Ich ben ein Fundamentalist [Part 3]

A modern model which everyone knows

In discussing this matter of decisionism, perhaps the one most well known example of its practice is Billy Graham, who, by the way, identifies himself as a Baptist, although I am not sure that he would call himself a Fundamentalist. But his adaptations and practice of Finney’s “new measures” are starkly visible in our day, appearing of television regularly. Over the years, Graham’s practices have changed but little [though some might say that his theology has gone from bad to much worse]. The same ritual is observed over and over again. First comes the singing of songs, followed by the “testimony” of a famous person or someone recently in the news, followed by some more singing, which is followed by Graham’s message, usually rather straightforward evangelical fare which some have pilloried as “three points and a poem.” But then, after the message comes what most Fundamentalists would characterize as the most important part of the service: the “invitation” or “altar call.” In this [non-biblical] practice, an emotional appeal is made to the audience to step out of their seats and come forward, usually to a platform [the “altar,” I would surmise] in the middle of an arena or football field to make their decision to receive Christ publicly [no mention is ever made of baptism]. Rev. Graham continues to appeal to the audience for a few minutes and then the choir softly sings the standard “invitation” hymn “Just as I am.” This goes on until the telecast leaves the air. In the news the next day, there is often a claim that Graham had a very “successful” crusade [a strange name for an evangelical meeting, I might add] and that many people responded to the invitation, usually numbering in the thousands. This same ritual has been repeated many times during the last half of the 20th century. It is the theology that underlies this practice which I am interested in. Why is this done this way? Is this the way the Gospel was preached and evangelism practiced during the first 1900 years of the church? What Biblical practices of the New Testament church is Graham following? Is this ubiquitous practice the center of New Testament evangelism, as the modernFundamentalists claim? The answer for any fair reader of church history is a resounding no.

The Work of the Holy Spirit, or pragmatic humanism?

Let’s go back to Charles Finney again for a moment, the famous [or infamous, to some of us] evangelist of the middle 1800s. Why has he had such an impact on American Fundamentalism and evangelicalism? Was he himself a fundamentalist? Was he a Baptist? Were the “new measures” commonly used before his day? Why did he use them? What did he believe that would cause him to employ such [apparently] manipulative methods of evangelism? Is there something of substance that we can grasp onto? I submit that there is.

Finney was theologically a Pelagian. It was his view, like Pelagius of the 5th century, that man had the plenary ability of choose the good, that is, to rationally decide by an act of the will to believe in God and thus be saved. In his mind, salvation did not involve the work which is called “the new birth,” that is, a supernatural and spiritual work of the Holy Spirit that imparted new life to the spiritually dead soul of the sinner and enabling faith and repentance. Rather, he believed that man was equipped with plenary power of will, that man’s will was radically free, even to the power of contrary choice, that is, to be able to choose that which is against the ruling disposition of the will. These things are beyond our blog to treat to the fullest extent, but suffice it to say that Finney, because of these beliefs, was no Baptist!

The point that I am making is that Finney, with his underlying Pelagian theology, could in good conscience [so to speak] employ such persuasive techniques because he fully believed that man had the ability to be persuaded, given the right information and in the right manner, to believe to his own salvation. Given that understanding, for the sake of argument, the use of such persuasive and emotion-laden techniques and methods were quite consistent with his theology. In other words, there was a method to his madness; he practiced what he preached. Unfortunately what he preached was heresy, and consequently his methods were too.

Ah, but don’t wave a red flag in front of a Fundamentalist, for he is liable to charge the red flag without hesitation. Some of the Fundamentalists saw that Finney was “successful” with such methods, and immediately began to uncritically adapt them into their own practice. A kind of crass pragmatism became the rule of the day. Most of the Baptist Fundamentalists did not understand the nexus between theology and evangelical practice, so even today they are perplexed when someone criticizes Finney or Finney’s methods. “You have to give everyone a chance to be saved!” said one man to me when he saw that I did not employ the altar call in my ministry. For him it was heresy for me NOT to offer an invitation to come down the aisle and “receive Jesus into your heart,” as the saying goes. Little did he know that the Church existed worldwide for nearly 1900 years before these techniques were even seen. These innovations were to have a devastating eroding effect on evangelicalism for the next 100 years at least, and maybe more, as that train continues on down the track, propelled by an appalling ignorance but an equally powerful zeal, yet without knowledge.

Pragmatic Humanism takes the day

The Fundamental Baptists were enamored with these “effective” techniques, as far as producing numbers, that is. Statistics were and continue to be elevated to iconic status in Fundamental Baptist ranks, with more energy expended and more attention given to the tally of figures of attendance, professions of faith [so called] and the like than just about anything else. Indeed, ministries are ended by poor “performance” as it relates to numbers. As a result, Fundamentalist pastors turn over nearly as fast as professional baseball managers or professional football coaches who don’t win their division or go to the Super Bowl. And no wonder.

Do you not see it? If you have a theology that says that man is the determining factor in salvation (humanistic), and the pressure to produce conversions and professions (church growth), you have a potent temptation to employ just about every method that can produce a favorable outcome [usually having to do with numbers again]. In my own view, the church-growth, mega-church, give-them-what-they-want kind of “doing church” that we see in today’s world is nothing but a modern version of this same principle of pragmatism and nothing new at all. I suspect that if we scratch the surface a bit, we will find Pelagius underneath it all. That seems to be the one common factor in the whole phenomenon.

Pelagianism in a Baptist Church? Have mercy!

Actually, the central core elements of pure Pelagianism are less common today than in the 5th century when Augustine and Pelagius fought tooth and toenail over the issue of man’s depravity and the effects of the Fall on mankind. Today, Pelagianism has morphed into Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism, the doctrine approved by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent and which it continues to practice and believe. Would it not be perverse to find that the Fundamentalists actually believed and practiced essentially the same thing as their mortal enemy, the Catholic Church? Indeed it would. But alas! It is true!

Next: Who are the real Fundamentalists?