If you are reading my blog and you are interested in critiques of fundamentalism, you HAVE to check this discussion out! This is a link to a compilation of a discussion that raged for two or three months in the blogworld. It begins with the text of the address that Phil Johnson (a staff elder at John MacArthur’s church) gave with the title, “Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism” at the Shepherd’s Conference this year. Phil critiques independent Baptist fundamentalism from a position of one having been at a fundamentalist school and who is well acquainted with numerous fundamentalists who frequent the Shepherds’ conferences as well as others who would not do such a thing. The critique is followed by a discussion that was largely held at Sharper Iron, a blog by and for fundamentalists. The compilation gives you the best of the best in the discussion. It ends up being mainly a dialogue between Phil Johnson and Dave Doran (the president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI). In my opinion, it ends with Dave Doran kind of saying he needs to do some more thinking about this.
What makes this more interesting is that Phil is going to be doing a sequel address at this coming years Shepherd’s Conference (in spring) on the same topic. That might reopen the whole discussion.
This discussion is very enlightening as to what arguments fundamentalists have for their ecclesiastical separation position and what arguments non-fundamentalists have for their position. I encourage you all to read it (in time).
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
I read that whole “conversation.” It took me several weeks, but it was quite enlightening.
I just finished reading the articles by both Johnson and Doran. Johnson’s article is an intriguing read. Though it is sweeping in its generalizations concerning the fundamentalist movement, some of the key points of the article are valid. Fundamentalism could definitley profit from considering the problems that Johnson has with modern fundamentalism. However, Doran and Johnson both agree that neither of their articles is intended to be a scholarly work. This informality is evident in the sweeping, scathing, yet, often ungrounded attacks that Johnson makes. He appears anxious to castigate fundamentalism by highlighting every single blot or spot on the history of fundamentalism. Doran’s article is better organized. As stated above, he does admit that many of Johnson’s conclusion are valid. Doran essentially agrees that fundamentalism must evaluate itself. Yet Doran argues that Johnson’s rebuttals of fundamentalism are true of evangleical Christianity as a whole. In summation, Johnson’s article is much more readable; but, Doran’s article is more accurate and an excellent response.
Good thoughts, Todd. Be sure not to miss the discussion from the follow up presentation that Phil Johnson gave at the next year’s Shepherd’s Conference. You can see links to the discussion (and my take on it) here. (Some of the Sharper Iron links might not work, however, as they had a server crash.) Also there was a little more discussion between Phil and people on Sharper Iron here.
Thanks for stopping by. I think in these follow-up conversations, Phil was a little more careful in his critique. And his critique still does not seem to have been adequately answered.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
UPDATE:
For Dave Doran’s reflections 5 years later go here:
http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=283
For the document with the discussion between Johnson and Doran, go here:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26235196/Continuing-Dialogue-Phil-Johnson-and-David-Doran