Culture and holiness. Neither Yates nor you is suggesting either one will do right?

I think WBY has it right: “culture or holiness”. We’re not saying that culture is a substitute for holiness or that it is the functional equivalent of holiness or even that culture accomplishes all that holiness does. It does not. We are not saying that culture is the brainy man’s religion, or that holiness is the simple man’s culture.

We are saying the culture presents to the intellect a sanctity, a ground for transcending externals.

Capiche?

Si, grazie.

Dissidens
I was under the assumption that it is the (I Tim 3:15)Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth? Also it is the pastors/elders who have been made the overseers. Acts 20:28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

It would seem that the spiritual condition of many Christians and Christian youth are being managed by parachurch organizations with their own political agenda.

"We got a weird explanation: we were told that it was difficult to get accreditation when the board of the church doubles as the board of the school."

I read your lament and teared up.

I also listened to McCune's panalizing arrogance and became angry.

Apparently the good doctor's toupee covers up as much lordliness and snobbery as smooth skin. Sad.

Joe:

I think we’ve run into major conflicts by making the assumptions we’ve made.

What was a church is now a church/college/day school/seminary/daycare center/bookstore and religious bric-a-brac emporium/support group/sports center/counseling clinic/piano bar/shopping co-op/health maintenance organization/investment advisor/drug rehab/summer activities rec center...and with plans to expand their ministry.

And no one will say it is out of control.

Dissidens,

If you had kids, would you homeschool them?

It is hard (and presumptuous) to say what I would do in imaginary circumstances. And I risk insulting someone no matter what I say. But, given what I know, given the general educational environment we are in, and not having any particulars to consider (which often make up a large part of any decision), I can only speak on matters of principle.

I would not send a dog to public school.

If circumstances were favorable, I might consider a top-notch private school. (But even that is iffy.) I would not be happy sending my kids to any of the schools I—or my wife—taught in.

Taking into consideration all the factors I would likely be contemplating, I would definitely homeschool.

When get to be a big fundamentalistic person with a big fundamentalistic church, I promise to do away with all politics.

Ryan J Martin, that is the most Solid thing I have heard in a long time. Solid! Amen!

Do you think my seminary president or Dr. McCune believe they are being politicians?

No. If I may venture to make this comment, I suppose that politics is part of our culture as well. It is in the very fundamentalistic air we breath.

I have never been too good at playing the political games, but that has not stopped depravity from getting me to try and play along more often than not. And I often find that, if I am not careful, my most ardent opposition to certain persons and their "lack of orthodoxy" or "lack of fundamentalism" or whatever can easily be rooted in jealousy for their political success, which is terribly painful to admit.

O, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Have you ever listened to BWV 179?

Ich Armer Mensch, Ich Armer Sunder

I can't say if I've heard the entire cantata, but I know I love the chorale.

I do believe that this is an issue we all have to contend with or we will become what we hate. It is one thing to say that a particular virtue is "black and white", it is another to recognize that the minute a human heart touches it, it goes all gray. And we do not even know our own hearts.

Two questions,

First, when you speak of "politics" you mean to speak of sins of the spirit, correct? Is there any kind of good politics? i.e., can "politics" be broader than just negative stuff?

Second, since you don't have any kids, have you ever taught other people's children (something like tutoring) in an area other than music? This would be assuming the parents agree with your views, of course. If you have never done this, do you think there would be value in doing it? Something like homeschooling other people's children.

RE: "something like homeschooling other people's children" . . .

Neo, you mean like a school?

Neoclassical:

Second things first: most children of others I’ve ever taught were in a private school. Outside of that it has been only violin lessons. I helped a few students write speeches and essays, but not as a matter of course.

(That’s formally, of course. Informally I have taught other people’s children lots of stuff, but in those circumstances, not with the whole-hearted support of their parents, if you know what I mean. Fun Things You Can Do With Matches was a class a lot of kids signed up for, bedroom Olympic sports…that sort of thing.)

And moving rapidly on to your other question.

There is a good kind of politics, yes. I call it statecraft; I just don’t see it in the church. A lot of evangelicals, and especially fundamentalists, don’t like being characterized by those leaders of the past who would be a reproach were they leading an ape colony. They prefer to think of them as exceptions and they insist that the stated virtues of their movements justify the following they seek. There is a Greek word for that: pffffft.

Men like J. Frank Norris and Billy Graham were leaders in every respect of the word. They left their mark, bad as it was, on what followed. Movements have a moral tone to them just as institutions do. The behavior of my seminary president and the remarks of McCune (and a thousand other examples of pastoral leadership we all know) are not exceptions that polite people ought to deferentially overlook. You cannot laud good leadership and excuse bad leadership: this is just hypocrisy. If you want to write your hagiographies, you have to live with the scandal sheets.

I know a great statesman. He even ran for public office here in Texas but lost in the primaries. When Katrina hit his home state, he did more to get medical supplies and experts into Louisiana than any 5 government agencies. They were all engaged in turf wars, he worked his contacts. Over the course of years he has cultivated relationships, not in a Machiavellian way: it is what we non-statesmen call schmoozing. He can talk to anyone about anything and he will be trusted. He is competent. Before New Orleans was in a position to even get the roads open, he knew the area, he knew the people in the area, he knew the logistics and he had the trust of the people in New York to let him work on his own initiative.

When you deal with organizations of any size, you realize that there are a thousand points of friction. The religious leaders I know are like the LA politicians, hauling sand bags away from the levee and pouring it into any crack in the administrative machinery they could find.

People are sheep. I call them sheeple. They need to be led, indeed to have any institutional success, they will have to follow someone. That calls for skills. We confuse ego with skills.

That’s why we are where we are.

First, for T. J.: the lack of respect and good manners in your comments about Dr. McCune is truly appalling.

Dissidens, I am confused about your attack on politics. Certainly, no one wants to come out as an advocate of political maneuverings; that is not my point. I merely assert that among any group of people there will be structures, people, policies, and procedures by which that group operates. These can be informal, but as a group matures, it is normal for those policies to become more formal. This, loosely speaking, is basic politics. It is hard for me to imagine how this could be objectionable.

