Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 3
Fundamentalism Common Sense
By definition, Fundamentalism does not concern itself with the whole counsel of God. As the name implies, it concerns itself with fundamentals, i.e., with those matters that are essential to the bare existence of Christianity. Fundamentalists may, and many Fundamentalists actually do, go beyond this limited concern. When they do so, however, they are no longer acting merely as Fundamentalists, but as Fundamentalists who also happen to be something else.
On one hand, as an actual, historical movement, Fundamentalism has often tended to settle for an abbreviated form of Christianity. Though clear exceptions exist, it has often sacrificed doctrinal breadth and detail. On the other hand, Fundamentalism has also tended to add elements that are not necessary to any form of biblical Christianity. Over the next few essays, I wish to explore three of these additions: Common Sense Realism, populism, and sentimentalism.
Common Sense Realism was a reaction to and development of Enlightenment philosophy. It was articulated by Thomas Reid of Aberdeen (later Glasgow) and sold to the philosophical world by Dugald Stewart of Edinburgh. A relatively late development, Common Sense Realism represented an attempt to circumvent several philosophical impasses. Continental rationalism had never been able to move convincingly beyond solipsism. British empiricism had led to the subjective idealism of Berkeley and the skepticism of Hume.
Reid hoped to get past these problems by grounding knowledge in a core of self-evident common sense. Where earlier thinkers had distinguished appearance from reality, Reid posited that people perceive reality directly. Normally, perceptions can be relied upon as accurate and trustworthy. For Common Sense Realism, reality is transparently available to the perceiving subject.
How did Reid justify this appeal to common sense? In a way, he refused to. He argued that the truths of common sense cannot be established by deductive proofs. Common sense is properly Reid’s foundation, his axiom beyond which no appeal is possible. It cannot be proven, nor does it need to be. Opinions that reject common sense always end up in absurdity.
For Common Sense Realists, common sense is the final court of appeal in all matters of intellect. No special training or philosophical ability is required. Matters of common sense lie within the purview of common understanding. Every person is a competent judge.
Many Christians embraced Common Sense Realism, particularly in America. It became a powerful force in American theology before the Civil War. It was still influential in the proto-Fundamentalist milieu of the 1870s through the 1910s. Proto-Fundamentalism is the social and ecclesiastical environment out of which the Fundamentalist movement emerged around 1920. Not surprisingly, Fundamentalists inherited and were profoundly affected by Common Sense categories. The Fundamentalists who were most affected tended to be those who were convinced that they had no philosophy at all.
Scottish Common Sense Realism proved to be a mixed blessing for Christians. On the positive side, it provided evangelicals with a handy defense against the skeptics of the early Nineteenth Century. Indeed, by embracing Common Sense Realism, evangelicals found themselves in the forefront of a leading intellectual fashion. They were able to speak from a position of respectability.
Their moment of prestige was short-lived, however. During the second half of the century the philosophical winds shifted. Because they had invested heavily in Common Sense Realism, evangelicals now appeared outmoded and irrelevant. Furthermore, since Christians had committed themselves so heavily to Common Sense, they ended up defending it as if it were the Faith itself.
Theologically and ecclesiastically, Common Sense lent itself to theories that emphasized human autonomy and ability. It provided no mechanism for assessing the noetic effects of sin. It also tended to produce contempt for disciplines (including theological disciplines) that relied upon specialized knowledge and a high degree of training. Combined with Baconian method, it led to a vision of theology in which the Bible is essentially a warehouse of disordered but transparent theological facts, which the theologian’s task is to organize. In short, the Bible became a jigsaw puzzle, a game at which everyone was equally qualified to play.
Common Sense Realism is now more than two centuries old. So thoroughly did Christians accept its categories, however, that it remains influential among many evangelicals and most Fundamentalists. The conflict between Fundamentalists and Modernists was not merely a conflict over theology, but also was a conflict over philosophy. Theological Modernists had moved away from Common Sense into a philosophy that was more influenced by Romanticism and Kantian Idealism. Fundamentalists found themselves defending not merely orthodox doctrines but also Common Sense ways of thinking.
Therein lies one of the great ironies of the Fundamentalist movement. Common Sense is simply a slightly older form of Modernism. It is an Enlightenment philosophy that accepts all of the modern assumptions about detached, objective observers, clear and distinct foundations for knowledge, and neutral common ground as a starting point for discourse. Like nearly all evangelicals of the early Twentieth Century, most Fundamentalists were Modernists. If they objected to the Modernism of William Rainey Harper and Shailer Mathews, it was only because they wished to assert an alternative Modernism in its place.
Fundamentalism is a great idea. In the actual development of the Fundamentalist movement, however, the idea of Fundamentalism was confounded with other ideas. One of those ideas was Scottish Common Sense Realism. To the extent that Fundamentalists were (and are) committed to defending the categories of Common Sense, they were (and are) adding something to the Faith. They are confusing their Christianity with a very recent philosophy.
The practical consequences of Common Sense Realism were serious. One of the worst was that Common Sense provided an intellectual accelerant for a version of populism that was already becoming widespread. In the next essay, I wish to explore how Fundamentalism has added not only Common Sense Realism but also populism to its vision of the Christian faith.
Holy Father, Cheer Our Way
Richard Hayes Robinson (1842-1892)
Holy Father, cheer our way
with thy love’s perpetual ray;
grant us every closing day
light at evening time.
Holy Savior, calm our fears
when earth’s brightness disappears;
grant us in our later years
light at evening time.
Holy Spirit, be thou nigh
when in mortal pains we lie;
grant us, as we come to die,
light at evening time.
Holy, blessèd Trinity,
darkness is not dark to thee;
those thou keepest always see
light at evening time.
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 35 views
[Greg Linscott]And most likely, if they truly are thinking people, their decision to follow their docs recommendations are based on trust gained by experience, not because they don’t think for themselves. Demanding trust because one claims expertise is a bit presumptuous.Thinking people do not change their minds about anything because an expert told them they should. Period.Not sure that’s true. I know several thinking people who make major decisions because their medical doctor (“expert”) told them they should. Period.
Charlie,
As a Virginian and a Baptist, I must ask what you meant by naming the patriot and preacher John Leland as an example of “crazy Baptist micro-sects?” Would you label such groups as the FBF, GARBC, BBF, IFCA, etc. as “crazy Baptist micro-sects?”
Any literate, saved person can pick up a Bible and, with the help of the Spirit, understand EVERYTHING he NEEDS to know about God. I hope this basic truth of Wycliffe and Tyndale’s Christianity is not in dispute as “Common Sense Realism” is discussed. A friend of mine who graduated from Christian College with me, but recently joined the Russian Orthodox Church, stated that Wycliffe and Tyndale were doing something dangerous by putting the Word of God into the commoner’s hands. Hopefully, that line of thinking is not being promoted here.
“Me and my Bible” sounds like something gospel preachers ought to be promoting. Times of personal devotions, family altars, etc. would bring great revival to our churches and communities.
As a Virginian and a Baptist, I must ask what you meant by naming the patriot and preacher John Leland as an example of “crazy Baptist micro-sects?” Would you label such groups as the FBF, GARBC, BBF, IFCA, etc. as “crazy Baptist micro-sects?”
Any literate, saved person can pick up a Bible and, with the help of the Spirit, understand EVERYTHING he NEEDS to know about God. I hope this basic truth of Wycliffe and Tyndale’s Christianity is not in dispute as “Common Sense Realism” is discussed. A friend of mine who graduated from Christian College with me, but recently joined the Russian Orthodox Church, stated that Wycliffe and Tyndale were doing something dangerous by putting the Word of God into the commoner’s hands. Hopefully, that line of thinking is not being promoted here.
“Me and my Bible” sounds like something gospel preachers ought to be promoting. Times of personal devotions, family altars, etc. would bring great revival to our churches and communities.
In addition to these sections from Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity, I will also note that Leland was against the practice of professional medicine and taught that parents had no right to enforce their religious convictions upon their minor children (such as making them go to church). He also believed that no type of church association is biblical, including ordination.
“Leland’s credo of lliberal individualism differs in several respects from the outlook of his older Baptist colleague Isaac Backus. Backus and Leland were linked in their efforts to gain full legal standing for Baptist churches in New England, but their concerns diverged because of their differing ages. Converted in 1741 under George Whitefield, Backus clung to the theology of Jonathan Edwards, the issue of infant Baptism excepted. Leland, however, could never reconcile the problem of predestination and free will and sneered at ‘polemical divinity’ as futile and coercive…. Leland’s opposition to creeds and confessions was also a function of his firm identification with a popular audience, an instinct that Backus did not appreciate. Backus had defended his positions with learned tracts addressed to civil and religious elites. He opposed ‘high and new things’ in religion and was suspicious of rallying popular opinion. Leland relished a common audience, peppering his speeches and writings with blunt common sense and earthy humor…. The greatest difference between Backus and Leland was their contrasting views of the social order. While Backus never doubted the right of all to worship as they pleased, he was unconvinced that laymen could articulate their own theology…. Leland, on the other hand, rejected the idea of natural inequality in society – as if some were set apart to lead and others to follow.” (99)
“Leland was too iconoclastic to permit a religious structure to form around him; even his relationship with his own congregation was troubled over his refusal, as a matter of conscience, to administer the Lord’s Supper. Leland defended his position by saying that in thirty years of practical experience he had never seen the ordinance move a single sinner to conversion.” (100)
“John Leland is also important because he turned a quest for self-reliance into a godly crusade. He believed that individuals had to make a studied effort to free themselves of natural authorities: church, state, college, seminary, even family. Leland’s message carried the combined ideological leverage of evangelical urgency and Jeffersonian promise. Using plain language and avoiding doctrinal refinements, he proclaimed a divine economy that was atomistic and competitive rather than wholistic and hierarchical.” (101)
“Leland’s credo of lliberal individualism differs in several respects from the outlook of his older Baptist colleague Isaac Backus. Backus and Leland were linked in their efforts to gain full legal standing for Baptist churches in New England, but their concerns diverged because of their differing ages. Converted in 1741 under George Whitefield, Backus clung to the theology of Jonathan Edwards, the issue of infant Baptism excepted. Leland, however, could never reconcile the problem of predestination and free will and sneered at ‘polemical divinity’ as futile and coercive…. Leland’s opposition to creeds and confessions was also a function of his firm identification with a popular audience, an instinct that Backus did not appreciate. Backus had defended his positions with learned tracts addressed to civil and religious elites. He opposed ‘high and new things’ in religion and was suspicious of rallying popular opinion. Leland relished a common audience, peppering his speeches and writings with blunt common sense and earthy humor…. The greatest difference between Backus and Leland was their contrasting views of the social order. While Backus never doubted the right of all to worship as they pleased, he was unconvinced that laymen could articulate their own theology…. Leland, on the other hand, rejected the idea of natural inequality in society – as if some were set apart to lead and others to follow.” (99)
“Leland was too iconoclastic to permit a religious structure to form around him; even his relationship with his own congregation was troubled over his refusal, as a matter of conscience, to administer the Lord’s Supper. Leland defended his position by saying that in thirty years of practical experience he had never seen the ordinance move a single sinner to conversion.” (100)
“John Leland is also important because he turned a quest for self-reliance into a godly crusade. He believed that individuals had to make a studied effort to free themselves of natural authorities: church, state, college, seminary, even family. Leland’s message carried the combined ideological leverage of evangelical urgency and Jeffersonian promise. Using plain language and avoiding doctrinal refinements, he proclaimed a divine economy that was atomistic and competitive rather than wholistic and hierarchical.” (101)
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Susan R]That doesn’t change the fact that they are trusting someone else’s expertise that they themselves don’t possess. We do that with many other things, too- cars, appliance and home repairs, etc etc…[Greg Linscott]And most likely, if they truly are thinking people, their decision to follow their docs recommendations are based on trust gained by experience, not because they don’t think for themselves. Demanding trust because one claims expertise is a bit presumptuous.Thinking people do not change their minds about anything because an expert told them they should. Period.Not sure that’s true. I know several thinking people who make major decisions because their medical doctor (“expert”) told them they should. Period.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]But that trust is still based on some evidence that the person in question is trustworthy, and we are always free to walk away and put our money back in our wallets without our intelligence being called into question. Anyway, I thought the objections being raised here were about the demanding tone of the “I’m an expert- trust me you ignorant peasants” crowd, of which we should all be wary until we spend some time in the Word and have a tete-a-tete with the Holy Spirit for verification. The standard against which we measure every philosophical POV is still going to be the Bible.[Susan R]That doesn’t change the fact that they are trusting someone else’s expertise that they themselves don’t possess. We do that with many other things, too- cars, appliance and home repairs, etc etc…[Greg Linscott]And most likely, if they truly are thinking people, their decision to follow their docs recommendations are based on trust gained by experience, not because they don’t think for themselves. Demanding trust because one claims expertise is a bit presumptuous.Thinking people do not change their minds about anything because an expert told them they should. Period.Not sure that’s true. I know several thinking people who make major decisions because their medical doctor (“expert”) told them they should. Period.
