My Concerns for Biblical Fundamentalism and the Next Generation (Both Doctrine and Practice)

My Concerns for Fundamentalism and the Next Generation

Several items have been churning in my heart and mind over my twenty-six years in Independent Fundamental churches.** Just for record I'm in my mid-forties and have faithfully served as a United States Army Chaplain for nearly sixteen years. I currently serve as a Command and General Staff College Instructor. I'm not a local church pastor or seminary professor so I have neither position to motivate my answers. I am however concerned (as a movement) these churches and institutions address issues which we have faced and will continue to face in the future. 

**Working definition: fundamentalism--a Christian movement which believes in the historic fundamentals of biblical Christianity and a willingness to separate from those who deny in doctrine or practice these basic Christian truths. 

First, I have been a member of or regularly attended fundamental churches in six different states (WV, SC, MI, IN, AK and currently attending a Bible church in OH). As a graduate of several of their institutions, I desire to see them both to continue and to thrive spiritually and academically. I've seen and experienced what they practice and teach.  Worst case I don't want to see any more fundamental baptist colleges and seminaries close their doors.  Who might be next or for what reason? Financial strains? Compromise? Music? Translations? Internal division? Community college competition? What might it be and how can we avoid it from happening? So for starters I'm not out to protect a school, church, movement or my source of income. I simply don't want a movement to die out or refuse to adjust applications for the wrong reasons. 

Second, having read and listened to the concerns expressed by fundamental baptist leaders these past years, several things have become more clear than before. If fundamentalism is concerned about college and seminary graduates from within our own ranks leaving then we really need to consider why or what the motives for leaving could be? And once these concerns are heard will they be acted upon? A point of clarification: they are not leaving Christianity they are leaving Fundamentalism as a movement as expressed in local churches and related seminaries. I have four children and I hope there will still be schools we can support in operation 10-15 years down the road. 

So based on my limited twenty-six years within fundamental churches and forty plus years of life I offer my concerns for fundamentalism below. I hope they are received well.  I know others have these same concerns since I've heard some of them explicitly made publicly in fundamentalists fellowship gatherings. So for sake of space and time I'm taking up one issue for each of the following articles. My guess is any of these concerns can be or have been already read on sites such as SharperIron, FBFI, or from IntheNickofTime (Bauder).

Issue one--If one camp, denomination, or group of churches is making or has made one English translation a matter of orthodoxy then as I understand it this means they are making it a doctrinal issue (not just a preference). The issue has been pushed beyond just being a secondary or tertiary issue. This throws out Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 as well.  If someone's beliefs (doctrine and practice) are now in question because of this one English translation then if fundamentalism believes this position is doctrinally incorrect then we have an obligation (for sake of consistency) to separate from these men. It is not a matter of friendship or club membership. Many seminaries and local churches have made tremendous changes in a positive directions: both in doctrine and practice. Just to be clear there are professing fundamentalist schools and seminaries on both sides of this issue. If it is simply a matter of preference, then we need to use different terms. On the other hand, if this is a doctrinal issue, then we have a greater threat for future generations than we may be willing to admit. 

If I remember correctly multiple books have been written on this subject, classes taught, and public statements made. I have a list of these here. They are useful and thoroughly academic in presenting the reader with information to make an informed and historical decision on this issue. The good thing to know is that more and more pastors are understanding the historical position on this issue, many of which are helping their churches to move away from a one translation only position or a least a translation in more modern English understandable by current and future generations. Fundamentalism must be willing to move beyond being defined by a position on an English translation. I applaud those using the ESV and NASB. May they continue to flourish and grow. 

For sake of argument only one of the two seminaries I've attended was consistent in doctrine and practice (not a crime but simply a concern).  In one seminary we used one particular Greek text in the class room but then required memorization from an English text produced from another.  See the problem. At least the other seminary was consistent if one particular Greek text was used then give liberty to preach and teach from English translations produced from it.  If not hold to another position. We have to be willing to move beyond arguments "for the sake of unity" or "people in the pew can't follow along." I'm glad to see improvements made in this area in literature produced, both textbooks and periodicals.  

