Traditional Fundamentalism in My Area and My Thoughts Thereon

Traditions in Fundamentalism in my Local Experience

I have taken a little time recently to ponder the role of tradition within my own particular life and experience in the independent fundamental circles with which I fellowship in Canada. I have come to several conclusions regarding tradition in this context-

1. Tradition is not simply alive, but promoted and thriving in our indy-fundy circles.
2. Tradition often preserves the movement from the excessive and ungodly pragmatism rampant within professing evangelicalism.
3. Tradition often promotes an excessive and ungodly pragmatism that is somewhat peculiar to indy-fundyism.

That tradition is alive within these circles is to me quite manifest. Recently I have heard a number of leaders speak out for a continuance in the exact same pattern of ministry as has been the norm for some time (30 years or so) within this segment of fundamentalism. Their appeals have been twofold. First, this is who we are. That is, our practice or belief within the recent past in this area of the world is definitional of what fundamentalism is and should be. Now they would not use the term "recent", but their illustrations of great men of the past in reference to our movement are either entirely inappropriate, using men who would never have considered themselves as part of the local movement, or are illustrations that only go back to the early 1970's. Now I can see a degree to which a movement can be identified with its pattern of ministry. The second argument is a quick utilization of "proof texts" for fundamentalism. Even in this the appeal to tradition is utilized as the Scriptures are given an assumed meaning without specific exegesis of the passages and demonstration how they interact with the time at hand or the pattern of ministry utilized. This is not to say that the traditional understanding is always wrong, but the passage is often never truly interacted with in determining why the position is held. Thus tradition replaces exegesis. Much more could be said to reinforce my belief that tradition is alive and well.

I have noted as well that our movement is to be commended for its refusal to jump into every pragmatic program that is to be found in evangelicalism today. Our movement is not driven by contemporary evangelical fads. In many cases, the preserving force is tradition. We have not done it that way before, so we should not do it now! Now as I look at the depths that many in the contemporary evangelical scene have sunk, I am thankful for the preserving force of tradition. There is a movement in evangelicalism that seeks to loose itself from all moorings in practice and even theology, it seems! The result is that much of evangelicalism has lost the evangel- the message of the Gospel itself. When I look at those extremes I am much happier to be aligned with our movement than with that element of evangelicalism! However, as I will comment on a little later, the belief that "if you are not in our group (even our specific element of fundamentalsim), you're in that one" is seriously misleading!

How is tradition a promoter of certain ungodly pragmatic elements? When the traditions are themselves pragmatic! There are certain practices within our segment of indy-fundyism that have no clear root in Biblical imperative or principle. Their driving root is largely pragmatism. Not that all the motivations for the practices were wrong. The original thought may have been- "What can we do to get more people into church?" or "What can we do to get more people saved?" Not entirely wrong motivations, but still flawed foundationally. The failure seemed to be not asking and answering all the "why's?" before proceeding with the "what's?". In this I must be careful not to be too critical. I think that we all have this tendency, to some degree or another. However, I now see certain practices (some bus ministry practices, altar call techniques, and Gospel presentation models) which are beyond evaluation in our segment for no other reason than tradition. They are "God-honouring" in people's minds simply by default of tradition, particularly when many of them are found almost exclusively within our movement! The same is held to be true with respect to certain theological beliefs.

What Now?

As a young fundamentalist, I propose that our generation respond in several ways-

1. Recognize the existence of tradition. It is the reality of our movement. To suggest otherwise is to really be burying our head in the sand.
2. Realize that not all tradition is wrong in and of itself. There are some who have thrown it all away, leaving the movement and everything that characterizes it behind them. The baby is laying screaming in a puddle of soapy water outside the bathroom window!
3. Recognize that the "if you are not completely of us, you are against us" mentality is oversimplified and not in keeping with reality. There are many strata of fundamentalists, including some who would not claim the label. I think that in many cases the us versus them mentality has caused some of my generation to run to a ridiculous extreme because they have been taught there is no middle ground and have believed it! Having become disillusioned with our segment of the movement, they jump to the other extreme.
4. Return to the truly Biblical tradition of semper reformanda. The Reformers and Christians of years past had the motto semper reformanda, "Always reforming!" Their goal was not just a continual change for its own sake, but rather a mindset that tenaciously sought to bring every thought to the captivity of Christ by honest evaluation in light of the Scripture. They did not always get it right, and neither will we. But we will be a lot closer to the right if we regularly and honestly consider every aspect of our life and ministry. This mindset will also help to guard our own hearts against erroneous adherence to traditions of our own making!
5. Reach out to the lost with passionate, God-honouring proclamation of the Gospel of the glory of Christ. Just because we may have seen some approaches to evangelism that were less than God-honouring does not give us the right to simply take pot-shots at their pragmatism without obeying the imperative of Christ upon our own lives! It is our duty and priviledge to make much of Christ, and it should also be our joy. Also, the older generation of fundamentalists seems to appreciate a zeal for "soul-winning," as they call it. From my experience, they will respect and even support a zealous and evangelistic young fundamentalist even if they do not entirely agree with him.
6. Realign yourselves with the original intent of the true early fundamentalists, but take the necessary steps forward. In reading the early fundamentalist writers and those who have studied their lives, the intent of early fundamentalism was to both aggresively preserve and promote Biblical Christianity. We ought not shirk from this task. It is our duty to earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. However, there are some steps we must take beyond those already taken. We must seek to know and articulate what is truly fundamental to Christianity. This is admittedly a difficult task, but to stand for the faith we must know what is essential to the faith. We find fault with the older generation of indy-fundies for their willingness to separate over non-essentials without personally understanding what the essentials really are. It is not just enough to know what is not a fundamental, we must seriously ponder what beliefs or lack of beliefs change orthodox Christianity into non-Christianity. This leads to the next step we must take. We must then personally and/or collectively develop a separation paradigm. Separation is essential to fundamentalism. There may be differences in degree or intensity of separation, but it remains separation. And separation remains both a Biblical command and a practical necessity.
7. Respectfully and Biblically articulate your position when challenged. Younger fundamentalists have sometimes been characterized as disrespectful rebels. I feel that this has often been very unjust. It has been like the impression that some people have of motorcycle riders. Because they have encountered a few donkeys riding bikes, it is assumed that all bikers are donkeys. I know that the logic is seriously askew, but that is the context in which we find ourselves! Most of the men who would challenge us are really worthy of respect, though they do not agree with us on every position. They have served God faithfully for years and been Godly examples in many areas. If we are to be prepared to give an answer to the lost with gentleness and reverence, surely we should be willing to extend the same courtesy to our brothers in Christ. However, this does not mean that you have to simply conform because of their objections and prominence in the movement. We must Biblically articulate our position. If we are convinced by the Word of God regarding a certain position, personal conformity to a different position is wrong. If you are forced to choose between conviction and conformity, conviction must be held. This is not to say that we cannot fellowship or work with those who do not share all of our beliefs. Of course, this goes back to the separation paradigm. But we cannot and must not change our position or conviction simply out of conformity to personality and tradition.
8. Realistically seek peace with all men. We are admonished to pursue peace with all men. As much as lies within us, we are to live at peace with others. Peace ought to be our goal in interaction with others within fundamentalism. But that must be tempered with reality. Good men disagree. Good men sometimes disagree strongly. Sometimes good men disagree so strongly that cooperation is an impossibility. Remember Paul and Barnabus? There are times when despite our best intentions peace cannot be maintained. Let us just do our best that unless in issues of very grave theological and practical importance, the lack of peace comes from the other side. I once had a discussion with a brother whom I considered a friend (I still do) over a certain issue that is a hot one in indy-fundyism in this part of the world. The other became very upset with me. Our conversation ended on a very sour and angry note, with him essentially accusing me of a lack of love for and adherence to the Word. I knew that I would see the man again. I also knew that from my perspective he was still my friend and brother in Christ and that the issue in question was not one that made separation necessary. The next time I saw him I made a definite point to speak with him and by both my demeanor and words demonstrate my regard for him. I praise the Lord that even though we have significant disagreement over the issue in question, we remain friends. However, this does not always happen. And we have to be prepared to face that fact with courage.
9. Remember the Audience of One. Our ultimate ambition is to be pleasing to Him. In light of that the importance is not really on whether another man considers us a fundamentalist or is willing to fellowship with us or is openly in favour of our lives and ministry. They do not search our hearts. They will not stand before the Bema Seat in our stead. May we take heart that if it must come down to a decision between tradition and conviction and our decision ostracizes us, we never really stand alone. Conviction, not conformity, marked the historic fundamental movement. May it ever be the same!