You are here: Home / Archives for Uncategorized
by on 9.21.21

New book by David Beale

Just got a note from Dr. Beale about his new book, Christian Fundamentalism in America. I encourage you to order it. Dr. Beale is a favorite! He thinks a lot about these topics and is well worth reading. This book is an update of his earlier work, now out of print, In Pursuit of Purity.

Here is the promo from the Amazon listing:

Christian Fundamentalism in America: The Story of the Rest from 1857 to 2020 is a fascinating account of the Christian Fundamentalist movement in America. The first section unfolds the story of great men and women who were song writers, Christian businessmen, great scholars, and much more, who experienced great Prayer Meeting Revivals, Prophetic Bible Conferences, the first Scofield Reference Bible, the famous 12-volume set, known as The Fundamentals, and finally the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association of 1919. The Grace Brethren story transitions into the turbulent twenties between Fundamentalism and Modernists.

For another section, beginning in the 1920s, the author dug far beyond the surface to bring to us the "story of the rest" within the Presbyterian and Baptist denominations struggling between truth and error. The reader will learn what really happened secretly when Des Moines University was shut down by riotous students and everything got out of hand. The reader follows down pathways of well-researched aspects of the fascinating Dr. J. Frank Norris and life trials. In the detailed story of Billy Graham, John R. Rice, Bob Jones Sr., and Bob Jones Jr. the reader will discover how the lines of separation were drawn.

Most importantly, however, the author knows without doubt that a true Fundamentalist: (1) believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God; (2) seeks fully to obey His Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and (3) desires to reach out in sacrificial love and compassion to all people.

By far, most in this "story of the rest" are godly believers who will bring joy for each of us. David Beale taught courses on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism for some thirty years at Bob Jones University and Seminary. In 1986, he wrote a book (now out of print) titled In Pursuit of Purity. Our new book, Christian Fundamentalism in America, replaces the old, out-of-date one.

He has written several other books, including Historical Theology In-depth (Volume 1 and Volume 2); Baptist History in England and America; A Pictorial History of Our English Bible; and The Mayflower Pilgrims.

Filed Under: Uncategorized
by on 5.29.21

Submitting to Froward Governments

What to do when our authorities are wrong in what they command?

In 1 Peter 2.18 we find that archaic word in the King James Version, “froward.” The verse calls servants to submit to their masters, even “the froward.”

KJV 1Pe 2:18 ¶ Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

The verse is the only New Testament occurrence of the term, though it shows up 20 times in 19 verses of the KJV Old Testament. The dictionary gives this meaning:

“habitually disposed to disobedience and opposition” ((Frederick C. Mish, ed., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).))

Other translations give these renderings: “unreasonable” (NASB); “unjust” (ESV); “perverse” (NET); “cross” (YLT). In the context, the word refers to a master who is not congenial, a difficult boss, rude, arrogant, mercurial, and likely tyrannical.

What do froward masters have to do with our discussion of submission to government during the Covid pandemic? In our last chapter, I closed with this:

“However, what if the government is wrong in its approach to a public health emergency? What if their orders make no sense, and they require something of us that will not address the emergency they declared? We’ll take that topic up next.”

I don’t know of any passages directly referencing submission to government when it is wrong. However, the third (and weakest) line of argument the Covid rebels use is the argument to the effect that government overstated the risks of Covid and added to our misery by proposing ineffective measures to combat a negligible effect. I summarized that argument in chapter 1, “The Covid Rebels and Their Rationale.” In its public statement, this is one of the primary arguments of James Coates and the GraceLife Church near Edmonton, Alberta. (( See the statement of GraceLife Church posted here.))

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Uncategorized
by on 3.30.20

Comparing the Scandinavian Countries

Sweden is going it alone in attacking the coronavirus situation, keeping most of life going, encouraging social distancing, isolating the sick and seniors homes. They now have restricted public gatherings to no more than 50. They expect their economy will not emerge unscathed, but they are not shutting everything down either.

I’ve shared several articles on Facebook on this topic and a friend shared another one just tonight. I thought I’d do a little comparison on the worldometer charts, and see where some relatively close countries are faring, adding in the UK as a more severely hit comparison.

