Survey Update: Who's Talking and What are They Saying?

I think, Joseph, that it is more likely that the type of fundamentalist that participates on SI either has a degree or is willing to think.

Like a church, intentionally or -- more often-- unintentionally, birds of a feather flock together. This site has attracted people who are willing to think, and that is one of the things I have enjoyed about it. I have learned much.

Ed -- You raise a good and thought-provoking point.

Obviously, it is easier and more tempting to write a response about some trend in fundamentalism than it would be to provide a substantive comment on a passage. Perhaps some of us are also still enjoying the feeling of freedom to express ourselves about some of these issues -- and a forum in which to do so effectively. Let's not forget how "new" this all still is.

But you make a great point, and one worth considering. I think sometimes we can get ourselves riled up about responding to one another when really it may be more an issue of semantics than real disagreement.

Also, this is purely my opinion -- but I get discouraged sometimes when there is a thread on a theological/exegetical topic and someone posts a LONG, detailed response -- as if to announce, "Thanks for asking, now that I have the floor, I will provide the answer to all of your questions."

And yet, how else would you deal with an exegetical issue such as you raise in this type of forum??

I don't think I'm entirely understanding what you're saying. If SI Fundamentalists cannot be differentiated from CE's, then one of two things must be true. 1) SI Fundamentalists are really CE's, not Fundamentalists, or 2) CE and Fundamentalist are at least partially overlapping terms. If #1, then SI's posturing as a site for Fundamentalists is a farce. If #2, then SI is operating with a vocabularly significantly different than most Fundamentalist institutions. Would Bauder, Doran, or BJU not be able to distinguish themselves from CE's?

Those are not the only valid inferences to be drawn, which means it's fallacious to present the options as a stark dilemma.

It's perfectly possible that, "from an administrative point of view," on a forum like SI the differences between CE's and Fundamentalists are not relevant, cannot be discerned, or simply do not come into play.

What SI very helpfullly shows people - and this is one of its great services, in my view - is that what they think they are can a distortion. People often have rather unnuanced views of themselves, so if they think of themselves as "Fundamentalists," then they can think everything about themselves qua Christian is part of being a Fundamentalist. This is nonsense, though very common. People like me on SI show people that, no, in fact, being commited to the idea of Fundamentalist, or historical Fundamentalism, is compatible with a whole range of sensibilities, dispositions, and non-Fundamental doctrinal differences.

As I've have always said, if J. Gresham Machen was a Fundamentalist, then its a broader, deeper, more substantive, and therefore more accomodating term than many people think it is or want it to be. Everyone who knows anything about Machen knows he would make most "Fundamentalists" feel uncomfortable, just as any highly cultured, well educated person can make people with less culture and education feel awkward, even if this reflects no viice on anyone's part; differences can be uncomfortable. I always bring up Machen because of how different he was, not just as an academic, but as part of the old Southern arisocracy, from most of us today, especially in our sensibilities.

Finally, another response to Jay C. is that there may in fact be no substantive doctrinal differences between CE and Fundamentalists, which I think is the often case. Cultural issues are not doctrinal issues, and gross distortions result when we try to equate the two, e.g. when we try to somehow squeeze music or clothing into the set of beliefs that divide us from liberals, heretics, etc. The very desire to attempt this reflects deep problems in our theology.

The fact is, having heard people like Minnick talk about or to CE's, there simply is not a good reason to not have these groups associate with each other formally; the differences are real, but they are not substantive doctrinal differences. They are differences in sub-culture, academic outlook, cultural disposition, and other factors which often are far more noticable and bothersome to us than theology.

I personally differ as much with CE's as with Fundamentalist (in the movement) in terms of my dispositions and sensibilities on some matters; but that never makes me think, "hmm, maybe I don't believe all this doctrine anyway." I know, generally, pretty well where the differences arise, and they are intellectual and cultural, not theological - and I try to resist the temptation to make every issue "theological" in some overt sense.

Anyway . . . carry on.

Charlie,

Joseph did a good job in explaining my rationale; so much so that I need only make one minor comment.

Lots of religious people talk about 'being one' [echoing John 17], but what SharperIron does is to make this a semi-reality. Not because there are no differences between the two camps, but because the list of things to believe in order to post here is pretty much limited to just the ten doctrinal items that I referred to above, and to agree that the writer/poster is a "Fundamentalist". I think that most 'harder-core' Fundies won't associate with us because the site allows discussion of [what I see as] peripheral issues like the Bible Version debate [as opposed to everyone just using the KJV], music, et cetera [and some of that will be clear once Aaron opens up all the rest of the survey results, I'm sure], and so they see us as 'compromised' and won't associate with us. Some proof of this may be found in someone's comment in the original post about "the horse leaving the barn". So the site LOOKS like it leans more to the left than it might if, say, BJU hosted it. [I'm not picking on BJU, just using them because they are pretty much the only one with the resources to pull this type of thing off if they wanted to.]

So as long as the registration is doctrinal specific and not "sphere of influence" specific [I went to BJU, I went to Detroit, I went to TMS], I don't know how we could split the two categories apart. Furthermore, as long as the registration remains doctrinally specific and not culturally issue specific, we can't tell. There are some here from denominational churches / affiliations that in whole are theologically liberal, but a few people reject their denomination's teaching and still hold to the doctrinal core that we ask all members to, so they are allowed to be here.

Charlie,

Interesting thoughts. I'm inclined to think you're right about SI making a lot of Fundies uncomfortable. I'm not sure about the shift in image/advertising, particularly because I'm not sure if Conservative Evangelical isn't more of a Fundamentalist term than one a large group uses to self-identify, etc.

Groups, like individuals, are partally constituted by their level of self-consciousness, and sensitive groups incorporate others' perceptions of themselves into their own awareness, which in turn shapes the way that group portrays itself and acts.

Fundamentalists have historically not been very self-conscious in a serious sense, and this has a lot to do with its general disregard of serious intellectual activity. The results in this area have been consequential, although seemingly not well recognized. It's perhaps easier to see this by looking at Evangelicalism. Prior to the Neos, Fundamentalists Protestants largely existed as if serious cultural and intellectual discussions were not happening - this is one consequence of removing oneself from power centers like universities, urban centers, etc. New Evangelicals were brilliantly successful at changing the state of consciousness on intellectual matters, even if some of their gains came at high prices. A result of this is that one technically non-doctrinal "thing" that separates many theologically educated Evangelicals from many comparably educated Fundamentalists is that the Evangelicals will probably have a broader perspective, been required to read more critical and secular scholarship, etc. In short, the evangelical seminarian will have a qualitatively different kind of consciousness than the Fundamentalist seminarian (saya Trinity M.Div and a BJU M.Div). This is what produces one of the most notable differences between the groups, in my view, and it's not something that is well captured in a survey or on paper. You can hear it by comparing Minnck and Dever; Dever, granted he's exceptionally well educated and well read, just comes off (in general) as a broader, more deeply read, and less polemical kind of guy. Now, this happens to be literally true, and it hardly reflects poorly on Minnick - Dever, as I said, is an exceptional pastor.

But I think it represents a fairly accurate ideal-typical construction of one difference between even a conservative Evangelical and a Fundamentalist, viz. given comparably educated and intelligent Fundamentalists and CEs, the latter will reflect a different degree of self-consciousness, in many ways deeper (culturally and intellectually), than the former. I'm not talking about regular pew-sitters here, I'm talking about the theologically self-conscious seminarian types. One could continue this kind of ideal-typical analysis with the Dutch Reformed, Presbies, etc. but that isn't my point.

The point is that SI contributes to changing Fundamentalists' identity by deepening and expanding their degree of self-consciousness as "movement members," or self-identified Fundies. I don't think we'll see Evangelicals move towards us in a formal, self-conscious way; they may get more conservative, but they will not become "Fundamentalists," again; I think that's a kind of historical impossibility, given the history of 20 C American religion. So, the group that will move, self-consciouslly, will be Fundies. That's a good thing in my view, and SI is contributing to it.

With respect to my comment about Minnick and Dever, my answer is not technically "No, I can't," but "No, I won't waste my time." Asking questions like that is, in my view, silly, when you know perfectly well such a "method" would be a post facto construction. Such constructions may be valid (if they succeed in consciously reconstructing an unconscious process), but I have no interest in constructing one. If you disagree with my observation about Dever as exceptionally well-educated, well read, etc. that's fine; you won't see the same thing nor buy the my results of a comparision, regardless of the "method" used. If you agree with my observation (which I think is not a particularly incisive or controversial one, nor, as I said, does it reflect poorly on Minnick) it's a waste of time to convince of something you already agree of. In short, it's a waste of time to answer that question.

With respect to your experience, again, it would be pointless for me to argue with your experience; experience is not, as such, the proper content over which to argue.

You do, however, seem to have missed a couple things in my post. First, I was explicit that I was not talking about the rank and file, but was talking about an "ideal-typical" comparison of comparably educated folks from each group. While I can't argue with your experience, I could simpy refer you to the required reading and courses at the two example institutions (Trinity and BJU). I doubt anyone would argue that they differ in some substantial ways, one being that the former require more reading in secular and critical scholarship.

Second, you also seem to have shifted the focus from what I was talking (evidenced in your failure to note all the specific elements of the post: "ideal-typical," "Trinity and BJU," etc.) about to something else, something specific that I was not addressing, viz. whether my ideal-type of the CE seminarian is as "movement consciousness" as his Fundie counterpart. I was not addressing that nor do I find it terribly significant. Again, obviously, I don't dispute your experience. Speaking broadly, few people seem to be self-conscious about the "movements" or historical forces that have shaped their disctinctive identity; one factor that alters this general trend is being a (disliked or persecuted) minority and/or having an identity that is partially constituted by opposition to other groups. In this latter case, it will be more likely that people in such a group would be self-conscious about their group - that Fundamentalists are so follows logically from the fact that they are such a group. Evangelicals are, I think, not as much so, if they are at all.

With respect to your final point about self-conscious movement towards Fundamentalism, I can't dispute with your experience. I do not, however, think it reflects as significant (if even real) a trend as you seem to think, and this is so for at least three reasons. First, except for an incredibly small group of Fundamentalists , I doubt most peopel have heard of, much less read, McCune's book (I would be interested in how many copies have sold). Second, and more broadly, besides a few churches and their affliate instituions, I cannot think of any major group or institutions that would (much less actually has) indicate(d) a self-conscious movement towards "Fundamentalism" (not just a movement to the right, a distinction which I made in my post).

The "many insiders" to whom you refer are beyond my compass, so I can't speak to them. I can say having studied for four years at an Evangelical institution with numerous self-consciously evangelical professors who studied at evangelical institutions (Trinity, et al.) and regularly attended Evangelical events (at ETS/EPS) that I have seen nothing of the sort, especially amongst academics (who would be teaching these ideal seminarian I was discussing). There is no doubt that there is variety in Evangelicalism, with CEs like Piper and Dever representing one slice of the pie, but these would be the most likely groups to indicate the kind of movement I find implausible, and I see no evidence of them so doing. That they appreciate elements of Fundamentalism, etc. is all well known, but I've not heard such men calling for a movement towards "Fundamentalism." That would be bizarre anyway for these guys, who would be more likely to frame a call for renewal in broader terms (e.g. return to the Gospel, authority of Scripture, etc.).

Either way, this is a historical/sociological question, and all of my data is anecdotal. It will be interesting if you're right, but I don't see evidence for that - although you may have some to produce. I'd also be interested when you get time in the term CE as something usually with some regularity and normality outside of Fundamentalism, mainly out of curiosity. I having nothing at stake, I just got the impression it was a term Fundies used more than others.

Finally, I should note that I don't think the ideal-typical CE I am describing is superior, in some moral or spiritual sense, to his Fundie counterpart. Rather, my point was that there would be a qualitative difference in consciousness, in part due to education. So, unless ones thinks that being better educated makes one a better person, my comparison does not suggest that one group is better than the other. Its point was to highlight a singificant difference (consciousness) and its potential causes (education, etc.). Moreover, the overall purpose of my post was to respond to Charlie on the issue of SI, Fundamentalism, and self-consciousness. I did not see you address much of that, which is fine, but that's what I was interested in - so it may be we're just interested in different things here.

Larry,

I think the crux of this is your No. 6., although I'll respond to some other things to in order to be clear about what I meant. I think there is a very big difference between people just becoming more conservative, or rejecting some NE tactic, and moving towards Fundamentalism. As an example, it's easy for me to imagine lots of the people you mention still repudiating Fundamentalism. Admitting failures/weaknesses of NE does not mean you return to what you left, and that is an important distinction. I would not dispute that from the perspective of a future historian, when the all cards are on the table, the people like Woodbridge and Carson (esp. if he's right about another battle for the Bible brewing) may look like the Machens of the late 20C/early 21 C - but neither of them, for example, advocate a return to Fundamentalism. So, if we disagree on this, that is the heart of our disagreement. Even if we do, though, it's ultimately a debate about how to use the word "Fundamentalism," one that could be resolved by making distinctions.

I maintain, though, that someone who knows exactly what Fundamentalism is (like Piper or Dever, for example), today, and does not advocate becoming like it, even if said person is becoming more conservative (I don't see this, by the way), is not moving towards Fundamentalism. The only way this could be the case is if one simply equates Fundamentalism with certain doctrinal positions and then empties it historical characteristics (I've already said CE may not differ in any substantive way on doctrine - the differences are things like "consciousness," which was the point of my post). Rejecting a tactic or admitting excess is not advocating a return to the status quo ante. If one does this evacuation of historical meaning from Fundamentalism, then the failure of "Fundamentalists" to fellowship with Dever et al. becomes even more baseless.

With respect to No. 5, your use of "insiders" did not tip me off to the referents you intended; I am familiar with those people (one of my mentors did his dissertation under Joel Feinberg, and he, my mentor, had a lot of stories about Feinberg's stories), Marsden's account, the inerrancy debates, etc. I use to grade inerrancy papers by undergraduates. But these people like Woodbridge prove my point: none of them said, "Well, I guess we should have just stayed Fundamentalist. That's where I'm heading now." And the fact that they did not say is significant.

On Dever and Minnick - I don't really understand your concern, and I assume it must be personal. I can't imagine you have not heard the 9marks interview, which is the most obvious grounds for a direct comparison. I'm not as familiar with Minnick as with Dever, and I know Dever is a good baptist, but he's still irenic. If it makes you happy I'm willing to withdraw the "less polemical." Although I see no evidence that it isn't the case, it's not a hill I care to defend.

Dever and Minnick were, like TEDS and BJU just examples, particularly good ones since they actually had a conversation, which is why I mentioned them. If you don't like them as examples, you can choose others, but the example is not the point: the example illustrates the point. Dever has a different mindset, a different way of viewing things, and I think he, as a CE, represents broader concerns, both intellectually, culturally, and theologically, than what I've seen from Fundamentalists. How many Fundies, for example, studied under scholars like Roger Nicole then did a PhD at Cambridge? That's not everyday stuff anywhere, but it's also not unusual for pastors' at Dever's level in Evangelicalism (e.g. think of Keller as an intellectual, Piper, fluent in German, PhD from Munich, etc.) And, note, the fact the Dever could study under Nicole was because of the successes (which were great, regardless of the failures) of NE. That makes a difference, and that's one of the differences I was drawing attention to. I really don't think it's controversial; it's more likely I am not making myself clear.

In fact, as I think of it, Dever and Piper are both good illustration: these two classic CE's both have educations that no leader in Fundamentalism has (that I'm aware of - point me to the Munich and Cambridge grads. if they are out there). That kind of difference in education is one of the things that produces measurable differences, not in doctrine, per se, but in sensibilities, levels of awareness, fields of concern and engagement, etc. And because these guys are influential, they are modeling a subtly different pastoral ideal (e.g more educated, more intellectually engaged), which influences their followers, etc.

Joseph,

1. How does one become more conservative without moving toward those who are already conservative? That seems impossible to me. I think everyone acknowledges that fundamentalist are more conservative. To try to argue that some are becoming more conservative or rejecting a NE tactic without somehow moving towards those who are already there and already rejected the tactic is a strange argument to attempt to make. I don't think any of these men in question want to be fundamentalists or are becoming fundamentalists. I never said that, but perhaps I was unclear.

2. Fundamentalism is about doctrine and response to those who have capitulated on doctrine (or never held it to begin with). People have tried to shoehorn in all manner of stuff that really doesn't help and isn't clear. And they do it from both sides. But when people move towards biblical doctrine, they are moving towards fundamentalism even if they never actually get to fundamentalism, and even if they repudiate fundamentalism. Anything else seems to be word games to me. Historically, fundamentalism was about fidelity to the fundamentals of the faith and the militant defense of them up to and including separation. NEs rejected the latter, and along the way many of them rejected the former as well. And when that happened, many NEs were calling people back towards fundamentalism.

3. I don't think people like Woodbridge prove your point. I think they prove mine, that these men saw the problems with NE, that it wasn't what they intended it to be, and that it failed in many respects. And BTW, speaking of consciousness, fundamentalists recognized these failures long before NEs did. The NEs were simply not self-conscious enough to see it. They were late to the party. (Of course fundamentalists don't have parties, so it was strictly a NE party.)

4. On Dever and Minnick, it's not personal in the least. I am not really concerned about it. I am simply curious as to how you concluded that Dever is broader and more deeply read then Minnick. I don't know either of their reading habits. I don't know that there anyone anywhere who more meticulous and thorough with the text as Minnick is. If by "broader" you mean in terms of fellowship, perhaps. If you mean in terms of academic breadth, then I question how you know this. I am not saying it isn't true. I am questioning your basis for knowledge. An interview about a very narrow subject does not seem to be sufficient grounds. I don't know either of their reading habits, and I don't know how you do. So I can't comment on that. I am wondering how you can.

5. With respect to studying under Nicole and Cambridge, there are not many evangelicals who can say that. So picking a fairly unique situation and pointing out that no one in fundamentalism measures up is hardly a good argument. Few in evangelicalism measure up to that argument. It is pretty unusual. Keller has a DMin from Westminster. That's not particularly impressive academically. And a number of fundamentalists have that. Keller is exceptionally gifted in many ways. But again, that seems a wrong standard of comparison. Furthermore, I have to wonder why it matters? Why the infatuation with these things? Academically, evangelicalism does not receive much regard among top tier schools because of their view of critical scholarship. When Peter Enns embarked on his fateful journey with I&I, he was virtually run out of evangelicalism for it.

So again, I am not all that concerned with most of this. It just doesn't matter to me that much. I think it is an interesting topic that is pretty irrelevant. Those who want the acclaim of the world will do what it takes to get it. Others will not.

But I am still simply wondering your basis for comparison. That's all.

I see the biggest difference being simply the direction that we are coming from. When you read the Pyros and others in the CE camp they are mostly where most YFs are. The chief difference is that they arrived there from broad evangelicalism and we have arrived there from fundamentalism but we all seem to be standing on the same train platform. Now, a lot of people think that the station is called "Neo-Evangelicalism" but I think a number of people (Bauder, Straub, et aliud) have demonstrated that current movement within fundamentalism/YFs is not at all the same as the dreaded "neos" that your grandpappy warned you about!

The most disturbing thing to me in this survey is the vitriol of some people. It seems as though it is mostly older people. I love being told I am not a fundamentalist! My cred is as good as anyone's and I am happy to label myself a fundamentalist as I am anything else. All labels need qualifiers. But the hate toward people who hold orthodox positions is unbelievable. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are orthodox positions and both can also morph into unorthodox positions. I don't really think of myself as a Calvinist but I am deeply concerned about the theological direction of MOST Fundamentalist Arminians I have met. And that shows doubly here in the forums. We all need to acknowledge that the movement will attract people who are not 100% like us as is true of every movement. We need to interact with others who are different from us in light of the gospel. This is just how our churches are folks! My church is small but encompasses people from Calvinism to Open Theism and KJVO to complete ignorance of the translation issue. We preach/teach the word in line with 2000 years of orthodoxy. We don't straw-man other orthodox beliefs. At the end of the day we want every member of the church to be growing into the image of Christ and being saturated with His word!

While I am blathering let me just say, the snooty "You're a neo!" attitude of some posters here has the same sinful ring of the new evangelicals, "You're and ignorant fundamentalist!" One of the things that CEs and YF have in common is a desire to dialogue without compromising the truth and to speak the truth in love.

Charlie, I think that he's saying there are people who are Calvinist, people who are Open Theist, and people who are KJVO in his church. His beliefs and teaching may be orthodox, but some of his church's attendees may not be.

I awoke this morning reconsidering this. I was really thinking of YOUNG CEs like Dever. The interesting thing is that the older leaders in CE are actually people who's fathers purposefully left fundamentalism. I am dying for someone to ask Piper and MacArthur the question: "So was your dad right or wrong to separate from BJU over the Graham issue?" MacArthur especially is sounding more and more like a fundamentalist although I don't ever expect him to come any closer to the name than Phil Johnson's "Historic Fundamentalist."

I almost didn't join for that reason, but the SI definition of the term was clear and over-rode my resistance to the term. I have long proposed we develop a new term.

It is sort of like hearing the beginning of the Flintstones having a "gay old time." You know what they meant back then, but we no longer use the word "gay" in this manner because of the baggage it has associated with it.

Marsden is obviously right and my use of the the word "none" wrong - a plain factual error and nothing to "agree" about there.

Although still a factual error (my phrase), my reference to Woodbridge was to John, not Charles, however, which I should have made clear.

I also do not see the term "none" as essential to my general point, which I maintain.

It is significant that many who openly criticize aspects of Evangelicalism (most good evangelicals do, including people like Piper, Carson, etc.) do not see themselves, for that reason, as returning to Fundamentalism. Anyone self-conscious of what they owe to neo-Evangelicalism could not do that in good conscience anyway - the experience of the founders was obviously unique and not repeatable (e.g. for good or ill, they gave us goods they did not themselves enjoy, and responsible and grateful criticism means accounting for those goods and thus precludes wholesale repudiation, of the kind that Fundamentalists are wont to perform).

Larry,

I also just noticed a book titled "Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical" written in the seventies (it was mentioned in an article, written in '76, about Lindsell's inerrancy book). I can't tell whether such usage was just the application of an adjective or signified a distinct term, like "New Evangelical." It's pedantic, but I do wonder if others use it like Fundies do. Either way, it's not a big deal and thanks for the reference.