Using Dr. Straub's taxonomy, how would you classify yourself?

Historic Fundamentalist
50% (15 votes)
New-Image Fundamentalist
17% (5 votes)
Hyper-Fundamentalist
0% (0 votes)
Something else
33% (10 votes)
Total votes: 30
6199 reads

There are 34 Comments

JohnBrian's picture

I fit loosely into 3 categories, from Evangelical Right through New Image Fundamentalism to Historic Fundamentalism.

p.s. I hope this confession on my part does not get me banned here! Smile

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

I voted Historic, because that is the closest considering all things in the chart, but I'm probably a mix, as I have some views that might be close to the right-most evangelical column, and I'm still affected by my relatively recent (up until about 7 years ago) background in hyper-fundamentalism, which I'm very thankful to no longer officially be a part of.

Dave Barnhart

Bob T.'s picture

A GRACE BIBLICIST FUNDAMENTALIST passionate on honoring Christ and his church based on the Acts 20:17-38 charge rejecting the faith works of the Lordship Gospel, the unbiblical foundation of Nouthetic Counseling, and the presuppositions of present day Reformed Calvinism and of Arminianism.

Ed Vasicek's picture

I like John MacArthur, so, by his taxonomy, I am evangelical right. I thought I would be "new image" fundamentalist, but apparently not quite.

"The Midrash Detective"

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I'm actually not a new-image guy, I don't think, though the difference between the two is murky. I guess what tips me toward historical is that I don't really care much about "image." That is, what the conservative evangelicals think of me is not a factor ...why would they think of me at all? Smile
But does fundamentalism have an image problem? I empathize with the new-image folks on that one, but I don't think we should concern ourselves much about it because it confuses symptoms for real problems. If we correct our theology, hermeneutics, attitudes, etc. along biblical lines, the "image" will heal on it's own among those who love Scripture. So I'm for focusing on deeper problems.

Bob, T. ... I'm curious about your comment on "unbiblical foundation of nouthetic counseling." Maybe you've elaborated on that elsewhere. It's off topic a bit here, but I'm planning to interview Jay Adams shortly... What exactly would you say is unbiblical about the foundation of his approach?
Also, the "presuppositions" of present day Arminianism and Reformed Calvinism have not developed in a vacuum... it would be very difficult to find a genuine third option that doesn't tilt toward one or the other, though, of course, many mix and match.

Ed Vasicek's picture

Aaron wrote:

Quote:
I'm actually not a new-image guy, I don't think, though the difference between the two is murky. I guess what tips me toward historical is that I don't really care much about "image."

I don't either. But neither does MacArthur or Piper, and yet they are considered Evangelical Right.

Personally, the Taxonomy leaves much to be desired.

"The Midrash Detective"

mmarprelate's picture

Of course, we can wait and see how Dr. Straub develops this (I can still remember Dr. Neal yelling at him in New Testament Introduction), but Tetreau's taxonomy was well thought out and seemed to hang together well. I am an ambivalent fundamentalist. Some days I harbor warm feelings toward McA, Mohler, etc. and other days I think this is nuts, we need to separate from everybody. But I still love my NASB.

MM

Dan Miller's picture

I voted "New Image," but not on everything.

Mark Driscoll does not belong in the group he was placed in. They need to work on research.

Charlie's picture

Two questions: First, how can you have two groups labeled "smallest" and two labeled "largest"? Is that within the larger genus?

Second, how does he know what the sizes of these groups are? This is something I've wondered about for a long time. Even if you could propose an airtight (or arbitrary) classification that would grab every church in America, how do you count them? Where is the database containing the statistical data?

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Ed Vasicek wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Quote:
I'm actually not a new-image guy, I don't think, though the difference between the two is murky. I guess what tips me toward historical is that I don't really care much about "image."

I don't either. But neither does MacArthur or Piper, and yet they are considered Evangelical Right.


Well, "image" is not part of the definition for the category Mac and Piper are in. The only column w/that as a distinguishing feature is that fundamentalist subset.
I like the simplicity of this taxonomy--and the more meaningful labels--compared to Joel's Type A, Type B, etc. Though "hyper" is not a term I'd use if the goal is to do a calm analysis. But as I mentioned earlier, I don't have a term I like better just yet.
[br ]
Edit: On sizes... one way you can tell is by looking at where these groups are centered. For the evangelical right and points leftward, you can look at published authors and schools to a degree. For Evangelical Right, there are a handful of leaders and you can get a feel for the size of the segment based on the ministries they lead. Moving to the right from there, you can look again for outspoken leaders and the ministries they lead and the size of them. The rest is extrapolation. It's not exact, but I think those who get around in these circles would agree that the relative quantities are about right.
Something more scientific would be interesting! Also: yes, I'd take the "smallest" and "largest" and other size references to be relative within the subgroup, though we'd have to get Straub to comment to be sure. So I think "largest" under "Broad Evangelical," means "largest evangelical group" and "largest" under "hyper fundamentalist" means "largest fundamentalist group."

Dan: about Driscoll... you'd put him further to the right, I take it? I suspect they have placed him where he is on an "orthopraxy" basis rather than "orthodoxy" because of the "Pornificaiton of the Pulpit" issue. Part 3 or 4 deals with that more if I remember right. Will be posting soon.

Charlie's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Well, "image" is not part of the definition for the category Mac and Piper are in. The only column w/that as a distinguishing feature is that fundamentalist subset.
I like the simplicity of this taxonomy--and the more meaningful labels--compared to Joel's Type A, Type B, etc. Though "hyper" is not a term I'd use if the goal is to do a calm analysis. But as I mentioned earlier, I don't have a term I like better just yet.

I have heard the term "cultural Fundamentalism" applied to those described as hyper-Fundamentalists. I like this term at least somewhat better, because it communicates that the real areas of controversy are not "doctrinal" in the sense of disputes about systematic categories (which some cultural Fundamentalists wouldn't even be able to explicate), but rather cultural in the sense of affecting the look, feel, and function of church life. For example, you can sing vapid songs, but not CCM songs. You can murder the meaning of a Bible passage, but you have to have the correct initials on the binding. You can preach all sorts of bizarre allegory, but you need to be in coat and tie when you do it.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Yes, "cultural" has some usefulness. The problem being that many historical fundamentalists (as Jeff uses the term here) are also culturally conservative, though they tend to "get there" by a different thought process and don't attach the same authority and significance to their conclusions. That is, historical fundies may or may not be culturally conservative but in either case don't make most of the "cultural" issues part of the definition of fundamentalism.
I'd be in that category because I'm pretty culturally conservative... though I've compromised in a huge way to allow myself to grow a beard.... and only then because I decided that beards are culturally conservative. Biggrin (Especially long, flowing white ones, but I'm not ready to try that yet)

Larry's picture

Moderator

Dan Miller wrote:
Mark Driscoll does not belong in the group he was placed in. They need to work on research.
Where do you think he belongs?

Mike Harding's picture

Culturally conservative has to do with appropriate dress, modesty, worship style, standards for acceptable entertainment, and the like. Many use to approach these issues with simply a catalogue method. Today, many are approaching the same issues with a principial methodology which allows for changing applications in keeping with a world that is constantly in a state of flux.

Pastor Mike Harding

Greg Linscott's picture

DM wrote:
Mark Driscoll does not belong in the group he was placed in. They need to work on research.

Interesting that you centered on Driscoll. Would you agree with J.I Packer's positioning, which matches Driscoll's?

Whatever else, I think it might be a wrong direction to pit your disagreement with a lack of research. It would seem to me that this is not a matter of research, but of disagreeing with the conclusion that was drawn, which is not so much a matter of facts adding up as it is a judgment call. Straub obviously was teetering on his call, as indicating by positioning Driscoll (and Packer) on the right of that column rather than the middle (as three other prominent names were).

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

James Bliss's picture

I can actually pull elements out of 4 of the classifications. Some people will automatically toss me into a classification with the most liberal bias as a result. But I am more conservative in certain areas than many who would classify themselves in the more conservative classifications. Some of this arises from the decision of how much interpretation of the Bible is done versus how much literal acceptance. I know many historic fundamentalists (how they would see themselves) who impose interpretations on verses which I would read literally. Also problematic is the weight which a person places on one commandment or doctrine versus another.

That being said, a survey such as this is very problematic in that many people indicate they fall within one or another classification within the taxonomy but their actions indicate differently. The difference between words and actions is a common problem in the human race and is usually a significant problem in deriving a taxonomy based upon personal beliefs. This is further complicated by the listener's interpretation of the words which are said and/or the actions of the individual. Having worked in defining taxonomies for lesser complex objects, and observed the problems, I find it interesting to see someone attempt to derive a Christian taxonomy for humans.

Ah well, my 2 cents...

Dan Miller's picture

Larry wrote:
Dan Miller wrote:
Mark Driscoll does not belong in the group he was placed in. They need to work on research.
Where do you think he belongs?
DOESN'T FIT:
He is definitely a complementarian.
He seems to believe strongly that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are connected. He doesn't follow the applications that most fundamentalists do. However, he does have some applications that he is pretty insistent on, sometimes to the point of seeming ready to be judgmental.
He does emphasize the doctrinal core central to the Gospel - and certainly does not minimize eternal punishment.
I believe he's non-cessationist.
He's expository and emphasizes it.
He has engaged in ~separation~ (see his history with McLaren, et al). He would not apply it as Fundies would.

DOES FIT:
He does have little *concern over musical style. *In a certain sense that I think the chart implies.

I think he actually fits pretty well in "Evangelical Right."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: The Bible as the inerrant:
I wouldn't want to comment as the notes are pretty short. But I would say that perhaps except for the *hyper-fundy, fundies would believe in inerrancy, but require that Scripture be understood using a historical-grammatical-literal hermeneutic. History and grammar are both part of culture. So how does that differ from "The Bible is the Word of God and inerrant when culturally understood"?

Greg, I'm less knowledgeable about Packer. And you might be right about my comments on research. People tend, though, to assume a lot of things about Driscoll.

Larry's picture

Moderator

Thanks Dan.

I don't think he believes strongly that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are connected. In most cases, I don't even think he believes there is orthopraxy. His "right hand" list is pretty short, and it's not merely about applications. I think he is pretty well on the line between the two. He separated from McLaren, et al, but not from Schuller, which is strange to say the least. I don't think he applies separation even as a new evangelical would, in many cases. He, like most, is a pretty strange bird in some ways .. meaning that he doesn't easily fit a mold, but very few do. Packer is probably less orthodox than Driscoll is. That's why I don't think charts are helpful. They oversimplify things. It is easier just to look at what a person says and does.

Ed Vasicek's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
I'd be in that category because I'm pretty culturally conservative... though I've compromised in a huge way to allow myself to grow a beard.... and only then because I decided that beards are culturally conservative. Biggrin (Especially long, flowing white ones, but I'm not ready to try that yet)

Growing a beard is simply being more like Jesus. How could that be a compromise?

"The Midrash Detective"

Jamie Hart's picture

Why do we like labels so much? IMO, labels like these fail to do what they are intended to do. They fail to define with any clarity. I can't find a one of these that I'm comfortable wearing. Like many others have said, I'm a mix...and claiming any one of these is going to stick me in a category that really has little meaning outside of this discussion...and may cause some to make judgement calls without knowing my heart.

Some will label and sort...and that can hinder the unity Christ has called us to. For example, if someone would say "I'm leaning Evangelical Right", others may say "He's not a Fundamentalist" or "He's a compromiser"...and they get put on the "Need to separate from" shelf. It's easy. "He's 'Evangelical Right' and we separate from those guys." When if the we would have taken the time to get to the know the heart, the love that person has for Christ and the stands they are taking instead of taking the easy label and sort route, we would find a co-laborer we can thank God for...and maybe even one we can shoulder up with to make our ministry more effective!

Labels are great for soup...not so great for Christians.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Labels are an analysis tool and don't have to have any value outside a particular discussion. I don't think it's possible to analyze something without some labeling, nor can we really talk about much anything without them. It's really awkward to say "a person who believes the Green Bay Packers are the best football team" over and over when you can just say "Packer Fan." And when it comes to doctrine and practice, that problem is compounded... you'd need whole paragraphs instead of, say "dispensationalist." So, the labels never fit what they describe perfectly and some less useful than others, but in general, I don't think we can live without them.
In this case, Jeff's talking about history and relating it to the present and future, and whenever you're doing "bird's eye" sweeps over large landscapes, you have to generalize... hence, labels.

Becky Petersen's picture

According to the chart, where do you think Joel Osteen would fit? (I'm asking because I don't know and not because I'm trying to pick a fight. Lol

Rev Karl's picture

Ed Vasicek wrote:
Aaron Blumer wrote:
I'd be in that category because I'm pretty culturally conservative... though I've compromised in a huge way to allow myself to grow a beard.... and only then because I decided that beards are culturally conservative. Biggrin (Especially long, flowing white ones, but I'm not ready to try that yet)

Growing a beard is simply being more like Jesus. How could that be a compromise?


"If God had meant for you to have hair on your face, He would have given it to you!" (Of all the things Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. said in chapel during my sojourn at The University, why is it I remember *this* one?:-))

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Rev Karl wrote:

"If God had meant for you to have hair on your face, He would have given it to you!" (Of all the things Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. said in chapel during my sojourn at The University, why is it I remember *this* one?:-))

Maybe because of the utter ridiculousness of that statement coming from someone who made a lot of statements that were worthy of some respect?

Dr. Bob Jr. said a lot when I was there, but it was classics like this one that really stick in my memory.

I graduated from the university in '85, and since that time I have *never* once been clean shaven, and barring a medical reason, or something similar, I intend to keep it that way.

Dave Barnhart

Dave Barnhart

rogercarlson's picture

I loved Dr. Bob Jr. but that is silly. Even a couple of years ago when I was starting to grow my mustache (can't grow a beard b/c of FD restrictions), one fundy friend who is in ministry said something to the effect of..."it may not be sinful to have a beard, but most with beards look like scoundrals..." LOL.

After I grew my mustache, a lady in my church told me she remembered an evangelist coming through saying to never trust a pastor with facial hair...LOL

I look back and for the life of me can't figure out how that it became sinful for men to look like men. Oh well....

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Charlie's picture

Here is an excerpt from reformer Johann Eberlin's Fifteen Confederates, a vision of a Protestant utopian land called "Wolfaria" (land of welfare). Methinks that Fundamentalist Bible colleges are the distant progeny of Eberlin, but they mixed up the translation.

Beards. All men are to wear long beards. Men with smooth faces like women shall be held an outrage. All men shall wear short, unkempt hair.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Rev Karl wrote:
"If God had meant for you to have hair on your face, He would have given it to you!" (Of all the things Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. said in chapel during my sojourn at The University, why is it I remember *this* one?:-))
Are you sure you didn't dream that one? (While sleeping in chapel?)

Quote:
but most with beards look like scoundrals.
Well, we're all scoundrels anyway... Rom3.23.

About Joel Osteen... good question. I'm pretty sure he'd gladly claim "broad evangelicalism," and given how broad it is, I don't think I'd disagree.

Greg Long's picture

I'm pretty sure the OT prophets had goatees.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Becky Petersen's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

About Joel Osteen... good question. I'm pretty sure he'd gladly claim "broad evangelicalism," and given how broad it is, I don't think I'd disagree.

Thanks Aaron. Smile I was surprised he wasn't on the chart.

Charlie's picture

How one constructs a taxonomy reveals much about where they stand. For example, there is a sizeable group of Reformed theologians who would say, "We're not evangelical; we're Reformed." For them, evangelicals are Christians who believe that God moves savingly on a soul without ecclesiastical intermediaries, but who do not hold a historic Protestant confession of faith. So, if a Reformed person of this persuasion created a taxonomy, all of you fundamentalists would be in with the evangelicals (maybe a different subgroup) while the Reformed and Lutheran would get their own label - "Confessional Protestants."

Straub's taxonomy, though it has lots of categories, is really based on separation. That's because separation is an important issue for him. If we change what's "really important," we can end up with a radically different restructuring of taxonomies. It's worth pondering the "theory of taxonomy relativity" to realize that our labels are not really objective, but from a particular perspective. That being said, there could be multiple taxonomies of Christendom that all make sense, but from different perspectives.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Yes, I think Straub would also agree that you can analyze the landscape along more than one axis.... I'm not sure though that the difference would be all that huge given that the better confessions mostly articulate the core doctrines of the faith in different ways. So the left half of the taxonomy is probably not much altered. The right end, yes... the confessions don't deal a whole lot with separation questions (that I've noticed anyway)

But, for that matter, we could do a taxonomy on baptism... pedobaptists, non-pedobaptists, baptism-flexible, baptism-required-for-membership vs. not, sprinkle, immerse only, immerse whenever not medically impossible, etc. There are so many possibilities. But the piece is about fundamentalism's present and future (and past) so it's about the issues that distinguish fundamentalists from others and from one another.

Jay's picture

I went with New Image, although I'm strongly attracted to Evangelicalism Right. I was actually kind of split between New Image and Historic, but decided that "orthodoxy and orthopraxy connected" and "doctrinal core essential to the Gospel" were significant enough to merit jumping into that category.

I also disagree with the placement Driscoll and Packer on the stream; I also think that MacLaren should be moved into the "neo-orthodox" category.

I liked the description of "Cultural Fundamentalist" - it's a term that I've used when talking about Fundyism with my wife. Nice to see someone else out there thinking along the same lines.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells