I believe that Dr. Bauder has articulated the problem well and, with this article, has opened the door for some very needed conversation amongst fundamentalists. Well, in truth, I expect that the conversation has already begun amongst fundamentalist leaders. There has been a strong push from within and there have been heavy backlashes from without for more dialogue, especially amongst other believers.
At least for me, the issue has been that we have been handed strong, traditionalist ("it's always been this way"), reductionistic ("it can only be this way"), provincialistic ("we're the only ones right") dogmas and have been strongly warned against consorting with others, whether orally or literarily, who believe otherwise. We avoid interaction with other Christians on the grounds of dress, music and associations and therefore have absolutely no forum to enter into dialogue regarding "fundamental" issues.
Here's how Bauder articulates the problems:
Some fundamentalists believe that any form of dialogue represents a compromise of conviction. They believe that they already have the truth, and any discussion with truth-deniers would imply some questioning of that truth. Such fundamentalists are willing to announce the truth, but they are not willing to converse about it, except perhaps with others who already possess it. Those who do not possess the truth are subject only to critique.From recent, personal experience, this is dead on. This, to me, is highly frustrating. I want to learn and grow, and every other area of life teaches me that growth requires resistance. Yes, maturity is very important in this process, and Bauder addresses this very well. However, "maturity" can be used as a billy club to reign in and isolate a student from growing in vital experience. Seminary students, especially, even though there is a great level of immaturity compared to those in full-time ministry, ought to be exposed to those who think/believe differently. Not at all to the biggest opponents, but to lesser opponents, especially to those who differ on lesser issues. The process of interacting with first-hand information ought to commence prior to graduation. This should carry over into a teaching or preaching ministry where one is able to hold to his beliefs and convictions in a respectable and informed way.
It is very disheartening to be denied an opportunity to grow, not because a particular leader knows of a real danger, or even because there is a real danger at all, but because the leader suspects that the other party holds to different convictions on non-fundamental issues. Maybe I'm showing a bit of immaturity, and, yes, I'm trying to remain a little vague; but this is a real problem which is pushing away good people.
The essence of Bauder's argument seems to be that we need to be more willing to listen, and more humble, realizing that we are not infallible. The desire to enter into dialogue is not a sign of compromise, but rather a sign of humility. It is an opportunity to grow and to help others grow.
I think that the following statement is excellent:
By encountering interlocutors who reject our thinking, we gain the opportunity to have our weaknesses pointed out to us. Of course, we shall have to judge whether any particular criticism really does point to a weakness, or whether it simply reflects the bias of the critic. If our critics do expose our weaknesses, we gain the opportunity to correct them. Our ability to present the truth is strengthened.Again, I think it would be well worth your time to read and interact with this article.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with your assessment on this one, although I have to admit Bauder isn't entirely clear about what he is talking about. (I have my guesses.)
Conversations are one thing, dialogues quite another. Dialogue is a very loaded term. Also note some of the critiques on SI. Some of those are hitting at key problems with this article. I think I'll do something on my blog about it later.
In a way, my biggest criticism is that it fosters once again what I think is a caricature of fundamentalism, "hear no evil, see no evil, but speak lots of evil". The notion is that because we will not engage in associations we think dangerous that we are close-minded bigots. I reject that notion entirely. I may be a bigot, but I'm open-minded about it!
In fact, the fundamentalists I have been pleased to be associated with through my ministry have been thoughtful men of the Book. I really know of few exceptions to that rule.
It seems that the caricatures come out when men want to gain some kind of recognition by men on the outside. (That may just be my perception.) Our calling isn't to seek recognition by men, but approval by Christ. That marks a huge difference, I think, in the wars within fundamentalism.
Enough for now. Thanks for highlighting this.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. I understand your point. Yes, I'm ranting a bit, and, yes, there is a lot of caricaturing going on. But I'm in the midst of a situation where Bauder's remarks (for the most part) are dead on.
