Now, About Those Differences, Part Four
Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Dispensationalism
Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists actually hold a great deal in common, including the most important things. Nevertheless, they do differ in certain ways. Some of those differences are more important and some less so. Some of them are more characteristic of each group, while others are matters of degree.
One of the differences has to do with dispensationalism and covenant theology. In general, fundamentalists are rather loyal to dispensationalism. Also in general, conservative evangelicals incline toward covenant theology.
This difference does not apply in every instance. Exceptions exist in both camps. Some fundamentalists are (and always have been) covenant theologians, while some conservative evangelicals are dispensationalists.
Actually, at one time many or most conservative evangelicals were also dispensationalists. For example, in his recent history of Dallas Seminary, John D. Hannah argues that Dallas Theological Seminary tried to stake out a middle ground between fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism. He cites Lewis Sperry Chafer and John Walvoord to show that these leaders disapproved of inclusive evangelism as it was practiced by the new evangelicals, but they also disapproved of the rigid separatism (as they saw it) of many fundamentalists.1 Yet Dallas Seminary was certainly among the leading voices of dispensationalism.
Even at that time many conservative evangelicals affirmed covenant theology. In particular, those who were connected with Westminster Seminary and Covenant Seminary were outspoken covenantalists. Compared with the Moody-Wheaton-Dallas axis, they were probably a minority within evangelicalism. Nevertheless, their influence was considerable and it grew over the years.
Just as many conservative evangelicals were once dispensationalists, some fundamentalists have held to covenant theology. Curtis Lee Laws, in his original definition of fundamentalism, made it clear that that fundamentalist party was comprised of “premillennialists, post-millennialists, pro-millennialists and no-millennialists.”2 T. T. Shields was an advocate of covenant theology as were the fundamentalist branches of the conservative Presbyterian movement that J. Gresham Machen founded. As late as 1992 Allan MacRae, founder of Biblical Seminary, was still insisting that he had always affirmed covenant theology.3
Even now, some conservative evangelicals are dispensationalists and some fundamentalists are covenant theologians. Both the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Free Presbyterian Church are fundamentalist organizations, and both are clear in their adherence to covenant theology. On the other hand, John MacArthur and his associates are definitely dispensational (though MacArthur calls himself a “leaky” dispensationalist), while being identified with conservative evangelicalism.
In spite of these exceptions, however, the generalization holds. Covenant theology is definitely a minority position within fundamentalism, and a small one at that. Dispensationalism seems to be held by only a minority of the most visible conservative evangelicals. Even some who might not identify themselves as covenant theologians would be very reluctant to accept the dispensationalist label.
How thoroughly dispensational is fundamentalism? Examining the ten largest training institutions that identify themselves as fundamentalist, one will discover that virtually every professor of Bible and theology affirms some version of dispensationalism. The percentage is very high indeed.
Determining the percentages among conservative evangelicals is more difficult, but little question exists concerning the widespread influence of covenant theology. Figures such as R. C. Sproul, John Piper, and Mark Dever are public advocates for some version of covenantalism. Dever has even stated that the attempt to institute premillennialism as a test of church membership is sinful.4
In general, the dictum holds: fundamentalists tend to be dispensationalists while conservative evangelicals tend to hold covenant theology. This is a difference between the two movements. But how serious is this difference?
In the calculus of doctrines, the distinction between dispensationalism and covenant theology affects some rather important areas. It involves the relationship between Israel and the church. It touches on hermeneutics, particularly the hermeneutics of prophecy. It even opens the question of the content and direction of God’s plan. These are more than incidental differences. It is to be expected that these differences, if taken seriously, will lead to some limitation in the experience of Christian fellowship.
Having said that, the differences are not as great as might be feared. Some older dispensationalists sounded as if they believed in more than one way of salvation. Some covenant theologians reacted with understandable vigor, but too quickly concluded that dispensationalism necessarily entails a denial of the gospel. Most dispensationalists have been trying to clear up this misunderstanding ever since, and many covenant theologians have been willing to accept their reassurances.
