The choice of the words, "Get over it," is heartbreaking.

I agree.

I thought it was a bit rough in the first instance, but it seems less sensitive the more it is explained.

I let it roll off my back the first time I heard it, but it is threatening to become a slogan. Fundamentalism digs in its heels out of habit, I think.

I recognized an old chill the first time I heard the phrase. To have now heard the sentiment so often expressed is not encouraging.

I know that it is considered acceptable and desirable in general society today, and even in Christian counseling, to “let it all hang out” and repress nothing on pain of some kind of reprehensible after-effects. And I candidly admit that I have not negotiated very well the transition from the conservative and probably somewhat narrow ethos of my 1930s, 40s, and 50s upbringing to the open and Oprah-ized culture of today. But I still think that restraint in the matters under discussion is a good thing; I am not at all convinced that total transparency is the way to go. Thankfully for us all, there is wisdom when “hiding a multitude of sins” is exercised in the interests of a greater and more noble purpose.

To read this is more than discouraging.

And to hear this attitude characterized with the words “conservative” and “repress” is just dishonest. This from a man who spilled ink for over 300 pages on the faults of modern evangelicalism? Was this book a product of an “Oprah-ized culture”?

I detect the whiff of a rodent here.

I do not believe [I]Promise Unfulfilled[/I] is Oprah-ized church history. It is a book I have recommended as a reliable guide to contemporary Christianity without which an understanding of the church’s obligations is incomplete.

To now say of an equally candid review of his own movement that it would be wise to hide a multitude of sins in the interest of a greater and more noble purpose is just indefensible.

Very sad.

So, as a Southern Baptist, when I hear criticisms of Billy Graham, Carl Henry, and Rick Warren, can I just say: "Get over it"?

But I won't do that, because one of the things that made me jump overboard (I was never forced to walk a plank) is the fact that at least conservative evangelicals are willing to consider their errors.

From time to time we see questions here and elsewhere about fixing fundamentalism. Can we fix fundamentalism from the inside?

A few months ago, a relative told me about a missionary his church supports. The man is a missionary in Saudi Arabia. Because of the Saudi sentiment towards Christian missionaries, he is in the country as a businessman. In order to maintain his contacts and such, he pretends to be a Muslim. He lives as a muslim, dresses as a muslim, worships as a muslim. Everyone he knows in Saudi Arabia believes he is a muslim. If anyone found out that he is not muslim, his ministry would immediately be over. He would lose any opportunity to reach Saudi Arabia for Christ if anyone new he was a Christian. [ The good news is that my relative was horrified. ]

Is there any similarity to trying to fix fundamentalism from the inside?

Hmm...this sounds like a good plan. Can I wear camouflage?

danofsteel,

Are you sure he's a missionary? This doesn't sound like he has much of a ministry if everyone he knows believes that he is a muslim. What kind of a "ministry" can you have if everyone believes you are a muslim?

Disgraceful!

Okay...call me dense. Perhaps I've missed something, but is there a bibliography to accompany the phrase, "Get over it"? I know that it has shown up on a couple blogs and I thought it was just a synopsis of the power position's mantra; but did they actually utter these words some place and I just missed it (notice the horrified look on the librarian's face)?

My personal opinion is that this utterance is more a defense of a position by trying to preserve the credibility of its leadership regardless of the truthfulness of the accusations. The problem is, as any expert student of the concept of leadership will tell you, that leaders lead by example and if they won't censure themselves first, they lose the ability to perform the same exorcism on others. To this I will add that there are some younger men (40-60 years) in the business who are trying to practice this self-censurship, I think in part because they feel the weight of this gross oversight on their current ministries. I'm not sure that this offsets years of self-justification, but I add it for what little it may be worth.

Todd - My wife accidentally ordered a Rutter CD from BMG (I think she thought it was Vivaldi because the title track was "Gloria."). Do you want it? If you don't, what should I do with it?

I'm looking forward the the discussion of the CD with Todd.

Yes, those very words were used:

http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2253

I am not sure I know the first use of “get over it”.

The first time [I]I[/I] came across it in this context was in reading a post on SharperIron which linked to a recording of a panel discussion. In the discussion (which included Dr. McCune and Rev. Colas and a third man I don’t now recall) disparaging remarks were made about Young Fundamentalists and their discomfort with the movement’s past. It was suggested that they were skunks and they were told to “get over it”.

For all I know, it was here that the first public objection was made, but I’m not certain of this.

Perhaps members of SharperIron have access to search engines over there and can locate their coverage of the relevant ACCC conference.

The URL rdebarr posted above is a continuation of that discussion.

I don't want to hijack yet another thread, but I have some 20-30 wilds cds with matching books that I'm trying to sell. Anyone interested?

Okay, Dick Harris was the third man. I listened to that recording and had forgotten the "get over it" phraseology.

BTW. Lest anyone think that I'm trying to make this blog a little ebay, let me disabuse you of that misperception. I noted Todd Mitchell's disdain for Rutter in an earlier post and noticed almost the same day that we had received this CD in the mail. The free offer applies to Todd only. The rest of you will have to pay for it unless you can demonstrate a similar disdain. I also received a copy of the Amadeus Duo's (classical guitar)Baroque album. I'm keeping it - sorry.

First we learn that the history of Fundamentalism is well set, therefore New Evangelicals aren't Fundamentalists, even when they affirm the Fundamentals. The history of the movement must be taken into consideration.

Now we learn that Fundamentalism isn't a movement, but is indeed orthodox, Biblical Christianity itself.

There are complexities here that I cannot grasp.

This, I think, is at the heart of the problem: the center is not holding.

Whoa! Now I'm torn. Do I correct ex's misunderstanding and lose out on his generous offer of a free CD, or do I just say, "THANKS!" and ask for it?

I certainly appreciate Rutter. I generally prefer Gardinier, that's all. Sort of like Mozart and Bach; I like Mozart, but I love Bach.

Very nice offer, ex! If you are honestly trying to get rid of it, I'll pay for shipping!

If anybody goes on record as having a long standing animosity for Rutter it is me. Don't appreciate him, don't listen to him, won't take the CD. He's second rate.

unk is a very shrewd character. He's gonna get the CD for sure now.

Hey unk, I have soem reel hi-kwality cds. I'll give you a good deal too!!

I grew up in ferociously fundamentalist circles. I can verify that yes, they do indeed teach their own that fundamentalism is none other than historic orthodox Christianity. They are the last ones left. They stayed put when everyone else moved. The book the preacher boys at Maranatha had to read for fund. hist. class begins with these words:

"...Fundamentalism is not a philosophy of Christianity, nor is it essentially an interpretation of the scriptures. It is not even a mere literal exposition of the Bible. The essence of Fundamentalism goes much deeper than that - it is the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the scriptures.

Both friends and foes have regarded Fundamentalism as the lengthened shadow of Moses and the prophets, of Christ and the apostles, of Augustine and Calvin, of the English separatists and Puritans, of Wesley and Whitefield, of the German pietists and the English Brethren, of London's Spurgeon and Princeton's Warfield - and of all who continue loyal to its principles and genius. Noted theological liberals, such as Kirsopp Lake, have concluded that Fundamentalism is virtually synonymous with orthodox Christianity..."

That bit continues with a long quote from Lake defending that view.

What's sadly hilarious is that it should be obvious that a theological liberal does not love orthodox Christianity, and would love to find a straw man to shoot at. That Fundamentalists should take this guy's estimation of themselves at face value, with such pride, makes them look very naieve. What is worse, of course, is the marshalling of all the great figures of Church history and claiming that fundamentalism is the present-day continuation of what those men were. They may be fervent for the outline of orthodox doctrine, but the idea that they experience the same Christianity as those great men is laughable to anyone who reads Augustine's Confessions, or Jonathan Edward's accounts of the 18th century revival.

This avowal of Fundamentalistm as merely orthodox Christianity is not contradictory to their denial that Evangelicals are not Fundamentalists. In spite of the privelege that fundamentalist educators have to read evangelical books and even talk with evangelicals, the average fundamentalist does not believe that a New Evangelical is an orthodox Christian. The best of them are "backslidden" and probably most of them aren't "saved". I'm just talking from experience here. When I was a fundamentalist growing up, I never had any contact with any evangelicals, but I heard about them all the time in church and school, and everything I heard about them was bad. 'They denied the gospel by their actions if not by their words' was the Universal cry, and people who deny the gospel are apostates. It is not too hard to jump from that to a feeling that your church is one of the few orthodox churches left.

As far as the whole "get over it" thing, I believe I have some insight into that. After my heart began to wander from fundy pastures, I still had heroes who were fundamentalist preachers and teachers. These were men who were rational, even-tempered, scholarly, doctrinal, and had proved themselves able to help people who were troubled. I then endured a few slaps in the face from these men, always on the occasion of admitting that I was no longer quite loyal to the MOVEMENT of Fundamentalism. The lesson I learned is that within the movement, there is much forgiveness and help to be gained from the best men, but that this cannot be offered once loyalty to the movement is severed.

I was taught that fundamentalists separated over the fundamentals. What I have found is that they actually separate over the movement called Fundamentalism. It's easy to get from that to "get over it". If the movement is the greatest good and the final test of fellowship, then nearly anything can be excused, minimized, or gotten over in the name of preserving it. One is soberly reminded of Christ's words: "your fathers killed the prophets and you build their tombs, proving yourselves to be your father's sons".

It makes you wonder, doesn't it? It is a stark illustration of what happens when any fallible perspective becomes an absolute reference point. Of course, when you believe that your position is not fallible, I guess it makes sense.

I fail to see how anyone can confuse fundamentalism with historic Christianity.

It seems to me that Tulga had it precisely right: the very best we can say is that fundamentalism is a fierce loyalty to a truncated Christianity.

What remains to be determined is if that is adequate to our commission.

"Fundamentalism is a fierce loyalty to a truncated Christianity"

To the fundamentalist, he is fiercely holding on to his understanding of Christianity, but this can be said by any of us, hopefully. Perhaps the fundamentalist has missed something, but then it is likely that we have also missed something. We should be careful, lest the critique of fundamentalism mirror the critique from fundamentalism; in which case, both would be guilty of the same kind of pride.
Fundamentalists don't have a corner on pride and other expressions of depravity. Just as God can change the heart, he can likewise change the movement.

Would that that were true.

First of all, it isn’t sufficient that one hold to a truncation of Christianity whether he means well or not. That is why I put it in the context of our commission. We were not instructed to pass on [I]our understanding of Christianity[/I]. We were not invited to abbreviate the faith to answer the crises of the hour. We are commanded to teach all those things Christ taught his disciples who in turn passed on a record of what that involved. Fundamentalists [I]claim[/I] to believe that that record was inspired. That record includes the command to separate from the incontinent, the disorderly, and the divider of the brethren as well as the heterodox. Fundamentalists did not, and we see the consequences of that choice.

Second, it was known at the time that this abbreviation was going on. This is one of the virtues of studying church history. What I am speaking of here is not dissidens’ critique of evangelicalism. From March 21st of last year, this blog has attempted to address contemporary Christianity by the light of its own history. Tulga was only one who reminded fundamentalists of what was happening.

Third, it is not immediately relevant that “we have missed something”. Perhaps we have, perhaps we have not, (I, for the record, am certain we have) but in either event, what difference does that make? Do we suspend judgment and repentance until we satisfy ourselves that we are flawless?

Fourth, why haven’t these same graces been extended to the opponents of fundamentalism? Fundamentalists have been warring with everyone, including other fundamentalists, and when we examine their reasons in the light of orthodox belief we are ashamed. Fundamentalism has earned a reputation for being very [I]un[/I]tentative about criticism of others. And in doing so they ignore both Peter’s and Paul’s command as to where judgment begins.

It’s true that fundamentalists don’t have a corner on pride. That doesn’t mean they don’t need to repent.

Todd:

I'm sorry about the hiatus. Send me your address and I will mail you the Rutter CD. Perhaps you could teach me how to better appreciate Rutter, but he's not 'lighting my fire.' Do what you will with that comment.

About Dissiden's comments:

As a very young boy I remember the late David Nettleton preaching at a Bible conference held at FBBC. One of the points he made was that it was not enough to merely be a fundamentalist. He capitalized on the phrase, "the whole counsel of God," and he applied to Baptist doctrines, other distinguishing doctrines, Christian virtues, and spriritual edification. He made quite a point that being a fundamentalist was a very incomplete Christianity.(all of this I remember from 4th grade - can you believe it!?!) Of what you know of Nettleton and Tulga, were they on the same wavelength?

Ex, how kind! Thank you!

exlibris:

I am not sure how ready I am to say Nettleton and Tulga were on the same wavelength. Nearly all of what I have seen of Nettleton is hagiography; I have not gone through his papers. (It’s been 11 years since I was in Wheaton’s archives, but as memory serves, there was nothing there.) But there is a crucial difference between them [I]so far as I know.[/I] Much of that may be attributable to their disparity of influence.

There is no doubt there were gracious men in fundamentalism; there’s no disputing this. That is not my problem. There were even more gracious men whom I knew—and still know—within neo-evangelicalism. But we are evaluating a movement, we are not judging a beauty contest.

What is relevant to us today is that these men were there to accept or reject, to end or to pass down this “leadership style”. The movement that exists today passed through their hands. Whether we suffer from the indolence Machen warned of or the “curious mixture of truth, abbreviated Christianity, high-powered promotionalism and rugged individualists who have built personal empires” that Tulga spoke of, it is fundamentalism’s abiding problem.

(This, by the way, is why “getting over it” is not as simple as advertised.)

I fear that nice men, gracious men, personable men, were nevertheless partisan men. We hear people talking about the high calling of pastor and we see how they treat the flock and the bishop. We hear reassuring words about the importance of liturgy, yet we hear the same humiliating stuff offered as worship. We listen to sermons and lectures about the importance of preaching, but the pulpit remains a tool of the pastor’s ego in so many ways.

We cannot judge the motives or effects of our fathers. We can and should judge the movement for what it is without justifying it with pleasant accounts of our friends and mentors.

Note, we certainly [u]ought[/u] to pass on the accounts of their virtues. No doubt about it. And for two reasons: some would like to oversimplify the matter by accusing us of dredging up only the bad; but even more important, we ought to give an honest and fair account of the matter. But to put forward the small virtues of good men as a justification of the great vices of their leaders is just not honest.

That, by the way, is one reason it was so hard to get churches to pull out of Modernist affiliations. Many of its leaders had the personal affection of their followers. They acted on their affection rather than their judgment.

"Second, it was known at the time that this abbreviation was going on."
I would agree that the abbreviation of essential doctrine is one of the problems with the fundamental movement, though I think it would be acceptable if accompanied by the assertion of the ideal of Christ-like Christianity.
The reason for remembering our own shortcomings is that it helps us be patient with others, but it certainly doesn't mean that the problems shouldn't be addressed. I have been quite vocal that they should, but I also want to move beyond deconstruction of fundamentalism to a proactive version of what fundamentalism should be. At the same time, I am not so sure that a movement can be called to repentance...however, there is plenty of sin to go around.
As fundamentalists, we don't often respond graciously to those who disagree with us. That is one of our greatest weaknesses, and it is made more obvious by the opposite tendency to go light on those with whom we agree.
Identifying and critiquing the problem is necessary, but we should also assert a better alternative, and we should assert it in the manner we would like to have seen from fundamentalism in the past.

Well, I agree with the sentiments you express, but I fear those sentiments cannot find expression while there is such disagreement on the facts.

I am really saying nothing new; I take no credit for any great insights. I can’t recall a thing I’ve said that is even slightly obscure to the student of its history. This has all been said already. The history is indeed well-set and well-known.

Yet the defensiveness and self-justification now extends into the blogosphere. Some pretty egregious sins are characterized as “foibles” and ridiculous aspersions cast on those seeking “vicarious retribution”. “Oprah-ized culture”? Say [I] what?![/I] Who wants to stand up and “identify and critique the problem” in such an environment?

I think it is fair to say the Young Fundamentalists are not wild with excitement.

One is compelled to believe the movement refuses to be corrected. I can’t help but think that this intransigence is taking its toll on an awful lot of very frustrated people.

Prescind for the moment the unrepented “foibles” and fractiousness; here on Remonstrans I have attempted to reduce its culture to three basic elements which a) we can test for continuity with historic Christianity and b) we might work to improve.

liturgy
preaching
devotional literature

Here are three eminently practical and observable ways to improve the care of the sheep. From everything I have read and observed, these are hardly objectionable goals. What has changed in our lifetime? What has fundamentalism produced on a par with [I]Pilgrim’s Progress, A Serious Call, The Enchiridion....[/I]

Again, I agree with your sentiments, but I suspect those sentiments are being bludgeoned by the politics.

Lest I be misconstrued as implying that the existence of a Nettleton or Tulga within fundamentalism somehow completely sanctified it, I will assert that, quite to the contrary, Nettleton and Tulga (along with Delnay and 6997 or so more) tended toward the exception.

The hour is late and my recollection may be dim, but has there ever been a movement that accepted criticism? The closest I can think of is Catholicism under the sway of Hildebrand and the Clunaic reforms. I cannot recall any others. Most critics separate or are forced out of the movements of which they are critical.

"The hour is late and my recollection may be dim, but has there ever been a movement that accepted criticism? The closest I can think of is Catholicism under the sway of Hildebrand and the Clunaic reforms. I cannot recall any others. Most critics separate or are forced out of the movements of which they are critical."

Southern Baptist Convention

I hardly think that the SBC qualifies. Those who didn't like the political takeover by conservatives left and now we have Truett Theological Seminary. Were there a host of liberals (or moderates as they like to be called) who switched their position once shown the error of their ways? I think not.

Well, I was looking at it from the angle that the Convention realized there are problems and went about fixig it. And they're still open to criticism, in most cases. Or at least a lot more open to criticism than other movements are.

You're right in that the offending parties in the SBC didn't suddenly repent. The conservatives, however, did wake up and smell the coffee.