There has been a recent interchange of ideas here and here about the labels fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism as a basis for separation. Riley has done us a service by explaining, based on a discussion of the one and the many, why we should continue to recognize these two categories despite our difficulty defining the terms. Just as it is difficult to come up with a sine qua non of "chairness," it is difficult to come up with a sine qua non of "fundamentalism" or "conservative evangelicalism." He concludes that, just as we cannot deny the existence of chairs due to our inability to define "chairness," we cannot deny the existence of "fundamentalists" or "conservative evangelicals" on account of our difficulty in defining the ideas represented by these respective labels.
The explanation that Riley offers, though, does not directly address the concern that Doran had raised a few hours earlier, viz., that while the distinguishable ideas of "fundamentalism" and "conservative evangelicalism" do exist, there is an expanding excluded middle that makes it impossible to use these categories as bulwarks for separation.
To answer Doran's concern, it seems that Riley needs to expand his metaphor, establishing not only the idea of "chairness" but also a foil, say, "bedness." We all know that chairs and beds exist as separate ideas, but when it comes down to defining the two ideas, we find that there is a fuzzy middle that exhibits characteristics of both. For instance, due to severe back troubles my dad sleeps in a recliner. Is that a chair or a bed? On the other hand, my younger son sleeps on the lower tier of a bunk bed that is actually a futon. Is that a chair or a bed? In both cases, the cluster of attributes that defines "bedness" and the cluster of attributes that defines "chairness" overlap--they are not mutually exclusive categories. Most of us have little angst over this problem because absolute demarcation of beds and chairs is not necessary. But with fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism, more is at stake.
To summarize, then, it would seem that Riley is right in concluding that "fundamentalism" and "conservative evangelicalism" exist as separate ideas, just as "chairness" and "bedness" exist as separate ideas. Just as some beds are clearly not chairs and some chairs are clearly not beds, so also some fundamentalists are clearly not conservative evangelicals and vice versa. If this is true, then there is legitimate basis for suggesting some real demarcation between "us" and "them." But this still does not adequately address the observation raised by Doran that the presence of an excluded middle means that the categories of "fundamentalist" and "conservative evangelical" are not mutually exclusive ideas, and as such cannot serve as absolute standards of separation.
So the question, it seems, is this: What about the futons?
MAS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mark Snoeberger
- After growing up in the great state of Pennsylvania, I settled down in 1994 with my new bride, Heather, in Allen Park, Michigan, and have been here at Detroit Baptist Seminary ever since (with a bit of time away for doctoral work). Since 2007 I have been privileged to be a part of the systematic theology faculty here. I love teaching, researching and writing, hunting with my two boys, and enjoying any little bit of God's unadulterated creation I can find (which means I occasionally have to get out of Detroit). But all these things matter to me only because theology matters. For it is God himself who gives all men life and breath and everything else (Acts 17:25).
9 comments:
See a rejoinder to this entry at http://mpriley.com/2011/01/13/futons-and-beds-and-chairs-oh-my/
Mark:
I read your article here, but also previously commented at Riley's blog. If I may, because I believe it will be helpful to your discussion here, I'd like to reproduce one of my two comments from Riley's blog.
Dear Ps. Harding:
You wrote, “If we completely ignore them [labels], it will in my opinion open the door for historic, biblical fundamentalists to slowly move toward a new-evangelical position according to the definitions given by McCune and Pickering.”
I am convinced that if we do not use great care, letting the Bible define where the boundaries must be we may well see in this and the next generation some who currently identify with Fundamentalism go all the over into “new-evangelicalism.” Not in one giant leap, but incrementally. I believe that some of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals are a potential bridge for our next generation to “new-evangelicalism.”
I have also greatly benefited from the works and words of Rolland McCune and Ernest Pickering. Dr. Pickering’s classics Biblical Separation and The Tragedy of Compromise should be required reading for every undergraduate IFB Bible college student. I had the privilege of interacting with Dr. Pickering on several occasions because of my previous involvement with BWM. There is also Dr. Gerald Priest who wrote along those lines,
“What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear. Fundamentalists will become even ‘nicer’ to the conservative evangelicals and they in turn will appear more ‘respectable’ to the fundamentalists. It may be that some fundamentalists desire this. But then, would they not also have to forfeit the label?”
I agree that labels are helpful for the reasons you’ve defined. I do not believe men should separate simply because of a label. Labels do, however, give observers a general idea of what some core beliefs and/or practices may be for that man who identifies himself by a certain label, where it be “Fundamentalist,” “Evangelical,” or one of the subsets that are coming into the discussions.
IMO, whom we cooperate with, endorse, share platforms with, host in our pulpit/college/seminary comes down to a test of Scripture and another man’s belief in and fidelity to it. Where is an individual on core beliefs? Not to dismiss the whole counsel of God, or compartmentalize it into really important or not quite as important classifications, but there are certain non-negotiables. For Fundamentalists the Gospel is one non-negotiable and separation, as God has defined and mandated it for the every believer, is another.
LM
Mark,
None of the organizers of the PTT Conference would suggest that "fundamentalism" and "conservative evangelicalism" are absolute categories. However, denials that the labels exist, or at least that they retain any value, are being "heard" as absolute. I think this primarily benefits those who think the "futons" are so cool that there is no need even to think about "chairs" v. "beds." Dave is correct to observe that we cannot focus on two categories to the exclusion of a "middle" that proves difficult to categorize. But the recognition of a difficult "middle" does not require us to conclude that the two categories of ecclesiastical fellowship no longer exist.
Steven:
You wrote, “Dave [Doran] is correct to observe that we cannot focus on two categories to the exclusion of a "middle" that proves difficult to categorize.”
There are IMO polar opposites from each end of the Fundamental - Evangelical pendulum swing and within each respective camp. I think very few exclude the possibility of a “middle.” Where, in your opinion, does this “middle” between the two labels/camps converge? Is there a rally point in the “middle” that can be identified and/or categorized?
LM
Lou,
I am not suggesting that the "middle" constitutes a distinct category. Rather, by it I refer to men who do not appear to fit neatly into either category because they enthusiastically embrace orthodox doctrine, but maintain ecclesiastical relationships with those who undermine biblical truth. Now, I realize that this does not sound like a group that is difficult to identify but the situation has become more complicated than it used to be. It is complicated by the fact that many evangelicals have shifted toward a more conservative stance on some issues. They are not fundamentalists because they attempt to homogenize issues that historically were (generally) identified with the respective camps. So you have the strange reality of men simultaneously embracing biblical authority and continuationism, scriptural sufficiency and pragmatic ministry methods, etc. But even so, some of these men hold some very conservative views on specific and important issues. To me, the guys in the "middle" are marked by inconsistent application of the principles of separation--not as a matter of willful disobedience, but because of the shifting nature of our ministry context. I am willing to work with and provide help for men who are still trying to navigate through the tough issues. However, when a man makes a reasoned commitment to ecclesiastical union with those who reject separation as a biblical principle or embrace continuationism, theistic evolution, etc., he clearly falls outside the historic position of fundamentalism.
The denial of ecclesiastical separation is my chief concern. A recent comment posted on SI indicated that it would be fine to invite Grudem to share the church pulpit so long as he agreed not to promote continuationism. If we follow this standard, from whom would we separate, save the most obvious apostate? Yet, I think this is indicative of the direction the denial of valid categories will take us.
ST
I may be misreading and/or misunderstanding Doran (or Riley) but I don't think Doran is actually denying "chairness" and emphasizing "chairs." I think his biggest concern is how the idea of "chairness" and "bedness" is applied. We allow tree stumps to be considered as chairs because they call themselves that, but we throw recliners/futons into the category of "beds" because we've never considered them chairs before.
IOW, I don't think he's as concerned with the ideas of fundamentalism and evangelicalism as he is with how they are being applied/abused. Thus, his repeated plea to ask whether something fits the understanding of "chair" (fundamentalist) regardless of what you call it. Thus, he's not saying dump "chairness" and just focus on chairs. I think he's saying get rid of our outdated understanding of "chairness" and reevaluate whether what we have considered to be chairs/beds are really chairs/beds.
(I think he also makes the case that we have a tendency to define "chairness" by the chairs we have or are around us. I.e., these things that we have are what chairs really are, so all the things could describe our chairs is what defines "chairness")
Ben Edwards
Steve:
Thanks for the reply, I’ve been busy and still am. I have time for a brief reaction
“I am not suggesting that the ‘middle’ constitutes a distinct category.”
Possibly, but can there, as I believe there to be, definable categories in the idle that some men in IFB circles are comfortable converging around with the evangelicals?
“To me, the guys in the ‘middle’ are marked by inconsistent application of the principles of separation--not as a matter of willful disobedience, but because of the shifting nature of our ministry context.”
But at what point do you take men like Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan, et. al., who know the Scriptures very well and what they mandate in principle and application, yet go ahead and sign the Manhattan Declaration surely knowing it violated the biblical principles of separatism? A young guy trying to “navigate” his way, one may excuse and teach. Mohler, however, knows what he did, why he did it, has refused the admonitions of men like MacArthur and is unrepentant. I call his actions willful disobedience to what the Bible demands of him in this matter. Do we embrace him, have him in our pulpit, promote his ministry at T4G and TGC?
“The denial of ecclesiastical separation is my chief concern. A recent comment posted on SI indicated that it would be fine to invite Grudem to share the church pulpit so long as he agreed not to promote continuationism.”
IMO, we need to look further than ecclesiastical separation. We have men who are redefining separatism to have non-separatist evangelicals in pulpits and seminaries. We read men creating a distinction, “academic contexts” between the local church and the college/seminary ministry of a local church.
Then, furthermore, why do some men who insist they are committed to separatism promote, attend and encourage others to attend conferences where Piper and Mahaney, who “promote continuationism,” are the keynotes?
Just some thoughts drawn from the helpful commentary you’ve posted here.
LM
Lou,
Here are some final thoughts, mainly for the purpose of clarification.
First, when I spoke of a "middle," I did not have in mind men such as Mohler, Duncan, etc. I am thankful for the contributions they have made on certain issues, but that cannot make us blind to the compromises they continue to make in other areas; they clearly are not fundamentalists. Rather, my point is that some of our (primarily younger) men are trying to figure out what to do with these evangelicals. They are confused by an apparent and unexpected conservatism. I think that two unfortunate facts contribute to this confusion: 1) we have often failed to nuance our discussions of evangelicalism with the result that we have misrepresented some evangelicals and 2) we continue to ignore egregious inconsistencies that persist in some quarters of fundamentalism.
I firmly believe that the appropriate course of action will not justify increased involvement with evangelicals. Instead, we should tighten our relationships. This is the only way to correct the inconsistencies that many of us have decried for decades.
Second, I do think that it is possible to argue that some difference exists between the local church and academic contexts. However, acknowledging differences does not mean that speaker selection in an educational institution has no ramifications for the issue of separation. I contend, for example, that there is no greater expression of affinity than a shared pulpit. And even if the participation of the evangelical is limited to the classroom, the tendency of college students toward uncritical hero-worship makes choice imprudent, at best.
Finally, Ben brings up an interesting point. I can't speak for Michael Riley, but I have not suggested that Dave wants to deny that the categories of fundamentalism and evangelicalism exist. I don't think that is his position at all. But I have stated that this is the way he is being "heard." IOW, some (many?) are latching onto elements of the discussion and using them as an excuse to jettison the categories.
ST
Steve:
I appreciate the clarity and balance with which you’ve expressed yourself.
“Rather, my point is that some of our (primarily younger) men are trying to figure out what to do with these evangelicals.”
I’m not sure what areas or persons you might think has been “misrepresented” in evangelicalism. We might explore this another time in some detail. IMO, evangelicalism has been under-represented.
I believe one reason for confusion among the next generation is the failure to engage the compromises the evangelicals “continue to make in other areas.” There would be much less confusion if, from the Scriptures men who have been encouraging and pursuing closer fellowship with evangelicals, would expound upon and make an application of what the Bible says to those compromises. Just as there are those who “ignore egregious inconsistencies in some quarters of fundamentalism,” some are allowing contributions of the evangelicals to, “make us blind to the compromises they [evangelicals] continue to make in other areas.” I believe Dr. Gerald Priest’s observation was right in March 2010 and still is today. He wrote,
“Kevin [Bauder] has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism.”
That IMO identifies why so many of the younger guys don’t know what to do with the evangelicals. They are rarely being given a complete picture, which are the doctrinal and practical pitfalls in evangelicalism. The result- many simply gravitate toward evangelicalism because they are being influenced to do so. With so much praise of evangelicals apart from expounding on and applying the Scriptures to the pitfalls and problems, where should we expect the next generation to be headed?
Another difference I’d observe is that we have some mature men in ministry frequently making a case for fellowship and cooperation with evangelicals. Some of these leaders are also personally reaching out to hold hands with evangelicals, including SBC men. On the other hand, with one exception, I can’t recall any outreach from within what I’d call balanced Fundamentalism to promote, embrace or fellowship with the more extreme factions that identify with Fundamentalism.
“I firmly believe that the appropriate course of action will not justify increased involvement with evangelicals. Instead, we should tighten our relationships. This is the only way to correct the inconsistencies that many of us have decried for decades.”
AMEN! And tightening our relationships should work both ways: evangelicals, including the so-called “conservative,” and the extremes in Fundamentalism.
“Second, I do think that it is possible to argue that some difference exists between the local church and academic contexts.”
Yes, agreed again. There exists some difference, but because most of our classrooms are an extension of a local church ministry ecclesiastical considerations do come into play, IMO.
On Doran and the labels- I don’t believe he denies the categories. However, if I recall correctly, in a past article at his blog he does jettison the “Fundamentalist” label for himself. I believe that was because “Fundamentalism” has taken on to broad a meaning for his liking.
Again, thanks for the helpful reply.
LM
Post a Comment