If fundamentalism as a movement has come unraveled (as our president and others have contended) and if people have so many misconceptions of what a fundamentalist is, then why would someone like myself actually be willing to consider himself one? I am thankful to my colleague, Jeff Straub, for inadvertently reminding me of the answer to this question.
Jeff has recently provided a series on young earth creationism for us here at Central Seminary during our chapel sessions. His lectures flow out of a fascinating trip he was privileged to take this past summer as he and several others floated down the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon.
The reason that Jeff’s current series has reminded me of why I still am willing to retain the fundamentalist label is this: when it comes to the significant theological issues of the day, fundamentalism always ends up supporting the right side. This is true in regard to the creation issue and so many others.
While those outside of fundamentalism in the broader evangelical movement often struggle with heretical teachers and scholars within their camp, fundamentalism has retained biblically informed positions. This is because fundamentalism as an idea is committed to upholding the essential doctrines of the gospel itself; it is bound to the idea that Christianity rests upon an inviolable doctrinal foundation that cannot be moved (See Kevin Bauder’s A Fundamentalism Worth Saving for more on this concept of fundamentalism as an idea).
Given fundamentalism’s commitment to the essential doctrines of the gospel, I can think of several theological and doctrinal pitfalls we have avoided due to this commitment. Thus, I would like to point out a number of issues that we have gotten right, and these are the reasons that I am still willing to accept this often-maligned label of fundamentalist.
- The inerrancy of the Scriptures
- Young earth creationism which includes the ideas of 6-day creation, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the universal flood
- The absence of pseudonymity in the Bible with particular reference to the authorship of Daniel (written in the 6th Century B.C.), the authorship of the Pastorals, and the authorship of 2 Peter
- The historical accuracy of the events of the OT and NT narratives as well as the events of predictive prophecy (e.g., Daniel, Isaiah and the other prophets did predict future events well before they occurred)
- The omniscience of God which suggests that God has perfect and complete knowledge of all events, both past and future, i.e., open theism cannot be true
- The complementarian position with regard to the roles of men and women in the church and home
- Justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, i.e., the New Perspective on Paul fails to articulate the biblical view
- Cessationism in the sense that the use of miraculous gifts and the reception of new revelation have presently ceased as means by which God reveals himself
I would imagine that others could be added, but I find these eight to be particularly significant in my journey of faith. And I have never been disappointed because I have found fellow fundamentalists who were trying to push the envelope in regard to any of these important areas of doctrine. Thus, I am thankful for my fundamentalist heritage in regard to the maintenance and defense of these crucial doctrinal and gospel-oriented truths.
While fundamentalists certainly have many warts and many––way too many––embarrassing blots on their historical record, we can be thankful for fundamentalism’s commitment to uphold pure doctrine. This is why I am willing to be called a fundamentalist with a little “f.” At least this is how I would conceive myself in comparison to the capital “F” fundamentalists, many of whom raise third-level doctrinal issues to the first tier (e.g., KJV only movement), and to the non-fundamentalist evangelicals who find themselves regularly battling colleagues who differ on points related to these eight areas. There is a reason to be a fundamentalist, eight of them, actually.
My wife, Elaine, came up with an additional eight questions that represent a female perspective on the issue I addressed a few days ago. You should take a look at what she has posted. I would suggest that the list serves as a reminder to all husbands as well. It is so easy to take our wives for granted and to fall short in loving them as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25–30).
Apparently, many people are very energized by this topic. And it is quite obvious that Jeff’s current series of posts has generated a large volume of responses. In a perfect world we would post everyone’s comments (even those that contained inaccurate or false content) and make appropriate responses of our own. However, we have a primary task here at Central Seminary: “to assist NT churches in equipping spiritual leaders for Christ-exalting biblical ministry.” For this reason we are not going to be able to post every comment and to give everyone who desires it a platform for explaining and arguing his particular viewpoint.
