Theology Thursday - Carnell on the "Perils" of Fundamentalism (Part 1)

[CAWatson]

TylerR wrote:

Thomas Ice did a good journal series about the historic roots on premillennialism. So did a guy at Masters Seminary (not Vlach), but I can’t remember who. My impression of the overall case for premillennialism from these series was that the historical case was weak and fleeting. I suspect Carnell was really arguing against a mania for prophetic speculations from some dispensationalists. That is a valid criticism.

It is also valid to note that covenant theologians often pay little attention to prophesy at all. Look at Hodge’s discussion on eschatology from his systematic (hint - there’s not much there!).

For a better researched approach, see William Watson (no relation as far as I know):

https://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Before-Darby-William-Watson/dp/…

I noticed this book last week by way of a blog by William Barrick, a semi-retired OT professor from Master’s seminary. He has a brief review here.

I was looking at the kindle edition here, and noticed you could download a free sample. I am not quite sure how long the sample is, at least the first two chapters. I am about halfway through the second chapter. The book looks very good, thorougly researched and copiously footnoted. It would be nice if Michael Vlach might comment on it, or maybe we could appeal to Paul Hennebury. In any case, I think the book serves as a useful resource and demolishes the idea that dispensationalism (or at least its main ideas) are recent developments.

[TylerR]

Thanks for the additional endorsement. I’ll take a look at it. Of course, historical pedigree doesn’t necessarily equal unorthodoxy. Eschatology wasn’t systematized for a long time - people were busy with other things, like soteriology and ecclesiology! I think Hodge makes that point in his systematic.

I think the point of this book is to catalog the teachings, not to vouch for the orthodoxy. Some of the men cited were clearly wacko in other ways. However, there are a number of them who were not. The main point is this: these doctrines were taught, going back to the very beginning of the church, and certainly in the reformation/puritan period, well before Darby. BTW, he links the rise of amillennialism and assorted hermeneutical aberrancies with the rise of the Catholic church. He quote Augustine as having once held premillennial views, but having changed later on, to amillennialism. Also cites the availability of the Bible in the vernacular (Geneva Bible, KJV) as a major factor in the recovery of distinctions between Israel and the church, belief in an eventual conversion of the Jewish nation, the restoration of Israel to the land, etc. I think these are all good points.

E. J. CARNELL REVISITED

Historical events and accompanying documents have a habit of intruding themselves into a present discussion. I, among others here, have the feeling in reading through this blog that the Fundamentalism that Carnell criticized is not what we saw, read about and knew back in the 1950s and ’60s. I will sketch some details.

The New Evangelical formation began as a visible reality in the early 1940s, and began to slide into irrelevancy with its internal doctrinal upheavals within two decades. Some of the movement’s leading lights expressed alarm at the denial of verbal inspiration/inerrancy in the later 1950s. This was abetted by other deviations concerning the lostness of the heathen, eternal punishment, the omniscience of God, relationships with Roman Catholicism, trends toward neo-orthodoxy, et al. In the later 1970s some of the founders of the New Evangelicalism concluded that their original hopes and plans for the movement had failed. E.g., its flagship school, Fuller Theological Seminary, had become a prodigal son in a far country. One of the thinkers in the vanguard of this New Evangelical deterioration was Edward John Carnell. His major contribution thereof was The Case for Orthodox Theology (Westminster Press, 1959). His book was part of a triology by Westminster: The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective by L. Harold DeWolf and The Case for A New Reformation Theology by William Hordern.

Carnell was a New Evangelical thoroughbred who exhibited some of its worst problems. To call him a “conservative evangelical” is highly anachronistic in view of present day nomenclature. Similarly, the historical atmosphere of the Fundamentalist-New Evangelical controversy of the 1950s was much different than the milieu today so that invoking Carnell’s anti-Fundamentalist rhetoric isn’t very helpful sixty years later. The Fundamentalism then was not nearly as darksome as those accused today; it wasn’t even what Carnell said it was back then. Did any of his accusations have some kind of a historic context? Yes, of course. No one ever accused him of being a pathological liar. Did the incidents occur as he stated them. No, of course not. His descriptions were literary hyperbolical exaggerations at best, as nonsensical as they may appear. A few of the incidents he cited may have occurred in some basically isolated circumstances.

Carnell’s Case book was not well-received (putting it mildly) among some of his New Evangelical and Fundamentalist contemporaries. This was mainly because of his refusal to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and his elevation of Galatians and [chiefly] Romans over the Chronicler in trustworthiness. The book was very controversial so that a roundtable discussion was held at Wheaton College in December 1959 to discuss the book and the aberrant bibliology it promoted. The panel consisted of George E. Ladd (Fuller Seminary), Arthur Holmes, Robert D. Culver, Samuel J. Shultz (Wheaton College) and John C. Whitcomb (Grace Seminary), all respectable scholars. The Grace faculty also had its own evaluation session in December 1959 and concluded that Carnell’s Case book was “inadequate and disappointing.” Scholarly negative reviews were written by Robert E. Nicholas in the Westminster Theological Journal, J. Oliver Buswell in the Bible Presbyterian Reporter and John F. Walvoord in the Moody Monthly—all likewise respectable scholars in trusted publications. Cornelius Van Til was so displeased with the Case book that he wrote a book in response entitled The Case for Calvinism. Even non-evangelical scholars (Liberal, Neo-Orthodox) noted these deviations from orthodox theology, scholars such as L. Harold DeWolf, William Hordern, John B. Cobb, Jr). Carnell’s intemperate, caustic sallies against Fundamentalists were horribly inappropriate if not incendiary. At one point he ridiculed Fundamentalists’ lack of social concern (I think it was) because “they were too busy painting ‘Jesus Saves’ on rocks in public parks.” I don’t think he apologized for or rescinded any of this kind of extreme animosity. Such language doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion; it is simply unacceptable. As far as I know he carried this bitterness to his grave. He died in 1967 at age forty-seven. Edward John Carnell is nothing but a broken reed for use in current anti-Fundamentalist prescriptions.

In that light, I propose that a public apology and retraction be extended to the ACCC for the recent bellicose broadside against it on SI. It slanders its current Executive Secretary, Pastor Dan Greenfield, its former Executive Secretary, Dr. Ralph Colas, who had served for decades, and the many Fundamentalist pastors, missionaries and Christian workers who have held the line against unbelief and compromise since its inception in 1941. Like any organization, it probably has had more than its share of problems, but is still undeserving of an essential tirade against it.

[TylerR]

You seem to assume I chose Carnell out of some sort of malicious glee. If true, that assumption is incorrect. Roger Olson mentioned him as influential in shaping his own thinking on fundamentalism. There are undoubtedly other scholars who were just as influenced. Your personal feelings about Carnell are irrelevant. I contend your objections to Carnell (and similar objections by others here) are reactionary. You don’t like his tone, so you dismiss him and toss in a few choice facts about the circumstances of his death. That is illogical and unkind, not to mention irrelevant to the critique he makes.

If you wish to discredit Carnell, you do yourself a disservice by mentioning the manner of his death. The man was clearly troubled. That is not cause for scornful glee. I am disturbed by how many fundamentalists keep mentioning the manner of his death. Morbid.

Please engage his critiques. They’re there. They’ll still be there.

Dr. McCune didn’t mention the manner of his death, simply noting his age at death. You are reading what you want to see into his comments.

Dr. McCune isn’t arguing on his “feelings”, but citing the observations of contemporaries. Carnell was widely seen to have serious doctrinal flaws. His critique can’t be taken seriously. Roger Olsen’s comments say more about his prejudices than they do about Carnell’s credibility, he is often much more careful than that in his examinations of historical theology.

TYLER

Thanks for the reply. A few things in response. One: I did not say that you personally chose Carnell’s chapter out of “malicious glee.” I don’t know what your ultimate intent was, nor Olson’s for that matter. To me the imposition of the Case book 60 years after the fact is anachronistic whoever appeals to it. Carnell’s was not a factual description of the Fundamentalist atmosphere in the 1950’s as some of those of us who lived through it recall it. The Case chapter comes across as childish peeves unworthy of a scholar with advanced degrees from Harvard and Boston U. Two: I was thinking mainly of the respondents who were favorable to Carnell being introduced as valid evidence of the hopelessness of Fundamentalism in 2017. It is a 60 year old piece of irrelevance in that regard. Three: Tyler, I challenge you to find ONE SPECK of evidence that I mentioned or alluded to Carnell’s personal life or health. Four: As far as “engaging [Carnell’s] critiques,” I have done that in numerous ways over the decades, and scores of others far greater than I have done so since 1959. I mentioned a few in the article. As Casey Stengel would say, “You can look it up!”

Sorry, I forgot to thank you for at least apologising to the ACCC.

Chick tracts, KJVO, Dr. Dino, SOTL, “worship wars” over music, anything out of 1st Baptist in Hammond or Fairhaven in Chesterton, various policies out of BJU (e.g. interracial dating), etc..

We might note that other people are similarly guilty of the barrage of genetic fallacies “our tribe” has historically indulged, especially in politics, but the ugly fact of the matter is that “we” are the movement “we” are most interested in, and unfortunately it’s our reputation that we must deal with.