This is not foregoing a liberty/right when preaching or visiting at a local church and publicly expounding the scriptures.  At least follow their policies on the issue.  Following a institutional policy for sake of consistency is not the same as imposing that position as the mark for orthodox Christianity. If you can't do that (or follow their appointed standards) then maybe you shouldn't publicly teach/preach in that particular church. Move on to another church or attend school elsewhere (or be willing to restrict yourself to that particular church's doctrine and practice). I have far more respect for those who are willing to go elsewhere if it helps them be more consistent or keep a clear conscience.

If fundamentalism, at least the portion of movement self-identified with one English translation, falls or is inflicted by unnecessary scrutiny due to the English translation issue then they have brought it upon themselves. We need to teach our people over and over. We need to be willing to withdrawal from institutions who will not paint a clear picture here. As for the institutions, both seminary and local church level, who are making changes in a healthy direction, may they be rewarded for their efforts to both teach and practice consistently on this text and translation issue. We must be willing to practice separation both directions. First, to those within broader evangelicalism who have compromised in doctrine and practice. Secondly, we must consistently extend our position to those self-professed within our own camp who are trying to redefine fundamentals of the Christian faith. In so far as they preach the gospel unhindered then great. But great error is committed attaching an English translation to one's standard of doctrinal integrity. 

In the end, I would simply ask if you are reading this and you personally don't know Christ as your Lord and Savior, then simply pick up a Bible (any Bible in any language) and read what Christ has done for you in His death, burial and bodily resurrection from the dead for your sins. Any translation can give you this information.  Read a Bible and come to know the Trinitarian God of the Bible, the Creator of you and me.

Read. Enjoy. Be challenged. Comment as needed.

Many Evangelical Seminaries still believe and teach dispensationalism

Many conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist seminaries still teach and believe dispensationalism (or at least its underlying hermeneutics).  They are also not ashamed to be premillenialists.  I am not necessarily endorsing nor promoting these seminaries.  I am simply stating that these seminaries still teach and believe this underlying theological system.  You don't have to believe in covenant theology or amillennialism to be an evangelical or a biblical scholar (although there is a growing pressure to conform to these positions).

To my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong), up to present ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) has had a Dispensationism Study Group and Clark Summit University (see below) has had a yearly Dispensationalism conference (at least up till 2014).  So even on multi-denominational and seminary levels this is still a serious issue to both believe and defend by academically trained pastors and seminary professors.  Many of these same schools produce quarterly theological journals defending these same exegetical-based positions.  

So don't walk away from these Biblically defensible positions.  There are hundreds of seminary students (future local church pastors and missionaries) who share your beliefs.  Don't get drawn into the cool and trendy positions of big name coalitions and groups.  It won't help.  In the end, you still preach the gospel.  But how the book end does determine  how you live now.  If this is your kingdom here and now then no wonder people leave these main line denominations.

I am listing in alphabetical order the positions of seminaries as I find them in printed media or online.  (The multi-changing font is because I copy/pasted them from each seminary website.  Some of them I just couldn't fix the font).

Bob Jones University

(Taken from Course Catalog for Systematic Theology)
"The application of the principles of systematic theology to the doctrines of Christ, salvation, the Church and the end times, following a biblical dispensational hermeneutic"

Central Baptist Theological Seminary

"We believe that there is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and the wicked. Those who are righteous will enter into eternal bliss with Christ and those who are wicked will be lost forever (1). We believe that the Scriptures teach that at death the spirit and soul of the believer pass into the presence of Christ and remain in conscious joy until the resurrection of the body when Christ comes for His own (2). The blessed hope of the believer is the imminent, personal, pretribulational, premillennial appearance of Christ to rapture the Church, His bride, prior to the seventieth week of Daniel (3). God's righteous judgments will then be poured out upon an unbelieving world during the seven years of tribulation (4). The climax of this fearful era will be the physical return of Jesus Christ to the earth in great glory to reestablish the Davidic kingdom (5). Israel will be saved and restored as a nation."

Clark Summit University ("formerly Baptist Bible Seminary")

"We believe the Bible supports using a grammatical, historical method of interpretation in light of the progress of revelation. Thus, we believe that the Bible is the clear, sufficient, and supreme authority for all belief, life, and ministry."

"We believe in the distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church, the Spirit-baptized Body of Christ. The Church is not the collection of all believers of all times."

"We believe that God will fulfill the biblical covenants made with the nation of Israel. Though they are now dispersed among the nations, they will be re-gathered in the land of Israel and saved as a nation at the premillennial coming of Christ to the earth. At that time, Christ will begin his Davidic rule over the world for 1,000 years and continue to reign in the eternal state."

Dallas Theological Seminary

"We believe that the dispensations are stewardships by which God administers His purpose on the earth through man under varying responsibilities. We believe that the changes in the dispensational dealings of God with man depend on changed conditions or situations in which man is successively found with relation to God, and that these changes are the result of the failures of man and the judgments of God. We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive."

"We believe that the period of great tribulation in the earth will be climaxed by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth as He went, in person on the clouds of heaven, and with power and great glory to introduce the millennial age, to bind Satan and place him in the abyss, to lift the curse which now rests upon the whole creation, to restore Israel to her own land and to give her the realization of God’s covenant promises, and to bring the whole world to the knowledge of God." 

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

"We believe in a dispensational understanding of the Bible, an approach to Scripture based on the progressive unfolding of the divine mysteries or new revelation from God which results in various dispensations or distinguishable administrations/stewardships of God’s revealed truth, such as Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom, among others. This approach recognizes a fundamental distinction between Israel and the Church in origin, purposes, and destiny."

"We believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ that will take place in two stages. The first stage is the Rapture, or His personal, imminent, and pretribulational coming for all saints of the church age. The second stage is the Revelation or the Second Coming in Glory, which is His personal and public coming at the close of the Tribulation Period to establish the messianic, Millennial Kingdom on the earth when Israel will be restored to covenant favor with God and to her land in faith and the Church will reign with Christ for the thousand years. After the Millennium there will be a new heaven and earth wherein God will dwell eternally with His people.<sup>"

Liberty University</sup>

"It is to be understood by all through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, its meaning determined by the historical, grammatical, and literary use of the author’s language, comparing Scripture with Scripture."

"We affirm that the return of Christ for all believers is imminent. It will be followed by seven years of great tribulation, and then the coming of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom for a thousand years."

^{Maranatha Baptist University}

"The Bible faculty are committed to a dispensational hermeneutic. In every Bible course we teach and demonstrate a normal, historical, grammatical interpretation of the text of Scripture that is the foundation of dispensationalism. This hermeneutic does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation. It does acknowledge the progressive revelation of God’s divine plan through time. Though various stewardships of revelation are acknowledged, the unifying salvific factor for all people for all time is the necessity of responding by faith to the special revelation given. The consequence of this consistent hermeneutic is a distinction between ethnic Israel and the New Testament church. Covenants established between God and ethnic Israel will be fulfilled in the literal sense in which they were given and received. The unique relationship between Christ and His Bride, the church, is acknowledged and preserved. Throughout all of eternity, the ultimate purpose of His universal plan is that of glorifying Himself. We reject covenant theology, its hermeneutic, and the eschatology of amillennialism and post-millennialism. Furthermore, we reject the progressive concept that Christ is already reigning on the Davidic throne."

Masters Seminary

"We teach the literal, grammatical historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days."

"We teach that, after the tribulation period, Christ will come to earth to occupy the throne of David and establish His messianic kingdom for a thousand years on the earth. During this time the resurrected saints will reign with Him over Israel and all the nations of the earth."

Piedmont International University

"We believe in accepting the literal teaching of the Word. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Therefore, every declaration is to be taken in its primary, ordinary, literal, and its most obvious meaning unless the facts of the context and the well-defined laws of language clearly indicate the terms either to be symbolic or figurative and not literal. Whatever is not literal must be explained in the light of other passages which are literal."