So with regard to the issue of Christians and alcohol consumption we will seek to provide points of clarification and support when questions like these are raised by our readers. But as we seek to be good stewards of our time and ministry, we will be failing in our mission if we dedicate so much time to our blog while our students suffer for lack of attention. We hope that each of our readers will be able to appreciate our motivation in making this decision. And rest assured that we are reading everyone’s comments even though we cannot post each one.
I posted a comment on alcohol that unleashed a flurry of conversation on alcohol and its virtues. There are many Christians who wish to drink and who will defend their right to drink against all comers. 
To be sure, everyone has the right before God to judge what the Scriptures say about a given behavioral issue, and often Christians will disagree. I expect to convince no one who is utterly unwilling to consider the issue on its merits and give me a hearing. Of course, they might likewise argue that I have my prejudices. So let me set them forth so that you will know what they are.
First, I was raised in a home where alcohol was freely used—at times in “moderation,” at other times in excess. Often there was a blurring of where exactly moderation stopped and excess started. How many drinks can one take before it becomes excessive? I determined before I entered college that I would not drink. It had an excessively disruptive effect on my family—divorce, abuse, conflict, and the list goes on. I determined not to drink before I entered the ministry and before I really started regularly attending church.
Second, since high school I have attended a series of tee-totaling churches. This was not some personal fixation to search out the few churches that held to an excessively narrow view. It was the main view of Baptist (Southern) evangelicalism in the 1970s. (For what it’s worth, it was apparently the normal view for much of the new evangelicalism in its early days. H. J. Ockenga, for instance, preached against drinking.) Many Baptist churches have adopted the standard church covenant written by J. Newton Brown around the time that the New Hampshire Confession (1833) was drafted, which had members pledge to refrain from the sale and use of alcoholic beverages. Tee-totalism wasn’t a fundamentalist issue. It was an evangelical Christian issue, though I know that some Presbyterians have differed here.
Third, I worked for several years as an EMT. I have seen up close and personal the devastating effects of alcohol in the lives of people. From personal injuries sustained while under the influence to battered wives and bruised children to burnt-out homes where an intoxicated person died after having started a fire accidentally, I have seen what alcohol can do. Moreover, I worked on an Indian Reserve for four years and dealt regularly with a culture in the grip of alcohol addiction. It is a pernicious evil and one that is easily and often abused.
Fourth, I pastored in a culture and a country where alcohol was a regular part of life, even among professing believers. Though our church in Canada used the standard church covenant (one of my predecessors introduced it), many churches either dropped or emended that part of the old covenant. As a church we asked for voluntary compliance. I have never made the case that it is absolutely and completely unbiblical for all persons everywhere in every case. But I have argued that it is extremely unwise in today’s world. I had people leave our church so they could drink. They did not leave because I mishandled the Word, or because they were not getting fed, or because I was haranguing alcohol. I seldom mentioned it. They left because they did not like the covenant. The man who left was baptized along with his wife who was converted under my preaching. His background was Italian Catholic and alcohol was a regular part of his extended family life. When he realized after several years that he could not be a leader in the church if he drank, he left the church for a more open church. To me this was very sad. To make a church choice solely (or so it seemed) on the basis of alcohol consumption seemed very immature.
I have adult children now who will have to decide this issue for themselves. There are lots of professing Christians touting liberty and choosing to drink. Recently a friend of my daughter discovered she is pregnant. She has opted for a “moderate” drinking position. But she will not drink while she is pregnant because of its potential to harm the baby. What am I missing here? It’s okay to drink but not when you are pregnant? It’s okay to poison yourself a little because you can handle it but you don’t want to poison your baby? God created this stuff to make us happy but it will hurt an unborn child? There is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation unless you are pregnant (or nursing). This is the stuff we are defending? Even in “moderation” it seems that alcohol has a deleterious effect on some individuals. And no one can say just how much alcohol one can consume before the moderation becomes excessive. Some astute person may suggest that expectant mothers give up any number of things–all perfectly good–while pregnant, chocolate for instance. This is true. But there is something about alcohol that hurts the fetus in a way that chocolate does not. I have seen children who suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome but never fetal chocolate syndrome.
