Skip to main content
Culture

Where Do You Place Yourself on the Theological Spectrum?

By November 17, 2009June 20th, 201421 Comments
A Hyper Fundamentalist?

A Hyper-Fundamentalist?

 

Dr. Jeff Straub, associate professor in Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minn., delivered an address May 18 at The Conference on the Church for God’s Glory at First Baptist Church of Rockford, Ill. His address was titled “The Fundamentalist Challenge at the Turn of This Century” and can be downloaded in mp3 format here.

A slightly modified version of Dr. Straub’s address was posted in four parts on the Sharper Iron website (quotations below are taken from the Sharper Iron articles): Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four.

In his address, Dr. Straub presented a taxonomy of fundamentalism. The first group he identifies within fundamentalism is “hyper-fundamentalism.”He defines a hyper-fundamentalist as “someone who adds to the essential doctrinal core of historic fundamentalism.”

According to Dr. Straub, on the other end of the fundamentalist spectrum is “new image fundamentalism.” A new image fundamentalist “does not like the negative image that older fundamentalism carries and wants to create a new category that will allow them to be seen in a better light by their fellow evangelicals.” New image fundamentalists hold to the five solas of the Reformation and the fundamentals of the faith, but tend to reject militant separation and/or so-called “secondary separation.”

The third group within fundamentalism identified by Dr. Straub is “historic fundamentalism.”

Historic fundamentalists are centrists. They are mainstream fundamentalists focusing on the important issues that have long characterized the fundamentalist movement since its beginning. Not the least of the issues is the gospel itself.6 Fundamentalists have long been concerned that the good news of Jesus Christ, including issues of his person and work and his future return to finish what he started—the so-called five fundamentals—are not lost in the quest for theological unity. Moreover, those in the center are concerned to distance themselves from individuals at the fringes of the movements on the left or right. It all must be addressed as unbiblical behavior, but in various ways.

Two fringe groups should be identified. The first are the indifferentists. These men are willing to make common cause with gospel deniers, thinking some greater good will result. They adopt an end-justifies-the-means philosophy. Billy Graham was a prominent example.7 The historical record of the weakening of evangelicalism is well documented. The second group contains individuals who partner with the indifferentists. They may not directly partner with the Gospel deniers but they turn a blind eye to their indifferentist friends’ disobedience. They tolerate the disobedience of evangelicals who make common cause with enemies of the Cross of Christ.

A centrist or historic fundamentalist finds it difficult to fellowship with any who tolerate error, and those who fellowship with the apostates are in error. Therefore, at some point, he must break with the hyper-fundamentalist on the right, who hold either unorthodox positions like the infallibility of a Bible translation or who hold their position stridently so as to make common cause with anyone all but impossible. To fail to do so would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Bible. The historic fundamentalist separates from all disobedience which jeopardizes a clear gospel witness. We (historic fundamentalists) cannot not make common cause with men whose position on Bible versions is divisive and rancorous. We also disassociate ourselves from gospel deniers and those who support them.

Dr. Straub also created a helpful chart that places this fundamentalist taxonomy within the broader theological landscape of the early 21st century, and I would encourage you to take a look at it.

What about you? Where on Dr. Straub’s chart would you place yourself and why?

21 Comments

  • I would identify myself as a balanced “historic Fundamentalist,” which is why I could not, under present circumstances, embrace the so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

    From the article above, “New image fundamentalists hold to the five solas of the Reformation and the fundamentals of the faith, but tend to reject militant separation and/or so-called ‘secondary separation’.”

    And this is why IMO most of the Reformed men in Fundamentalism are attracted to and are steadily embracing the “conservative” evangelicals: its star personalities and fellowships.

    Kind regards,

    LM

  • Straub’s articles are helpful in some ways, but in others not so much. His description of “new image fundamentalists” as being people trying to “look good to Evangelicals” demonstrates unrestrained bias—I know very few who would fit that description. Most are young men who sincerely are trying to be more biblically faithful and genuinely believe historic (and especially hyper) fundamentalism have made some biblical errors (some major, some minor). By the power of a self-made definition, he has obscured this group’s biblical claims with a psychological label.

