Michael Jensen on Fundamentalism

Over at Religion and Ethics at ABC News, Michael Jensen (Moore Theological College) has a good antipodean view on "Fundamentalism".

John Piper and Fundamentalists

John Piper has given 20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists. I appreciate his point as I know some fundamentalists who are godly, loving, Christ honouring, and self-less people who, I lament, are just a little further down the right end of the theological spectrum than myself. I genuinely understand their stance but I do not agree. However, I've also seen fundamentalism destroy people, churches, marriages, and missions over matters that are trivial and rooted in cultural preferences rather than theology. I've made fairly solid critiques of fundamentalism (and liberalism) elsewhere so I won't rehearse them here. But I will ask (tongue in cheek) if John would like to do a three part follow-up series on the following:

20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at the Proselytizers in Galatia
20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at the Pharisee Christians in Acts 15
20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at the Mutilators of the Flesh in Philippi

Lately I've enjoyed singing 2 Cor. 3.17 with my eldest daughter. That verse, plus Gal. 5.1, is why I'm not a fundamentalist! Evangelicals are not Liberals and not Fundamentalists - the distinction is important - in fact, it's critical for the integrity of the gospel. I'm happy to sit down and chat to Bob Jones and Bishop Schori about theology, politics and rugby league over coffee or at a conference; but I'm not gonna elect either one to be president of a seminary that I've working in.

Praise God for Fundamentalists?

John Piper posts a response to a Fundamentalist resolution on his ministry. I commend John for being gracious in his response. I hope this leads Fundamentalists to start reading or to keep reading Piper's books, his sermons, and attend his conferences. But I cannot praise God for them. Here's why:

1. Shall we praise God for their legalistic approach to the faith which (for example) makes one's views of alcohol a basis for fellowship and discipline (I was raised in a house with alchol abuse so don't anyone even think about getting up on their high horse and lecturing me about alcholism and its effects)? [Note: Piper has an excellent sermon on this topic in DG archives].

2. Shall we praise God for the racism of some Fundamentalists who believe in racial segregation and prohibit inter-racial marraiges and so deny the great Reformed doctrine of justification by faith where God vindicates Jews and Gentiles from sin and calls them into one fellowship and into one family of faith?

3. Shall we praise God for the KJV-only crowd among Fundamentalists whose views are based on a mixture of historical ignorance and cultural arrogance?

4. Shall we praise God for Landmarkers whose views are based on doctrinal innovation and historical revisionism and pervert the sacrament of God?

5. Shall we praise God for the eschatology of some Fundamentalists and how they support the state sponsored persecution of our Arab Christian brothers and sisters in the Holy Land in the name of their esoteric reading of Revelation? [Note: I am told that 1 Kings 21 about Naboth's Vineyard is the most frequently preached text in Palestinian Christian churches!!!]

6. Shall we praise God for their separation (sometimes even two degrees of separation) from those who maintain a biblical and orthodox faith over secondary matters and so destroy the unity of the body of Christ?

Short answer: Not on my watch! These things I'm ranting about aren't just little quirks we can shrug off and roll our eyes about, it is really bad stuff. We need to protect the flock from this stuff.

As a shepherd of my students and as a servant in my church, I have to guard against serious errors and aberrations of the faith from both the left and the right. Now I can tolerate people more moderate than I am and I can tolerate people more conservative than I am. But there are extremists of the left and the right who are not playing with a full theological deck. Less I seem too harsh, I have met Fundamentalists, I have heard them preach, and I have seen what they do to people, churches, and families. It is slavery to the traditions of men and it is captivity to a certain culture. My Bible says that "For freedom Christ has set us free" and we are free from such slavery.

A qualification. Not all Fundamentalists are KJV-only, Landmarker, pro-segregationists. Many are just highly conservative individuals who grew up in a certain religious tradition. Some are more "liberal" on separation than others. Neither are they devoid of love or compassion, let it be known that I never said that. But on the whole, the ethos and dynamics of the movement, as well as its distinctive beliefs, can be a very dangerous threat to the fabric of the gospel and the mission of the church. We should guard the good deposit of the gospel against errors, from both liberals and fundamentalists.

HT: Andy Naselli

Two Recent Articles at CT

Over at Christianity Today there is an article on Taking Revival to the World about Australia's largest church, Hillsong (AOG). This church is somewhere between a denomination and an empire. It has off-shoots across the world esp. in London. It produces some funky worship music ('Shout to the Lord' is a classic), Hillsong does some good work with the poor and underprivileged in Sydney, they run a big annual conference, and politicians of all stripes court the favour of the church (all the more significant since in Australia the church is normally a political non-entity in Australia, so the fact that this church has captured political attention means it now captures media attention and secular fundamentalists complain that this is a sign that we are turning into a GWBush theocracy). But Hillsong is not exactly known for its wonderful Bible exposition and their prosperity gospel is about as edifying as a Hillary Clinton pro-abortion speech. For American readers, Hillsong is perhaps understood as a cross between Crocodile Dundee and Joel Osteen. I know some lovely Christian people who have come from Hillsong and their music is somewhere between inspiring and wish-washy depending on the song. The article by Cassandra Zinchini is worth reading.

The other CT article, The Crisis of Modern Fundamentalism by Collin Hansen. AllI can say is that if you think that John Piper is a dubious or dangerous character then your theology is about as messed up as can be imagined. I find it ironic that Fundamentalist leaders are crying foul that many of its ranks are joining evangelicalism (perish the thought) and yet some evangelical leaders are urging their peers and people for the need to return to Fundamentalism (go figure). As an external observer, American Fundamentalism is not really a return to the Bible as much as it is an indigenized American religion with roots in revivalism, it is a philosophical response to the Enlightenment and a political response to secularism, it is a culturally contingent form of Christianity that owes its beliefs and tenets just as much to its own cultural environment as to the Bible, and its has its own doctrines that cannot be derived from anything near Scripture. The separatist and sectarian ethos of Fundamentalism means that it has more in common with Qumran than with Jesus, Paul, Luke, and John. Let me add these caveats: I am not using the word 'American' for all things bad with religion and Fundamentalism has rightly tried to resist assimilation with a post-Christian culture, and they did it well. I want to affirm the fundamentals of the faith and stand in the tradition of historic orthodoxy and the Rule of Faith. But I'd rather be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and paraded around Tenessee Temple University while wearing a sign saying "I am Bill Clinton's love child, so make me governor of Tenessee" before I became a Fundamentalist. I have no great love for liberalism, and I know that my own brand of evangelicalism ain't perfect either, but I'm concerned and confused as to why some leaders are telling us to be more like Fundamentalism. Rather they should be telling evangelicals to be truly evangelical in their worldview, ethos, politics, and theology.