Correcting Serious Misunderstandings About Fundamentalism, Legalism, Judging, Love, and Unity

Correcting Serious Misunderstandings About Fundamentalism, Legalism, Judging, Love, and Unity

In the intellectual tradition of many modernists and postmodernists before them, many who profess to be Christians have all but tossed the Bible out the window when it comes to spiritual matters.  Instead of consulting God's revealed word to mankind, they air their own opinions and vehemently attack those who do not share their unscriptural bias.  The result is emotional, hypocritical diatribes, such as those witnessed in the comments of many of my posts.  These screeds usually include some form of the ultra-cliche insult against fundamentalists that usually goes something like this: "Fundamentalists are unloving, judgmental legalists."  This attack actually contains several misunderstandings: the proponents of this view do not understand Christian fundamentalism, biblical judgment, biblical love (or at least what it implies), biblical unity, or legalism.

What is Christian fundamentalism?

Christian fundamentalism often takes heat merely because it contains the word "fundamentalist"—something that is associated today with radical Muslims.  (The "radical" Muslims, incidentally, are actually quite consistent with the teachings of the Koran, therefore it is strange that we would call them "radical.")  In reality, however, fundamentalism is a label applied to a movement in the early 1900's during which Bible-believing evangelicals separated from the liberal modernists.  The split occurred over the "fundamentals" of the faith:

1. Inerracy of scripture
2. Virgin birth of Christ
3. Bodily resurrection of Christ
4. Substitutionary atonement
5. Second Coming of Christ

These Fundamentals were not intended to be a list of ALL of the most important doctrines (although one can see that they are very important), but rather a list of key doctrines under fire by Darwinism, German higher criticism, and liberalism.  These three groups attacked the Fundamentals mainly on scientific grounds, being heavily influenced by modernistic Enlightenment thinking.  Those who held to the Fundamentals were called "fundamentalists."  Therefore, a fundamentalist is simply one who holds to the above doctrines.  I should also mention that fundamentalists differ from other evangelicals over the issue of separation.  These non-separatist evangelicals were willing to remain in liberal seminaries and tolerate the liberalism of their professors.

Although the tension between these two groups was long in the making, the definitive moment (in my opinion) came in the late 1920's when the last prominent theologically conservative seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, fell to modernism.  The split resulted in the formation of a new school: Westminster Theological Seminary, which became a bastion for fundamentalism, including such professors as J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til.  Machen wrote the renowned book Christianity and Liberalism, which is a tour de force against theological liberalism and still incredibly applicable today.

What is legalism?

Legalism is, quite simply, works-based salvation.  The Pharisees of the New Testament were considered legalists because they believed they were righteous not on the basis of God's work but on the basis of their work.  Hence they focused obsessively on conforming to rules and regulations, especially ceremonial ones.  They came under harsh condemnation from Christ and from Paul due not only to their false soteriology but their severe hypocrisy:

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
-Matthew 23:13-15

Also, in Galatians 2, Paul attacks Peter for playing the hypocrite with the Jews and not presenting the true gospel: that circumcision is not a means of righteousness, but rather "man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ."

This correct view of legalism stands in stark contrast to the deceptive view of legalism that liberals have foisted upon fundamentalists.  Liberals or "easy going" (a.k.a. carnal) Christians think that legalism is mere obedience to the Bible's commands.  Therefore, when someone points out their disobedience, they cry out "legalist!" as a perjorative.  Christ did not view obedience as legalism, however.  Instead, He said very plainly, "If you love Me, keep My commandments."  These commandments include ALL New Testament commandments, not just loving one's neighbor.  Indeed, loving one's neighbor is simply a summary of ALL the other commandments.

What is judging?

Undoubtedly the most commonly misinterpreted verse in the New Testament is Matthew 7:1—"Judge not, that you be not judged."  A clear condemnation of ALL judging, correct?  Not at all.  The neo-evangelicals and liberals never take the time to read the following verses:

1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
-Matthew 7:1-5

Once the entire passage is read, the context becomes clear: Christ is condemning hypocritical judgment, not all judgment.  Indeed, were the latter true, Christ would contradict His words recorded by John: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7:24)  I have had to explain this elsewhere before, so I'll just repeat what I wrote then:

Neo-evangelicals and liberals are quick to condemn others as judgmental, but little do they realize that this in itself is a judgment.  After all, how did they determine that that person is judgmental?

What is love?

An easy fall-back for those lacking substantive argumentation against fundamentalists is the charge that fundamentalists are unloving and therefore un-Christlike, because, after all, Christ is simply love and nothing more.  Love is heart the Christianity, right?  Well, no—not in the way that liberals define love.  Romans 5:8 and Mark 15:13 define love like this:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

In both verses, "love" is translated from the Greek word agape.  This word is always associated with the greatest acts of love—Christ's work on the cross (Rom. 5:8), Christ's love for the church (Eph. 5:25), a husband's love for his wife (Eph. 5:25), a Christian's love for his brother in Christ (1 John 2:10), and so on.  This type of sacrificial love is an act of the will.  It is not merely an emotion or positive feeling based on the circumstances or experiences of the moment.  Better yet, let us go to 1 Cor. 13:4-7 to see how agape is defined:

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Although many liberals parade themselves as loving, true agape love is completely foreign to their words and deeds.  They are quick to condemn fundamentalists for being unloving, but their speech is filled with malice, annoyance, and arrogance.  (Of course, many fundamentalists, including myself, are no better at times.)  Most foreign to their message, however, is verse 6: love rejoices in truth.