"We believe, according to Scriptures, in the sure return of the Lord Jesus Christ; that this second coming will be a literal, bodily, personal return; that His coming for His bride, the Church, constitutes the “Blessed Hope” set before us, for which we should be constantly looking. We believe that His coming will be premillennial."

So don't fret, worry or be intimidated if you can't (with a clear conscience) hold to some confession written nearly 400 years ago or longer.  I would suggest in our current evangelical climate there are many loud and outspoken adherents of both Covenant Theology and Amillennialism (chances are you already have their books on your shelf).  You are not alone in your theological convictions.  If you want to memorize a catechism then make up your own.  If it needs to be dispensational great.    

Read, enjoy, and take comfort.  You are not alone in your beliefs. 

If you know of others I can add to this list please forward me their internet address.

Set Apart: The Nature and Importance of Biblical Separation

This is the second and updated edition of the original titled "The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation."  The original was of great use to me and I'm sure this new updated edition will be valuable for God's people in years to come.  This new edition has new chapters and overviews of new movements in our modern evangelical landscape.

With so many competing organizations maintaining their own sector of the theological landscape any tool to help in this area is of great value.  Consider your own responses to the following organizations:

T4G, The Gospel Coalition, Acts 29, New Calvinism, ETS, Sovereign Grace, Emerging/Emergent Church(es), etc....

What Biblical directives and/or principles do you actually think and apply when addressing this groups?  It matters. 

The following is a commercial for the text,

Set Apart: The Nature and Importance of Biblical Separation lays out with clarity and brevity what separation is, how it is rooted in the Scripture, and why it is so important to a balanced Christian life. This doctrine has long been taught and practiced by many but is also widely ignored and frequently misunderstood by Christians.

True biblical separation is manifested in love—a love for God that rejects worldly values, a love for the church that protects its sheep from false teachers, and a love for fellow Christians that is willing to endure hardness in order to allow others to recognize truth.

I've know the author for years.  I can speak directly to his godliness and fervency for the Lord.  

Read, Enjoy.  Comments encouraged.

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

How do we address really "bad" churches?  This is a interesting dilemma avoided in evangelical circles today.  Some tout church discipline.  Others say the gospel is all that matters (well at least a Calvinistic version).  There is an ever growing impulse to look past false teaching from the pulpit and disobedience in the pew and what is called a church is actually not.

To many this may sound judgmental (whatever this term means usually only to the one defining it).  But this concept is not new but was actually addressed nearly 400 years ago in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith (one place Presbyterians and Baptist can agree).

LBC (Ch XXVI) reads,
"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

WCF (Ch. XXV) reads,

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

I doesn't take much imagination to see that they are identical.  They both held to such a firm belief that local churches can become so corrupt in the errors that they are not actually functioning churches.  The confessions do not explicitly elaborate on what defines as error but it is clear they both believed you can err enough to no longer be a church.

Here's the sad part of the story.  Today theology has become some marginalized that you can almost believe anything without being accused of false teaching.  Here is one place (among many) where I believe new evangelicalism and their offspring have gone wrong.  Consider the following:

Does orthodoxy still matter?  Who determines what is correct doctrine?  Have problems with orthodoxy church creeds, then write another one?  Make up a new one from scratch to be as broad and inclusive as (presently) deemed necessary.

Does orthopraxy still matter?  Who determines what right Christian living and practice is?  Nearly everyone is ready with a finger to accuse of legalism or antinomianism.  Is your practice too worldly?  That's an easy fix, just redefine what is worldly (so that it doesn't include what you want to do).

Does orthpathy still matter?  Who determines what right emotions, desires, and affections are true and correct?  What forms of media and music are given full permission to affect our minds (and the minds of our children)?  What of literature and entertainment means?

In summation, pointing out and avoiding false teaching is nothing new (think: novel).  Don't think the most recent evangelical authors producing books on church discipline are coming up with some new or more biblical than the past.  Simply not true.

I think if we actually read many of our church's documents from the past, we'll find great deals with which we can agree (and take hardy counsel).  Without feeling the need to rewrite it all over again.

So is your church a real church?  What errors are we tolerating in the pew?  From the pulpit?