Showing posts with label Fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundamentalism. Show all posts

Saturday, November 22, 2008

M. Köstenberger's Hermeneutical Posture

In early October, I posted a summary of Bruce Waltke's view of the various theological positions. In his An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Zondervan, 2007), Waltke presents the following outline (pp. 73-77):
  • Liberal Theologians Stand above the Bible
  • Neoorthodox Theologians Stand before the Bible
  • Traditionalists Place Traditions/Confessions alongside the Bible
  • Fundamentalists Stand on the Bible
  • Evangelicals Stand under the Bible
Having been reared and educated in Fundamentalist circles, I am a bit sensitive when I read non-Fundamentalists trying to describe and/or criticize Fundamentalists. What I am mostly concerned with, is clarity. As helpful as the above listed categories are, they are still very generalized. That Fundamentalists are described as standing on rather than under the Bible is true, especially when you consider the decidedly militant stance of historic fundamentalism. But, is it entirely fair to say that Fundamentalists, in general, do not also posture themselves as submitted learners under the Bible? Militancy has its place, but it never was in my blood. Rather, as a Fundamentalist, I saw myself in great need of learning.

In the same manner, we could ask if it is genuinely fair to say that Evangelicals are normally postured under the Bible. Well, in the case of Evangelical Feminism, Marny Köstenberger adequately shows that some Evangelicals have strayed from standing under the Bible. In some cases it is apparent that some Evangelicals have postured themselves above or selectively apart from the Bible. In a sense, Köstenberger, having sought to submit to the Bible's countercultural teaching, is here standing on the Bible's teaching as authoritative and corrective of erroneous doctrine.

Liberals call Evangelicals "Fundamentalists." Most Evangelicals do not want to be labeled "Fundamentalist." Some Fundamentalists decry some Evangelicals as "Liberals."
Some Fundamentalists avoid anything that smacks of Evangelicalism. Other Fundamentalists disdain the stereotype that is attached to their own label and seek to distinguish themselves from other Fundamentalists. And on, and on it goes. Surely, we all will agree that labels are reductionistic by nature; but, nevertheless, labels are useful. In general terms, I find Waltke's distinctions to be satisfying.

Margaret Elizabeth Köstenberger, Jesus and the Feminists: Who Do They Say That He Is? Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008. Softcover, 253 pages. $19.99

[Crossway | WTS | Amazon | CBD]

In reading
Köstenberger's Jesus and the Feminists, I noticed that she also finds it necessary to make a distinct clarification along these lines. The concluding section of chapter 2 (What's At Stake: "It's Hermeneutics!") strikes a distinction between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. She writes:
Some are dismissing an evangelical approach to Scripture out of hand for illegitimate reasons. For example, conservative evangelical Christians may at times find themselves confronted with the label "fundamentalist," and their conservative viewpoint on gender issues gets rejected without further discussion. But there is quite a difference between fundamentalism and a conservative evangelical reading of Scripture. Fundamentalism often tends toward a narrow-minded approach to Scripture. It at times may impose systematized doctrine onto the text and tend toward legalism. It is also often characterized by simplistic thinking. Some have even used the Bible in the past to justify such terrible things as slavery and racism. (35)
Let me repeat a part of the last quote from the previous post.
We must take our place in a stance of submission to God's Word, putting ourselves beneath it rather than sitting in critical judgment over it. (220)
My first reaction to this was: Ouch! These are stinging words. Granted, this is not true all of the time, nor necessarily most of the time. However, as
Köstenberger states the case, "Fundamentalism often tends toward" (emphasis mine) this erroneous posture. Sure, there is a place for militancy, but never without a sense of humility that keeps us submitted to the Scriptures.

Besides, Köstenberger is clearly bringing up this issue and these negative characterizations in order to argue that the position for which she is arguing is not the fruit of narrow-mindedness, the imposition of a particular system of theology, legalism, simplistic thinking, or an attempt to justify heinous abuses. Rather, she has written this book to show that the disunity of interpretations amongst the Feminists must cause them to realize that they, themselves, have interpreted the Scriptures too narrow-mindedly and have imposed upon the texts their own systematic agenda.

Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Kevin Bauder on Dialogue?

This is one of the best articles I've read on ShaperIron in a long time (except, of course, for the book reviews ;)). This issue has been heavy on my heart for a long time and the problem addressed is a huge factor in the upheaval my family is currently experiencing.