Certainly, we all despise blatant power play politics, in which virtue and truth take a back seat to savvy and force. I am assuming that this is the accusation that you bring against Dr. McCune; that somehow, his dismissal of the drivel and shrieks that form most of the YF monologue is an abuse of his power and position.

Frankly, I think that this is both a misguided and disappointing conclusion for you to draw. Having read your musings, I find myself in substantial agreement with your critiques of the banality than masquerades as culture and worship in our society as a whole and in our churches. It seems to me that much of the YF emphasis is on the absolute (or near-absolute) relativity of the arts, especially music. Those arguments are tired, and tiring. I am somewhat surprised that you feel it necessary for Dr. McCune to seriously interact with such a non-serious position.

Obviously, though, the YF concerns transcend music. Perhaps it is the issue of separation that McCune should have addressed? Again?

I think that McCune’s comments ought to be set in their context. McCune has not dodged the opportunity to set forth his understanding of the nature and rationale for separation: read his book. Had he been speaking at a conference designed to interact with the concerns of the YF, perhaps his comments would have been less helpful. But generally, I think that the approach that he took here is one guided by the wisdom of having seen this all before.

You accuse McCune of representing the "imperious voice of a movement shouting down dissent," yet I would dare suggest that if those who agree with you had the seats of power, a dismissal of the contrary position would be entirely acceptable. You see, you think you are right. You should. So does Dr. McCune. And he should. And neither you nor Dr. McCune need to continuously give heed or response to contrary positions, especially when those positions are so demonstrably prone to repeating the sins of the past.

Not that Dissidens needs any help, but I'll toss my two cents in anyway. Consider this statement:

I am somewhat surprised that you feel it necessary for Dr. McCune to seriously interact with such a non-serious position.

What is the opposite of, "to seriously interact with such a non-serious position?" Is it simply not interacting? Or is it interacting in a non-serious way? I think both breaches of duty constitute culpable negligence.

Dissidens, as I read this post I trembled with emotion. I can't tell you how it feels to hear someone sticking up for the people and ideas which so rarely get a hearing. I continue to read and learn.

At the college I quit attending, they recently instituted a new Dean of Men. His first act in office was to meet the young pre-season athletes as they entered the dinning hall for the first time and publicly dry-shave any of them whose facial hair was not up to institutional snuff. His acts have been infamous ever since. My brother, who's going there now, just brought home a tale of how a weirdo caught doing naughty things with his hands while watching animated porn in the dorm, was let go with special consolations for being such a lonely, innocent homeschooler person, while the young black man who turned him in was reprimanded for being so insensitive. Meanwhile that same black man was given a load of demerits when he walked into the dining hall and found a huge Confederate flag gracing the walls and was so angry he tore it down as a protest against certain ideas with which he understandably associated the flag (it's a Northern school). When my Aunt, a timid, uneducated woman, called the President and complained that the dean of men was too harsh and not fair, citing evidence, his reply was that so far the calls for and against the new Dean by the college's constituency had been fifty-fifty, and so he couldn't really do anything either way yet.

This, Michael Riley, is what I, at least, mean when I talk about politics. I think I mean the same thing that Dissidens does. It is when the necessary policy and structure of which you speak overrules justice and goodness. It is when an earnest uneducated mother can give a reason, but the President of a College can only give statistics and opinion polls! It is when the existance of extra-biblical insitutions and structures and leadership and policy is important beyond all reckoning, so that we could not be supposed to exist 10 years beyond their destruction, while the things which make up the real kingdom of God go blithely by the way.

And another thing I am becoming tired of in these debates, is the unquestionig assumption of post-modern ideals about argumentation. The stuff that goes, "naturally I think I am right but so does my opponent so I shouldn't kick up a fuss about it, really". In this way I heard soteriological pursuits dismissed as unworthy of my time again and again in the classroom - "it's been debated so long, we'll never get anywhere now".

The fact that in a disagreement someone is necessarily wrong does not disprove the possibility that someone may be right! It furthermore ignores the fact that in disputes about theology and the things of God, the one who is right can only have become that way through the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. Which means, not only will he be right but he will know that he is right and is under obligation to act accordingly. Unlike our wandering secular counterparts who aren't sure that it's possible to know that you know and obsessively watch themselves think in the hopes that they might someday catch themselves at knowing and so solve the question to their own satisfaction at least.

So Young Fundamentalists have nothing substantial to say? How about the following:

1) Fundamentalism is Worldly. It places too much value on position and fame and floats along with culture in its ideas about truth and argumentation.
2) The reason we haven't accepted the preaching we've been given for years about music and separation, is that we haven't heard a principle yet that works regardless of the situation, that can be easily demonstrated to flow from the teaching of scripture.

In elaboration of the second point, please allow me to recite the most common teaching I heard about each issue.

About separation: "Because the root of the O.T. word for 'holiness' carries the idea of separation, holiness therefore IS separation. If you separate you are holy. The more separate you are the holier you are. And there are two kinds of separation. The first is the kind where you don't talk to anyone who is not a Bible-believing, Baptism-by-immersion, non-charasmatic, independant, fundamental, Baptist. Member in church of, good standing. The second is the kind in which your habits of life, such as wearing hair-do's popular int he fifties, make you stand out from the crowd so much that you can't go anywhere without feeling Different. All this flows from the etymology of the Hebrew word for holiness.

As to Music: In the Psalms, David speaks occasionally of a "new Song". This is obviously a theological term, having nothing to do with the fact that when David included it in the new song he was writing, he was actually in the process of making a literal new song. Therefore all good Christians will only listen to music that is unlike the music anyone else listens to. It must be different from the world. (New=Different from Everyone)Therefore we are selling our latest recording in the lobby after the service. All this flows from David's use of the word "new song".

3)The presence of God is conspicuously absent from the movement. I see few if any recognizable signs of his nature or blessing anywhere. If the leaders are responsible for the movement, than can we assume that the leaders bear the blame for this state of affairs? And can we leave, yet?

All you super-educated, pastoral-type folk should not forget that the people who actually live with the system, and have grown up in it, are far more equipped to know whether or not it lives up to its claims, and whether or not it works, than you are. You feel that the movement is alive because you are constantly talking with other eager, devoted young minds or satisfied old scholars. You have complicated systems by which you justify everything to your satisfcation. You attend exciting Conferences and keep so busy about The Work that you necessarily feel that something good must be accomplished in your life time. You don't want to hear that we are dying out here.

Michael,

Why the shrill tone? Why such language? Has your ox been gored?

If you must, bellow on, dear brother.

Todd, I find your comment particularly ironic in light of the illustrated Proverb of the day. There are times in which "not interacting" with a position is the most prudent approach. One might question whether this is such a case. Fair enough. But to claim that all such non-interaction is culpable negligence is to be strikingly unbiblical.

Alana, I appreciated your interaction with my post. Certainly, the story that you told is ugly, and is rightly cited as an example of an abuse of power. My point is this: not all exercises of power, even if they trample on someone's dearly held position, are abuses of power. If a particular point of view is so wrong and so bereft of value, for the authority to choose not to take it seriously is entirely appropriate.

For example, if the DoM that you mentioned had expelled the student who was involved with pornography, would that have been an abuse of power? Certainly not. Yet it is still and exercise of power, a use of the prerogatives that the DoM has by virtue of the policies (politics) of that school.

You and I (and certainly Dissidens, for that matter) and united in our distaste for power run amok, trampling on goodness and wisdom in a raw display of pragmatism and lust for stellar approval ratings. But in order to establish whether McCune is an example of such abuse of power, we must ask whether the concerns that he is dismissing are rooted in biblical truth and goodness. I, for one, do not think that they are. If error arises in any organization, it is the duty, the obligation of those in authority to put down the error. This is not an abuse of power.

That is not to say that there are no issues in Fundamentalism, nothing that can be improved, corrected, and fixed. Neither I nor Dr. McCune assert anything of the sort. In fact, if I remember correctly, Dr. McCune says as much (that there are problems in Fundamentalism) in the course of the discussion. However, the question is whether the stereotypical SI/young fundamentalists have anything of value to say. To dismiss the concerns of everyone who is critical of fundamentalism without a legitimate hearing would be a mistake. But to fail to recognize that much of the general attitude that rises from the YF is a reformulated New Evangelicalism is also a problem.

Allow me a point of clarification: if you got the impression that I was arguing for some sort of postmodern cease-fire agreement, then I must have been terribly unclear. I loathe the postmodern mindset; I am constantly sickened by the "can't-we-all-just-get-along" mindset of our day. My point is not that we are all right in our own minds, and that this should content us. Rather, my point is that the accusation that McCune is abusing power is rooted in the belief that the concerns that he is dismissing are legitimate. That is the real issue. My point is that, given a situation in which a person exercises power in support of a cause that we endorse, we do not see it as an abuse of power, or as an example of politics run amok. So the issue is not politics per se, but the ends to which those politics are aimed.

If the concerns of YF/SI are right and noble, then to dismiss them in a cavalier manner is inappropriate. But please never lump me in with those who refuse to make a fuss about the truth. If God is willing, I will continue to make a fuss about the truth for as long as I breathe.

I concur that Fundamentalism has worldliness issues (as does evangelicalism, in spades), and that some of the arguments used to support separation and music standards have been poor. Certainly, you have done your part to highlight some of the poorer examples, examples that have been discarded by some of the better spokesmen for those positions. If you seek better articulations of the doctrine of separation, read Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran. For music, I am highly encouraged to see the study and articulation of the issues by my friend Scott Aniol. While these might not convince you either, you ought not make blanket statements about the lack of exegetical work and articulation on these issues.

I really have no idea how to respond to your charge that God is absent from Fundamentalism. If you truly believe that to be the case, then, yes, you ought to leave. This should not be taken as me being contentious. I am not intending to be. But if you honestly believe that God is not in the midst of a certain group, I cannot imagine why you would stay among them.

T. J.,

In a way, my ox was gored. I am a graduate of Detroit, and learned my theology at the feet of Dr. McCune. The statements that you made regarding Dr. McCune's "lordliness" and "snobbery" struck me as being highly disrespectful of a good man. I apologize if, in the course of objecting to what I thought was unnecessarily contentious language, I used some myself.

Q.E.D.

Todd, I find your comment particularly ironic in light of the illustrated Proverb of the day. There are times in which "not interacting" with a position is the most prudent approach. One might question whether this is such a case. Fair enough. But to claim that all such non-interaction is culpable negligence is to be strikingly unbiblical.

I made no such claim. I take it you consider the position dismissed by McCune to be a fool's folly?

Todd,

I'm confused. You said,

What is the opposite of, "to seriously interact with such a non-serious position?" Is it simply not interacting? Or is it interacting in a non-serious way? I think both breaches of duty constitute culpable negligence.

It seems to me that you are saying that non-interaction is a breach of duty.

As to whether what McCune dismissed is folly: if you listen to what it is exactly that McCune is dismissing, I would agree that it is folly. McCune is not saying that anyone who is young and who sees a fault with Fundamentalism is to be spitted upon a pike. Rather, he is speaking of those whose questions are not inquisitive, but brazenly contentious. He is dismissing those who do not know their history, and who are not interested in hearing how they are wrong.

I am certain that, if a person were honestly seeking biblical guidance about the nature of Fundamentalism and biblical separatism, McCune would graciously have that discussion with him. But McCune is dealing with the intractable and immature, those who, by their blog posts, act the fool.

Let me add at this point: perhaps I have already said too much, presuming to speak for Dr. McCune. I ought not pretend that I know his mind on all matters.

Michael Riley:

There are several issues here, some of which can be resolved with simple clarification.

First of all I agree, as I said in my response to Neoclassical, politics is a fact of life. It is even a necessity of life. If you have a polis, you will have politics. As I say, if you take a look at the vast majority of people, it is in their nature to look for guidance. So long as there are many people there will be multiple desiderata. Nothing wrong so far. It is not an evil thing that some should rise, articulate their interests and gather a following. No crime there. No sin there. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the task of the rhetor is a noble one.

You say we all despise blatant power play politics, but sadly that is not true: there are always some who embrace it. Invariably some employ it. I have always regretted that, even among those I love, there is more than a tolerance for it. As one professor used to put it, “they sinned on the side of the angels”. I do not believe that anyone sins on the side of the angels. (I think the angels would smack us for saying that if they were permitted to do so.) I think good men should never allow power to eclipse virtue. And even if men sin in a good cause, we do not deny the sin. And by denying the sin I include a wave of the hand and a vague comment to the effect that “mistakes were made”.

Actually, I do not accuse Dr. McCune of power politics. I would not conclude that from what I have heard and read from him. This is the first time I ever heard Dr. McCune talk like this. I do not accuse him, I do not absolve him. I do not hold him accountable—at this point—for the amen-cheer that followed the remarks that were made, although that was very instructive.

I simply do not address that issue.

All you say about the YF may be true. Worse may be true, but I do not speak only for my own. I am not defending YF or its grievances. It seems to me that those of us who live in a polis have an interest in how affairs are conducted. What I saw from that panel was dismissive and derisive. I object to it, whether motivated by power politics or not, whether it was “my camp” that was dismissed and derided or not.

As I said in my post, imagine you were a YF, what would you judge your interests to be worth in that crowd?

You say you’ve read some of my posts, and you will no doubt observe that I do not shrink from disagreement. Again, that is not my beef, I think an error should be dealt with as forcefully as is necessary. Jesus called Herod a “fox”, which in our culture comes out more like “Go tell that rat…” I do not find this offensive at all, I take it as the judgment of the speaker and a measure of his scorn.

But what we witnessed was an attack, conclusions drawn about competence, intent, sincerity, motivation—and not in a good way. This is not right. In addition, the room’s response indicates what purpose is served in speaking that way.

I have read nothing yet from the YFs that I find all that attractive. It may be there and I have not seen it. But my point was more about the nature of the movement and what it tolerates, what it applauds, how it disposes of others. The same goes for my own time in the movement. There is something ugly here.

And actually, my words about the “imperious voice of a movement” were not directed at Dr. McCune personally, that phrase came three paragraphs later, the intervening paragraphs referring to a movement, not any particular person in the movement. Insofar as he himself used the words unloving and cavalier to characterize his remarks and attributed his attitude to “age”, I think it is particularly poignant.

You said: “You accuse McCune of representing the ‘imperious voice of a movement shouting down dissent,’ yet I would dare suggest that if those who agree with you had the seats of power, a dismissal of the contrary position would be entirely acceptable.”

Two things about that: first, I say now—without any hypothetical event in mind—that I will dismiss positions that are contrary to mine. I see nothing wrong with that. I see everything right with that! That is what a good man does: dismiss positions he finds contrary to the truth. Nor do I think he should economize on any rhetorical force he thinks is appropriate.

Second, should I find myself among those in the seats of power who treat their opponents unlovingly or cavalierly, it will not be my movement any longer.

Again my point: this is not just a criticism of unbecoming behavior in two people or a hundred people. It’s worse than that. It is about a kind of leadership, a “management style” that typifies the movement. This attitude has a pedigree: when I speak against the movement in the past and its leaders, I am addressing this legacy.

Mr. Riley,

It seems to me that you are saying that non-interaction is a breach of duty.

I addressed the particular, not the universal.

Dissidens,

Your last post was very helpful for clarifying the issues, and I do believe that we are not very much apart at all.

First, let me apologize for misreading your initial entry as an attack on McCune. I acknowledge that I was over-sensitive in this regard, unduly influenced by the comments of those who responded.

Your reminder that not everybody despises power politics is well taken. My point is that most people at least give lip service to opposing the use of power to trump goodness and truth. The crux of my contention has been, and still is, that what one believes is good or true will be, to a large degree, the standard by which one measures whether power has been abused.

Getting back to your original question: if I were a YF at that particular meeting, I certainly would have felt alienated and hurt. But consider the issue from this angle: why should a polis tolerate and dialogue with those within its ranks who constantly question the validity of the very distinctive of that polis? Fundamentalism has at least two characteristics: commitment to the Fundamentals and to separatism. It acquired the first characteristic at its inception, during the battles with the liberals. It clarified the second when the non-separatists, the New Evangelicals, distinguished themselves from the Fundamentalists because of separation. Should those that are antagonistic to separatism feel at home in a convention of separatists?

Should members of a pro-life group be expected to seriously interact with the abortionist while in their own meetings? Certainly, when they leave their walls and seek to prove their case to those who oppose them or those who are undecided, they must do so in a non-dismissive, serious manner. But it is senseless to ask how the abortion advocate would feel at the pro-life rally when his position is being roundly trampled. It just does not matter at that point. He should expect to have his position trampled in that setting.

Now, the better parallel is this: suppose a pro-life person is struggling with his belief in the cause, and attends a pro-life rally in which the arguments are of the more “rah-rah” variety. Will he not be bothered? Of course he will. He will find such arguments tired and unconvincing, and be disappointed with the leadership for having allowed them. But I wonder if there still isn’t a place for a group that has some measure of unity to celebrate that unity without needing to turn every phrase as carefully as it would in a debate.

We sound different preaching to those converted to our point of view than we do preaching to those who are unconvinced. Arguments and clichés that work among those with whom we agree sound offensive and shallow to those with whom we disagree. To insist that we maintain a constant apologetic mindset and conversation for all of our beliefs is simply not realistic.

I found the last couple of paragraphs in your response to be enlightening. To me, the fine line is between not “economiz[ing] on any rhetorical force [one] thinks is appropriate” and “treat[ing] [one’s] opponents unlovingly or cavalierly.” As I’ve said before, the difference between these is often one of perception. Those who see no value in a position will see the dismissal as appropriate, whereas those in sympathy with the position will see such action as unloving and cavalier.

