Parchment & Pen Blog

1. Barry Wallace says:

   November 10, 2009 at 9:02 pm

   Like or Dislike: 0

   Definitely centralist
2. jigawatt says:

   November 10, 2009 at 10:03 pm

   Like or Dislike: 0

   I’m roasting #4 marshmallows, but there are still some questions. The primary one in my mind is, “Which doctrines are essential and how do you know that?” I have some ideas about the answer, but I’d like to hear other’s opinions.

   BTW, I don’t think you meant “Let’s unit around the central issues”. But maybe so.
3. Rey Reynoso says:

   November 10, 2009 at 10:20 pm

   Like or Dislike: 0

   Interesting because I think someone can be in the same campfire and still be very very different from the person sitting across from them. I mean, where would you place Karl Barth? And yet….
4. Dan Olinger says:

   November 10, 2009 at 10:59 pm

   Like or Dislike: 0

   Michael,

   As a fundamentalist, I don’t find your ascription of maximalism to fundamentalism accurate–though I don’t deny that there are maximalists, and that many of them call themselves fundamentalists. The fundamentalists I know understand the difference between diaphora and adiaphora. There’s been careful work on defining the fundamentals so as to avoid having to separate over every little thing. Specifically, fundamentalists–at least those I know–have avoided separation over such matters as eschatology, ecclesiology (govt, ordinances, etc), and even soteriology (Calvinism / Arminianism, e.g.).

   I don’t deny that fundamentalists and evangelicals have differed substantially and consistently over the whole question of separation at all, as Ockenga recognized more than 60 years ago. But that is not to say that fundamentalists separate over everything. As a former evangelical, I can understand how it might look that way to evangelicals, but there’s ample documentation to the contrary.

   Best wishes.

   Dan Olinger
   Chair, Div of Bible
   Bob Jones University
5. C Michael Patton says:

   November 10, 2009 at 11:55 pm

   Like or Dislike: 0

   Thanks Dan. I get in trouble every time I attempt to place people or, even, movements as most are going to have a different perspective. I appreciate your controbution here and hope that people read it.
6. JohnO says:

   November 11, 2009 at 3:46 am

   Like or Dislike: 0

   None of the above.
   I’m probably what you might define as a ‘bungee’ theologian (that’s the strong elastic cord in case you’re wondering). Or perhaps a ‘moving centrist/alist’. I don’t think we can settle in a position because we always exist in dynamic tension. Whenever we get pulled too far in a particular direction, there should always be a corrective that ensures we re-consider the validity of other positions.

   Rey,
   I think Barth may fall into such a category – he was highly contextual and his dialectic approach was to ensure there was always that dynamism in faith and doctrine.
7. j says:

   November 11, 2009 at 4:58 am

   Like or Dislike: 0

   cmp-

   who are examples of “pop evangelicals” ?

   I first thought of MacArthur and Piper, but as popular as they are, they don’t seem to be what you have in mind.

   Maybe I would think of your examples as “pop theologians” ?
8. Mindaugas says:

   November 11, 2009 at 5:32 am

   Like or Dislike: 0

   I’d add one more to my list – ‘Theological Centrist who thinks he’s Theological Centralist’
9. John says:

   November 11, 2009 at 7:15 am

   Like or Dislike: 0

   I don’t recognise Eastern Orthodoxy as either Maximalist nor Centralist, at least as a protestant defines it.

   The flaw in the whole thing is that the centralist assumes that modern evangelicalism provides the reference point for the centre.

   Eastern Orthodoxy might recognise centralism where the essentials are those things that historically have been central… not those things that seem central now.

   Or we might propose a fifth position, which is “We have an authority which decides what is central and what isn’t”. It doesn’t mean everything is central, nor does it mean some kind of modern scholastic or protestant or supposed common sense decides the central things. Rather we have a tradition which tells us which is which. What is central is rarely what modern protestantism says it is, but neither is everything essential either.
10. rick says:

    November 11, 2009 at 7:53 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    As one who leans towards paleo-orthodoxy, #4 is my campfire.
11. Bryan Cross says:

    November 11, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Michael,

    What, for a “centralist,” is the principled basis for distinguishing between “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines of the Christian faith? If you say “person and work of Christ,” does that leave the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Church, and the other parts of the Creed out as non-essential? If not, then can’t just about everything be connected in some way to the person and work of Christ? In other words, what is the principled basis for distinguishing between that which is sufficiently connected to the “person and work of Christ” such that it too is essential, from that which is not sufficiently connected to the “person and work of Christ” so that it is not essential.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan
12. Dan Olinger says:

    November 11, 2009 at 9:17 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Bryan,

    I think your question introduces two different core issues:

    1. Should believers distinguish between “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines? Is there biblical basis for such a distinction? and

    2. If so, how should believers decide what is essential and what is not?

    There’s been a lot of thinking and writing within fundamentalism on both of these questions, since they speak to the very distinctions of that group. Let me suggest a couple of ideas just as examples.

