fundamentalism by blunt instrument
To follow up on my own ‘challenge post’ – ‘on that interesting Touchstone article’ – I’d like to offer you some thoughts in response to the modified Touchstone questions. I hope some of the fellows I challenged will weigh in with their views. For anyone else, feel free to post your opinions.
My own perspective is one of observing fundamentalism from the fringes.
This article has already been cited elsewhere [see Greg Linscott and PaleoBen]. I have gotten through about half the article [something called family and Christmas keeps getting in the way of reading]. The article is interesting enough in itself. I may blog a bit on some of its highlights later, but I think it would be interesting if we reframed the questions Touchstone asked from an evangelical to a fundamentalist focus.
How would fundamentalists answer these questions?
A recent Piper article is eating away at my mind. I really am appalled by it, but have hesitated to post. It is quite easy to be too critical, especially when it comes to eminently critique-able people like Piper.
The article, Gutsy Guilt, was published in the October issue of Christianity Today. In order to understand my criticism, you may have to read the article, but I will do my best to represent the article and what bothers me about it.
In his introduction, Piper expresses a concern that young Christians can lose their ‘radical’ vision for ministry because of failing to deal with the guilt of sexual failure. [BTW, Piper regularly uses words like ‘radical’ and ‘passion’, words that really have no place in a Christian context, but that is another pet peeve and another post.]
By failure, Piper doesn’t mean merely the use of pornography. No, he says, “The great tragedy is not masturbation or fornication or pornography.” I am assuming that he doesn’t mean the adultery kind of fornication, but his article doesn’t make that distinction clear. [Read more…]
A lengthy discussion on Frank’s site prompts this post.
A familiar charge by the sophisticated non-fundamentalist is that fundamentalism is essentially anti-intellectual. The sneering inference of the slur is that fundamentalists are nothing but backwoods hayseeds, barely capable of tying their shoes or of walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time. Fundamentalists are rubes, you see, they lack scholarship. They don’t write important books. In fact, they barely write. They do colour, though, and in some of their books they even colour in between the lines.
Well… that is hyperbole, of course. Nevertheless the charge of anti-intellectualism is frequently made and often said to be with some merit. See here:
And while a writer may legitimately quote an author with which he disagrees, it should be recognized that no fundamentalist is called upon in this chapter – an indication at least that the charge of anti-intellectualism against American fundamentalism does contain enough adhesive power to call any critic of neo-evangelicalism to a little self-examination once in a while.
Fundamentalists often leap to their own defense and point to the scholarship of various pastors, college professors, etc.
Too often these kinds of discussions are centred around an emotional imprecision in the use of terms. Anti-intellectual is code for someone who won’t join the club. Scholar is code for someone ‘who agrees with me,’ as one of my former professors once said.
Well what of it? What do these terms mean? Let’s try intellectualism first.
1. devotion to intellectual pursuits.
2. the exercise of the intellect.
3. excessive emphasis on abstract or intellectual matters, esp. with a lack of proper consideration for emotions.
4. Philosophy.
a. the doctrine that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason.
b. the belief that reason is the final principle of reality.intellectualism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectualism (accessed: December 07, 2007).
Let’s consider these one at a time. Given these definitions, am I an anti-intellectual? [edit note: change "intellectual" to "anti-intellectual"]
1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4a. Yes
4b. Yes
Now let’s look at anti-intellectualism:
1. a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them.
2. a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality.
–adjective
3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of anti-intellectuals or their beliefs.anti-intellectualism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-intellectualism (accessed: December 07, 2007).
Am I an anti-intellectual according to these definitions?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Possibly
In a moment I want to look at the definition of scholarship, but what are we to make of these definitions so far?
I am definitely hostile to the so-called achievements of much of our society’s so-called intellectuals. Consider those who are lauded as artists, poets, notable Drs. of philosophy and so on in the vast majority of our most prestigious universities. Are these people whose thoughts should impress any believer in Christ? Should we care that we are not considered among their number? Their minds are darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they are altogether become fools.
