We have entered another year in the twenty-first century, and it is taking us further away from the marked presence and influence of Fundamentalism of the previous century. The 1999 World Congress of Fundamentalism gave concerned evidence of crucial changes that have now come to pass. The present generation of professing Fundamentalism, knowing nothing of Historic Fundamentalism, only experiences a new Fundamentalism that is a product of compromise and corrupting change. The former line of separation between true Fundamentalism and Neo-Evangelicalism has now been erased. One may enter a Fundamentalist church now and find it comfortably taking no stand against the apostasy, evidenced by its contemporary music, its “up-to-date” Neo-Christian Bible versions, and its casual dress standards. Although the message from the pulpit may be “evangelically” sound, it is generically constructed to be non-offensive and acceptable to any independent or denominational church, possibly even some Catholic churches.
The terms Fundamentalist and Evangelicalist have so long now been considered synonymous, it is now convenient to cast aside the word Fundamentalist altogether and embrace Evangelicalist as our only identification.
The Postmortem of Fundamentalism
It is the purpose of this Straightway issue to give a “postmortem” of Historic Fundamentalism. Some may not agree with the fact that the public message of Historic Fundamentalism is dead. They would rather believe that it simply has shifted emphasis and vision to accommodate the Postmodern era, since (they conclude) all movements must adapt to changing winds and tides to keep afloat. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged again that the leading voices and schools of Fundamentalism have changed and blended their allegiances with the Neo-Evangelicals in all aspects of professing Christianity. For the enemies of our former leaders, the present generation of Fundamentalism crafts a clever defense. We are now persuaded that the former generations “misunderstood” these enemies—that they could not see that we all were of the same heart and mind.
Contemporary Fundamentalism now freely introduces us to the frontiers of compromise that the Neo-Evangelicals pursued during their decades separate from Fundamentalism (beginning in the late 1940s). The Neo-Evangelicals are opening their hearts to us, seeking a “spirit of reconciliation” between the once separated movements. It is not that they have changed in any way. While what was once written against them by a former generation of leadership in Fundamentalism remains firmly true, it is also evident that they have deepened in their apostasy. This new breed of Fundamentalist leadership has secretly admired and embraced Neo-Evangelical literature, music, and church-building techniques; they now are ready to become a part of that stream of major Evangelicalism. This Evangelical persuasion is more accepted by the world because it has so much of the world within its system. For the most part present-day Fundamentalism is tired of the battle against the apostasy, believing it is a major part of the rejection by the Church world. Thus the very word apostasy has become conspicuously absent in their conferences, their schools, and in their allegiances.
Oh, what will the “postmortem” of Fundamentalism reveal? What diseases laid hold on its life to bring its public demise? Is there any hope of another movement that God will raise up to preserve the Truth in this End Time of the Last Days to take the place of fallen Fundamentalism? What term should be used now since the term Fundamentalism is now being assimilated into Evangelicalism? These are all very important questions that must be addressed at this critical hour of what we believe to be the final church age before the coming of Christ for His saints.
Decades of Warnings
As Neo-Evangelicalism boldly left the Fundamentalist movement in the late 1940s, there were a number of voices almost immediately rising within the ranks of Fundamentalism to warn its own constituents of the potential infiltration of the Neo-Evangelical philosophy. They sounded the alarm that such thinking and carnal approaches to “Christian” living could invade the God-appointed movement of Historic Fundamentalism and bring its downfall, even though the Neo crowd had departed. Most of the alarms went unheeded and, consequently, today we have crossed the point of no return. How often we have referred to the following warning of history itself: any movement of God will be Bible-based in its first generation leadership; neutrality will plague the second generation leadership; compromise will take hold of the third; and, apostasy will be the final poison to take hold of the movement in the fourth generation leadership. Dear reader, we are there; we are well into the fourth generation leadership. The only antidote of hope is for the remnant to look to God and His grace, Word, and Spirit as to what we now must do.
The Warning Against Secular Acceptance
What have been these warnings? Neo-Christianity declares that if we are accepted by the world and its standards, then God is with us. How sad it is that the Fundamentalist universities, in their slick, promotional magazines, always present their faculty and students receiving “secular” awards or secular promotions and accolades as if the Christian must strive to be accepted by the world’s standards. God did not give us our talents and abilities to use in promoting the world and its secularism. There has also been a pressing for Christian school leaders and teachers to attend “secularist” universities to secure a degree that will give greater “clout” to the school before the world. We have lost the insight that the Christian is not in competition with the world; the world’s education and true Christian education are on two different roads, leading into opposite directions, with two different goals for education. To force our students to believe we are in competition with the world’s educational system is to destroy biblical Christianity in their lives. These leaders and teachers graduate “mistrained” rather than “untrained,” taught that the secular way is compatible to true Christian philosophy. The product of such so-called “Christian” training will not make the student a strong Christian; rather he will be more of an “accommodating” Christian with the world. I have seen in my travels throughout the world that such graduates from Fundamental schools are destroying the “harvest” rather than helping the harvest. They are spiritually weak, compromising, and again, accommodating to the world.
The Warning About Our Dress
Another warning that was given to Fundamentalism throughout these recent decades concerns the fashion of dress. Our schools used to have dress standards that “adorned” the doctrine of Christ. But now there is little difference between the dress on the “Christian” campus and that of the secular schools. At one time pants were not permitted on the young ladies; but then it was permitted in the dorms, then in physical activities, then any place on campus, and now such attire is permitted downtown. Shorts have become the norm of dress for both men and women in the sports arena. Another intentional change has been the “casual” attire for worship. It is non-offensive to the world. Even the publication covers of Fundamental music have inaugurated the “casual” posture for the young men: no tie and casual clothing. What started all of this? This “look” came from Neo-Evangelicalism which adopted it from the world. They wanted “the look” to blend in with the world—a gospel that is non-offensive.
There is also a dialectic application concerning the principles of dress: I have seen youth groups representing Fundamental schools getting out of their “official” school vans with sloppy and casual dress that is an insult to the testimony of Christ. Then, for their Sunday “performance” there was a little more conservative look accompanied by their plastic smile and watered-down testimony. This is not historic Fundamentalism.
The Warning Against Hatred of Separation
How often faculty and staff members of Fundamentalist colleges and universities have told us that they are not permitted to use words such as apostasy, separation or other terms of former days of Historic Fundamentalism. Such words and concerns are viewed as the “unsaid” words. Biblical Separation now is merely a historical truth of the former Fundamentalists. Harold Ockenga, reputed to be the coiner of the term “Neo-Evangelicalism” and a father of the movement, observed that the difference between Fundamentalism and Neo-Evangelicalism is the difference between separation and infiltration. Today, contemporary Christianity boasts of Hollywood stars or professional sports heroes who profess to be Christian. Such a person seems to make God greater in the contemporary Christian world’s eyes. Years ago when conservative Christianity was biblically based, such individuals would leave such a profession knowing that one could not be a professional in such a context and still be a Christian. The compromises that such a person would have to make would not permit such duplicity. What grief came to the remnant a few years ago when the picture of Magic Johnson was cited on the front cover of the BJU Review. This man, with all of his deplorable living, was given front cover among professing Fundamentalism. What dialectic Christianity does such a picture promote among the weak, shallow teens?
The banner of “ecclesiastical separation” has now become a forbidden phrase. Years ago, faculty members of Fundamental schools were writing books against the Southern Baptist Convention and other apostate denominations. Yet now we are hearing of SBC ministers and teachers being the guest speakers at Fundamental churches, schools, and conventions. We are inviting the enemies of God and their subtle ploys of compromise to come among us as men of conquest. Are they secretly laughing at us as we are being drawn and enamored by them? It is evident they are marching into our schools and conferences and being accepted as our future hope. These modern-day Gibeonites have stolen our hearts and minds; we have accepted them as “bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.” The Neo crowd has no problem with conservatives joining them as long as they become a part of the Neo thinking and manner. While the theater, dancing, and drinking were shunned in the past as destructive vices, we now are witnessing such on Fundamental campuses.
The Warning Against Positivism
Popular maxims and slogans made by the Neo-Christianity twenty years ago that were condemned by our leaders are now being quoted by our present leaders to promote the need of change and crossover. Some fifteen years ago in a regional Congress of Fundamentalists where my father and I were among the guest preachers, all of us were told by the host pastor in his office that we were not to deal with any issues of controversy, but simply be positive and “preach Christ” alone. This was stated more than one time in private meetings of the Congresses throughout the last decade of Fundamentalism in the twentieth century. My dear father was told before he spoke at the World Congress in London, in 1990, that he was not to deal with the controversy of Jack Hyles. All of this reminded me of the ecclesiastical leaders within the denomination; they muzzled the preacher if his words were contrary to the political correctness of the church. The last words I heard from an ecclesiastical leader within the denomination we left were, “If you believe that the Bible contradicts the denominational policy, you must submit to the denomination.” Many would not have been that bold, but such committed leaders believe the principle of the statement.
Though many Fundamentalists dare not claim the title “Protestant,” especially our Baptist brethren, yet every Christian must be a “protester” to the apostasy and worldliness. We all must still “protest” the Roman Catholic Church, although such a stand is becoming less and less popular in the Evangelical camp. We must still protest the cults, including Mormonism. Has the popular conservatism of men like Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck caused a greater leniency toward this cult?
We must remember that the Gospel has both its positive and negative side, and both must be preached in balance. Like the rose on its stem, Christianity with its message of grace would cause many to be attracted to it; however, such a fragrant message would ultimately destroy it. God has placed thorns on this rose stem to protect the grace message, “teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:12). Biblical Christianity demands Biblical Separation, even to the point of separation from disorderly brethren. There is no true Gospel being preached without the God-appointed protection of biblical separation.
How often we hear preachers say, “We are to simply preach Christ and Him crucified.” Such a statement is their way of demanding that we are to stay away from any stand for Christ and His Word, simply keeping the message objective, not personal. But where is this statement found in Scripture? It is found in First Corinthians 2:2, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Here, the apostle Paul was writing to a very carnal and worldly church, and to this church (“you”) the message of Christ’s crucifixion was needed. It was the message of the crucifixion of the world and of the flesh. If such men who limit this statement would truly preach the truth of this phrase, they would strongly be condemning the world and the flesh that have become the master powers of the institutional Church today. How regularly is this passage taken out of its biblical context?
While the “love” of God has taken center stage in the proclamation of the Gospel, the justice and judgment of God, the need of repentance and turning away from sin have been obscured. This will ultimately lead to Universalism—for God loves all, so “they say.” Yet His love does not save us; it is His grace. How often we are told that we must “bait the hook” in order to get people to come to Christ. Yet, Christ’s Gospel is fished with a bare hook; the individual must want to be caught and be told of what it will cost him to become a Christian. We cannot corrupt the message or falsify the message to get the fish. Converts must, through God’s drawing and godly sorrow working repentance, take the bare hook and become identified with the most hated person in history, the Lord Jesus Christ. The days of martyrdom are coming back, and the converts of our time must be ready to meet such days with Christ, with joy, and without compromise.
The Warning Against Numbers
An increase in numbers attending church today has been the great desire of Neo-Christianity. They do not believe in Christ’s building His Church (Matthew 16:18) any longer, but in this Postmodern time God needs help from us. He needs our gimmicks, our programs, our buses, and our subtle tactics of deception to bring the people in. Compromise evangelism is the norm now and whatever it takes to “build” the church, the end will justify any means available. John R. Rice talked about the need of baptizing at least 300 a year in order to be a success. We are living in a competitive world, and it is evident that the church is in competition with the world to see who can draw the greater crowd. Such evangelical pressure has forced the evangelical world to accept rock music and all of the other styles of the world’s music in order to accommodate the world’s desire to attend the church.
The Warning Against False Teachers
We have been warned by God’s men for decades of the rise of false teachers from the outside and from within. In the early years there was the warning against Billy Graham and his subtle ways amidst his “evangelical” message. Through the years Mr. Graham has fallen deeper into the apostasy with the public declaration to Robert Schuller that even Buddhists and Hindus are in the Body of Christ. We were told by a former generation of Fundamental leaders that Mr. Graham was the greatest betrayer of Christ and His Gospel in the twentieth century. And yet there are those in Fundamentalism who believe he is a “Christian.” If this were true, then we will have to declare that Judas will be in heaven, perhaps reversing Christ’s anathema of His betrayer.
Our present day Fundamentalist students are being heavily drawn to men like John MacArthur and John Piper. Though for the most part John MacArthur presents a fundamental doctrinal message, his ministry is against biblical separation. John Piper is another minister that the Fundamentalist seminaries are permitting to be the “pied piper” of Christian Hedonism. The teachings of these men have become an infatuation to the young, immature student. It will be, at the beginning of the crossover, the more “conservative” Neo-Evangelicals, through their Bible teachings, that will sweep the students into the vortex of the Neo-persuasion. Once they leave the school and seminary, they will be Neo-Evangelical.
From conversations I have had with faculty in Fundamental schools, the percentage of their students drawn to the writings and theology of such men is staggering. It is evident that the schools have not dealt with Neo-Evangelicalism and its heretical teachings. The tentacles of this end-time heresy have now invaded the halls of learning in our seminaries, and the magnitude of its force of influence proves there is no turning back. Our schools are becoming the product of Neo-Evangelicalism without so much its being taught in the classroom, but simply by its not being dealt with at all.
I remember my years in several seminaries where the teachers, both in undergraduate and graduate studies, warned us about such men and their deceptive teachings. They warned us that these men pretended to be fundamental in their words and doctrine, but their practice was not of Scripture and amounted to a corrupting of the Gospel, producing another gospel. Just as our nation no longer has statesmen, our seminaries no longer have teachers who defy the popular and the invading enemies among their students. They are silent on the matters, and perhaps the school policy is to muzzle the teacher from saying anything. We have gone so long in being non-offensive that even the Devil in a few years may be accepted in the message of Universalism. We must even be careful in “quoting” from such enemies, even the so-called “conservative” ones, so that we do not put them in an endorsing light; students most likely will take this “positive” view as an acceptance of the man.
Conclusion
The postmortem view of the corpse of public Fundamentalism proves that a number of spiritual, theological, and practical diseases have taken over the movement through the subtlety of leaders whom we trusted. They kept shooting the poison into the mainstream of this beloved movement with the intention of killing it or creating another movement. Though a large number of men left Fundamentalism back in the late 1940s and 1950s, there was a small group of like-minded ones that stayed in the movement. Over the years they have grown in number, talking behind “the barn,” or infiltrating the college classrooms with their teachings, and now they have become the majority of the movement crossing over into Neo-Evangelicalism.
In our next article we want to continue this postmortem autopsy and view with tears what has brought the public death of Historic Fundamentalism.