{"id":1864,"date":"2011-03-24T01:25:17","date_gmt":"2011-03-24T09:25:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2011\/03\/24\/reflecting-on-reflections\/"},"modified":"2011-03-24T01:25:17","modified_gmt":"2011-03-24T09:25:17","slug":"reflecting-on-reflections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2011\/03\/24\/reflecting-on-reflections\/","title":{"rendered":"reflecting on reflections"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Dave Doran offers us four articles for the purpose of justifying himself: \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/gloryandgrace.dbts.edu\/?p=515\">Reflecting on Applications<\/a>\u201d, \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/gloryandgrace.dbts.edu\/?p=517\">Reflections II<\/a>\u201d, \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/gloryandgrace.dbts.edu\/?p=519\" target=\"_blank\">Reflections III<\/a>\u201d and \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/gloryandgrace.dbts.edu\/?p=522\" target=\"_blank\">Reflections IV<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019d like to offer some reflections on the reflections. I want to see if others think I am getting Dave\u2019s arguments right and whether they think my criticisms\/agreements might be valid or invalid.<\/p>\n<p>So here we go\u2026<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<h5>&#160;<\/h5>\n<h5>Reflection on Article 1: \u201cReflecting on Applications\u201d<\/h5>\n<p>First off, it appears that one of Dave\u2019s major premises is that separation as practiced by Fundamentalists today is largely a matter of matching labels, or identity cards. If you are \u2018in\u2019, you are OK, if you aren\u2019t \u2018in\u2019, you are \u2018out\u2019, even \u2018way, way out\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>To remedy this problem, Dave suggests &quot;drawing some theological boundaries for our kind of fundamentalism&quot;, but he doesn\u2019t do a lot to define the parameters of his ideal boundaries.<\/p>\n<p>He does refer to some messages he gave at conferences around 2005 and refers to <a href=\"http:\/\/gloryandgrace.dbts.edu\/?p=310\" target=\"_blank\">another post<\/a> where he made some points toward drawing theological boundaries:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cThis is our historical identity and provided our strongest, best days. \u2026\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cA pragmatic-practical core has almost always required compromises that eventually send the movement into decline. The amount of resources needed for cooperative efforts almost always leads to a bigger tent than is wise.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe pragmatic-practical core faces a couple of significant obstacles: (a) finding something big enough \u2026 and (b) all of the already existing activity centers will feel threatened by some new super cause \u2026\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe time is ripe for a clear statement of beliefs to capture the hearts and minds of younger fundamentalists\u2026\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A few questions\u2026<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>If fundamentalism\u2019s historic identity is as a ideological\/theological movement, how do you explain the covenant\/dispensationalist; Calvinist\/Arminian; multi-denominational expressions of it, historically?<\/li>\n<li>Are you arguing for a smaller tent? Isn\u2019t that actually <em>more<\/em> fragmentation?<\/li>\n<li>Actually, where is the pressing need for or cry for some kind of unifying fundamentalist principle that will draw disparate groups of fundamentalists together in a noble cause? Is that the question <em>anyone<\/em> is asking?<\/li>\n<li>How will you capture the hearts\/minds of younger fundamentalists who largely don\u2019t seem that interested in fundamentalism? How will some kind of narrower parameters of belief energize them for separation, if it is actually separation (and non-Calvinism) that is turning them off?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In any case, back to \u201c<strong>Reflections on Applications<\/strong>\u201d\u2026 Dave says he came to see that his was not the prevailing view, no one got too excited about his proposals. Dave doesn\u2019t seem to define what his proposals are (the specific theological parameters), just that we should have them \u2013 at least, he isn\u2019t doing so on the blog, and I haven\u2019t heard of any such proposals in reporting on his speaking engagements. He just says we need these parameters and hints around at what they should be. I really would like to know what these theological parameters for Fundamentalism would look like.<\/p>\n<p>I suspect that the reason no one is too excited about the proposals is that they think Dave wants to draw the circle too narrowly.<\/p>\n<h5>Reflection on Article 2: \u201cReflections II\u201d<\/h5>\n<p>In this article, Dave raises two doctrinal complaints. I am glad there are <em>some<\/em> specifics, at least. The complaints are that Fundamentalism in general is guilty of tolerating serious errors. The two examples cited are:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Jesus blood not human but divine (or something)<\/li>\n<li>KJVO issues<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Actually, I am with Dave on both of these points. He\u2019s right to criticize them. But\u2026 a couple of caveats:<\/p>\n<p>In his complaint about the \u2018blood\u2019 issue, Dave cites 1 Jn 4.1-6, applying it to the error and errorists. I\u2019m not sure I want to go that far, unless you want to say that those who taught\/teach it are \u2018false prophets\u2019 (1 Jn 4.1)? And that those who taught\/teach this error are not \u2018of God\u2019 (1 Jn 4.2-3)? And are imbued with \u2018that spirit of antichrist\u2019 (1 Jn 4.3)? And they are \u2018of the world\u2019 instead of \u2018of God\u2019 (1 Jn 4.4-5)?<\/p>\n<p>Do we really want to apply 1 Jn 4.1-6 to these men? I\u2019m not sure that I do.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to the versions issues, Dave admits &quot;letters were written; resolutions were passed; and even a video was made&quot; \u2013 could more be done? Well, Dave concludes, &quot;at the end of the day, too many people wanted the translation issue to just go back away.&quot; He&#8217;s right about that, but I have a few criticisms of my own about that:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The video that was made was largely Dave&#8217;s idea, no? And it was boring. And then the video wars were over. And we heard not so much about it anymore. So who quit talking? Dave has mentioned it off and on, but it appears to me that he gave up banging this drum himself, pretty well. He gave up his position on the FBF board, where he had a hand in some good resolutions against the versions issues. But no more. So\u2026 who quit talking?<\/li>\n<li>Some people who make complaints about the versions issue want to go too far. I don&#8217;t know for sure if Dave is in this number, but some want to cut off almost any kind of KJ view. There are many good guys who have a KJO position. While I am willing to let them cut me off by being outspoken for modern conservative versions, why must we deliberately draw the circle so narrow as to exclude all of these men? How does that fit the fundamentalist ethos historically? I don&#8217;t think it does.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Dave closes this article by saying he could raise more doctrinal controversies, but these are enough to make his point. Well, no, not really. Is that all there is to this complaint? Why is this language always so nebulous? &quot;Some doctrinal controversies&quot; &quot;more that I won&#8217;t mention now&quot;&#8230; that all sounds ominous. Is it? Is there a \u201cthere\u201d there?<\/p>\n<h5>Reflections on \u201cReflections III\u201d<\/h5>\n<p>I don\u2019t have that much on this article. Just a couple of points. In the article, Dave posits a young DBTS grad pursuing support for church planting, says Fundamentalists won&#8217;t have him because of theological peculiarities, and on the other hand, &#8216;non-Fundamentalists\u2019 who believe the same as him [including about separation] but don&#8217;t wear the label will support him. Well\u2026<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>How real is this scenario?<\/li>\n<li>Are these &#8216;non-fundies&#8217; really all that separatist?<\/li>\n<li>If this is real, isn\u2019t it partly because the ball has been dropped on the KJO issue by certain people? (see above)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The above point isn\u2019t a major complaint, just an observation. My anecdotal knowledge of some situations like this is that some DBTS grads have a veritable chip on their shoulder towards Fundamentalism, especially non-Calvinist Fundamentalism, and certainly any kind of KJ position. This is not true of all, one of my best friends (as they say) is a DBTS grad. And, hey, we support him! With real money! Hard currency! Better than the Yankee buck these days! But I digress.<\/p>\n<p>The main thrust of Reflections III, however, seems to be a bit of dismay at Dave\u2019s experience at BJU and the discovery that other fundamentalists are not like William Rice. I heard Rice speak at BJU and in some classes (Church Planting??? can\u2019t remember exactly.) I think he was a fine man, very accomplished. But\u2026 his is the only model we should follow? Isn&#8217;t that kind of an insular view? Why must everyone conform to Dave&#8217;s image of what is right and Dave&#8217;s view of how we should practice?<\/p>\n<p>On to article 4:<\/p>\n<h5>Reflections on \u201cReflections IV\u201d<\/h5>\n<p>In this article, Dave makes some interesting assertions. He says that fundamentalism was right in 1921 and 1961. But apparently it isn\u2019t right in 2011. Well, actually, he says there is no fundamentalism. A lot of people disagree with him on this point. I think Dave disagrees with himself. If there were no fundamentalism, we wouldn\u2019t even be having this discussion. Dave wouldn\u2019t feel the need to justify his position, his changes of application. If there is no fundamentalism, then who cares about all this argumentation?