Many have been stung by a fundamentalism which WAS
very wrong in its approach. I appreciate
that. Many have felt a legalism which was a lazy response to real and valid
questions men have. In addition, some separation happens that really cannot be
Biblically maintained. Yet, do abuses
within a movement invalidate it? Separation, because of the gospel
truth IS a right separation.
If a man claiming to be a Christian, or a Denomination
or Church claiming to be orthodox, but not holding to those doctrines which are
essential to orthodoxy, we ought not give
that one any credibility.
Of course this now brings into the whole discussion
- what are those fundamentals of the faith?
We can discuss this matter. At
least I think we should. Not that we
seek to 'argue them into the kingdom'
but that we do get them thinking rightly.
For not all those who believe
wrongly are essentially wrong, and in a hardened state. We should, for their sake, contend
earnestly.
There are those within my own Church body who I
think are a bit narrow in their associational viewpoint. I admit this freely. But are
they MORE wrong, than those who are too broad (New Evangelicals) in the same? This is the fallacy I think many make. Many respond to a fundamentalist upbringing or
experience which had aspects of these errors, by repudiating the whole of
it.
Let me ask a question. It certainly wasn't outside
of the will of God for bad experiences to have existed, was it? Have we not all grown a bit for the striving?
We need to remember the great hand of our Sovereign God is not held down for error on
either side. New Evangelicalism
does have good to teach us, but so does Fundamentalism. What I am concerned is that we abandon the
right intent of those early fundamentalists, due to the error of those
reactionaries in the 40s - and 50s. We
can't let the devil divide us like this. Then we perpetuate error.
I suppose I could cease to use the term
fundamentalist to describe me, however, I certainly do not fit in with the
larger evangelical group.
I oppose much, for example, of the CCM movement, and
rock bands in Church. Not that an
instrument is evil of itself, but the way they are played is often to drive the
emotional state of people to an ecstatic non-thinking state. We
should never seek to move the will of a person apart from doctrinal teaching. If the heart of a man is moved by the music,
he often has no content to cling to and a decision is made which has little
root. If we move the heart of a man by
affecting it by the message of the gospel, doctrinally we do him much good, for
now he has that with which to hang his hat!
I like the term fundamentalist, because, though
someone may get a wrong idea as to what I personally hold, I know where they
might think I am wrong, and I can respond.
It's easier to respond to the negatives at times than to develop a whole
list of positives on which I stand.
For example, many fundies are KJV Only. I am not (nor is my Church). I do respect it greatly. It alongside my NKJV are my 2 primary bibles. I also like the ESV, the HCSB, and at times
the good old NASB. I can define my Christianity
within fundamentalism easier than within Evangelicalism. It is closer to where I stand.
[1]
Bauder, Dr. Kevin. A Fundamentalism Worth
Saving. An Address delivered to the American Association of Christian
Colleges and Seminaries. 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment