Don’t have a lot of time to comment on this, but for those of you following trends in fundamentalism, this survey will be of interest. It includes responses from 20 seminary students or full-time servants in Christian ministry — all in their 20s and 30s (which qualifies you to be a “Young Fundamentalist” apparently).
Pastor Jeremy Sweat conducted the survey, and you can download the results, as a PDF, here. The survey was part of a workshop for the 2011 FBFI National Conference. The respondents represent a wide range of views, but are mostly positive of fundamentalism (compared to other surveys I’ve read).
Just wanted to make you aware of the survey. Interested in any feedback you might have. I may excerpt some from it in the upcoming days when I have more time.
I’d like to know to whom he spoke. It isn’t indicative of the young fundamentalists that I know.
20 respondents doesn’t exactly make it a scientific survey, but hey it may be worth the look
Yes, I agree. It’s interesting though. But not very scientific or representative, necessarily.
Two quick comments –
1) I agree with Joshua. Twenty is such a small sample that the information is cannot be scaled or analyzed in any meaningful way. This information should not be published and no sound conclusions can be drawn from it – I say this not having bothered to look at the results.
2) Regarding the phrase, “full-time servants”. We are all full-time servants of Christ. That revivalistic phrase is one I’d like to see disappear from modern fundamentalism.
Agree on both points. I was struggling in how to describe the subset, so I fell back on that terminology.
Two quick comments –
1) I agree with Joshua. Twenty is such a small sample that the information is cannot be scaled or analyzed in any meaningful way. This information should not be published and no sound conclusions can be drawn from it – I say this not having bothered to look at the results.
2) Regarding the phrase, “full-time servants”. We are all full-time servants of Christ. That revivalistic phrase is one I’d like to see disappear from modern fundamentalism.
Andrew
I listened to the audio of this last week and as representative as he would like to think the answers are I don’t think this is good enough. I would like to know who answered the questions because they all sound like they are in one faction of Fundamentalism. Just reading through their book choices and answer to the definition of Fundamentalism question tells me pretty much who most of these guys are. Even some of my friends who are more in the center of Fundamentalism could not fit most of this answers given.
The most telling thing I got from this was their responses to the separation question(s).
Plus, the connection w/ Phelps at this conference does not site well with me for obvious reasons:)
Yea it was interesting to see some KJV Only people included too.
I’m puzzled by the Phelps thing too, although perhaps some of these people think it’s him being persecuted and would like to ask how he handles it or something…
The most encouraging aspect, from my viewpoint, is the strong emphasis upon expository preaching. This is a huge change from the fundamentalism I grew up in, where expository preaching was not held in high esteem. Twenty four years ago, I was invited to participate with a carefully selected group of young (then) fundamentalist leaders to asses the strengths and weaknesses of fundamentalism. When I opined that lack of expository preaching was a weakness, I received immediate sharp criticism. One or two participants approached me privately to express their agreement, but nobody wanted to say so publicly. Now, that has turned around 180 degrees. I think that bodes well for the future.
If most of these guys are seminary educated (which I think he siad they were) then I expect expository preaching as the answer. However, there is a large section of Fundamentalism that does not have this education or anything beyond college and as such do not preach this way.
Again, who answered these questions will be very telling.
Craig,
I agree. But what is new is the strong public advocacy of expository preaching. In the past, it was almost considered a New Evangelical “thing.” If you advocated it, you must be a neo. Now it is being promoted strongly in schools, conferences, and other forums that used to encourage topical as the best way for fundamentalists to preach.
Amen, Greg. Let’s be happy for that positive change, anyway. I feel that the bias toward more expositional preaching is wider than just one branch, it is slowly growing and influencing all levels of fundamentalism.
Pastor Barkman –
I’d like to see some discussion/thought on what expository preaching is. Dr. MacArthur just finished preaching the entire New Testament, but over how long a period? 30 years? We should ask ourselves if it is appropriate to spend multiple years preaching through a single book of the Bible. Especially given that these writings were written to be read in a single sitting. When we start breaking things into such small pieces, I wonder whether we are really just serving up a lot of thematic sermons which follow an orderly path of verses. I’m afraid we lose the forest from the trees with such an approach and the benefit of expository preaching is lost.
…just my $0.02
Andrew, I would have to say I could not sit under the NT for 30+ years either. I would like to see MacArthur go through the OT now. I know Piper preached through Romans over 8 years and Martin Lloyd Jones was longer than that. On the other hand Dever has already preached through the whole Bible in 15 years +/- and has even preached through many of the books in 1 sermon before he starts the series through it.
Dont confuse the definition of expository preaching with how long on takes to preach through a book in that fashion. Remember, you can expositorily preach a topic from Scripture.
I wonder how the Apostle Paul would answer if he were asked how many years it should take for a church to ‘go through’ his epistle to Romans? These large numbers do not impress me. Over the course of 8 years, one could earn a PhD in Theology. Should it really take that long to study a letter.
[quote]Dont confuse the definition of expository preaching with how long on takes to preach through a book in that fashion. Remember, you can expositorily preach a topic from Scripture.[/quote]
OK. Thanks, Craig.
Andrew, I am not impressed by the #’s either…that wasnt my point. I gave the #’s on Piper and Dever to make a point that good preachers can do more than one thing. I am sure that Piper on Romans for 8 years had good time and rough times. I am sure that people hearing Dever preach through Mark in 16 weeks were frustrated at some points that he didnt divide some chapters up into 2-3 sermons.
I think God can bless both ends.
As long as it’s expositional then I can pretty much deal with the rest:)
I believe expositional preaching is a commitment to explain the meaning of Scripture. It requires the discipline to study Scripture carefully to be sure we are handling it accurately. Being accurate is more important than being relevent, for the Bible, propertly explained is always relevent. It requires the commitment to say only what God says, and resists the temptation to make my opinions comparable to God’s Word. In short, the Bible, no more and no less. It resists the Pharisees’ penchant for elevating the traditions of men, including fundamentalitst traditions, to equality with God’s Word. It is passionate teaching with insightful application and exhortation. Topical preaching can be expository, but seldom is. A topical expository sermon is actually three or four short expositions unified by a common theme. Length of series is no problem if done well. There is no such thing as too long when preaching is excellent. Any length is too long if preaching is poorly prepared and delivered.
Great topic developing, and one that’s probably worth opening a separate post on it…. I am with you Andrew. And Greg, if it is just Scripture that is being preached, why not just read the text and leave it at that? When it takes an hour to read a letter but fifty hours or two hundred, to preach that letter, isn’t something more than Scripture getting in? I find if you chop it too fine, you end up doing sermons on one word and what it means, but that can then be stripped of the context at all, too. I like sermons that keep the big picture in mind and answer questions raised by the text.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I thought by saying expository preaching is “explaining the meaning of Scripture,” “passionate teaching,” “application” and “exhortation,” I was communicating something more than simply reading Scripture. Apparently I didn’t convey my thoughts helpfully.
No, it was me who was twisting what you said in a way. You just said that you were sticking to the Bible and not adding more, and I was trying to show that preaching IS adding MORE. It is adding explanation and insight. And if you’re adding tons of explanation and insight it can cease being expositional and become just information overload.
That said, I’d love to sit in on one of your sermons. And I don’t think you have this problem, and seriously most of us err in not doing enough, rather than preaching too slowly through books, I would think. I’m just acknowledging that Andrew has a point.
Not trying to be disagreeable, honest!
Bob,
I understand your point. I guess what I was trying to say was “The Bible, no more, no less” needs to be our motive and our goal. We should be committed to preaching/teaching everything the Bible teaches, and we should be committed to adding nothing that is human opinion not firmly anchored in the Bible. Is this goal possible? Actually, no. Should it be our constant endeavor and strong commitment? Absolutely!
Amen to that, Greg.