He did not demand that they clean up their lives before they could approach God, you’re right. Neither do fundamentalists.

Like Jesus, fundamentalists do call lost sinners to repentance. We call them out of their sinful lives and in to righteousness.

The worst way to save a drowning man is to jump in there with him. The best way is to throw him a rope from the shore and drag him out of the water. Least helpful of all might be the Pharisaical approach, which is to berate him for being in deep water and tell him to swim for shore.

Many outsiders would contest this point of yours.

I think what your reacting to is the idea that Stott is (or I am) speaking for every single individual fundamentalist. We are only mentioning tendencies, general distinctives. These are undoubtedly at least a little true, since they seem to resonate so much with people who have seem them in “real life.”
I’m not sure what “fisking” means, but I am not sure Stott’s points warrant it. His distinctions are part of a three-page discussion in a larger book that has nothing to do with fundy vs. evangy. It has to do with the essential tenets of evangelicalism, which btw, are “mere” enough to include fundamentalists.

And btw, you seem to have misunderstood the point about cultural context. It has nothing to do really with “problem passages,” as you seem to assume. It has to do with the popular way of interpreting that asks “what does this passage mean to me?” before asking “what does this passage mean?”. It’s a subtle difference, but a significant one.
When someone looks at, for instance, Jesus’s allegory in John 15 about the vine and the branches, cultural context allows the reader to see the meaning through the eyes of the immediate audience of Jesus. In this case, the listener sees that Jesus may be distinguishing between national Israel’s insistence on race and rote religion and spiritual Israel’s dependence on Jesus as the new Way, the Truth and the Life. A reader who cares nothing for cultural context, sees only himself first and foremost in the passage and may end up wondering how believers in Jesus will end up pruned and burned up, when that is not at all what Jesus means.

Another point: If you do not want to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, and you think it is all important, how does this jibe with your take on the churches in your area(!) being open about dispensationalism? Isn’t it all important?

“The worst way to save a drowning man is to jump in there with him. The best way is to throw him a rope from the shore and drag him out of the water.”
This only evidences the inherent flaws in illustrations. What I mean by Jesus got right in there with the sinners is that he didn’t boycott or picket them, he didn’t write tracts denouncing them, he didn’t propose legislation to correct them, and he didn’t go set up shop to preach to his disciples, hoping some sinners might show up eventually. He ate with them, drank with them, partied with them, mourned with them, laughed with them.
If a man was drowning literally, you’re right, I wouldn’t jump in. But when a man is drowning spiritually, how Christian it would be to jump in next to him and swim him to shore, like a lifeguard sure of his skill and training!
The Bible says it is not what goes into a man that makes him unholy, but what comes out. Christians need to give up this isolationist holy huddling we have invented so we don’t catch “sin.” We should mature our faith, wise up our spirit, and trust our God to protect us so that we can change the world from the inside out. That is what works. No one’s ever been argued, picketed, or condescended to into the kingdom.

On the racism thing: I too disagree with Stott on the level of this prevalence among fundamentalists. And he is even quick to point out that prejudice is no stranger to Christians of all stripes. But surely you cannot deny that the so-called churches that explicitly practice white supremacy self-identify as fundamentalist. Or that fundamentalist institutions have a history of racial injustice — what of Bob Jones University’s racial rules, the “Christian” KKK, the churches in the late 19th/early 20th centuries who preached segregation and bigotry from the pulpit? These all fall under the fundamentalist umbrella.

I’d also like to mention that in your reaction to the apparent stereotyping of fundies, you do quite a bit yourself of evangies.

Well, I guess I had to quibble with more than one point. Sorry.

It’s debatable that Jesus just hopped right in there with the sinners. Personally, I don’t believe that’s quite the case. However, even if He did…notice that He was God. Jesus was incapable of sin and we are very capable of sin. Jesus could stand against temptations that might crop up when He hopped right in there with the sinners…but can we? Like I said, Jesus was God. We’re fallible, fallen, sinful humans.

Yes, and it was intentional. Did you like being caricaturized and generalized? Did you like me using only the worst characteristics of the most liberal evangelicals to describe all evangelicals? Did you think it was fair for me to use only the most positive characteristics of fundamentalists to paint that “us vs. them” portrait?

We didn’t like it either.

I don’t think all evangelicals are a bunch of liberals who interpret away the Bible, embrace the world, and like women preachers. I go to an evangelical church! My Christian friends are almost universally evangelicals! I only have a few friends who are more fundamentalist.

I know that evangelicals and fundamentalists don’t fit my caricaturized generalization. I know that fundamentalists tend to be too isolationist and too judgmental, and I know that evangelicals tend to be too worldly. But I would never initiate a round of evangelical-bashing, because I know it is inaccurate and hurtful.

In retrospect, I should have focussed more on an accurate portrayal of evangelicals and fundamentalists, rather than fighting fire with fire. I apologize for that to anyone who was hurt by my retaliatory caricaturization of evangelicals.

“He did not demand that they clean up their lives before they could approach God, you’re right. Neither do fundamentalists.”

Many outsiders would contest this point of yours.

Many outsiders would also contend that preaching Christ as the only means of salvation is hateful. I won’t permit the response of outsiders to caricaturized versions of my beliefs define me.

I think what your reacting to is the idea that Stott is (or I am) speaking for every single individual fundamentalist. We are only mentioning tendencies, general distinctives.

This is the no true Scotsman fallacy. It makes your points virtually irrefutable, and it’s unfair. To refute you, I’d have to interview every single fundamentalist Christian in America, and then you’d probably quibble with me over which ones actually fit the “fundamentalist” label. If you define “fundamentalist” as “people who fit these tendencies” then by definition, you win.