The gospel is not at stake in this difference. Some level of Christian commonality actually exists between covenant theologians and dispensationalists, and some level of mutual endeavor is certainly possible. Fundamentalist dispensationalists and fundamentalist covenantalists manage to work together in various ways, for example at the annual Bible Faculty Leadership Summit.
Furthermore, the distinction between covenant theology and dispensationalism does not go to the heart of either movement. Conservative evangelicals are not conservative evangelicals because of their covenant theology, nor do fundamentalists hold to fundamentalism because of their dispensationalism. While fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals do tend to disagree about dispensationalism, that divergence is not really what makes them different.
Dispensationalists and covenant theologians find ways to work together within both fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism, though they do experience tensions in both camps. It may well be possible that dispensationalists might find ways to work together whether they are conservative evangelicals or fundamentalists. The same might be said of covenant theologians.
Downplaying the difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology is a mistake. So is amplifying that difference, particularly when the difference is not really the thing that distinguishes the two groups. And it is not the point of distinction between conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism.
Consequently, the difference over dispensationalism should have a limited effect upon the ability of fundamentalists to cooperate with conservative evangelicals. This difference should affect the two groups in much the same way that it affects parties within each group. It is not, however, the only difference between the two. Three more differences remain to be weighed.
Notes
1 John D. Hannah, An Uncommon Union: Dallas Seminary and American Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 156-159.
2 Curtis Lee Laws, “Convention Side Lights,” Watchman Examiner (1 July 1920), 834.
3 Allan MacRae, “Communication,” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (fall 1992), 404.
4 Mark Dever, “The End of Death,” sermon preached at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, 12 July 2009. While some covenant theologians are premillennial, no dispensationalist can be amillennial.
The Habit of Perfection
Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889)
Elected Silence, sing to me
And beat upon my whorlèd ear,
Pipe me to pastures still and be
The music that I care to hear.
Shape nothing, lips; be lovely-dumb:
It is the shut, the curfew sent
From there where all surrenders come
Which only makes you eloquent.
Be shellèd, eyes, with double dark
And find the uncreated light:
This ruck and reel which you remark
Coils, keeps, and teases simple sight.
Palate, the hutch of tasty lust,
Desire not to be rinsed with wine:
The can must be so sweet, the crust
So fresh that come in fasts divine!
Nostrils, your careless breath that spend
Upon the stir and keep of pride,
What relish shall the censers send
Along the sanctuary side!
O feel-of-primrose hands, O feet
That want the yield of plushy sward,
But you shall walk the golden street
And you unhouse and house the Lord.
And, Poverty, be thou the bride
And now the marriage feast begun,
And lily-coloured clothes provide
Your spouse not laboured-at nor spun.
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.
- 57 views
I think there are a lot of fundamentalists who believe that you cannot be a fundamentalist and a covenantalist. To them, covenantalism is denying the Bible, it’s anti-semitic, it’s virtually heresy.
I am not sure, but I imagine it is to these people that Kevin speaks and says, “It’s a difference, but it’s not a defining difference. One can be a covenantalist and a fundamentalist. The fact that someone disagrees with you on dispensationalism does not mean that they are unbeliever, or heretics.”
As you quote Kevin, he says we need to carefully weigh these differences. So he weighs this one and says, “It doesn’t weigh that much in the way that some think it does.” I think it is a message that needs to be heard. Now, if only someone on the other side would speak up about it.
So, in the end, it seems to me that you agree with Kevin, and perhaps you are just not aware that there are people out there who disagree with you and Kevin.
Thanks again, Don.
[iKuyper] The younger crowd is finding the Fundy/CE label debates irrelevent. The points of separation and cooperation have switched to different labelings.First, that is a pretty hefty generalization. I am not sure that it is entirely true.
