There are many non-negotiables for New
Testament believers. Most certainly the fundamentals of the faith are never
open for dialogue or debate. Even those who are currently in transition away
from the Fundamentalism of the past admit that there are some issues upon which
there can be no compromise without departing from the Word of God. The emphasis
of Scripture for believers is not upon change but upon stability.
 |
| Pastor Milton Jones |
1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast,
unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that
your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
1 Peter 5:8, 9 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring
lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the
faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that
are in the world.
Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Colossians 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit,
joying and beholding
your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.
We are continuously warned to be aware
of the temptation to compromise and accommodate the ever present pressure to
change.
2 Peter 3:11-18 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of
persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and
hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire
shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless
we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein
dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such
things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written
unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in
which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction. Ye
therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also,
being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye
should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints.
This is not to suggest that Biblical
faith is static. Quite the contrary, it is very dynamic! This dynamic however
does not lie in finding ways to be flexible with truth in order to fit a
changing culture. The dynamic of Biblical faith lies in its unchangeableness
and eternal power to confront the culture demanding a submissive response. In other
words, Biblical Christianity is not about making the Bible fit the culture; it
is about calling upon people in the culture to submit to the authority of
Scripture.
The
Winds of Change
There is a sense in which people have
always been in motion away from Biblical faith. It is the result of the strong
vacuum pull of unbelief. In the 1970’s and early 1980’s Fundamentalism saw a
significant defection centered in Lynchburg, Virginia and spreading through the
sphere of influence dominated by Jerry Falwell. At that time those who were in motion
were called “Pseudo-Fundamentalists” and then “embryonic New Evangelicals.” Those
who shifted during that time frame have now arrived as full-fledged New
Evangelicals. Then as now, decisions were made, sides were chosen, and
separations in fellowship followed.
Rather than trying to coin a phrase to
describe what has been going on in Fundamentalism over the last number of
years, we would serve a better purpose by simply referring to those who are in
motion as Transitional Fundamentalists. The very word “transition” indicates movement.
Motion is not inherently evil. Walking with God (Genesis 5:22, 24) implies
motion. The real question has to do with direction. In what direction are the
feet of Transitional Fundamentalists pointed?
One of the spokesmen for those in
transition has called for a “radical center” in which conservative evangelicals
and fundamentalists in transition can find a home.1 The vision articulated indicates that Conservative Evangelicals
are moving to the right and certain fundamentalists which the author
characterizes as “mainstream” are moving to the left to meet in the “radical
center.”
The problem with that model is the
reality that Conservative Evangelicals are not moving at all. While they have
become more vocal in decrying the radical shift to the left within the evangelical
world, conservatives within that world stand exactly where the movement has stood
since its inception. The only people who are actually moving are the
Transitional Fundamentalists. There really is no “radical center.”
The
New Direction
The evidence of movement toward New
Evangelicalism is found in the very spirit of accommodation that has long
characterized that movement. There is little question that many from the fundamentalist
camp have embraced various forms of Contemporary Christian Music. Some have
attempted to alter the scores from Sovereign Grace Music in order to utilize
the lyrics. Others have succumbed to the sirenic allurement of new sounds.
Others are responding to consumer demand for music that emulates that which the
world produces. As controversial as music issues often are, the direction in
which the musical feet are pointed have historically been telling of where the
theological feet will soon follow.
Another characteristic of this movement
is the increasingly casual atmosphere created in previously fundamental
ministries. No real fundamentalist insists upon a dead somber approach to the
worship of God; but neither is he looking to soften edges by dressing casually for
church or opting for entertaining environments. A tuxedo is hardly required for
the pulpit but a reasonable suit and tie would be nice. The attire is not the
issue; the attitude is the issue.
In no area is the fact of transition
more apparent than the willingness to closely associate with the Scripturally
disobedient.
Increasingly there is “pulpit swap” between Conservative
Evangelicals and Fundamentalist ministries. In that process the evangelical is
promoted and the resolute Fundamentalist is vilified. Every pastor of an
autonomous church is free to bring whomever he will to his pulpit but he must
realize that in the choices he makes he is also authenticating the position of
every guest speaker. A willingness to become participants in the Together for
the Gospel and Gospel Coalition movements are clear indications of a change in
method as well as direction.
Fundamentalists do not have anything
theologically that New Evangelicals want or think that they need. They want
access to our people, institutions, and finances to be utilized for purposes
other than those for which they were established.
Why
are They Moving?
It must also be recognized that the
nuclear glue for the new coalition that is forming is undoubtedly Reformed
Theology. Reformed Theology with its covenant perspectives, open church
membership, and increasingly radical Calvinism is the new impetus for a new
brand of ecumenism. As surely as the foundation of New Evangelicalism found its
roots in men from the Reformed Tradition, so is the appeal to Transitional
Fundamentalists. The show of intellect and evident scholarship has captured a
generation of younger preachers. There have always been Calvinists in the
Fundamentalist Movement but their Calvinism has never been the cause. The
greatest case in point was C. H. Spurgeon. In the last great battle of his life,
the Downgrade Controversy, he demonstrated that fidelity to truth superseded
his personal understanding of the mechanics of soteriology. It is not
accidental that concurrent with the approachment of evangelicalism by those in
transition from Fundamentalism there has been an acceptance of the Reformation
Bible (ESV) on a broad scale.
Whatever your position on textual
issues, it is a plain fact that this reworking of the old liberal Revised Standard Version has been
designed to be the Bible of a renewal of Reformed Theology.
It is incredibly sad that we learn so
very little from history. There has never been a more stridently Calvinistic
pastor than John Gill in the eighteenth century. It is most revealing that charges
of antinomianism were levied against those who were associated with him. Antinomianism refers to a rejection of
rules of conduct. It is strange that a theology that purports to honor the
majesty and holiness of God should be guilty of worldliness to excess.
It is
very much a part of the Transitional Fundamentalist mindset to raise debate
about issues that have been long settled in the hearts of godly people.
Fundamentalists have long believed in personal separation as well as
ecclesiastical separation. This translates to a rejection of the use of alcohol
as a beverage as well as other overtly worldly practices. Standards of modesty
and conduct are as Biblical as the major doctrines. Increasingly Transitional
Fundamentalists dismiss such discussions as irrelevant and characterized them as
the restrictions of a past tense Fundamentalism. It should be noted that
failures in ecclesiastical separation usually precede the erasure of standards
of personal separation. The “spiritual pride” that would countenance
worldliness as insignificant appears to parallel the pride of intellect too
often found in Reformed circles.
The
Danger
Fundamentalists cannot “live and let
live” in this matter. Disastrous effects are already accruing. Several
institutions, agencies, and many churches have already been delivered into the
hands of compromise. It is to be feared that there will be no return for these
because their leaders seem to think that they are doing God service (John 16:2)
by “reclaiming authentic fundamentalism.”2
Sadly the “authentic fundamentalism”
claimed is bereft of accurate history and intellectual integrity.
Worse, a whole new generation of
believers will be influenced to embrace compromise as normative Christianity.
This is especially true since the centers of learning that were previously well
within the Fundamentalist Movement, are training a new generation of leaders to
imbibe the transition to Evangelicalism as wholesome and desirable. Perhaps the
most dangerous aspect of this tragic transition is its drafting effect.
Everyone who has experienced the rapid passage of a large vehicle has felt the
motion effect in the direction the vehicle was travelling. The larger the
vehicle and the greater the speed, the greater will be the effective draft. It
is to be feared that more and more institutions, agencies, and churches will be
drawn toward Conservative Evangelicalism. At the moment at least it has the
appearance of some resurgent success in articulating conservative values and gaining
the public ear. Beware of pragmatism that would ride the coattails of this compromise.
Disobedience cannot bring about revival. Only God-sent Biblical renewal can stem
the tide of political liberalism and religious apostasy. A major component in
revival is repentance and restoration to obedience to the authority of
Scripture.
We must also recognize the minimalism
inherent in this movement. The core of the Bible is not the gospel! The core of
the Bible is Christ! Much is being said about the gospel, its definition, and
the need for its promulgation. Fundamentalists embrace the necessity of the gospel
but do not reduce Biblical Christianity to a general agreement about the
gospel. It is the old paradigm battle that has reappeared many times in the
past. Will we be soteriological in approach or doxological? Preaching the
gospel glorifies God but so does obedience. A gospel preached at the behest of
disobedience will eventually become a compromised gospel. It has in the past
and will be again.
As Transitional Fundamentalists crusade
for change we must be aware that the change envisioned is not a return to
orthodoxy and orthopraxy; it is a compromise of the truth. It is informative to
note that mainstream evangelicals have gone on record as stating that there is no
appreciable difference between Conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalists
who are in transition.3
How
Shall We Respond?
We must be found in the same heart and
mind evidenced by our Lord in the first letter to the churches of Asia Minor.
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from
whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come
unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except
thou repent.
This is the ever present ministry of
reproof and challenge to people who are genuinely saved, but sadly disobedient.
Further we must refuse to surrender
resources to those institutions, agencies, and churches who are moving. It is
not wise to continue to send our children to colleges, give our money to agencies,
or support churches that are in transition while we wait to see where they will
land. By then it is too late! Look at where their feet are pointing! At some
point there must be separation from this disobedience. It is the only tool
which God has given to us to police ourselves and to maintain the priority and
purity of our position.
In doing these things, we need not
expect to be applauded. Regardless of how lovingly we reprove and how carefully
we withdraw fellowship we will be labeled as unloving and judgmental. We do not
judge in order to condemn; that is God’s business. We judge righteous judgment
to the end that we may maintain obedience and fidelity to the truth.
We will one day (short of the Rapture)
become part of a new remnant. Every age has its remnants. We exist today as
Fundamentalists because of previous remnants. We must not fear being
marginalized, vilified, or even persecuted. We must fear to compromise. We must
endeavor with all that is within us to honor God above men, truth above
movements, and faithfulness above success. We must be sensitive to the Holy
Spirit so that we can take our stand without a censorious spirit, without
pride, and with compassing desire to see our brethren recovered from the error
of their decisions.
Dr. Milton Jones
1) Douglas R. McLachlan, “Moving Toward
Authenticity: Musings on Fundamentalism” posted on the website of Northland International
University
2) Ibid.
3) See, Four Views on the Spectrum of
Evangelicalism, edited by Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.)
Reprinted with Permission:
Indiana
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship
News & Views
March 2013 ~ Issue 31
Pastor Rick Arrowood, President
I am opening the thread of this article to give you an opportunity to submit questions, that if you were at the Q&A with Dr. Ollila you would personally like to ask him. Your submission must be in the form of a question and avoid making a personal statement. Just submit your question for Dr. Ollila and I will publish it at my earliest convenience. This blog is widely read with over 45,000 views in the last month, primarily on issues related to NIU. Your question(s) for Dr. Ollila will, in all likelihood, be widely read and may possibly be used in some form at the actual Q&A session.