That can start, I believe, with making (see Larry’s comment on the logic thread) logic a required freshman level class at as many Christian colleges and universities as possible, not an optional junior level class that’s not even being taught this year at BJU.

It can continue, really, with simply admitting that yes, “we” have had some problems, and we’re working to correct the situations that led to them. No need to be defensive—we can let the chaff blow away and keep the wheat of our history, no?

Tyler:

As to why I noted Carnell’s death in 1967 at age 47, I think I copied it out of a book on New Evangelicalism I have on a shelf. I repent of the plagiarism. As to why the author of the book put it in there, I presume because it was part of a long list of events within the New Evangelical-Fundamentalist controversy (1942-2003) that also recorded several other deaths and their ages at demise. I should remember to find out if the author had some dark, occult, nefarious motive in listing the deaths and the expiration dates thereof, especially Carnell’s. Stay tuned. Thanks for Olson’s article.

PS: I could give some historical back ground and reasons for the New Evangelicalism’s virulent antipathy to dispensationalism. Maybe I will if I ever feel led to do so.

[Bert Perry]

It can continue, really, with simply admitting that yes, “we” have had some problems, and we’re working to correct the situations that led to them. No need to be defensive—we can let the chaff blow away and keep the wheat of our history, no?

Bert, as someone who has actually attended BJU, and has interacted with it in close-up fashion in the last few years (by virtue of knowing some of the faculty, having had a couple kids attend there, and still going there for some events), I can tell you that in spite of what happened in the past, this is an institution that is attempting to do exactly what you write here.

No doubt, a lot of what happened there while I was there in the 80’s would be things I don’t agree with, both in things said from the pulpit as well as rules, philosophy, etc. There were also a number of faculty and staff that had too much of a “gotcha” and adversarial relationship with the students. HOWEVER, there were also quite a number of faculty and staff that were NOT that way, were truly trying to have a godly influence on the students, and they did greatly influence me, and made my overall experience (looking back) a good one vs. a bad one.

More recently, starting under Stephen Jones, but continuing under Steve Pettit, the university has gone a long way to apologize for past failures, change policies to better reflect biblical principles, and overall be the kind of institution it was originally envisioned to be. It’s not perfect, and it may still have some changing to do, but deaf to constructive criticism it isn’t. Steve Pettit himself has held a number of QA sessions with alumni, parents of students/prospective students, and has been quite open and approachable, something that was a bit lacking in the past.

Also, there are indeed plenty of us who attend healthy, fundamental (but not as a primary identity) churches. My church is pastored by a a man who, though certainly through his lineage came through some of the unhealthy times and examples of fundamentalism (3rd generation child of BJU faculty), is looking to walk the line you are referring to. In many ways, he would be a “historical” fundamentalist, but it doesn’t bother him at all to read, attend conferences with, and quote in sermons many of the men who would now be considered conservative evangelical. In other words, he knows that movement fundamentalism is not the source of all truth. In fact, every year since he’s been the pastor, he takes a group of our members to Southeastern seminary for the 9Marks conference each year.

I don’t know the types of fundamentalists you interact with, but there are quite a number now who admit the mistakes of the past, and don’t fit the Carnell caricature. I’ve had my interaction with a number of those in the past, but even in the years since SI has been around (since 2005), it’s been pretty easy to find fundamental churches that are healthy and are not only willing to take criticism, but act on it as well. In fact, I’d venture to say that very few of the regulars here would attend the type of church that is completely resistant to self-examination.

…just as I was to see people reporting actually studying logic in that thread. My experience is mostly, like yours, in the better regions of fundamentalism, with one exception of a “closet” KJVO church. That noted, what I see when I scratch the surface even in “my” current camp is that you’ll find hints of the old fundamentalism in a lot of weird places.

[TylerR]

Nobody in this thread has done this - they simply dismiss Carnell because of who he was. That is troubling to me.

Tyler - I attempted to at least give a brief answer to the “intellectual stagnation” argument. I wouldn’t say “nobody.” If I can speak frankly, you are seeing people who disagree with the criticisms as unwilling to hear the criticisms. Most of us are looking around saying, “we hear you, but we don’t see what you are talking about.”
Instead of arguing that we ought to look at the criticisms seriously - why don’t you look at the criticisms seriously and give concrete examples of where you see these criticisms apply.

I was in seminary at BJU in the early 80’s and had done my undergrad at a state university. A professor evidently saw that I, as an older student, had some questions about what I was seeing and hearing. He took me in his office and used this illustration: “This place is like a lumber yard where you buy wood to build your house. You are not obligated to use every board they send you. If you do, you’ll have a monstrosity. Some of the boards you get will need to be cut and planed….do that with discernment and build your own house. And IF, and I say IF, they send you boards that are useless, send them back and demand replacements or take your business somewhere else.”

The last sentence was somewhat prophetic when he resigned his long time professorship over the slander of John MacArthur. He went on to finish a 50 years teaching career at Master’s where they named a residence hall after him.

I’m thankful for the “boards” I got at BJU and I am even more thankful at the changes that have taken place that I see when I walk on campus.

[TylerR]

1. Some think fundamentalism is a hopeless approach and philosophy to ministry. I disagree. My critiques are about what I consider to be a misguided, unhealthy and unproductive fixation with criticizing conservative evangelicals, to the detriment of other worthy causes. The fact that your own systematic theology is such a watershed moment in Baptist fundamentalism is proof of the general theological drought (i.e. intellectual stagnation … ?) our movement has been suffering for some time.

Tyler,
Most fundamentalist scholars haven’t had the time or resources to write/publish. I’ve known professors who were teaching 16+ credits per semester in Bible college. Those men don’t have time to write well. Writing takes leisure, and costs money to publish. It doesn’t mean they are intellectually stagnant, it simply means that the movement was too small and fragmented or lacked the resources to offer sabbaticals, or to have enough professors to teach different classes.

I’ve known professors who were teaching 16+ credits per semester in Bible college. Those men don’t have time to write well. Writing takes leisure, and costs money to publish. It doesn’t mean they are intellectually stagnant, it simply means that the movement was too small and fragmented or lacked the resources to offer sabbaticals, or to have enough professors to teach different classes.

Don’t you get what you value?

I understand that there are classes to teach and ministers to train, but at some point we have to stop being penny-wise and pound-foolish. One good commentary may be worth a dozen seminary classes, since the commentary will last and have broader reach than even a hundred seminarians.

And if we are too small and too fragmented - then maybe we need to take a hard look at ourselves and what we’re doing. But again, there doesn’t seem to be much interest in that.

[CAWatson]

TylerR wrote:

Tyler,

Most fundamentalist scholars haven't had the time or resources to write/publish. I've known professors who were teaching 16+ credits per semester in Bible college. Those men don't have time to write well. Writing takes leisure, and costs money to publish. It doesn't mean they are intellectually stagnant, it simply means that the movement was too small and fragmented or lacked the resources to offer sabbaticals, or to have enough professors to teach different classes.

OK, let's walk through this. I know from experience what happens with overwork; the important things don't get done, but rather just the urgent. In this case, what's important is

• Creating an intellectual foundation and infrastructure for fundamentalism
• Training new fundamental scholars (masters’ / doctorate)
• Training new professors to teach young fundamentalists

In a nutshell, our system sets up a vicious cycle—we preclude intellectual endeavors by the schedule and then wonder why our professors and leaders aren’t intellectuals—and then we wonder why we get a reputation for anti-intellectualism. As Deming said, “Your system is perfectly designed to give you exactly the results you’re getting.” It’s the college/university equivalent of telling a pastor he’s got to teach/preach four times a week, and then wondering why he’s not doing so hot at making disciples.

Thankfully it’s changing to a degree with accreditation, genuine doctoral programs at BJU/Maranatha/elsewhere, and Dr. Bauder’s position as more of a scholar, but there’s a real question of whether it’s going to be too little, too late. It’s worth noting that even in the evangelical/Reformed world, Doug Wilson is seeking to accelerate the process of recovering intellectual credibility by walking students through a real liberal arts education at New Saint Andrews.

[Ron Bean]

I was in seminary at BJU in the early 80’s and had done my undergrad at a state university. A professor evidently saw that I, as an older student, had some questions about what I was seeing and hearing. He took me in his office and used this illustration: “This place is like a lumber yard where you buy wood to build your house. You are not obligated to use every board they send you. If you do, you’ll have a monstrosity. Some of the boards you get will need to be cut and planed….do that with discernment and build your own house. And IF, and I say IF, they send you boards that are useless, send them back and demand replacements or take your business somewhere else.”

The last sentence was somewhat prophetic when he resigned his long time professorship over the slander of John MacArthur. He went on to finish a 50 years teaching career at Master’s where they named a residence hall after him.

I’m thankful for the “boards” I got at BJU and I am even more thankful at the changes that have taken place that I see when I walk on campus.

I can’t help but wondering if the reference was to Dr. Smith with this white-hair mane (I still imitate the hand movement to this day although I’m bald). An outstanding professor who never seemed to quite fit in. My first Bible class at BJ was with him, NT Survey.