Here is the article that got me started on this tonight:

No lockdown here: Sweden defends its more relaxed coronavirus strategy

Here are a few earlier articles I shared:

Explaining the science behind Sweden’s relaxed coronavirus approach

As the rest of Europe lives under lockdown, Sweden keeps calm and carries on

Ok, now for the comparison charts (from worldometer, linked above):

sweden

finland

Norway

britain

All three of the comparison nations are using more stringent shutdowns. The key number to compare, I think is Cases/1M pop and Deaths/1M pop.

So far, Sweden seems not much worse off than any of these countries.

Compared to the whole world (the numbers in the bottom row in each picture), all of these countries seem high, but that is probably misleading. I am guessing that more urban nations with a more mobile population will have higher rates than nations like those in Africa, perhaps.

Anyway, it is interesting to watch. My opinion is that the total shutdown is unnecessary and will hurt us way more than the Swedish approach would do in the long run. Only time will tell, but I think we are not well served by our government and especially the media at this time.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
by on 3.26.20

The real deal in Italy

I am following a blog on the Wuhan virus situation. Here is the author’s bio:

Chris Centeno, MD is a specialist in regenerative medicine and the new field of Interventional Orthopedics. Centeno pioneered orthopedic stem cell procedures in 2005 and is responsible for a large amount of the published research on stem cell use for orthopedic applications.

Today, I’m sharing his post from yesterday, entitled, "What’s Really Going On in Italy?"

This one sparked some interest for me because as soon as you start talking to someone about the virus, the more concerned will say something like, "Yeah, well look at Italy." So let’s look at Italy. This piece has a video from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) which is an interview by Howard Bauchner, MD, of JAMA with Maurizio Cecconi, MD, of Italy, a man on the front in the battle againat the Wuhan virus in Italy. He describes the Italy situation clearly, without the spin the news media inevitably adds to their reports. The value of this report is you are getting an expert assessment straight from an expert. News reporters are no more experts at this than you or I, though they talk as if they are.

Having said that, I’d like to point out that I am not one to simply rely on "experts." The notion that only experts may speak on the topic is irrational. We all have the ability to absorb information and make judgements about the information we receive. We should take care ourselves not to "rush to judgement" one way or another. We hear an alarming report and we can respond too soon, driven by our natural fear, without careful analysis or considering alternate points of view. Even in the community of experts, there are widely varying points of view, so we should be careful about any conclusions we come to. Conclusions driven by fear can hardly be trusted or considered authoritative.

Back to the question of Italy, what really is going on in Italy? Near the end of his piece, Chris Centrino says:

If covering this crisis as a blogger has taught me one thing, it’s cemented my belief that the primary purpose of our media is to sell eyeballs for advertisers. Yes, they can serve a critical role in helping to expose wrongs, but on balance, it’s their job to sensationalize what’s happening. This crisis and threat is VERY real and this virus will overwhelm our health system if we don’t shut it all down to flatten the curve and then smartly manage the situation. However, listening to this leading Italian ICU physician speak does one thing clearly, it shows how the media has taken some truths about Italy and blown them up into something that is not recognizable.

The upshot? I was floored by this interview. PLEASE TAKE 10 MINUTES AND WATCH IT NOW FOR YOURSELF. Also, we need to maintain our current shutdown and begin to call out states that are not getting with the program. Why? Like Italy, we need to have our own cases peak and come down the other side. We also need to prepare our ICUs and restructure how we care for the sick while we continue to ramp up testing. However, we also need to recognize that it’s the media’s job to sell us stuff and we all need to take everything reported with a BIG grain of salt.

What should we do? Well, be careful in public contacts. People are afraid, and maybe there is good reason to be afraid. Yet one would think that good health habits and taking care in our public contacts should be enough from each one of us. Don’t get bent out of shape at others who don’t do things exactly the way you would do. Don’t report your fellow-citizens to the police! (Good grief, what are we, a police state?) Just take precautions and do what you need to do. And stay home more. There’s nothing to do out there anyway!

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
by on 12.10.19

Representative Evangelical Theologians: Clark Pinnock

In an earlier piece, “The Evangelical Coalition,” I outlined the formation of the new evangelical movement (or, as Roger Olson calls it, postfundamentalist evangelicalism). As that piece closed, I noted that Olson surveys five theologians as representatives of evangelical theology.

I’ve held my peace on this for a couple of weeks now, so it is time to get back at it.

