Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Fundamentalism vs. Calvinism?

Collin Hansen speaks of the recent message that created some furor among some. (if you don’t know, don’t worry about it and thank God for his mercy on you.) He says,

While intending to rally like-minded pastors against this threat, the message actually drew out the growing network of young adults who have abandoned fundamentalism for the Calvinist ranks.

But I have to wonder, when did one have to leave fundamentalism for Calvinism? The two have always been compatible. The fact that some fundamentalists were anti-Calvinists, or non-Calvinists, does not mean that one could not be both fundamentalist and Calvinist (or Calvinistic, if you prefer). Though there is a great complexity to this topic especially concerning the role of Calvinism and the gospel in culture and community, historically, there have been a great number of fundamentalists who were also Calvinists. I would think Hansen would know this. But perhaps not.

Hansen goes on to speak of Kevin Bauder’s response and says,

But Bauder’s defense also points toward the possibility that the growing Calvinist influence on evangelicals could help heal their decades-long dispute with fundamentalists.

Again, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding (no pun intended). The issue between evangelicals and fundamentalists was not about Calvinism. After all, Billy Graham seems hardly a Calvinist, and Hansen rightly (though it sounds somewhat cynically) notes Graham’s role in the fundamentalist/evangelical divide. Evangelicals becoming Calvinist won’t solve the problem that caused evangelicals to separate from fundamentalists.

No, the issue was about obedience in the defense of the gospel. It was about how we apply the biblical commands of separation. Fundamentalists, both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic, believe that Graham was clearly disobedient to clear commands of Scripture about alliances with unbelieving apostates. For that reason, fundamentalists separated from Graham. And remember that many fundamentalists were not quick to separate from Graham. The separation came after many years and many appeals to Graham to turn from his practices that lent credibility to apostasy.

There is no doubt that many fundamentalists are non-Calvinist. But not because they have to be.

There is no doubt that many fundamentalists have made inaccurate and unfair diatribes against men like Piper and Mahaney, and “several other leading Calvinists” (to quote Hansen). But not because they had to by virtue of their Calvinism. And let’s remember that not all critique is unfair or inaccurate.

If there is “healing” because fundamentalists and evangelicals, it is because many evangelicals seem to be recognizing their sins of the past fifty years, and because many fundamentalists are recognizing their sins of the past fifty years.

It is not because of Calvinism, per se.

Of course, there is no doubt that some fundamentalists are weakening on some issues as well. I think there is a fine line here, and I do not profess to know where it is exactly. But I fear that while there is some healthy interaction, there is also some dangerous capitulation.

So let us be cautious in both respects. Let us not unfairly or unwisely separate or attack evangelicals. Let us neither fail to take seriously the biblical commands about the defense of the gospel against those who would, either by word or action, compromise it.

There’s room to be a fundamentalist and a Calvinist.

4 comments:

Scott Aniol said...

Excellent. Thanks.

Phil said...

If a Calvinist is merely a proponent of TULIP, then yes, a fundamentalist can be a Calvinist. However, if Calvinism leads to and includes the Reformed confessions, then I have never met a fundamentalist who was a Calvinist, and I've met lots of each. The reason is that a fundamentalist ecclesiology, since it is Anabaptist (in its desire for purity, hence its various forms of separation), excludes the Reformed view that every church in this age includes impurity. So while church discipline makes sense, "secondary" separation doesn't. Furthermore, fundamentalism celebrates the commandments and doctrines of men which the Larger Catechism (105) forbids as a violation of the First Commandment.

Chris Anderson said...

Nice post, Larry. Thanks.

Larry said...

Phil,

Thanks for reading. Several things in response.

1. As for fundamentalists and reformed confessions, that is why I admitted to the complexity of the issue in my post. However, isn’t it true that historically some fundamentalists and fundamentalist groups subscribed to reformed confessions, such as McIntire and the Free Presbyterian movement? You are correct in describing Baptist Fundamentalism in contemporary society for the most part, but that doesn’t mean it impossible to be a fundamentalists and subscribe to a Reformed confession. Perhaps you have met the wrong people :).

2. I am not sure that the fundamentalist ecclesiology excludes the idea of impurity in churches. I think we recognize that there are impurities in every church. I think fundamentalist ecclesiology says that the church should strive for purity (as would the Reformed ecclesiology) but simply approach it through different means (means that I am convinced are more consistent with the gospel).

3. As for fundamentalists and the commandments and doctrines of men being celebrated, I think that partakes of a common caricature, which is based in reality for some fundamentalists, but not for fundamentalism per se. I think there are many fundamentalists who would vehemently eschew following the doctrines and commandments of men. I also think it is naïve to think that Reformed people have no doctrines and commandments of men, particularly the New Calvinists.

Again, thanks for reading.