[...] missional churches don’t go globalThe organic nature of the church Preaching as worship Four types of theologiansBelong to becomeFive questions that leaders should askKnowledge puffs upEvangelism at the expense of [...]

[...] Four Types of Theologians – from Parchment and Pen [...]

I would be somewhere in the 3 and 4 camp.

I believe there are a lot of beliefs that the truth is more in the center of the two extremes that get discussed and promoted. I am not meaning this to be a wishy-washy, fence straddling position. I think that holding the tension between two extremes can often be more dangerous to the person holding the position…they take arrows from both sides.

I also think we need to focus more on what is central.

Have not had a chance to catch up here (or anywhere else) and probably won’t (as once a blog post is more than a day old, I can’t participate).

However, I did get a direct email from someone involved in this thread early who would is a Fundamentalist. A very, very respectful email which I listened to. But his main comment was that things on this post were over-the-top (not being productive or respectful in the conversation). That is why he left.

I don’t want to close this, but we do have rules. Gentleness and respect. If your desire to push your view without ceasing causes you to lose sight of this, please quit posting. I am in a banning mood!

This email way quite embarrassing as I am responsible for this blog and what it communicates to the many people who come here.

We tolerate discussion and disagreement here, but not outside the rules. This is not your blog or your surrogate platform. If you have something to say, push, or someone to disrespect, sign up for your own blog. They are free at http://www.wordpress.com.

Remember, people come here. Outsiders come here. If you are a Christian, go out of your way to be kind.

To All:

P&P is a place to discuss issues and topics raised by the authors. It is not a place to discuss the authors themselves or to propagate one’s own positions.

Once a point has been made, it is inappropriate to repeatedly make the point. It is also inappropriate to “call out” or challenge the author to defend him/herself.

Comments should be short and the comments section should not be used as a personal platform or bully pulpit.

For clarification, please see the blog rules.

Thank you for your cooperation.

— Admin.

re post 48

Since I’m the one that provided evidence that CMP was wrong, including references to authorities in the field, and CMP has not provided any such evidence to support the caricature that he has used several times in this blog, it is really up to CMP to justify his position more fully (if he desires to). If he is satisfied to merely assert what he believes about fundamentalists, well, there’s nothing I can do about it.

***

I continue to question the usefulness of the categories he has used in the lede post. People who are theologians for a living wouldn’t generally fall into any of the categories represented (especially not for academic fundamentalist theologians). However, perhaps CMP is referring to nonacademics such as pastors or even to the pew sitters, because anyone who thinks thoughts about God is a theologian of sorts.

As I pointed out earlier, the lede lacks a rationale for analyzing the various positions set out, though it clearly pushes “centralist” as the correct one. How do we decide how many doctrines we should hold to? and how strongly? It may be that a thought through rationale might select a different position as the correct one. Furthermore, the difference between the maximalist, minimalist and centralist position might be mapped out according to how they draw the boundaries of “dogma”, “doctrine” and “opinion” as set out by Grenz and Olson in their book, “Who Needs Theology?: An Invitation to the Study of God”.

At the end of the day, the lede post amounts to little more than a wordy poll, because it merely asks readers to indicate who they would “roast marshmallows with”.

A more useful mapping of theologians might be the approach of George Lindbeck (a Lutheran theologian) who wrote “The Nature of Doctrine”. Lindbeck divides the Christian church into the propositionalists (truth is accessed by propositional statements), the experiential/expressivists (truth is accessed through religious feeling), and a mediating category, the cultural/linguistic (truth is accessed through culture and story).

regards,
#John

Are modern fundamentalists more “maximalist” than older ones? Is that the way things are trending (which they would have to, in order to support CMP’s thesis that fundamentalists are maximalists, legalists, and closed-minded). It would seem that the answers are “NO”. For example, in an October 2007 on-line article at the Christianity Today website, title “The Crisis of Modern Fundamentalism: Defections threaten a proud movement”, Collin Hansen wrote the following:

“A 2005 survey released on the popular fundamentalist blog SharperIron “revealed that many in the newest generation of fundamentalist leadership were still committed to fundamentalist theology but uncomfortable with some of the more extreme positions on secondary separation, association, worship music, extra-biblical standards, and other issues.” A resolution approved during the 2004 annual meeting of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) revealed the concern of fundamentalist leaders. They urged “young men to reject any temptation to lower biblical standards in order to gain acceptance of those in the world or among theologically accommodating Christian movements.” According to Tim Baylor, reared in fundamentalism but now attending an evangelical seminary, ‘Militancy is at an all-time-low in Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalists are looking for someone to blame.’”

“Militancy is at an all-time low”: hmm, that does not sound like modern fundamentalists are excessively maximalist and closed minded.

Simon Barrow writes that “Fundamentalism as a mindset is a refusal of conversation. In must cases it cannot be out-argued or ‘reasoned with’, because its narrow premises are constructed in such a way as to eliminate critique and encourage self-affirmation.” When considered as a “mindset”, we can observe fundamentalism within so-called evangelical churches, liberal churches and evolutionists.

There are many words in English that have more than one meaning, or more than one reference, but that does not stop us from using them. “Fundamentalist’ is just one of those words. When used within a Christian rather than secular context (as on this blog), it is natural to read that term as referring to the particular protestant movement known as “fundamentalist”, which still exists and which still self-identifies itself. Being closed-minded or maximalist are not descriptors that they would use about themselves, nor are they descriptors that analysts of the movement would use as inherently characteristic or defining of the movement as a whole.

Hence, I continue to contend that CMP’s assertion, that “Most every doctrine is essential. . . . Fundamentalists would normally share this perspective”, is incorrect.

regards,
#John

# John post 54,

For not being a fundy you do a pretty good job representing, If I ever need a good lawyer….

[...] the topic that C Michael Patton addresses here.  He provides examples of the four categories as [...]

BTW, as an aside, for all the criticism that Fundamentalist Christians get for all the quarreling divisions they have, I can also tell you that Reform Christians quarrel and separate frequently too.

Another aside. Generally speaking, I would accede to the assertion that liberals, both political and theological, are more united than conservatives.

Not to say that liberals don’t fight and fragment. They obviously do. But not to the degree or frequency that conservatives do.

But I knowingly take this “bad” with the all the “goods” of conservativism. And remain a happy conservative.