    1. The Bible seems to make an issue of certain key ideas while maintaining intentional ambiguity about others. Compare the “anathema” passages, for example, with the apparent lack of attention to the details of church government. This characteristic and others seem to provide a basis for some type of distinction.

    2. Several proposals have suggested a more specific basis for distinguishing essential doctrines from those on which soul liberty should be extended. One that I’ve found very helpful is an analysis of what C.H. Dodd (no conservative, of course) called the kerygma, the apostolic preaching in Acts. A careful study of those sermons yields a remarkably uniform pattern of key ideas, which we might assume to be the foundational ones to the faith–

    deity of Christ
    salvific cross work
    bodily resurrection, as witnessed
    reliability of Scripture / fulfillment of prophecy
    and so forth

    Church historians have observed that the seminal early 20th-century series *The Fundamentals* was defined more by the doctrines under attack at the time than by a more dispassionate analysis of the key biblical ideas. If that’s the case, then we might expect the latter list to differ somewhat in content or at least in emphasis. But that series was an excellent start.

    Dan
13. Michael says:

    November 11, 2009 at 9:26 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Here we go again: fundamentalists are narrow-minded anti-intellectuals. You respond graciously to Dan Olinger but refuse to change the description in your post. I know many fundamentalists and some most definitely fall into the maximalist category (though I wouldn’t say “most”), but there are many who fall into the centralist category. But of course, the only perception that matters is CMP’s, whether it reflects reality or not.
14. Cadis says:

    November 11, 2009 at 9:33 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Seeing as I’m a fundamentalist but certainly would not put myself down as option #1, obviously! I’ll say this I will only toast marshmallows with those who are trustworthy enough to handle the word of God with care, who have enough common sense to understand what is a major issue or denominator that will effect or corrupt the whole, If they cannot do that then I don’t feel safe around an open fire pit with someone who is just wildly flailing around a pointed stick. Or another one I hate is a unruly kid tossing whatever they can get their hands on into the fire, including glass bottles and toads…yeah, I guess I can be picky about camp fires.
    I would tend to think Dan Olinger’s “perspective” on the “normal” fundamentalists view towards separation would be trustworthy but maybe he does not have a good outside view of it..who knows.
    I probably would be more toward a maximalist position but I don’t “fight over every crumb” and I do not see “All issues equally” but I do think there are some very important issues that sometimes cannot be worked out and the natural result is division in the camp and sometimes you just have to put the unruly kid to bed for no other reason then he is a pain in the neck.
15. #John1453 says:

    November 11, 2009 at 10:16 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I have to agree with those that take issue with CMP’s continual disparaging of fundamentalists, and so CMP’s take on them lacks credibility. Applying CMP’s previous post on how to lose influence, CMP’s posts that mention fundamentalists are imbalanced, misrepresent them, and show a lack of grace.

    Why was the famous book on anti-intellectualism called “The Closing of the Evangelical Mind”, not “The Closing of the Fundamentalist Mind”? Could it be that it was the evangelical mind that was closed and anti-intellectual?

    Finally, and more importantly, CMP’s inclusion of fundamentalists in the “maximal” category does not even make sense. By definition the fundamentalists focus only on the fundamentals, not on every single doctrine.

    CMP’s continual slamming of fundamentalists is not only inaccurate and biased, but it’s becoming tiresome.

    regards,
    #John
16. Wilson Hines says:

    November 11, 2009 at 11:02 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Michael and Mr. (Dr?) Olinger,

    I have a history of old time Baptist fundamentalism. In my life and theological education I have been a #1 with a capital “#.”

    Let me invoke some names. Dr. Bob Jones, Sr, Dr. Lee Roberson, Dr. Clarence Sexton, Dr. Curtis Hutson, Dr. Jack Hyles.

    Even though I can claim that history in my life, I am now 35 years old and now about as much of a #4 as you can ask for.

    On being a #1, let me put it this way: I left Crown College for one fundamental reason – Dr. Sexton agreed with the idea of putting Dr. Shelton in the Sword of the Lord after Dr. Hutson died. I was a real good friend of Dr. Hutson’s son and I took the appointment of Shelton as a move towards “liberalism.”

    I was a foolish 21 year old child! I regret it. I regret it to the point I recently told Dr. Sexton so, but it has been 15 years. I should have stayed in school and finished and went to seminary and move on in my life. But, the #1 in me was purely destructive, eventually.

    THE POINT is this is how crazy the #1 people are. I can say it, because I used to be involved up to my neck in all of the mess. I am still a Baptist, but I go to a very conservative, fundamental FWB church. They aren’t an “independent Baptist” church, but they might as well be, as it is hardly distinguishable from the indy Baptist way of doing things. In fact, my assoc pastor told me once, “Were Baptist, we’re just not mad about it!” LOL.

    I am so independent minded now that I carry a N/A 27th to SS and Church because I got tired of not being able to see the whole picture. I know some folks in the #1 camp that would stone me for that, alone! I just wish I had taken Hebrew in college (didn’t offer Hebrew) and I could just bind me up a BHS with a N/A 27 and let that be my Bible! (I know a good friend at TTU that did that).

    The difference in my from then (#1) to now (#4) is I’m a whole lot more free and calm minded. I don’t worry why I disagree with someone or some group. I used to think BJU was LIBERAL! HAHA. Half of our faculty went to BJU and I was dating one of their daughters my freshman year. She said she wanted to go to BJU and I scolded the daylights out of her. Poor girl. I’d love to apologize now!

    So, Mr. Olinger…I have been doing research on finishing my degree and going to Seminary for Biblical Languages. I start courses in the Spring to begin the end of the journey of the under grad. Do you reckon the folks at BJU would have a recovering #1 at BJU?

    Thanks for taking the time!
17. Tim Martin says:

    November 11, 2009 at 11:03 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I find that it is better to be dogmatic than catmatic. Catmatic is when you pussy foot around the issues. (Theological minamalist?)
18. Michael says:

    November 11, 2009 at 11:36 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Wilson:

    I posted in one of the previous comment threads a statement by D A Carson about people coming from BJU to TEDS. Many in the Reformed camp are the new fundamentalists in this sense on #1.

    The quote is in comment 7 under this post:

    http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/11/i-get-it-i-was-wrong-i-recant/#comments
19. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 11:38 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    John, reference the post on Fundamentalism to get an understanding of the history. Then you will know the context from which I am speaking. If you want to speak from a different context, then this is ok. Or, if you are tired of it, you can take a nap!

    The critiques against Evangelicalism’s anti-intellectualism is not unlike it was for fundamentalism in the 1940s. Evangelicals have begun to leave our roots, not for legalism, as the Fundamentalists did, but for more of a centrist position, which is becoming known as pop-Evangelicalism.

    Again, reference the previous posts about Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism was supposed to be a movement that focused on the essentials until most everything became essential! That is why the Evangelical movement began!!
20. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 11:42 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Bryan,

    I can only point you to how I distinguish between essentials and non-essentials.

    http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/08/what-are-the-essentials-to-christianity-four-criteria/
21. mbaker says:

    November 11, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Most people I know are a combination of the above, and therefore can’t be so narrowly defined. That’s the big problem I find with wanting to put too specific labels on people, because they generally don’t work in the real world.

    For instance, I tend to be more toward the maximalist side when it comes to considering God’s word as the standard, not someone else’s latest book, sermon or discovery of the week. Yet, I’m more liberal on what I consider non-essentials, which by their very definition are not important to the faith, like hair length, playing cards, alcohol use, and the like. In fact, I think such an over concentration on such things is dangerous, because it can be a distraction. That’s the centralist in me.

    However, the centrist in me thinks when it comes to what other folks call the ‘non-essentials’, I would have to ask how THEY define the word. This is because to the charismatics I know practicing all the spiritual gifts is an essential part of their belief system, but to the cessationists it is a non-essential. Same with election/free will choice, and so on.

    So, I think a lot of it depends on our individual filters, as you, CMP, have already pointed out. If you are a lover of charts, and polls, etc; you will probably look at folks through those eyes, and try to better understand them by categorizing them statistically. On the other hand, if you are very emotional, you will probably tend more toward the experiential type of religion, which isn’t effective to you until it deeply touches yours, or someone else’s, feelings in some meaningful way. If you are very tolerant in your own views you may not have problem with other religion’s dim view of Christians, or other Christians questioning the validity of the Bible. If you are very passionate about political issues and social activism, however, you may view others who disagree with you as either ‘lefties’ or far right ‘extremists’, depending on which side you are on.

