tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post4776798735535122479..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Quirks of Fundamentalism Distract from Its Real ProblemsKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-81082594246018468732018-04-18T10:17:07.765-07:002018-04-18T10:17:07.765-07:00Ryan,
I agree with everything you've written ...Ryan,<br /><br />I agree with everything you've written in your comment.<br /><br />We're not going to be judged by God for being a fundamentalist or an evangelical, but according to God's Word. Kevin Bauder writes about the idea of fundamentalism, and I agree as far as it goes with the idea. It's not far enough to be obedient to scripture, but the idea is better than evangelicalism, even with expositional preaching. Many problems in fundamentalism, especially on the revivalist side, relate to a lack of exposition, not being squared away in theology. There is a lot superficiality, pragmatism, and mysticism. I don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78743485893709523072018-04-18T05:40:48.757-07:002018-04-18T05:40:48.757-07:00I found this article fascinating. I'm one of ...I found this article fascinating. I'm one of the young guys who used to write a blog bashing fundamentalism for it's quirks. Then I actually gathered with a bunch of young IFB pastors and was absolutely shocked at how much baby went out with the bathwater. Now I'm just trying to mind my own business and pastor my church, preaching and teaching the Bible faithfully.<br />I think there are a good number of us younger pastors (I'm 34) who are stuck in the middle. We are unapologetically fundamentalist, but came up in churches with zero exposition where every single sermon was boiled down to standards or soulwinning. At the same time, I've spoken to a lot of young pastors who are shocked at the direction of young independent baptists and have no desire to get on the Andy Stanley light or John Piper light train.Ryan Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14614649813352056843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6184251274044861232018-04-05T09:07:10.548-07:002018-04-05T09:07:10.548-07:00Oh, PCC probably thinks it's fundamentalist. ...Oh, PCC probably thinks it's fundamentalist. That's big too.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-30652633705644919852018-04-05T09:06:02.365-07:002018-04-05T09:06:02.365-07:00Hi Mark,
I write these things because there is an...Hi Mark,<br /><br />I write these things because there is an alternative to fundamentalism that isn't evangelicalism and new evangelicalism. Whatever the problems with fundamentalism, that isn't the only direction to go, but there are problems.<br /><br />You've got two main factions in fundamentalism, and they haven't given themselves a title but you've got the bigger group, the Sword of the Lord crowd, on might call them, and then the BJU crowd. There is some blurring on the edges.<br /><br />Fundamentalism is a modern historical movement in reaction to liberalism that does include a doctrine of ecclesiastical separation. I don't see personal separation as a definitional part of it, because it is a doctrinal movement, based upon doctrines essential to the gospel (supposedly) or fundamentals.<br /><br />If you put "what is fundamentalism" in the search function of this blog, you'll get a lot of stuff. I didn't check to see whether I had written a post just on defining it, but I would say it's in there many times.<br /><br />The doctrine of preservation is not the big difference between me and fundamentalism. The difference big enough to say it is the difference between me and fundamentalism, and why I can't be one, is that fundamentalism has a different boundary. I believe the boundary is the truth and fundamentalism says it is the gospel or the fundamentals. You can't practice scripture with that view.<br /><br />Who are fundamentalists? I think the Sword of the Lord or revivalist types would consider themselves to be fundamentalists. I've read articles and I'm saying most of the Sword of the Lord type churches, Crown College, etc. consider themselves fundamentalist. Bob Jones still does. Maranatha does. Faith in Ankeny does. Central does. Detroit probably still does, but they would say they are historic fundamentalists. Kevin Bauder writes about the idea of fundamentalism, and many self-identify based upon that idea. They don't mind.<br /><br />I'm on a road trip, so gotta go.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-47134812761935739292018-04-05T07:38:08.478-07:002018-04-05T07:38:08.478-07:00Kent, no need to beat up on "fundamentalism.&...Kent, no need to beat up on "fundamentalism." Nobody wants to use that designation anymore. Even the FBFI who you would think would be staunch defenders changed their name from "Fundamentalist" to "Foundations." Why? Because the term is misused or misunderstood? So is "Baptist." Guess that one is next. <br /><br />You bash fundamentalism from the right, and Sharper Iron bashes it from the left. Thing is, it's extremely hard to find anyone who IS a fundamentalist anymore. Personal and ecclesiastical separation both are repudiated by those who would have claimed the name years ago.<br /><br />You probably have something in your blog archives about it, but it would be interesting to see a post from you explaining what you think a fundamentalist is and why you aren't one. I would guess the doctrine of preservation is your big difference. Any others? And who are you calling a fundamentalist today who actually identifies with that word? Names, please.Mark Thompsonnoreply@blogger.com