Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

fundamentalism

Cultural and Theological Conservatism

by

D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 470 (emphasis in original):

Churches that are faithful to the apostolic gospel are sometimes also the ones that are loyal to a culture becoming increasingly passé. In such a situation cultural conservatism can easily be mistaken for theological conservatism, for theological orthodoxy. In an age of confusing empirical pluralism and frankly frightening philosophical pluralism, in an age that seems to be stealing from us the Judeo-Christian worldview that prevailed for so long, it is easy to suppose that retrenchment and conservative responses on every conceivable axis are the only responsible courses for those who want to remain faithful to the gospel.

In various ways I have tried to show in this volume that such a course is neither wise nor prophetic. Sometimes it is not even faithful. The church may slip back into a defensive, conservative modernism that is fundamentally ill-equipped to address postmodernism.

Conservative Evangelicals Are Not New Evangelicals

by

Kevin Bauder, a self-identified fundamentalist, hits a home run with “Let’s Get Clear on This.”

Some excerpts:

  • Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals.
  • Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God.
  • Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy.
  • [Some fundamentalist leaders are] recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.
  • Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.
  • If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith.

The version of this essay that appeared in my inbox this afternoon concludes with these two paragraphs:

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.

Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

Read the whole thing: PDF | HTML.

Update:

  1. Dave Doran responds to Kevin Bauder.
  2. Chris Anderson responds to both Bauder and Doran.
  3. Dave Doran responds again.

I am a fundamentalist, Calvinistic, separatist Baptist

by

So writes Mark Dever in a new book based on a conference honoring J. I. Packer at Beeson Divinity School on September 25–27, 2006:

Timothy George, ed. J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of His Life and Thought. Beeson Divinity Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. [Amazon | WTS Books]

Sample pages as a PDF include the TOC, preface, and opening chapter by Alister McGrath.

Here’s the opening paragraph of Mark Dever’s chapter, entitled “J. I. Packer and Pastoral Wisdom from the Puritans”:

There are some people for whom it is an honor to be asked to honor, and J. I. Packer is certainly one of them. And this is a surprising honor, considering that I disagree with him on baptism, church, and the resources of and prospects for rapprochement between Protestants and Roman Catholics. After all, I am a fundamentalist, Calvinistic, separatist Baptist—I barely believe in rapprochement with Presbyterians! (p. 87)

In the final section of his essay, titled “Puritans on the Definition of Justification and Questions of Church Cooperation,” Dever respectfully disagrees with Packer on Evangelicals and Catholics Together (pp. 93–96).

In Packer’s response to this book’s essays, he playfully picks up a metaphor in which he is Robin Hood, Timothy George is “Little George,” etc. He writes,

I saw in my Baptist brother Mark Dever a latter-day Sheriff of Nottingham, giving me a passing grade on the doctrine of grace but a firm “F” in ecclesiology. (p. 172)

Related: Mark Dever interviewed J. I. Packer ten years ago.

Fundamentalism : Historic Christianity :: Hamburger : Filet Mignon

by

“Comparing Fundamentalist faith and practice to the faith and practice of historic Christianity is like comparing a hamburger to a filet mignon. The two obviously have something in common, but it would be misleading to say that everything in the steak is also in the hamburger.”

–Kevin Bauder, “Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 2: Fundamentalism and History”

Kevin Bauder Begins a Series on the History of Fundamentalism

by

“Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 1: Things Have Changed”

Some excerpts:

  • In 1986 [i.e., when “the last sustained history of fundamentalism” was “published by a fundamentalist”], neither Dave Doran nor Tim Jordan held the pastorates that have come to be associated with their names. Dan Davey and Mark Minnick were associate pastors in Virginia Beach and Greenville, respectively. Matt Olson was just a few years into the planting of Tri-City Baptist Church near Denver. John Hartog III was a college student, and Stephen Jones was still in high school.
  • In 1986, clear fissures were already evident within the fundamentalist movement.
  • Things have changed for fundamentalism. Indeed, they still are. Rapidly. For a generation there has been no comprehensive attempt to summarize the changes and directions within fundamentalism, to link them to the past, and to draw out the trajectories along which they may carry fundamentalist churches and institutions in the future.
  • These essays will neither defend nor denounce fundamentalism.
  • I do not intend to try to persuade anyone—least of all young leaders—that they must remain in the fundamentalist movement. I love the idea of fundamentalism, and I would like to persuade people of its beauty and utility. The fundamentalist movement, however, is at best an imperfect embodiment of the idea. Those who can find a better incarnation of the idea ought to pursue it. Ideas ought to command our allegiance, not party or institutional loyalties.
  • One underlying thesis of this series is that the fundamentalist movement no longer exists. The unraveling of the movement began in the 1960s and has continued virtually without interruption. At the present, little coherence remains among self-identified fundamentalists. The result is that no one can choose to be a fundamentalist simpliciter. In order to be a fundamentalist at all, one must choose among fundamentalist influences and institutions. The inevitable result is that all contemporary fundamentalists are modified fundamentalists, in the sense that they all require some modifier or qualifier to be attached to the name.

Note: Central Seminary emails Kevin Bauder‘s essays every Friday afternoon. You can join the mailing list (as well as access the archives) here.

Two Views on the Duke K. McCall Sesquicentennial Pavilion at Southern Seminary

by

This week I enjoyed following the events at the SBC and SBTS from a distance and wish I would have been in Louisville to experience it. I’m encouraged by what I’ve heard. (Cf. summaries by Danny Akin, Tom Ascol, Timmy Brister, Denny Burk, Greg Gilbert, Owen Strachan, and the many articles by Southern Seminary’s news service.)

In the midst of many reasons for rejoicing in the positive advances made in the convention this year, one event stands out as confusing to Protestant fundamentalists: SBTS dedicated a building (cf. audio and video) to former president Duke McCall, a theological moderate who tolerated theological liberalism and opposed the Conservative Resurgence.

Doran’s Objection

Dave Doran (a graduate of TEDS, senior pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church, and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) reflects on this in these short articles:

  1. “Honor to Whom Dishonor Is Due” (He concludes, “I just don’t get it.”)
  2. “Is This an Application of Loving Your Enemies?“
  3. “We Report, You Decide” (a response to Greg Gilbert’s post)
  4. “Some (Final, I hope) Thoughts on the McCall Pavilion and Objections to My Questioning It” (a response to Mark Rogers’s post)
  5. “Missions, Pavilions, and Wives” (paragraph two responds to Owen Strachan’s post)
  6. “Seeing the Difference between Ideas and Individuals” (an implied response to Gilbert, Rogers, and Strachan)
  7. “Ideas and Individuals (Again)“
  8. “Sticking to the Point . . .“

Reponses to Doran

  1. Greg Gilbert (a graduate of SBTS, former assistant to Al Mohler, and assistant pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church) respectfully responds to Doran’s first article: “Mohler, McCall, Truth, and History.”
  2. Mark Rogers (a graduate of SBTS, son of a pastor in the SBC, current PhD student in historical theology at TEDS, and D. A. Carson’s administrative assistant) also respectfully responds to Doran’s first article: “Southern Seminary’s Anniversary and a Question of Honor.”
  3. Owen Strachan (a graduate of SBTS, former research assistant to Al Mohler, current PhD student in historical theology at TEDS, and managing director of the Henry Center) also respectfully responds to Doran: “At SBTS, Fidelity Matters: A Friendly Response to Dave Doran.”