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.
Share/Bookmark

Friday, July 11, 2008

New Book on the History of Andover Newton Theological School

Last October I wrote up a small piece on Richard Furman in which I made mention of his efforts to establish Baptist seminaries. I wrote,
In 1814 Furman was elected as the first president of the Baptist Triennial Convention. As president of the Baptist Convention, Furman continued to press the burden of education upon his brethren. His plans were brilliant, but they did not unfold as he had intended. His original plan was for a central institution in Washington D. C. with preparatory institutions in each state, or between states. From this original plan emerged the Columbian College (now a part of George Washington University). Other institutions that grew out of this plan are Furman Institution (now University), the Mercer Institute (now University), the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and probably Newton in Massachusetts (now Andover-Newton Theological Seminary). (emphasis added)
Another impetus behind the formation of Newton Theological Seminary was the booming interest in foreign missions. Adoniram Judson, then a student at Andover Theological Seminary (1810), and his friends strongly urged the ministers Massachusetts to address the pressing need of missions to the heathen. This era of missionary zeal saw a handful of new training and supportive institutions birthed.

Needless to say, there is a lot of important history concerning the genesis of Andover Theological Seminary and Newton Theological Seminary. The story of these two early American schools, their union in 1931, and their joint contribution to the evangelical church to this day has been documented in a new book by Margaret Lamberts Bendroth. This week Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers announced the release of this historical-critical work.

What follows are details about this book and about its author. Researching Bendroth's literary output has given me good reason to think that this book will be a valuable contribution to American Evangelical historical studies. I also expect that we will find plenty of Bendroth's evaluation of the Fundamentalist movement as it pertains to this historic school (note the table of contents listed below).

Bendroth, Margaret Lamberts. A School of the Church: Andover Newton Across Two Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Format: Hardback. 240 pages; dimensions (in inches): 6 x 9; 29 b&w illustrations; List Price: $28.00 USD

ISBNs: 0802863701 / 978-0-8028-6370-6

Purchase: Eerdmans | Amazon | CBD

Description from the publisher:

Andover Newton Theological School has a storied 200-year history. Margaret Lamberts Bendroth has written a compelling account of this historic institution and its two original sources — Andover Seminary, a Congregational school established in 1808 and the model for theological education in the United States, and Newton Theological Institution, a Baptist school established in 1825 — which merged in 1931. The book offers entirely new material on the development of the school after the 1931 merger.

As part of Andover Newton’s history, Bendroth explores the unquestionable intellectual contributions of the faculty, including Moses Stuart, Alvah Hovey, Gabriel Fackre, Max Stackhouse, Phyllis Trible, and many others. She also examines the many paths intersecting with the school’s story, from American education in general to the development of Protestant thought, to the complex histories of race and gender in American society.


Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

  • Andover Seminary and the Origins of Theological Education in America

  • New England Baptists and the Cure of Souls: The Early Years of the Newton Theological Institution

  • Andover, Newton, and the Benevolent Empire

  • The New Theology Comes to Andover: The Story of the Future Probation Controversy

  • Newton and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Debate

  • Andover’s Harvard Years: From Cambridge to Newton Center

  • Andover Newton and Pastoral Education in the World War II Era

  • Earthquake Years: A Mainline Seminary Weathers the Sixties

  • Andover Newton’s Turn of the Century

  • EPILOGUE: The Andover Newton Legacy
    INDEX

    Margaret Lamberts Bendroth is a historian, executive director of the American Congregational Association and director of the Congregational Library in Boston.

    Bibliography -

    Share/Bookmark

    Monday, May 26, 2008

    9Marks Interview with Mark Minnick

    This past February Mark Dever interviewed my pastor Mark Minnick as part of a forum between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. I thought the mp3 recording of this interview wouldn’t be available until August or September, but thanks to Andy Naselli for pointing out its availability now. Check out this interview for insightful comments on the similarities and dissimilarities of different groups of believers as we practice and promote our common faith.

    __________
    Here are some links to discussions on this interview:

    Share/Bookmark

    Friday, February 29, 2008

    9 Marks Forum on Fundamentalism

    9 Marks Ministries has posted their March/April 2008 eJournal, which contains a roundtable inquiry of some Fundamentalist and Evangelical leaders on the question: "What can we learn from the Christian Fundamentalists?" There are some good answers and insights from both camps of believers.

    A PDF version of the Journal is also available.
    Share/Bookmark

    Monday, November 19, 2007

    Book Review—Promise Unfulfilled by Roland McCune

    Reviewed by Andrew David Naselli.

    McCune, Rolland D. Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. Greenville, S.C.: Ambassador International, 2004. Hardcover, xvii + 398 pp. $24.99.

    Editor’s Note: This review was originally posted on Andy’s blog along with a rejoinder from Dr. Rolland McCune. Due to the length of this review, we are splitting it up and publishing it here according to its two major headings—Part One: A Summary and Part Two: An Analysis.

    Purchase: Ambassador-Emerald | CBD | Amazon

    Special Features: Footnotes, Selected Annotated Bibliography, Scriptural Index, and Topical Index

    ISBNs: 1932307311 / 9781932307313

    LCCN: BR1642 U5 M33

    DCN: 230.04624

    Subject: Modern Evangelicalism


    Read Part One: A Summary (11/19/07) & Part Two: An Analysis (11/20/07)
    Share/Bookmark