Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 3

NickOfTime

Fundamentalism Common Sense

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

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.

Discussion

[Aaron Blumer]

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.
Aaron,

I, like Susan, am watching from the bleachers, and reading as I have time and interest, but I agree with you here.

I, too, if I asked my doctor to explain something and his answer was just “trust me, I know”…I’d begin searching elsewhere. We should be able to ask questions and get the answer. If it means we educate ourselves, so be it, but the doctor should be able to at least summarize the problem and the most effective treatment method and why it is, in his opinion, the most effective in terms the patient will understand—assuming the person is of average or above intelligence.

Bro. Charlie said
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.
Beneficial and balanced view of the proper motivation for studying with a variety of resources.

[Charlie] 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.”

…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. … 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.
There is not really much I disagree with in any of what your posting on these topics. The trouble I have is mainly a matter of emphasis. Earlier I posted about two extremes. The anti-intellectual, “all I need is me and my Bible” attitdue (which is contrary to what the Bible teaches about it’sself when you read it in a common sense way, btw). At the other end is the infatuation with philosophy and scholarly prestige. The biblical warnings about not placing too much value on the philosophizing of children of darkness (the Bible’s term, not mine) are too numerous to list without creating a much longer post.

I guess what seems to need emphasizing depends on where you sit. Where I sit, I see a strong current in the spirit of the times to exalt uncertainty and complexity almost as though they were inherently good things. So let’s inject uncertainty where the truth is obvious and complexity where the truth is fairly simple.

On the other hand, within the small subset of evangelicalism we know as the Fundamentalist movement, yes, the emphasis has been quite different. Quite.

My concern is that Kevin Bauder’s recent efforts reflect an overreaction to the anti-intellectualism and populism of Fundamentalism’s increasingly-past habits. I think few would deny that Fundamentalism has been overly suspicious of the brain in general (and much fonder of the “heart,” which many love to define in contradictory ways to suit the whim of the moment or the current sermonic subpoint), and of those who making a living mostly thinking.

But this itself was an overreaction to the Modernizing trends of the era.

I believe we may be overcorrecting here… overreacting to our own past.

[Quote=Kevin B.] “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.” About this in particular… for me personally, it is not enough to say a way of thinking is tainted by association w/Enlightenment philosophy. Though I’m well aware that “detached, objective observers” do not exist, I am also aware (as any sensible person is) that there are many, many things that the vast majority of people are detached and objective enough to recognize as “true” and “real” in an instant.

So, what I’m saying is that in this repect, the words Enlightenment and Modernism do not make me shudder with revulsion.

Again, is there any evidence that the philosophies that have come into favor after Enlightenment philosophy are really a great step forward? Or are the (mostly-unregenerate) thinkers of our time merely trading one set of philosophical flaws for another? I think you know what my opinion about that is.

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.

[Aaron Blumer]

My concern is that Kevin Bauder’s recent efforts reflect an overreaction to the anti-intellectualism and populism of Fundamentalism’s increasingly-past habits. I think few would deny that Fundamentalism has been overly suspicious of the brain in general (and much fonder of the “heart,” which many love to define in contradictory ways to suit the whim of the moment or the current sermonic subpoint), and of those who making a living mostly thinking.

But this itself was an overreaction to the Modernizing trends of the era.

I believe we may be overcorrecting here… overreacting to our own past.
We all want to be balanced, which means, we want everyone to approach the issue the same way we do. ;-) It would be interesting to try to establish a “baseline” of what was considered normative in the past. I think most people in history, at least the theologians, would make a distinction between believing Christian doctrine and actually doing theology in a scientific sense. Luther, for example, devoted much of his life to the German Bible yet adamantly insisted that theology - in a systematic or polemical sense - could only be done by those versed in the biblical languages. The gift of the pastor-teacher leads me in the direction that there are multiple tiers of theology, if you will. Some are extremely accessible and others not so. Some people teach, others listen. Some of those listeners will someday be teachers, some won’t. One thing that we need to remember is that the science of theology is only one piece of the Christian life, and not everyone is called to it to the same extent (although the Protestant rejection of implicit faith necessitates an educated laity). For most people, I think God will judge them primarily on what kind of father/mother, husband/wife, friend, church member and community member they were, not whether they can articulate the ordo salutis with exacting precision. Somebody needs to be able to do that, because those sorts of thing will shape the focus and ethos of the Church, but realistically, not everyone needs to know the difference between condign merit and congruent merit in medievalism. So, in saying that there are levels of theologians, I am NOT saying that those correspond to levels of Christians. There are doubtless many people who are less theologically astute than experts who are nonetheless doing a much better job of exercising their temporal stewardship.
[Aaron Blumer] So, what I’m saying is that in this repect, the words Enlightenment and Modernism do not make me shudder with revulsion.
True enough. Bauder has invoked the boogeyman “Modernism,” which is the theologians’ counterpart to “liberalism” among laypeople, but has yet to show the necessary connections. Perhaps that will be forthcoming. I will reserve judgment (as if Kevin Bauder cared about my judgment).

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[Aaron Blumer]

[Quote=Kevin B.] “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.”
About this in particular… for me personally, it is not enough to say a way of thinking is tainted by association w/Enlightenment philosophy. Though I’m well aware that “detached, objective observers” do not exist, I am also aware (as any sensible person is) that there are many, many things that the vast majority of people are detached and objective enough to recognize as “true” and “real” in an instant.

So, what I’m saying is that in this repect, the words Enlightenment and Modernism do not make me shudder with revulsion.

Again, is there any evidence that the philosophies that have come into favor after Enlightenment philosophy are really a great step forward? Or are the (mostly-unregenerate) thinkers of our time merely trading one set of philosophical flaws for another? I think you know what my opinion about that is.Well, if we revisit what Dr. Bauder wrote, we find the following. The points of similarity are:

(1) accepts all of the modern assumptions about detached, objective observers,

(2) clear and distinct foundations for knowledge,

(3) and neutral common ground as a starting point for discourse

In Carson’s “Becoming Conversant With The Emergent Church” we can find a few major tenets of Modern epistemology (as opposed to postmodern). They are:

(1) Instead of beginning with God, modern epistemology begins with the finite self (p. 93)

(2) “Modern epistemology was profoundly foundationalist.” (p. 93)

(3) “Modern epistemology was constrained by rigorous method.” (p. 94)

(4) “Modern epistemology rarely doubted that epistemological certainty is desirable and attainable.” (p. 94)

(5) “Modernist epistemology embraced an understanding of truth that ascribed to it what some have called ‘ahistoical universality.’ In other words, what is true is universally true.” (p. 94)

(6) leads toward philosophical naturalism (p. 95)

In comparing the two lists, one can find that #2 corresponds almost exactly with the other #2. #1 corresponds with #3 in the second list. And #3 would “roughly” correspond to the second list’s #1&5.

The point here is that there is more than a guilt by association going on here; there is a rather clear overlap with modernist epistemology. It is not wrong because it can be associated with modernism, but it is wrong through the similar traits held with modernism.

[Charlie] 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…
The renegade Baptist Campbellite, Sidney Rigdon, in connection with Joseph in the founding days of the Mormon Church is an interesting illustration of the “sneer” toward scholarship.

I have always thought a lot of philosophy for philosophy’s sake to be counterproductive. Many of the “fundamental questions” of philosophy are just silly. What is the nature of reality … blah, blah, blah. If I was to punch you in the mouth and steal your wallet would anyone question the nature of that reality? If a bear is chasing you in the woods, would you question the nature of that reality or get out of there? As Aaron was getting at, people assume certain things and those that don’t usually don’t last long.

My impression is that it has always been the conservative impulse to be skeptical of philosophy with its usually disruptive ideas about the good society or whatever. Conservatives rely on what is as their guide. I think the Bible warns against the “vain philosophies of man” as well.

I am interested to hear more on how SCSR might have contributed to some of the errors of modern American conservative Christianity, but my inclination is that we do not need to be re-philosophized so much as de-philosophized.

[Caleb S] Well, if we revisit what Dr. Bauder wrote, we find the following. The points of similarity are:

(1) accepts all of the modern assumptions about detached, objective observers,

(2) clear and distinct foundations for knowledge,

(3) and neutral common ground as a starting point for discourse
It’s not hard to find ideas that resemble these in early 20th Century evangelical/fundamentalist teaching. But only resemble. For example “all” the assumptions? Perhaps this is true of Common Sense Realism, but certainly not true of Fundamentalist common sense thinking.

As for two and three, I would have to get some clearer idea of what he means.

That post-modernism’s passion for uncertainty (complete with “Well, we’re all subjective so what’s the use in trying to get at Truth?” attitude) is not preferable is obvious to me. To many, apparently not. To some, apparently, pointing out that Enlightenment philosphy is passe is supposed to be enough for us all to abandon every iota of it—as though it were possible for any system of thought to be 100% false and as though it were obvious that whatever philosphy follows another must be better than its predecessor!

But I’m not reluctant at all to assert that everything in Scripture seems to assume that with diligent study (see Prov.2:1-5, 2 Tim 2.15, Heb.5:14), certainty about what God wants us to know through Scripture is attainable to the believer (1Cor.2:14-15), with the aid of the body (Eph.4, and all those “one another” passages)—including gifted individuals. And yes, the work of Body of Christ through the ages is included in that.

Edit: Charlie… post #34… I think I completely agree with you there. … which is a little bit spooky… for both of us I’ll bet. :D

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.

[Aaron Blumer]

Edit: Charlie… post #34… I think I completely agree with you there. … which is a little bit spooky… for both of us I’ll bet. :D
It’s all about speaking the same language. As soon as I saw your beard, I knew we’d eventually get along great. I bet if we sat down over a beer… er, coffee … we’d have a good time.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Paul, I didn’t know what to make of your redacted post. My point is that theology should be the “main thing” for the Christian. That theology for the Christian is in essence our philosophy. That often worldly philosophy has been a distraction, mere mental gymnastics.

Aaron, I have been ranting away here for a while now, especially on some of the political threads, about how often conservative Christians embrace modernity and the Enlightenment. I’m not criticizing modernity from a post-modern standpoint, but hoping instead that Christianity will re-embrace pre-modernity. I really don’t see all this griping about modernity you apparently see. I would be happy if I did, as long as it wasn’t from post-moderns.

In fact, I’m not so sure that many self-described “post-modernists” are really post-modernists. Many are really hyper-modernists, having taken the modernist “virtues” of tolerance and pluralism to an extreme. It is not so much that you can’t say anything is right as you can’t say anything is wrong.

[Caleb S]

In comparing the two lists, one can find that #2 corresponds almost exactly with the other #2. #1 corresponds with #3 in the second list. And #3 would “roughly” correspond to the second list’s #1&5.
Correction. It is not #1 of the first list corresponding with #3 of the second, but it is #1 corresponding with the #4.

[Greg Long] Common sense tells me I might not have anything to contribute to this thread.

Scottish Common Sense Realism tells me Ah micht nee hae anathin to contrrribute to tha wee thrread, raelistically.
I was doing my best, soldiering through the thread, my jaw set, determined to learn something at all costs. Then I came upon this gem, and my resolve withered in gales of laughter. Thanks!

Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com

[Aaron Blumer]
[Caleb S] Well, if we revisit what Dr. Bauder wrote, we find the following. The points of similarity are:

(1) accepts all of the modern assumptions about detached, objective observers,

(2) clear and distinct foundations for knowledge,

(3) and neutral common ground as a starting point for discourse
It’s not hard to find ideas that resemble these in early 20th Century evangelical/fundamentalist teaching. But only resemble. For example “all” the assumptions? Perhaps this is true of Common Sense Realism, but certainly not true of Fundamentalist common sense thinking.

As for two and three, I would have to get some clearer idea of what he means.

That post-modernism’s passion for uncertainty (complete with “Well, we’re all subjective so what’s the use in trying to get at Truth?” attitude) is not preferable is obvious to me. To many, apparently not. To some, apparently, pointing out that Enlightenment philosphy is passe is supposed to be enough for us all to abandon every iota of it—as though it were possible for any system of thought to be 100% false and as though it were obvious that whatever philosphy follows another must be better than its predecessor!

But I’m not reluctant at all to assert that everything in Scripture seems to assume that with diligent study (see Prov.2:1-5, 2 Tim 2.15, Heb.5:14), certainty about what God wants us to know through Scripture is attainable to the believer (1Cor.2:14-15), with the aid of the body (Eph.4, and all those “one another” passages)—including gifted individuals. And yes, the work of Body of Christ through the ages is included in that.

Edit: Charlie… post #34… I think I completely agree with you there. … which is a little bit spooky… for both of us I’ll bet. :D
Personally, I think that the biggest point is the modernists begin with the finite self. The fundamentalist who appeals to self as the foundation for knowledge in an issue is the dead give away; all else are layers added to that foundation. So, when I hear someone say, “It is just common sense,” then I begin to wonder. My question is, “What exactly is informing that common sense?” If someone replies that it is just obvious, then it is quite clear both that the person is begging the question and that they person is not letting the conversation go past his/her judgment (final authority found on the matter). In theology, I see this argument used a lot to support libertarian free will by the Arminian/Open Theist crowd. I read people saying, “I just intuitively know libertarian freedom.” In other words, it is just common sense.

I’m sorry; maybe I’ll get some heat over this. I don’t know… . But, it has been on my mind, and I’ll just throw it out there for scrutiny. In theology, once again, I often hear, “Well, that is just the plain rendering of the words.” I can almost hear, “It is just common sense to take it that way.” PERHAPS, the common sense realism is a partial support for the appeal to “normative” readings of the text. Well, what makes it normative? What exactly is informing the norm? Where did the standard of “norm” come from? Personally, I prefer “grammatical historical” as it is must more clear, but then we have different versions of “grammatical historical exegesis” too.

My final thought has to do with (and I apologize for poking holes in a sacred cow, but here goes) how Fundamentalists (of the cultural variety) “tend” to not be able to discern between fundamentals and secondary issues. Granted, secondary issues are exceedingly important, since they are in the Bible, but you are not going to hell if you believe in replacement theology, nor are you going to hell if you don’t see a rapture in the Bible. It is just common sense to see that that music is wrong. Etc. There, I wrote it. What do people think?