    Again, trying to put Christians in any kind of theological order doesn’t work in the real world, no more than gender profiling does, as Lisa pointed out in one of her posts about women in ministry who were outside the traditional feminist issues. I can also call myself a ‘traditional’ Christian when it comes to debating a theistic evolutionist, but that doesn’t mean I can’t think, and believe, outside the traditional box when it comes to other theological issues like OE.
22. #John1453 says:

    November 11, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    re posts 15 and 19 regarding the alleged caricature of fundamentalism

    In some of earlier CMP’s posts he correctly recognizes that evangelicalism has a longer and broader history than fundamentalism. Then he posts a doozy like his comment #19 above, in which he writes “Fundamentalism was supposed to be a movement that focused on the essentials until most everything became essential! That is why the Evangelical movement began!!”

    That is not, historically, either when or why the evangelical movement began. The evangelical movement began in Europe far before the 1940s, and it did not begin as a reaction to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a branch of evangelicalism, one that focuses on a particular view of innerrancy and that believes that separation from secular society and heterodox believers is appropriate.

    A revitalized evangelical movement began in the 1940s with a view to re-engaging in culture and wider Bible scholarship, but still with adherence to the doctrinal fundamentals that were so widely known through the booklet series earlier that century. Nevertheless, it could not be said that evangelicals of that time or in the ensuing decades varied much from the recieved view of inerrancy, which was also accepted by fundamentalists. Consequently, I agree with James Barr that there is a much closer tie between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals than is usually acknowledged.

    One good test of a description of another group is whether members of that group would recognize themselves in that group. Olinger’s and Cadis’ comments indicate that they do not recognize themselves in CMP’s negative description of fundamentalists. What CMP states about fundamentalists is not descriptive of all fundamentalists, not descriptive of the movement historically, not descriptive of the leaders of the movement, etc. It is an unfair distortion of the movement, and an uncharitable overbroad generalization and stereotyping of the movement.

    For a different take, one can go many places, but I would recommend reading the Donald W. Dayton’s brief book review of “Fundamentalism”, by James Barr. Dayton’s book review is titled “Evangelicalism Without Fundamentalism” and appeared in the Christian Century, July 19-26, 1978, pp. 710-713. The article is on line at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1786

    At the time of writing the review, Dayton was associate professor of historical theology at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, Illinois, and chair of the steering committee of the evangelical theology section of the American Academy of Religion. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Among his writings are Theological Roots of Pentacostalism (Scarecrow 1984), Discovering an Evangelical Heritage (Harper & Row 1976), and (editor) Contemporary Perspectives on Pietism (Convent 1976).

    regards,
    #John
23. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    John, in the last post I referred to the modern Evangelical movement as “neo-Evangelicalism.’ That is what I was referring to.
24. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Also John, you must be careful in your studies not to let the exception be the norm or the norm to be the exception. Otherwise you will die of endless qualifications.

    I appreciate that there are Fundamentalists who don’t follow the separationalist mentality or doctrinal maximalism. But I cannot structure my understanding around the exceptions.

    I can, however, be more careful about drawing attention to them.

    I do the same thing with Roman Catholics. There is a general way in which Catholics express and practice their faith. There is somewhat of a stable center and history. Therefore, it is wise for me as a teacher to “label” otherwise words have not meaning.

    This whole postmodern ideal of leaving all labels is not only impossible, but unnecessary. We just need to be careful and accurate. I don’t think that I have misrepresented any of the labels as they are currently understood.
25. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Just as a follow-up, many people today would bemoan the New Testaments (esp. Christ) labeling of Pharisees as those who strain out a gnat and swallowing a camel. It Christ would have put that in a blog post, don’t you think there would be dozens of people coming on (including, possibly, you) saying you cannot label the movement such. “Look at its roots. Look at its exceptions.”

    With the Pharisees of Christ’s day, they had roots that were much purer than their current expression. However they had departed from those roots, not unlike modern Fundamentalism. There were also exception, often notable exceptions. However, this does not keep Christ from “labeling” them and falling into the trap of endless qualification.
26. mbaker says:

    November 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I don’t think labels in themselves are inherently wrong, just some of the assumptions that automatically come with them.

    CMP, let’s take Calvinism for instance. You have labeled yourself a Calvinist, yet you do not identify, at least as I understand you, with the hyper-Calvinistic point of view. Yet, without your qualifying posts and only knowing that you were a reformed Calvinist, or a five point Calvinist, I would think you as a strict fundamentalist because of the broader perception that the label of Calvinism means being separate from other Christians through special election.

    While the Calvinist label might correctly place you into a certain category of general belief, we know from your posts it does not specifically define your position, nor that of many others, who oppose hyper-Calvinism. Nor does it make you a Fundamentalist because you separate yourself from Arminianism as a belief, while embracing Armianians themselves.

    The point is, for the same reasons, we can’t put hyper-Fundamentalism and Fundamentalists who hold to the traditional tenets of the Christian faith in the same category and give an accurate picture of the whole movement either.
27. Cadis says:

    November 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Michael,

    I can’t think of a more run-of-the-mill, drums up visions of stereotypical fundamentalists than BJU.

    I give up, toss me a marshmallow John, but if I start looking like a rained on “Centralist”..well… there was a seat open, so I took it
28. #John1453 says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    CMP’s description of fundamentalists is done without engagment with the historical works by Marsden, Sandeen or Carpenter (“Fundamentalism and American Culture”, “The Roots of Fundamentalism”, and “Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism”, respectively; Marsden also wrote the article on “Fundamentalism” in the Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience). I’m not suggesting the CMP must footnote or mention such works, but he should at least be familiar with the descriptions and typologies used therein before he uses the term “fundamentalism” for a specific group or category of people.

    CMP’s description of fundamentalists has no historical or sociological warrant, does not describe the movement as a whole, and is neither careful (e.g., “Fundamentalsim . . . is why the Evangelicalism movement began!!) nor accurate (e.g.,
    “Most every doctrine is essential . . . Fundamentalists would normally share this perspective”).

    CMP is using the term like a slang reference to those who are closed minded, anti-intellectual and permit no variance from a wide number of beliefs. In that regard he is using the word not in respect of a particular and identifiable American movement and phenomenom, but rather as a synonym for bigotry, fanaticism and anti-intellectualism–much like the writers in the popular media. It is not that there are minor exceptions to CMP’s description, but that CMP’s description is not on the mark in the first place.

    Fundamentalism as a movement includes many significant scholars and pastors who do not fit the bill of CMP’s description and who were admired and followed by the larger masses. Fundamentalism was and is a particular variety of evangelicalism and conservatism that values verbal inerrancy in the Bible, pre-millenial eschatology, is revivalist, accepts a “common sense” realism approach to philosophy, rejects Wesleyan and charismatic or pentacostal approaches to holiness, with a greater focus on the cognitive and thus doctrinal aspects over the experiential elements of faith (though there was no lack of individual Bible reading and prayer and that sort of pietism).

    The issue is not about endless qualifications, but about getting it right in the first place.

    regards,
    #John
29. Cadis says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    There ya go #John, that’s what I would have liked to have said and my last post didn’t read too favorably toward BJU, which was not my intended meaning maybe replace “run-of-the-mill” with “Gold Standard” and “stereotypical” with “fashionable”
30. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I think people vary as to what type of theologian they are with respect to the doctrinal issue that’s under scrutiny. It also depends on whose perspective is being used.

    There are some LibProts who deny the deity and resurrection of Christ. (Not to mention that they also believe that the Bible has errors in it). And I respectfully disagree with them. From their perspective, they may regard me as a theological maximalist. From my perspective, it’s just theological common-sense.

    BTW, I note that you have received some criticism for your criticism of fundamentalists. I’d just like to ask you, CMP, a rather very straightforward question:

    Which of these 5 fundamental doctrines do you disagree with and deny? These doctrines are the the historical basis for fundamentalism.

    (1) The Inerrancy of Scripture
    (2) The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ
    (3) The Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ
    (4) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
    (5) The Physical Return of Jesus Christ
31. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    John,

    Be careful here. I have engaged every major work on Fundamentalism, including much more than what you have listed (you have not even touched on half). Including multiple histories of Evangelicalism.

    You require expressed engagement on all of these for my opinion to be valid, yet you express your opinion in object yet do not engage in any of them as well!!

    I will just leave it at that. Lets get back to the subject of the post. Focus only on the particular categories, not the designation.

    Please remember that even in this original post I qualified some Fundamentalists as being maximalist. I would be willing to stand by that qualification without reserve. In fact, it would better have been stated as “most” Fundamentalists.

    As well, I have more Fundamentalism in my background than just about anyone out there. This does not mean I was ever a Fundamentalist, but I know the movement both historically and personally.
32. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    TuAD,

    What you say is good and needs to be read.
33. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    BTW: TuAD,

    Good to see you!
34. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    mbaker,

    I will grant what you say. I will nuance it a bit though and say that Fundamentalism has become a adj, not a noun. It is the movement away from the noun that has caused the changed. Therefore, Fundamentalism now speaks more to a mindset or mentality. Calvinism is still, primarily, identified with a noun which gives it less ability to morph into something that is was not.
35. Wilson Hines says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Cadis,
    “I can’t think of a more run-of-the-mill, drums up visions of stereotypical fundamentalists than BJU.”

    I am telling you…I have seen it with my own eyes. I know people that think BJU might as well be USC!

    All of this boils down to this one thing: There are so many definitions of things like Fundamentalist, Liberal, neo-evangelical, evangelical and such that it boggles the mind.

    I had a class with a guy that taught most of the history courses and one class I really enjoyed was “Contemporary (we called it “temporary”) Theological Issues” and a class called “Ethics” (in ministry) which he taught it, as well. He used the terms Fundamental, Neo-Evangelical, and Liberal (these three specifically, all the time). He had very specific definitions for these terms. Mostly, it wouldn’t match anybody’s definition here (even our BJU friends).

    One of the main topics in CTIssues was John MacArthur’s early 1990′s issue that came up about the blood of Christ and whether or not the literal blood of Christ was taken to heaven for atonement or if it was all symbolic. I WILL NOT get into that right here. I don’t even care anymore. But, half of the people in that class were perfectly willing to stone MacArthur. BTW, this professor graduation from BJU. I don’t even remember his “stance” and that probably means he never told us. In our “sect,” MacArthur was a liberal and wasn’t to be trusted, listened to or read for devotional or study related to exegesis. Some even would go to the point of saying that the man [em]couldn’t[/em] be saved.

    We, Independent Baptist in general, disdane the thought of being called Evangelical. It was equivalent to throwing tar and feathers on a guy. But, in 90% of the time, IB and Evangelicals lined right up. It was only in things like textual criticism and such that there were forks. The Evangelical was fine with that, but the IBaptist wouldn’t even stand beside you at a Pepsi machine, much less have lunch.

    I’ve seen two independent Baptist churches cease fellowship because one’s church had a pants wearing woman playing the piano on Wednesday night and was fine with that; while the other church leadership said “They’d gone liberal!” No more fellowship, no more softball, no more nothing.

    All I got to say after that is thank God I am out of all of that mess. I am no longer “a Baptist and mad about it!” I am just a Baptist!
36. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Hi CMP,

    Good to see you too. You do good work and your ministry, by and large, is good too. I believe it furthers the Kingdom and is blessed by God.

    Having said all that, I trust that your skin is thick enough and your heart soft enough so that our occasional (and I hope infrequent!) engagment of “iron-sharpening-iron” sparring sessions will be mutually edifying for both of us.

    Pax.
37. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    TuAD,

    All of them. But now you are talking about Fundamentalism in its early 20th century version, which, as I said in the original post on Fundamentalism, 1 time out of 10 I could call myself a Fundamentalist.

    To those who still hang on to the designation:

    Do you think that there is freedom in your funamentalism to be a theistic evolutionist? (Which I am not, btw).
38. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Wilson,

    “I am no longer “a Baptist and mad about it!” I am just a Baptist! ”

    lol…I understand completely where you are coming from. While I graduated from DTS (which, historically speaking, did not know whether it was Fundamentalist or Evangelical), I grew up with such a group.

    In the end, the more funamentalistic type, as I have defined, are those who are not simply centered around the five fundamentals as TAuD described, but a whole host of other unspokens (including, in my former circles, the absolute necessity of breast feeding and homeschooling — in that order )

    It is the mentality that does not move forward, but has made camp.

    My advice to those who still cherish the term but do not describe themselves in such legalistic categories is to follow Farwell and get over the term. It has changed. Label and terms don’t matter. They evolve and always will. (This is also advice to me as an Evangelical). The truth matters more than defending some designation. I don’t think it is worth the time or effort to vitalize something so far gone.
39. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    With that, as you guys probably suspect, I have to bow out here.

    Keep it respectful, calm, and on track or I will have to go fundie on you, which would not be the evangelical thing to do
40. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    TuAD,

    You bet my friend.
41. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    November 11, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    “TuAD,

    All of them.”

    Then C. Michael Patton… by golly, you, YOU! are a Fundamentalist!!! A fundy!!! Oh my!!! How awful!!!

    Read this article and you will read an explanation as why fundamentalism will fail (and how you are, by definition, a fundamentalist).

    Okay, okay. It should be transparent by now that I’m hoping that we strive to not conflate two things that are very often conflated. One, the caricatured rank-stank stigma attached to Fundamentalists (sometimes justified, many times not). Two, the historic doctrines that Christian fundamentalism upheld.

    What I get from CMP (and what I also do as well albeit that I embrace my “fundamentalist” brothers and sisters in Christ) is:

    “I’m not a Christian Fundamentalist, but I do uphold the 5 biblical and historic doctrines that originally defined fundamentalism. If you care to examine the history with me, let’s ….”

    This “distancing”, if you will, is done so as to not let an artificial boogeyman get unnecessarily in the way of witnessing and evangelizing a potential seeker. (At least that’s what I do.)

    P.S. For what it’s worth, I occasionally use the word “fundamentalist” in the following ways:

    Liberal fundamentalist
    Feminist fundamentalist
    Gay Marriage fundamentalist

    People like when I use the word “fundamentalist” in that way.
42. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    November 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Wilson Hines: “In our “sect,” MacArthur was a liberal and wasn’t to be trusted, listened to or read for devotional or study related to exegesis.”

    John MacArthur is a liberal?

    JOHN MACARTHUR is a LIBERAL???!???

    That’s hysterical. Just hysterically funny. That would probably be a compliment to Pastor MacArthur because I’m sure that many, many people (both within and without Christendom who) regard him as a religious right-wing fanatical nut case.
43. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    November 11, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    #11, Bryan Cross:

    “In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan”

    If you say “In the peace of Christ,” does that leave the Father, the Holy Spirit, Scripture, and the Church as not essential for peace?
    

    BTW Bryan, can you comment on CMP’s Reformation Day post “Dear Pope, What’s Up with Genesis?” Concentrate particularly on th 6 options that CMP lays out at the end of his blog post. What say thee?
44. #John1453 says:

    November 11, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    re post 31 by CMP

    CMP writes, “Be careful here. I have engaged every major work on Fundamentalism, including much more than what you have listed (you have not even touched on half). Including multiple histories of Evangelicalism. You require expressed engagement on all of these for my opinion to be valid, yet you express your opinion in object yet do not engage in any of them as well!!”

    So now we can add defensive from CMP’s list 8 reasons; that puts him up to 4 out of 8 (see my post #15).

    If CMP has engaged every major work, then it would be useful for that to show up rather than the comments he made which I described in my post 28 as being neither careful nor accurate. CMP’s comments evidence either unfamiliarity with the major works, or forgetfulness, otherwise he would have recognized my list of characteristics as have been taken directly from the works that I cited (hmm, citing academic works and then using the direct words of the authors . . . seems like engagement to me, so CMP’s response is inaccurate and ad hominem).

    But enough about CMP’s stereotyping and slagging of fundamentalists.

    It seems to me that CMP’s categories of theologians blur the lines between a taxonomy and a typology, and so fail to be as useful as they could be. Both taxonomies and typologies apply structure to the world around us, but start from different grounds. A taxonomy starts with the objects and tries to find commonalities or distinctions as a means of classifying them. A typology, on the other hand, starts with the the available conceptual space relevant to a topic or idea and then constructs categories or classes that divide up that space, perhaps envisioned as ideal types.

    CMP’s categorization appears, at first, as descriptive, but it is clear in his discussion of “centralist” that he views that category as being prescriptively preferred. Yet it is hard to be convinced because he does not provide a rationale for his categories, one that provides reasons for including only these categories and not others. Why is praxis, essentialist, periphery or pragmatic left out? Futhermore, what is the usefulness of his categorization other than to foment discussion?

    regards,
    #John
45. mbaker says:

    November 11, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    While Mac can go overboard on some points, I like him on others. But then, I’m more of an issues person, than an admirer, or not, of certain spiritual personages.

    At heart, I don’t think it has much to do with what is considered by some as the add-ons of fundamentalism, such as breast feeding or homeschooling, or the do not’s that have also been tacked on as well, like no vaccinations. I know folks of all persuasions, including non believers, who are simply health nuts who don’t believe in bottle feeding, vaccinations and the like.

    What I’ve seen is a lot of evangelicals have assumed the Farwells and Robertsons are the leaders of the fundamentalist movement simply because they have been so prominent in speaking out on political and social issues such as abortion and gay rights,and many of the other do-nots. But none of the above makes for a complete statement on fundamentalist theology.

