Some of you may have missed this. Rick Phillips and Carl Trueman commented on BJU-style fundamentalism on Reformation 21’s blog [Phillips’ initial post, clarification#1, clarification #2, Trueman’s post, Phillips’ response — all these are quite brief, BTW]. Sean Lucas, of Covenant Theological Seminary, followed up with some reflections of his own [post 1, post 2], as one who graduated from both BJU and Westminster.
I don’t have much time right now to comment much on the discussions, but there is plenty of food for thought there. Rick praises fundamentalism deservedly, while Trueman and Lucas make sure we beware of errors which are especially prone in fundamentalism.
And on the heels of this discussion, Bob Bixby discusses what he sees as the “emerging middle” — a coming together of conservative evangelicals and “young” fundamentalists. His article is also worthy of attention.
I agree with much that is said by the Presbyterians from both angles, and I’m hoping that Bixby is right. With that said, what do you, my readers, think of these discussions? A penny for your thoughts!
Update: Rick Phillips has another post on this issue, responding to Sean Lucas’ posts.
I am pleasantly surprised to hear the claim that “there is not a single Arminian on the faculty of BJU.” But I’m not entirely surprised to hear there is significant Reformed presence at the school. I’ve heard of several Reformed believers who became Reformed while studying at BJU.
On another aspect, this is the first time I’ve heard the word “antithesis” applied to what fundamentalists would call “separation” (at least the fundies with whom I’m familiar). My experience with this, as Carl points out is that they can tend to develop the kind of antithesis/separation that indeed causes them to follow well in the footsteps of the New Testament “Separated Ones”: The Pharisees. But this is less and less true the further toward the middle we get. But I’m not saying anything original here.
There is certainly room to respect the fundamentalist stand on traditional, conservative doctrinal issues. My move from 4 point Arminian fundamentalism to Reformed evangelicalism happened when I began to notice that there are indeed some parallels regarding the doctrinal “antithesis” of both fundamentalists and Reformed evangelicals, with the Reformed maintaining a more intelligible, and unified stand on the scholarship of those respective stands. In other words, whereas fundies/Reformed cared about conservative theology, the Reformed beat the fundies on the scholarship level. Fundies, to be general, and perhaps jaded, seem quicker to make up their own reasons for defending conservative doctrines, while the Reformed simply had better, more intelligent, biblical and reality-based reasons. Hope that’s a little more clear, and not as redundant as I fear.
Overall, I think it’s a good thing for Phillips to expose his children to a narrower environment than they may be used to early in life. It’ll pay off in the future. Like my buddy, Gage, once pointed out: when it comes to my kid, I get to be legalistic!
Thanks for your thoughts, John. Let’s see I owe you, ah, 1 penny. That’s right. 🙂
I got my money’s worth!!
I agree there is much to think on in the exchange there. I like Sean Lucas’ comments the best. He seemed to show how some will always lean either towards a common grace, cultural transforming view, or they will lean towards an antithetical, holiness-driven culture abandonment view. We need both mentalities and need to steer clear of the extremes. Jesus transforms culture and he does it through us, yet there are abundant warnings lest the world and its anti-god world system choke the Word in our lives.
Although with the being legalistic with your kids part, I would be careful there. Its far easier to throw them a rule book, than it is to train them to be discerning.
Blessings from the cross,
Bob
Well, that was tongue-in-cheek. But what I really meant was that it can be helpful to expose them to an environment in which some kind of lifestyle standards are treated with respect.
John,
I knew it was tongue-in-cheek. You do have a good point. I was just trying to make one too!
Blessings, bro.
Bob
Not to steal anyone else’s thunder, but I don’t think that any individual or church is going to perfectly straddle the antithesis/engagement fence. As a Particular Baptist myself, we believe in the liberty of the conscience and the freedom to roam in our pursuit of our sanctification in Christ (individual sole liberty). Granted, there will be differences (even with our Arminian bretheren) in how we practice our faith, but the ‘fundamentals’ (i.e. doctrines) of our historic Christian faith still stand out, and our willingness to defend– yet engage– is something that we won’t exactly perfect in this world. We shouldn’t look at each other as “The Enemy” if we are agreed on the fundamentals.
Oh, this is such a HUGE topic, and I wish to write more!
FWIW, if anyone needs to get an estimate of time to read all of the articles that Bob links to, it will take only half an hour to read (and understand) them all. I liked Bob Bixby’s article the best.
Thanks, Larry. And you’re right there is much to say. Too much really. And since I’m involved in another series right now, I probably won’t comment more at this time.