Pensees: Unanimity vs. Unity or Why Young Fundamentalists Defect (Rerun)

Pastor, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of the SI article, but it seemed that the title, like much of the tone of the article, was intended to be ironic rather than critical. I admit I am not familiar with the gentleman who wrote the article, but, if anything, I thought his title was directed more as a rebuke to those who would call themselves separatists yet be critical of Grace Community Church.

Bob,

Do you sleep? Ever?

I’m gone for five days - and you do this?

Bobby - Weren’t you already “involved” with the Ezzo thing? What, you didn’t already have enough people angry at you? You had to do this “Bush Doctrine” shock and awe thing - again. I enjoy going after the Type A’s too - but I build lots of walls and bridges before I go there. You, you just climb into your Rockford based John Deer and plow on forward!

Look, I’m not done with my Type A, B and C fundamentalism yet. I’ve been trying like mad to finish that off for the last 2 months - and you spit this “thing” out in like 2 hours - And it’s perfect.

I hate you.

Good job!

Your friend,

Joel

PS - Great, SI picked this thing up. You dork! Instead of finishing my article - I’ll be stuck here for the next week, digging arrows out of body armor - again! It’s not that I mind only I still have scars from the last time. Obviously I’m with you - It’s just your timing - I mean I just back in the office. Oh well.

Staight Ahead - of course!

Oops!

I see you wrote this in 2004. Well, I feel better. I don’t hate you as much :)

Joel

Congrats, Bob. You not only broke the KJV discussion ban on SI [see ], but you’re the third person I know of, in the last three weeks, to write or to comment about this topic.

I find it very, very interesting that a lot of people within the Fundamentalist movement are suddenly concerned about the concept of unity. Are we seeing a tidal change here? Maybe. I kind of hope so.

Congrats, Bob. You not only broke the KJV discussion ban on SI [see ], but you’re the third person I know of, in the last three weeks, to write or to comment about this topic.

I find it very, very interesting that a lot of people within the Fundamentalist movement are suddenly concerned about the concept of unity. Are we seeing a tidal change here? Maybe. I kind of hope so.

Oops. Try-http://www.sharperiron.org/showpost.php?p=41189&postcount=2

Frederick,

Todd Wood’s article was great. It was ironic. The irony persists. Separatists continue to be amazed that Grace is so much like home.

But I don’t think irony was intended in the title. Todd was making a distinction between him and the GCC guys because that is the distinction that is brought to the forefront by the BJU/Detroit Seminary types. Since GCC does not practise separation per the paradigm promoted by the BJU/Detroit guys, they are not separtists. Or, they are at least not separatist enough to fellowship with.

Todd’s title actually conveys what most fundamentalists believe: there’s an “us” and a “them.” I don’t think so. I think that GCC, BJU, Detroit, and me are all “us.”

Joel,

I sleep. I just decided since I have more readers now that I would repost something I wrote in 2004 because I think it’s still relevant. ONe might say, instead, that I’m lazy.

Write your paper. I’m interested.

Jay,

The link still doesn’t work, but I have to give you an A for effort! Separatists are afraid of unity. Be prepared for the “slippery slope” arguments… It’s sad. Because separatism and unity are not incompatible.

Bob,

I think your paper is pretty much spot on, and I largely agree with you. But I do have two honest questions:

1) Why do you and your friends seem to care so much about the label “fundamentalist”?

Even many years ago folks like J. Gresham Machen saw no need for the term. We already had the term orthodox. We already had various confessions that spelled out the essential truths described in “The Fundamentals”.

Today it seems that the term is of even less value. To all but those who wish to stipulate the historic or some private definition, it is useful only to refer to harmful manifestations of religion.

2) Why do you prefer BJU to Masters or somewhere similar?

BJU is largely responsible for giving Rod Bell such prominence. BJU is largely responsible for the fact that most self-identified fundamentalists think that MacArthur is part of the “them” not “us”. And the list could go on.

BJU does many things well. No argument there. However, it bears a large measure of the responsibility for the problems you identify in your paper.

Keith

Joel,

BJU/Detroit seminary types? Profound analytical approach there. I hope your revised Alphabet model of fundamentalism is more nuanced than this. Good grief.

