Don't call me a Fundamentalist....I'm a fundamentalist!

Is it possible to be a fundamentalist without being a Fundamentalist? Let me try that question again… Is it possible to be a fundamentalist without being in Fundamentalism? I think that’s a better way of asking my question…

I think that people on both sides of the never-ending “IFB / CE” debate tend to forget some key points. We “young guys” for instance tend to forget that being a “fundamentalist” means something more than just an adherence to the Fundamentals whereas some tend to forget that being a “Fundamentalist” is more than just an issue of separation.

In the last 150+ years Fundamentalism has adopted separation as one of her major hallmarks. This is a righteous stance insofar as it coincides with biblical teaching. Too often those of us who have grown more and more enamored with Evangelicalism want to assign the moniker of “historic fundamentalist” to everybody we like regardless of whether or not they actually fit the bill (i.e., practice separation).

Now I realize that, in the beginning, Fundamentalism was a movement designed to correct and reform rather than to separate, but that ship has long sense sailed. The downward spiral of mainstream “religiosity” demanded a more robust response, and Fundamentalism responded appropriately with a stance of radical separation. Now this separation wasn’t from folks who just did things a bit “differently”; rather, it was from apostasy, doctrinal error, disobedient brethren, and theological compromisers. These days of course, “separation” has taken on completely different meanings. Some Fundamentalists refuse to acknowledge or fellowship with other fundamentalists based on things like: denominational affiliation (Fundamentalism was a non-denominational movement until the last 80 years or so), music standards, bible versions, and even issues of dress. These things notwithstanding, the doctrines of personal and ecclesiastical separation are both important and vital.

In recent years it seems to me that some groups who are decidedly outside of the Fundamentalist movement practice a more biblical separation model than many of those who are part of Fundamentalism. Taking it a step further, I think that there are as many groups outside of Fundamentalism who legitimately fit into the mold of “historical fundamentalist” as there are within the movement (btw, some of these groups aren’t even Baptists!).

I say all that to get to this point: the idea of “leaving Fundamentalism” is more about identification with a movement (or nonidentification) than it is about a change in philosophy and ideals. While I can make a statement to the effect that I will one day leave Fundamentalism (the movement), I will always remain a fundamentalist (the idea)…this is by conviction.

If our brothers who depart from Fundamentalism are still practicing fidelity to the Word, exhibiting separation from the world and worldliness, remaining sound in there doctrinal beliefs, practicing separation from apostasy and disobedient brethren, maintaining and exhibiting a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, demonstrating a passion for souls and working to reach the lost for Christ, holding to an orthodox theology, and living a life that demonstrates a deepening relationship with the Savior, we need to encourage them, rejoice with them, and maintain a proper fellowship with them…..not spit on and separate from them!

I guess that this is the most frustrating part of this conversation as far as I’m concerned. Too many of us are more concerned with keeping guys in a loosely defined, non-structured movement than we are in encouraging them to remain faithful to the things that actually matter. Fundamentalism (the movement) may well shrivel up and die; however, fundamentalism (the idea) will not. As a matter of fact, fundamentalism (the idea) has been alive and well for much longer than has the movement…