When it comes to the noted Doctors of Religion in so many seminaries, are they significantly better than the secular intelligentsia? Hardly.
So I am an anti-intellectual and proud of it. Let the evangelicals pursue their intellectualism. They will find that they are numbered among the company of Proverb’s fools, chasing after the wind and vanity of Ecclesiastes. Do they think that they make any impressive statement in accusing me of anti-intellectualism? It is just propaganda, plain and simple. Name-calling. What does it gain, and what argument does it advance?
Besides, I embrace the term. Let’s hear it, as I said on Frank’s page, for anti-intellectualism.
One last "word game". Let’s look at scholarship:
1. learning; knowledge acquired by study; the academic attainments of a scholar.
2. a sum of money or other aid granted to a student, because of merit, need, etc., to pursue his or her studies.
3. the position or status of such a student.
4. a foundation to provide financial assistance to students.scholarship. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholarship (accessed: December 07, 2007).
The first definition is what should concern us here. In the discussion at Frank’s site, much was made of the fact that there aren’t many fundamentalist’s whom poor, benighted Dr. McCune could actually cite in his book. Scholarship, it was maintained, is evidenced by leaving a trail of published works behind one’s self. According to dictionary.com, this just isn’t so.
Furthermore, the facts prove otherwise. The men and women who populate the faculties of fundamentalist colleges and seminaries are devoted scholars themselves. Their attainments are well known and some of them do write occasionally. I maintain that market forces prohibit much publishing, but be that as it may, the presence or absence of published works are no proof or disproof of scholarship.
I am all for scholarship. I am all for study, diligence, hard work and educational attainment.
And I am unabashedly anti-intellectual.
And proud of it. Y’hear?
Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I sort of agree with the complaints voiced over at My Two Cents in critique of an article entitled “Fundamentalism’s Great Softness”. I have wanted to jump in and add my voice to the comments, but have restrained myself! (Amazing but true!)
Of course, that restraint is only “so far” and “until now”.
I want to add some ‘wait a minute’ statements:
By the way… in some respects, I am looser than some of my fundamentalist forbears, especially in areas like dress standards. I stand against immodest and worldly dress [as I understand it] but I am not against such things as ‘pants on women’ or insist on men wearing suits to church or even as a pastor dressing in a tie during the week… call me a liberal…
My point, though, is this: let’s not kid ourselves about the lack of softness in fundamentalism. Softness is everywhere. Some of it may be a legitimate softening of previously unreasonably hard positions. Some of it is compromise with the world, plain and simple.
By the way, the BJU folks may be right in making these changes. I am personally reserving judgement to see where things end up. I am concerned, as an alum and a parent of current students. May God keep the University as the premier fundamentalist institution in the world! But the changes bear watching and who can deny that this is a softening of previously held positions?
I cannot speak for the writer of The Projector article, but these last two points may be the kind of thing he was aiming at.
It is undeniable that fundamentalism has softened in many respects. I have offered examples of softening at two ends of the spectrum, so to speak. I think that the reader can supply plenty of evidence of softening in between the ‘lower level’ of softening exhibited by individuals and the ‘higher level’ of softening at some (all?) of our fundamentalist institutions. Many many churches with fundamentalist heritages are softening. Some are softening right out of fundamentalism altogether.
Some softening may be warranted. Is all of it? We don’t know the answer to that question yet.
Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
My Number One Son sent me a link to an article written by a friend of his. I guess since they are both young and fundamentalists, that makes them ‘young fundamentalists’.
But…
Not of the usual sort. That is, not of the usual sort of mindset you think of when that term is used. The article is entitled The Errors of “Recovering Fundamentalists” by Lincoln Mullen.
If you haven’t seen this article, I encourage you to read it. It is refreshing to read a young man with an unapologetic approach to fundamentalism.
Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Recent events at the ETS meetings again call into question fundamentalist participation. The Christianity Today LiveBlog reports on a session by J. P. Moreland of Talbot Seminary. The session had this arresting title: "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It"
Consider this statement as reported by LiveBlog:
“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ,” he said. “And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.”
The problem, he said, is “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.”
or here’s another treat:
Likewise, Moreland argued, “because the human soul/spirit and demons/angels are real, it is possible, and, in fact, actual that extra-biblical knowledge can be gained about these spiritual entities. … Demons do not exist in the Bible. They exist in reality.”
By not researching how demons work, how to fight them, and other such issues by, for example, working with exorcists, Christian scholars are harming the church, Moreland argued. In a similar vein, he thinks evangelical scholars and the movement as a whole are rejecting “guidance, revelation, and so forth from God through impressions, dreams, visions, prophetic words, words of knowledge and wisdom.”
This session was some kind of ‘breakout’ session at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. I don’t know if the transcript will be represented by a formal paper published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) or not. Regardless, this kind of thinking is obviously part of the milieu at ETS. I have an electronic copy of JETS and occasionally find some interesting articles there, although I don’t find it a "go to" resource because JETS general tenor tends towards this kind of unbelief. That is not to say that such blatantly unbiblical thinking is present in every JETS article, but that JETS tends in that direction.
Which brings me to the issue of fundamentalist participation in the ETS. I have discussed this on another blog somewhere, although I can’t remember exactly where or when. Some prominent fundamentalists defend the association. I can’t imagine how they can defend their association with such unbelief.
In a related post, LiveBlog reports on an attempt to amend the doctrinal statement of the ETS. At the moment, members of the ETS must adhere to a very simple doctrinal statement. They must affirm belief in the Trinity and in the inerrancy of the Bible. That is all. The attempt to amend the doctrinal statement comes from men who don’t think the current statement is sufficient and that it allows for heretics to be members. I recommend that you read the whole thing, but I am struck by how much this sounds like the attempts of the fundamentalists to clarify orthodoxy in the Presbyterian church and in the Northern Baptist Convention back in the 1920s. It’s sort of deja vu all over again.
The effort at ETS will likely fail, just as those efforts in the 1920s also ultimately failed.
But again, why are fundamentalists involved in something like this at all? Did we learn anything from the 1920s or not?
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
In their own words…
UN Leader Woos Evangelicals | Liveblog | Christianity Today: “In a sense, last night’s banquet and today’s issue-oriented discussions are really less about evangelicals fighting disease and poverty and more about evangelicals working in partnerships–partnerships between Western evangelicals and those in the developing world and partnerships with non-evangelicals,
We cautiously engaged those of other shades of Christian faith and even other religions in the mid-90s when we threw tremendous weight behind the effort to pass the International Religious Freedom Act and the creation of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. We then enlarged the circle of cooperation to work on legislation to fight sex trafficking and, later, human-rights abuses in North Korea. The circle has expanded yet again as many evangelical leaders are partnering on issues of climate change.
Partnerships give evangelicals a sense of participation and empowerment. It gives us the chance to take on really big issues. That’s a strange feeling for a movement whose consciousness is rooted in old-style fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was about being the few and the proud–I mean, the pure. The evangelicalism that emerged in the 1940s hoped for a new engagement with society while maintaining doctrinal and ethical integrity. Its leaders, like first CT editor Carl F. H. Henry and first CT board chair Harold John Ockenga preached a strong social justice message. But the old fundamentalist consciousness still lurks, and these partnerships stretch the evangelical sense of identity.”
This attitude is not all that dissimilar to that promoted by at least some of the so-called ‘conservative evangelicals. I recall Ben Wright posting a telling comment by Al Mohler about fundamentalism where he said something like “Fundamentalism is marginalized and has no influence.” [I am paraphrasing, it was from Mohler’s radio show and it was some time ago.] For many conservative evangelicals, I believe the reason they cannot admit the fundamental error of evangelicalism is that they cannot give up their addiction to “influence”. Whether they actually have any influence or not is another question.
