The fundamentalist blog Sharper Iron is running a series of posts by Dr. Jeff Straub of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Minneapolis) on the future of fundamentalism. The series is entitled “The Fundamentalist Challenge for the 21st Century: Do We Have a Future?”. The first post is quite good.
The post links to a chart describing the different groups within fundamentalism. The chart goes on to describe a few groups within evangelicalism as well. I’m always impressed by such charts, and the word “taxonomy” just sounds so smart. No, actually, it really does help, especially for those who have changed from one category to another (as I have).
I am in general agreement with the chart as a whole, although there will probably be exceptions to the rule, and a few people listed that don’t fit exactly where they are listed on the chart. I think it’s a helpful chart all in all, and wanted to point you to it.
Click here to find the chart (you can also save it, as it is a .pdf file).
The chart splits Fundamentalism up into 3 categories: Hyper Fundamentalism, Historic Fundamentalism, and New Image Fundamentalism. Evangelicalism also finds itself a tripartite being: Evangelical Right, Broad Evangelicalism, and Evangelical Left. Then there’s Neo-orthodoxy and Radical Non-orthodoxy. Currently I find myself at times within the Evangelical Right category and at times in the New Image Fundamentalism category.
Let me know what you think, and be sure to read the next parts of Straub’s assessment of fundamentalism.
Would be interested to know who on the chart doesn’t fit in a particular category in your thinking. Appreciate your insights.
Well for one example, Mark Driscoll is placed in the Broad Evangelical category which is stated as being egalitarian. Driscoll is complementarian. He also doesn’t have a “minimalist view of orthodoxy”. That’s the main exception I noticed, but others listed in the Broad camp also would not be egalitarian, Packer doesn’t seem like he would be, I’m not sure.
One other thing about this is interesting to me, the hyper fundamentalism group is described as going beyond the fundamentals in a certain area. The example in Straub’s post that is given, is the KJV Only issue. However, on the music issue, which is not a fundamental, it seems the historic fundamentalist grouping often elevates the music issue almost to a level of separation or fellowship. So “hyper” could be more in the eye of the beholder, than a strict definition.
Hope this helps a bit.
Thanks for dropping by.
Bob
I viewed the chart and found it interesting. I don’t think Jeff Straub characterized John Mac correctly as he is definitely a cessationist.
For me, there is more in play. Because I am with lost people all day (work in technology), the term fundamentalist means either nothing or nothing good to the people with which I interact.
I can say that I am definitely NOT a hyper F, that I am a strong 5 PT Calvinist, and I am a dispensationalist & cessationist.
Another couple of rows would be helpful: I believe that moderation in drinking is permitted and I question the value of a Bible college education
There are definitely limitations to any kind of chart. John Mac is in a category that includes both cessationists and non-cessationists (but they tend to be less full blown charismatic friendly). He is on the right hand side of the column which I think is intended to reflect that he’s more to the right in that group than others in it.
More rows would be helpful, but still it is fairly accurate. But no one wants the label hyper fundamentalist. I was impressed that the chart labeled the hyper fundy group as the more numerous group. That seems to hold true in my opinion as I survey the fundamentalist landscape.
I reformed from a hyper fundamentalist stance (although to the left of that group, better than most) to where I am today. Anyway I find some value in these discussions, but you are right that we’re all fundamentalists to the onlooking world around us.
Thanks for dropping by, Jim. If you’ve never seen some of my posts on the subject of alcohol, you may be interested. I take your position. My category on wine, has some interesting debates in the comment sections of the various posts, too.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
I struggle to see the point in this, honestly.
For one, I think it’s impossible to get a proper taxonomy, so there needs to be a real good reason why one would even attempt to produce one – and I can’t think of any. I also disagree with some of the names, such as Driscoll, as you pointed out, Bob. And as a Crown graduate, Clarence Sexton certainly doesn’t belong in a group that’s ‘anti-calvinistic’ (he’s certainly no calvinist but he appreciates historic calvinists and associates with many right now, even to the point of working with them for the kingdom) and devoted to topical preaching, for one of the best things, if not the ONLY redeemable quality about Crown’s academics was its emphasis on expository preaching. Yes, it’s a SOTL-affiliated school and so the parade of preachers (to borrow a term from Phil Johnson) that ran across the chapel platform were topical and, at times, very hyper-fundie. But that’s not the whole story.
And what I just said about Sexton, someone else will say about David Cloud, and D.A. Waite (I find it odd he’d pick these guys and not a Schaap or Shelton Smith – D.A. Waite is very, very , VERY devoted to expository preaching). It just shows that trying to identify the theological persuasions of others is a task done in ignorance, and therefore, insulting. Why not let people tell you where they stand? I for one have been accused of being somewhere I’m not, and Bob, you know that all to well.
The title also bothers me. “Do we have a future?” Who’s the “we”? It’s certainly not “the church.” or “Christianity” – it’s fundamentalism. What is so great about fundamentalism as a movement that it needs to be preserved? The Reformers had their day, the Puritans theirs, and the fundamentalists have seen their day as a movement . But the more I think about this issue the more I’m convinced that it’s so not about movements anymore. It’s about the church, Christianty, the people of God. Do we have a future? For sure (Matt 16:16-18; Rev 20)! We can take what we’ve learned about the spirit of fundamentalism just like we’ve taken the spirit of the Reformation and the spirit of Puritans and so on, taking the good, rejecting the bad, and getting on with the big picture. As for me and my house, I see nothing worthy in trying to redeem fundamentalism and preserve it as a movement.
I hear ya, Damien. I’m interested in how the movement assesses itself, however. I think there is some value, and the next two posts by Straub have been thought provoking. I do know where you’re coming from, though.
Hey Damien,
I don’t think these guys have any real clue who the hyper fundies are anymore, they are really disconnected. The same could be said on the other side. Most hyper fundies have no idea who Kevin Bauder is and they think that if you belong to the GARB you are a neo evangelical. In their estimation those are the only two columns: fundy or neo.
Here’s another taxonomy from Kevin Bauder. It was shared at Sharper Iron in the discussion on this series of articles:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/22115897/Bauders-Taxonomy