My pastor of 27 years is retiring this month, so I have been helping him clean out his office, and he’s given me a free-for-all run of his bookshelves, so I might be running through a number of “fundy” books in the coming months. In fact, I helped him toss a heaping mess of outdated books, and while I hate tossing books, some of these deserved it. But I digress.

Before jumping in, I guess it’s important for me to point out early on that I get annoyed with the nomenclature within Conservative Christianity, most specifically all the variations of “fundamentalist” and the way they talk about “Evangelicals.” The former carries such heavy connotations that I dislike claiming to be one (and I call on others like me to coin something far better!), while the latter has been hijacked by theological liberals, so whatever it once meant is gone now with the sands of time.

It’s hard for me to review a book like this, because I don’t want to just spout my own opinions on the subject matter without giving the book itself its proper place. So I’ll just summarize my thoughts quickly: I agree wholeheartedly with Woodbridge’s premise that the God-breathed Word is fully inerrant in its whole or in its parts (and in the translations that we have, though I disagree that the KJV is the only inerrant version). I fully understand how theological liberalism has crept into “New Evangelical” churches, specifically by chipping away at that foundational premise of inerrancy. What I can’t wrap my mind around is the Woodbridge’s demand for second-, third-, and sometimes even fourth-degree separation from true Evangelicals, true believers in the Word who willfully rub shoulders with people who might condone theological liberalism. I understand God’s admonition, “Be holy for I am holy,” yet I also can’t wrap my mind around calls for separation from believers whose opinions and standards differ from our own, when they themselves aren’t unbiblical.

I had never heard of Dr. Charles Woodbridge before reading this book, but I am well familiar with his publisher, Bob Jones University, and their being a bastion of fundamentalism. From Woodbridge’s background published in this book, he seems to be a high-end scholar who simply got fed up with Evangelical compromise, so he penned this diatribe against the impending evil. He writes well as a scholar, and his detractors would be hard-pressed to contradict his use of the Word, yet at some points he exudes that sense of “grumpy old man” when he harshes against female emotions, Charleton Heston’s The Ten Commandments, and folky guitar strumming. Fight for the integrity of the Word, Sir, please! But leave your opinions on ethical compromise to yourself, for these opinions only serve to dampen the true message.

What has annoyed most over the years with regards to this concept of “biblical separation” is when proponents use that word “biblical” so flippantly. The “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude of many fundamentalists is palpable and off-putting, and two times out of three, it ain’t because the Bible says so…unless they’re pulling verses out of context of course. Like the Puritans before them, many old-time fundamentalists drawn lines in the sand where the Bible hasn’t drawn them, as if to say that God’s standards aren’t strict enough. This is why so many people leave these churches, and this is where fourth-degree separation comes from.

Regarding such separation, the author gives an example: If a college president invites a speaker who rubs shoulders with New Evangelicals, then he himself would no longer have anything to do with the school. Note that the New Evangelical is not the heretic, but rather is one who shares the stage with heretics (he never puts it in so many words, but he means Billy Graham). Putting that all down: the author (1) won’t have anything to do with a college president (2) who invites a godly speaker (3) who supports Billy Graham (4) who shares the stage with Catholics (5). And people wonder why it seems that Fundamentalists have all grown up in a bubble! We have, because we separate from everyone that doesn’t share our exact opinions (and even from those who do, but who don’t separate from those who condone people who haven’t separated from people that might consider supporting theological liberalism). It makes one’s head spin.

I am a fundamentalist, and I stand upon the inerrant Word of God. I’m not a KJV-only guy, because I know enough about the fluidity of language, translation, and interpretation to believe that the team in 1611 could do a better job at piecing together their small cache of manuscripts than a team in 2001. I love Christian music of all types, including “folk songs” and “CCM” (because the Bible tells me to, Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). I have Christian friends of all stripes and denominations, but not a single one among them has ever told me or implied to me that they don’t believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God—and if they did, then sure, I would biblically separate. I agree wholeheartedly with Charles Woodbridge that theological liberalism is a poison and an evil that must be fought against for its denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, but I simply cannot accept all the little personal structures he builds upon this very firm foundation. After 38 years in Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches, I find I’ve never been able to accept them.

Dr. Woodbridge identifies the danger of New Evangelicalism, and I do believe it is important that we makes ourselves aware of the dangers. New Evangelicals seek to infiltrate the culture rather than separate from it, and in Woodbridge’s view, this infiltration will inevitably lead downward from toleration to accommodation to cooperation to contamination to capitulation (15). I stand daily on my guard against heresies or threats against the Word and the Gospel, so I do not fear ever accommodating the evil God hates.

I found this book extremely thought-provoking and a powerful battle cry for biblical inerrancy. It has reminded me to consistently bolster my stand on the perfection of God’s Word and to be wary of the “extrabiblical” standards that many Conservative Christians want to force upon their people. This book may appear outdated for its name-dropping of many fundamentalists, new evangelicals, and theological liberals from the 1920-1960s, yet even fifty years later, I recognized many of the names. I would recommend this for I guess anyone across the spectrum from Fundamentalism to the friends of Theological Liberals who wants to understand this Conservative point of view in more detail.

©2020 E.T.