I’m heading back to the bleachers. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink062.gif
Let me see if I can say this in a clearer, less offensive manner:
For better or worse, we are ministering to people who (for the most part) have no knowledge or understanding of classical philosphical thought. The people we are trying to reach - in and out of the church - are not going to have any desire to invest years of time and wads of $$ to educate themselves up to the point at which they can understand only the most basic precepts of this philosophy (and others).
If the principles being discussed here are going to be useful to the minister of the Gospel, they need to be presented in such a way that those who have no training in philosophy (those in the congregation, those in the Sunday school class, those we meet at work or on the street, and even some of us who stand in the pulpit) will be able to comprehend it.
Otherwise it is of little use in the real world.
For better or worse, we are ministering to people who (for the most part) have no knowledge or understanding of classical philosphical thought. The people we are trying to reach - in and out of the church - are not going to have any desire to invest years of time and wads of $$ to educate themselves up to the point at which they can understand only the most basic precepts of this philosophy (and others).
If the principles being discussed here are going to be useful to the minister of the Gospel, they need to be presented in such a way that those who have no training in philosophy (those in the congregation, those in the Sunday school class, those we meet at work or on the street, and even some of us who stand in the pulpit) will be able to comprehend it.
Otherwise it is of little use in the real world.
Bob,
A few things.
First, one can never fully take into account the diversity of background knowledge people have; no matter what I write, some people will find it too obscure or difficult; that doesn’t mean I communicated poorly - maybe I did, maybe not. Being a critical reader means not only reading writing well but also realizing the extent to which one’s one background affects one’s understanding of the writing. That kind of reading I appreciate, as I’m glad to learn how I can more effectively communicate to someone. Even then, changes made for that person may futher “obfusate” or even over-simplify the matter for someone else. This is a difficult process, and it’s why I’m so chary about forums. Second, if you don’t think I communicate things well on SI, fine; often perhaps I don’t. Two further things should be noted here. First, that doesn’t mean I can’t communicate well; my current position in school as well as all of the opinions of professors and editors of papers/conferences who have read what I write indicates that I can, in general, communicate fairly well, at least in the areas in which I write serious papers (philosophy, theology, and literature) So, it’s probably not legitimate to make global assumptions about people’s communicate skills based on one’s reception of their forum writing. Second, what it means to “communicate well” on a forum is by no means self-evident; there is an inherent tension between writing focused, letter-like responses to people (like I’m writing now) or writing short-essay-like, more general responses that people often seem to ignore (e.g. on the dispensationalism thread). It’s a challenge, so patience is appreciated.
Second, being clear doesn’t mean providing links/quotes (I gave a lot of quotes on the dispensationalism thread, incidentally); not everything I talk about is well treated on the internet ; one of the things I do that irritates people is inform people when something actually requires a degree of study not commensurate with the internet. There’s no way around that; stuff is complicated, and it’s not to a person’s credit if they can’t distinguish between when something requires a lot of background and when it doesn’t. I’d much rather have somebody find my book recommendations irritating than make an idiot of myself and waste people’s time by trying to discuss something that I know will be misunderstood, get a poor hearing, or simply create confusion. Given that I have a decent background in certain areas, like philosophy, I don’t make statements or recommendations “out of the blue” or because I’m an elitist, philosophy-adoring, obfuscator par excellence (although I know some people seem to think this). Frankly, I love when people give recommendations; someone may find it in the short-term irritating, but if they are seriously interested in the topic, they’ll be grateful for having some resources to look to. I have over twenty wishlists on Amazon, so much do I love book recommendations.
Third, it’s not nearly as simple to write in the way you want me to as you seem to think. You want me “to come down” to people’s levels; are you unaware that many people would feel that I’m being condescending in “coming down” to their level? Not everyone is willing to admit the implications ot their ignorance on a topic, and consequently resist having someone “come down to their level,” because they think their level is adequate to judge the matter. So, it’s lose-lose; you either overshoot too many people in the audience, or you get some group angry at you for “being condescending.”
Fourth, writing well takes a long time, and I spend probably more time writing posts like this than I should, so that’s a serious consideration as well.
Finally, I am glad you are concerned enough to address me directly about problems you see in my posts; if you ask me a question, I’ll try to answer it. I’ll also tell you if the question itself seems problematic to me. All I’ve offered so far are preliminary remarks that have been contested. So I have no general point thus far, save what I’ve already said. And, if someone really wants clarification, pm-ing may be much more effective than a forum discussion, especially if they actually want to understand something and think I’m being obscure (maybe I am).
A few things.
First, one can never fully take into account the diversity of background knowledge people have; no matter what I write, some people will find it too obscure or difficult; that doesn’t mean I communicated poorly - maybe I did, maybe not. Being a critical reader means not only reading writing well but also realizing the extent to which one’s one background affects one’s understanding of the writing. That kind of reading I appreciate, as I’m glad to learn how I can more effectively communicate to someone. Even then, changes made for that person may futher “obfusate” or even over-simplify the matter for someone else. This is a difficult process, and it’s why I’m so chary about forums. Second, if you don’t think I communicate things well on SI, fine; often perhaps I don’t. Two further things should be noted here. First, that doesn’t mean I can’t communicate well; my current position in school as well as all of the opinions of professors and editors of papers/conferences who have read what I write indicates that I can, in general, communicate fairly well, at least in the areas in which I write serious papers (philosophy, theology, and literature) So, it’s probably not legitimate to make global assumptions about people’s communicate skills based on one’s reception of their forum writing. Second, what it means to “communicate well” on a forum is by no means self-evident; there is an inherent tension between writing focused, letter-like responses to people (like I’m writing now) or writing short-essay-like, more general responses that people often seem to ignore (e.g. on the dispensationalism thread). It’s a challenge, so patience is appreciated.
Second, being clear doesn’t mean providing links/quotes (I gave a lot of quotes on the dispensationalism thread, incidentally); not everything I talk about is well treated on the internet ; one of the things I do that irritates people is inform people when something actually requires a degree of study not commensurate with the internet. There’s no way around that; stuff is complicated, and it’s not to a person’s credit if they can’t distinguish between when something requires a lot of background and when it doesn’t. I’d much rather have somebody find my book recommendations irritating than make an idiot of myself and waste people’s time by trying to discuss something that I know will be misunderstood, get a poor hearing, or simply create confusion. Given that I have a decent background in certain areas, like philosophy, I don’t make statements or recommendations “out of the blue” or because I’m an elitist, philosophy-adoring, obfuscator par excellence (although I know some people seem to think this). Frankly, I love when people give recommendations; someone may find it in the short-term irritating, but if they are seriously interested in the topic, they’ll be grateful for having some resources to look to. I have over twenty wishlists on Amazon, so much do I love book recommendations.
Third, it’s not nearly as simple to write in the way you want me to as you seem to think. You want me “to come down” to people’s levels; are you unaware that many people would feel that I’m being condescending in “coming down” to their level? Not everyone is willing to admit the implications ot their ignorance on a topic, and consequently resist having someone “come down to their level,” because they think their level is adequate to judge the matter. So, it’s lose-lose; you either overshoot too many people in the audience, or you get some group angry at you for “being condescending.”
Fourth, writing well takes a long time, and I spend probably more time writing posts like this than I should, so that’s a serious consideration as well.
Finally, I am glad you are concerned enough to address me directly about problems you see in my posts; if you ask me a question, I’ll try to answer it. I’ll also tell you if the question itself seems problematic to me. All I’ve offered so far are preliminary remarks that have been contested. So I have no general point thus far, save what I’ve already said. And, if someone really wants clarification, pm-ing may be much more effective than a forum discussion, especially if they actually want to understand something and think I’m being obscure (maybe I am).
“Basically, American common sense populism (there’s my term for the whole ethos) views everyone as equally qualified in matters of government or religion. Independence, autonomy, and supreme confidence in the individual (Army of One) are prized values. Around 1800 in America, for the first major time in Western history, people decided that they were just going to make up their own religious options. Most of them used the Bible, but they decided that the best way to get to God was to simply sit in a room by themselves and read the Bible. Many people did just that, and then went on to make their own religious movements: Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, Joseph Smith, etc. It was an era where going to an expert, or being formally trained in theology, was scoffed at. After all, the Bible is a book and everyone knows how to read, right? So, the emphasis moved from corporate, historical, church theology to “me and my Bible.” Looking back in hindsight, we see exactly what happens when people “just read their Bible” without any guidance, direction, church connection, etc. You get the Disciples of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Mormons, the Methodists, the Pelagian New Haven theology, crazy Baptist micro-sects (i.e., John Leland), etc.
The error, as I see it, is not in assuming that the Bible is intelligible. That is quite correct. The error is assuming that all parts of the Bible are equally clear and that all people, no matter their current state or background, are equally able to apprehend its meaning. If one were to question the interpretation of someone steeped in this, the reply would probably be something about the Holy Spirit leading into truth. The Holy Spirit, though, as I understand it, was given to the Church corporate and His gifts are diffused throughout the body so that to cut oneself off from the corporate body (both geographically and chronologically) is to miss out on a portion of His gifts. On another note, these populists always make the Bible “easy” and act as though it is simply a book of proof-texts unhappily arranged out of order, and the interpreter’s job is to copy-paste them into the correct topical categories. There is little understanding of the Bible as a literary creation, or thought given to discourse analysis or even the historical circumstances of the writing. Study of historical theology is seen as wasted time, and study in the original languages is merely an elitist curiosity, because after all, the Bible is so “easy.” Alexander Campbell in particular was convinced if anyone would just “read the Bible like you’ve never seen it before,” they would join his movement. The irony that always occurs in these situations is that the leader doesn’t want other people to listen to “men’s words,” except for his. “
Good historical thoughts, Charlie.
Of course, Mormonism in the third millennium is not the same as Mormonism in the early 1800s. LDS General Authorities administrate the Church with smooth, effective business savvy. But the LDS scholars are looked to for scriptural interpretation and apologetics. LDS academia is growing stronger. It is much more robust in America - a switch from 150 years ago, while missionary effectiveness is tapering. Philosophical theology in LDS academic internet saturates a lot of discussion.
But I still like the free-thinking of the Baptist under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the empowerment to laymen in the use of the glorious Word of God. :)
The error, as I see it, is not in assuming that the Bible is intelligible. That is quite correct. The error is assuming that all parts of the Bible are equally clear and that all people, no matter their current state or background, are equally able to apprehend its meaning. If one were to question the interpretation of someone steeped in this, the reply would probably be something about the Holy Spirit leading into truth. The Holy Spirit, though, as I understand it, was given to the Church corporate and His gifts are diffused throughout the body so that to cut oneself off from the corporate body (both geographically and chronologically) is to miss out on a portion of His gifts. On another note, these populists always make the Bible “easy” and act as though it is simply a book of proof-texts unhappily arranged out of order, and the interpreter’s job is to copy-paste them into the correct topical categories. There is little understanding of the Bible as a literary creation, or thought given to discourse analysis or even the historical circumstances of the writing. Study of historical theology is seen as wasted time, and study in the original languages is merely an elitist curiosity, because after all, the Bible is so “easy.” Alexander Campbell in particular was convinced if anyone would just “read the Bible like you’ve never seen it before,” they would join his movement. The irony that always occurs in these situations is that the leader doesn’t want other people to listen to “men’s words,” except for his. “
Good historical thoughts, Charlie.
Of course, Mormonism in the third millennium is not the same as Mormonism in the early 1800s. LDS General Authorities administrate the Church with smooth, effective business savvy. But the LDS scholars are looked to for scriptural interpretation and apologetics. LDS academia is growing stronger. It is much more robust in America - a switch from 150 years ago, while missionary effectiveness is tapering. Philosophical theology in LDS academic internet saturates a lot of discussion.
But I still like the free-thinking of the Baptist under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the empowerment to laymen in the use of the glorious Word of God. :)
[Greg Linscott]You’ve got me there. We all pick and choose when we will think for ourselves and when we will deligate a belief-decision to someone we believe is likely to steer us well.Thinking people do not change their minds about anything because an expert told them they should. Period.Not sure that’s true. I know several thinking people who make major decisions because their medical doctor (“expert”) told them they should. Period.
However, I’m going to stick w/the point I was illustrating there that when a person well-versed in any subject attempts to write or speak to those who are not, he should expect his listeners to engage in critical thinking, and expect to have to give them reasons to believe him.
But I’m also going to be a little stubborn on the “thinking people” part of it. To the degree a person uncricitally accepts what an expert says just ‘cuz he says so, he is not a thinking person. So when it comes to trusting my doc, I’ll confess that I choose to abandon thought on the topic and do a “Yeah—what he said.”
But even then, I ask some questions and I expect some oversimplified but still intelligible answers. A doc who responds to my questions with “Because I said so and I’m an MD and you’re not” will only briefly be “my doctor.”
So I probably overstated my point a little there, but not by much.
Anyway, I’m still waiting for someone to take a stab at my five questions… pick one. How about “What philosophy should the early evangelicals and Fundamentalists have embraced instead of whatever it was we’re accusing them of having embraced?” (Modified that a little to accommodate those who are now basically saying “Well it wasn’t SCSR after all, it was a sort of popular and dumb version of SCSR” … fine, the question stands.)
Charlie, your point about common sense having limitations when it comes to the more complex questions… I don’t think I disagree with you there. I’m personally not of a mind to say that all questions are equally answerable by everybody. That’s pure populism/egalitarianism and it irks me just as much as the worst elitism.
But wouldn’t many of the early evangelicals/fundamentalists also agree with that? And I think Reid himself did not teach otherwise in his idea of Common Sense (from what I’ve read so far). So the idea that the ordinary sense of ordinary folks is all sufficient in itself… I think it would be hard to prove that such a belief was endemic to early 20th century Fundamentalism.
Which would suggest that what all this fuss is really about is that Fundamentalism has suffered from too many who truly were extreme in their suspicion toward matters of learning and extreme in their belief in individualism and the abilities of the ordinary untrained person. I wouldn’t dispute that at all. But that really has nothing to do with believing in common sense (of a believer) as a basic approach to Scripture.
Will have to chew on this some more and see if I can explain myself better.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Dr. Bauder, I appreciate your article, and I am anticipating the next installment. Perhaps, some of the confusion in this thread is based upon not wanting to wait for your next article, and time will tell.
Charlie and Joseph,
While I don’t have a huge philosophical background, I do have some; and I prefer to leave things generally stated. I found your comments to be helpful and understandable. Joseph, in particular, could have been a whole lot more obscure if he wanted to; and I am thankful for what you did in explaining things. I can relate very easily to your frustration Joseph. If someone wanted me to justify a second year Greek assertion, then I would find it very, very burdensome to have to try and explain all of the first year fundamentals, and then I would have to tell them that the first year fundamentals are for words “apart” from context. Second year Greek deals with words “in” context, so then we see many of the first year’s rules broken. But for the person who has adopted a skeptical stance toward your position—with not even a first year knowledge of Greek, but rather a smattering of personal study (granted, some personal study is really good)—to then demand that you explain things to them is the equivalent of them wanting you to write “volumes” of information that you don’t have the time for. With the time allotted to you, you then recommend resources to the other to help them. In both (Charlie & Joseph) of their postings, I have seen the distinction made between common sense and Common Sense, and I’ve seen the great shortcomings of common sense.
Here is a thought,
How about the corporation view of the church emphasized over the organic view of the church? Hey, it is just common sense to view a group of people in a market driven perspective (I don’t agree with this obviously). Common sense corporation view of people is the way to go. It doesn’t matter what those people think that read their Bibles say. I can just label them as being elitist because they want me to be confined within the bounds of Scripture rather than my common sense view of business. And so I build a church based upon my common sense. It thrives well as a business; I use a few verses here and there to add a Biblical flavor to the gatherings, and I use some popular feel good comments to the people that accords with the common sense of the age.
So I have to ask, which common sense is common? To what culture, sub-culture? To which education level? Doesn’t it seem that “common sense” is too fluid of a term to mean much of anything?
The average heathen, who does good things, thinks, “hey, I do good things, I’m not a sinner.” This is just common sense, or is it?
Charlie and Joseph,
While I don’t have a huge philosophical background, I do have some; and I prefer to leave things generally stated. I found your comments to be helpful and understandable. Joseph, in particular, could have been a whole lot more obscure if he wanted to; and I am thankful for what you did in explaining things. I can relate very easily to your frustration Joseph. If someone wanted me to justify a second year Greek assertion, then I would find it very, very burdensome to have to try and explain all of the first year fundamentals, and then I would have to tell them that the first year fundamentals are for words “apart” from context. Second year Greek deals with words “in” context, so then we see many of the first year’s rules broken. But for the person who has adopted a skeptical stance toward your position—with not even a first year knowledge of Greek, but rather a smattering of personal study (granted, some personal study is really good)—to then demand that you explain things to them is the equivalent of them wanting you to write “volumes” of information that you don’t have the time for. With the time allotted to you, you then recommend resources to the other to help them. In both (Charlie & Joseph) of their postings, I have seen the distinction made between common sense and Common Sense, and I’ve seen the great shortcomings of common sense.
Here is a thought,
How about the corporation view of the church emphasized over the organic view of the church? Hey, it is just common sense to view a group of people in a market driven perspective (I don’t agree with this obviously). Common sense corporation view of people is the way to go. It doesn’t matter what those people think that read their Bibles say. I can just label them as being elitist because they want me to be confined within the bounds of Scripture rather than my common sense view of business. And so I build a church based upon my common sense. It thrives well as a business; I use a few verses here and there to add a Biblical flavor to the gatherings, and I use some popular feel good comments to the people that accords with the common sense of the age.
So I have to ask, which common sense is common? To what culture, sub-culture? To which education level? Doesn’t it seem that “common sense” is too fluid of a term to mean much of anything?
The average heathen, who does good things, thinks, “hey, I do good things, I’m not a sinner.” This is just common sense, or is it?
@Charlie #4, I see your point, but I would not lump Joseph Smith in with the rest. Whether right or wrong, Campbell and Stone for example were sincerely trying to interpret the Bible as they saw it. Smith was not doing that in a straight forward way. He was making stuff up, and was either a charlatan and/or a bit crazy.
Rev. Karl, I don’t think that everything discussed here has to apply directly to the pulpit and ministering to people. SI seems like a thoughtful website intended to provoke thought and discussion among preachers and others (professional and lay) who are just interested in such matters. That said, Joseph, I think you set a threshold for discussion that is impossible to meet. Most people here couldn’t read all the books you recommend if they wanted to. But that doesn’t mean they can’t have a semi-intelligent discussion about these matters.
I am a doctor. If there was thread on illness x, it wouldn’t do anyone much good if I started babbling on and on about gross pathophysiology and micro-science minutia, and then if people didn’t get it refer them to some two pound text. It is an important skill in and of itself to be able to communicate on their level with people other than equally trained professionals.
I have never much cared for philosophy beyond where it intersects with politics and theology because I find much of it an exercise in mental … hmmm … err … well you know what I mean. Given that predisposition, what I do know about Common Sense Realism, which isn’t much, is appealing.
But let me see if I can boil down what Dr. Bauder is getting at to a very elementary level. Whatever its merits, SCSR is still a form of post-Enlightenment rationalism that has a high view of what fallen man can discern. I presume that Dr. Bauder would prefer something that is more Revelationistic (did I just create a new word?) and less rationalistic. With that I would generally concur.
Without resort to philosophy speak that is beyond all of our training, am I close?
Rev. Karl, I don’t think that everything discussed here has to apply directly to the pulpit and ministering to people. SI seems like a thoughtful website intended to provoke thought and discussion among preachers and others (professional and lay) who are just interested in such matters. That said, Joseph, I think you set a threshold for discussion that is impossible to meet. Most people here couldn’t read all the books you recommend if they wanted to. But that doesn’t mean they can’t have a semi-intelligent discussion about these matters.
I am a doctor. If there was thread on illness x, it wouldn’t do anyone much good if I started babbling on and on about gross pathophysiology and micro-science minutia, and then if people didn’t get it refer them to some two pound text. It is an important skill in and of itself to be able to communicate on their level with people other than equally trained professionals.
I have never much cared for philosophy beyond where it intersects with politics and theology because I find much of it an exercise in mental … hmmm … err … well you know what I mean. Given that predisposition, what I do know about Common Sense Realism, which isn’t much, is appealing.
But let me see if I can boil down what Dr. Bauder is getting at to a very elementary level. Whatever its merits, SCSR is still a form of post-Enlightenment rationalism that has a high view of what fallen man can discern. I presume that Dr. Bauder would prefer something that is more Revelationistic (did I just create a new word?) and less rationalistic. With that I would generally concur.
Without resort to philosophy speak that is beyond all of our training, am I close?
Aaron,
A number of your questions are exceedingly complex, but let me very briefly and inadequately address what you say at the end of Q. 5.
There are are least two senses in which people hold philosophical notions about things. First, there are the historically particular conceptions that, when internalized by a group of people, become that through which they see things, and thus their common sense beliefs about the world, those beliefs that they refer other beliefs to and hold so deeply they see through them, rather than look at them, generally speaking. Unearthing these beliefs is hard, and sociologists, anthropologists, and (cultural) historians are often the people whose help we need to discover these beliefs. SCP exercised influenced at this level, I think, in America.
Second, there is the sense in which someone formally studies a philosophy and approves of it, thus intentionally ro unintentionally incorporating tenets and frameworks from that philosophy into their other intellectual work. One of these two things, or both, happens inevitably in theology, as you rightly point out.
That said, besides the question of inherently superior philosophical positions to be adopting, the problem with SCSR is not, I think, that it influenced the Princetonians or Fundamentalism. It was, rather, that its influence was not properly appreciated, and therefore made the subject of critical scrutiny. Sharply contrasting with this is the consensus of patristic scholarship, which holds that, in general, the Church Fathers adoption of Greek philosophy was anything but uncritical, but was in fact a highly critical, biblically influenced, very careful appropriation of core concepts in Greek philosophy. Common Sense philosophy lends itself to sliding under the rader of critical awareness by virtue of its emphases and its lack of an obvious metaphysic (which is unavoidable in Greek philosophy), and I think people like Marsden and Noll, and probably Bauder, based on this article, would say that this uncritical influence/adaption is what is, irrespective of the philosophical validity of SCR, partially, if not wholly, what is so problematic abou its influence on Fundamentalism, etc . A secondary problem would be that, when one considers its emphases and the things it seems to support, it does seem to encourage or support ,in the way it was received in America, a number of negative trends in American Christianity.
A number of your questions are exceedingly complex, but let me very briefly and inadequately address what you say at the end of Q. 5.
There are are least two senses in which people hold philosophical notions about things. First, there are the historically particular conceptions that, when internalized by a group of people, become that through which they see things, and thus their common sense beliefs about the world, those beliefs that they refer other beliefs to and hold so deeply they see through them, rather than look at them, generally speaking. Unearthing these beliefs is hard, and sociologists, anthropologists, and (cultural) historians are often the people whose help we need to discover these beliefs. SCP exercised influenced at this level, I think, in America.
Second, there is the sense in which someone formally studies a philosophy and approves of it, thus intentionally ro unintentionally incorporating tenets and frameworks from that philosophy into their other intellectual work. One of these two things, or both, happens inevitably in theology, as you rightly point out.
That said, besides the question of inherently superior philosophical positions to be adopting, the problem with SCSR is not, I think, that it influenced the Princetonians or Fundamentalism. It was, rather, that its influence was not properly appreciated, and therefore made the subject of critical scrutiny. Sharply contrasting with this is the consensus of patristic scholarship, which holds that, in general, the Church Fathers adoption of Greek philosophy was anything but uncritical, but was in fact a highly critical, biblically influenced, very careful appropriation of core concepts in Greek philosophy. Common Sense philosophy lends itself to sliding under the rader of critical awareness by virtue of its emphases and its lack of an obvious metaphysic (which is unavoidable in Greek philosophy), and I think people like Marsden and Noll, and probably Bauder, based on this article, would say that this uncritical influence/adaption is what is, irrespective of the philosophical validity of SCR, partially, if not wholly, what is so problematic abou its influence on Fundamentalism, etc . A secondary problem would be that, when one considers its emphases and the things it seems to support, it does seem to encourage or support ,in the way it was received in America, a number of negative trends in American Christianity.
Thanks for not taking my comments too harshly. I understand the difficulty of online communication. My “humility” comment was not meant to say you are “proud”. Rather, taking pains to be understood would be a good exercise for anyone in your position, in the sense it would help promote “humility”. I can think of areas which would build humility for me too.
Again, I’m seeking to learn here too, and at times I wish I could open up what you’re saying more, or hear you finish your thoughts that you say you can’t finish. :)
Again, I’m seeking to learn here too, and at times I wish I could open up what you’re saying more, or hear you finish your thoughts that you say you can’t finish. :)
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
On the ideas Charlie raised about everyone and a Bible leading to all the cults and etc., I would add the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses to the mix too.
And that really is the point, isn’t it? Anyone can understand the Bible but that doesn’t prevent people from instead reading the Bible and becoming cultists. Obviously revelation is needed, but so is the safeguard of teachers.
Biblically, teaching is an office of the church. If everything is equally plain and accessible to everyone, why teach? Why do we have to submit to teachers? Why are prophets subject to prophets? Why are prophesyings to be judged and dispensed with if they are not sound?
We are not to have any “private interpretations”. All of this is a call for holding historical theology importantly. Teachers from the past have been given to the church of today, as well.
I’m not sure how exactly Bauder is applying this. I think the Fundamentalist actions in the 20s were generally correct, unless he thinks The Fundamentals covered non fundamental issues due to common sense realism. Also, the common sense theme could be seen in the development of dispensationalism obviously, and I don’t think Bauder’s thinking that either. So, like many here, I’m waiting for the next part.
And that really is the point, isn’t it? Anyone can understand the Bible but that doesn’t prevent people from instead reading the Bible and becoming cultists. Obviously revelation is needed, but so is the safeguard of teachers.
Biblically, teaching is an office of the church. If everything is equally plain and accessible to everyone, why teach? Why do we have to submit to teachers? Why are prophets subject to prophets? Why are prophesyings to be judged and dispensed with if they are not sound?
We are not to have any “private interpretations”. All of this is a call for holding historical theology importantly. Teachers from the past have been given to the church of today, as well.
I’m not sure how exactly Bauder is applying this. I think the Fundamentalist actions in the 20s were generally correct, unless he thinks The Fundamentals covered non fundamental issues due to common sense realism. Also, the common sense theme could be seen in the development of dispensationalism obviously, and I don’t think Bauder’s thinking that either. So, like many here, I’m waiting for the next part.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
First, thanks to everyone for pointing out the incongruity of Joseph Smith. As Bob Hayton added, I meant to say William Miller, leader of the Millerites (later known as 7th Day Adventists). However, Smith’s mother is herself an interesting case of populism. Disgusted by the multiplicity of denominations, she eventually found a pastor who would baptize her as a “simple Christian” based on her belief in Jesus and the Bible as she understood it. She didn’t even attend church, preferring a private religious experience. So, Joseph Smith grew up in the ultimate “me and my Bible” household. Moving on…
Aaron, I’d like to look at this quote from Bauder as part of an answer your first question: “Common Sense is simply a slightly older form of Modernism. It is an Enlightenment philosophy that accepts all of the modern assumptions about detached, objective observers, clear and distinct foundations for knowledge, and neutral common ground as a starting point for discourse. Like nearly all evangelicals of the early Twentieth Century, most Fundamentalists were Modernists.” I will only touch on one of these aspects, the objective observer. If the Bible is viewed as a straightforward, linear instruction manual, a compilation of facts to be received by the intellect, then systematic theology and historical theology sure do seem like pedantic exercises in academic fencing. After all, when I put a bookshelf together, I don’t go look up the history of how people have interpreted the instruction manual, or ponder what philosophical commitments with which the writer of the manual approached his task. That’s…silly.
But, the Bible is not like an instruction manual, and biblical interpreters are not like bookshelf builders. First, it is not written in sequential, orderly fashion, in the way that our minds necessarily seek to resolve it. As Van Til said, it is impossible not to think in terms of coherent systems; the human mind will not purposely allow contradictions and disharmony to stand. Second, the Bible is a big book that talks about a lot of things, so there is a fair quantity of information involved. Third, the Bible touches upon matters that are central to the human soul. Because of this, we all have reasons NOT to interpret the Bible correctly. No one wants to be wrong about things that are truly important, so our tendency is to seek to justify our thoughts, behavior, and lifestyle. This is true of “gay Christians” and “American patriot Christians.” One wants the Bible to support his sexuality, the other his political identity. All of us have this desire to self-justify. Fourth, we Christians know that we are fallen, sinful creatures who tend to make mistakes, exercise partiality, reduce complex matters to simplicity out of laziness or apathy, and generally make mistakes. If so often I can’t read through an SI post without misunderstanding someone or explaining myself poorly, why should I think that I suddenly become Superman when I go to interpret the Bible?
This is where historical theology comes in. I wanted to say this in an earlier thread, but it spiraled out of control beyond my ability to participate profitably. We don’t read historical theology in order to find out what to believe. It is not the basis of our faith. Rather, it is the humble realization that we are highly flawed interpreters and that in an abundance of counsel, there is safety. Historical theology is like asking your trusted friend to help you think through a problem, but it is better, because people of past generations are not influenced by the same forces at work in the present (they have their own flaws, of course), so sometimes they allow you to “step outside” your context and view things in a different light. They will also bring up passages of Scripture that aren’t being focused on in present discussions, and provide arguments that may not have occurred to me. I read theologians in order to participate in a discussion, as it were, not to have theology dictated to me. Ultimately, it is my own realization that my “common sense” is heavily flawed that leads me to seek counsel from a broad variety of sources, contemporary and historical. Of course, if someone thinks he is a right decent Bible interpreter all by himself without any help, he will tend to sneer at both contemporary academic theology and historical theology.
I actually have an even more serious concern about “common sense,” but it will have to wait until tomorrow.
Aaron, I’d like to look at this quote from Bauder as part of an answer your first question: “Common Sense is simply a slightly older form of Modernism. It is an Enlightenment philosophy that accepts all of the modern assumptions about detached, objective observers, clear and distinct foundations for knowledge, and neutral common ground as a starting point for discourse. Like nearly all evangelicals of the early Twentieth Century, most Fundamentalists were Modernists.” I will only touch on one of these aspects, the objective observer. If the Bible is viewed as a straightforward, linear instruction manual, a compilation of facts to be received by the intellect, then systematic theology and historical theology sure do seem like pedantic exercises in academic fencing. After all, when I put a bookshelf together, I don’t go look up the history of how people have interpreted the instruction manual, or ponder what philosophical commitments with which the writer of the manual approached his task. That’s…silly.
But, the Bible is not like an instruction manual, and biblical interpreters are not like bookshelf builders. First, it is not written in sequential, orderly fashion, in the way that our minds necessarily seek to resolve it. As Van Til said, it is impossible not to think in terms of coherent systems; the human mind will not purposely allow contradictions and disharmony to stand. Second, the Bible is a big book that talks about a lot of things, so there is a fair quantity of information involved. Third, the Bible touches upon matters that are central to the human soul. Because of this, we all have reasons NOT to interpret the Bible correctly. No one wants to be wrong about things that are truly important, so our tendency is to seek to justify our thoughts, behavior, and lifestyle. This is true of “gay Christians” and “American patriot Christians.” One wants the Bible to support his sexuality, the other his political identity. All of us have this desire to self-justify. Fourth, we Christians know that we are fallen, sinful creatures who tend to make mistakes, exercise partiality, reduce complex matters to simplicity out of laziness or apathy, and generally make mistakes. If so often I can’t read through an SI post without misunderstanding someone or explaining myself poorly, why should I think that I suddenly become Superman when I go to interpret the Bible?
This is where historical theology comes in. I wanted to say this in an earlier thread, but it spiraled out of control beyond my ability to participate profitably. We don’t read historical theology in order to find out what to believe. It is not the basis of our faith. Rather, it is the humble realization that we are highly flawed interpreters and that in an abundance of counsel, there is safety. Historical theology is like asking your trusted friend to help you think through a problem, but it is better, because people of past generations are not influenced by the same forces at work in the present (they have their own flaws, of course), so sometimes they allow you to “step outside” your context and view things in a different light. They will also bring up passages of Scripture that aren’t being focused on in present discussions, and provide arguments that may not have occurred to me. I read theologians in order to participate in a discussion, as it were, not to have theology dictated to me. Ultimately, it is my own realization that my “common sense” is heavily flawed that leads me to seek counsel from a broad variety of sources, contemporary and historical. Of course, if someone thinks he is a right decent Bible interpreter all by himself without any help, he will tend to sneer at both contemporary academic theology and historical theology.
I actually have an even more serious concern about “common sense,” but it will have to wait until tomorrow.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion