whole new generation of believers who refuse to sell the truth, whomever the highest bidder may be.  Whatever kingdom, empire or salary, whatever name or fame may be offered, we are responsible to affirm that truth is not for sale, and make certain that we hold tenaciously to it whatever the cost may be.

At Central Seminary our signature verse is Isaiah 8:20.  It was selected by our founder and first president, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Our goal as a ministry is to “speak according to this word”, and not only to speak it but to be absolutely loyal to it.  Our hearts resonate with the need for truth and light in a deceived and darkened world.  For us, the best place to do that is within the framework of historic, biblical fundamentalism. [emphasis added] 2

I do not believe that either Dr. Kevin Bauder the current president of CBTS nor Dr. Dave Doran the current president of DBTS believe that their respective institutions’ best place “to speak according to this word” and “be absolutely loyal to it” is “within the framework of historic, biblical fundamentalism.”  These men seem not able to repeat it enough that as far as they are concerned Fundamentalism is DEAD!

But why do they believe that Fundamentalism is dead?  Part of the answer according to Dr. Doran is startling in some of its unintended meaning.  He wrote,

Some of you no doubt noticed the difference of view on the matter of fundamentalism as a movement between the 2005 presentation and what I’ve written lately.  This led one emailer to write:

I’m interested to know what changed your perspective from pursuing a renewal of fundamentalism to abandoning the remnants of the movement in favor of the local church.  Did fundamentalists miss the opportunity (is there still hope)?  Did the movement deteriorate too quickly since your address (or was it already to far gone)?

Here’s part of my response to his question:

Thanks for the note.  I had a feeling that posting this would raise this question–I was struck by the difference in my stance! [emphasis added]

I guess the basic answer is the one that you allude to, i.e., I think the effort in 2005 was something of a final shot at restoring a theological center.  I did two sessions at that conference and Kevin Bauder did two, one of which was his “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving.”  We did not plan it ahead of time, but it ended up that both of us were making a pretty aggressive case for decisive action.  I think it is fair to say that both of us came away somewhat disappointed, and that disappointment has only deepened since then.  In many ways 2005 was a pivotal year.  It was that year that Phil Johnson did his Dead Right session at Shepherds and then we had a long exchange over it.  I think the tide turned on my hopes of seeing any kind of movement-wide renewal among fundamentalists.  Too much political baggage. 3

Of course that is not the whole of his answer, but is enough of an answer to begin to see that in part Dr. Doran’s believes that Fundamentalism is dead because it is not at all what he thinks it should be any more.  I believe that based on the evidence the same could be said of Dr. Bauder.  Every man is certainly entitled to his thoughts on the subject of Fundamentalism’s condition, but it is a bit drastic to call something dead just because one sees no more use for it himself.  Furthermore, none of us have sufficient  knowledge about everything going on in Fundamentalism’s large, quite complex movement other than in our own comparatively little orb to so confidently and continually broadcast such a definitive declaration about its non-existence. 

Much of what today’s critics wanted as an integral part of a renewed Fundamentalism would actually radically transform it by redefining, realigning, and redirecting it away from its historical roots.  There is a difference between renewal and remaking.  True renewal efforts would be welcomed by many; remaking efforts disguised as renewal should always be rejected.

For his part during his 2005 message to the AACCS, Dr. Bauder laid out what he saw as some necessary steps for achieving his desired goals for Fundamentalism.  First, he mused about the need for a name change. [BTW, his personal favorite is Paleo-Evangelical.]  He also proposed a singular identifiable voice in Fundamentalism to be written by its carefully selected scholarly elites who would speak for and across all of Fundamentalism.  This voice would help solve the problems of the “strange” and “speckled birds” in Fundamentalism by ultimately defining who is in and who is out.   [Is this what ShaperIron was to aspire to as a modified e-version of the New Evangelical's Christianity Today?]  Finally, he suggested the creation of an umbrella organization to facilitate training Fundamentalist leaders and even added that perhaps it could be called the Paleo-Evangelical Studies Institute. [Was it hoped that a PESI would accomplish for these current critics what Fuller Seminary did for the New Evangelicals?] 4 

Are the events that are now unfolding before us especially those occurring in the blogosphere just unrelated, unplanned events which are mere reactions to current conditions within Fundamentalism whose ultimate end has no real purpose and no foreordained result?  Perhaps not as much as some would lead us to believe.  Dr. McCune relates to us part of the contents of a chilling letter he received from one of his former students,

I received a letter a few years ago from a former student (not Dr. McLachlan).  In it he called for a “paradigm shift” in Fundamentalism, stating rather bluntly that “the old [contemporary fundamentalism as we know it now] must die and a new position must take its place.”  He seemed to be speaking for a group he called “the young thinking minds coming up in the current Fundamentalist Mutation.”  He was championing a “philosophic reversal” that he felt was needed in our movement.

Quite frankly, I am frightened at that proposal.  It is no less than a revolution, in my way of thinking, and its effect would be disastrous.  I don’t know how large a following such a proposal would command, but it would be tragedy if Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism would inadvertently become a party to such a shift or would provide a catalyst for some kind of breakaway movement. 5

I do not know what reactions there were in 1994 to Dr. McCune’s revelation, but it would not be too difficult to imagine that it might have been readily dismissed as something coming from an alarmist over mere rhetoric rather than anything of real substance and cause for diligence.  However, concerning the current circumstances in Fundamentalism, those words should not be casually dismissed.  In the face of such revelations, Fundamentalist organizations and their leaders in particular cannot continue to pretend that nothing is happening.  Could it be that some of what we are witnessing are the actions of certain men specifically designed to implement a revolution in Fundamentalism?  Are these critics perhaps awaiting another self-created flash point to come along again like what was attempted prior to the 2009 FBFI annual meeting in hopes of finally rising the ire of the dissatisfied masses of YF’s to a point that they would demand wholesale changes in Fundamentalist organizations and institutions?  Certain that those attempts would be met with failure which would compound the YF’s frustrations,  is it impossible to think that these certain men might then try to persuade these restless YF’s that enough is enough with working with the old-guard of dead Fundamentalism and encourage them to become the needed crowd to begin a fledging breakaway movement with these certain men as its leadership? 6

Having personally spoken years ago to Dr. McLachlan about the expressed concerns of Dr. McCune and other Fundamentalist leaders to parts of his book, I know that he did not see then that his book would or should bring about such an event.  What many of these men think today would be good to know.  The young men that presently sit in the balance or along the sidelines in all this are sure not to be helped by the silence of the older generation at such a time as this.  I believe that the seasoned men of Fundamentalism need to publically speak to the issues at hand, and in today’s array of media options the far-reaching Internet should be the means of choice.

I and many others do not see Fundamentalism as dead.  Neither do we accept that its foundations were flawed.  Its history is still worth telling and worth knowing.  There are many Baptist churches that make Baptist a poor name to some people, but I still believe that under the Baptist name is the place to be.  There are many rogue independent churches who are precisely independent so as to do wrong without consequence, but I have no desire to change in that respect either.  Yes, there are more than a few Fundamental-labeled churches who have and are hurting not just the cause of Fundamentalism but the cause of Christ.  I have earnestly contended with more than a few prime examples here in the Dakotas and bear ministry scars because of it.  Nevertheless, I see no reason to radically redefine, realign, or redirect Fundamentalism.  I pray that you will be convinced of that as well.

1. Dr. Douglas R. McLachlan, “Fundamentalism-What’s in a Name?” Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, no date.  Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/essays-a-articles/13-fundamentalism-whats-in-a-name
2. Ibid.
3. Dr. Dave Doran, Grace & Glory blog, “Movement Regarding Movements,” Detroit Theological Seminary, Allen Park, MI, 30 April 2010.  Viewed at http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=324
4. Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving” speech delivered to the AACCS, 2 February 2005. Viewed at http://www.aaccs.info/media/Bauder%20A%20Fundamentalism%20Worth%20Saving.pdf
5. Dr. Rolland McCune, “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992),“  Detroit Theological Baptist Seminary,  Allen Park , MI,  November 1994.
6. If you do not think such a scenario is even remotely plausible, I would encourage you to read Dr Kevin Bauder’s “Time To Speak Up.”

Read Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism, Part 8.