    In fact, I rather suspect that some of it is due to a form of current theological peer pressure as well. It’s a lot more trendy nowadays for folks to disassociate themselves with anything that is considered too traditional for fear their peers will label them as *gasp* “Fundies” if they don’t embrace some of the fads that have come into the church in recent years, regarding major differences in theology.

    That in itself is also a mindset doomed to backfire.
46. Wilson Hines says:

    November 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    TuaD:

    “That’s hysterical. Just hysterically funny”

    I know. It is absolutely hilarious to me, looking back, as well. I see the decision making, and then I see the process to get to those decisions, and it is absolutely mind bending how some people can come to those conclusions.

    One thing that #1 type people have taught me (remember: I was one) is that if you turn the lights out, close your eyes and cover your eyes with your hands, you won’t see anything. And that, sometimes, is the way they go about developing theory on certain topics, like textual criticism, with no eyeballs. Hey don’t bother with the truth, tell me the truth, man! The convenience is what they are after. And quite frankly, 90% of them have looked deep into the whole T.C matter and come to the same conclusion you and I have.

    In regards to the whole T.C (KJVO) discussion: A prominent I.Baptist preacher told me once he knew the truth about it and so did most of his friends in the ministry. I then asked, “Well, why don’t somebody say something?” He said, “Then people in the pew would say “What else have they been wrong about?” It is purely a control issue.
47. Dave Z says:

    November 11, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Amazing Grace Baptist Church was in the headlines recently for burning Bibles (everything but KVJ) and other “liberal and heretical” books, including those by MacArthur and McLaren. There’s a couple of names we seldom see in the same category.

    My church uses a retreat center that caters to fundamentalist churches. They have clear guidelines about what is permissable and what is not. Music other than hymns is out, and they will tolerate acoustic guitars (my resonator acoustic guitar was questioned) but much prefer just piano. They frown on versions other than KVJ, but will allow them on site.

    It’s not so much that the owners and staff hold those positions personally, it’s that if some of the other churches found out they allowed a bass guitar, they would separate themselves and no longer send groups to the camp. Don’t even think about drums.

    How’s that for majoring in the minors? They’ve gone far beyond the five original principals of fundamentalism, yet they proudly proclaim that they are fundamentalists. They consider the music issue (and others) to be defining marks of fundamentalism. It’s the perfect example of what CMP was talking about, and also a good example because the camp represents and is bound to the views of the main current of fundamentalist belief.

    #John rightly defines the origins and original meaning of “Fundamentalist” but we have to recognize the fact that language changes. In the media and in much personal interaction, Fundamentalist now means extremist. We can bemoan that development and repeat the original definition, but who listens? Certainly not the media or mainstream society. Do we really think we’ll get them to return to the original meaning? Better to just move on, holding to the five truth points of fundamentalism while allowing the term to slip away. It’s not like it’s a Biblical term.
48. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    John, I will have to skip most of what you said since it seems diversionary (as you often are!)

    All I can say is that I have yet to see you engage in any of the works that you say clear things up and are requiring me to footnote!

    Here is my solution John. You write a blog post that clears this up, including all the footnotes and references. I will then engage (and maybe learn). But assertions don’t go to far.

    While you can disagree with my characterizations, I believe that I have represented the history well. That is all I can do.

    These are four types of theologians; please, from here on out deal with the categories, not the designations.

    OK, really have to go now.
49. C Michael Patton says:

    November 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Dave,

    “#John rightly defines the origins and original meaning of “Fundamentalist” but we have to recognize the fact that language changes. In the media and in much personal interaction, Fundamentalist now means extremist. We can bemoan that development and repeat the original definition, but who listens? Certainly not the media or mainstream society. Do we really think we’ll get them to return to the original meaning? Better to just move on, holding to the five truth points of fundamentalism while allowing the term to slip away. It’s not like it’s a Biblical term.”

    That is the wisest thing said so far.

    Now I am REALLY gone.

    (Going to speak, ironically, on the history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism at a church in Flecher OK)
50. Dave Z says:

    November 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    One thing that #1 type people have taught me (remember: I was one) is that if you turn the lights out, close your eyes and cover your eyes with your hands, you won’t see anything.

    I heard Rick Warren (there goes my credibility with some) define a fundamentalist as someone who has stopped listening. I liked that, because in my experience it has been true – “I can afford to be narrow-minded – after all, I’m right!”

Post a Comment
Rules: 1000 character limit; one comment at a time, be nice, no self-promotion