The Errors of “Recovering Fundamentalists”
Last night I received an invitation to join a Facebook group for “Recovering Fundamentalists.” Though I rarely indulge in public polemic, this invitation has prompted me to respond to the confusion sown by recent defectors from the movement. I shall take as representative this idea of a support group for former Fundamentalists, a variation on the recently popular concept of “spiritual abuse.”
This idea commits three errors. The first is the error of self-victimization. Self-victimization is considering oneself handicapped by one’s heritage, upbringing, or other circumstance. In secular matters, it is the symptom of a society that prides itself on weakness and gives aid to those who, from a failure of will or of character, wrongly choose to classify themselves with those who are legitimately handicapped. In religious matters, one who victimizes himself denies God’s providence in controlling his circumstances. I marvel that some speak of being born into a Christian family as if they had been born addicted to narcotics from which they must be weaned.
Self-victimization is close kin to the second error, which is ingratitude. Let us suppose, for a moment, that a young person is raised as a Fundamentalist but upon reaching maturity has a sincere change of conviction, perhaps even develops from a weaker to stronger brother, and so chooses to no longer classify himself as a Fundamentalist. Should we then expect that believer to repudiate, even to ridicule, his former position? God forbid! Such a repudiation can find its source only in ingratitude for those fellow-believers who first brought him to our Lord Jesus Christ, who preached to him the gospel of salvation, and who trained him in the law of Christ.
The third error is myopia, a failure to consider the consequences of ideas. At a purely pragmatic level, I cannot understand why those who have, say, earned a degree from a Fundamentalist school would mock their alma mater and cheapen their investment only to score a few points with other discontents. Nor can I understand their deliberate choice to alienate believers who were formerly their fellows. But, far more significantly, “recovering Fundamentalists” ignore the impact their words will have on those who do not claim the name of Christ. Unbelievers do not understand the nice distinctions we draw between parts of the body of Christ, and they interpret repudiation of part as repudiation of the whole.
I have argued less than I have polemicized, for the arguments are already well-known, but I will defend these points upon request. I intend these thoughts as a rebuke to those who would dishonor their heritage and disparage the beliefs of sincere Christians. But I also publish them as a safeguard for myself, for if I ever indulge in self-victimization, ingratitude, or myopia, I pray someone will use what I have written to withstand me to my face.
Posted 28 Nov. 2007 at 6:04 am | Permalink
I recognize that rebuking this concept comes close to committing the last of its errors. The distinction, which I hope is apparent, is between discerning errors and manufacturing accusations. To discern errors is commanded; to accuse the brethren is forbidden. In other words, if I am right that “recovering Fundamentalists” commit the errors of self-victimization, ingratitude, and myopia, then I must rebuke those errors; but if I am wrong on those points, then I am also wrong to offer this rebuke.
I am willing to clarify this point.
Posted 28 Nov. 2007 at 9:51 am | Permalink
Thanks Lincoln! I have sensed these errors myself, but probably could not have expressed them as clearly.
If this post were to be considered some sort of “Fundamentalist Manifesto,” consider this comment my signature.
Posted 28 Nov. 2007 at 10:21 am | Permalink
What strikes me as ironic is that self-proclaimed recovering Fundamentalists tend to commit the same “abuses” that they charge against Fundamentalism: immediate and irrevocable separation, judgment of others who don’t conform to their external expectations, and vaunted pride. It’s as though recovering from a disease is to be infinitely preferred over having continuous good health.
I doubt that the apostles would have started a support group for “recovering Pharisees.” Far from pitying their background and mocking those who taught them the law of God, they focused on the goodness of God’s Providence directing their whole lives to bring them from darkness into His glorious light. And yet you will not find these recovering Fundamentalists starting any groups for “recovering sinners” rejoicing in the wisdom and judgments of God. Instead there is only a self-pity derisive of that wisdom, as though God is fathering a group of Christian crackbabies who have to recover from the handicaps He has placed on their spiritual birth.
Posted 28 Nov. 2007 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
It has long been my policy never to permit comments that resort to vitriol or personal attacks. Comments that are rational and civil—even if I disagree with their conclusions—are welcome. If a comment is for the most part rational but includes a personal attack or is unnecessarily heated, it will not be published here—“a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”
Some regard the Internet as a democratic market where every idea can run its course. Such a notion fails to understand that not every idea is equal and that not every opinion deserves its say.
Posted 30 Nov. 2007 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
I will, then, request that you defend your points.