Zechariah 4:6 Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Shelton Smith, the editor of the Sword of the Lord, wrote an editorial regarding the blogosphere here. I don’t know how many people blogged about it, but I first became aware of it here, at paleoevangelical, a post linked by Greg Linscott at Current Christian. Later Bob Bixby unleashed on it over at Pensee’s. Paleo Ben, as I like to call him, linked to Bob’s post by commenting again on paleoevangelical here.
I finally got around to actually reading Smith’s article after all these links and commentary. I have to wonder what all the anxiety is about. Shelton Smith didn’t say that Christians should never have a blog or comment on a blog. What he said is that Christians should be responsible when they blog. What is wrong with that? By ranting and raving about Shelton Smith and his call for responsibility, I suspect that the rant is about something else. I wonder if those complaining (especially Bob and Ben) read the same article I did. They certainly got a different impression.
It seems that Bob’s offense with Smith’s words has nothing to do with what Smith actually said. It has to do with fundamentalist politics in general and in particular with Smith and the SotL’s practice of editing sermons they publish, especially Spurgeon’s sermons. They have a tendency to edit out the more Calvinistic bits. Well… I suppose that is true. What does it have to do with the content of Smith’s editorial? What, specifically, is ‘anti-blog’ about it? The editorial seems to accept that blogs are here to stay (they are until the next fad). It merely suggests that those of us who blog should be careful about what we say and make absolutely certain about the assertions we make.
I know first hand how easy it is to post something that one regrets later. I have done it more than once. The on-line world is self-corrective, they say. Yes it is. But one error can seriously damage an individual and his future ministry. (At least I haven’t gone so far as to damage my ministry — that I know of, anyway!) Surely Smith’s call for caution is well worth heeding. And it is well worth reading as well. Go over and have a look. Compare it to the reaction. Don’t you agree that those reacting are over-reacting?
Is the Sword the absolutely best periodical in fundamentalism? Maybe not. But the reactions to the editorial were weird. They had nothing to do with what was said and everything to do with an axe that keeps getting ground at certain blogs. Methinks those protesting protest too much and become an example of what Smith was editorializing about. From a knee jerk antagonistic reaction to Smith and the SotL, the invective becomes a rant against the whole of fundamentalism, caricaturizing it in a way consistent with the blogs involved, but not consistent with the reality I have experienced.
These are bro. Smith’s recommendations for the blogosphere. They are well worth heeding:
1. I’m all for free speech! Our First Amendment freedoms have come at great cost, and they are precious!
But Christians (of all people) should use their freedoms responsibly. Opinions, rumors, etc., should be checked, rechecked and fully certified before being repeated or published. …
2. Scandals (even Christian ones) should be exposed! If and when there are issues of scandal, the scoundrels should expect to get some bad press. But the blogosphere so often has no journalistic credibility whatsoever. It often is “my thoughts” and “your thoughts” which are given with no other purpose than to smear good people. …
3. Gossip is not a Christian activity! Even if you do it with a computer, it is not right! The fact that you have your own blog does not give you scriptural license to peddle gossip. …
4. Christian integrity demands accountability of all of us. Don’t open your mouth unless you’ve done your homework and know for sure whereof you speak.
5. It is neither faithful nor fruitful, neither pious nor prudent to tell everything you know—even if it is true! Some things serve no public good by being spoken. …
6. Some things are issues of sufficient public interest and for the public good that they must be reported. But even then, it should be done in a responsible manner. Facts must be checked and rechecked. Primary sources must be consulted. Be accountable for your actions. Sign your name to whatever you say or write.
7. Christians ought to be Christian! As I review the Christian blogosphere, I see a lot that doesn’t look certifiably Christian to me.
All Christian bloggers would do well to abide by these recommendations. In particular, the question we should ask is this, “Is it necessary?” Perhaps it would reduce our output, especially posts such as this one that holds others up to criticism. The temptation is to simply let fly. Better to wait. Think it through, and ask God’s guidance.
Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
This will be the last installment on the contentions revealed by letters by my dad and by my uncle. The denomination in which I grew up had no sure touchstone by which to call men to account. One of their central mantras was ‘no creeds’. The end of the day sees many in that kind of persuasion having ‘no faith’. If there is no central accountability, there is nothing to measure by, and who is to say if one persons views are right or wrong. So the charming, feel-good unbelievers carry the day and infect a church group with grievous error.
These letters are personal correspondence between my uncle and my dad. The two previous letters were from my dad to officials in the denomination. My dad evidently sent copies to my uncle, who responded with the letter that follows. My dad then replied which I am posting below. I am again leaving out personal names and since these are personal letters I will add a bit of editorial comment in brackets [like this] to explain things that might not be obvious.
June 5th,1980
Dear Tom,
Thank you for your letter and the copies of the letters sent by yourself to the Editor of the Contact and to XXX XXXXX. I felt that they were well written and to the point. I have written XXXXXX on several occasions, one in response to the same article your letter was directed to, and have not received an answer. I have written XXX XXXXX several times concerning the school and with regard to one comment he made towards conservative brethren who did not go along with him. I did not receive a reply to that particular thing but he has replied to some of my concerns regarding the school.
I must share with you the information that I wrote Brother XXXXXXXX, a reply to his article in the Contact. I had just preached a sermon titled: The Holy Spirit and The Holy Word in which I declared Bible truth concerning it’s inspiration and how the Holy Spirit is received and companions us in relationship to it’s direct authority to us. I used text in II Timothy 3 where Paul speaks to Timothy words given by revelation of the Holy Spirit concerning apostacy to come. He calls Timothy’s attention to the Scriptures as “Holy” and thus a priority in direction of how to he saved and worship God in Spirit and in truth… Kingdom experience and Kingdom reality.
[The man mentioned here was a dear friend of our family, at this point in time sort of a senior statesman in the Church of God in Western Canada. He had been a pastor in the denomination and was a prolific author, championing especially amillennialism. He was a godly, saintly man, but quite loyal to the party machine.]
I pointed out to Brother XXXXXXXX the fact that Paul not only “Knew whom He believed” but what he believed and that many of his epistles to the churches were corrective of situations that existed in ethics and in doctrinal disarray. The Scripture does not just point to Christ it declares His authority and Lordship in all matters pertaining to godliness of mind, spirit and body. The idea of the power of opinions and existential discovery of truth apart from Scripture in these areas is dangerous and downright disobedient. His reply was cordial and appreciative of what I shared but he still seemed infatuated with his novel idea that the “Bible is a window not a Wall”. To me that is a term that relegates the Scripture to a “Reference book” to he used if necessary and in emergency.
I don’t believe he appreciated the fact I shared with him that God still has a witness in this matter and that He has raised up many brethren of insight and not particularly associated with the Church of God movement, although I have encounted [sic] some. Sad to say, some have already passed from the scene and are home with the Lord.
I have a distinct feeling that some of the pastors are beginning to view me with some suspicion and concern due to my conservative stand while other definitely are of like mind in many areas. Perhaps the Lord will turn some things around. It will not be without persistence and without a voice being heard. We must temper criticism with objective love declared for the Lord who bought us with so great a price and the Word He has given to be “The Faith once delivered to the Saints” of both covenant ages… that word of salvation and grace diligently heeded.
[signed]
The following letter is my dad’s reply to my uncle:
June 12, 1980
Dear XXXXX:
I appreciate your letter, and encourage you in the firm doctrinal opinions that you espouse.
I recognize that you are looked at askance by the liberal minded and compromisers among your fellow ministers in the Church of God in Western Canada. My opinion is that they constitute about 2/3 of the fellowship between them. The liberals are always moving to the left as fast as they dare, and the compromisers, who constitute a majority with whichever of the left or right wing groups they choose to vote with, are too gutless and morally weak to take a position and root out the incipient heresy and declension that infects the organization.
The truth of the matter that you have been discussing with Mr. XXXXXXXX, and others, is that the Word illuminates and defends those who trust in the Word and are willing to be guided by it. Therefore the Bible is both a window, and a wall to these ones.
It appears to me that those who choose to compromise themselves considerably both as to doctrine and association, are rather firmly entrenched in the schools at Anderson & Portland and in Camrose, as well as in the management and distribution of the curriculum preparation for the Sunday School.
I believe that it is unrealistic to think that these situations can be turned around.
That is the major reason why my children are being educated elsewhere. The other primary reason is doctrinal emphasis. I believe that Arminianism readily lends itself to the trend to rationalistic, humanistic religious reasoning, due to its undue emphasis on the human part of the religious equation; and I believe that A-millennialism readily lends itself to a rationalizing of the Word of God and to minimizing the importance of an explicit adherence to the Word in doctrinal matters.
[These issues were bones of contention between my uncle and my dad. As a pastor in the denomination, he accepted their general theological framework. To the annoyance of many, my dad insisted on being premillennial. The CoG is fully Arminian, a church in the Wesleyan Holiness tradtion, teaching the Second Blessing of sinless perfectionism. I am not sure how much of the perfectionism my uncle would accept. In opposing the Arminianism, my dad is not asserting a Calvinist point of view. He opposed that as vigorously as he opposed Arminianism.]
I realize that there has been serious error and religious decline in many other religious organizations as well as the Arminian and A-millennial groups, but I believe that in these latter mentioned the trend is much more pervasive and pronounced.
Our primary responsibilities are first of all to God, Next to ourselves, and thirdly to our families, and after that to the Christian community. One cannot afford to sacrifice loyalty to God, to self and to family on the altar of an expedient relationship to any religious group. It just is not worth it and never can be. If we fail our God, ourselves, our families, who is able to recompense us for the loss. No man or group of men can do this.
Sincerely
[signed]
T. W. D. Johnson
A little more on the issue of ‘creedlessness’ I was reading over at the CoG website today and found this explanation of their position:
As affirmed in condensations such as “The Apostles Creed,” the Church of God holds to the teachings of historical Christianity:
* The Trinity.
* The Bible as God’s written word, only rule of faith and practice.
* The Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.
* Salvation by faith in Jesus and His atoning death on the cross.
* The gift of the Holy Spirit to those who receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
* The return of Christ at the close of the age.
* Judgment and Eternal rewards, heaven and hell.Orthodox Christians may hold varying opinions on secondary or peripheral doctrine. Within the Church of God there is no insistence that everyone conform their ideas on minute points.
Allowing people with honest hearts and minds to search the Scripture’s leads, with the Holy Spirit’s help to an amazing consensus. Experience has shown that formation of the great historic creeds of the church served a purpose in delineating orthodoxy from heresy. Experience has also shown that creed formation has exacerbated divisions between Christians when it was not necessary. For this reason, in the interest of unity, the Church of God Movement has shied away from the drafting of an official statement of beliefs. Such works of systematic distillation of doctrine from Scripture have severe human limitations and tend to be dated. The Movement has preferred to confine itself to the spirit-inspired Scripture, treating our own interpretations of it with humility and those of others who differ with charity.
The problem with avoiding the divisions caused by creeds is that anything goes. If you search through the CoG newsletters you will find numerous women pastors. I don’t have access to any of the current positions of those teaching or leading the denominational school, I doubt that it has improved much since the days that prompted these letters.
My uncle passed away with brain cancer, my dad was one voice for conservative theology in a sea of opposition. As my dad aged, he was stricken by Parkinsons disease. His involvment has been severely limited since. They were unsuccessful in their efforts, but I applaud their efforts.
One of my uncle’s sons is a pastor in this group. He has apparently not taken as conservative a stand as his dad did.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments