Much Ado About Something: A New Christian Fundamentalism for 2022

Tyler, in your podcast you assert that fundamentalism and the new fundamentalism both tend to suffer from groupthink and to be “anti-Berean.” In other words, there is a tendency to reject new ideas out of hand without listening and searching the Scriptures.

I just finished reading a new book by Travis Dickinson entitled Logic and the Way of Jesus. In it, he discusses the need for Christians to model the intellectual virtue of open-mindedness. Some Christians, Dickinson asserts, are narrowly stuck in their own “plausibility structure.” A plausibility structure acts as a filter where certain familiar ideas seem automatically plausible while competing ideas seem automatically implausible. He writes,

[Travis Dickinson] When we are unwilling to evaluate our plausibility structures, to the extent that we are resistant to considering even the possibility of an alternative view, we thereby have a closed mind, and a completely closed mind is an intellectual vice (p. 292).

Dickinson goes on to acknowledge that open-mindedness can be a bad thing if taken to the extreme: “Once we have surveyed and evaluated the most rational views on some matter, we should not stay open-minded any longer” (p. 292).

Overall, however, open-mindedness is a virtue because it is “the willingness to consider the possibility of all views in a sense of honestly considering the evidence presented for a view, even views that strike us as initially implausible” (p. 293).

So, question for you: If an individual or group has honestly considered the evidence presented for egalitarianism, CRT, biblical inerrancy, etc. and still rejects these views do you consider them to be “anti-Berean”? For example, although there are a slew of new books attacking complementarianism (or a strawman of complementarianism) and promoting egalitarianism, most of the arguments presented in these books are not new. They are recycled arguments (historical, theological, and exegetical) that have already been evaluated and addressed by complementarian scholarship. So, when another book is published that basically recycles these same arguments, why is it being “anti-Berean” to summarily reject it?

[TylerR] One is pro-Berean to the extent he reads the other side, understands its arguments, and comes to an informed conclusion that Scripture supports – whether or not that conclusion gels with his inherited tradition or incurs the wrath of his peers.

One of the groups you call out in your podcast are those associated with JMac and Masters Seminary. I would certainly agree that JMac tends to be one of the most “fighting fundamentalist” types within conservative evangelicalism. However, JMac has also been the most contrarian of the big name conservative evangelicals. Whether the issue has been charismatic chaos, Lordship salvation, Mark Driscoll, strange fire, dispensationalism (or “leaky dispensationalism”), or the church’s response to COVID, JMac appears to “[read] the other side, [understand] its arguments, and [come] to an informed conclusion that Scripture supports.” Further, because of his positions on these issues he certainly has incurred the wrath of his peers.

Now, you and I may certainly disagree with the positions he takes, but I don’t think you can argue (based on your own criteria) that he is guilty of groupthink and an “anti-Berean.” Or, can you?

You also mention the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. You do recognize that this was not the majority opinion in evangelicalism when it was written, correct? The positions made in the statement were in response to reading and understanding the other side and coming to an informed conclusion that Scripture supports, correct? But, now, it’s a product of groupthink and the “anti-Berean” mentality to hold to and affirm this statement?

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you said? If so, please forgive me.

Tyler, as I think more about the militant ethos and enumerated pressures which you argue created new fundamentalism, I think it comes down to having a biblical understanding of how to contend for the faith. How does the believer obey the Scripture’s commands to contend for the faith (Jude); be alert against wolves (Acts 20); rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine (Tit 1); reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (2 Tim); warn the disobedient (2 Thes 3; Tit 3); purge the evil person from among you (1 Cor 5); etc. in today’s church and society and still be viewed as loving?

I agree that social media is not the best place to have these interactions. Memes, mic drops, and one-liner tweets certainly produce more heat than light. However, I would guess that most people today don’t view any form of confrontation as loving. Further, the church is saturated with postmodern beliefs and morality and has become more guided by emotion and feelings than by truth.

So, how does one biblically address important issues of orthodoxy and orthopraxy in the church and in society without being seen as exemplifying the problem within fundamentalism (legacy or new)?

Tyler, first, I appreciate the time you’re taking to interact.

Second, faith and politics do overlap. What you describe as “the political quadrilateral” may very well be at heart a theological concern or issue. At least, we should be willing to listen and seek to understand why these individuals frame it as such.

Third, and respectfully, if my only responsibility is to my church, why would I feel the need to write about and speak about this outside of my church?

Fourth, I understand the concern about a militant ethos. I have seen it manifest itself with all sorts of pet doctrines and soap box issues in churches I’ve attended. When that happened, people assumed the worst about others, did not give the benefit of the doubt, made accusations of compromise, and elevated tertiary issues to matters of orthodoxy. As I’m reflecting on all of this, I keep going back to something Dave Doran preached recently: when contending for the faith, love Jesus more than you love the fight.

[TylerR] My primary concern is that this new fundamentalism is falling into the same trap as the old—seeming to love the fight more than they love Jesus. However, the controversey is not borne along in 2022 by newsletters or mimeographed bulletins. It’s perpetrated by Twitter.

I agree that social media fuels this behavior. The instant feedback (likes, retweets, etc.) is like an addictive drug.

It’s also entirely possible we’re using “contending for the faith” as a pretext to be real jerks. They’re not the same thing.

I agree. I acknowledge that I have been a real jerk at times here on SI. It’s easy to do. I regret that I’ve acted this way toward you in the past as well. Tyler, please forgive me.

One is pro-Berean to the extent he reads the other side, understands its arguments, and comes to an informed conclusion that Scripture supports – whether or not that conclusion gels with his inherited tradition or incurs the wrath of his peers.

As someone who has been in the Conservative Evangelical sphere for a couple of years now, I don’t think that many of the anti-social justice people (MacArthur, Strachan, Buck, Ascol, DeYoung, Smothers, CBN, etc) actually understand the arguments. I think they’re like dogs latched on to a bone and refusing to consider different points of view. There is a reason why so many of these arguments boil down to “you don’t believe in inerrancy” regardless of political, social, moral or theological opinions.

Aimee Byrd is the most obvious example of this. A Presbyterian woman in good standing within the OPC, well known author and podcaster, and theologically sound teacher had no issues at all within the OPC until she challenged the stranglehold of ideas that CBMW has cultivated. Then she was demonized and driven out by some of her own church leaders and those involved in the Genevan Commons with the full support and endorsement of many, including the leadership of CBMW.

The point isn’t to rehash or discuss Aimee. It’s to illustrate that things were fine until someone raised a question, and then everyone lost their minds.