<\/p>\n<p>He seems to be saying that the fragmentation of fundamentalism today invalidates Fundamentalism as such, and that such fragmentation creates \u2018shibboleths\u2019 that become the Secret Decoder Rings to getting \u2018in\u2019 the right crowd. Well\u2026 \u2018King James Bible\u2019 is an important shibboleth to some, I\u2019ll agree. And \u2018no pants on women\u2019 and on and on.<\/p>\n<p>Dave sees these shibboleths as characteristic, apparently, of <em>all<\/em> \u2018fundamentalisms\u2019, and says that these are examples of fence building way too far away from the edge of the cliff. We look ridiculous standing behind our fences five miles from any hint of a cliff.<\/p>\n<p>Let me concede that this is partly true. See named shibboleths two paragraphs up. And let me also concede that you <em>can<\/em> build a fence so far away from the cliff that you are smack dab up against the mountainside with no room to breath.<\/p>\n<p>But are we only worried about precipices in our fence building?<\/p>\n<p>Let me say that denial of the fundamentals (list of 5, list of 18, what have you) would be to take a leap into the dark over the cliff edge. That is what fundamentalism was about in 1921. Fundamentalists said, whoa, we can\u2019t go there. A pitched battle was fought and eventually the Fundamentalists emerged with a fence on the edge of that precipice, that sheer drop right off the continent called Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>But not all dangerous hills are precipices.<\/p>\n<p>Do you know about Stone Mountain, GA? Stone Mountain is a hill that is more of a dome. It has sheer edges, but before you can get to them there is a subtle and gradual change in elevation that is very deceptive and dangerous. You can walk out on that slope (past the fences) and get to a point of no return. You\u2019ll start sliding, and you won\u2019t overcome the law of gravity. You\u2019ll <em>obey<\/em> it.<\/p>\n<p>Well, it seems to me that is the fence of 1961. Were Henry, Ockenga, Graham, Carnell, etc, so far gone theologically? No. They were orthodox. But Dave says the Fundamentalists were right and they were wrong in 1961. That fence was a correct fence.<\/p>\n<p>Alright then\u2026 what is the question for 20011?<\/p>\n<h5>The Question for 2011<\/h5>\n<p>It seems to me that it is all right to look at a reflection if you want to straighten up the one producing the image. Do we have things in and among fundamentalism that needs correcting? Sure. We\u2019ve got quite a bit of hair out of place. A good combing job is in order. (I\u2019d say a shave too, but <em>everyone knows <\/em>that fundies don\u2019t wear beards.)<\/p>\n<p>But we are talking about <em>direction<\/em> here. Where should fundamentalists be heading? Should we now be associating and joining in ministry with conservative evangelicals? <strong><em>That is THE question!<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>While we reflect on needed correctives of ourselves, let\u2019s offer the same kind of scrutiny of the beckoning evangelicalism. Let\u2019s offer serious scrutiny to <em>specific<\/em> proposals for a \u2018theological parameter\u2019 by which those like Dave would suggest for us. Let\u2019s really look carefully at where we are going, not just where we are and where we have been.<\/p>\n<p>Dave closes with this: &quot;will the self-professing fundamentalists build a fence that excludes people who won\u2019t limit their fellowship to only those who claim the label of fundamentalism? Is that label so tied to the essence of the biblical position that to not wear it means you fall on the wrong side of the fence?&quot;<\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s really not a fair question. It isn\u2019t a label game. The question is, <em>are conservative evangelicals any different now than they were in 1961? If so, how?<\/em><\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" style=\"display: inline\" title=\"don_sig2\" alt=\"don_sig2\" src=\"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/don_sig27.png\" width=\"150\" height=\"50\" \/><\/p>\n<p>P.S. My dad used to say, \u201cDon\u2019t look back unless you want to go that way.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dave Doran offers us four articles for the purpose of justifying himself: \u201cReflecting on Applications\u201d, \u201cReflections II\u201d, \u201cReflections III\u201d and \u201cReflections IV\u201d. I\u2019d like to offer some reflections on the reflections. I want to see if others think I am getting Dave\u2019s arguments right and whether they think my criticisms\/agreements might be valid or invalid. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[37,71],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2fYWj-u4","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1864"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1864\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}