    As for LM’s comments, I think I see your point about ‘star personalities’, but having grown up in hyper fundamentalism I assure you that this new movement doesn’t come anywhere close to the hero worship of past fundamentalism.

    As for labels, while I still use the label ‘fundamentalist’, I find it very unhelpful. On the whole, I think it is silly and pointless to fight to retain it–society at large only think of terrorists and other Christians think of legalists. Why in the world would we want to fight that unnecessary uphill battle? A battle which, by the way, we can never possibly win. Frankly, I think the fight to keep the label has more to do with pride than biblical fidelity. I have no problem being identified as a “conservative evangelical”. And in 20 years that name will probably have to go. Our obsession with labels is perhaps impossible to avoid, but altogether frustrating.

    In the end, choose whatever label you will—but as long as you love Jesus, believe the scriptures, practice godliness, and proclaim the Gospel all is good.

  • Gary L. Kurfman says:

    In many respects, the “identifiers” within/under each label are so convoluted that placing oneself on the continuum of the chart would not accurately reflect one’s theological commitments. For example, as a graduate of Trinity Evengelical Divinity School, I know many (and in fact some of my former professors) who would label themselves “Evangelical Right,” but are by no means “strongly Calvinist.” Some would, but some would not. That being noted, as a member of a GARBC church, I would still label myself an “Evangelical Right.” I can sense (in my own mind) some tension in my theological commitments and others in the church. What I do find interesting is the disjunction between the “orthodoxy” and “orthopraxy.” While I find myself much more “evangelical” in my theology, I also see myself as more “fundamental” in respect to my “orthopraxy.” In the church(s), I find the opposite. Many claim to have all corner on the the theology, but are much more “loose” when it comes to their practice (i.e., orthopraxy).

  • Brother Josh:

    You noted, “As for LM’s comments, I think I see your point about ’star personalities’, but having grown up in hyper fundamentalism I assure you that this new movement doesn’t come anywhere close to the hero worship of past fundamentalism.”

    I’ve been around Fundamentalism for quite a while and I understand that some personalities are/were very popular. I find nothing inherently wrong with that unless of course the attraction of a man’s star power gets for him tolerance of things that would not normally be allowed for or tolerated by his, may I say, fans.

    This is what we have going on right now in the attitude of many of our Reformed Fundamentalists toward their favorites among the “conservative “ evangelicals (ce).

    There are doctrinal positions and/or methods of ministry among the ce men that Reformed Fundamentalists would never allow for tolerate in their own ministries and would definitely be fellowship-breakers in IFB circles. Not so, however, when these things are found in the ministry of “conservative “ evangelicals.

    In this present time Reformed Fundamentalists will allow for those things in the ministries of the ce men and are willing to formalize fellowship with the ce men in spite of those very things.

    That is where the star power of and/or other areas of common ground with certain ce men becomes a problem that should never be.

    I hope this is helpful.

    LM

  • Lou,

    I think your putting the cart before the horse. You seem to assume that ‘young fundamentalistst’ (or whatever term one chooses) are dropping distinctives like secondary separation because John Piper (et al) have dropped those things. Frankly, many of us would argue the very reason we are drawn towards men like Piper is because they retain biblical orthodoxy while avoiding the errors of hyper fundamentalism.

    Thus, the star personalities don’t cause this new spirit of toleration, rather the new spirit of toleration is what attracts us to these personalities.

    Most who reject secondary separation do so on biblical grounds. I, for one, see it as exegetically unfounded, dangerously subversive to the cause of Christ, and inexcusably divisive to the Body.

    For example, I’m not going to separate from Mark Driscoll because his language tends to be a bit crass. Nor am I going to separate from Piper becaI’ll publicly disagree with him (as Paul did to Peter), but talk of separation is unwarranted. Many younger fundamentalists have learned the distinction between “continuing to strongly disagree” and “needing to separate”. They would argue—I would argue—some of what was older fundamentalism failed to see such distinctions and tended to push the issue further than warranted.

  • Opps, messed up on that reply and can’t seem to edit it: Here is the final version:

    Lou,

    I think your putting the cart before the horse. You seem to assume that ‘young fundamentalistst’ (or whatever term one chooses) are dropping distinctives like secondary separation because John Piper (et al) have dropped those things. Frankly, many of us would argue the very reason we are drawn towards men like Piper is because they retain biblical orthodoxy while avoiding the errors of hyper fundamentalism.

    Thus, the star personalities don’t cause this new spirit of toleration, rather the new spirit of toleration is what attracts us to these personalities.

    Most who reject secondary separation do so on biblical grounds. I, for one, see it as exegetically unfounded, dangerously subversive to the cause of Christ, and inexcusably divisive to the Body.

    For example, I’m not going to separate from Mark Driscoll because his language tends to be a bit crass. Nor am I going to separate from Piper because he doesn’t separate from Driscoll, nor will I separate from MacArthur because he doesn’t separate from Piper for not separating from Driscoll, ad nasuem. I’ll publicly disagree with Driscoll (as Paul did to Peter), but talk of separation is unwarranted. Many younger fundamentalists have learned the distinction between “continuing to strongly disagree” and “needing to separate”. They would argue—I would argue—some of what was older fundamentalism failed to see such distinctions and tended to push the issue further than warranted.

  • Josh:

    I appreciate what you are trying to convey and would to a degree- agree with some elements. The “older fundamentalism” you refer to had some excesses, but the answer is not found in bouncing too far in the other direction, which IMO some are doing today.

    I do not think we should side track this thread to a Driscoll debate, but his issues do serve to illustrate some of what I am articulating. IMO, to separate from Driscoll is the only course left to one who wants to obey the biblical mandates. In addition to his “corrupt” communication (Eph. 4:29) we also have him preaching, earlier this year, at Schuler’s Crystal Cathedral. If that does not warrant separation, then we have lost our moorings to God’s mandated course of action for disobedient brethren such as Driscoll.

    But my concern begins short of the “conservative” evangelicals open disdain for biblical separation. What is especially troubling is that Reformed Fundamentalists (RF) can barely find their voice to “admonish” (2 Thess. 3:15) men like Driscoll and Piper, et. al., when that much is clearly warranted, understood to be and acknowledged by some RFs to be warranted.

    It was not until MacArthur publicly and strongly rebuked Driscoll that some Reformed IFB men seemed to find some voice on that issue.

    Then we have Piper’s issues, such as: his personal affinity for and belief the Charismatic sign gifts are active today. That, among other examples, is the type of which I say that Reformed Fundamentalists would never tolerate in their own ministry, but will tolerate and/or allow for with Piper, Mahaney, et. al. because they want to fellowship with them.

    What do you suppose is the reason(s) that Reformed Fundamentalists will tolerate these things when they would never tolerate them in their own ministries? What is the glue? Do you have a theory on that?

    LM

  • Lou,

    The Crystal Cathedral appearance was problematic. But on a more personal example, last yea

  • Ahhhh……sry

    Lou,

    The Crystal Cathedral appearance was problematic. But on a more personal example, last year I was invited to speak at the local ministerial associations’ Thanksgiving service. All the community church’s were usually involved (except a few, ours being one of them), including the Catholics.

    Our church’s leadership wrestled through this, and we even brought it to the congregation. In the end, using Paul’s Mars Hill speech as a precedent, we decided I should accept the invitation on the grounds that I have the freedom to preach the Gopsel—which I did boldly. If there ever was a tainted pulpit it was Mars Hill (er, I mean the New Testament one…lol). Yet Paul seemed to think it was okay to participate in this very ecumenical event so long as he got to preach Christ.