These are undoubtedly at least a little true, since they seem to resonate so much with people who have seem them in “real life.”

It is a caricaturization of fundamentalists, which is what many people react to. People also have a tendency to only recall the outstanding examples, without considering if it’s fair to characterize people based on those events.

I used to go to church with a really nice, moderate guy. A situation arose, and he was very mean. His meanness stands out in my mind a lot more than the 95% of the time when he was very nice. It would be unfair to characterize him, or moderates in general, of meanness. But emotionally, my memories of his nastiness still jump out when I remember that painful situation. It’s understandable, but not fair.

I’m not sure what “fisking” means, but I am not sure Stott’s points warrant it.

I didn’t want to use that term, but I didn’t have a better title in my head at the time. Fisking something generally means a detailed, point-by-point refutation. Generally it’s excessively nasty, which I tried to avoid. I’ll change the title.

It has to do with the essential tenets of evangelicalism, which btw, are “mere” enough to include fundamentalists.

It is logically impossible to distinguish fundamentalists from evangelicals at one point, then define evangelicalism in such a manner that includes fundamentalists.

point about cultural context. It has nothing to do really with “problem passages,”

Surely you will agree that it is used frequently in the cases I referred to. Evangelicals, as Stott defines them, over-emphasize “interpretation” and give it priority over the plain meaning of the text.

“what does this passage mean to me?” before asking “what does this passage mean?”.

This is not particular to any flavor of theology; it’s just good Bible study. I agree that you must put SOME things in a proper cultural context to understand them. For example, Jesus said He’d make us fishers of men. The implications of that vary greatly with your understanding of fishing. The (evangelical, non-fundamentalist) members of my small group Bible study were recently discussing this passage. We have 3 avid fishermen, who went on to make deep spiritual observations about using the right bait and cast, setting the hook, etc. Unfortunately that is not the type of fishing Peter did, which involved casting big nets out and seeing what came up (I know that is probably oversimplified, but you get the picture).

If you do not want to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, and you think it is all important, how does this jibe with your take on the churches in your area(!) being open about dispensationalism? Isn’t it all important?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I am dogmatic about that which is Biblically clear, and not dogmatic at all about that which is Biblically ambiguous. That is why I am not dogmatic on some points of Calvinism, on eschatology, etc. It’s not that it’s unimportant, just that it’s not clear enough to me.

he didn’t boycott or picket them

He did with some of them. He didn’t cozy up to the self-righteous scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. He actually waited for them, like Nicodemus, to come to Him. He threw the money changers from the temple. He confronted the woman at the well, getting right to the point about her sinful life. He spoke a whopping three sentences to the woman caught in adultery. One of them was telling her she was forgiven, the last was telling her to repent.

he didn’t go set up shop to preach to his disciples, hoping some sinners might show up eventually.

Well, you do have to be careful to keep Christ’s actions in the proper context. He had three years to turn Judaism on its head, train the apostles, get Christianity started, and die. His mission was different from ours. “What would Jesus do?” is a lousy question. “What does Jesus want me to do?” is a better one.

But I do agree that evangelism does not mean inviting people to church, or hoping they show up. To the extent that fundamentalists limit themselves to that, they are wrong. But that is not a charge Stott levied against fundamentalists (in your post anyway), just that we focus more on “preaching the gospel” than on doing social work.

He ate with them, drank with them, partied with them, mourned with them, laughed with them.

There are exceptions, but generally, He let them come to Him, or they invited Him. He rarely “partied with” unrepentant sinners as far as I can tell.

If a man was drowning literally, you’re right, I wouldn’t jump in. But when a man is drowning spiritually, how Christian it would be to jump in next to him and swim him to shore, like a lifeguard sure of his skill and training!

A skilled, trained lifeguard would first try to throw him a rope, or a float, or reach to him with something, or row out to him. Only an unskilled and untrained lifeguard would leap in first.

No lifeguard training teaches that the first approach is to “jump in next to him” – that’s a last ditch effort.

Similarly, no Biblical passage that I’m aware of teaches us to embrace the world and join ourselves to it in order to convert it. We’re a lighthouse, not fireflies. We invade, not infiltrate. I’m not an undercover agent.

The Bible says it is not what goes into a man that makes him unholy, but what comes out.

Which you’ve taken completely out of context.

Christians need to give up this isolationist holy huddling we have invented so we don’t catch “sin.”

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 disagrees with you. So do many passages in Proverbs, and elsewhere.

We should mature our faith, wise up our spirit, and trust our God to protect us so that we can change the world from the inside out. That is what works. No one’s ever been argued, picketed, or condescended to into the kingdom.

So those who disagree are immature in their faith, have foolish spirits, and don’t trust God to protect us? I disagree.

Nothing short of boldly preaching the gospel to the lost, letting our good works shine before men, and living lives of personal holiness as an example, will work. It’s the only Biblical approach.

Please provide clear scriptural support for “changing the world from the inside out”. I don’t accept inferences; I want clear Biblical commands that this is the approach Jesus wants me to use.

I’m a little late to this party, but I thought Jared’s entry on Fundamentalism vs. Evangelicalism was worth reflecting on. Jared just had a baby daughter by the way, so a hearty congrats to him and his family. Of course…

Fundamentalists and evangelicals don’t agree, or even understand one another, because we are using radically different metaphors to understand how Christians relate to the world. I’ll attempt to identify those metaphors, demonstrate how they play out …

Robert Williams from Dead Man Blogging previously reflected on the Fundamentalism vs. Evangelicalism comparisons at Thinklings, and reading through the comments I noticed this excerpt from Jared: Robert – “The worst way to save a drowning man is to jum…