The Demise of Fundamentalism ???
I am not sure of your reaction to the title of this blog. My guess is that you presume that I will cite 10 reasons why I think "fundamentalism" is dead or should be dead as a movement. Please read this blog carefully!
The term "fundamental" or "fundamentals" refers to the basics. Most successful new head coaches begin their tenure emphasizing the fundamentals or basics of the sport that they are coaching. The "hot shot" athlete will not succeed without embracing the basics or the fundamentals of the game. Losing teams are revitalized by learning, re-learning, and practicing the fundamentals or basics of the game or sport.
The fundamentals of biblical Christianity were identified in the 1920's as plenary, verbal inspiration; the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; the vicarious, substitutionary death of Christ; the bodily, literal resurrection of Jesus Christ; and His visible return. I contend that these doctrines are truly the basics or fundamentals. This is the minimal doctrine that one must believe in order to be an evangelical. These are the threshhold beliefs. The absolute embracing of each doctrine is essential. Failure to believe one places a person in the religious liberal or modernist camp - non-evangelical or non-fundamentalist.
I suggest, that much like a new head coach, we should embrace, preach, teach, and practice the fundamentals or basics, and this is what we need as we attempt to practice biblical Christianity. The emergents de-emphasize the fundamentals or closely held doctrines.
Many elements of what has been called "fundamentalism" is probably dead and should have died. I think that we have moved from a strong biblical and theological base to an anemic and somewhat bankrupt brand in terms of its impact. In the 60's fundamentalism began to abandon its substantive biblical and theological basis. Doctrine and teaching were villified. The practical and methods were elevated over Scripture and disconnected from each other. Again, practice apart from a proper biblical and theological base spells disaster. It results in shallow Christianity.
While I never want to have an arrogant attitude, many of the leaders who called themselves "fundamentalists", we now know, lacked character and biblical integrity. Again, basics. There must be a spiritual walk, one must live out the Word of God, believers must demonstrate spiritual growth, and God's Word must grip our hearts. Note the number of moral and personal failures that many of the leaders of fundamentalism experienced. Another area of diaster was that fundamentalism became consumed with extraneous issues: degrees of separation, hair length, or dress in general. While I am not opposed to good, healthy biblical standards, fundamentalism became lost in the trivial and forgot the priorities.
The end-result or outcome of abandoning the biblical and theological foundation; failing to develop character and practice integrity, being absolutely consumed with trivial issues produced in fundamentalism a generation of "compliers" with no character, no biblical and theological foundation, no love for biblical teaching, and a disdain for true, biblical separation.
While I do not think fundamentalism is dead, many of the excesses are. Fundamentalism is not dead due to the fact that it practices the basics, the fundamentals. A good dosage of basics is actually what we need.
Coupled with doctrine, fundamentalism must practice biblical separation, both personal and ecclesiastical. The excesses have led many people to characterize "separation" as legalism and externalism. If the Word of God is our guide and authority, both the Old and New Testaments teach biblical separation. The Bible is clear that both personally and ecclesiastically believers should not mingle with unbelievers. The world is not to set our standards or belief system. We are not to be evenly yoked with unbelievers. Fellowships that become denominations bother me tremendoulsy.
I am not quite sure what our movement should be called. I have no problem with being identified as a biblical fundamentalist as long as the movement begins to emphasize that doctrine and teaching are important; Bible and theology are focal; the Word of God is central being our sole authority; and that we practice biblical separation.
The term "fundamental" or "fundamentals" refers to the basics. Most successful new head coaches begin their tenure emphasizing the fundamentals or basics of the sport that they are coaching. The "hot shot" athlete will not succeed without embracing the basics or the fundamentals of the game. Losing teams are revitalized by learning, re-learning, and practicing the fundamentals or basics of the game or sport.
The fundamentals of biblical Christianity were identified in the 1920's as plenary, verbal inspiration; the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; the vicarious, substitutionary death of Christ; the bodily, literal resurrection of Jesus Christ; and His visible return. I contend that these doctrines are truly the basics or fundamentals. This is the minimal doctrine that one must believe in order to be an evangelical. These are the threshhold beliefs. The absolute embracing of each doctrine is essential. Failure to believe one places a person in the religious liberal or modernist camp - non-evangelical or non-fundamentalist.
I suggest, that much like a new head coach, we should embrace, preach, teach, and practice the fundamentals or basics, and this is what we need as we attempt to practice biblical Christianity. The emergents de-emphasize the fundamentals or closely held doctrines.
Many elements of what has been called "fundamentalism" is probably dead and should have died. I think that we have moved from a strong biblical and theological base to an anemic and somewhat bankrupt brand in terms of its impact. In the 60's fundamentalism began to abandon its substantive biblical and theological basis. Doctrine and teaching were villified. The practical and methods were elevated over Scripture and disconnected from each other. Again, practice apart from a proper biblical and theological base spells disaster. It results in shallow Christianity.
While I never want to have an arrogant attitude, many of the leaders who called themselves "fundamentalists", we now know, lacked character and biblical integrity. Again, basics. There must be a spiritual walk, one must live out the Word of God, believers must demonstrate spiritual growth, and God's Word must grip our hearts. Note the number of moral and personal failures that many of the leaders of fundamentalism experienced. Another area of diaster was that fundamentalism became consumed with extraneous issues: degrees of separation, hair length, or dress in general. While I am not opposed to good, healthy biblical standards, fundamentalism became lost in the trivial and forgot the priorities.
The end-result or outcome of abandoning the biblical and theological foundation; failing to develop character and practice integrity, being absolutely consumed with trivial issues produced in fundamentalism a generation of "compliers" with no character, no biblical and theological foundation, no love for biblical teaching, and a disdain for true, biblical separation.
While I do not think fundamentalism is dead, many of the excesses are. Fundamentalism is not dead due to the fact that it practices the basics, the fundamentals. A good dosage of basics is actually what we need.
Coupled with doctrine, fundamentalism must practice biblical separation, both personal and ecclesiastical. The excesses have led many people to characterize "separation" as legalism and externalism. If the Word of God is our guide and authority, both the Old and New Testaments teach biblical separation. The Bible is clear that both personally and ecclesiastically believers should not mingle with unbelievers. The world is not to set our standards or belief system. We are not to be evenly yoked with unbelievers. Fellowships that become denominations bother me tremendoulsy.
I am not quite sure what our movement should be called. I have no problem with being identified as a biblical fundamentalist as long as the movement begins to emphasize that doctrine and teaching are important; Bible and theology are focal; the Word of God is central being our sole authority; and that we practice biblical separation.
Dr. McCann,
I really appreciate your thoughts on this. I especially agree that The fundamentalist movement in the past 50 years has emphasized compliance over character. It wold be good to get back to the true "fundamentals."
Reply to this