I really shouldn't carry on in a blog. I do think that much of fundamentalism is a bit close-minded. Maybe not you. I don't know any local fundamentalist pastor who would stretch himself by wrestling with R. Niebuhr's Christ and Culture, as you mentioned you are doing. I commend this. This is the kind of good dialogue I'm concerned to have. What weight does your critique have if you have never interacted with the thing you're critiquing.
I've only recently caught a few services at other denominational churches. I have never been inside of a Catholic church during a service. Within the past month I took the opportunity to visit an Anglican service, a Scot's Presbyterian service, and a PCUSA service. I've been in a few SBC church, but only within the past year. Just visiting these services was educational, not to mention I heard one of the best sermons in a long time at the PCUSA church. I now have a better idea of what is going on in these different liturgical services. You can't learn that in a classroom.
Well, I've deleted a bunch of other comments lest I sin against any of my brethren. Maybe Bauder should consider tweaking his argument a bit. Maybe I'm reading his comments in light of my own situation. Either way, I think that the heart of his essay is true and important.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this more this afternoon since I first noticed it. Your mention of Niebuhr is a good illustration, actually.
Reading Niebuhr is, in a sense, part of 'having a conversation'. It is not dialogue. There are many other things that could be 'having the conversation' as it were, such as attending various kinds of services as you mention. I have been to a Catholic funeral, though I kept in the back. I have been to several Anglican services over the years, including two funerals. (I preached a message on, "The Value of a Distributed Communion" following one of those... the Anglican practice of putting a bar before the table and having the people come up as supplicants was very offensive to me. And I did not participate in the communion part of the service.) I also have no problem with individuals attending various conferences or meetings where they might have a chance to hear someone who is well known to get a better sense of what they are all about.
But the word 'dialogue' is so loaded... It is one of THE new evangelical words. I think it is a mistake for a fundamentalist to use it, even if you attempt to carefully define it as Bauder was doing.
And it was not entirely clear exactly what Bauder was aiming at. He might have been talking about the practice of some showing up as participants at an evangelical seminary, perhaps thinking of his own appearance at Beeson. To me, this is exactly the wrong kind of dialogue. To have a conversation behind the scenes where you are helping someone gain an appreciation for your views (and less caricaturization) and you doing the same for them is not objectionable. I have actually met with Neo-Orthodox pastors in our town at lunch, one on one. I wouldn't make it a big public thing, and wouldn't join in with a conference at his church or at mine presenting lectures on our distinctly different approaches to theology. But I have no problem meeting and talking.
Of course there does come a point where there is nothing else to say. Then the conversation is over.
Does that help a bit?
I think I will work up something a little more comprehensive on this and post it at my place after a bit.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Yes, Don. This is very helpful. Thanks for the "conversation"! :)
ReplyDeleteConversation is a good word. It has its own connotations though. It seems less formal than "dialogue." Yes, it is a word used very particularly by new evangelicals. It's used in most technical fields be the religious or non-religious. "Conversation" tends to be a lot of talking and selective listening, and it seems that Bauder was trying to counter this tendency.
Am I ready to sit and dialogue with the Anglican minister down the road? No, not at all. I think that I would need to have a good many conversations with him before I could responsibly enter into dialogue with him.
Maybe this is where "conversation" would be a better word for most fundamentalists. It seems that conversation ought to proceed "mature" dialogue.
I wrote about this issue somewhat on our church's blogsite this past March (http://amomentofcharity.blogspot.com). I am concerned that some Fundamentalists, who seem to have good intentions, may inadvertently change Fundamentalism into a new form of New Evangelicalism, perhaps in an attempt to dialogue, obtain scholarly respect, and overcome certain weakness in Fundamentalism.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, on the issue of separation, Fundamentalists DO have the truth. We struggle to apply the principle consistently, but at least we try.
Somewhat Related Point: Many younger Evangelicals and Fundamentalists seem to be fascinated with Karl Barth. For the life of me, I don't understand why. He's a waste of time.
Wally, Thanks for taking the time to comment. I remember reading the post you wrote back in March. Respectfully, I can't say that I agree with you. I don't think that Fundamentalists have a corner on the truth. That's not to say that I'm against the core tenets of fundamentalism, I'm for them. The issue for me is that these convictions need to be my own, not merely what I've inherited.
ReplyDeleteAll I know is passive separation. All of the churches and schools I've been affiliated with were separatist institutions, so I'm a separatist by default. During my initial years of seminary training, and ever since, I've been shielded from, not only non-separatist schools, but also fundamentalist schools of a different stripe. I was taught to learn about other ideas and groups from second-hand, third-hand, or even further removed sources.
I was so amazed when I first encountered some of these groups first-hand to learn that most of what I had read and had been taught was either outdated or full of mischaracterizations. I began to realize how much I had merely assumed since I was never challenged on those grounds.
I'm interested in reading Barth, Moltmann, N.T. Wright, Crossan, and Borg, because I've seen the usefulness of first-hand interaction with data. Having been fed dispensationalism all of my life, I was interested in studying eschatology at a Reformed seminary so that I could learn that perspective "from the horse's mouth." With the first-hand data I am better able to make informed decisions and come to solid convictions.
I've lived in and amongst folks who are content to deal with hearsay, because they believe that Biblical separation requires that they avoid dialogue (informed conversation) or sitting under the teaching of other Christians who don't practice separation the same way they do.
I don't see where Separatist-Fundamentalists and Evangelicals talking through theological issues would be an offense to the Gospel. Since when does talking with someone indicate complete agreement?
I don't understand why fundamentalists "overcoming certain weaknesses" is a bad thing?
Finally, I don't assume that a young man who desires to study at an Evangelical school is harboring a heart of pride (or some other heart issue). There are lots of good reasons.
Thank you, again, for commenting. I'd be glad to discuss this further.
With due respect, it is comments - or more precisely, the disposition behind them - like Wally's about Barth that explain why so many people serious about theology and the mind in general leave Fundamentalism.
ReplyDeleteIt is an indisputable fact that, historically, Barth will rank among the greatest dogmatic Protestant theologians, such as Luther and Calvin. It takes a substantial amount of general theological ignorance to not be aware of this fact, and that kind of ignorance seems very prevalent in Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalists do not seem to understand that serious study requires being familiar with the landscape of one's field; it's clear that most of the Fundamentalist professors of theology are not competent in modern theology. This is related, I think, to Bauder's article. Familiarity with the historical and contemporary theological landscape is necessary to do good theology; Fundamentalist's (and, often, evangelical's) theology is not good precisely because it is a model of provincialism, a field in which its participants can get away with not even having read, much less understood, some of the most significant theologians in church history.
Until such provincialism ceases to characterize Fundamentalism, dialogue as Bauder describes it will be a pipe-dream, something we're not even capable of, much less interested in. And, if provincialism does cease to characterize Fundamentalism, I think Fundamentalism, as many people think of it, will also cease to exist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi again, Jason,
ReplyDeleteI deleted my previous comment because I thought that part of it was too vehement! My apologies.
Here is the part I saved:
I understand your comment about "passive separation". That is what my kids know too. I want them to adopt fundamentalist philosophy as their own, not 'because Dad thinks so'.
However, with this in mind, I would strenuously oppose my kids going to a reformed or non-fundamentalist school. This isn't the kind of conversation I have in mind in our earlier exchanges above. It is one thing to read somewhat widely and to interact on a personal level with individuals of various persuasions, but I think it would be a mistake to sit under the tutelage of those with a flawed philosophy. You have to choose your "rabbis" well.
~~~
As for the comments concerning 'provinicialism', etc., I will say this: it is possible to make an idol out of scholarship. The new evangelicalism did so, in my opinion. I hope that you will be aware of that danger and not make the same mistake.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I've been away from church this week and will return late Friday. I'll be glad to respond to Jason and Joseph after the weekend.
ReplyDeleteI rarely post comments to anyone's blogsite, but will be glad to do so for this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI grew up Southern Baptist, have a nephew who is an SBC pastor, and was married in an SBC church by a BJU grad who pastored that church. I was saved the last part of my senior year in high school, mainly through personally reading the Bible. At college (Univ. of GA), I became involved in a campus Bible ministry (founded by BJU grads) which, for the first time, exposed me to serious Bible study. We were encouraged to read & study the Bible for ourselves. That emphasis, combined with getting saved through personal Bible reading, has had a huge impact on my approach to the ministry—Bible-centered in order to be Christ-focused.
When I came to college, I intended to pursue a law degree. But through intense exposure to the Bible, the Lord changed my interest toward the ministry instead of a legal career. After writing letters to many schools and asking questions about their beliefs and ministry, I went to BJU for grad school because BJU agreed with what I was seeing in the Bible.
Adjustment to life at BJU was easy and difficult. Easy because of the Bible emphasis, difficult because of the high expectations (academic and personal standards). A seminary has a limited time to teach its students and therefore must decide what its priorities are. We spent our time learning the Biblical languages, theology (historical, systematic, biblical, and practical), and the Biblical material. We were exposed to the teachings and thinking of nonFundamentalists, particularly in Dr. Custer's [Theological Systems] and Dr. Bell's [OT Introduction, OT Theology] classes. We were given references and citations if we wanted to read for ourselves. Dr. Bell, especially, insisted on quality work. Sloppy academic work (and sloppy preaching) will not pass. We were never taught to learn theology second-hand, and my teachers were always current with recent trends and thinking. I planned to pursue a Ph.D., and passed the Hebrew comprehensive. But my wife developed health problems, and I lost interest in doctoral studies.
For a while at BJU, I rebelled somewhat against some of the rules. I was married, lived off campus, and had come from a very secular state university. I am glad that we did not have blogging then because I cringe that anything which I was thinking could have become public, even though the struggles I went through are not that uncommon (which is why I can appreciate the struggle some Christians have with Fundamentalism). Despite its blemishes, I came to realize that the Fundamentalist position was better (theologically and practically) than any Evangelical position. I saw Fundamentalists wrestle with the complexities of separation; I saw Evangelicals ignore the issue completely. Only in the last few years have some Evangelicals begun to wrestle with the theology of separation, partially due to the collapse of Evangelical theological coherence. I became a Fundamentalist, not because I grew up that way but, instead, because I saw that the Fundamentalist position, even with flaws, best fit what I read in the Bible.
I do not spend my limited time reading Barth, Brunner, and similar theologians. If I taught theology in a seminary, then, yes, of course I would read their writings. But as a pastor who preaches & teaches 4x a week, I have more important things to do. And even if I had the time, I would not bother with theologians of their persuasion. The Bible itself has more than enough depth to keep me occupied, and there are better Bible-believing theologians who are more valuable than Barth and who deserve reading. Sometimes I wonder, if Barth didn't have some Reformed blood in him, would some even be interested in him?
I have Barth's commentary on Romans and have used it occasionally during my preaching series on Romans. Dr. Stewart Custer summarizes Barth's Commentary on Romans as “Speculative philosophy starting from Romans . . .” On p.171, Barth denies that an historical Adam existed (“Adam has no existence on the plane of history . . .”). That denial is heresy.
In Barth's Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1, Part 1, pp. 125,126,127,136 he states typical neo-orthodox theology concerning the inspiration of the Bible. He is very clear that only when the Bible speaks to us personally does the Bible become God's Word to us. On p.126 he says that the Bible “claims no authority whatsoever for itself.” On p.136, he says that, in order for the Bible “to become the Word of God for us”, the Bible must be “proclaimed in the Church.” Although in some ways Barth was a conservative neo-orthodox, he was still neo-orthodox, even though he did not like the term. Therefore, to read Barth is to read someone who cannot be trusted since the basis for his belief system is erroneous. This does not mean that everything he said was wrong; it means that the effort spent on trying to sort through Barth's writings for anything worth remembering is time that can be better spent reading more trustworthy theologians.
Have I read all of Barth's books? No. Nor do I need to. How much of a theologian do you have to read in order to form an opinion? Be careful of your answer. How many read everything Edwards, Sibbes, Hodge, Warfield, Calvin, Wesley, and Luther have written? How many have read every sermon Spurgeon preached? Yet, we have formed opinions about them. How? Based on the limited amount we have read and what others, whom we respect, have told us. Sometimes you don't have to read much of a theologian in order to develop an opinion. When I read Edwards, Hodge, Wesley and the others, I see their orthodoxy and their love for Christ. With Barth, Brunner, and others, I see nice-sounding words about someone named Jesus Christ, but they attempt to separate Christ from the Bible. That cannot be done, and the eventual result is heresy. Additionally, the influence of Barth and other neo-orthodox theologians helped destroy Biblical innerrancy at Fuller Seminary. The proof is in the fruit.
Additionally, I would never classify Barth in the same league with Calvin or Luther. They believed the Bible; Barth did not, although he used words which made him appear to believe the Bible (hence: neo-orthodox). In order to be serious about theology and the mind, how much of Barth would I have to read? I've read enough to know I don't want to waste my time with him. How does that somehow make me not serious about theology and the mind? As a person, I can admire Barth's resistance to Nazi Germany. As a theologian, Barth is over-rated. Coming to that conclusion does not make someone "provincial".
Do Fundamentalists have a corner on the truth? No. And I never said we do. What I said was that Fundamentalists do have the truth about separation. That is a fact of history. Do we know perfectly how to apply separation in every conceivable circumstance? No. But at least we admit there is a doctrine of separation, personal and ecclesiastical. Evangelicals have been slow to apply personal separation and loathe to even think about ecclesiastical separation.
Do Fundamentalists always have the right attitude about those who disagree with them? No. But then neither do Evangelicals. I have met hypocritical Christians of both backgrounds. Do Fundamentalists sometimes seem to fixate on separation? Yes. Am I glad that some Evangelicals are beginning to think about the theology & practice of separation? Yes. Could this new interest in separation lead some Evangelicals to move closer to the Fundamentalist (Biblical) position on separation? Yes. Can Evangelicals & Fundamentalists learn from each other? Of course. Isn't that what brothers & sisters in Christ are supposed to do for each other? (Reference the many “one another” passages in the NT; also see Lloyd-Jones' comments about rules for discussions among Christians, Commentary on Romans 14, pp.28ff). Are some Fundamentalists associating with some Evangelicals because of a common interest in Reformed/Calvinist theology? I think so.
But separation is not the only issue. One of the major issues, like it or not, is music. I have downloaded excellent messages from Evangelical conferences. Yet the same conference will have horrible music. That kind of tension cannot exist without a shift in either the preaching or the music. Either the music will become better or the preaching will become shallow. Unfortunately, the preaching will probably be the one to change. It may take a generation or two for it to happen, but happen it will. It will be interesting to see, as some Fundamentalists associate with Evangelical churches and conferences, what kind of music they are willing to tolerate. I grew up listening to rock. Unfortunately, some of the songs are still in my mind. I know what that music stands for and am appalled that Christians would blend that music with Christian words and think that makes the song acceptable. We can do better than that.
I hope these comments help. If someone desires to pursue this further, I will be glad to do so in a limited way through email–gatorone@localnet.com--in order not to distract from the excellent bibliographic purpose of this website.
Also: In the interest of disclosure, some of the comments concerning Barth were also posted at http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/.
ReplyDelete