Second, I agree that some certainly are making points of separation and cooperation a matter of different labelings, but that automatically marks them as NOT fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is marked by separation over a particular set of ideas. If your separation is over different ideas, and you refuse to separate over the Fundamentalist set of ideas, you are not a Fundamentalist.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]iKuyper’s statement may be imprecise, but not necessarily inaccurate. Few Gen X and certainly Y’s debate this matter outside of academia, if they even know it exists. Separation is essentially an obsolete practice within our culture (much the same as church discipline) despite its biblical moorings, hence the “different labelings”. To discuss would be off-topic, but its obsolescence is why little debate ensues.[iKuyper] The younger crowd is finding the Fundy/CE label debates irrelevent. The points of separation and cooperation have switched to different labelings.First, that is a pretty hefty generalization. I am not sure that it is entirely true.
Second, I agree that some certainly are making points of separation and cooperation a matter of different labelings, but that automatically marks them as NOT fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is marked by separation over a particular set of ideas. If your separation is over different ideas, and you refuse to separate over the Fundamentalist set of ideas, you are not a Fundamentalist.
I do agree that this installment in the series was a little bland, a filler of sorts.
[dmicah] iKuyper’s statement may be imprecise, but not necessarily inaccurate. Few Gen X and certainly Y’s debate this matter outside of academia, if they even know it exists. .The young people on SI know it exists. The young people at BJU, Detroit, Central, Maranatha, etc all know it exists. I would think that is the “younger crowd” iKuyper is referring to, not the sociological amorphous and fairly indefinable Gen X and Y in general, don’t you think?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] Second, I agree that some certainly are making points of separation and cooperation a matter of different labelings, but that automatically marks them as NOT fundamentalists.That is exactly my point though. Many Fundamentalists by “heritage” are not limiting their scope of ministry to the confines or “fine-print” of what it is to be a “Fundamentalist” anymore. Younger “fundamentalists” can care less on what you call them…
[Don Johnson] The young people on SI know it exists. The young people at BJU, Detroit, Central, Maranatha, etc all know it exists. I would think that is the “younger crowd” iKuyper is referring to, not the sociological amorphous and fairly indefinable Gen X and Y in general, don’t you think?If you combine all the Fundamentalists who exhibit the necessary traits of what it is to be a functioning Fundamentalist (you know, the ideal form that Bauder tries to define) in all these seminaries, how many would that be? If all of them, maybe 500-600? 1000 students collectively? Are these the people that Bauder is distinguishing Fundy from CE for?
How many more classes, articles, blog entries, Nick of Times, seminars, conferences, etc. does it take to distinguish and define the who, what, why, where, hows of Fundamentalism vs Conservative Evangelicalism? The young people want a little more than that.
Is the attempt to define itself the only contribution of “Fundamentalists” to Evangelical academic dialogue? I’m beginning to think so….
Ecclesia semper reformanda est
Perhaps the reason why Dr. Bauder thinks there are so many CTers in CE is because every time a bright young Bible student comes to the conviction that the Dispy system does not lead to a right interpretation of Scripture, he is forced to leave Fundamentalism. To what? To the best Bible teaching church he can find! Call it CE or whatever, it doesn’t matter.
As a movement that tries to lag the broad Evangelical movement by 30 or so years, Fundamentalism is exclusively Dispensational. Evangelicalism is mostly Dispensational, but not exclusively.
2) There is a difference between a Pre-millennialist and a Dispensationalist.
3) This is a nitpick, but early Dispensationalists most definitely taught that there was a different method of Salvation in each Dispensation rather than a single Plan of Salvation (or Covenant of Grace). This was the primary feature of early Dispensationalism, to oppose the single Covenant of Grace (or Plan of Salvation) by asserting that God saved men throughout history by testing them with respect to obedience to His revelation. To see if I am right, go to almost any old Fundy church and ask the ‘man in the pew’ how Jews will be saved during the Millennium.
4) Finally, the fact that Dr. Bauder will say that the Fundamentalism/Covenantalism divide is what separates Fundamentalists from non-Fundamentalists is kind of sad. The original fundamentalist movement is a narrow ecumenical movement centered around inerrancy and literal Bible interpretation. Now that Machen has served us so well, do we turn our backs on him?
