Who argues for this? In Kevin Bauder’s most recent article, he makes statements like this one (from near the beginning).

In the wake of Common Sense Realism and Populism, however, some evangelicals, including some Fundamentalists, have become confused about the meaning of these doctrines. They have distorted Sola Scriptura to mean Nuda Scriptura. They have replaced the perspicuity of the Scriptures with the perspicacity of every interpreter.

And these two statements come from near the end:

In some circles, one finds a naïve belief that a solitary individual, given no prior instruction, can simply sit down with a Bible and discover the entire Christian faith.

…

Nor can we afford to assume that by just starting from scratch we can avoid all the mistakes of the past.

I wonder who Bauder is talking about? Who argues that Christians in some Fundamentalist churches have no need of training, of understanding, of learning, of listening to well-trained pastors, or that none of this is necessary, all of Scripture is equally easy to understand by any Christian?

I don’t know anybody who argues for what Bauder is arguing against, even in the most anti-intellectual circles of Fundamentalism. Even there, training is thought necessary and not all are thought to have equal understanding. It is true that there are some circles that are more anti-intellectual than others, and that there are some schools that aren’t as good as others, and thus pastors/church leaders who are not as well prepared as they should be.

But who argues that “we don’t need no stinkin’ interpretation” or interpreters? It is a mystery to me.

Perhaps it is yon scarecrow against whom the professor raises his argument.

One commenter offers an observation and a question:

Perhaps I’m wrong here, but I attribute much of fundamentalism’s current weakness to the secondhand lions now heading up its institutions and fellowships. Are there any fundamentalist institutions that currently model what fundamentalism should be?

Here’s the question I would like to ask you, Don, since I believe you’ll answer it partisanly but fairly. Fundamentalism as an idea is chic enough, but at some point it must take on a concrete expression. What in your opinion should a fully-dressed fundamentalism look like?

I agree with the observation.

But what should fundamentalism look like?

[Read more…]

Kevin Bauder has come out with another disappointing broadside against fundamentalism. He fills a recent article of Central Seminaries online publication, In the Nick of Time, with a series of scandalous charges against Fundamentalism.

I have summarized the charges as they appear in the article. I attempt to represent them accurately, working my way through the article paragraph by paragraph. If my summaries are inaccurate in any way, I invite correction where I may have erred.

[Read more…]