1. Self-victimization. Your argument rests on the assumption that the accused are not, in fact, victims. Why? Do you believe that they are exaggerating their experiences, or that the idea of spiritual victimization is altogether invalid? If the former, what would qualify as spiritual victimization? The words “victim” and “abuse” are pretty charged, but I do believe that people have been hurt as a direct result of attitudes, practices, and theology that wears the Fundamentalist label.
2. Ingratitude. First, not everyone in those groups was raised Fundamentalist, and the movement contributed only a parenthesis in their lives that they regret, so they feel (understandably) that they have little to be grateful to it for. But for we who had more Fundamentalist strains to our upbringing (in varying degrees), and do owe it some credit for facilitating positive spiritual development, what does gratitude demand? I read you as arguing that it prohibits any critical evaluation of imperfections. I simply cannot agree, particularly when the criticisms are largely theological, which brings me to your third point…
3. Myopia. I don’t really understand the charge of short-sightedness. For me, and others I am familiar with in the camp, our defection from Fundamentalism came from just the opposite: we examined the logical premises and conclusions of the theologies that carry that label, and concluded that at their core they rest on a salvation dependent on works (ironic for a group traditionally so virulently anti-Catholic).
I don’t understand the charge the people are saying these things just to impress their peers and get a group hug or back-pat. Why do you not take them seriously? Many of these people have paid dearly for their opinions, and they don’t take them lightly. People have been forced to resign, shunned, and banned from campus. They didn’t want it to be that way, any more than Luther wanted to leave the Catholic church.
Part of the problem in this debate is the use of straw men on both sides. “Fundamentalists” is a label that is easy to apply and hard to define. Not all of them are rabid joy-killing legalists descended straight from Pharisees they way they are sometimes portrayed. They differ in practice, and even some in theology. It is easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that is a danger we have to be cautious of. Regrettably we are not always successful.
But the straw man attacks are on both sides. You’re right; some defectors are reacting out of bitterness and/or base their complaints on illegitimate or imagined harms. Some do forget to acknowledge what they have gained from people or institutions who call themselves Fundamentalists (for me, perhaps, the tools to think about theology systematically, even though they lead me to different conclusions). And maybe there are some who are simply jumping on the bandwagon when they join these groups.
But those are easy positions to shoot down, and addressing only them ignores the more legitimate positions underlying the movement.
Posted 30 Nov. 2007 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
I have not visited either this blog or the Facebook Group recently, but a friend passed along the post. I wish to respond, even though I can’t call myself a “recovering” fundamentalist (at least in the sense the term is used within the BJU community) because, due to my parents’ influence, I never was one in the first place.
The opening post is an exercise in question-begging. All three assignments of “errors” to the concept “Recovering Fundamentalists” assume, without further analysis, that the “Fundamentalist” position is theologically correct, and all other positions heterodox, and then proceed to pass judgment. Yet this is manifestly unhelpful because it fails to respond to any of the critiques of Fundamentalism and ducks the real issue. Let me illustrate:
1) Self-Victimization: Accusing those who repudiate a certain theological position of “den[ying] God’s providence in controlling his circumstances” assumes, without analysis, that all spiritual influences are equally beneficial. The accusation is ironic, given that most folks I know sympathetic to “Recovering Fundamentalists” (including myself) have become much more Reformed and therefore believe in nothing more strongly than God’s Sovereignty. One can 1) recognize God’s sovereignty in using any philosophy to draw someone to Himself, and yet also 2) admit that the philosophy still infects one’s thinking. Surely someone who was raised Hindu, or Catholic, or by hedonistic parents and got saved would not be “denying God’s providence” to say that he is praying for help in recovering from the influence of those false ideas. The only difference is that we all agree that such philosophies are false. We don’t agree whether BJU-style Fundamentalism is correct, and that, not a denial of sovereignty, is the real issue.
2) Ingratitude: This, too, begs the question and it conflates “gratitude” with “immunity from criticism.” Suppose God saves a person who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or an apostate mainline protestant church. The person’s first contact with Christianity and Scripture comes though one of those organizations. The the person comes to realize that the organization has an incomplete, twisted view of Scripture and leaves. Are they, in the name of gratitude, barred from “criticizing” their former denomination? Did Paul, a former Pharisee, let his gratitude silence his disagreement?
3) Myopia: “Recovering Fundamentalists” are guilty of not considering the consequences of their ideas only if one assumes that their ideas are false. If we assume the ideas are true, they are simply speaking to correct error. Likewise, the assumption that the group does no more than “mock their alma mater and cheapen their investment only to score a few points with other discontents” presumes to know both the motivations for, and the substance of, the group’s discussions. Yet the assumption is just that, an assumption, because evidence is nowhere to be found in the post.
