So, why are they REALLY leaving Fundamentalism?

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve had a question running through my mind…why are the young guys really leaving Fundamentalism. Most of us know about the hullabaloo caused by the reasons offered up to this question by a keynote speaker at a recent FBFI regional meeting back east. His contention is that Calvinism, coupled with young men becoming enamored with some of the popular leaders in Conservative Evangelicalism, serves as the main catalyst. I think he’s way off the mark. But rather than just claiming that and ending it all there, I’d like to offer up my thoughts on why the young guys are leaving.

I’m still one of the “young guys” in Fundamentalism although, at the age of 36, I’m on the verge of no longer fitting the original definition of “Young Fundamentalist”. Not only am I one of the young guys, but I’m one of the young guys who is going to leave the movement. I’ve stated before that the church I’m in now is likely the last IFB church I’ll ever attend. Now for me there have been several key factors contributing to my desire to leave the movement. I’ll mention those and then move on to some other factors that I think may be contributing to the current trend of bashing and/or leaving Fundamentalism. To be clear here, by “leaving Fundamentalism” we are discussing the movement – not the principals. I am and will continue to be a Fundamentalist in the historic sense of the word; however, I – like so many others – have grown increasingly frustrated with what fundamentalism the movement has become.

By the way, for the purpose of this blog entry I’m differentiating between young fundamentalists and young fundamentalist preachers. While many from both groups might be leaving for some of the same reasons, I believe that what might cause a young pastor to leave is ofttimes something that might not cause a typical parishioner to leave and vice-versa. Now, my reasons first:

The KJV issue. This has been a burr under my saddle since I was 15 years old (with a brief exception in my early adult years when I joined up with the KJVO crowd). The KJVO movement has, in my opinion, caused more harm and disharmony in the church in general, and Fundamentalism in particular, than any other singular issue. This crowd has hurled some wicked insults at other reliable (sometimes more reliable) translations of God’s Word – calling them translations from the pits of hell and the like. Their vitriol notwithstanding, the radical side of the KJVO movement has so permeated Fundamentalism that any church that uses any other translation – regardless of what it is – is generally deemed “liberal” by Fundamentalism Proper. Even our institutions of higher learning are forced to pander to the rabid KJVO crowd. While only a few will go so far as to claim that the KJV is anything more than what is – a fairly reliable TRANSLATION – nearly all of them state that it is to be the only Bible used from the pulpit and in the classroom. The KJV issue is truly indicative of a larger issue in the realm of scholarship, but perhaps that’s another topic altogether. While I certainly respect those folks, both inside and outside Fundamentalism, who hold to the KJV as their Bible of choice, the KJVO movement has been a horrible blight on Fundamentalism. Another unfortunate result of this movement is that, too often, folks who use only the KJV but do not view it as something other than what it is are unwittingly shackled to maniacs like Riplinger and Ruckman.

The standards issue. Whether you refer to it as personal holiness or sanctification, the results are the same. Too often, Fundamentalism focuses purely on an outward adherence to certain “standards” and ignore the need to actually develop an intimate and personal relationship with a living and holy God. Even the more progressive portions of IFB-dom struggle with things such as whether or not a woman should wear pants and whether or not boys can wear shorts for sporting activities. In many IFB summer camps you will see girls wearing long skirts and boys wearing blue jeans for outdoor sports activities even in temperatures greater than 100 degrees. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard pastors tear the crap out of a text in order to defend their ridiculous notion that a woman wearing pants is immoral. But it’s not just that. Whether we want to talk about dress, hair length and style, jewelry, facial hair, church dress, music, alcohol, or any number of other things the story is the same: Fundamentalism tends to have hard and fast rules based loosely on biblical principals and proof texting but with little hardcore support for their position. The result is that people who look right are too often deemed righteous regardless of whether or not they are bearing any fruit. By the way, another aspect of this is that, all too often, people who don’t already look the part are shunned. This is why there are more IFB churches shrinking than there are growing. I believe that this key issue is at the core of the lack of involvement of the typical IFB church in the community. Where the Evangelicals are very active in reaching out to the community and reaching them where they are, the Fundamentalists have a desire to make people become like them. Now I’ll be the first to admit that there needs to be balance here. Ofttimes, just like the Fundamentalists go too far one direction, the Evangelicals will fall of the other extreme.

The preaching issue. My experience is Fundamentalism has been that there is precious little exposition coming from the pulpit. I attended a Fundamentalist college and spent three years working at two of the premier Fundamentalist camps in the country and I just didn’t see much exposition from any of the IFB “celebrities”. Most generally when the regular speakers on my college campus (faculty members) spoke, it was expositional in nature, but the guests were most generally topical guys. My experience in IFB churches since those days has been the same - 90% or more topical versus exposition. I’m one of those guys who has, not just a strong feeling, but a strong conviction on this subject. Rightly dividing the word of truth demands a faithful exposition of the text.

The worship issue. While worship can certainly be “overdone” and focused purely on emotions in more contemporary services, Fundamentalism goes to the other extreme. There needs to be balance here and, unfortunately, I’ve attended exactly 2 services in any Fundamentalist church that managed to strike this balance. One was a very conservative church with a worship leader (now a pastor of another church) who carefully and reverently led the congregation in worship. The other instance was on an occasion where there was a guest musician in for a church service I was attending. He led the congregation in true worship. These are clear exceptions to the Fundamentalism I’ve always known. We don’t worship. We sing, listen to announcements, take up an offering, listen to the choir, sing some more, listen to the special, listen to some topical preaching, and have an invitation. This may sound like I’m describing a service at a specific church, but in reality this is the model for every single IFB church (with one exception) that I’ve ever attended. I don’t know how many churches that is, but I would estimate that number to be somewhere over 100 during the course of my life. 100 different churches, 100 different pastors, 100 different song leaders, yet the same service. We are careful to ensure that the emotions are not engaged during the song service because we believe emotional engagement is wrong….unless of course it’s time for the invitation. The command to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind (these address the will, emotion, and intellect) doesn’t seem to apply in the church service. We want to engage the will and intellect, but the emotions need to be put down. You will never see hands raised in worship in an IFB church (unless there is an "outsider" visiting), nor will you see anything other than dry eyes at any point during the “worship” service. The church service tends to be a very regimented, dry, rote, obligatory occasion.

I would say that these, although not representative of all my thoughts over the last 6 or 7 years of looking at things, are the main four items for me. Quickly I want to examine some other possibilities for why young guys are leaving – some good and some…not so good.
The “grass is greener” syndrome. Some guys leave just because it’s different. I believe that this reason represents a very small (nearly nonexistent) minority of the young preachers who are leaving, but a larger percentage of the young, non-pastors who are leaving. Now there are several issues that contribute to this, but I think the main one is that, from the outside, Christianity can appear to be much “easier” in Evangelicalism. What people realize eventually however, is that, regardless of the type of church you are in, you are still a wicked sinner trying desperately – and failing miserably – when it comes to pleasing a holy God.

The Calvinism issue. I said in my opening statements that I think it is a misplaced logic that leads one to this conclusion. However, when it comes to the young non-pastor types who flee Fundamentalism, this can certainly be a contributing factor. There is little doubt that Evangelicalism is a much more “Calvinist-friendly” entity than is Fundamentalism. All that being said, I’ve been very Calvinistic for nearly 20 years and a 5-pointer for nearly 10 and I’ve managed to live peaceably within Fundamentalism that entire time. This, in my opinion, would be a lousy reason to abandon Fundamentalism and it is certainly not a stand alone reason. It might be a good reason to leave a particular Fundamentalist church, but not a good reason to leave Fundamentalism itself.

The Jack Hyles/Bob Gray/Bob Jones, Jr./John R. Rice, etc. issue. I think some guys leave just because, in certain parts of the country, you say the word Fundamentalist and one of these guys pops into your head. While there is quite a bit of good that came out of each of these guys ministries, they were and – even though most of them are now dead – continue to be extremely polarizing figures. To many, these guys represent all that was and is wrong with Fundamentalism. If I was in a place where Fundamentalism equals Jack Hyles, I would never use that term nor would I attend a church that advertised itself as a Fundamentalist church. Now the only problem with leaving for this issue is that, in most of the country, the term "Evangelical" brings names like Osteen, Hybels, and Warren immediately to mind. So which is the greater evil? I think I’d prefer being associated with Hyles over Osteen any day of the week. One presented the Gospel boldly every time he had an opportunity to do so; the other has repeatedly balked even when given national television audiences. In my opinion, leaving (or embracing) any movement simply because of whom you will or will not be identified with is not a good primary reason for a move one way or the other. While I would more readily wish to be identified with the Masters crowd than with the Bob Jones University crowd, this should not be a major consideration for where I land (unless the crowd I’m leaving has slid into major doctrinal error or apostasy).

Now there are certainly other reasons that could be examined – some good and some bad – so I acknowledge that this list isn’t complete, nor is it “scientific” in any way. This is just one bloggers opinion of a major issue. I think that young men leaving Fundamentalism will, in the end, be good for the movement. This forces the movement into some critical self-examination. In the end, Fundamentalism will make some changes or it will continue to slowly bleed out.