Roger Olson begins his chapter on Clark Pinnock with two incredible paragraphs giving his take on the current state of affairs in evangelicalism (as of 2007, that is, the date of the book). These paragraphs are so significant I reproduce them here: [Read more…]

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
by on 11.8.19

Representative Evangelical Theologians: E. J. Carnell

In my last piece, “The Evangelical Coalition,” I outlined the formation of the new evangelical movement (or, as Roger Olson calls it, postfundamentalist evangelicalism). As that piece closed, I noted that Olson surveys five theologians as representatives of evangelical theology.

  • Carl F. H. Henry: Dean of Evangelical Theology
  • E. J. Carnell: Apologist for Evangelical Theology
  • Bernard Ramm: Moderate Evangelical Theologian
  • Donald Bloesch: Progressive Evangelical Theologian
  • Clark Pinnock: Postconservative Evangelical Theology

Last time I discussed Carl Henry. This time we turn to E. J. Carnell. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
by on 11.4.19

Representative Evangelical Theologians: Carl Henry

In my last piece, “The Evangelical Coalition,” I outlined the formation of the new evangelical movement (or, as Roger Olson calls it, postfundamentalist evangelicalism). As that piece closed, I noted that Olson surveys five theologians as representatives of evangelical theology.

  • Carl F. H. Henry: Dean of Evangelical Theology
  • E. J. Carnell: Apologist for Evangelical Theology
  • Bernard Ramm: Moderate Evangelical Theologian
  • Donald Bloesch: Progressive Evangelical Theologian
  • Clark Pinnock: Postconservative Evangelical Theology

In this piece I summarize Olson’s remarks on Carl F. H. Henry. ((I intended to make this brief, but alas! I decided to go ahead and post since I want to keep something newish up on oxgoad.)) [Read more…]

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
by on 10.31.19

The Evangelical Coalition

My earlier discussion from Roger Olson’s Pocket History of Evangelical Theology covered the first half of the book. The subject there was the roots of evangelical theology. He listed eight roots or sources of evangelical thought:

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

For discussion of each of these, see my earlier posts (you can work your way backwards from this one).

The rest of Olson’s book describes postfundamentalist evangelical theology, beginning with a brief introductory chapter then discussing five different evangelical theologians as representatives of the breadth of evangelical theology. Olson’s introduction to postfundamentalist evangelicalism (new evangelicalism) is striking in that the history I was taught by fundamentalist professors matches exactly what Olson describes. Many younger men in the “on-line discussion mosh pits” need to read this chapter. They tend to have a highly revisionist view of the period. It will not do to construct a narrative justifying your prejudices. You need to let real history inform your thinking about the current state of affairs and the way forward.

Olson opens the introductory chapter this way:

“The Evangelicalism that forms the context for this resource on evangelical theology is the postfundamentalist, new evangelical coalition that came into existence as a result of the efforts of [Harold] Ockenga and his colleagues in the 1940s. Of course, they did not create an entire new religious movement. Instead, they managed to reform the fundamentalist movement by giving it a new face, so to speak. They reorganized and refurbished it and pushed out to the periphery those militant, separatistic leaders who had captivated it throughout the 1930s. The latter continued to exist, of course, and so the two movements — later fundamentalism (militant, separatistic) and the new Evangelicalism (irenic, cooperative) — have existed alongside each other since then as the two wings of conservative Protestant Christianity.” (pp. 91-92)

Many points in this comment cry out for rebuttal, but most will have to wait another time. It is interesting and ironic that Olson can’t avoid the term “new evangelical” in this paragraph, though he earlier decried it as a fundamentalist pejorative. It is, in fact, Harold Ockenga’s term. I don’t see how it can be a pejorative if it comes from him! Interesting, however, how much evangelicals resist it.

The bottom line is that the new evangelicals split the movement of their forbears, gained influence over the majority, and succeeded in pushing those who persisted in militancy and separation to the periphery, as Olson describes.

One factor in the history is new to me. Olson says that when Ockenga et al organized the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Carl McIntire and company organized at roughly the same time a “more separatist” organization called the American Council of Churches. According to Olson, there was some talk of merging the two organizations, but McIntire balked at the NAE inclusion of Holiness-Pentecostal groups in their membership. Ockenga had a broader coalition in mind. “The NAE charter and vision were too broad for McIntire and most other fundamentalists, so the merger never occurred.” (p. 92). One wonders if the broadening of fellowship to the Pentecostals was a purposeful “poison pill” to keep the ACC out? Perhaps that’s just my cynicism talking. Today, Charismatics dominate the NAE.

As is well known, the evangelical coalition promoted unity through the efforts of the NAE, led by a chief spokesman, Billy Graham, with Fuller Seminary becoming its chief seminary and Christianity Today its chief publication. These four institutions (if we can call Billy Graham an institution) were the four pillars of the new evangelicalism. In their cooperative efforts they united under Graham’s “twin themes,” that is, “conversion to Christ through personal repentance and faith in his cross, and the Bible as God’s specially revealed Word, wholly inspired and completely trustworthy in all matters related to faith and practice.” (p. 94). These two ideas are the doctrinal minimums required for ecclesiastical cooperation in evangelicalism. A careful reader will note that the Bibliological “pillar” rests on a rather sandy foundation; it isn’t rooted in the rock of Biblical inerrancy. It allows room for inerrancy, but also for much softer views of inspiration as well. This may be evangelicalism’s Achilles heel.

In my first post on Olson’s book, I quoted his definition of evangelical theology:

“Evangelicalism is a loose affiliation (coalition, network, mosaic, patchwork, family) of mostly Protestant Christians of many orthodox (Trinitarian) denominations and independent churches and parachurch organizations that affirm…
· “a supernatural worldview…
· “the unsurpassable authority of the Bible…
· “Jesus Christ as unique Lord, God, and Savior…
· “the fallenness of humanity and salvation provided by Jesus Christ…
· “the necessity of personal repentance and faith…
· “the importance of a devotional life…
· “the urgency of gospel evangelism and social transformation;
· “and the return of Jesus Christ…” (14-15)

The “twin themes” discussed above encompass most of these points.

With these minimums as the basis, evangelical theology proceeds out of the NAE, Graham, Fuller, and Christianity Today coalition. A broad range of views exemplifies evangelical theology. Olson describes five men as representatives of this broad range:

  • Carl F. H. Henry: Dean of Evangelical Theology
  • E. J. Carnell: Apologist for Evangelical Theology
  • Bernard Ramm: Moderate Evangelical Theologian
  • Donald Bloesch: Progressive Evangelical Theologian
  • Clark Pinnock: Postconservative Evangelical Theology

In my next piece, I plan to discuss some aspects of these views. I hope I can keep it brief! I’m not trying to reproduce Olson’s book here!

In any case, it is interesting to me that evangelicals seem satisfied with creating a coalition based on a bare minimum theological viewpoint. Fundamentalists tend to have a more insistent basis for fellowship, and tend to cooperate within denominational commonalities, with a few exceptional incidents. Fundamentalists will insist on inerrancy for cooperation, though fundamentalist forays into evangelical institutions (Evangelical Theological Society) puts pressure on that commitment.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With:
by on 10.22.19

The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism) (Part 4)

I’m writing about the book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology, published by InterVarsity Press, by Roger Olson. I listed the roots of what Olson calls postfundamentalist evangelicalism (otherwise known as “evangelicalism” today). For a more detailed definition of postfundamentalist evangelicalism, see this post. For an expansion on the first two roots of evangelical theology, see this post. For a discussion of the next three roots, see this post. Roots six and seven come next, see this post. Today we move to the last root in Olson’s list.

Once again, I’ll list Olson’s roots, and then we’ll expand on the number 6 of them. The last two will be explained in the next post.

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

Pietism (see this post), Revivalism (see this post), Puritanism (see this post), Wesleyanism (see this post), The Great Awakenings (see this post), Old Princeton Theology (see this post), Holiness-Pentecostalism (see this post)

Fundamentalism

At last we come to our favourite topic, right? I have to admit that it is a favorite topic of mine. I’ve read many pages on the history of fundamentalism, its theology, and its ethos. I’ve preached about it, taught about it, written about it. It’s one of the central foci of this blog. In my mind, fundamentalism as a philosophy of ministry is exactly where the Bible is. Some fundamentalists, on the other hand… (and no doubt I’ve failed my own ethos time and time again).

Olson starts this chapter, “In the immediate background of Evangelicalism and evangelical theology lies fundamentalism or the fundamentalist movement.” (p. 83) He distinguishes fundamentalism from evangelicalism and fundamentalism from revivalism. Each of these words represent things interrelated, but distinct. They are not exactly the same as each other. I suppose that’s why Olson is thinking about each of these movements as “roots” and not as the current phenomenon of evangelicalism.

For Olson, fundamentalism, when properly used, correctly describes three “distinct but interrelated religious phenomena.”

  1. “Any and all militant religious reactions to modernity” — by modernity is meant the secularizing impulses brought on by the Enlightenment. In this sense, there can be “fundamentalist Islam.” Olson does not use the term this way in his book.
  2. “The conservative Protestant reaction to the rise of liberal Protestantism” of the late 1800s, early 1900s … “All such fundamentalists also called themselves evangelicals.” These people engaged in the conflict with liberals in the Presbyterian and Baptist denominations especially. Some evangelical groups weren’t involved in these conflicts, Olson mentions “immigrant Pietist churches and Holiness-Pentecostals.” Olson calls this meaning “historically legitimate.”
  3. “A third, more historically legitimate, definition of fundamentalism is the narrower, more militant and separatistic movement of conservative Protestants that emerged out of the disappointment and despair in the 1920s and 1930s, as the major Protestant denominations of North America were lost for conservative theology and became increasingly liberal and pluaralistic.” (All notes on these three phenomena from pp. 83-84, bold on the last point is mine)

If there is a distinction between meaning 2 and meaning 3, it is that the early fundamentalists were optimistic that they could expel liberalism, whereas the later fundamentalists realized that they had to get out or be absorbed. Consequently, the later fundamentalists looked with suspicion on anyone who would not likewise separate from liberal ties. This suspicion characterized all fundamentalists from the beginning of the GARBC on through the other “separatism events.” (This paragraph includes my views, bolstered by Olson’s writing.)

Olson goes on to describe briefly the history of fundamentalism as it began to break out of the old denominations and create its own institutions. His summary of this history is correct. After surveying the history, he comments on their theology. Fundamentalists began to insist on six day creationism (with no compromise in any way with “Godless evolution”), generally came to insist on dispensationalism, especially in eschatology, and developed the doctrine of separation to include separating from Christians who wouldn’t join them in separating from liberals. He also links fundamentalism with legalism (lists of right and wrong behaviour), racism (segregation), and a reversion past Princtonianism to the dictation theory of inspiration (John R. Rice).

Many other Christians continued to describe themselves as fundamentalists through the 1930s and 1940s, but “the label became more problematic for anyone who wished to be taken seriously as thoughtful, reflective, and even relatively gentle and open-minded.” (p. 89) These men decided to reform fundamentalism by founding new institutions. One of these men was Harold Ockenga. He first formed the New England Fellowship, and from this group the National Association of Evangelicals sprang. “In 1942 the National Association of Evangelicals emerged out of the New England Fellowship and postfundamentalist, new Evangelicalism was born.” (p. 90)

The important point to draw from this brief description is that Fundamentalism forms a direct root of Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism grows directly out of Fundamentalism. Subsequent changes modified the direction of evangelicalism still more, but evangelicalism undeniably begins as a reaction to fundamentalism. As I said before, both of them share the distinction as reactionary groups against the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, evangelicalisms immediate antecedent is fundamentalism.

This concludes the description of the eight strains of thought influencing evangelicalism. Olson has more to say. His next chapter introduces postfundamentalist evangelical theology, then he surveys four representative theologians to paint a picture of what exactly evangelical theology is. The last two chapters describe Postconservative Evangelical Theology and Tensions in Evangelical Theology. All of this provides “grist for the mill” of more blogging, so stay tuned, more to follow.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
by on 6.25.19

B.C. wants to know how residents feel about daylight saving time

This article notifies us that our fearless (fearfull??) leaders want our input on Daylight Savings Time.

I took the survey, but was annoyed that it didn’t allow the opportunity for extraneous smart-aleck responses. Here’s what I would say:

“Personally, I’m more in favor of Daylight Wasting Time. I’m actually pretty good at it. I’m so good, I can do it in the dark, too.”

You’re welcome.

Filed Under: Uncategorized
Next Page »