So I have chosen a path of safety. I choose not to drink. I don’t need to imbibe for hydration (as was the case in the first century); it serves no meaningful purpose in my life; and I don’t believe that it will ever hinder my testimony. In regard to this last point, I don’t drink coffee either. I have managed for thirty years to say kindly “no thank you” when offered a cup, and I really don’t think anyone has ever been offended there either!
I plan to write a piece on what biblical reasons I use for not drinking shortly. Stay tuned!
In recent days, the subject of Christians and alcohol has become front and center. Not that this problem is new. 
This debate is a long one, and one that is not likely to be settled any time soon. Recently, our friend Scott Aniol offered an interesting series of blog posts on the Christian and alcohol. Many believers today permit drinking, and some argue that prohibiting it is sinful. Mark Driscoll, for instance, suggests that it is a sin not to drink. God made alcohol, and so long as one does not drink to excess, one is free to enjoy God’s good gifts.
Well, I want to ask the question . . . does the Bible permit “drinking in moderation”? This is no mere academic debate, for since the Temperance movement of the 19th century, many Christians have argued that the Bible teaches total abstinence from alcohol. This is done in some rather creative ways, all in an effort to keep the saints sober. Some might argue that despite the fact that people drank some alcohol in Bible times and that the Bible seems to sanction it, no Christian today should drink. Others suggest that since Jesus drank wine, so can we. So which viewpoint is correct? Can Christians drink in moderation or not? read more…
I have three daughters (ages 20, 17, and 14), and my oldest is very interested in a young man at our church. This has prompted me to consider what I, as their father, should be thinking about in regard to the young men who will want to marry them. I’m going to list my questions here, and if the reader desires to see each question explained, read this longer article.
- Do you love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? read more…
I recently had the opportunity to view a screening of a motion picture entitled
Collision: Is Christianity Good for the World? (due for release October 27). The film pits atheist Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great) against Douglas Wilson, a Reformed pastor and writer (Reforming Marriage, A Serrated Edge, and over 30 other books), and it is directed by a famous independent film director, Darren Doane. The film arose out of a series of articles that were originally published in Christianity Today (May 2007). Following this interchange, Wilson and Hitchens co-authored a book entitled Is Christianity Good for the World? They went on a book signing tour of several East coast venues, and Doane accompanied them, filming several of their public and private discussions. read more…
I have always liked hanging around “old” men in the ministry. Men old enough to be my grandfather. The older I get the harder that becomes so now at 53 I look for guys my dad’s age, though a few grandfather types are still around. When I meet these veteran soldiers of the Cross, I am encouraged that perhaps I too can run the race for God and finish well. Since I first graduated from college (1978), I have kept a running list in my mind of men who failed to finish well. Sadly, it is a list that continues to grow. They succumbed to temptation and lost their ministries, and for many of them, their families also. This scares me. Why them and not me? What can I do to keep from joining their ranks? read more…
Tonight I finally, after more than 15 years of searching, was able to secure my own personal “set” of Joseph Ivimey, The History of the English Baptists (1811-1830) in four volumes. 
I had bought an odd volume years ago from a bookseller in England but had not been able to locate the rest of the books to complete my set until tonight. Moreover, I was able to add the 18th century edition of the Sermons and Tracts of John Gill (3 volumes) to my library as well as the important four volume set by Walter Wilson History of Dissenting Churches. As if that weren’t enough, I also secured the four volume set of the Works of Robert Robinson (a Cambridge Baptist and author of the hymn, Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing). read more…
Mark Driscoll’s reputation as the ‘cussing pastor’ has earned him both notoriety and criticism. Simply Google those two words and abundant evidence exists for the impact he makes on today’s evangelical world. 
His influence among evangelicals continually expands through his books and constant invitations to speak at conservative evangelical events. His desire to appeal to the current culture is well documented through his own pen. While he has apparently repented of some improprieties, the vulgarities continue despite criticism and attempts to correct his ‘style’ of ministry. read more…