    Driscoll’s message seemed straightforward. He gave the Gospel clearly, and presented Jesus as the only way of salvation. He talked about wickedness and the need for repentance. Overall, I was pleased. If we must separate from Driscoll over this, then we must also separate from the Apostle Paul.

    FYI, I turned down the request this year to participate in the Thanksgiving service. They asked our church to host it, but with another speaker. On the grounds of separation, we declined (e.g. since we couldn’t guarantee the gospel would be preached, we could not condone the event).

  • Lou,

    As for the miraculous sign gift (and padeobaptism, which you didn’t mention), I guess we need to decide if we simply strongly disagree, or if we view these as “another Gospel”.

    I would maintain you would have a hard time proving scripturally that those scriptural errors amounted to ‘another gospel’–even though I would agree they are incorrect interpretations of scripture. This is where younger fundamentalism is more willing to “continue to strongly disagree” without resorting to separation over secondary doctrinal matters. How far down the doctrinal ladder are we willing to enforce separation?

  • Greg Long says:

    Lou, I think this speaks to a larger issue, namely, what exactly is “separation” and how does one practice it? In what meaningful sense can I “separate” from Mark Driscoll? If I were a senior pastor, would I have him speak in my church? Probably not (not that he would want to, anyway). Can I still glean wheat from his writings, sermons, etc., while separating out the chaff? I think so.

    And you brought up John MacArthur. So here we have a Conservative Evangelical who DID call out Mark Driscoll. So I don’t think we can necessarily lump all CEs together as not practicing separation.

    Back to the OP…I would probably place myself somewhere both in the new-image fundamentalist and historical fundamentalist camp. I agree with Josh that I think there should be a better moniker than “new image fundamentalist” because it carries the connotation that these people are primarily concerned with their “image.”

  • Greg,

    But in what meaningful sense (to use your phrase) did MacArthur separate from Driscoll? They still run in the same circles and attend the same conferences. Is this separation or simply a brotherly rebuke (albeit stern)?

  • Greg Long says:

    Josh, I don’t think MacArthur and Driscoll have spoken at any of the same conferences, although I could be wrong on that. And I would be very surprised if they do.

  • Greg/Josh:

    Thanks for the interaction.

    I believe from my previous you noted I have given some benefit of the doubt on the separation issues. What I wanted to stress and did is why we can barely find a whisper of admonishment (2 Thess. 3:15) from Reformed Fundamentalist (RF) men for issues that obviously call for admonishment. Instead the RF men promote and/or attend the fellowships where the stars of the “conservative evangelicals have the platform. (Piper, Mahaney, MacArthur and yes even Driscoll.

    You referenced the baptism issue with Piper, there are more of these things such as his having that RAP singer in his church and taking his staff to the Toronto Blessing for a blessing.

    Bottom-line, men is the fact that RF men do allow for and tolerate a great deal that they would never allow for in their own ministries. And they IMO do that for the sake of growing a closer relationship with the ce men. Is that a fair assessment?

    Furthermore, I think you men know what would happen if an IFB pastor were to speak out openly for the non-cessation of the sign gifts. Many of the very same RF men who will not admonish Piper would be on the Internet with that IFB man on the menu, IMHO.

    LM

    [I am not going anywhere near your comment(s) suggesting some kind of moral equivalency exists between Driscoll and the Apostle Paul. I encourage you to rethink that.]

  • Josh:

    You wrote, As for the miraculous sign gift (and padeobaptism, which you didn’t mention), I guess we need to decide if we simply strongly disagree, or if we view these as “another Gospel”.

    These two items do not necessarily constitute “another gospel.” If you strongly disagree then I trust you would say so without any hesitation. However, the Lordship Salvation (LS) interpretation of the Gospel coming from men like MacArthur, Piper and Lawson does constitute “another gospel.”

    So, for me, the separation question is settled because I believe LS is a works based, man-centered, non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

    LM

  • Greg Long says:

    We’re a little (or quite a bit) off topic here.

    Lou, where would you place yourself on Straub’s chart?

  • Yes, it has drifted somewhat, but IMO highly relevant. Nevertheless, the following is a repeat of my first comment, which is the first in this thread.

    “I would identify myself as a balanced ‘historic Fundamentalist,’ which is why I could not, under present circumstances, embrace the so-called ‘conservative’ evangelicals.”

    LM

  • I guess I would be more along the lines of the evangelical right category and the new-image fundamentalism, primarily because of my Reformed beliefs, my GARBC background, and my views of music/culture. Contrary to Lou’s assumption that Reformed fundamentalists tolerate things at conferences that they would not tolerate in their own ministries, we embrace Christian Hip-Hop and Black Gospel music as part of our worship in our inner-city ministry. I did not somehow start doing this due to Piper or any other of the conservative evangelical “stars.” It was from my study of Scripture in relationship to culture (view through the lens of the Biblical narrative of creation-fall-redemption-final consummation).

  • Joel, I’m with you man. If “historic fundamentalism” is now being defined as opposed to God-honoring, Christ-exalting rap music then I guess I’m not an historic fundamentalist. Of course, I’m also Reformed and a slobbering ‘Lordship Salvation guy (or, what used to be simply called ‘the Gospel’)–so perhaps I’m not part of the club anyway.

    Somehow I don’t think the rejection of any of these things has anything to do with historic fundamentalism at all—but are really more characteristic of what Straub refers to as hyper-fundamentalism.

    Suffice to say, I found Staub’s article far too broadly brushed to be helpful. I think he takes what is really a more hardline fundamentalism and calls that “historical fundamentalism”. Frankly, I’m not sure 1/2 the authors in the original “Fundamentals” books would fit the mould he has caste (and if they are not “historic fundamentalists no one is). The original movement was fairly broadly based–it included padeobaptists and even proto-pentecostals. It also included men who were really more in line with what would come to be called neo-evangelicals. Furthermore, it was ignited and fueled by men (such as Machen) who even rejected the term ‘Fundamentalist” and refused to be called one. Yet they all got along for the sake of the Gospel.

    So “hyper” becomes “historical” and historical becomes “new image”.

  • Since I mentioned the authors of “The Fundamentals” in my last post, I thought it would be helpful to provide a brief summary of these men. Unlike what is called “centrist fundamentalism” today, the first generation of fundamentalists were quite broad in terms of denomination. Actually, not many of the writers were even Baptist. There were also many Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methods, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians—as well as others. Though several of the original authors were staunch premil dispensationalists, many were not (the group also included postmils and amils). Not everyone even believed in 6-day creationism!

    Honestly, I wouldn’t be comfortable associating with some of these men—but oddly enough our “fundamentalist forefathers” saw little problem with it. For example:

    James Orr – Presbyterian minister, padeobaptist, disagreed with B.B. Warfield and other fundamentalists on their stronger views on inerrancy, did not hold to a literal 6-day creationism.

    B.B. Warfield – Presbyterian preacher and theologian, somewhat open to Darwinistic evolution.

    Canon Dyson Hague – Anglican priest, held to consubstantiation, believed that baptism regenerates the infant.

    George Frederick Wright – Congregational pastor and geologist, held to theistic evolution.

    H.C.G. Moule – Anglican scholar, participated in ecumenical Anglican events (Round Table of Holy Communion in 1900, and served as the missions chair of the Pan-American Congress in 1908).

    James M. Gray – Priest in the Episcopal church (though this didn’t prevent D.L. Moody from doing evangelistic crusades with him, he also served as editor of Moody Monthly, guest lectured at Moody Bible Institute, and was one of the seven editors of the Scofield Reference Bible).

    John L. Nuelsen – Methodist pastor and scholar, participated in the Ecumenical Conferences of 1901 and 1911.

    Jessie Penn-Lewis – Calvinistic Methodist, believed Christians could be demon possessed.

    So, how does this information fit into Straub’s labels?

  • Greg Long says:

    Josh, great comment. Thanks for reminding us of that.

Leave a Reply