Alana - I must say, your summary of the doctrines of holiness (separation) and the New Song (no ccm) are extremely accurate. But I think you overestimate the YF's. Many of them have come up with new systems where we just don't talk about music or separation because they are personal matters of conscience, 'christian liberty'.

Honestly, I think they see the problems, but not quite clearly enough, and they create new ones while trying to solve the old ones.

Interestingly, it was this kind of 'management style' that first got me riled up enough to post on Unknowing.

I want to note that I'm not saying anything about Dr. McCune in my last post. I haven't listened to it or read much about it. Whatever Dr. McCune really said or intended by it, I think the thing that speaks loudest to the 'management style' is the cheers and applause - if that was even the way it was, I don't know. I have no reason to think poorly of Dr. McCune, since I've only heard one lecture, and seen one class' worth of notes from him, and those were especially good and helpful. I hear he's a bit of a Calvinist, so he can't be all bad. Take it easy TJ.

lilrabbi,

Like you, I don't know McCune well. I did, however, take a class from him years ago. It was on Dispensationalism. Very good.

My comments about McCune had nothing to do with his character, but with his conduct, especially with his chesty bit of hubris toward the YFs.

I believe he was wrong in what he said and how he said it, and I don't think we should excuse him on the grounds of either gray hair or no hair. Oddly, it may be he has done more damage with his little spiel than he realizes.

But then who am I to criticize? The elder imam says I don't understand. So it must be so.

But what we witnessed was an attack, conclusions drawn about competence, intent, sincerity, motivation--and not in a good way. This is not right. In addition, the room's response indicates what purpose is served in speaking that way.

In all honesty I intend this as a question, not a "challenge," whatever that is: how do you see this speaker's manner of drawing conclusions about "competence, intent, sincerity, motivation" as any different from your own, which you have recently defended?

I listened to the audio discussed in this post today. If I am not mistaken, Dr McCune mentions you, Mr. Riley, though not by name. I may be wrong about that. I listened to it before I read all this interaction. I just remembering hearing a veiled reference to some PhD student, and guessed it was you.

The "panel discussion" was pretty frustrating to listen to, in my opinion. After these kinds of things, the only thing keeping my hold on the tag "fundamentalist" of any sort is the idea. That is about all I have left. The men on those panel misrepresented "evangelicals" (despite their many faults), and then they misprepresented "young fundamentalists" (whatever they are, despite their many faults). It is no wonder "the young men are leaving the movement." They go off to these "Neoevangelical" colleges and find out that the evangelicals are nothing like what fundamentalists say they are. Those that "fundamentalists" call "evangelicals" have their problems. I really want little to do with them. But when fundamentalists misrepresent them and charicature them, I want little to do with them.

So here I am. I am a fundamentalist of a certain sort. The sort that is not like the ACCC, and the sort that is (certainly) not like SI. But this is a good thing. Whenever I contemplate my impotent political future, I feel more liberated to serve Someone other than whoever the current Doc is.

Unless I'm mistaken, Dr. McCune was actually refering to Mark Snoeberger, the current librarian at DBTS and an astoundingly bright theological mind.

You would know better than I.

Michael Riley:

To begin with, no need to apologize, nor do I think you were being overly sensitive. We are humans: sensitivity comes in the box. I didn’t see anything objectionable in what you said.

Now in response to your question, “Why should a polis tolerate and dialogue with…”.

It’s a good question and you may not like my answer, I don’t know. My belief begins with who we are.

We are rational beings, at least we are beings capable of reason; the only hope we have of understanding comes from “conversation” (I say conversation because the word “dialogue” is so freighted). I think that good men have an obligation to try to understand one another, to have a meeting of the minds. But there comes a point when this conversation becomes “dialogue” in the sense we all despise, when talking is just a way of avoiding consequences and a means to gain advantage. We see this in international relations and in personal affairs.

I happily concede that there comes a time for conversation to stop. Conversation is not a tactic: it has understanding as its end. When we see that understanding is not the goal of both parties (recently on display on this blog), the conversation is over. I got no problem with that.

But I do not see that as the spirit of the movement, and that is what I criticize. When you say you “would have felt alienated and hurt as a YF”, you touch on the heart of this issue. I mean, this movement does not know its enemies from its allies from its friends from its bunkmates.

I feel no obligation to make antagonists “feel at home”, but by the same token, to characterize the exchange—however badly conducted—as a fight between a lion and a skunk tells us something about the nature the movement, the disposition of the participants, and the prospects for understanding.

Forgive me for saying this, and I don’t intend to attribute this sentiment to you, but someone I will not name offered some advice: those who believe the ship of fundamentalism is sinking should be made to walk the plank. I think that metaphor is instructive.

If the ship is sinking, what purpose is served in making people walk the plank?! If the ship is not sinking, what purpose is served in making people walk the plank?

Again, I don’t attribute this to you or McCune or Dr. Pick-a-name. But this is very much the perception of the movement. Where does this sentiment come from and why is it tolerated at all?

Michael,

Thanks for responding to me so thoroughly. I think I was a bit childish in two respects: first, in getting involved in a debate that involved a personality of whom I know literally nothing, without clarifying that I made no reference to him and was just taking the opportunity to air my opinions; and secondly, in asking a rhetorical question about leaving the movement when, in fact I already have. However, I have not left it for some broader representation of evangelicalism. To disparage the first is not, with me, to embrace the second. My husband grew up in one and I grew up in the other and now we are doing something entirely different. Yet it has not been so long, and we are not so entirely detached, as to not feel these things still.

I can't feel entirely sympathetic with someone who merely confesses that today's church, in whatever "camp", has areas of improvement: everyone confesses, even urges that. I have concluded (in a very homely, experiential, non-scholarly way) that these areas are built into the fabric of the movement and it can't be undone. I don't believe the college I attended could function without improper politics and still continue to believe that its mission is to "train fundamentalist young people in godliness and knowledge of the Bible". This whole idea of godliness being something that can be trained into someone is part and parcel of the movement, theory and practice, and can't be separated from it as far as I can see.

You have some very fine arguments that I can understand but not answer in style. I always feel my mind bettered by talking with someone like you.

I do read dear Bauder with great pleasure. He, Mark Minnick, Jim Johnson, and Andy Naselli have been, at various times, a few lighthouses rising out of the mist for me. Aniol I sympathize with and learn from, but I'm afraid I can't get over his persistent misinterpretation of Edwards on the Affections. Sigh.

I did not realize that the Young Fundamentalists were so closely defined or associated with SI/Calvary. My husband at college took part in the Young Fundamentalist survey they put out to a lot of colleges, and so I thought we were all the Young Fundamentalists.

As to YF attitude being reformulated New Evangelicalism, my father has read to me passages from Tozer in which he describes watching the split in the 1950's. And the implication is that as long as fundamentalism stays this way, we (I mean they) are going to have this split every generation or so.

Finally, please remember that when I talk about fundamentalism I'm talking about going forward in invitations at the age of four and attending VBS at the age of six and going to Junior camp at the age of ten and visiting Bob Jones in my teen years and joinging two fundamentalist churches and going to college for a few years and playing the piano and singing in the choir at church and being in the nursery and never having any friends outside. I'm talking about the system as I know it from the inside as an average layperson, and asking you to contrast it with the system as you know it at the top.

And I'm certainly not equipped to tussle with you as an equal, so after this attempt to make myself understood a bit better and accept some instruction from you, I'm returning the thanks for the interaction with my compliments, and stepping aside.

Alana, I find your comments very insightful. Please do not feel as though you cannot post among the "scholars".
inki

Let me jump in and repeat something I said earlier about aesthetic questions.

No one at Remonstrans thinks this is a theologian's club or a seminarian's club or a philosopher's club. All are welcome to contribute, oppose or object. In fact, it might be a good thing for the professors, presidents, seminarians and pastors to be confronted by the observations of the layman. I hinted at this when I commented on the use of anonymity.

I think it is clear that even a reprobate can hold a true idea. If understanding is the goal, then all should participate.

The gibbering philistines vandalize the certitudes of all our lives, not just those of the scholars and teachers.

Now you've gone and done it, dissidens. You've reached out your hand and slapped the third rail of 21st century Independent Baptist Separatist Calvinistic Dispensationalist Fundamentalism, Rolland McCune. Ok, maybe you didn't slap him personally, but you opened the door for others to do so. When they get electrocuted, know this: you are responsible.

I also hope you realize that you've destroyed any future you had in 21st century Independent Baptist Separatist Calvinistic Dispensationalist Fundamentalism.

Just for the record...I don't know exactly what a YF is, but I don't want to be labeled as one.

Ryan,

This is long overdue (sorry, busy couple of days), but no, I don't necessarily mean that Dissidens should start a school. I was just wondering if he would ever consider something like tutoring, or if we should consider it.

About politics, Dissidens, do you see any leaders within fundamentalism not concerned about politics? I know what you are saying about some of them, but I have a hard time thinking that all
of them are indeed such horrendous politicians. I may be mistaken, but I think I see a handfull of statesmen, so to speak, in Fundamentalism.

I like to think about leadership like Plato does in the Republic: a true leader does not want to be a leader, but chooses to take the responsibility because if he doesn't, someone worse will take the position and ruin the Republic.

Also, Dissidens, when you say that there is no room for politics in the church, I agree, but is there a place for statesmanship in the church, and a place for statesmanship in the para-church organization?

Pilgrim:

Yah, I’m slowly picking up on the fact that I prolly shouldn’t show up on the doorstep expecting dinner. I sent off a request to Bob Jones University for a position on their Board? and I’ve heard nothing back. And it’s been well over 90 days!

Seriously though, I used the example from the ACCC partly because it is recent, fresh in everyone’s mind and accessible on-line, and partly because what we witnessed was not particularly egregious. McCune is not a raving madman. As the title of my piece says, we go from dark past to bleak future, it is the character of the movement that is worth comment, not individuals. What is significant about this continuity of fundamentalist leadership? and why are we not troubled by it?

If evangelicals or fundamentalists get this sort of treatment from the secular press, they have no difficulty detecting the slight.

It was in this same discussion that Colas made the point that, as an organization, they take no position on the issue of Bible versions, but in the same venue we see the opposition treated the way it was.

¿Qué?

Neoclassical:

Do I see any leaders in fundamentalism not concerned with politics? By that I take it you mean leaders not driven by political considerations. No, actually, I don’t. There are men in the movement who are not politicians, for sure. I should like to see them become leaders, but year in and year out they are not recognized as leaders. I actually do know some gentlemen fundamentalists! I also know they tend to keep their heads down or they tend not to stay in one place for very long. I think we all have known gentle professors and classmates and pastors with considerable gifts to serve the body. I also think that more people than we guess mourn the fact that their offices tend not to be next to the president’s. That’s not how politics works.

Nor is it all of one or all of the other: like everything else there are varying degrees of desperation in the will to power. I honestly wish there were a movement where the good were grabbed brusquely by the collar and thrust into leadership. That doesn’t happen.

I speak with friends within fundamentalism, occasionally about who’s where and what’s changed. I think we would all be astounded at the carnage of this movement if our circle of acquaintance were larger. We speak of classmates and old students who no longer even attend church. And I’m not talking about those potheads whose parents thought of a bible college as a detox program. I’m talking about pastors and even church planters who have been so savaged by what goes under the name “defending the faith”, that they’ve simply walked away.

Is there place for statesmanship in the church? I would say No. Insofar as some people naturally have a gift to lead, they certainly should exist in the church and exercise that gift. But I also think that their presence should be accidental or providential. We should be concerned that we don’t have shepherds, not that we don’t have statesmen. It’s a question of “skill sets”. As for parachurch organizations I’m happy to grant greater leeway, but I still wish they did their job with a feather rather than a hammer.

Thanks lilrabbi, inkwell, and Dissidens, you're very encouraging. I'll be participating again when I feel on surer ground, and I always read you all.

