The original purpose or goal for Fundamentalism was to defend The Faith from the encroachment of theological liberalism within ‘mainstream’ Protestant denominations. Following the liberal takeover of Princeton Theological Seminary, fundamentalists changed strategies from fighting for the Faith within their denominations to a strategy of “ecclesiastical separation.” Much of the reason for this change of focus was monetary: fundamentalists did not want to financially support liberal institutions, and more positively, they sought to build alternative institutions that were committed to historic orthodoxy.
Fundamentalists began building their own associations and fellowships, including the Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB) groups of my own youth. The separation strategy has changed and developed since the 1950’s. While separation was originally directed towards those who denied the “fundamentals of the Faith” (often, but not always defined by the five fundamentals), it was increasingly applied to issues of a secondary or tertiary nature. Furthermore, the definition of a fundamental has historically shifted, as well. For example: today, many fundamentalists treat the age of the earth as a ‘fundamental of the faith’, but in point of fact, the earth’s age was not a significant issue within Fundamentalism until the 1960’s (see Theodore Cabal’s Controversy of the Ages); while most Fundamentalists were opposed to evolutionary theory (or more specifically, belief in “macro-evolution”) before the 1960’s, “day-age” proponents and “gap theorists” were welcome within Fundamentalism. When the “New Evangelicalism” began to develop in the 1950’s, ecclesiastical separation was extended through a theory of “secondary separation” to include evangelical groups as well as liberal denominations.
Sometimes separatism is treated as a doctrine rather than as a strategy. This is a taxonomical error: that which is called the doctrine of separation is an inference from texts concerning excommunication. However, the discussion surrounding this inference has added little more to discussions of Christian theology than some extraneous vocabulary. The inference is not as simple or straightforward as many fundamentalists believe, and it appears to create some theological problems, which fundamentalists have never resolved. The process of excommunication in Scripture deals with individuals in a far more personal way than fundamentalist separation exemplifies. Matthew 19 and other passages reserve excommunication for those who knowingly sin and who have been proven to have hardened their own hearts to reproof or correction. The goal for such confrontations is to restore the believer to fellowship. However, separating from young New Evangelicals, at least by my lifetime, skipped these crucial intermediary steps, on the grounds of partisan affiliation.
Excommunication (and therefore separation) must be understood within the general calls for unity among Christians and Old Testament Jews (Psalms 133, 1 Corinthians 1-4, Ephesians 4:1-6, etc.). Those who are divisive and pugnacious are, themselves, fit subjects for the process of excommunication (Titus 3:10). This presents a significant problem, as secondary separation requires dividing oneself from wide swaths of believers who still affirm the fundamentals of the Faith. Furthermore, there are no New Testament examples of entire churches being excommunicated. The earliest large-scale excommunication in Church history, the great schism between the Greek-speaking Eastern churches and the Latin-speaking Western churches, is not among the Church’s finest moments. The Donatists, cited as a positive example of separatism by Earnest Pickering, are likewise an unsavory example to follow. Nevertheless, some church groups do seem to require something like “primary separation.” Two generally received positive examples are the fundamentalist-modernist controversy itself, and the Protestant Reformation. In the case of the Reformation, separation occurred because of a failure to reform the Church (see Rodney Stark’s discussion in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery). Likewise, as Dr. Beale’s history of Fundamentalism makes clear, Fundamentalism’s adoption of separatism as a strategy was likewise due to a failure in the primary objective to reform the mainstream denominations (see also Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism). Extending this to secondary separation adds unnecessary complexities to the situation, as there is no heresy involved (as was present in the cases of both of the previous instances). For reasons explained below, I would add one further occurrence, in which this type of mass excommunication appears to have been appropriate: those who perpetuate the legacy of Jack Hyles, including Bob Gray and the so-called “New IFB.”
Separation from evangelicals was treated by fundamentalists as paramount, but a somewhat looser standard was applied to sins which were equally as serious as liberal heresy within the Fundamentalist camp itself. If one reads The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, Carl Henry has written about some significant sin that was present in the fundamentalist movement of the day, including racism, which fundamentalists often absorbed from the culture around them. Paul’s confrontation of Peter (Galatians 2:11-13) indicates that Christians practicing segregation (including the interracial dating policy at my own alma mater, Bob Jones University), are denying the gospel itself. Strangely, within Fundamentalism, it was considered divisive to point this out. Besides the practice of segregation, Fundamentalists engaged in a coverup of various sexual sins and financial malfeasance at institutions, toward which they were friendly. Robert Sumner (“The Saddest Story we Ever Published” The Biblical Evangelist Vol 23 Num 5), observed:
“One of the major inconsistencies within Fundamentalism today is that sin is so quietly and firmly swept under the rug and the guilty parties go free. Many who argue a cover-up for a fallen Fundamentalist are the first in line to condemn a Jim & Tammy Bakker or a Jimmy Swaggart. Where is the consistency – or even honesty – in this? Do we want to send a message to the world that if a man is “big” enough and “fundamental” enough, he can get by with anything? I think not. One thing is sure: with the massive cover-ups we’ve had of late, not many preachers are “fearing”; if we can put some holy fear back into men of God, the time and money spent researching this article will have been worthwhile.”
In review, Jack Hyles was credibly accused of an increasing number of offenses, including covering up for his son’s sexual sins (many of which merited criminal investigation); shielding pedophiles and rapists; Jack Hyles’s own sexual improprieties, financial improprieties, and doctrinal heresies. There were many witnesses to these problems, including Vic Nischik, Judy Nischik Johnson, Paula Hyles, and Linda Hyles Murphrey. One would have thought that Fundamentalists would have felt duty bound to separate from Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana. Yet, many Fundamentalists rallied around Hyles. For example, a letter on Sword of the Lord letterhead (allegedly written by Dr. Curtis Hutson), admitted Hyles was guilty, yet Mr. Hutson refused to stop supporting Hyles, and Hutson furthermore declared Sumner to be a servant of Satan. Everything articulated about scandals involving Jack Hyles seems to apply as well to scandals surrounding Bill Gothard. It is strange that, in order to be considered a “good” fundamentalist, one must separate from those associated with Billy Graham or John MacArthur, but it is not necessary to separate from The Sword of the Lord. It is ironic that fundamentalists could associate with a pastor who was “King James only” (a movement that, at a minimum, flirts with heresy), provided he didn’t use contemporary music in his services. Given the information above, a consistent fundamentalist in the late 1990’s must have separated from those in the BJU orbit (due to segregationist behavior) the evangelical orbit (for not being separatists) the Sword of the Lord’s orbit (which included both segregationists and supporters of Jack Hyles). It seems that there were very few American Christians with whom we could associate; if separatism is of such great import, the unity of the body would no longer be an existent reality.
To be fair, while there was a stern party line on issues of secondary separation, it was never practiced consistently (we tended to avoid those few who did seek to attempt a consistent practice of separation . . . because they were schismatics). Late in his life, John R. Rice began associating with conservative Southern Baptists, largely perhaps because he escaped J. Frank Norris’s malign influence. Most Fundamentalists that I knew had evangelical pastor friends with whom they would associate, though it was considered an “informal” association, and it was argued that there was an alleged distinction between formal and informal fellowship. So, praying with the various local, conservative SBC pastors was okay over coffee, but one could not pray with those same pastors at a local association meeting (and one wonders why Fundamentalism was often referred to as being ‘pharisaical’). BJU brought in guest speakers: some in ministries such as the now defunct Exodus International, who were evangelicals rather than fundamentalists.
Secondary separation also seems to falsify fundamentalists’ self-images as mighty warriors doing battle for the Faith; we saw ourselves as ‘a bold cadre of elite Knights in service to King Jesus’. During the ‘battle for the Bible’ in the nineteen-seventies, and during the Southern resurgence, the Fundamentalists were like the elite Spartan units at the Battle of Marathon: absent from the field. Meanwhile, the evangelicals in these conflicts were exemplifying the notions underlying the revered first generation of Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists often talk about defending the faith, but it has been conservative Evangelicals who have done the work.
How do we resolve these difficulties when there are genuine problems in many evangelical institutions? First, we recognize that there are at least an equal number of genuine problems in fundamentalist organizations; this is endemic to organizations made up of fallen human beings, we are all at best unprofitable servants. Second, we understand that there are different types of associations and different degrees of unity. Numerous associations, such as academic societies, labor unions, or astronomy clubs, should not be treated in the same way as we might treat a denominational body. Trading pulpits with a Roman Catholic priest is different in kind from meeting a Roman Catholic priest in the Oxford Socratic Club. A discussion on matters of metaethics or the virtues with Alasdair MacIntyre is not the same as participation with Muslims in a call to prayer. Even in our own circles, we recognize degrees of unity on the basis of different kinds of agreements and disagreements. As a Baptist, I would not join a church that practices pedobaptism; that does not mean I would not take a course from a Presbyterian professor, or that I would refuse to read the writings of Francis Schaefer or B. B. Warfield. Separation became a legalistic shortcut around the more difficult process of thinking through the potential difficulties that various relationships and associations could create, and how to adjudicate the proper responses to each. It substitutes law for virtue. Instead, perhaps we should realize that there are some areas in which we will participate with our evangelical brethren, but some areas yet remain, in which we simply do not agree.
Fundamentalists at BJU in the 1990’s used the Biblical example of Jehoshaphat as a cautionary tale of New Evangelicalism. This was apt: Jehoshaphat was reprimanded 3 times for the alliances he built with foreign powers, and the house of David was (to human eyes) imperiled due to a marriage alliance with the house of Ahab. Yet, it is striking how much God’s assessment of Jehoshaphat differed from that of the Fundamentalists (2 Chronicles 17:1-5).
I believe that God has used Fundamentalism, in spite of its faults: Dr Stewart Custer and a few other professors at BJU had a positive impact on my life during my younger years and my family was immeasurably blessed by the wisdom of G. Beauchamp Vick’s ministry in Detroit. Yet, if God has used Fundamentalism, perhaps it is not because of its distinctives, but in spite of those distinctives. Frankly, as the Fundamentalists from my grandparents’ generation have passed on to the rewards of the saints, most of my experience with Fundamentalist organizations have been far less of a blessing. My time at BJU included both those who led me to walk more closely with Christ, but also those who were a hindrance. The sin of legalism was a significant problem during that era, and the proper response is repentance, but some in our tradition, sadly, want to go back to the leeks and melons of Egypt, to the apparent ease of a deontological ethic, despite Paul’s persistent warnings about the law in the New Testament. All institutions are heir to the human failings to which we each find ourselves susceptible.
The point for this article is to present reasons for which I believe secondary separation should be abandoned. The migration to conservative evangelicalism by young fundamentalists, who do not wish to pursue debates about versions, music or otherwise “turn aside unto vain jangling” reveals that this is already happening: God’s almighty hand appears to be moving to the abandonment of the petty bickering of the past. Do we really wish to go back to the days of covering up the sins committed by those within our team? Some would say that traditional fundamentalist institutions are closing because they are forgetting their heritage. As I grow older, I believe it is because Ichabod is written over the gates for those that would continue to cause divisions among the body of Christ.
Summary:
- Separation is a strategy (not a doctrine), unlike the Biblical doctrine of excommunication; it is exercised against parties rather than through an individualistic process.
- Application of this strategy to evangelicalism consistently requires that a fundamentalist separate from many if not most other fundamentalists as well, since Fundamentalism has its own scandals, which are at least as serious as those in evangelicalism: yet, separation from both fundamentalists and evangelicals would render the unity of the church militant to be non-existent.
- Varied types of association exist, some of which create difficulties; some of which do not. Secondary separation deals with the potential questions and quandaries involved in these associations by taking a legalistic shortcut, which impedes the development of the virtues necessary to navigate these challenges.
The Berean Coffeehouse 