Gordon at Faith, Theology, & Ministry concludes his series on fundamentalism with part 9. In his concluding paragraphs are these words:

The young men that presently sit in the balance or along the sidelines in all this are sure not to be helped by the silence of the older generation at such a time as this.  I believe that the seasoned men of Fundamentalism need to publically speak to the issues at hand, and in today’s array of media options the far-reaching Internet should be the means of choice.

I and many others do not see Fundamentalism as dead.  Neither do we accept that its foundations were flawed.  Its history is still worth telling and worth knowing.  There are many Baptist churches that make Baptist a poor name to some people, but I still believe that under the Baptist name is the place to be.  There are many rogue independent churches who are precisely independent so as to do wrong without consequence, but I have no desire to change in that respect either.  Yes, there are more than a few Fundamental-labeled churches who have and are hurting not just the cause of Fundamentalism but the cause of Christ.  I have earnestly contended with more than a few prime examples here in the Dakotas and bear ministry scars because of it.  Nevertheless, I see no reason to radically redefine, realign, or redirect Fundamentalism.  I pray that you will be convinced of that as well.

I couldn’t agree more, especially with the call for the erstwhile leaders of fundamentalism to take some leadership with respect to the directions that some are promoting. We need to know if these men are on the right track. My instincts have been against what they seem to be saying. I could be wrong. But I’d like to hear from more men who stand as leaders in fundamentalism.

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:

• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Part Five
• Part Six
• Part Seven
• Part Eight

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:

• should early Fundamentalism have embraced the flappers?

• cart before the horse [2]