A Fundamentalism Worth Saving....er, well...mostly.

I just came across an excellent article by Kevin Bauder. Kevin gave an address at a conference of fundamentalists that he called, "A Fundamentalism Worth Saving." I was so excited by what I was reading that I was almost in tears (literally)...

Then came the "cultural fundamentalism"...

[I would strongly encourage you to read the article before reading the rest of this post. It is available at: http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/AACCS.htm]

After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to be more concerned about doctrine and defending the gospel...

After affirming that Fundamentalism has too long been known for dividing over secondary issues...

After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to take its humanity and the humanities seriously...

After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to take learning seriously...

Kevin had me... But, then came the "cultural fundamentalism"

"This means that we will label some activities as prohibited and others as obligatory even when Scripture does not directly address them. In doing so, we run the risk of appearing to go beyond Scripture, but this is unavoidable. To do otherwise is to settle for a truncated morality that disallows us from applying biblical principles to most of what we do."

(one skipped paragraph with which I agree...)

"In short, the only way to be a historic, biblical fundamentalist is to be a cultural fundamentalist. The only alternatives are, first, to say that cultures are beyond the Bible’s ability to critique and correct, or second, to argue that fundamentalism is concerned only with doctrine and not with obedience. I doubt that any of us really wants to take either of those steps."

"The failure to deal with meaning lies behind some of the complaints of the younger fundamentalists. Take the matter of clothing. Clothing makes a statement about who we think we are and who we think others are under the circumstances under which we meet. We do not wear tattered jeans to weddings, nor do we wear tuxes to bale hay. It seems to me that a Christian leader will not wish to present an appearance that endorses the current culture of incivility. I am sorry, but phat pants, pony tails, piercings, tattoos, and studded leather are going to be of limited usefulness to one’s testimony for Christ. They are not even useful within the culture where they are accepted, for that is a culture that needs to be rebuked and corrected by Scripture. Of course, our mainstream culture also needs to be rebuked and corrected at many points. I am not suggesting that we should model ourselves after mainstream culture, but rather that we should refuse to adopt any cultural accoutrement that contradicts Christian meanings."
(All bolds are mine)

Here is where Kevin lost me.

If you read his article, you know that he makes a huge shift here. Suddenly, he gives up ground on biblical authority and moves to man-made tradition--which is not very baptist, by the way.

I have no problem arguing that human culture can be worldly. I agree that George Carlin's obscenities are inappropriate for believers. But how do you get from George Carlin dropping the F-bomb to tattoos and/or studded leather?

Look, I understand the argument: If you say that culture is neutral, and not sinful, you are a cultural Pelagianist. I agree--so long as you don't say that all culture is sinful (I think Kevin would agree with this)-Which brings us to a problem: Who decides which elements of culture are sinful?

I wish it were as easy as guilt by association. Are tattoos and studded-leather Jackets really wrong? Kevin would have fundamentalism build itself around avoiding these sins. I assume that means he shouldn't wear business suits either. After all, Wall Street businessmen are some of the most greedy, ego-driven, drug and/or alcohol addicted people in the country. I don't think we should be so quick to judge people's hearts by what we can see on the outside.

So where does that leave us? Here my answer is simple: I let the Scriptures define what elements of culture are sinful. If I can say that something is sinful from the Scriptures, I call it sinful. If I have to guess what is going on in a person's heart, or I have to use my personal taste or sensibilities as the sole criteria for judging something, I refuse to call it sinful. Unfortunately, Kevin (by his own admission) is willing to go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture.

I must say, I can't help but admire Kevin--even as I disagree with him. The first half of the article is compelling. By the end of the article, he invites dialogue about what he says. That's what this post is for me. Now, I doubt Kevin will ever read this post. If he did happen to come accross it, however, I think he and I could probably have an excellent dialogue. He wants to see a fundamentalism worth saving. I want a fundamentalism worth saving. I am only sorry that our visions for a 'fundamentalism worth saving' are so vastly different.

I would strongly encourage you to read Kevin's article. Its worth reading...with great discernment. Frankly, I wish I had written the article--minus, of course, the cultural fundamentalism.

blessings,
Shu