John Piper commends Kevin Bauder’s “A Time to Speak Up“:
I would like to encourage all fundamentalists and former fundamentalists to feel a good breeze from the fevered landscape of controversy.
fundamentalism
The “Fundamentalist” Label: An Interview with John Woodbridge
John D. Woodbridge is research professor of church history and the history of Christian thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he has taught since 1970. One of his areas of expertise is the history of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. (I benefited from taking a seminar with him on that subject in fall 2007.) His father, Charles Woodbridge, taught at Fuller Seminary (cf. George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism) and later wrote The New Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1969). So John Woodbridge has had a front-row seat on this issue since childhood.
Trinity Magazine recently published this useful interview:
John D. Woodbridge. “The ‘Fundamentalist’ Label: An Interview with John Woodbridge.” Trinity Magazine (Spring 2009): 7–9, 23.
The subtitle of this evenhanded interview captures its theme: “We regularly hear people from different religious backgrounds referred to as ‘fundamentalist.’ Is this labeling appropriate?” Woodbridge responds to nine questions and statements:
- What do you think the word “fundamentalist” means to people today?
- Where did this concept of “world fundamentalisms” come from?
- Were there any other significant contributing factors?
- Is it legitimate to use the word “fundamentalist” for Muslims?
- How does this usage misunderstand actual American fundamentalism as well?
- I think what happens in the media is that they end up thinking about the kind of people who bomb abortion clinics, then assume that that’s really where this type of Christianity leads.
- What can happen because of this popular misusage of “fundamentalism”?
- Has anyone challenged the assumptions of Fundamentalisms Comprehended?
- There is a challenge in all this for us as evangelical Christians as well.
For a more thorough handling of this issue, see the following:
Timothy George and John D. Woodbridge. “What’s in a Name: Are We All Fundamentalists?” Pages 123–50, 182–83 in The Mark of Jesus: Loving in a Way the World Can See. Chicago: Moody, 2005. 192 pp. This important chapter traces a significant etymological trajectory of the label “fundamentalist” and usefully overviews fundamentalism’s history.
Bauder to FBF Leaders: “If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth saving, then the time has come”
“Time to Speak Up” is a bold, timely, provocative, sane word from Kevin Bauder that accomplishes at least three goals:
- refutes Danny Sweatt’s recent diatribe (cf. “An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving“)
- assures young fundamentalists that “Sweatt does not represent historic, mainstream fundamentalism”
- challenges fundamentalist leaders (esp. in the FBF) to face this Calvinism-phobia (of which Sweatt’s diatribe is symptomatic) directly and promptly
Update:
- John Piper comments on Bauder’s article: “Good Breeze from a Fundamentalist Neighbor“
- Justin Taylor in “Fundamentalism 101“: “Slandering fundamentalists is something of an acceptable pastime for evangelicals (not to mention the wider Christian commnunity and culture). But since slander is sin, we’re better off showing respect (even when we critique) and seeking to learn what we can.”
An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving
Danny Sweatt‘s sermon entitled “Young and Restless” (preached on April 7, 2009 at a regional FBF meeting in North Carolina)
A good friend asked me to listen to it last week, so I did (with my wife) early on Sunday morning. Not a good start to Mother’s Day.
Cf. Bob Bixby’s thoughts.
(The title of this post is a play on Kevin Bauder’s thoughtful paper.)
Update:
Tony Payne: “On Being Generous”
Tony Payne, publishing director at Matthias Media and a Sydney Anglican Evangelical, explains why he is generous to fundamentalists but not to “those who have given up on the fundamentals and who seek to teach others likewise.”
- The former, he argues, are orthodox believers (albeit ones, from his perspective, who “may be or think or do all sorts of things that we find strange, unattractive or even distasteful”).
- The latter, he argues, are people whom the NT urges him to fight.
Collin Hansen Reflects on Young, Restless, Reformed
Collin Hansen reflects on his book Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. (Cf. my review.)
Note his comments re fundamentalism:
Increasing my coverage of Reformed blogging is not the only change I would make. Readers have emerged from the woodwork to tell me about growing pockets of Reformed interest in Great Britain and among African Americans and fundamentalists. . . . As for fundamentalists, I have heard testimonies of college and seminary students who tell me something big is stirring. Perhaps there is hope that these young Calvinists will rebuild the bridges burned generations ago between evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Inconsistent Grace?
Here is an observation that is related to the discussion generated by my previous post (though it may not apply to anyone in that discussion): People are often more gracious to those on either their left or right.
- Some people are more gracious to those to the left of them than they are to those to the right of them. For example, some (not all) more broadminded evangelicals will tip-toe around a postconservative evangelical or emergent leader in order to give the least possible offense, but they will also strongly denounce “fundamentalists” without the least concern about offending them.
- Other people are more gracious to those to the right of them than they are to those to the left of them. For example, some (not all) fundamentalists will overlook egregious errors by fellow fundamentalists (e.g., errant bibliology or soteriology) in order to give the least possible offense to those in their camp, but they will also strongly denounce “new evangelicals” for less serious issues without the least concern about offending them.
Is this a fair observation? Perhaps there are too many exceptions for this to be any sort of a general trend.
Old Fundamentalists Never Die
Fascinating statement:
Ehrman proves the dictum that old fundamentalists never die; they just exchange fundamentals and continue in their unimaginative, closed-minded rigidity and simplicity.
-William H. Willimon, review of Bart D. Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer, The Christian Century, December 30, 2008.