Kent Brandenburg: "I'm not a fundamentalist"

dcbii:

I appreciate your comments. I’ve only been hanging around here for about 19 months, and I am sure there is a lot of history I don’t know about!

I believe some folks honestly deserve to be written off, and even deserve to be mocked and laughed at. Other folks should be read and interacted with seriously, even if we don’t agree with them. To my way of thinking, Bro. Brandenburg is in the latter category. Other folks, who burn NIV’s and put in on YouTube, or who write hysterical anti-Calvinist screeds, just don’t deserve to be taken seriously. They don’t have either (1) the mental capacity or (2) the willingness and honesty to really look at the issue they disagree with.

I’m all for making fun of people when they deserve to be made fun of!

–––––—

On the label “fundamentalist;” I believe some things are really non-negotiable. Others have wiggle-room. Some things in Scripture are explicit and implicit teachings. Others are less clear. Lines in the sand are drawn by everyone. We can’t draw lines in the sand around everything; nobody will ever agree. We have to draw a circle and take a stand somewhere.

I think the “fundamentals” are the things to stand on, and I do think they are fundamental. More fundamental, at least, than the mode of Baptism or one’s view on the millennium. This last remark about “mode of baptism” not being a fundamental of the faith will rile some, including perhaps Bro. Brandeburg. That is fine; I’ve drawn my own line in the sand that demarks what theological orthodoxy and genuine Christianity is. The fundamentals are the bare minimum; actual fellowship is another matter. But that’s a topic for another time.

That idea of subjectivism was Mohler’s chief criticism of Bauder’s position in the “four views” book:

Kevin provides a rubric for analyzing when a difference must produce separation. He calls it a “matrix” that includes the level of fellowship proposed, an honest assessment , an attitudinal analysis, and a proper “weighing” of these matters. He concludes by stating, “Ultimately Christians must make their own judgments for each unique case . Naturally, all Christians will not make the same judgment.” Really? The fundamentalist position leaves us with that much possible variance? (Kindle Locations 760-764).

It was very ironic that Mohler, after offering this critique, went on to offer his own “theological triage” that was just as individually subjective as Bauder’s lines of fellowship:

In this light, the goal of applying a discipline like theological triage would be to avoid doctrinal collapse in terms of first-order doctrines , on the one hand, and doctrinal preoccupation and schism over third-order doctrines, on the other. In this model, we expect debates over the second-order issues to be the most difficult in terms of definition and identity. (Kindle Locations 1289-1291).

Either the line gets drawn somewhere, or we simple tenaciously defend everything and allow little room for disagreement. Is everything critical, or are some things of first importance? I’m willing to say there are fundamentals of the faith, and they are of first importance. So, I’ll take the label.

[Jim]

Agreed. Let a person own their own labels.

More: Puxoxfordistism​. I’m a Puxoxfordistialist. What’s a Puxoxfordistialist? I just made up the word. It has no meaning.

But puxoxfordistism is a better word that fundamentalism because, while it is void of meaning, at least it has not been reinvented, revisionalized for the umpteenth time. At least puxoxfordistism does not have the negative connotation of fundamentalism: One could envision Schaap, Westboro, or 9/11

Admit it, Jim. You’re really a hyper-puxoxfordistialist. :)

[TylerR]

I believe some folks honestly deserve to be written off, and even deserve to be mocked and laughed at. Other folks should be read and interacted with seriously, even if we don’t agree with them. To my way of thinking, Bro. Brandenburg is in the latter category. Other folks, who burn NIV’s and put in on YouTube, or who write hysterical anti-Calvinist screeds, just don’t deserve to be taken seriously. They don’t have either (1) the mental capacity or (2) the willingness and honesty to really look at the issue they disagree with.

Tyler, there’s no doubt that this is part of it. SI was, when it was started, intended to be for self-identified fundamentalists in doctrine (even if they did not use the term), with a doctrinal statement that was very similar to that of the ACCC. That was the limiting factor, so that there could be profitable interaction and discussion. Certainly, there have been those that use that label that have come espousing things that were really outside those bounds, and those, we don’t really need to interact with, as you said, and some were banned very quickly.

Obviously, while I consider Kent to be in your latter category, there are certainly also some here which put him more in the former and don’t believe he is worthy of interaction, though I’m fairly certain a large number of those who really opposed him strongly are no longer here either. I think there will continue to be disagreement as to how to categorize him, especially since he states he is no fundamentalist, so I don’t see that going away any time soon. A number of us will continue to read him at his blog and interact there, and some will take potshots. That seems to be par for the course on both sides, as plenty of SI mockers have participated at his sites. We can’t get rid of all of it without shutting down the free interaction so much that discussion here really would no longer be of value.

I laughed hard recently when reading this thread of a debate between Kent and the Remonstrans dude even though it is hard to pick who to cheer for. http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2012/09/21/it_s_like_having_two_headac…

Seriously funny. Love how Kent defends his music qualifications by saying he had his children take music lessons. That in a nutshell is my problem with Kent. He does not even know what he does not know.

[GregH] Seriously funny. Love how Kent defends his music qualifications by saying he had his children take music lessons. That in a nutshell is my problem with Kent. He does not even know what he does not know.

Actually, GregH, you ought to re-read what he wrote. There’s a lot more there than just giving his kids music lessons:​

I have four children, all of which have played or play in orchestras. I’ve been on the board of directors for two [orchestras -Jay] for several years, was honored a couple of years ago by the California Association of Symphony Orchestras. This last summer two of my daughters played in the golden hall in Vienna and the Dvorak hall in Prague. My son played principle trombone in nation’s second oldest youth orchestra, won the concerto competition, played in the California all-state band, and is now a firstie at the United States Military Academy. Most of our church young people play in orchestra. Yesterday, I talked for an hour and a half with our conductor, David Ramadanoff. My wife and I have used 25% of our budget on piano and violin lessons for our children with excellent teachers.
I left fundamentalism over 15 years ago. For over a decade, with no help from you or fundamentalism, our church has sung every service from either or both the Trinity hymnal and a Scottish versification of the Hebrew psalms. A few of the men you mentioned are dead, and I have nothing to do with any of them, but you go right ahead if you think it helps your fantasy. For 25 years I have preached and taught exposition from the Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible in its context, now toward the end of my last book, Luke. Our church is unaffiliated. Every position we take is both scriptural and historical.

If he’s been on the board of two separate orchestras and was honored by the CASO, I think he probably knows a fair bit about music. I’m pretty sure that the half hour conversation with his conductor wasn’t about the difference between 3/4 and 6/8 time.

I would - and have - disagreed strongly with Kent many times (re-read the old KJV translation forums sometime) and in more than a few ways, but the one thing I can’t question is either Kent’s intelligence or integrity. He is a very sharp person, and I was challenged by what he has said. To write him off as someone who knows nothing or who defends his qualifications ‘because his children took music lessons’ is rude condescending.

And speaking of headaches - now I remember why I don’t read dissidens or remonstrans any more. Oy.

Sorry but talking with a music conductor for an hour and a half does not make someone a music expert. Neither does being on the board of a few local orchestras (you may know this but the typical small orchestra would likely would take about anyone with a pulse to be on their board). You may not know the music culture very well Jay but I know what all his “qualifications” add up to. They do not qualify him as a music expert. They qualify him as the parent of music students. But that is not the problem. People are allowed to not be music experts. The problem is that he takes his “non-expert” music status and browbeats people like MacArthur over their music. That is what is rude and condescending.

Irrelevant attacks on Brandeburg, without interacting with the actual article, remind me a little of this. Much sound and fury, achieving nothing …

[KLengel]

dmyers,

First of all, you don’t know me. Second, I don’t believe I nor Kent are hyper-fundamentalists. I have read Dr. Bauder’s characterization of hyper-fundamentalists, and I can tell you that I am not. Third, I think labelling people in general is not a very Christ-like thing, especially when using perjorative labels for others. Fourth, many on this board constantly challenge those who are more conservative than themselves in this fashion, regardless of the intellectual and thoughtful scholarship of those men. I would suggest that some on this forum show a lack of appreciation for scholarship and use innuendo many times in response to others. Those are clear signs of hyper-fundamentalists. Perhaps you should look in the mirror in your glass house.

KML

No, not more innuendo; in fact, no innuendo at all. I don’t think innuendo means what you think it means. You’re right that I don’t know you, but I do know what you wrote, and I was responding to that. Are you saying that what you wrote doesn’t mean what it says because of who you are? I don’t get it.

I understand that you don’t accept the label hyper-fundamentalist, or even fundamentalist. However, that doesn’t mean the label is unfair, inaccurate, or pejorative, unless you think it’s pejorative for someone to disagree with you, which I certainly do.

Brandenburg as “more conservative” than me? Yes, I suppose so, though I worry that that label is bad for conservatives. Brandenburg exhibiting “intellectual and thoughtful scholarship”? Can’t agree at all with that. You’re forgetting that I read what he wrote. Again, no innuendo, just straight up disagreement and “lack of appreciation” for illogic and unscriptural extremism.

[TylerR]

I believe some folks honestly deserve to be written off, and even deserve to be mocked and laughed at. Other folks should be read and interacted with seriously, even if we don’t agree with them. To my way of thinking, Bro. Brandenburg is in the latter category. Other folks, who burn NIV’s and put in on YouTube, or who write hysterical anti-Calvinist screeds, just don’t deserve to be taken seriously. They don’t have either (1) the mental capacity or (2) the willingness and honesty to really look at the issue they disagree with.

But the cited post by Brandenburg does contain a hysterical (i.e., incoherent) anti-Calvinist screed. He says:

Here’s a tough one now for fundamentalists, which shows why it is hard to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists separated from the Southern Baptist Convention. Calvinism is growing in fundamentalism. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is Calvinist. The Convention still harbors a false gospel among many. However, it seems that fundamentalists can now fellowship with Southern Baptists and Calvinism is the glue. Calvinist fundamentalists will fellowship, again, it seems, with Southern Baptist Calvinists. Those same Calvinists have a much bigger problem with the King James Version than they do Southern Baptist Calvinists. Go figure. Perhaps, go try to figure, because you won’t understand the doctrine of it.
Maybe I can’t say that Calvinist fundamentalists hate the revivalist fundamentalists. Maybe hate is too strong a word. But that’s what it seems like. The Calvinist fundamentalists seem to like the Southern Baptist Calvinists more than the fundamentalist revivalists. I’m laughing.

dmyers,

And I thought hyper-fundamentalists were the uneducated ones…

(There are other labels that come readily to mind, but I suppose it wouldn’t necessarily be constructive to go there.)

Who died, and allowed you to determine what label fits what I believe. It is inaccurate. Most who use it, do so for perjorative reasons, and you use it because you can’t argue someone’s position, only call them names. Wow, alot of academic scholarship there!

Prove his positions are wrong, don’t just blather on about how he is bad for conservative thinking.

KML

You wrote:

But the cited post by Brandenburg does contain a hysterical (i.e., incoherent) anti-Calvinist screed.

The difference is that Brandenburg can explain why he isn’t a Calvinist, and why he disagrees with that soteriology!

[KLengel]

dmyers,

And I thought hyper-fundamentalists were the uneducated ones…

(There are other labels that come readily to mind, but I suppose it wouldn’t necessarily be constructive to go there.)

Who died, and allowed you to determine what label fits what I believe. It is inaccurate. Most who use it, do so for perjorative reasons, and you use it because you can’t argue someone’s position, only call them names. Wow, alot of academic scholarship there!

Prove his positions are wrong, don’t just blather on about how he is bad for conservative thinking.

KML

I don’t remember saying anything about anyone else’s education. And I don’t think mine is one you want to try to disparage.

To answer your over-sensitive question: obviously I’m not “determin[ing] what label fits what [you] believe” in any ultimate sense. I’m not God, or even the Pope, so I don’t decree anything. My statement that you and Brandenburg are accurately described as hyper-fundamentalists is, it should go without saying, my opinion. I imagine it’s one that would be shared by quite a number of SI participants. You disagree. Fine. I’m not offended. The only name-calling here has come from you. I think it’s probably best that we not continue this discussion any further because it’s too personal for you.

For future reference, if you want to claim the educational and scholarly high ground in a discussion, it’s pejorative, not “perjorative.”

KLengel, I may have missed it as I was reading through the posts, but I was curious as to how you would define Baptist as you use it to describe yourself and how that would differ from others who call themselves Baptists. (If you are not a Baptist, please forgive me for assuming you were, I just wanted a bit of clarification as I contemplated your positions). Thank you.

[TylerR]

You wrote:

But the cited post by Brandenburg does contain a hysterical (i.e., incoherent) anti-Calvinist screed.

The difference is that Brandenburg can explain why he isn’t a Calvinist, and why he disagrees with that soteriology!

I assume that almost everyone who engages in an anti-Calvinist screed can explain why they aren’t a Calvinist. That doesn’t determine whether their screed is hysterical — that is determined by their tone, their coherence, and their accuracy in describing Calvinism (perhaps among other things). Using those criteria, I’d describe the two Brandenburg paragraphs I quoted as hysterical. (And they appear in the midst of an essay that overall is hysterical, which I gather is a characteristic of Brandenburg’s essays.)

I asked KLengel the same basic question several days ago and he has yet to answer. I kind of gave up since Greg L. Asked Mr. Brandenburg the same basic question on his blog and I was able to read that response.