Early next week I intend to post some thoughts on the article in the current 9Marks E-Journal that I find most intriguing. Until then, I'm really curious to hear which of the 19 answers to the question, "What can we learn from the fundamentalists?" you most agree with . . . and which you agree with least.
I'm still making up my mind. But what do YOU think.
27 comments:
Overall, I thought the answers were completely predictable and, therefore, largely not interesting or useful.
Nevertheless, to someone unaquainted with the history of the intramural conflict between the fundamentalists and the evangelicals -- someone who mistakenly assumes that the fundamentalists were/are all drooling idiots who want to forcefully impose tyranical religion on everyone -- all of the answers help to establish a more accurate understanding.
I think the Best answers were:
#1 Timothy George (especially his observation about fundamentalist reductionism -- a fault shared by evangelicals but which Doran, in his article on T4G, lays at the feet of the evangelicals alone)
#2 Mark Noll (his specifics, both positive and negative, are right on track and useful)
#3 Paul Lim (especially his observation, and commendation, of the broad based, ecumenical make up of the original group of fundamentalists. Something else that Doran's T4G article seems to lay at the feet of the evangelicals alone).
There was also a not altogether bad answer from some guy named Ben something.
I thought George's charge reductionism was misguided. Notice how he mentions the Trinity as proof, as if the trinity is not a fundamental of the faith. That was certainly a strange charge to me.
Noll's comments were a bit confusing as well. He denounces a normal hermeneutic, which is certainly not limited to fundamentalism. But more interesting to me, he talks about the "mistake of treating some other practice, belief, habit, or even concept of doctrine as more important than living by God’s free grace in Jesus Christ."
What does mean by "other"? Other than what? And "living by God's free grace in Christ" is another statement of confusion apart from definition. Is living by God's free grace in Christ more important than anything else? I wouldn't think so.
Paul Lim didn't even answer the question.
On the other hand, I thought David Wells comments were interesting, as were Darryl Hart's.
Here comes the fun!
How is George's criticism of reductionism misguided? You have seen most fundamentalist doctrinal standards. Do they come anywhere near the comprehensiveness of the Westminster Confession, the Three Forms of Unity, or the London Baptist Confession -- to name but a few?
I believe he mentions the Trinity not to imply that fundamentalists rejected belief in the Trinity, but rather to point out that they did not focus on the doctrine explicity in the fundamentals or in the standards of their fellowships.
Noll doesn't say anything for or against a normal hermeneutic. He addresses a "naively literalistic hermeneutic." Such a hermeneutic is not the sole possession of the fundamentalists, but it is a common (not universal) characteristic of those claiming the name fundamentalist.
By "other" Noll clearly means treating ANYTHING as more important than "living by God's free grace in Christ." How can you wonder whether living in Christ by grace is the most important thing? What could be more important?
It's misguided because it heads in the wrong direction and is internally inconsistent with his own argument. Comparing most fundamentalist doctrinal standards to the WCF is hardly an apt comparison in my judgment. That is not the direction that a discussion of the fundamentals should be headed. But even at that, a great number of fundamentalists hold to something like the 2nd LBC or the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, both of which are very extensive, and address far more than the "fundamentals."
But fundamentalism was not about extensive "answer all" confessions, but about the core doctrines. As many note, fundamentalism began as an interdenominational movement where some measure of doctrinal reductionism was necessary. George talks about working together across denominational lines (something that necessitates some reduction in doctrine). So to me, it rings hollow to complain about doctrinal reductionism while praising the thing that necessitates doctrinal reductionism.
On Noll and the "naively literalistic hermeneutic," when you look at how he defines that (creation science, premillennial dispensationalism), it is clear that he is going after what is normally called a normal hermeneutic. It is hardly naively literalistic to be a premillennial dispensationalist or to be a young earth creationist, even though these positions might not fit Noll's personal beliefs. "Naively literalistic" seems but a back-handed slam on all who disagree with him. When all else fails, simply tar them with "naively literalistic."
As for what is more important than living in the free grace of Christ, we could start the list with God himself, his holiness, his character, his plan, all of which are more important than our living, whether in the free grace of Christ or not. Christ himself is certainly more important than living in the free grace of Christ. So his statement is, at best, confusing it seems to me, and probably more reductionist than anything the fundamentalists came up with. Again, in a show of internal inconsistently, he blasts reductionism while reducing everything down to "living by the free grace in Christ."
