An improper use of the term fundamentalism will create a false narrative that anyone who is opposed to critical race theory, intersectionality, or views Marxism as a threat to the church is merely an unlearned and overzealous right-winged Christian Nationalist who gleans theology from Tucker Carlson rather than Jesus Christ.

The way in which we use words matters. For instance, when we look at the way words morph in the sense of cultural usage, such etymology is indicative of the difficulty to anchor word meaning and word usage. That’s why it’s essential to study words when studying the Bible to understand how those words were being employed in the specific era and context of that biblical text.
In recent days, there has been a resurgence of the word fundamentalism or fundamentalist in blogs and social media as a means of describing or labeling people who oppose social justice or the whole deconstructive agenda within evangelicalism. Some voices are attempting to marginalize people by using the “F” word as a pejorative. David French, in an article that described the 2021 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention referred to a specific group of conservatives as “fundamentalist pirates.” He also used the language of “toxic fundamentalism.” In a similar vein, Thomas S. Kidd writing for The Gospel Coalition concludes:
And our current problems reflect yet another instance of people in churches being discipled far more by cable news and social media than by the church. The “spirit” of fundamentalism tells us that no difference, politically or theologically, is tolerable, and that our enemies must be destroyed. The spirit of Christ offers a better way: robust truth and robust kindness.
If such voices are left unchecked, it will mainstream the narrative that such groups are irrelevant or irrational in our present era of church history. An improper use of the term fundamentalism will create a false narrative that anyone who is opposed to critical race theory, intersectionality, or views Marxism as a threat to the church is merely an unlearned and overzealous right-winged Christian Nationalist who gleans theology from Tucker Carlson rather than Jesus Christ.
In short, it’s a smear campaign used as a power-grab agenda in order to control the narrative and retain power in specific circles of evangelicalism. To be clear, such a narrative will never win the day. Truth will prevail.
Fuddy-Duddy Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism was originally a term that described men who held to the fundamentals of the faith and opposed the modernist movement that attacked holy Scripture. When the tsunami of German higher criticism swept through the church, a band of scholars took up their swords for war. They sought to prove that modernism and Biblical Christianity were not in the slightest means compatible. This historic stand was viewed as the fruit of the Reformation, and men like J. Gresham Machen (the New Testament scholar) were men who became known as fundamentalists. To be clear, Machen didn’t embrace the title “fundamentalist” in the fullest sense. He explained:
Thoroughly consistent Christianity, to my mind, is found only in the Reformed or Calvinist Faith; and consistent Christianity, I think, is the Christianity easiest to defend. Hence I never call myself a “Fundamentalist”…what I prefer to call my self is not a “Fundamentalist” but a “Calvinist”—that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church’s life—the current that flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, and which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the other representatives of the “Princeton School.”1
Although he attempted to define his positions apart from the fundamentalist movement, Machen is remembered historically as a fundamentalist for his valiant stand for truth. Over time the very term “fundamentalism” morphed into a banner for legalism rather than a banner of truth, and still to this day if you call someone a fundamentalist—it’s likely used as a term of derision rather than a compliment, much like the word Pharisee moved from a title of respect to a banner of legalism.
Read More
Related Posts:

Micah’s prophecy resounds with the hope of redemption and restoration. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah quote Micah to reiterate his prophetic promise that even though “Zion shall be plowed as a field” and “Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins,” nevertheless “in the latter days” the “mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established” and “all nations shall flow to it” (Isa. 2:2–4; Jer. 26:17–19; Mic. 3:12–4:3). 

The prophecy of Micah is the sixth of the twelve Minor Prophets. His three oracles (Mic. 1:2–2:13; 3:1–5:15; 6:1–7:20) predicted the judgment of the Lord on the rebellious Northern Kingdom of Israel, rebuked the prevailing injustices of the prosperous Southern Kingdom of Judah, and proclaimed the hope of the promised coming Messiah.
1. Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah and Hosea and shared in their message of calling Israel to repentance.
Micah ministered during the second half of the eighth century BC during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, a generation after the prophets Amos and Jonah. These were tumultuous days. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser sacked Samaria, conquered Israel, and threatened Judah. The rich oppressed the poor. Political corruption, cultural decline, and spiritual declension ran rampant. Like all the other prophets, Micah, Isaiah, and Hosea shared a common message calling God’s chosen people to repentance. Like Zechariah, the message was to declare the words, statutes, and commandments of the Lord that the people might be overtaken and repent (Zech. 1:6). Like Joel, the message was that they might put on sackcloth and lament (Joel 1:13). Like Ezekiel, the message was that they might repent and turn from all their transgressions lest iniquity be their stumbling block (Ezek. 18:30). This is the constant refrain of hope in the prophets:
Zion shall be redeemed by justice,and those in her who repent, by righteousness.” (Isa. 1:27)
Of course, Micah’s message of repentance was not exactly a welcome one—even if it was a refrain of hope. It wasn’t in the days of the prophets, and it still isn’t today.
2. Because of this native resistance to the message of repentance, the prophets were often cast in the role of God’s “prosecuting attorneys.”
Sometimes, the prosecutorial role of the prophets is very explicit, as it is in Micah’s prophecy (Mic. 6:1–8). You will notice all the elements of a dramatic courtroom scene, with charges brought by the Lord against His chosen people. The case is called from the very throne room of heaven (Mic. 6:1). All of the teeming creation—from the mountains and hills to the very foundations of the earth—is summoned to hear the evidence and bear witness to the proceedings (Mic. 6:2).
Read More
Related Posts:

There is nothing in the Enneagram that exposes us to true the knowledge of our utterly bankrupt evil nature and the good gifts which come only from the God Who is truly holy. The Enneagram doesn’t reveal our sinful condition, separation from God, His holiness, His love for us, and provision for salvation. 