Two final comments. First, it is not true that pagans do not understand distinctions within Christianity, and it is a straw man to say that one should never challenge false theology because of what pagans might think. Second, ever since leaving BJU, I have searched for a careful and Scriptural analysis of why BJU-style Fundamentalism is correct. That search has been unsuccessful, despite my hope that one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever known, and one of the very few people my age who have not repudiated Fundamentalism, could provide such a defense. Perhaps one may appear in the future.
If this post passes the anti-Miltonian view on censorship, I am grateful.
Posted 30 Nov. 2007 at 7:39 pm | Permalink
sigh. Oh, Lincoln. Do you really mean that? How can you say this kind of stuff? You know me! We travelled together and spent hours and hours in little rooms hashing out ideas. Do you really believe that I have some kind of victim complex? Or that I don’t appreciate the amazing gift God gave me when He allowed me to grow up in a Christian home? Or that I don’t understand the way that nuances of private rhetoric can sometimes be lost on a public audience?
Lincoln, your post hurt. It really did. And it made me sad. You’ve been trained not to simplify things into straw men. Why would you write something like this?
Posted 1 Dec. 2007 at 1:27 am | Permalink
Regarding censorship: I may well be “anti-Miltonian,” but I stand by the principle that truth can be clearly identified. I have censored no one because I have denied no one the right to speak; I have only retained my right not to publish their opinions. In any case, please note that I have permitted these several comments and rejected only one.
Regarding evidence and argumentation: I have been accused of two flaws: failure to present evidence and failure to rationally defend my assumptions. The obvious counter, of course, is that my critics offer no more analysis or evidence than I do, except claims to have thought the issue through. I assure you, I did not lightly come to this position, for I have wrestled with my relationship to Fundamentalism and its theology for at least as long as my critics. As I said in my original post, “I have argued less than I have polemicized, for the arguments are already well-known.” I have not sought to present research nor to exhaustively analyze this movement, but only to present conclusions. (I might add that my audience was never the recovering Fundamentalists, but rather those who have already seen these errors but have not articulated their disagreement.)
Regarding self-victimization: First, I do not doubt that some have been victimized by some Fundamentalists—every movement has its wolves among the sheep. Fundamentalism cannot be legitimately criticized for this flaw, considering that it is a problem within all Christianity, as even the apostles give witness. In the particular cases under discussion, those who have appropriated the rhetoric of victimization are offering precisely that: rhetoric. My critics speak of “critiquing imperfections,” but the language of recovering from deformity and disease is not the language of rational, objective critique. Recovery from the ravages of alcohol and abuse is not a fitting metaphor for critiquing imperfections; too often this group tries to benefit from metaphor rather than from critique.
Regarding ingratitude: It is true that gratitude does not preclude criticism, but gratitude should moderate criticism. This principle begs two questions: have Recovering Fundamentalists expressed gratitude? and have their critiques been moderated by gratitude? In all the blogs and forum posts that I have examined, in all the conversations that I have heard, and in all the people that I have observed (having been acquainted with Fundamentalism from my earliest years) I have not heard enough thanks expressed to fill a slip of paper. If you doubt this generalization, the sources speak for themselves. What is heard are petty complaints, mean-spirited and ungracious judgments of leaders and pastors, and, above all, an extreme rhetoric that caricatures all who dare disagree.
Regarding myopia: My critics are correct in stating that Recovering Fundamentalists are not wrong to criticize Fundamentalism if their critiques are true. Again, both sides have stated only their conclusions, and the debate has not (yet) been joined on first principles. I do not argue that every Recovering Fundamentalist has come to his conclusions illegitimately. But the choice to couch these conclusions in the rhetoric of sickness and to promulgate them online fails to consider their impact on the rising generation. The leaders of Recovering Fundamentalists forget that their followers by and large are “simply jumping on the bandwagon.”
We have come, then, to the central issue: Fundamentalists and Recovering Fundamentalists differ sharply in their doctrine of sanctification (and that difference has consequences for nearly every doctrine). David has asked—and I do not doubt that his request is made in good faith—for a careful and Scriptural defense of Fundamentalism. If I determine that such a defense is appropriate to this venue, I will hope to offer one.
Do I really mean this? Yes. Why? Because error is not trivial whether it be theological or rhetorical, whether it comes from seminaries or Facebook forums. In short, Truth matters.