That's just strange and unconvincing to me.
Well, George may be guilty of contradiction: Praising ecumenism but criticising a reductionism which makes possible the type ecumenism he praises and in which he participates.
However, there is such a thing as an ecumenism which does not produce reductionism -- true interdenominational cooperation. Cooperation that does not require anyone to minimize their denominational distinctives and committments. There is a difference between saying "These secondary things don't matter at all, so let's cast off any concern with them," and "These secondary things are important but they are secondary, so even though we will continue to emphasize them and take fully orbed positions on them, we will cooperate and fellowship with those who take a different position on them." I think this is what Dever is getting at in his discussion of "regular and irregular."
Larry, you say "That is not the direction that a discussion of the fundamentals should be headed," and "Fundamentalism was not about extensive 'answer all' confessions, but about the core doctrines." However, George wasn't trying to discuss what fundamentalism "was about" he was trying to answer what we could learn from its practices in time and space. And, one thing we can learn -- that it appears the T4G guys have learned -- is to avoid allowing cooperation to result in reductionism within denominations and individual churches.
On to Noll. I don't at all think that a "normal" hermeneutic necessitates belief in "creation science" (by which he most likely means young earth, literal 24 hour day, creationism) or dispensationalism. In fact, I think that a normal hermeneutic points away from those positions -- especially from dispensationalism. If that comes from a "normal" hermeneutic then most Christians for most of this history of the church did not read normaly -- an odd definition of normal.
Maybe you are using reductionism in a way that I am not, but it seems clear to me that even at T4G there has to be some reductionism ... not on the gospel, but certainly on other things. I am not saying that's bad necessarily. I am just pointing something out. The fact is that if you are going to get together to promote something, you have to minimize to some degree the areas on which you differ.
As for Noll and normal hermeneutics, if you don't think normal hermeneutics means "there was evening and morning, day one ... etc" indicates twenty four hour days, then "normal" ceases to have any meaning, it seems to me. There's no textual reason to take it any other way, and increasingly we are seeing that there is no scientific reason to take it any other way. As for dispensationalism, again on the core issues, it is hard to argue that the consistent use of a normal hermeneutic would achieve anything but dispensationalism. All the alternatives are built on asserting that the words mean something other than what they would have normally been understood to mean. I think church history has shown that from early on there was a tilt towards allegorical interpretation and spiritualizing of passages. When we look at church history we see that influence. That doesn't mean it was correct. You would like anyone to treat your words the way that they treat Scripture. So I think there are some pretty clear issues on which many people are missing the boat because of their preconceived notions and influences.
So I think those are some core issues, but not necessarily about the topic that Ben here requested discussion about.
You use "normal" to mean "what looks obvious to me."
The words you quote from Genesis are one small phrase -- in translation and out of context. Some inerantist scholars, with a great deal of expertise in and familiarity with the Hebrew language -- familiarity with what would be "normal" for an ancient Israelite (with no concern for modern science)-- don't think that the normal Israelite would have read Genesis 1 and 2 the same way you do. They think there are good textual reasons to read the passage differently than you.
By the way, have you noticed that the passage does not say "there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day." What might that mean?
Asserting that all interpretations other than dispensationalism use something other than the "normal" meaning of the words is just a question begging assertion.
Have people of all interpretative schools likely made mistakes in allegorizing? Sure -- I can think of some doozy allegorical speculations by dispensationalists (The great bear = The Soviet Union, The elements melting = a nuclear bomb, etc.)
That's really beside the point. The point is that the proper interpretation is not always the literal one -- Unless you think Jesus really is a vine and you really are a branch. Therefore, the challenge is to discern the intended meaning. Labelling your chosen interpretation the "normal" one really doesn't prove that it is.
I will happily admit that by linking "naively literal" with dispensationalism and creation science, Noll does inaccurately paint with too broad a brush -- and beg quite a few questions himself. Of course, I'm sure he was given a word count that required merely asserting his opinion more than backing it up.
All that aside, you are correct that we are far afield of Ben's original question. So, I'll just add -- there are things that are more important than our living in Christ, but there is nothing more important for us to do/be -- and leave it at that.
Ben,
Not sure exactly where to ask this question, so I'll just throw it in here.
A couple of weeks back when you first announced the imminent arrival of the 9marks journal, we had a small give and take about the new form of separatism that the BJU circle must have embraced since Minnick and Doran agreed to contribute to this journal -- along with Mohler (who's cooperated with Billy Graham), etc.
I've read the journal now, and I don't see any explanation of a change from any of the parties. Am I missing it somewhere?
I know the fundamentalist contributors uphold fundamentalism and separatism in their articles. Nevertheless, not long ago that would have been insufficient -- it was not enough to speak the truth, you had to avoid speaking the truth in "compromising" venues. In one sense, merely appearing on this "platform" would have meant turning in one's fundamentalist papers.
I'm happy for the change, will it ever be explained?
Almost two years ago, there was a long conversation about this here: http://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2006/03/20/makujina-review-published-by-christianity-astray/#comments
As the comments show, some agree with Keith that this was some kind of fundamentalist position, while others disagree about that conclusion. I've never seen anything or heard anything that declared the official fundamentalist position that is to be taken by all, so if someone can point me to it, I'd be thankful.
Keith,
I think Dave's right that there has not been a consensus among fundamentalists on this point. But my sense is that you're right that engagements like these raise fewer eyebrows (and provoke fewer complaints) than they used to.
But then, Kevin Bauder took criticism in recent years both for speaking at Beeson to defend fundamentalism and for speaking at an independent, fundamental Presbyterian seminary to defend that level of cooperation. Go figure.
In any case, I don't think Doran and Minnick ought to have to defend their decisions to participate or explain the shifting levels of fellowship (assuming they exist) unless they had rejected similar forums in the past. Other people and institutions have been on both sides of the same issue, and I think your call for intellectual honesty is quite reasonably directed at them.
And of course, the slipperiness of fundamentalism is that there is no official fundamentalist position on anything except the fundamentals [Ben writes with a wink and a nod].
Dave and Ben,
Thanks for the responses.
Reading the link Dave provided makes me think I'm even more correct in my understanding of the BJU wing's historic stance on separatism.
It's not just "some" who agree with my initial perception, it's none other than Chris Anderson (of Ohio) and Don Johnson (of Canada not Miami). These guys, I think, would be perceived as occupying the opposite end of the fund-evan spectrum from me. Yet, we share the same perspective. That perspective had to come from somewhere.
Dave, as Ben notes, there is no way to point you to an official fundamentalist position since there is no official fundamentalist synod, assembly, court, or publication. Nevertheless, with a little work, I bet we could find sermons, newsletter articles, and other evidence that appearing on a platform with an SBC pastor/church and Billy Graham supporters has been regarded as taboo. In the BJU wing of fundamentalism (which is the only segment I mentioned), even appreciating MacArthur was frowned upon a couple of decades ago -- and he's a lot more separatist than these SBC guys.
Ben, I don't think Doran or Minnick ought to "have to" explain their participation either -- at least to the public at large (which includes me). They are accountable to their elders but not everyone with internet access. Nevertheless, I think it could be helpful, it could be a blessing to the wider body of Christ, if the apparent change were to be explained.
Dave seems to be explaining it by saying it is no change, but surely he is aware that the BJU wing did not focus exclusively on "ecclesiastical" (as he defines it) separation. What does Minnick, or BJU, where Minnick is a professor, have to say?
Change or no change?
Keith,
I should mention one other factor in this discussion. Fundamentalists, perhaps as much as the Neo-evangelical patriarchs, have been enslaved by a fear of man.
You're right when you say there's no official synod or presbytery to hold a person accountable for straying outside the invisible fence of fundamentalist orthodoxy. But many fundamentalists seem to have displayed over the decades a remarkable lust for approval from those who subtly define the parameters of the fence.
Some did cross the fence and payed the price, but it seems that the price was primarily lost relationships--relationships they probably didn't need as much as they thought they would. More could be said about that, but I doubt it would be helpful.
In any case, I'm grateful, whether it's because 1) Minnick and Dever are willing to pay that price, 2) the fence has been moved so they won't have to, 3) Minnick and Dever will now cause the lined to be moved by the weight of their character and credibility, or 4) the fence was a figment of our imagination all along. Any of those outcomes are welcome.