Christians hold a general idea that the indwelling Holy Spirit will completely protect them from being deceived. This idea is taken from a portion of John 16:13:
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…
There are two fundamental problems with attempting to use the passage in this way. The first problem is the context. As with all passages in scripture, context must be considered to gain a proper understanding of the text in question. The context of this verse is the coming persecution (John 16:1-4a) of the disciples after Jesus’ departure, the work of the Holy Spirit to help them in that regard—once He is sent to them (John 16:4b-11). How would the Holy Spirit help them in that regard? Jesus explained the type of truth the Spirit would guide them into that would help them through this devastating and discouraging time ahead:
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.(John 16:13)
The disciples would need the Spirit’s presence and close guidance to keep them from falling away from their mission. (John 16:1) This is part of a much longer narrative by Jesus, which the Apostle John began in chapter thirteen. Jesus was preparing the disciples for rough days ahead and “the things that are to come.”
Second, even if this admonition was aimed not at the disciple’s immediate need but at all Christians in all times ahead, there is nothing in the context that states or implies believers will necessarily follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Christians may allow—and do allow—themselves to be deceived in spite of warnings of the Holy Spirit and the word of God. There are numerous warnings in the New Testament to believers that had been deceived.1 Paul’s challenge to the Galatians who were believers that had been deeply deceived is direct and to the point:
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.(Galatians 3:1)
Any of us can be deceived, particularly if we ignore the guidance of the Holy Spirt and the word of God. Reading Thomas Nelson’s latest contribution to the world of the Enneagram within the Evangelical church is a reminder of the importance of guarding against deception. We do not doubt the sincerity of Meredith Boggs, the author of The Journey Home: A Biblical Guide to Using the Enneagram to Deepen Your Faith and Relations (Meredith Boggs, Thomas Nelson; January 24, 2023). However, someone can be very sincere and yet be sincerely wrong—which can lead from self-deception to having a role in deceiving still others. The Apostle Paul warns Timothy of this truth in 1 Timothy 3:13:
…while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
There are “evil people” and “imposters” (pretenders to the faith) who intentionally deceive. Then there are those deceived by these intentional deceivers, who unintentionally deceive still others. Has Meredith Boggs been deceived, or is the Enneagram truly a spiritual tool God uses to supplement the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the word of God? The reader will have to decide.
In the Introduction of her book, Boggs begins “the bottom line” with:
The Enneagram is not the gospel.2
On that, at least, we completely agree. The second one is somewhat mixed:
The Enneagram can help you grow personally and spiritually, but don’t use it to replace God’s Word. That will lead you astray more than any cult.3
Anecdotally, it may be that Boggs and others believe they have grown personally or possibly even spiritually while using the Enneagram, but correlation does not imply causation. Could someone’s marriage improve as they started talking together after being introduced to the Enneagram? Sure, that could happen. But did it improve because of the Enneagram or because they began talking to each other? The Enneagram has not been demonstrated to be a valid profiling tool. Jay Medenwaldt performed the only valid psychometric test to date, and in his General Conclusion, wrote:
Unless you’ve done graduate work in psychometrics, the scientific data probably doesn’t mean a whole lot to you (which is why there are two parts to this article). For those who have studied psychometrics, it’s a no-brainer that the enneagram simply cannot do all its proponents claim it can. Any scientist who studies personality would simply look at the reliability scores and conclude the test is not accurate enough to be helpful, and therefore, they wouldn’t use it because the potential for harm will be too high.
Medenwaldt sees absolutely no reliability in the Enneagram and, in fact, warns of its potential for harm. Medenwaldt is not the only source of research on the Enneagram. Boggs, in Footnote #1 of Chapter Two on page 16, cites:
The WEPSS (Wagner Enneagram Personality Style Scales) test has been statistically validated, and that’s the one I recommend. For more information, see the Resources section.4
We have no doubt someone communicated this idea to Boggs, and she believed it, but there is no evidence the claim is true. In “The reliability and validity of the Open Enneagram of Personality Scales,”  Kayleigh Kastelein wrote on page 5:
With small sample sizes, weak support from factor analysis, and low quantity of studies, there is not enough support for reliability and validity of the WEPSS for it to be considered a strong assessment of the Enneagram.
The American Journal of Psychiatry raises similar concerns in their General Conclusions:
We advise caution in integrating these concepts too quickly, as the Enneagram is more complex than this brief overview suggests. We hope to expand on this overview in future papers targeted specifically at the practical value of the Enneagram for medical education and clinical psychotherapy.5
Read More
Related Posts: