Having come to the third article in this series concerning the rise and fall of Christian Fundamentalism, let us first briefly reflect upon the burden of the previous two articles.
The First Article Reviewed
In the first article we observed with necessity the historical birth of Christian Fundamentalism, its purpose, and its providential appointment during the mid-1800s. At its inception the Fundamentalist Movement was a "puritan" movement endeavoring to purge various denominational systems from the gripping throes of Liberalism and Modernism that was escalating through these denominations in both Europe and America. Such powers were aggressively taking hold of the denominations at that time bringing increasing acceptance of Unitarianism, evolution, the rise of cults, and later the subtle, intellectual deception of Neo-Orthodoxy. As the Fundamentalist movement called its followers to an allegiance to the foundational principles of God's Word, such principles became known as the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith or the fundamentals of the Christian Faith.
Soon it became evident that ecclesiastical leaderships were not sympathetic toward a return to the landmarks of their spiritual nativity. This obvious refusal then forced the conscience of God's remnant to make an exodus from the growing apostate system within their denominations to become "pilgrims" or "separatists" in heart. Historic Fundamentalism from that point on definitively identified itself as a fundamentalist, separatist movement.
During the twentieth century there were other denominations and conventions that eventually gave evidence (though seeming to have had a biblical birth) of their own falling away; this change in turn produced a "fundamentalist movement" within their camps. The worsening conditions eventually necessitated an exodus and a separatist identification from the apostasy of their denominational systems. Examples of such groups could be found among many Presbyterians and many Baptist conventions.
As the decades unfolded in the Fundamentalist movement, there was a subtle, growing concern among a number who were born in this emerging fundamentalist camp. They had not personally experienced the agony and necessity of the battles fought within fallen denominational systems. Such individuals had no personal knowledge of the intensity of the enemies of the Truth. They reasoned that perhaps a less offensive stand against error would be the better position to take. Perhaps the enemies of their forefathers were not as bad as had been portrayed. Maybe the strategy should be one of less militancy and more loving dialogue with these so-called enemies, and that through this approach the neo crowd could be "won over." This movement within Fundamentalism in the 1940s declared itself to be Neo-Evangelicalism.
The men of this new movement were secretly drawn to the writings of another relatively new movement from Germany called Neo-Protestantism that eventually became known as Neo-Orthodoxy. These "new" evangelicals longed for a more intellectual approach to theology and the Scriptures, like that of Neo-Orthodoxy. Because of this growing desire, many of the Neo-Evangelical seminaries eventually mutated to a Neo-Orthodox persuasion. Such seminaries inevitably assimilated the terminology of the Neo-Orthodox writers. The infatuation with such theological existentialism caused a number of sons (e.g. Charlie Fuller's son, Daniel) to pursue their education in the seminaries of Germany that were the bastions of this heretical Neo-Orthodox theology.
The Second Article Reviewed
Our second article on the rise and fall of Christian Fundamentalism unveiled this Neo-Evangelicalism and its strong abstention from ecclesiastical and personal biblical separation. This new approach to evangelism pursued two presuppositional paths: (1) Intellectual-scholastic dialogue with theological enemies (resulting in a number of biblical issues being compromised for accommodation's sake) and (2) Methodological pragmatism in order to numerically build their churches and ministries (otherwise known as Situationalism). This Neo-Evangelical movement made its visible departure from Fundamentalism in the late 1940s. It forthrightly established its own identity becoming a transdenominational movement. Recent decades have proved that this movement has aggressively affected most independent churches and mission organizations.
Candid observation of Fundamentalism over the past twenty-five years clearly reveals a growing sympathy towards this "darling enemy" of Neo-Evangelicalism. That which should be viewed as a true enemy of biblical Christianity is now secretly and affectionately being viewed as a great asset and hope for Fundamentalism. The growing Fundamentalist sympathy claims for the most part that at least in so-called conservative Neo-Evangelicalism there is a belief in the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Though this may be true of a remnant within Neo-Evangelicalism, it is obvious that the greater number of the movement deny those precious fundamentals. For example, the polity and theology of the Southern Baptist Convention offer great extremities of belief for its parishioners. While this Convention has become a haven for Liberalism, Modernism, and Neo-Orthodoxy, one may still find a conservative (though unseparated and unbiblical) camp within SBC. The Southern Baptist Convention has made Neo-Evangelicalism a strong part of its religious fabric. The diversity of ministers and religious thought can be seen in the late Jerry Falwell and at the same time in the well-groomed Charismatic personality Pat Robertson.