Alana and anyone else,

Maybe the rest of us aren't admitting that we have seen the abusive power of politics in the relm of fundamentalism. I have seen the political games played, I've heard the lines. Here's one I heard, "You know (this was said after a blonde joke was told), Dr. So&So loves blonde jokes." Who cares, he wasn't there to tell his favorite jokes, the comment was purely for that name-dropping-I-know-what-Dr. So&So-likes-and-you-don't political game.

The college I attended had several layers of students -- the bad, the worse, and the ugly. I remembering being shocked at the way some of the boys (and yes, I say boys purposely, they had not yet reached adulthood, manhood) acted in chapel, class, and around the campus. When I approached the Dean of Men with my concerns, I was told that I did not know what the home life for some of the students (with the idea that they were better off there at college). It wasn't very much later when I discovered that one of the boys (one of the worst) was indeed a pastor's son. Interesting. But even more so, that pastor's church sent a large amount of money to this college. How's that for politics? Disgusting.

I have many more stories to share, but not the time to share them--you may not want to hear them.

Further, Alana, don't quit interacting. Writing out what you believe and feel allows you to think through it with more clarity. At least it does for me.

In the realm or near the realm of fundamentalism, is their the possibility of a Cluny, maybe even a Hildebrand in our midst?

Dissidens, is this bleaknesses able to interupted before the Day of the Lord? Is there, as Kirk says of of the US, hope of an Augustan age?

Cordially and with much regard

Depending on my schedule, I hope to have a reply up soon under the title The Little Brown Church in the Wasteland.

Does your title draw anything from CS Lewis' little brown girls in "the Pilgrim's Regress"?

No, but that was a powerful image for me.

If you would ever care to expound on the meaning behind the various stages of brown girls, that would be great.

http://www.solcon.nl/arendsmilde/cslewis/reflections/e-regressquotes.htm

That was very helpful.

Weblog Watch | 09 November 2005
Dissidens at Remonstrans comments on the ACCC panel discussion in “A Dark Past and A Bleak Future.”

lilrabbi:

I wouldn't want to say and ruin it for someone else!

Ryan Martin said,

The "panel discussion" was pretty frustrating to listen to, in my opinion. After these kinds of things, the only thing keeping my hold on the tag "fundamentalist" of any sort is the idea. That is about all I have left.

I am so very glad to hear others say this. I expect fundies to misrepresent their opponents' views. I have rather thick skin. I did fine until about 50 minutes into the interview, when I actually became angry about it all for the first time in a long time. It was really just too much. I would expect this stuff out of Hylesclone Bible Kawledge grads, but not the more educated and Reformed northern Fundamentalists.


The men on those panel misrepresented "evangelicals" (despite their many faults), and then they misprepresented "young fundamentalists" (whatever they are, despite their many faults). It is no wonder "the young men are leaving the movement." They go off to these "Neoevangelical" colleges and find out that the evangelicals are nothing like what fundamentalists say they are. Those that "fundamentalists" call "evangelicals" have their problems. I really want little to do with them. But when fundamentalists misrepresent them and charicature them, I want little to do with them.

You pretty much have it down. That was a big factor in my own exodus from Fundamentalism. As I said above, I have come to expect fundies to lie about New Evangelicalism. I want to be charitable and write it off to misunderstanding, but I just can't. It may be unintentional dishonesty, but it is still reckless. I have read some of Carl Henry and he most certainly did not preach a social Gospel, as he is alleged. I have a friend or two at Covenant Seminary, and no they don't worry about What Would Jesus Drive. I attend Southern Seminary and we do crack our Bibles, we do talk about separation, and we don't much care for Rick Warren's methodology.

I will not be lectured on holiness and separation by people who recklessly slander other brothers in Christ. Nor will I be hoodwinked into believing that only a few Fundamentalists behave thusly. I certainly have no hope in "saving Fundamentalism." Not only is she a sinking ship, but in her best days, she never was that sea-worthy.

I'm not so sure I want to take up with New Evangelicals, either. I'm not sure that Carl Henry, if he were still alive, would care for the label, either. I know that Francis Schaeffer wouldn't. I have moved into a post-Young Fundamentalism where the labels just don't matter to me right now. In fact, I think this business of joining "movements" is a major source of the problem.



To the person who mentioned Tozer- If you, or anyone else, can locate that quote, I would be "much obliged." I think the man was absolutely right. Whatever their failings, the New Evangelicals had legitimate beefs. The problems they described have not gone away. Many of the criticisms coming from the Young Fundamentalists are echos of The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism.

Dear Dissidens (Did I spell that right?), I'm not sure I agree with you 100 percent, but I sure agree with this: "it [Fundamentalism] seeks accreditation out of resentment over lost influence."

I also note that one commentor writes off the objections of Young Fundamentalists as New Evangelicalism, and I disagree. Young fundies have seen the excesses of the old fundies all their lives. While I agree that the YF have not yet offered any substantial alternatives (apart from possibly abandoning the movement), I think anybody who truly fears God will object to many elements long tolerated in Fundamentalism. And here they are:

1. Moral relativism (what Dissidens calls politics, but it can also be called situation ethics. If Billy Graham sits down with an Anglican Bishop, dozens of fundies raise an outcry. Jack Schaap gave a standing ovation to an indicted child molester, and Hyles' son-in-law publicly blamed the 7 year old victim, and no outrage was expressed, ever, anywhere, in any Fundamentalist pulpit. Fundies preach against the Moslem religion (like anybody's going to jump ship to them) and keep absolutely silent about the much more real problems (even if those problems are not a majority) of spousal abuse and child abuse.)

2. Lack of accountability in church leadership, which favors a radical, unbiblical autonomy and assures that predators are merely shipped around from church to church.

3. Toleration of doctrines and practices on the margins of heresy or even apostasy: sanctification by works, repentance-free salvation, the virtue of loyalty made to outweigh all other virtues, including honesty and moral purity, and the KJVO nuttiness. Anything with the sticker FUNDAMENTALIST slapped onto it is grudgingly, usually silently, accepted. That convenient excuse, found now where in the Bible, that such things "are a local church matter" nicely keeps the men who know better from actualyl having to fight for the faith against real opponents who might counter-accuse and cause a nasty stink.

I believe that the sins of Fundamentalism has cost it its former power. God does not answer the prayers raised from confidence in the flesh. The vaccuum of prayer in Fundamentalism is, in fact, one of the greatest signs of its abandonment by God. Add to that its social ineptness and inability to be taken seriously by others, and I think you are right on the money. Fundamentalism is "the last guardian of true Christendom", just ask any Fundamentalist preacher of a large church and he will tell you so. And yet it has become the clown of religion, and heaven's doors are closed to its prayers as a group. For anybody viewing himself and his church as the last bastion of pure faith, this powerlessness must be infuriating.

Power with God, of course, is only as far away as repentance, but that means letting go of all hopes for power and influence with man. No social prominence, no right to think you're better than gays, or Moslems, or wiccans, or pagans, nothing to stand on as you confess your sins----nothing but the everlasting arms of mercy. And they won't put you into political office or make men say you've been right all along. Standing up and confessing sin and coldness and pride outright---that's what any powerless Christian needs to do. That's what being a Christian IS: having no hope but the mercy of God, no confidence except that "Christ has regarded my helpless estate and has shed His own Blood for my soul." But Fundamentalism keeps dodging and postponing that last and only real necessity.

What can I say? There are enough horror stories here to make Scott Derrickson a happy man.

Jeriwho,

Your post was entertaining. In my opinion, it provides firsthand evidence of Ryan DeBarr's comments since you have done exactly what he found so distressing. You have - to be blunt - misrepresented (rather sharply and egregiously) the views of mainstream fundamentalists. The mainstream of fundamentalists (and especially people like McCune) have NOTHING to do with people like Jack Schapp, Hyles' son-in-law, and KJVO nuttiness. Just because some lunatics call themselves "fundamentalists" doesn't mean McCune endorses them or would agree that they are truly fundamentalists. I don't think you can legitimately read anything in to the fact that McCune didn't jump on these nuts - no one in McCune's camp thinks these people are in the same ship as the YF's. I suspect that they are too insignificant to warrant much comment.

You may indeed have some valid criticisms of fundamentalism, but the examples (or, horror stories) that you have chosen to use make it awful easy for people like me to dismiss your entire post since most fundamentalists will read what you've said and conclude - "he's talking about some other branch of fundamentalism".

Um, the type of Fundamentalist Jeriwho describes is far more common than than what "mainstream Fundamentalists" care to admit or believe. They are by no means an insignificant part of Fundamentalism. There are more of them than there are of you.

Which really wasn't my point, anyway. I'm a Baptist who takes soul liberty and church autonomy seriously. But I still agree with Jeriwho in that radical autonomy is the curse of Fundamentalism. It is, and has been for a very long time, populated by people who don't know how to get along with other people. There is really no such thing as agreeing to disagree- if there were, there wouldn't be so many subsects in Fundamentalism.

But I'd go one step farther and say that radical autonomy is also the curse of New Evangelicalism. Many of the great ecumenical projects of New Evangelicalism, such as Fuller and Christianity Today, are falling away from the true faith. The parts of New Evangelicalism that are healthy today are the ones closely tied to churches, such as the PCA and the SBC. That's what I was getting at when I said that the whole idea of "movements" is part of the problem. Ecclesiastical separation gets really confusing outside the ecclesia, and both Fundies and New Evangelicals have made some grave errors in that area.

And while I'm on this soapbox, let me agree with something Remonstans said way back when he started this blog. I don't totally agree with his emphasis on culture, possibly because I'm not a musician. But I do agree with him that part of the problem with evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism even more so) is that we up and walked away from 2,000 years of Christian culture. Except for the PCA and some few Reformed Baptists, I see no one who even really cares about reconnecting with the past.

These sorts of stories are far more common than it is politically prudent to admit, which is why scoldings and rebukes to “get over it” cannot be helping the cause. These are not the isolated exceptions to the rule, nor are they just stories from the past; they have become the face of the movement. And they extend to the very tops of its service organizations.

One cannot twist their arms until they admit it publicly, but time will show how denial has its own rewards.

With respect to Remonstrans’ “emphasis on culture”:

I can understand and even appreciate the criticism, but let me reiterate what I said before. We do not intend to make “the artsy end of doing church” (or however one may want to describe it) the issue. By culture we mean more than the liturgy. The culture of a nation includes more than what goes on in its museums and concert halls. It includes how it conducts its affairs in the houses of state, how it speaks in its journals of opinion, how its constituents regard their opposition....

It is every facet of society that demonstrates its love or contempt for the good, the true and the beautiful.

This ought to be the heyday of separatism. As you say, New Evangelicalism is in serious trouble, and one would like to think there could be a place for historic Christianity, but our “culture” continues making demands of its own.

New Evangelicalism is no longer dithering over what role the church ought to play in society; that war has been fought and lost. Now it scrambles to distinguish between marriage and perversion or what it means to say that God is omnipotent.

Where are the shepherds for the sheep? Remonstrans hopes to focus the attention of its readers on the transcendental aspect of the ministry.

Remonstrans,

We probably agree in more areas than are apparent. I just don't speak your language. I don't believe that Western culture was ever all that godly, men being what they are. But it is clear that it was once better than it is now.

I don't really know what high culture is. I am a hillbilly turned yuppie. But I do know what it is not, and I despise pretense, and that's why I find you so amusing. You let folks have it.

Fair enough. Disagreement is permitted.

It’s true that Western culture was never what it ought to have been, but I think we have to say more than just that. We have to observe that ours is not what God expects of it. To my way of thinking, that raises it to a high degree of importance no matter how comfortable we may be in the world of aesthetics. When God told us to sing and play instruments for him, he shoved us into the world of musical expression; I think we are rightly concerned that he be pleased with our work.

As for the metaphors, Yes. I noted something to that effect in #35 above.