Tyler quotes Carnell about the overemphasis on Dispensationalism at he time Carnell wrote. I’m not sure when that overemphasis happened in Fundamentalism. In my 4 years at BJ I don’t remember being taught Dispensationlism. I did not leave there a dispensationalist. That did not happen until I attended an IFB seminary and I began moving away after attending RTS. In my experience the overemphasis was in IFB Fundamentalism which became the prominent stream in the movement. Looking back I think BJ was much more balanced in some areas since they were not beholden to IFB. If I remember right one of my favorite professors, Mr. Jesse Boyd, seemed closer to CT in some ways. I also believe he held to the Genesis Gap Theory. At least that’s the impression I have now from classes I took with him. In any case, Dispensationalism was not essential to BJ interdenominational Fundamentalism at the time. Neither was Young Earth Creationism. That may’ve changed as IFB became dominant in the student body later on. BJ majored on the fundamentals of the faith. I think BJ had it right and IFB had it wrong, not in believing what they did, but in the overemphasis. It’s really strange that I sense more kinship with BJ past than with IFB present in those areas.

…is that yes, it was C.W. Smith. Here’s the dorm at Master’s University named after him. Co-ed, even.

Regarding dispensationalism, I can’t affirm Carnell’s critique, but I have seen a huge number of prophecy charts, “Left Behind” books and videos, and even John Hagee’s stuff in some volume. So one could be forgiven for thinking that a fairly extreme version of dispensationalism was one of the five fundamentals when one looks in a lot of church libraries and the bookshelves of fellow Baptistic believers. But again, not what Carnell said in this bit of his book.

Yes, it was Dr. Charles Smith. He gave the Commencement adress at Master’s in 2002, shortly before he died. It’s worth a listen.

http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2002/Spring-‘02/20020512-CWSmith-mp3

“Before he retired but after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he gave the 2002 Commencement Address with the memorable line “These are the things for the past 50 years I’ve tried to give my students to teach them how to live…and now it is time to teach you how to die.” He dedicated 50 years of his life to educating Christian young people, 35 years at Bob Jones University and the last 15 years at The Master’s University.”

BTW, it is my understanding that BJU asked Dr. Smith to write a systematic theology that they could publish but it kept getting kicked back because it was too Calvinistic in soteriology and not dogmatic enough on a pre-millenial pre-tribulational eschatology.

In this case, what’s important is

• Creating an intellectual foundation and infrastructure for fundamentalism
• Training new fundamental scholars (masters’ / doctorate)
• Training new professors to teach young fundamentalists

Who decided this was important? And what Scripture is this based on?

One good commentary may be worth a dozen seminary classes, since the commentary will last and have broader reach than even a hundred seminarians.

I think this underestimates the power of life on life teaching and discipleship. A book won’t sit and cry with you. It won’t call you on the phone or take your calls. It won’t laugh when you laugh. Commentaries are good, but they are of limited use. Future pastors are made by pastors and churches, not by books. Few people look back and say the greatest influence on their life was a book. In almost all cases, it is a person.

That’s not to underestimate the power of books. They are good and helpful. And surely more could be done to publish books, but remember publishing is a business. It takes buyers to publish books. So it’s not as easy as simply writing, even writing well. It takes more.

I have posted here before about why Fundamentalists historically did not publish more academic works - a lot of it had to do with a priority about writing Christian school textbooks, which I think is ingenious. Those who would normally write for a wider audience were busy providing books for schools. Now that the foundation is laid for that, other opportunities are open.

I had Dr. Charles Smith for at least 3 classes: NT Survey, Romans, Matthew in Greek. He could quote Dana & Mantey by page number. Very good teacher & preacher. Learned a lot from him. However, the reasons posted here for his leaving BJU are not entirely correct. There was more involved than what has been mentioned. Even when at Masters College, he never finished his systematic theology book, so I doubt the “Calvinist” reason given here is the real reason.

[Larry]

In this case, what’s important is

• Creating an intellectual foundation and infrastructure for fundamentalism
• Training new fundamental scholars (masters’ / doctorate)
• Training new professors to teach young fundamentalists

Who decided this was important? And what Scripture is this based on?

I’d argue that God decided this when He told Paul to tell Timothy to put elders in place, and when Paul told Timothy to continue following his example. For that matter, the very relationships between Christ and the apostles, and between the apostles and the early pastors, seem to resemble (in my view) little so much as the relationships between masters, journeymen, and apprentices. The goal in this process is to create those with mastery, those who are capable of working independently and training others to do the same, which is of course exactly what Paul says about the matter, and quite frankly is about what Jesus says in Matthew 28.

Now when we put that in light of 66 books of Scripture, some appearing to say things at least differently than others—e.g. James 2:14-16 vs. Ephesians 2:8-9—and in light of the fact that few of us are native speakers of koine Greek or classical Hebrew, let along Aramaic—and in light of the fact that we’ve got 20 centuries of commentary on these books, you have a situation that is tailor made to be addressed in something that at least resembles an academic setting. This is especially the case when we consider that we Baptistic fundamentalists are separating from the “main stream” of Christian thought regarding ordinances/sacraments, the priority of tradition, and the like. We simply can’t afford to let John MacArthur and John Piper do all the work in this area, and we’ve learned the hard way what happens when a significant portion of us let John R. Rice, Jack Hyles, or Curtis Hutson do this work.

For that matter, we might even argue that Paul himself appears to have been taken out of day by day pastoral ministry for the express purpose of giving him a lot of time thinking things through and writing. It’s not said explicitly in Scripture, but that is about what happened, no?

More or less, my take is that a few years of Bible college, especially one where the smarter students note that they’re being taught what to think instead of how to think (a friend of mine’s comment about Moody), does not match what Paul and Christ are telling us to to in Scripture.

[Bert Perry] ​

OK, let’s walk through this. I know from experience what happens with overwork; the important things don’t get done, but rather just the urgent. In this case, what’s important is

• Creating an intellectual foundation and infrastructure for fundamentalism
• Training new fundamental scholars (masters’ / doctorate)
• Training new professors to teach young fundamentalists

In a nutshell, our system sets up a vicious cycle—we preclude intellectual endeavors by the schedule and then wonder why our professors and leaders aren’t intellectuals—and then we wonder why we get a reputation for anti-intellectualism. As Deming said, “Your system is perfectly designed to give you exactly the results you’re getting.” It’s the college/university equivalent of telling a pastor he’s got to teach/preach four times a week, and then wondering why he’s not doing so hot at making disciples.

Thankfully it’s changing to a degree with accreditation, genuine doctoral programs at BJU/Maranatha/elsewhere, and Dr. Bauder’s position as more of a scholar, but there’s a real question of whether it’s going to be too little, too late. It’s worth noting that even in the evangelical/Reformed world, Doug Wilson is seeking to accelerate the process of recovering intellectual credibility by walking students through a real liberal arts education at New Saint Andrews.

The system is broke, I agree. There are few PhD programs left within Fundamentalism (although we don’t really need PhD programs in fundamentalism itself). Central’s program is being phased out (I’ll likely be the last to graduate, if I finish the dissertation). DMin programs abound, but the DMin isn’t a scholar’s program - it’s a professional degree (research and professional degrees are recognized in the academic world as different). BJ and Piedmont’s PhDs are built on an MA, not an MDiv (the MA/PhD is the credit equivalent of a seminary MDiv, i.e. 90 credits„ as opposed to an PhD of 60 credits built on an MDiv of 90+ credits). If we want an intellectually solid fundamentalism it isn’t going to happen on the institutional level without a solid influx of capital. Bauder is an exception to the rule, but the seminaries still aren’t giving sabbaticals to their professors. And for the guys who have finished or are finishing their PhDs, there are few if any teaching/research positions available within the fundamentalist institutions. So they are relegated to working IT in the local community college system, selling curricula, making videos or writing for Logos, finding a job in one of the publishing houses, working in a factory, or delivering packages (all real individuals with PhDs or finishing PhDs). Got any rich friends that would be willing to put up money for research chairs in the various institutions?

If the church I’m pastoring ever gets a budget large enough for a second man, I would like to hire a scholar-in-residence (I’ve already told this to my people). Give him adult Sunday School, a small research budget, and let him read, research, write, and publish.

He states his reason for leaving BJU in his commencement address and I choose to take him at his word. I realize that rumors and hearsay exist, but his own words are enough for me. As to the systematic theology, his work was done on the university’s “dime” and therefore it was their property and he couldn’t take it with him.

I would add to that, that for students going into a PhD program, it would be good to offer the best, most promising students tuition and living stipends. I know some students who would be fantastic scholars, but as married parents with two children, they find themselves needing to work rather than do research. Had such funding been available when I started my program, I would have finished a long time ago. But when working 2+ jobs, it is difficult to take a full load, as well as have time to do quality research.

[Ron Bean]

He states his reason for leaving BJU in his commencement address and I choose to take him at his word. I realize that rumors and hearsay exist, but his own words are enough for me. As to the systematic theology, his work was done on the university’s “dime” and therefore it was their property and he couldn’t take it with him.

I listened to that message a few years ago. Dr. Smith was a favorite when I was in school at BJU, very much enjoyed his teaching. Thought his exit address at Masters tarnished his image, however. What did his BJU experience contribute to those graduating from Masters? Why bring it up? Seemed kind of classless and bitter to me. After all those years, he should have just let it go.

I read it earlier in the year. I would like to make it to their conference this year in October (on the creation account - I don’t think there are any young-earth conservatives actually speaking there - it would be interesting) if I can afford to go. My church clerk is a former member of the church, and has several connections where I might be able to get free housing. Although my wife just got a job with Americorp (teaching reading) in order to get to know people within the local school, so that complicates things as well.

Don, first of all, perhaps C.W. should have dropped the issue when BJU apologized for the slander, but to my knowledge, no apology has been issued. Therefore Smith was just as free to comment on the matter as Paul was to mention Alexander the Coppersmith, and just as free as John was to mention Diotrephes by name. No?

And the simple fact of the matter is that Paul and John did mention these men by name. We therefore cannot assume that it is Biblical to hold back on these things when no apology has been issued. There are a lot of people who suffered the same fate in the Scriptures—of being remembered for grievous sins. Would we tell the Holy Spirit to “let it go”, or does He have a reason for letting us know this?

Second of all, it’s not as if astute graduates of TMU were unaware of why C.W. Smith came there, and moreover what he went through has a lot of life lessons for any believer. There are simply some times when respected institutions mess up so badly that it is imperative to leave them, and it’s important to let young people know that it’s OK to do this. Smith did this admirably, in my view. Too much damage has been done when fundamental (and other) institutions “close ranks” and “circle the wagons” instead of taking action.

Dr. Smith was an excellent teacher, and I admired him in many ways. Not finishing the systematic theology had nothing to do with BJU “owning” the material. I asked an administrator at TMS about it - he said Dr. Smith never finished it. Had nothing to do with BJU. Again, there were other reasons than posted here about why he left BJU. But, hey guys, the man is with the Lord now. The end.

Does anyone know how busy the writers “on the other side” are compared to fundamentalists?

Ron: It’s hard to gauge the load on professors from aggregate stats, but just for kicks, you could take a look at evangelical schools vs. fundamental on U.S. News. I checked out Faith, Maranatha, BJU, Cedarville, Taylor, and Trinity, and I’m not seeing any obvious discrepancies except that as a rule, the fundamental schools are cheaper. One thing you’ll notice is the relative youth of both groups of schools, so both sides of the divide are learning the ropes of higher education at about the same time, the evangelicals perhaps with a little head start in terms of time and attitude.

Speaking of attitude, a number of comments here confirm this is part of the issue. Not trying to “pick on” anyone here, but if we prioritize school textbooks (e.g. a beka) over systematics, and even wonder why it’s important to do them, we’re going to have trouble sustaining ourselves.

It’s like a place where I used to work that prioritized daily shipments over warranty work and ISO to the point that engineers were painting and deburring parts, and then they wondered why customers rated them just about last in the industry. At a certain point, you’ve got to do what’s important (ISO, quality, systematics) and then weigh the urgent in the light of what you’ve learned.

I’m not “prioritizing” school textbooks. Just noting that 40 years ago, the priority and great need was for good textbooks in the new and growing Christian school movement. Christian schools were having to use secular textbooks because few Christian textbooks existed. So BJU and others put their emphasis on the need of the time. That makes sense and is ingenious. Now that the Christian textbook supply is met, other areas can now be addressed.

Wally, you’re confusing the “urgent” need for textbooks with what was important. Let’s be frank about the matter; the list of things for which BJU has apologized over the past few decades illustrates that BJ Sr. and Jr. could have seriously used some good systematics. See what I’m getting at?

I know exactly what you’re saying.

I’ve never said that there wasn’t any need for “systematics”. The point is: With limited resources and the urgent need for Christian textbooks, many Fundamentalists chose to help build the Christian school academic basis by writing textbooks. It’s ingenious because you’re writing for the students who will one day be the adults who will be teaching another generation. You’re conflating 2 different issues and assuming that BJU’s “mistakes” would have been solved by a few systematic theology textbooks. I’m really not interested in debating or discussing BJU’s “mistakes”. It’s another issue.

Don, first of all, perhaps C.W. should have dropped the issue when BJU apologized for the slander, but to my knowledge, no apology has been issued. Therefore Smith was just as free to comment on the matter as Paul was to mention Alexander the Coppersmith, and just as free as John was to mention Diotrephes by name. No?

It doesn’t matter if BJU never apologized; C.W. could have taken a higher road and let it go for God to deal with. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if C.W. never apologized to BJU.