Christ-like love is not intellectually apathetic—it is does not look at a falsehood and merely say, "Hey, if that's what you want to believe, so be it!"  (Ironically, liberals are tolerant of just about every belief except biblical Christianity.)  Instead, Christ-like love should compel us to expose error and refute it.  Why?  First, we must understand that, in the eyes of Christ the apostles, false teaching is more than just wrong—it is poisonous and destructive.

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet. 2:1)

Therefore, Christians should be proactive in fighting error, as the Bible plainly commands: Eph. 5:11, Rom. 16:17-18, 2 Tim. 4:2-5, Titus 1:7-9, 2 Cor. 10:4-5.  This is how we protect ourselves and the church.  If we love our brothers and sisters in Christ, we will protect them from the lies of false teachers and also confront them when they are in error.  In this sense we are like Christ: "for whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son He receives" (Heb. 12:6).

Liberals try to get around the Bible's plain commands by saying that the Bible is flawed and not worth taking too seriously.  Postmoderns attempt to hide from the Bible by saying that the verses in question are culturally situated and therefore don't apply to us today.  "The Bible is only a guidebook," they say.  But then, in a grand show of hypocrisy, they turn right around and continue condemning the fundamentalists for being "unloving".  And what do the cite as their authority?  The Bible!  (Usually Matthew 23:39—the Golden Rule.)  Thus the liberals/postmoderns are hopelessly divided against themselves: on the one hand they refuse to obey, but on the other hand they confidently charge others to obey scripture.

What is unity?

Finally, many liberals enjoy condemning fundamentalists over the issue of unity.  The protection of doctrine naturally leads to separation from false teachers, but liberals will place doctrinal heresy over unity any day.  (The Fundamentalist-Modernist movement is a perfect example.)  And this is biblical, they say, because Ephesians 4:1-6 teaches that Christian unity is of utmost importance.  Fundamentalists like myself agree that it is extremely important—but how do we arrive at unity and what exactly are we unifying over?  The first question may be answered in two different ways:

1. When a source of disagreement arises among Christians, remove or ignore the divisive elements of Christianity that lead to the division.  This new "lowest common denominator" will prevent Christians from getting offended and leaving, thus maintaining Christian unity.

2. Hold fast to the doctrine taught in scripture.  When a disagreement arises, examine scripture to see who is correct in their thinking.  If someone is clearly rejecting or disobeying scripture, put them out of the church.

Which method is biblical?  It depends on what we are unifying over.  If the "one faith, one faith, one baptism" mentioned in Eph. 4:1-6 are exclusive, then Christianity cannot be watered down to meet the needs of the first method.  Focusing on "one faith" and "one Lord," let us examine scripture to see how exclusive Christianity's claims really are:

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
-Jude 3

Jude clearly writes that Jesus Christ is Lord (see also Rom. 10:9 and Phil. 2:11).  Not Muhammed, not Buddha, not Vishnu, not you and I, but Jesus Christ.  He alone is Lord.  He claims the exclusive right to God (Col. 2:9) and savior of the world (John 1:29.)  In His greatest display of narrow-mindedness, Christ said to His apostles, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."  Peter preached this message in Acts 4: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Jude also clearly states that the faith has been delivered, therefore all we need to do is look to what God has already revealed.  We do not need more revelation to understand the faith, unlike what the Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Muslims, and other cultists claim.  But what exactly is the faith that Jude speaks of?  (Notice that "faith" is a noun, not a verb.)  In Acts 20:21, Pauls says that he testified "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" to the Jews and Greeks.  This faith toward Christ is the same as faith towards the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17, 1 Cor. 15:1-2).

We see, then, that Christianity is very exclusive.  Combine this with the clear commands to protect doctrine and the answer to the initial question of, How do we maintain unity? becomes obvious: unity through separation.  By doing with this, those of the correct like-minded thinking will remain together, continually protecting, teaching, and exhorting one another.  Unity through inclusivity, on the other hand, guts Christianity of everything that makes it unique and holy in the first place.  Or as one young man explained to me, unity is not about a bunch of humans agreeing with each other but about a bunch of humans agreeing with God.

Hopefully this puts the Fundamentals into better perspective—these are the doctrines that unify the fundamentalists.

Conclusion

The postmoderns' and liberals' accusation against fundamentalists fails on every count.  Furthermore, their employment of double-standards is nothing short of breath-taking.

Another question that has arisen is, How do you explain all of this to a liberal or postmodern without setting them off in a fit of rage?  I honestly do not know.  Nothing I have ever tried seems to work, which leads me to think that their problem is not with my attitude (although they'll use that as a smokescreen) but with the Bible itself.  (This makes sense, since many of them admit to holding a very low view of scripture, anyway.)  In the future we will examine scripture to see how Christ and the apostles dealt with those in error.