fundamentalism by blunt instrument
A few more thoughts on my DBTS post. (From the department of “can’t leave well enough alone”).
Kevin Bauder offers a piece entitled “Dialogue?” in his regular series of articles appearing both on Sharper Iron and at the Central Seminary website as well. You can read the full article at either site to get the full context.
I was tipped to the article by Jason Button over at Theosource, where he posted his initial reaction, then we had a bit of a conversation about it. There is an ongoing discussion over at SI which produced some interesting comments. I wonder if anyone commenting really understands what the article is about. It appears that some are disagreeing with it from opposite sides of the fence. [Or maybe I just don’t understand the comments.]
I think the confusion [perhaps just my confusion] comes because the article itself is vague, barely giving enough details to provide some context and certainly not enough specifics to answer the question, “Now what?”
With this post, I’d like to point out where I think some of the confusion arises…
I am in the midst of rebuilding my lawn after having a new $eptic $y$tem installed, so I am too busy for blogging. But let me note a few things of interest to me lately…
There are places on the Moon where the sun hasn’t shined for millions of years [sic]. Dark polar craters too deep for sunlight to penetrate are luna incognita, the realm of the unknown, and in their inky depths, researchers believe, may lie a treasure of great value.
NASA is about to light one up.
And last, for now…
In some of our recent discussion, Pastor Tracy Pennock asserts that Bob Jones, Sr., was not a separatist but rather followed the pattern of John R. Rice when it came to so-called ‘secondary separation’. I have argued that he is misinformed concerning Bob Jones, Sr.
This evening, I discovered an unlikely ally in making my point: Christianity Today.
I follow a blog by a Canadian evangelical who teaches at Southern Seminary in Louisville. He is by all accounts a fine man and godly professor. Of course, we would have disagreements. This post isn’t about him, except that he announced something on his blog just now that is about erstwhile fundamentalists.
Call for papers
By Michael Haykin on Uncategorized
It might seem a tad early to be advertising this, but this post will serve as an initial call for papers to be presented in the parallel sessions of the 3rd annual Andrew Fuller Center conference to be held August 24-25, 2009, on the campus of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The theme for the conference is “Baptist Spirituality.” Plenary sessions will be given by, among others: Drs. Robert Strivens of London Theological Seminary; Crawford Gribben of Trinity College, Dublin; Tom Nettles and Greg Wills of SBTS; Greg Thornbury of Union University; and Gerald Priest of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. [bolded sections mine, for emphasis]
So… where does that leave us? Consider my post ‘parsing Doran’? No one but Dave commented there, and Dave just dismissed my points.
But isn’t this an example of the confusion and disconnect I am talking about? Am I just talking to walls? Am I nuts? Is this what being a faithful fundamentalist is about?
I suppose some might think I relish this. I assure you I do not. I would far rather write about our common salvation.
In the comments to my ‘still no middle ground’ post, I made this comment to Dave Doran:
When Dever posted his response on 9marks to the Minnick interview, your answer (very early in the thread) was excellent. But on the other hand, you have said other things at other venues that seem disconnected with fundamentalist philosophy. Here I am thinking specifically of your recent message at the FBF conference and your speaking at a church in the “MacArthur orbit” not too long ago.
In response, Dave said this:
I’d be interested to hear what your concerns about the FBF message are. … I suppose I should say, I am interested in your concerns, but not likely to engage in much discussion over them simply because I am trying to cut back on blog discussions currently. So, please do offer your assessment and I will attempt to listen carefully, just probably won’t respond lest I find myself in a long discussion.
Well folks, I am not sure of the wisdom of publishing this commentary. This could too easily be construed as a personal attack. My focus is on what Dave said and what it seems to convey about the directions fundamentalist leaders are taking (i.e., mostly inaction while the younger set speculate about the future of fundamentalism).
So at the outset, let me offer my appreciation to Dave for requesting a more detailed assessment. I am not planning an extended discussion of this beyond this post. As Dave mentioned, understanding our busy schedules and the need to minimize some of the blog activity, I will let his response stand as is though I may add a point or two if absolute clarity is needed.
I’d like to wrap up my reporting of our discussion in Calgary led by pastor Mark Minnick. Our subject was Conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, an afternoon discussion session at the annual meeting of the Western Canada Baptist Fellowship.
My first report is here and my most recent, and perhaps most significant report is here.
This post is going to be a bit of a hodge-podge, just a few random thoughts from my notes that I didn’t include earlier, but thought worthy of your attention.
Some ongoing reflections on a discussion about “Conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists” held in Calgary, AB, June 27, 2008.
See earlier notes here.
Perhaps the most interesting question on our minds for this discussion is just what Pastor Minnick thinks can be done in cooperation with conservative evangelicals. The question was raised by Mark Dever in his recently published interview of Pastor Minnick this way:
“What would we have to do to change for you to be free to preach here?”
The same question has been discussed here and here with the majority of commenters seemingly unsatisfied with the specificity of Pastor Minnick’s answer at that time. You will see a commenter raising the question again in my last post on the subject and the question was raised both in the public discussion in Calgary and in personal conversation. The question is being framed in different ways, but essentially it is the same question. Dever’s articulation of it is as good as any.
Apparently, some are of the mind that very little prevents someone like Pastor Minnick from being free to preach at a Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Some have said that it is merely the connections with fundamentalist institutions that prevent such cooperation.
My friend, Matt Recker, offers a powerful sermon entitled “The Dangerous Direction of Rick Warren“
Here are a few words from the concluding paragraph:
Warren mocks Fundamentalism and has said, “There aren’t that many Fundamentalists left in America.” May I remind Rick Warren that “might does not make right?” Although Warren may interpret God’s blessing in terms of numbers, God never does. There were not many who got into Noah’s Ark. There were not many who accepted the prophetic statements of Isaiah or Jeremiah. There were not many following Jesus when He went to the cross! Nevertheless, there are still some very godly, balanced, loving, and doctrinally sound Biblical fundamentalists and churches throughout our nation, and there is still this one, and as long as God allows, I will contend for the holiness of God and the purity of the Gospel.
Not much ‘nuancing’ going on here!
The average fundamentalist cares. Do evangelicals care?
In spite of recent interest in the fundamentalist question by Mark Dever and his ministries, doesn’t it seem that the interest is more of an amused curiosity rather than genuine interest?
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments