Roger Olson on "Christian Fundamentalism"

….except for #1. I’m young earth—don’t get me wrong—but I hesitate to say “crucial” (that is, “of the cross”) doctrine. Important, yes, crucial, no.

This guy is really quite clueless. I would say, it is as futile to try and define “fundamentalist” as it was to try and define “emergent”. Generalities might apply, but you’ll never quite pin it down so it might be best to stop trying.

points 1 and 2. But the rest are out there.

Of course Olson was the same one who wrote the chapter arguing for post-conservative evangelicalism in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. And of course Kevin Bauder wrote the chapter for Historic Fundamentalism.

At first I was going to agree with him because most people who would claim those things would identify as Fundamentalists. It was this comment “Normally, a fundamentalist embraces all or most of these beliefs.” where he lost me. Do people who believe those things claim fundamentalism? Yes. Do the majority, or even a significant minority, of people who are fundamentalists believe those things? No.

if you read the whole article, you can see he has a good grasp of his subject. His beginning points are samples of distinguishing marks that in his mind tend to characterize fundamentalism. You can quibble with those points, or the way he states them, but in the end, his article is not simply trying to provide a quick checklist as a definition. He clearly has a good grasp of the history and the characteristics. Don’t miss out on what he is saying because of an objection to one or two or a half of one of his bullet points.