"We [fundamentalists] should write more"

[Jay]

josh p wrote:

I too believe we will see a change in this area over the next generation. A big part of the reason for lack of fundamentalist books is that none of the schools really have a peer reviewed journal so there is little opportunity for scholarship to be encouraged and honed. I consider Detroit’s journal to be excellent but I wonder how many non-fundamentalists (or fundamentalists for that matter) even know it exists.

Well, I don’t know about that, but I do know that both Phil Johnson and Dan Phillips have heartily recommended DBTS and Dr. Bauder. I think John Piper has as well, and I know he has been open about his relationship and love for BJU…he talks about that in his book “A Tribute To My Father” So I do think that it does exist. And I think, as much as we ought to, we should reciprocate it back to them for the greater glory of God.

Yeah I know there have been some good exchanges back and forth which is why I think fundamental works will increase and be a help to all of conservative Christianity. Those of us with children should be careful not to impart an “us against them” mentality. If we do it right the next generation of fundamentalists can be serious about properly handling God’s word and making right applications that bring God glory. Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who will accomplish it though so this would be a great thing to regularly pray for.

[Larry]

Sorry, but the level of scholarship presented is not on par with someone like Erickson, Grudem, or even Ryrie.

I wonder if you might give us an idea of how you concluded this along with some examples.

Larry,

I have gone back and reviewed my notes on McCune’s Systematic. For our ministry leadership class, our pastor required us to write a five-page summary of what we read and learned for each chapter (or group of chapters) that we covered. This morning, I went back and reviewed some of my summaries.

In the conclusion of my summary of his prolegomena, I commented that “Overall, McCune’s prolegomena provides a cursory introduction and understanding of systematic theology. Much of what McCune has written in his prolegomena is also found in other conservative evangelical systematic texts. On some topics (e.g. the source of theology), it would have been helpful to the reader for McCune to provide additional rationale or explanation for his particular position instead of just quoting from various sources as examples. As the reader continues working through A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, he hopes McCune will provide a more robust proclamation of the various doctrines of Scripture.”

In the conclusion of my summary of chapter 2, I commented that “Overall, this chapter on the doctrine of Scripture would have been more helpful had it been clearer in places. Sometimes McCune will make an assumption without fully supporting it, and other times he will make statements that seem confusing if not contradictory. For example, in his discussion of the nature of inspiration, he does not clarify his exact position until the second excursus. However, what he calls concursive inspiration is also considered by some to be a form of dynamic inspiration. This was confusing at first because McCune denounces dynamic inspiration as denying propositional truth, but then later he appears to hold to a form of dynamic inspiration. Again, additional clarity and explanation from McCune would help the reader to better understand McCune’s positions in chapter two.”

In the conclusion of my summary of chapter 3, I commented that “In summary, McCune spends most of his time in chapter three quoting and paraphrasing Charles Ryrie. While this chapter, with its brief (and, to me, unsatisfying) explanations may be somewhat helpful to those not familiar with dispensationalism or covenant theology, the reader would be better served to read Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie along with God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology by Michael Horton. And, although McCune views progressive dispensationalism as “an unwelcome aberration and wholly unsatisfactory as an approach to understanding Scripture,” the reader would also be well served to examine Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising’s Progressive Dispensationalism. In working through all the issues involved in theological and hermeneutical method, this reader found it helpful to get the various perspectives of all the theological systems from their proponents rather than rely on the characterizations of their opponents. While it was outside of the scope of this chapter to exhaustively compare and contrast classic dispensationalism with covenant theology or even progressive dispensationalism, there could have been more effort given to at least framing these two alternative approaches. On the whole, McCune is once again brief to a fault in chapter three.”

When discussing one of his later chapters, I wrote, “One of the most frustrating things about McCune is that he does not adequately explain the terms he uses or the positions he takes. Here again, McCune fails to explain exactly what ethical monism is, why Strong advocated it, and the problems associated with it. Instead, the reader is left either scratching his head or heading off to other sources to fill in the gaps.”

Larry, my intent here is not to bash Dr. McCune. My point was just that his Systematic did not exhibit the level of depth and scholarship that conservative evangelical commentaries usually do. As we studied his systematic, I remember all of us in the ministry leadership/training class feeling McCune left out a lot of helpful and needful information.