Neo-Evangelicalism, because of its fluid, existential foundation has no problem with such extremities. In fact, such men can be found on the same religious platform with no seeming compunction of conscience. Neo-Evangelicalism's dialectic presupposition can harmonize a Dr. D. James Kennedy's hosting the TBN services in his church with Paul Crouch as the "master of ceremonies." Neo-Evangelicalism is now viewed by most Fundamentalists as a "darling" enemy of growing sympathetic appeal.
We must acknowledge that this neo-movement is just as much a part of the ecumenical movement in its own unique way as the World Council of Churches. Sin is sin, drugs are drugs, and rock music is rock music. All these areas can present either a conservative or blatantly evil side; nonetheless, both sides are still wrong.
The Great Dilemma in Fundamentalism Today
With a growing and influential constituency towards Neo-Evangelicalism, a great dilemma now faces Fundamentalism. At least half of the graduates from Fundamentalist schools are becoming Neo-Evangelical. At one time we viewed the crossover trend as taking place several years after their graduation; the present trend indicates such graduates from Fundamentalists schools are immediately stepping into the camp of the neo-crowd. This trend gives proof that Fundamentalist schools are no longer taking the imperative stand against Neo-Evangelicalism. They are no longer warning their students with biblical passion against this great heresy. As a result, their graduates no longer believe this neo-Christianity is a dangerous, subtle tentacle of the apostasy.
There is now a generation that knows not the biblical God of their spiritual forefathers; there is now a generation that does not believe this "darling" enemy is a real enemy. One need only peruse the evangelical books written today; the overwhelming majority are by neo-ministers with strong Charismatic tendencies. This is where the Fundamentalists are now feeding for their devotions and expositional studies. This is the fountain from which their sermons are being drawn. The so-called Young Fundamentalists have grown up privately reading these intellectuals and have become infatuated with their abilities in epistemology; they are longing for their own ministries to be polished and groomed in such an intellectually-stimulated context. They have come to believe that the numbers are the proof of God's anointing. The young musicians, composers, and arrangers secretly listening to Neo-Evangelical and Charismatic "praise and worship" music have become enticed by the fleshly and seductive sound of such music. This music could be sung in the broad stream of any "Christian" context without offense. Its popularity, in their thinking, must prove that it is of God.
Truly the Trojan Horse of Neo-Evangelicalism has been brought into the Fundamentalist Camp. What was once militantly attacked in the pulpits and seminaries is now believed to be a gift from God to move the masses of people toward Christ. This carnal reasoning has convinced us that we must immediately take hold of this gift or we will fall behind the times. The pressures to change are already being felt throughout the Fundamentalist camp; we are told that we must be assimilated into the "neo" mind-set, or we will be left behind in this great move of God that has now come to Christianity.
The "Old" Is Out; the "New" Is In
In such times as these, the true child of God must pray for God to give him discernment to not be sucked into the vortex of Neo-Christianity's deceptive, delusive thinking. The Christian finds himself nearing the end of the true view of the biblical church. Two thousand years have given history to the unfolding of true and false Christianity. Not only has the wheat come to maturity but also the tares; these have matured together. The public Christianity that we see today in America is Neo-Christianity; it is the product of the growing apostasy for two millennia within the institutional church. Such Christianity has made vogue an existential breed of acceptable "pop" culture. This public, neo-view includes the Passion of Christ by Mel Gibson, the "married" Christ in The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, The Gospel According to Judas, Jesus Christ Superstar, and Godspell. These are all part of the clamor and craving for a new approach to the Gospel.