Hey Ben,
I just read your contribution to the 9 Marks eJournal - nice work!
Keith,
I don't think contributing to a journal in which you are giving a Fundamentalist perspective is the same thing as speaking on a platform with a Billy Graham supporter.
A Fundamentalist pastor friend of mine has spoken at a few different American Baptist Churches over the years - with the express purpose of seeking to educate those congregations regarding the error of the American Baptist Church and to encourage them to come out. (Sometimes at the request of the Pastor and other times at the request of members of a church board when the church was without a pastor.) The problem is not with contending for the faith in a hostile environment. It is with fellowshipping in that environment while giving the appearance that the problems in that environment are "no big deal."
Frank
Frank,
I believe that you don't think contributing to this journal is the same as sharing a platform with SBC members and Billy Graham supporters. And, that's great.
Nevertheless, I think that in the past some big name leaders of fundamentalist institutions would have treated it the same -- regardless of what was written.
Furthermore, what was written hardly has the feel of "contending in a hostile environment". Sure, the fundamentalists who contributed to this evangelical journal praise fundamentalism -- they aren't ashamed of their name. However, there is no written equivalent of the preacher shouting "compromisers!" Doran heaps praise on Piper before offering some suggestions --instead of clear cut, impossible to misunderstand calls for immediate separation. No one gets labeled a heretic.
Again, I'm happy for the change I'm perceiving. I'm just curious as to how it came about and what the fundamentalists are hoping to accomplish by it.
Keith,
You said, Nevertheless, I think that in the past some big name leaders of fundamentalist institutions would have treated it the same -- regardless of what was written.
I am curious if you could think of any specific example of this. I cannot think of examples of this in mainstream fundamentalism (e.g. AACCS type institutions and churches) where a person was ripped by the leadership for declaring a Fundamentalists perspective in this type of thing. (Granted, I can't think of a lot of "these type of things" :) ). Dr. Kevin Bauder's contribution in Sawdust Trail is the only one that immediately comes to mind, but I don't recall him being banished for it.
Since I cannot think of some examples, I would appreciate your help in providing some examples before we tar them as being "inconsistent." (But we'll keep the tar warm just in case :) ).
Frank
Keith,
Since you mentioned me in this thread I think I'll chime in.
I agree with Frank that the simple fact of appearing in a journal article is not the same as appearing on a platform. It is also not the same (to me) as being a MEMBER of an organization, although this may depend on the nature of the organization and the requisites/duties of membership.
And of course, there was some trepidation in this fundamentalist's heart when I heard about the upcoming ejournal. I wondered what would be said. I am thankful that for the most part the fundamentalist contributors maintained their philosophy and appealed to an evangelical constituency for change. That is not to say I was completely satisfied with everything in the publication, but satisfied enough.
***
I also wanted to add a comment on your back and forth with Larry, although he is perfectly capable of defending himself. You made this comment:
You use "normal" to mean "what looks obvious to me."
I don't think that is what Larry was doing. He was using the term "normal" as Ryrie does in his Basic Theology, where "normal" is a synonym for "literal" or "plain" as a method of hermeneutics. None of the terms are quite adequate to describe the method but they are generally the ones that are used. I think you were missing his point on that one.
FWIW
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Frank,
Before writing anything else, I want to emphasize that I am not looking to tar anyone for inconsistency. Change is not the same as inconsistency and change is not always bad.
Now on to your request for examples of fundamentalists being "ripped" for this type of thing. I'll begin by pointing out that neither you nor I can think of "a lot of 'these types of things'". To me that says something. To me that is one big piece of evidence that there has been an ethos which made it clear that participation in these type of things was not an approved strategy.
I've already admitted that the evangelicals were probably glad to refrain from inviting fundamentalits participation in this type of thing -- if they even knew the fundamentalists existed. Even so, I believe the fundamentalists actively contributed to their own invisibility.
Now, for a few examples that I think are somewhat analagous:
1) Jerry Falwell's fundamentalist credentials became suspect (or were removed depending on who you were talking to) because of participating in political activism with evangelicals.
