Posts Tagged ‘fundamentalism’

Burning Bridges

June 26, 2008

Burning BridgesSpeaking of burning, I imagine the reason Yippee Goldstein has been a prominent figure the last week or so at The View is because Karin Bear and Rosie O’Worley are busy medicating their backsides, recently having had the board of education skillfully and repeatedly applied to them by Professor Greg Welty. Oh, well. By the way, Yippee tells us that she once considered investing in a junk yard. You can find it here.

We here at SBC TooDazed are not interested in building any bridges. We intend to burn as many as we can. Surely you can tell that from our masthead motto. But perhaps we should be more specific. We are not just out to burn bridges with our non-Southern Baptist brethren and sistren. We will burn them with as many of our Southern Baptist family as is necessary for absolute and unadulterated doctrinal purity in all things.

Take, for instance, our sister Rosie O’Worley. Recently she told us of the many doctrinal positions with which she would gladly disagree and yet cooperate. Like the doctrine of frequenting restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages. You can find that in 2 Worley 3:16. Or the doctrine of hymns and choruses which can be found in the Canticles of Rosie. Another “tertiary doctrine” is the doctrine of suits and ties. I think I read about that one in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Oh, yes, I see that discussion begins on page 490. No, my beloved, these “doctrines” are very minor and ones with which we should not divide.

However, if you mention camels, charismatics, cooperation, Coronas or caveats without assigning their advocates to a place far past Minos and Cerberus, beyond the City of Dis, across the Phlegethon and straight into Cocytus itself, then there will be nothing but broken bridges that exist betwixt me and thee even if you don’t baptize babies, don’t believe a person can lose their salvation, believe in the authority of Scripture and a host of other doctrines with which you would agree.

So, in tribute we take you back in time to The Trammps for our theme song:


Evidence of a (Not Too) Creeping Fundamentalism

May 24, 2008

The girls over at SBC Today seem to be quite concerned with what they are inappropriately calling “ecumenism.” They must have gotten their training in theological definitions from the same place they got their Inspector Gadget PI kits. In the words of that famous theologian Damned Barebones, “words have meaning.” Try as you might to redefine the meaning, when you are using words who’s definition has meant something particular for, oh, 70 plus years you’re only going to confuse people. Of course, when words are used more for the purpose of engaging people’s emotions than their brains you don’t mind that sort of thing.

Scanning the Wikipedia article on the World Council of Churches, perhaps the most liberal expression of the ecumenical movement, I fail to find the “very definition of an ecumenical movement” as a quest for the lowest common doctrinal denominator. Not even the WCC’s site makes such a claim. Perhaps the claim is true of the WCC and the NCC. I’m not particularly disposed to argue otherwise. But one would think that if it is a part of the very definition of a movement you would find that definition somewhere outside of a Southern Baptist group blog. But to no avail. Well, as they say, start with a faulty premise, end with a faulty conclusion. Or something like that.

Since we’re all into redefining words and whole movements why not just jump on the old bandwagon, shall we? On second thought, let’s just go with an accepted definition.

Before one reads too far into what I will be arguing for, let it be known at the outset and remembered through the conclusion that I am saying that we have people within our beloved convention advocating a Fundamentalist Resurgence. My claim is that the SBC is becoming both the classic expression of Fundamentalism and that there are portions of the SBC that are being affected by Fundamentalism. By its very definition, a Fundamentalist movement is an attempt to find unanimity in the smallest of theological details before agreeing to do missions and evangelism. However, one need not look far to see that when we focus on the minutiae of doctrine, our brains and our hearts grow hard and cold. Allow me to offer a few thoughts that evidence the invasion of a Fundamentalist attitude into some Southern Baptist circles.

First, preaching is reduced to one acceptable method. Never mind that Jesus almost never preached exegetically. Never mind that Ezekiel doesn’t spend too much time expounding the finer points of Numbers or Judges. There’s only one proper way to sermonize and if you preach any other sort of sermon you are a cultural compromiser, a liberal, uneducated in proper sermon technique or the typical preacher at the typical Southern Baptist Evangelism Conference.

Second, you will add definition upon definition as to the meaning of baptism. It will not be good enough that you have been immersed as a believer and that your immersion had no saving value. You and the church in which you were baptized will be subjected to a doctrinal battery fit for an Episcopal ordination examination. You will have to pass the John R. Rice test or it’s back in the water with you.

Third, the Fundamentalist believes that there is no church but the local church. At the same time they seem to believe that each church is accountable to the larger whole in a way that isn’t too far from the pronouncements of Rome. But if you want to really be safe just profess your accountability to them and all will be well.

Fourth, the Fundamentalist believes that there is no “wiggle room” when it comes to the complementarian position of gender roles. They will even push their women out front to tell you so (Not that I read that article. I didn’t want a woman having authority over me, so pardon me if I assume the answers she gave were in line with the men). No, men, if you can’t keep your woman orderly and in line it is not unacceptable to put a muzzle on her – at least in church. We all know she still leads you around by the nose everywhere else.

Fifth, the Fundamentalist insists that there is an undefined set of doctrines that are necessary to being a proper “Baptist.” For you math people, it is not an empty set. It seems to get added to constantly. You simply don’t know/won’t know what belongs there until some expert in Baptist history tells you. Shoot, he may not even be an expert. He may simply like strawberry pie. Today it is some charismatic practice. Or your view on alcohol. Tomorrow it will be your Hawaiian-styled shirt or your quote from The Message. Oh, wait, that’s actually today as well. Ok. Tomorrow it will be worship styles and Calvinism (while Karin Bear wants you to think that such pronouncements are straw men and red herrings it should be noted that these two didn’t come from some out-of-touch nut job from the left coast but from the Chairman of the Southern Baptist Executive Committee who pastors in the heart of the deep south).

Jerry Fallwell was well-known as a Fundamentalist. Even after joining the SBC, he never renounced his Fundamentalism. To be a good Southern Baptist he didn’t have to. Jerry Fallwell didn’t become more like the SBC. The SBC has become more like Jerry Fallwell, because the SBC has become more Fundamentalist.