The global populace of Christendom wants something new in Christianity; it has become tired of the old. It is not because the old does not work; it is because the demands of pure Christianity are no longer desired in this Laodicean Church Age. The rising hatred within the Christian apostasy is tenaciously stepping forward with greater vengeance against the "old." It hates the old way of preaching, the old way of praying, the old hymns, and the old way of godly living. Its intrinsic hatred is hunting for the precious life.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables (II Timothy 4:3-4).
Even leaders in Fundamentalism today have reinterpreted their histories in order to vindicate the obvious and bold changes within their schools, churches, and music.
There now is a strategic ploy to make a marked distinction between the Fundamentalists of the past and the "Young Fundamentalists" of the present. Just as Ralph Carmichael took Handel's Messiah and placed the contemporary rock beat to it calling it the Young Messiah, there is a growing difference between the rising leaders of today and those of the past. They are obsessed with the trendy terminology of their times and the yearning to fit in with the contemporary. They want to be a kinder, gentler leader with a growing indifference toward the militancy of Fundamentalism's past. They do not want to be known for their valor on the battlefield; to the contrary, they desire to be known for their ability to make peace with God's enemies. Their blogs and sermons reveal their heart's intent: the battles of the past are history; militancy against the apostasy is to be no longer a part of the Fundamentalist's "style" of living and preaching.
The Concept of Preaching Today
One of the great tragic evidences of the withdrawing of the presence of Christ from the Fundamentalist movement is the absence of God-anointed preachers whose messages were marked with power and conviction. Their screamings and wailings of warnings are now sarcastically viewed as crude and offensive. The absence of such preachers for several years now has caused congregations to become accustomed to a suave, professional, and sedative preaching accompanied by a Joel Osteen smile that keeps the sermonizing light and non-offensive. We have come to believe that only expositional preaching is the approach for today since the Neo-Evangelicals have been doing it for decades now.
Mere expositional preaching destroys the convicting power of Truth. It does not hit the target for our times; it keeps the Word of God in the past, isolated to non-offensiveness with the audience. Such presuppositional changes in attitude and thought have caused such young men to discard from their arsenal revealing and descriptive terms like cult to describe the Mormons and Roman Catholicism, antichrist to identify the Pope, and the words apostasy and separation. Elusive, generic preaching and teaching have become religiously correct. The parishioners have lived a number of years without hearing powerful, strong, convicting messages on sin, the age, and the deceptive personalities of our times; as a result, they have forgotten what true, biblical preaching really should be. Leaders will even publicly acknowledge they have homosexual friends even though Paul condemns such friends in First Corinthians 5:9-11.
Yes, we are witnessing a new breed of men who have been enamored with the powers of the intellectualists, the neutrality of Neo-Evangelicalism, and the mega growth of the Hybels, Warren, and Osteen-like ministries. Many of the young Fundamentalists want what these men have and are willing to make the compromises to get it. Historical Fundamentalism has had a legacy of strong, forthright preaching that dealt a death blow to sin, heresy, and the demonically influenced personalities of the time, along with the biblical proclamation of Christ in the light of the contemporary. The love of legacy and Truth is a thing of the past; the world with its accolades is the purpose of ministry now.
Another principle that has affected strong, biblical preaching has been the rise of the theological systems within Fundamentalism. One of the first carnalities dealt with in First Corinthians is found in 1:11-13 concerning the divisions within the Body of Christ:
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
A great identification of this passage with our times is the rise of the theological systems within Fundamentalism and the power they have over ministers and ministries. The power of such systems is even a greater influence at times than the Word of God. Such elevated systems destroy the unity of the Body of Christ and the very historical movement of Fundamentalism itself. Theological divisions and schisms are wreaking havoc within schools and seminaries. The men mentioned by the Apostle Paul are dead; but there are others who have taken their place. "I am of Calvin!" "Well, I am of Arminius!" "Well, I am Baptist!" The true Body of Christ was never to have such divided distinctive isolationism. Did John Calvin die for us? Do we baptize in the name of Jacobus Arminius? Was Jonathan Edwards our sovereign Savior?
There are those who will make the human, theological systems equal to the Scriptures, yea even to declare such systems to be the Gospel itself. Thus the Body of Christ is carved into pieces and presented as antithetical in heart. The emphasis upon theological systems has become a sign of deep carnality within Fundamentalism. We tend to preach the system rather than simply "let the Bible speak" for itself. We tend to read and study the systems more than we do the Bible. They become our presuppositions destroying the liberty of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture with Scripture. In historic Fundamentalism these distinctives never competed with the Fundamentals. There was a great unity among God's men in spite of their distinctives; they fought side by side against the evils of Liberalism, Modernism, and Roman Catholicism. They preached in one another's pulpit. When it came to the battle itself, there was no emphasis upon any Presbyterian, Baptist, or other distinctive. But today the theological systems are destroying the heart of Fundamentalism. Yes, it is truly a sign of carnality among God's people.
How sad it is that in these days of false ecumenicity among the Liberals we are not witnessing a true unity among the Fundamentalists. Neutrality, compromise, theological systems, the rise of acceptance of contemporary Christian music all have added to the erosion of any hopeful unity. Brethren are now being divided from brethren because of the disorderly walk that has come from all these "new" approaches and "new" changes that are claimed to be for our good.
Conclusion
The discontentment pervading Fundamentalism today has insisted upon the need of leaving the "old" paths of truth and the "old" landmarks of biblical separation. The "old" battles are no longer worthy to fight, and the "old" great hymns of the Faith need to be discarded; "new" methods yield dialogue with enemies, and "new," more contemporary melodies emasculate our great hymn heritage. The casualty of such discontentment lies within the changes that have taken place in the hearts of men, their ministries, and their schools. When such moods and feelings smother the breath of truth within the soul, the "old" will be despised with the persuasion that the "old" is no longer relevant.
The truth of the matter is that when people spiritually die, they will resort to synthetic animation, in whatever context it is needed, in order to keep up the appearance of being "spiritual." Time will prove for any man or for any ministry that changes have come. Some changes may be for the good if such changes do not tamper with principles of Scripture. But other changes eventually bring about the spiritual demise of the man and the ministry.
Several years ago my dear earthly father and the board of trustees of the Foundations Ministries sent me (while serving as the vice president) to eleven "old" schools on the eastern seaboard and the mid-states of our country. The purpose of this 23-day trip alone was to visit the schools, to spend time in their archives researching each founder's heart and purpose in beginning the schools, as well as to study the principles that dictated their birth. The next step was to investigate these schools' succeeding years to see if there had been any changes in governing principles, dress standards, and teaching standards, as well as to detect any subtle compromises from their earlier biblical precepts. Each visit concluded with a taped interview with the administration about the present vision for their ministry. The hopeful benefit of this trip was to learn what steps over a period of time lead to the downfall of a biblically-birthed school and what steps need to be taken to avoid such a casualty.
This most insightful trip revealed how God can use a school in the past through a biblical, Holy Ghost birth and elevate it through His providence. It also revealed that over a process of time there is the real danger of changes slowly coming in as subtle neutralities and compromises weave their way into the hearts of men. Neglect and broken communion with God, though continuing in the ministry, tend to cause such an individual to turn to the human side of administration and leave the principles of the Word of God. In time policy takes precedence over principle. Do we not remember the words of a prominent Fundamentalist leader who has often stated, "Every school or church is only one president or pastor away from apostasy"?
Though it is not a predestination of inevitability, Church history has proved time and time again that the first-generation biblical leadership of a church, school, or movement bases their separation and ministry on the Scriptures; the second-gene-ration leadership tends to neutrality, the third-generation to compromise, and the fourth-generation to apostasy. The warning to my own second-generation leadership at Foundations will be one of neutrality. As for Fundamentalism, we are in the fourth-generation leadership. Is the knocking at our door the sound of apostasy? Will we be given over to the mind-set that wrong changes are necessary and good for the days ahead? The greatest need at this time is for pastors, evangelists, school presidents, missionaries, teachers, and parishioners to call a moratorium on all we are doing in the churches and schools and for about 30 days get alone with God crying out in deep repentance for all of our compromises and backsliding ways evident over the years. Unless God brings a mighty revival in heart, in preaching, in repentance, and in biblical living, we may be witnessing the final collapse of one of the greatest movements used by God in the End Time of the Last Days, the movement called Christian Fundamentalism.