a series you should read

I ran across a blog that is new to me. On this blog there is an ongoing series of articles with this title:

Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism

The author explains his purpose in the first Part:

In this series of posts I shall attempt to give answers concerning the following:

  1. Whether Fundamentalism was flawed from its beginning by Scottish Common Sense Realism, sentimentalism, and populism or whether it rests more squarely upon Biblical principles;
  2. Whether Fundamentalism was only a “partial and uneducated” return to the Biblical faith because it lacks in its appreciation for the history of theological development in contrast to those who are primarily interested in defending the Reformed faith;
  3. Whether Fundamentalism should be broader in its vision and burden and be more culturally concerned as is the amillennialist  because of his kingdom-is-now theology and the post-millennialist because of his establish-the-kingdom theology;
  4. Whether Fundamentalism should be actively listening to, dialoguing with, or learning from those outside of itself for the purpose of better spiritual growth and maturity;
  5. Whether the historical lines of separation for Fundamentalists should be scrapped in favor of fresh approaches meant to allow fellowship and cooperation with Conservative Evangelicals; and
  6. Whether we are actually now in a post-Fundamentalism era and in need of something new namely Paleo-evangelicalism.

This series is a response to Bauder’s recent series of articles trying to tell the history and philosophy of Fundamentalism (and making several errors along the way). I think the whole series is worth your attention and so I am providing links to each article below:

There is more to come. You should subscribe to the RSS feed on this blog and catch the rest.

UPDATE: Here is Part Nine (the last)

Related posts on oxgoad:



  1. I am troubled that you recommend this, Don. I guess I assumed you did not approve of ad hominem argumentation.

    • Ryan, thanks for commenting. Could you point out the ad hominem in the argument that Gordon is making? I don’t want to assume and argue against something you might not be saying, so if you could spell it out, I could respond to your comment better.

      Don Johnson
      Jer 33.3

  2. Brian Ernsberger says:

    Well, Bro. Don we seem to keep crossing paths at various sites. Thanks for posting this series, I too have stumbled across it but have not read the entire series yet. Had read Dr. Bauder’s series when he was putting them out and was a bit perturbed by his poor handling of the history of Fundamentalism. Dr. Bauder’s constant little, tweaking/redefining of terms and such have had me wondering if he is not setting up his readers for some kind of shifting within Fundamentalism some time in the near future. I could very well be wrong but those pesky little red flags keep popping up in my mind when I read anything Dr. Bauder or others of like mind write. Something is not right and something must give way.

  3. Don:

    Thanks to linking to this important series. I also linked to and recommended it heartily, Part 8 in particular.

    BTW, I had an advance look at the next installment, it is a worthy read.