Um, that was me, that said that, Dave. I’m sure Joel will be much more analytical. Generalizations are not always pin-point accurate, but they are generally on the mark. And, interestingly, there are few seminaries that have a reputation for producing so predictable a result as DBTS does its graduates. That’s good or bad depending on ones perspective.

As for my own perspective on that last line, I’m basically neutral.

My bad, and my apologies to Joel. I should have read more carefully.

Predictable? That’s really somewhat comical (Joel and I are both DBTS grads) and evidence that you only know a few DBTS grads. You should may be get out and meet some more DBTS grads before you generalize. Same goes for BJU grads too. And NBBC grads. And…

What’s comical, Dave, is that you seem to be upset that I have generalized DBTS grads as having a fairly cohesive unity on the subject of secondary separation - something that I think you should be happy about. I didn’t even suggest negative generalizations.

Now there may be kazillions of DBTS grads that I don’t know, seeing that the school has been graduating students since way back to 1980, but in all likelihood since I have made my rounds in these circles more than the average John Doe Fundy, I know enough to know generally what people generally perceive DBTS grads to be like/believe generally.

Like I said, generalizations are not always pin-point accurate. There are always exceptions. That’s good and/or bad depending on one’s perspective. (Even as the fact that a certain generalization may be broadly applied to your graduates is also good and/or bad depending upon one’s perspective.) Generalizations may also be huge misperceptions. That’s possible. So, does the ministerial aphorism that perception is reality prove true? I don’t know. (For the record, I don’t like that phrase.)

I really was not trying to get your goat. (Maybe some BJ guys are scandalized at having been lumped in with you. Or is it the other way around?)

That said, I’ll stand by the generalization that I made in the first place because it is accurate in that it encapsulates a general perspective of a broadly defined group which is articulated by leaders and professors from said seminaries. Therefore, my generalization is not only accurate, but germane to the subject.

What is not germane to the subject is whether I know enough DBTS grads to be mathematically precise in my usage of the word “generally.” That would require careful research into how many grads I know against the number of actual graduates…Both figures elude me at the moment.

It’s interesting that I know both you and Joel and I still made the generalization. Go figure.

Well friends, this is an interesting situation we have here!

Wow - How do I respond to this little dance between friend David and friend Bob?

First, See - I told you Bob - Who shows up? The Goliath of Allen Park. I told you this would result in more scars for my backside! You are a dork - I must be a bigger dork because here I am, by your side - Out in the middle of the field of battle and every “stinkin” Type A, and A+ Fundamentalists will be aiming at you, and have you not noticed - I’m already wounded. Bob -can’t you see this - I’m already bloody here! Thankfully just like Rambo - I carry a self-sowing kit so the blood is already clean, the stitches in the skin are tight, I am healing from said wound and happily all is well! Ah yes, but please notice - The battle has been like 5 minutes and already King David here speared me by mistake. Oh yeah, he says, “Sorry Joel - Love ya man - we’re close DBTS Alumni buds - right?” (He actually doesn’t say that, but you can feel that’s what he means here!)

Second, Bob - You know me - I love being able to love everyone - but now you have forced me out in the open to state what I really believe. I have to actually take sides! I hate it when you do that.

Third, Dave - you are not forgiven because I don’t see an ounce of repentance here. Just kidding - your forgiven - Go and sin no more my son!

Fourth, As everyone knows in blogdom - I’ve been painfully working on the update from last years, “line in the sand.” This year’s version is called “Three Lines in the Sand: An Analysis of Type A, B and C Fundamentalism” (or as lovingly referred to by friend Dave here as my “Alphabet Model.”)

Both Kevin Bauder and one of my editors had encouraging words when I was finishing up my D.Min final project. They both said something like this - “Joel, we love your stuff here, just two problems - you can’t spell and you can’t write.” Thankfully both of them saw me to the end. I now know why it’s called a “Terminal Paper.”

Well, I am no longer in denial. So, it takes me forever when I write a lengthy article - or a short one (just notice this post!)

I hate doing this, but Dave, As luck would have it (when was the last time you heard a DBTS Alum say that!) I just “happened” to have mentioned my dear Alma Mater’s propensity to produce very “like-minded” graduates. This is not a bad deal.

Let me show you what I will be saying - Hopefully I won’t be getting a “good grief” from you this time.

(By the way, just to let you know - Type B’s would see your use of “good grief” here as missing the “charity mark” from one as distinguished as you - Type A’s would give your “good grief” a standing ovation. “good grief Dave!”)

Here is what I say,

“At Detroit Seminary I experienced the theological titanium grid that is DBTS. McCunism flows through my veins. I am a McCunian Calvinist. I am a McCunian dispensationalist. I am a McCunian apologist. I am not a McCunian separatist. I appreciate his view of separation. However, Dr. McCune is a Type A fundamentalist. I am Type B. I will explain the difference at least from my perspective later. About the only other disagreement I would have with my mentor is on the understanding of the Kingdom. I would see a bit more of the Kingdom being here already than Dr. McCune would understand. Before you jump to any conclusions – please know I am not self-deluded on who is the expert and who is the learner. I will not be surprised at all one day to publicly admit that I now believe I’ve been wrong and my dear mentor, Dr. McCune was right. Publicly disagreeing with someone you admire and love like Dr. McCune feels like that weird dream when you were a kid when you were running down the road buck naked! It is hard to disagree with Rolland McCune because he is a wonderful example of graciousness and Christ likeness. In a very real sense He introduced me to God. Yes I was born again before arriving to seminary. However, there were so many aspects of God that I simply did not appreciate until arriving under Dr. McCune’s teaching ministry at DBTS.”

So, Dave - That’s what I will be saying. I’m doing all that I can be straight as an arrow - while at the same time being Christ-like in my spirit here.

But since you’ve put it to Bobby here, let me add.

I do think - no I know - the perspective “out there” is that if you’ve met one DBTS grad you’ve met them all. You don’t hear that about Central Grads, or Calvary Grads or even BJ Grads. Well, I’m happy to do my part in destroying that fantasy. I know there is more diversity from DBTS grads than what is often admitted. You and I are a fair comparison. That might be a fun “joint” project. You and I could list all the ways we are different.

My only concern for DBTS grads being viewed as “the same,” is that if we are not careful, we (DBTS Grads) could potentially come off with a persona of “elitism.” In other words when a school sends out graduates that seem to all believe and act the same way - it can give the appearance that we believe that our approach is the the only theology/methodology of ministry that is blessed of God. Dave, I know that is the farthest from the truth. You have never been that way. But that would be the only real concern and danger, I would have with our Grads having a “cookie cutter” look.

I think we (DBTS alumni) will just have to live with this. The fact that DBTS believes what it does is why we went to the school to begin with. I started out with a list of 8 graduate schools -Included in my list was Masters Seminary, BJ, Faith, Central and several others. DBTS won out because of the titanium grid. I took one summer school course - sat with each of the prof’s and I knew this was where I was going study. I’ve always been grateful for that decision.

So it may be that we (DBTS Alumni) are accused of being “cookie-cutter” because most of us where already Dispensational and Calvinisitic before “going through.” So obviously “we” will come off to many as the “same,” because you simply do not have the type of theological unity and cohesion at other schools that take the more “plethora” approach to theology, hermeneutics, homiletics, pastoral theology, worship style, etc….that DBTS does.

While I do prefer the philosophy that says, “We will give you several approaches, and you exercise discernment as to which one is best” (this is the philosophy we have at IBC - I think BJ Seminary also has this, I experienced more variety of views at Central - Of course Central is becoming less and less diversified during these “Bauder Years.”), I am very grateful that I received the education I received in Allen Park.

My dad said it best, “Son, if you ever decide to have a more modified view of dispensationalism, or McCunian Calvinism, it will be good for you to understand from what you are modified.” (By the way, my Dad was and continues to be grateful and supportive of both his son and son in law’s DBTS education).

Warm Blessings on you both!

Joel

PS - Dave - I will reserve Type D for you!

Bob Bixby,

I appreciate your reposting this article, as I missed it the first time around. I think you do a great job pointing out a sober truth for fundamentalism.

My frustration with movement fundamentalism is not that they disagree with conservative evangelicals but that they insist on blackballing them. Why not just agree to disagree on the minor issues and welcome them into a true Christian unity around what really matters—the fundamentals? Movement fundamentalists agree with conservative evangelicals on many things that only touch on the fundamentals, too. For instance, they agree on complimentarianism, methodology (most conservative evangelicals shun the Bill Hybels/Rick Warren church growth marketing philosophy), Lordship salvation (most movement fundamentalists agree on this, I think), and etc.

Instead the movement fundamentalists magnify minor differences and do everything they can to stay separate. If they were more charitable about it, and took greater pains to be sure to welcome and affirm conservative evangelicals—without qualifying statements, then they would not seem to downplay unity as much as they are perceived. While separation is important, the calls for unity in Scripture are even more forceful and pervasive. Yet unity is short shrifted while separation is exalted.

What we separate over defines us, and when you look at most fundamentalists, they are defined by petty and insignificant issues. Rather than standing on Biblical doctrine, they are standing on extra-Biblical application. Scripture doesn’t say how many years you should remain in a denomination trying to seek its reform before jumping ship. It also does not state how important someone’s one-time cooperation with a questionable fellow should be when you are determining whether or not to have him speak at your church. Yet these issues become barricades which in many instances result in a stifling of unity and the growth of suspicion and dissension.

Why do fundamentalists like Davey always see the need to insert an extra point into Law’s definition of Fundamentalist? Why does it always have to be they who are the only truly Biblical followers of Christ today? Doesn’t Luke 9:49-50 have any application to this current situation?

Keith’s question #1 would be an interesting one to ponder. It seems that movement fundamentalists find self-identity in the term. Perhaps to them it means “we are right, and we must battle everyone who is not as right as we are, lest it seem that they are right and we are wrong.” I know in practice that mantra is more closely followed by cultural hyper-fundamentalists, but in principle it is still followed by the vast majority of movement fundamentalists, in my opinion.

Bob and Joel,

It’s Sunday morning, so this will be short and, hopefully, sweet.

It was a mistake for me to have interjected any comments into this discussion. I should have known better and just let it go. Problem for me is that too often what one person calls a generalization, another calls stereotyping. Those two things are cousins, I suppose. The latter, however, seems to have a more prejorative flavor to it. My hunch is we all feel this way when we are the ones being generalized (stereotyped). Both of you fit into some categories about which one might be able to generalize, and I would imagine you might be inclined to argue that you need to be differentiated from that generalization. All of us do from time to time.

Bottom line is that the comments section in the blogosphere is an arena for opinions. You have expressed yours. I have expressed my disagreement. End of story.

Sorry for this little diversion from the discussion above.

Dave,

Your short comments here are both fair and sweet. No apology needed. I enjoyed your classes in Seminary. I have always enjoyed hearing your sermons and workshops when attending conferences. I believe you to be a man of character (the good kind :).

Generalizations aside - I am grateful for your influence in my life and ministry. I pray for nothing but God’s rich blessings on your health, ministry and family. Thank you for your faithfulness as a pastor and a scholar Dave. You are setting a great example for the rest of us.

Blessings on you Dr. Dave!

Joel

Bob Hayton-

Good post. I’ve wondered the same thing.

Hey, All!

I’m pondering over Keith’s questions. (and Bob Hayton’s comments). Gotta think on it.

Bob Hayton:

My gut feeling is that the “blackballing”, etc., has its roots in the denominational politics of the 1920’s. You can find a similiar thing, albeit in milder form, in recent Southern Baptist politics. You can even find similiarities in the Democrat’s treatment of the very liberal Joe Lieberman. Blackballing is a means of building a political coalition and maintaining discipline in the ranks.

I would also suggest that politics is the reason that MacArthur was disowned while Bell was tolerated. I will not speculate here as to the reasons for the politicking, but simply acknowlege that it exists.

The present task for Fundamentalists separating out the beliefs which are vestiges of political battles long past, from legitimate doctrine.

I don’t think that the presence of politics in Fundamentalism should necessarily drive anyone away from it. Politics exists in every human institution. But I do think that once one sees the Fundamentalist doctrine as political rhetoric, then the fence is broken down and the young men feel free to cross over if they see greener grass.

Interesting observations, Ryan. I think you have a point.

Another point to ponder would be why “crossing over” strikes so many nerves? Is such a feat so much of a personal affront that the result is consistent separation from anyone who does?