2) John MacArthur was not sent articles praising his independency and soul winning on the west coast that contained friendly proposals for clarifying his position on "the Blood" and separation -- he was enthusiastically labelled a heretic and the fundamentalist faithful were instructed not to listen to him on the radio.
3) Jack Wyrtzen and Word of Life weren't participated with cautiously. They were mostly made to disappear in the shadow of purely fundamentalist camps.
4) More than one BJU student's life was made difficult for considering attendance at Dallas Theological Seminary or The Masters Seminary.
5) I think Bauder actually was criticized for interacting with Mouw.
6) Several fundamentalist big shots (Chris, Don, ,and others -- they're big shots aren't they?) guys questioned a Central Seminary professor merely submitting an article to Christianity Today.
I could probably provide others. But, again, again, again, I am not trying to criticize the past. I am not even trying to prove that this is a completely new phenomenon or a 180 degree change. I am just saying that it appears to be a new approach -- an approach that has not been standard practice in the past. I like it, and I am asking what led to the change. I'd also like to understand the change.
Keith, you can't be serious???
big shots???
It is a good thing I wasn't drinking any coffee.
I don't know about Chris, but I am hardly a big shot. Try loud mouth, and you will be closer to the truth.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Frank wrote:
"I cannot think of examples of this in mainstream fundamentalism (e.g. AACCS type institutions and churches) where a person was ripped by the leadership for declaring a Fundamentalists perspective in this type of thing."
Frank,
I can think of someone being ripped by leadership and ultimately having to withdraw from a speaking engagement for far less than what happened in this Journal.
Ben
P.S. My above comment has nothing to do with a youth pastors' training conference.
Don,
Couldn't respond to your first comment until now due to work. But, the work day's over now (until I start on my homework).
1) I hope it was ok to mention you. If not, I ask your forgiveness.
2) I agree that appearing in a journal is not the "same" as appearing on a platform. However, there are many ways in which it can be similar. Surely there's nothing more inherently sacred about the vehicle for the spoken word (platform) than about the vehicle for the written word (journal). To cut to the chase on this issue: Would hard-line fundamentalists like you (I'm trying to be descriptive at the moment not pejorative) think it ok for Doran and Minnick to appear on a literal platform in an SBC church, hosted by an SBC pastor, to present what they've written? If spoken in that context, would what's been written feel like, and be regarded as, prophetic calls to abandon disobedience or as friendly conversations? Would it be viewed as acceptable? If so great. But don't you think that's a change?
3) I'm aware of how Dispensationalists like Ryrie use the word "normal." And, I assumed that's what Larry was referring to. What I said to Larry applies similarly to Ryrie. I'm not trying to be harsh, and I realize the difficulty of coming up with terminology to describe hermeneutic approaches. I just don't think "normal" is a good choice -- even if it comes from a giant like Ryrie. Normal conotes "correct" and the entire debate is over what interpretation is correct.
On to your second comment . . .
4) Come on. You aren't a big shot? You mean that's why you weren't one of the 19 guys who were asked what we can learn from guys like you? I thought you must have been tied up in big shot meetings or had some other big shot obligation that prevented you from accepting the invitation. Well, you're a big shot in fundamentalist blogworld -- isn't that what matters?
Frank wrote:
"I cannot think of examples of this in mainstream fundamentalism (e.g. AACCS type institutions and churches) where a person was ripped by the leadership for declaring a Fundamentalists perspective in this type of thing."
Ben wrote:
I can think of someone being ripped by leadership and ultimately having to withdraw from a speaking engagement for far less than what happened in this Journal.
Ben,
Could you give me specifics? I am not saying that it is not a lesser thing than this, but without knowing, it is hard to say.
I would tend to think that it is likely that my "this type of thing" and your "far less" are probably not on the same wave length, based on similar internet discussions with folks over the last couple of years - not necessarily with you, but in other locations.
In other words, if we could see some specific examples of this, we could evaluate if it truly is different. Without it, we are talking about a nebulous accusation that may or may not be "far less." It is not an infrequent thing to see an institution or person accused of making a decision for petty reasons only to find out that there was actually a good reason behind the decision - and that reason is often different than the reason presented by the one who accuses the institution.
(By the way, sometimes this is not always because a person is being purposely deceitful in presenting his case - sometimes it is simply because person X does not understand person/institution Y's reason for the decision. For instance, I have been on both sides of this equation in dealing with issues with my mom over the years - times when I did not understand her reason and thought she was being petty or had bad reasoning and times when she did not understand my reasons and thought I was not doing something for a completely different reason than I was not doing something.)
Frank
Frank,
I could, and I really would love to, but I'm choosing not to--not to protect those who criticized, but because I respect the person who received the criticism and doubt that raising the details of the situation would be helpful to him.
If that causes you to discard my argument, I'll accept that. No big deal.
Keith,
Thank you for responding.
I don't want to rehash all of these examples, but I think it should be easy to discern there are some differences.
In none of the cases mentioned is there an aspect of presenting a
Fundamentalist perspective in a non-Fundamentalist setting. In most of those cases, the issue was not that Falwell (for instance) wanted to proclaim a Fundamentalist position on abortion, but that he wanted to link up with others against abortion in a religious/moral coalition, etc.
As far as Bauder being criticized by those in mainstream Fundamentalism, I am/was unaware of it.
In regards to the CT article, I am still not sure about the wisdom of it, but I would note, first of all, that even the post from Chris and most of the thread indicates that Chris (etc.) was not sure what to think either - http://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2006/03/20/makujina-review-published-by-christianity-astray/
, which is surely a long way from blasting such a person and second of all, I would suggest (again) that there is a difference between presenting a Fundamentalist perspective in a non-Fundamentalist setting versus simply contributing to the non-Fundamentalists setting. (Although I am still not clear if I have a problem with either situation.)
I hope that clarifies some. Probably not. :)
Frank
Ben,
I can respect that.
I am not trying to be difficult (I guess it just comes naturally :) )
Frank
Keith,
Oh, it's ok to mention me. I put my thoughts out in public on blogs, so I am fair game! (Not that I think you were being critical.)
I was thinking about this as I painted my bathroom this afternoon (third attempt to get the colour right... I have a love/hate relationship with renovating.) I think that you are right that there is somewhat of a change with respect to how something like this is being viewed.
1. Doubtless there will be some who criticize it, regardless.
2. Some, like me, were reserving judgement until it came out. What was said and how it was said could represent to me unacceptable changes that could affect my view/relationship with those involved. I am glad to say that with respect to the two 'big names' involved, I wasn't disappointed. Both presented challenges to the conservative evangelicals with a view to seeing them change. [My impression is that Doran may be more optimistic than Minnick on this, but maybe I'm misreading it.]
3. Re the scenario of presenting similar material in an SBC church or gathering of some kind. For me, this, too, would 'depend'. Furthermore, I am not sure that a platform like that would be the best place to bring about the desired changes. Most likely this can only come over time by personal contacts and influence by written word. There is usually something about where someone speaks and with whom. Sometimes the 'how' can mitigate the negative impact that might otherwise ensue, but this is rare.
In support of this notion, just think about international diplomatic relations. Who you appear with matters. Who you have your picture taken with matters. I am not sure why Christians don't get this when it comes to Christian associations. Who you hang with matters.
4. On the word "normal" I offered the comment since it didn't appear you were understanding Larry that way. I agree that it isn't the best word to describe the method, neither is "literal". "Literal" can be taken to mean that we never allow for symbolism and figures of speech. "Normal" encompasses that, but has the weakness you mention.
5. As a big shot in the blogging world - Once I dreamed of taking over the blogs. I had a plan ... but it has been dashed by my obvious lack of influence. I am reduced to making loud noises.
~~~
One more comment on the 9Marks Journal. I was thinking about all the evangelical contributors. The individuals selected were interesting. Many of them were definitely not in the 'conservative' wing as in Mohler/Dever. (Think especially Noll...) I wonder whether the lessons taken from fundamentalism would instruct Mohler/Dever, et al, to make sharper distinctions between themselves and Noll, etc? I doubt it.
Efforts like this are far more about persuading fundamentalists than about persuading evangelicals, in my opinion.
That is why I was concerned in the anticipation and relieved in the presentation. I don't think Minnick is moving anywhere. He is offering a suitable challenge, but one which I think will likely go unheeded by those to whom he offers it.
Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Post a Comment