This is kind of the argument I expect from a 4 year old - ‘he did it too!’.

Furthermore, Paul and John were under direct inspiration from God. When God says something is so, that’s a lot different from trading barbs and accusations.

Bert, You mentioned “creating an intellectual foundation and infrastructure for fundamentalism.” Perhaps I am not sure what you mean by that, but fundamentalism as I know it has long had this. It is historical orthodox theology. There’s nothing to create so far as I can tell. The “nutjob” faction of fundamentalism is not different than the nutjob faction of evangelicalism. But the mainstream of fundamentalism has always had an intellectual foundation and infrastructure. It was simply rejected by those who didn’t like it. Remember, fundamentalism is the constant stream. The New Evangelicals were the divergents.

You mentioned training new scholars. You then make several biblical references but none of them have to do with scholarship as the modern use of the word. What is in view in these passages is knowledgeable pastors who have been trained, not by books primarily, but by life on life discipleship. I suppose my question is this: What do fundamentalists bring to the publishing table that sets them apart and makes their contribution unique? Is our systematic different? Is our exegesis and interpretation different? I am not saying these are bad things to do. I am fine with fundamentalists publishing more. I am simply not sure what unique perspective fundamentalists bring to the publishing table that necessitates writing for the future.

You mention Paul being taken out of day to day pastoral ministry for the express purpose of thinking through things and writing. But that doesn’t seem to square with the biblical record. Paul was rarely in day to day pastoral ministry as we think of it. He was an itinerant evangelist church planter for much of his life who spent some time in jail. It is possible that his day to day activity was, at some points in his life, more full than day to day pastoral ministry. He did write, but again, this is not scholarship. It’s inspiration to be sure.

I agree that Bible college students are typically not well-prepared for pastoral ministry. They need more. A person with an MDiv or even a PhD is not yet really a scholar ready to publish. I think you are confusing being well-educated and well-trained with scholarship. They are not the same. I am not arguing against scholarship at all and I am not arguing against writing. I think both are good. Kevin Bauder wrote a series of articles on scholarship a while back and Andy Naselli has compiled them into one document: http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/Bauder_scholarship.pdf. It is well worth reading.

You made a rather gratuitous comment above regarding the Joneses. The lack of a fundamentalist systematic was not the cause of their positions. There were plenty of solid systematic theologies available then and there are now.

I think we may be putting too much emphasis on writing. I think it’s a good thing to do. But that’s not the answer to fundamentalism. I don’t think the future of fundamentalism rises or falls based on fundamentalist authors publishing.

What’s important is training pastors for the future and that takes place best in relationships. I think publishing is good if there are people who have the ability to write. But it is possible to spend a lot of time repeating what is already elsewhere adding to Solomon’s “no end” and in the end not doing what we are supposed to do.

What’s important is well-trained pastors who can shepherd the flock of God among which he has made them overseers.

Larry, I’ll concede that the Biblical argument for more scholarship is implicit and not explicit. There was no such thing as a university as we know it today, so how could it be otherwise?

That said, if we take a look at how the rabbis of old (probably including Paul, perhaps including Christ) were trained, we find 12 years of training where many are said to have memorized the Torah—perhaps the whole Old Testament really—and where all had great familiarity with “Oral Torah” as well. OK, that last part isn’t something we want today, but we would possibly note that a pastor ought to at least have familiarity with Augustine, Calvin, the Council of Trent, and so on. As you note, many are woefully unprepared. It’s worth noting as well that most in that day would have been at least bilingual (Hebrew and Aramaic) if not trilingual (Greek) or quadrilingual (Latin) or more.

And that is, really, my central point, and let’s go back to some of the things by which fundagelicals alike have embarrassed themselves, specifically BJ Jr.’s misrepresentation of John MacArthur. In that case, either BJ Jr. (?) was unable or unwilling to read MacArthur’s writing carefully enough to get the real message, and in any case when his error was pointed out, he failed to repent.

Now if I’m gracious to him, I’m going to say he was in error and did not know his exegesis and hermeneutics well enough to parse out the passage—that is an academic issue. If I’m a little bit colder to him, I’m going to say he got caught in an untruth and didn’t have the character to apologize—and in any serious course of training, any good professor, pastor, or rabbi is going to recognize that someone does not own up to his mistakes.

Either way, it is at least in part an issue of training/academics.

…that thankfully I’m seeing more of it, is clear explanations of how the Fundamentals and the Solas ought to work out in daily life. OK, what does the inerrancy of Scripture mean outside of six day creation and the like? How does it interact with our hermeneutic? A lot of our excesses would end, in my view, if we simply took Sola Scriptura seriously.