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.

Arrogance in leadership is typically manifested when leaders think that the rules do not apply to them, have no regard for the rules, perceive that they are above the rules, and/or value their agenda as more important than the rules. Let me define the term "rules" as I use it here. Rules as I have used it refer to biblical principles, good management principles, consensus of all of the stakeholders, the God-given direction of an institution or organization, or the orderly policies and procedures that govern an institution.

Some bad examples of servant leadership are found in Samson and King Saul. Samson lived in the background of the book of Judges which describes the spiritual condition of the time in Judges 17:6 and 21:25, "in those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." The time was characterized by a lack of accountability and moral leadership and direction. People were living for "self". Samson was one of the individuals that God raised up to represent Him in this apostasy.

The life of Samson is a tragic account of one who had a chance to overcome the enemy but in the end he was overcome. He had great potential but had a tragic end. He depised his heritage (Judges 13). His parents were godly and believed in prayer (Judges 13:8,12) and feared and worshipped God. Samson was called to be a Nazarite (separated one): he was never to drink strong drink, never touch a dead body, and never cut his hair as a sign of dedication. Samson despised all of this as an adult and chose to please himself.

In Judges 14:1-4 he defied his parents by going into enemy territory violating the laws of separation and fell in love with a heathen. He blatantly ignored God's laws of separation as found in Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3; and Genesis 24:1-4. The principles of biblical separation are echoed for us in II Corinthians 6:14-18. The guiding principle of his life was "get her for me; she pleases me." He deliberately defiled his body by touching the dead lion and taking honey in Judges 14:5-20. He displayed a lack of insight in Judges 15-16  as there were many seeming victories, but he only prays for water and strength to destroy the Philistines. He failed to recognize that God had delivered him.

I think that the sad portion of Samson's life is portrayed in chapter 16 of Judges where he deliberately plays with sin and fails to learn from past mistakes. He has trouble with a second lady; Delilah comes into his life and leads him to doom. He sleeps on the lap of a wicked woman who entices Samson three times. He succombs to his personal desires and loses his hair (symbol of dedication), strength, eyes (light), liberty, usefulness to the Lord, and testimony. He is the laughingstock of the Philistines with the people giving glory to the fish-god Dagon.

Samson did repent of his sin and had some measure of restoration, but in the defeat of others he took his own life. What better testimony he could have been if he had not obeyed his destructive desires!

Judges is a book of defeat due to disobedience, compromise, and the use of human reason. Samson was controlled by his passions and lacked discipline and direction. He actually destroyed more than he built. He failed to check his impulses. His life was marked by carnality (I Corinthians 3:1-4). Judges is the antithesis of Joshua.

In I Samuel 13,  King Saul disobeyed God and offered a sacrifice intruding into the priest's office. He failed to obey God in I Samuel 15 by not destroying Amalek and everything totally as God commanded. He kept the best; he was thinking fleshly. He had a rebellious heart and exemplified stubbornness. Saul had a great outward appearance; he looked "kingly." King Saul developed a mental illness and then even sought advice from witchcraft. He failed to recognize the hand of God on David and became a jealous man. Jealousy ate on him to the point of seeking David's demise. King Saul eventually committed suicide in I Samuel 31.

I see that both Samson and King Saul do not exemplify servant leadership; but are examples of arrogance that manifests itself in people who are in leadership positions that live according to the flesh, have no regard for the rules, do not think that the rules apply to them, believe that they are above the rules, and/or have a agenda that is above the rules. Both Samson and King Saul practiced self-centered leadership which had bad results for both.

I Peter 5: 2-4 summarizes biblical servant leadership in describing the responsibilites of a pastor toward his flock: shepherd the flock is the guiding principle. The shepherding of the flock should not be out of compulsion or for sordid gain. The pastor does not lord over the flock but is an example to the flock. Let's embrace Joshua's model of leadership in the 21st century for His Glory and Honor. Disobedience, compromise, human reason, lack of discipline and direction, carnality, and a failure to check one's impulses should not be our legacy.

Deuteronomy 34 and Joshua 1 mark the passing of the mantle of leadership from Moses to Joshua. The book of Joshua is a book of victory characterized by possessing and occupying the land. The book records entering the land, overcoming obstacles, and occupying the land. Many great victories are noted in the book of Joshua with the man Joshua being the key figure in the book. This is a record of his leadership. Servant Leadership is what made Joshua great.

Joshua had victorious preparation for ministry. He was one of the 12 spies at Kadesh-Barnea (Numbers 13). Except for Joshua and Caleb, everyone gave an evil report and said that the land could not be occupied. In Exodus 24:13 we learn that Joshua served as Moses' minister during Israel's journeys. In Exodus 17 he led the army in battle against Amalek. His name went from Oshea or Hoshea to Joshua meaning Jehovah is Salvation. Due to Joshua's faith, he and Caleb were permitted to enter the Promised Land.

Tradition says that Joshua became the leader of Israel at 85 and died at 110. He spent seven years conquering the land and the remainder of his life dividing up the inheritance and ruling the nation. Joshua clearly obeyed God and had God's blessing on his life.

When his leadership was challenged with the sin of Achan and the failure at Ai, he rent his clothes and put ashes on his head, signs of mourning. The site Shebarim means "broken places." Even though Joshua questioned God, he obeyed God by finding the violater, destroyed the accursed thing, and punished Achan and his family. God's instructions were followed and then Ai was defeated (Joshua 8).

Joshua concluded his life and ministry victoriously (Joshua 23-24). He reminded Israel of what God had done and gave a great end of life statement "as for me and my house we will serve the Lord." Because of Joshua's leadership, the nation of Israel served God after his death.

I see servant leadership modeled by Joshua. He spent 85 years in preparation and service and only 25 years in a major leadership role. Throughout his life, he had a servant's attitude, was a person of character, obeyed God, and was single-focused. At strategic times he exemplified a servant's spirit and heart. When the people failed at Ai, he did not blame them but showed humility and mourning. He took responsibility which is a mark of servant leadership. Joshua models for us servant leadership and not arrogant leadership.

Next week, Part III of Arrogant Leadership, discusses Samson and King Saul as examples of the arrogance of leadership.

I am amazed how little we learn from research, writings, and esperience. All research, writings, and experience conclude that the top-down, authoritarian, "my way or the highway", one-way communication, "know it all", and "never challenge me" style of leadership is futile, ineffective, and absolutely dead. Very few leaders operate this way anymore. However, some leaders persist with this leadership style. Usually if they employ this style, their tenure is short, the organizational morale is low, and employee turnover is high. Needless to say, the style is unbiblical.

In Joshua 1, God says "Moses my servant is dead." After 40 years in Egypt, 40 years on the other side of the desert, and 40 years of leading the children of Israel through the wilderness, God still referred to Moses as "my servant." This is truly a great honor and a term of endearment. What is servant leadership and how does a leader avoid the arrogance of leadership?

A servant leader sets aside personal gain, makes sacrifices, and puts the needs of others above the direction that one might prefer for oneself. He/she leads according to calling, vision, and principles not on position or leadership role. The motivation of a servant leader involves the unleashing of the potential of the followers and the good of the organization. He/she seeks to empower others and focuses on the needs and growth of the ones who are being lead. A servant leader models integrity which is characterized by the fact that the private life and thoughts match the public statements.

A non-servant leader constantly sells himself/herself, leads out of pride and force, and manipulates the followers. The ends are all that are important. The means to the end are not important. People are used and a prideful attitude is manifested. Authority resides in the power of the position and power and control are the strategies for accomplishment.

Leaders succeed that cherish members and speak the truth. Leaders fail who exploit members and practice concealment along with deceit.

In the next blog I will discuss the leadership style of Joshua, refer to some bad models of leadership, and explore a model for pastoral leadership as found in I Peter 5.

I am sure that our forefathers did not intend for the USA to have a one-party political system. While there is nothing constitutionally that precludes our having multiple political parties (more than two), we have the tradition of being a two-party system. Currently, that tradition is manifested in the Republican and Democratic parties with a few minor parties that seem to have very little political influence - some followers but not a very powerful political force. The last major third party impact on an election was Ross Perot, who received almost 20% of the vote in 1992.

My family raised me as a thorough-going Democrat. I grew up in a rural area with a farming tradition, and my parents worked in a textile mill. My family had lived through the Great Depression. "Republican" and "Herbert Hoover" were bad words. Certain family members never got over the association with Republicans and the Great Depression. I remember my first interest in politics came in the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon. Obviously, I was an avid Kennedy-Johnson supporter. I remember as I grew into adulthood, I gradually became a Republican because the Democractic Party left me. So when I could vote, I voted Republican for the first time. As many have said, the Democratic Party abandoned me and drove me to the Republican Party.

I currently contend that for all practical purposes we have a one-party system in America consisting of both Democrats and Republicans. It is a R-D or D-R party. In the light of this situation, I propose the Republicans and Democrats merge into one political party and that we form a new political party. There is not a "dimes worth of difference" in how both parties are behaving.

The Republicans lost their governing majority because the party lost its way, became arogant, and abandoned its principles. The party has not manned an effective opposition strategy to this socialistic and governmental takeover that we are experiencing. The Republicans suffer from a lack of leadership and coordination. Is there not a leader that will stand up and provide courageous leadership? The principles of the Republicans and Democrats are defacto the same.

A new political party must emerge that embraces social conservativism as well as fiscal conservatism, free market economic and governmental principles, and a lack of governmental intervention. This may sound harsh. But if General Motors and Chrysler cannot make it on free market principles, then they need to go out of business. Businesses cannot have it both ways. Don't punish the successful and, in many cases, hardworking people who have certain salary levels by taxing them more. What happens to incentive? The government does not create jobs; the private sector does. Wake up America! This massive and expensive national health care plan is about to change America forever and lead us down the socialistic path further. The massive ballouts have been outrageous. The Republicans are not manning an effective opposition to the new Supreme Court nominee. How can a social conservative support her?

We need a new political party that will stand for something and that will man effective opposition to the biggest socialist takeover and restructuring in the history of America. The new political party should be characterized by social and political conservatism, ethical behavior, and free market principles. More than anything, the new party must offer strong opposition to the current one party system consisting of both Republicans and Democrats!

The age old discussion/debate involving the relationship between the theoretical and practical is no more pronounced than in the theological and ministry world. As I consider this issue, cliches like “cart before the horse” and “did the chicken come before the egg” seem appropriate comparisons as points of discussion. This discussion is prevalent in almost all fields of academic endeavor. Sometimes, the debate is in the arena of pure vs. applied. For example, what is the relationship between pure science and applied science?  What is the relationship between fact and application? In many fields of endeavor, the two arenas are just segregated into their separate worlds. Sometimes, the pure theorist has an attitude of superiority. For example does(do) the scientist(s) who discovered nuclear energy take responsibility for the development of the nuclear bomb? Many purists would not.

 

I propose that in the theological and ministry world that the theoretical and practical are intricately related, and that there is biblical and logical sequence. We have clear answers in our theological and ministry world to the “cart before the horse” and “chicken before the egg” examples. Paul’s model in many of his writings is the theological and biblical first, thus the theoretical, then the practical. The practical is based on and rooted in the theological. No clearer example of this model is found anywhere than in the book of Romans. Romans chapters 1-11 deal with human sin, justification by faith, sanctification, and Israel. Romans chapters 12-16 deal with practical and Christian living issues. Paul argues that based on these theological issues and truth, then one should practice or live accordingly.

 

I see false and very devastating approaches to this issue in our current theological world. I contend that practical or praxis must be based on and rooted in the plain statement and meaning of Scripture. It is apparent to me that we should be concerned about what God has to say. How do we determine what God has said? It is His inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. In this dispensation we do not expect a vision or new revelation. A passage does not have multiple meanings nor do we have the right to approach Scripture from an allegorical perspective. God’s Word is our sole authority. Tradition, the church fathers, the church, and culture, while provide valuable insights are not on the same par as God’s Word. Should not a person in ministry or even a lay person be given over to determining “what God has to say” which means applying the literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual approach to the interpretation of Scripture. This is absolutely foundational and essential. Again, “what is God saying and what has He said?”

 

However, I do not see in the New Testament the model of accumulating truth and knowledge without the application of truth. We must practice truth. The fact is that we have a world that is lost and needs salvation. In many countries in the world, less than 1% of the population is Christian. The reality is that anyone without Jesus Christ will face an eternity in Hell. I would say “Live the Book.”

 

To launch out in ministry and in the practical without having a philosophy based in Scripture leads to many of the abuses and errors that we have today. Evangelism and Christian ministry without a proper theological and biblical base is mindless and devastating. Let’s return to the power of preaching His Word and programs that are biblically based. While stories and examples can illustrate truth, the power is in the preaching of His Word. This also speaks to ministry training. Strategy or programs without the proper foundation is futile! We are a people of the “text” and the “Book.”

As I develop my website, this is my first attempt at blogging. My purpose for blogging involves discussing on at least a weekly basis current biblical and theological issues as well as cultural and political issues, encouraging the development of a Christian worldview, and challenging the next generation of fundamentalist, independent Baptists to pursue truth, be individuals of integrity, and passionately pursue worldwide evangelization, planting of local churches, and teaching believers in Christ.

We need not fall prey to the "devices of men" or rely on human ability or wisdom to accomplish our task. The mandate is clear - "we need a band of men and women whose heart God has touched." Our focus must be singular: to glorify God in all that we do. We need to think like God thinks, and we need to view God as Isaiah did in chapter 6 - God's Holiness and man's sinfulness. Let's define some terms over the next few blogs as well as clarify some terms and issues. I look forward to this blogging journey.

Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.