[Don Johnson]I can agree, as I mentioned, that people within academia can argue this. But academia, and I say this with respect and as a bible college grad, is not the real world, especially for the students. So their debate of this topic is rather futile.[dmicah] iKuyper’s statement may be imprecise, but not necessarily inaccurate. Few Gen X and certainly Y’s debate this matter outside of academia, if they even know it exists. .The young people on SI know it exists. The young people at BJU, Detroit, Central, Maranatha, etc all know it exists. I would think that is the “younger crowd” iKuyper is referring to, not the sociological amorphous and fairly indefinable Gen X and Y in general, don’t you think?
I wasn’t trying to be nebulous with Gen X/Y, i was referring to young people within the church of those generations. For instance, if you polled the members of our young church, we planted in 04i would wager no more than one in six people would know whether they considered themselves evangelical or fundamentalist - by official title. And i am sure no more than 1/20, outside of pastors/staff and Bible college students, would probably know there is a big debate over the differences. We don’t talk about it, at all, though we separate and implement church discipline. Since so many young people are coming to faith from unchurched backgrounds, they just have never heard there is an “issue”. There are a lot churches similar to ours, which led me to my conclusion.
Finally, the fact that Dr. Bauder will say that the Fundamentalism/Covenantalism divide is what separates Fundamentalists from non-Fundamentalists is kind of sad.What are you referring to here? I think he said it isn’t not a distinguishing feature, didn’t he?
His second to last paragraph says, “the difference is not really the thing that distinguishes the two groups. And it is not the point of distinction between conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism.” That sounds the opposite of what you are saying he said. Is there some other statement you have in mind?
[dmicah] For instance, if you polled the members of our young church, we planted in 04i would wager no more than one in six people would know whether they considered themselves evangelical or fundamentalist - by official title. And i am sure no more than 1/20, outside of pastors/staff and Bible college students, would probably know there is a big debate over the differences. We don’t talk about it, at all, though we separate and implement church discipline. Since so many young people are coming to faith from unchurched backgrounds, they just have never heard there is an “issue”. There are a lot churches similar to ours, which led me to my conclusion.Do you think there are similar dangers in the religious world today that Christians in the pew faced when the Liberals were taking over the schools in the 1920s? In other words, do you think that there are false teachers out there who could potentially lead your people astray? Do you think your people don’t get hold of some of these materials through various means?
If these dangers exist, you need to be teaching them how to discern them, don’t you?
I don’t go out of my way to ‘bash’ evangelicals. In fact, I often hear from my people how “so and so” is a blessing to them — on the radio, internet, by books, what have you. I try to be cautious in what I say because I don’t want to discourage them into some kind of “I’m the only guy you should listen to” syndrome. So I will usually say, “Well he has some good things to say, but you have to be careful about some of his teaching or who he recommends.” One popular radio preacher a few years ago was endorsing and promoting a NeoOrthodox theologian. Some of our people heard about it and mentioned it to me. Well, what do you think? Do you think I said, “sure, go ahead”?
For this reason I have made teaching separation and discernment a part of our ministry. I don’t harp on it all the time, nor do I teach it the same way each time. But our people need to know the dangers of the world they live in. They can learn from the battles that had to be fought in the 20s and the 50s. They can learn to appreciate the deep problems that Billy Graham (for example) plunged the church into with his compromises. I think regular teaching on both doctrine, philosophy, and history in these matters is vital. You aren’t guarding your flock if you don’t do it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]I agree that guarding the flock is vital, but you’ve shifted gears on me. My comment was focused on the donning of a label and whether people observed doctrinal tenets correlated to those labels. That is significantly different than teaching godliness, spiritual fruit, discernment, biblical separation, etc. We preach expositionally and bluntly which inevitably leads to highlighting the theological apostasies of our day, such as prosperity gospel, cheap grace salvation, or emergent theology. Certainly we have mentioned names from time to time, but we make no assertions of labels or claim a “movement”. There is a different approach among what i would describe as fundamental conservative evangelicals.[dmicah] For instance, if you polled the members of our young church, we planted in 04i would wager no more than one in six people would know whether they considered themselves evangelical or fundamentalist - by official title. And i am sure no more than 1/20, outside of pastors/staff and Bible college students, would probably know there is a big debate over the differences. We don’t talk about it, at all, though we separate and implement church discipline. Since so many young people are coming to faith from unchurched backgrounds, they just have never heard there is an “issue”. There are a lot churches similar to ours, which led me to my conclusion.Do you think there are similar dangers in the religious world today that Christians in the pew faced when the Liberals were taking over the schools in the 1920s? In other words, do you think that there are false teachers out there who could potentially lead your people astray? Do you think your people don’t get hold of some of these materials through various means?
If these dangers exist, you need to be teaching them how to discern them, don’t you?
I don’t go out of my way to ‘bash’ evangelicals. In fact, I often hear from my people how “so and so” is a blessing to them — on the radio, internet, by books, what have you. I try to be cautious in what I say because I don’t want to discourage them into some kind of “I’m the only guy you should listen to” syndrome. So I will usually say, “Well he has some good things to say, but you have to be careful about some of his teaching or who he recommends.” One popular radio preacher a few years ago was endorsing and promoting a NeoOrthodox theologian. Some of our people heard about it and mentioned it to me. Well, what do you think? Do you think I said, “sure, go ahead”?
For this reason I have made teaching separation and discernment a part of our ministry. I don’t harp on it all the time, nor do I teach it the same way each time. But our people need to know the dangers of the world they live in. They can learn from the battles that had to be fought in the 20s and the 50s. They can learn to appreciate the deep problems that Billy Graham (for example) plunged the church into with his compromises. I think regular teaching on both doctrine, philosophy, and history in these matters is vital. You aren’t guarding your flock if you don’t do it.
On a different note, with the rising influence of organizations such as Acts 29, Together for the Gospel, Advance the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition, it is obvious there is a broadening national evangelical unity that maintains a conservative doctrinal core while exhibiting a progressive approach to methodology, i.e. modern style worship music, casual attire. This collaborative effort appears to be built on inclusivity, whereas traditional fundamentalism is built on exclusivity (oversimplification, i know). I think that is ultimately what you are driving at. Evangelical thought, even on the very conservative side approaches ministry with a different perspective. For some, perhaps you feel this way, it is off target, out of sync and misaligned, and you call it like you see it. I can appreciate that. But CE’s are here to stay and we have more in common with you than you might think.
Regards
dmicah
[iKuyper]Kuyper,[Don Johnson] Second, I agree that some certainly are making points of separation and cooperation a matter of different labelings, but that automatically marks them as NOT fundamentalists.That is exactly my point though. Many Fundamentalists by “heritage” are not limiting their scope of ministry to the confines or “fine-print” of what it is to be a “Fundamentalist” anymore. Younger “fundamentalists” can care less on what you call them…[Don Johnson] The young people on SI know it exists. The young people at BJU, Detroit, Central, Maranatha, etc all know it exists. I would think that is the “younger crowd” iKuyper is referring to, not the sociological amorphous and fairly indefinable Gen X and Y in general, don’t you think?If you combine all the Fundamentalists who exhibit the necessary traits of what it is to be a functioning Fundamentalist (you know, the ideal form that Bauder tries to define) in all these seminaries, how many would that be? If all of them, maybe 500-600? 1000 students collectively? Are these the people that Bauder is distinguishing Fundy from CE for?
How many more classes, articles, blog entries, Nick of Times, seminars, conferences, etc. does it take to distinguish and define the who, what, why, where, hows of Fundamentalism vs Conservative Evangelicalism? The young people want a little more than that.
Is the attempt to define itself the only contribution of “Fundamentalists” to Evangelical academic dialogue? I’m beginning to think so….
To answer your final question - no.
Fundamentalists are adding to the academic dialog apart from defining themselves.
Consider the following examples:
Detroit Seminary’s journal - Bob McCabe had a two part article (on Creationism) published in a recent book edited by Terry Mortenson
Rod Decker - His massive tome on aspect theory on Mark (also, he is working on a commentary on Mark)
The council on Dispensationalism (BBC) - note the articles from past events and years: http://www.bbc.edu/council/
Recent articles on Themalios by Jon Pratt and Paul Hartog
Concerning progressive dispensationalism - Either Vern Poythress is right in his observation that PD will end up exactly where Ladd did (cov premillennialism), or PD will survive. Among scholars, Classical Dispensationalism is the exception, not the rule. Among New Testament scholars, Classical Dispensationalism is almost non-existent (There are some who claim it, but there are reasons to doubt their claims if you press them on views). I have a personal feeling that Classical Dispensationalism will survive among the popular crowd and literature and all but die out in the scholarly world (along with biblical creationism - for the most part - it is popular among the scientists, but not among the theologians).
[dmicah] I agree that guarding the flock is vital, but you’ve shifted gears on me.That is the way conversations work, eh?
[dmicah] On a different note, with the rising influence of organizations such as Acts 29, Together for the Gospel, Advance the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition, it is obvious there is a broadening national evangelical unity that maintains a conservative doctrinal core while exhibiting a progressive approach to methodology, i.e. modern style worship music, casual attire. This collaborative effort appears to be built on inclusivity, whereas traditional fundamentalism is built on exclusivity (oversimplification, i know). I think that is ultimately what you are driving at. Evangelical thought, even on the very conservative side approaches ministry with a different perspective. For some, perhaps you feel this way, it is off target, out of sync and misaligned, and you call it like you see it. I can appreciate that. But CE’s are here to stay and we have more in common with you than you might think.First, having watched evangelicals for a good while now, both on the inside and the outside, these new organizations are not all that diffferent than previous evangelical groups. Same strategy, same methods, same essential philosophy.
CEs are here to stay… as much as any group stays at any period in history.
The differences are the issue. Of course we have a lot in common, they are Christians. So are a number of men to the left of the CEs. So, I trust, is Billy Graham and his cohorts. We have a lot in common with all of them. That isn’t the issue in deciding who we will be partners with.
The issue is what are the differences and how critical is it to maintain the differences. If the differences don’t matter, then maintaining them as distinct dividing lines is mere playing politics. If the differences do matter, then it is a matter of obedience to the Lord, regardless of who we are including or excluding.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[AndrewSuttles]Finally, the fact that Dr. Bauder will say that the Fundamentalism/Covenantalism divide is what separates Fundamentalists from non-Fundamentalists is kind of sad.[Larry]What are you referring to here? I think he said it isn’t not a distinguishing feature, didn’t he?Yes, you are right, Larry, he did say that. I guess my point is that he is writing a series on the 4 primary differences between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals and as a part of his series on those differences, he writes an article that says that, ‘One of the differences has to do with dispensationalism and covenant theology.’ He also makes statements like, ‘In spite of these exceptions, however, the generalization holds’, and, ‘Examining the ten largest training institutions that identify themselves as fundamentalist, one will discover that virtually every professor of Bible and theology affirms some version of dispensationalism’, and, ‘Dispensationalism seems to be held by only a minority of the most visible conservative evangelicals’ (which is clearly wrong).
His second to last paragraph says, “the difference is not really the thing that distinguishes the two groups. And it is not the point of distinction between conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism.” That sounds the opposite of what you are saying he said. Is there some other statement you have in mind?
He sums up by saying, ‘In general, the dictum holds: fundamentalists tend to be dispensationalists while conservative evangelicals tend to hold covenant theology. This is a difference between the two movements….’ - one of 4 key differences according to him.
AND
‘Downplaying the difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology is a mistake.’
But then says,
‘the difference is not really the thing that distinguishes the two groups.’
So, our systems of theology make us different, different enough to be one of the 4 key differences focused on in a series on the differences, but this is a difference without a distinction? Then why write the article?
[Don Johnson]
Ok, now here we are at essay FOUR where the first actual “difference” is raised. I don’t think Bauder has succeeded in raising this difference for a couple of reasons.
- It isn’t much of a difference since both Fundy and CE have both Dispy and CT and to some extent Dispys and CTs work together within their various movements.
- It isn’t a serious difference because even if we concede that Fundys today tend to be mostly dispensational, it isn’t a defining issue for Fundamentalism. Do you think Bauder includes Dispensationalism in his ballyhooed “idea of Fundamentalism”? I kind of doubt it.
- Therefore, yet another ponderous and irrelevant essay…
[AndrewSuttles]Don & Andrew,
He sums up by saying, ‘In general, the dictum holds: fundamentalists tend to be dispensationalists while conservative evangelicals tend to hold covenant theology. This is a difference between the two movements….’ - one of 4 key differences according to him.
AND
‘Downplaying the difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology is a mistake.’
But then says,
‘the difference is not really the thing that distinguishes the two groups.’
So, our systems of theology make us different, different enough to be one of the 4 key differences focused on in a series on the differences, but this is a difference without a distinction? Then why write the article?
Your objections to Bauder’s including Covenantalism vs. Dispensationalism as a difference seems to be based on the fact that it isn’t an intrinsic difference. However, at the beginning of this essay series Bauder made it pretty clear that he may not restrict himself merely to intrinsic differences when he said he would examine “how characteristic each difference is”:
Now, because he has focused on an area that isn’t an intrinsic difference (a fact that was one of the central points of his essay), you conclude that he hasn’t “succeeded in raising it as a difference” (Don) and “this is a difference without a distinction” (Andrew). That doesn’t follow because not all differences are intrinsic differences. In this case Bauder is pointing out an important compositional difference between the two movements as they exist today. I say it is important for this reason: Because of the preponderance of Dispensationalists within Fundamentalism, many mistakenly (and sometimes unconsciously) conflate Dispensationalism and Fundamentalism. Granted, there are other doctrinal ideas that at times have been added falsely to the definition Fundamentalism; however, with the exception of KJV-onlyism (and its various ilks), I don’t know of any that could be called out as an important or substantial compositional difference between Fundamentalists and CEs. Certainly, Dr. Bauder could have excluded this one and focused only on intrinsic differences, but I suspect his goal was to focus on important differences, not merely intrinsic ones.
Therefore, an examination of those differences is highly relevant right now. Such an examination is what I propose to do. I hope to say just what the differences are, how characteristic each difference is, and how serious the differences are both singly and together. But before proceeding with that discussion, it is necessary to spend a moment considering the problem of how differences in general are to be weighed. (emphasis mine)
[Don Johnson]Bauder makes it very clear that Dispensationalism is not a distinctive of Fundamentalism.
Do you think Bauder includes Dispensationalism in his ballyhooed “idea of Fundamentalism”? I kind of doubt it.
[Don Johnson]As I said above, Bauder here calls out an important, though not intrinsic, difference presumably to clarify an area of potential confusion. In my case, what he points out was already well understood, so I didn’t find this to be one of the the more interesting of the essay series. I wouldn’t, however, use the word “ponderous,” and I certainly don’t think it was “irrelevant.”
Therefore, yet another ponderous and irrelevant essay…
P.S. “Ponderous” probably would be an apt adjective to describe the level of commentary (including my own) on this thread analyzing why Bauder chose to include this difference. :-)
Philip Knight
I think my objections to raising this particular difference are two-fold.
1. As you noted, I don’t think it is a defining issue of fundamentalism and as such, if there is a difference, it doesn’t matter for the purposes of the present discussion (as stated by Bauder himself).
2. I am not convinced it is a difference at all. I think some have come to confuse Conservative Evangelicalism with a group of men that are Together 4 Calvinism, and hence likely to be influenced by Covenant Theology. I think there are significant numbers of Conservative Evangelicals who are Dispensationalists of one sort or another. I have recently been listening to some Paige Patterson sermons. He is Dispensational, he represents a significant group within the SBC, and certainly has to be called a Conservative Evangelical. So … I think there really isn’t a distinction here. I think Bauder’s point is just wrong. Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology just isn’t a marker between Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion