Monday, February 20, 2006

Mark Dever on "fundamentalists," with a group-participation question

Mark Dever said the following in his Capitol Hill talk, "Church History from the Civil War to the Present":

"Those who united around the fundamentalists soon became known as the "fundamentalists." The term then had a rather precise meaning of those who affirmed the foundation, the "fundaments," the foundation of the doctrines of orthdoxy. It soon, however, became to be used more broadly and more disparagingly as it is today, to refer to a kind of militancy that's intolerant and anti-intellectual."


Question for group-participation: Is this true of today's fundamentalists?


***THIS IS MY 100th IMMODERATE POST***

6 Comments:

Blogger Ryan Martin said...

I am particularly interested in the question of whether fundamentalism is anti-intellectual. This is a common accusation. Well, are we?

2/20/2006 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Ben said...

I don't think he's saying fundamentalists are anti-intellectual. Whether Dever thinks that or not, I don't know. There is no doubt, though, that those who use fundamentalism disparagingly do think we are anti-intellectual.

My answer? Some are. Some aren't. Many circles seem to be less so than they used to be.

2/20/2006 04:12:00 PM  
Blogger Ryan Martin said...

Just to be clear, Ben, I do not think he's necessarily saying that either.

I am inclined to think that we (including myself) are anti-intellectual (though I am generalizing).

Perhaps we need to define what "anti-intellectual" is.

2/20/2006 04:14:00 PM  
Anonymous brad said...

I think a definition would be good. "Anti-" has some pretty strong connotations. Perhaps "un-" would be better. Could it be that "we" are not against thinking, but we are just unfamiliar with it. Not averse, simply unaware.

For instance... A couple of weeks ago I went through the book of Jonah on a Wednesday night showing the repeated themes of prayer, sovereignty, and salvation. Each are found approxiamately 10 times in the 4 short chapters. At the end of the time I asked, "So what is the message of the book of Jonah." Much to my chagrin, the usual answers came rolling in, obey God the 1st time, don't be a re-tread, etc.

All I got were blank stares when I told them the message of Jonah is "the just-ness of a sovereign God answering the prayers of sinners for salvation." Even after going through the book, and seeing each of the elements of that statement repeatedly mentioned, they seemed dumbfounded that the book could really meant that. Were they against the idea? No, not at all. But I think they would just as soon stick with their preconcieved "sunday school" ideas of what Jonah's purpose in the Canon is. I do not think they were against thinking, just not used to it.

2/21/2006 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Ryan Martin said...

Good points, Brad. "Un" probably is better than "anti."

I can think of several examples where we fundamentalists are guilty of this. One such is our bent towards leaders with personality and charisma over thoughtfulness. This is not a universal for the movement, but certainly a tendency.

2/21/2006 12:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fundamentalists (and others too) are most definitely anti-intellectual. pure intellectuals rely only on humanity's rational capacity. fundamentalists reserve this place for God's revelation.

when fundamentalists attempt to be "intellectual" they are at best dishonest, because they misunderstand what intellectualism really is and what presuppositions are required.

2/22/2006 05:56:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Immoderate: Mark Dever on "fundamentalists," with a group-participation question

Monday, February 20, 2006

Mark Dever on "fundamentalists," with a group-participation question

Mark Dever said the following in his Capitol Hill talk, "Church History from the Civil War to the Present":

"Those who united around the fundamentalists soon became known as the "fundamentalists." The term then had a rather precise meaning of those who affirmed the foundation, the "fundaments," the foundation of the doctrines of orthdoxy. It soon, however, became to be used more broadly and more disparagingly as it is today, to refer to a kind of militancy that's intolerant and anti-intellectual."


Question for group-participation: Is this true of today's fundamentalists?


***THIS IS MY 100th IMMODERATE POST***

6 Comments:

Blogger Ryan Martin said...

I am particularly interested in the question of whether fundamentalism is anti-intellectual. This is a common accusation. Well, are we?

2/20/2006 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Ben said...

I don't think he's saying fundamentalists are anti-intellectual. Whether Dever thinks that or not, I don't know. There is no doubt, though, that those who use fundamentalism disparagingly do think we are anti-intellectual.

My answer? Some are. Some aren't. Many circles seem to be less so than they used to be.

2/20/2006 04:12:00 PM  
Blogger Ryan Martin said...

Just to be clear, Ben, I do not think he's necessarily saying that either.

I am inclined to think that we (including myself) are anti-intellectual (though I am generalizing).

Perhaps we need to define what "anti-intellectual" is.

2/20/2006 04:14:00 PM  
Anonymous brad said...

I think a definition would be good. "Anti-" has some pretty strong connotations. Perhaps "un-" would be better. Could it be that "we" are not against thinking, but we are just unfamiliar with it. Not averse, simply unaware.

For instance... A couple of weeks ago I went through the book of Jonah on a Wednesday night showing the repeated themes of prayer, sovereignty, and salvation. Each are found approxiamately 10 times in the 4 short chapters. At the end of the time I asked, "So what is the message of the book of Jonah." Much to my chagrin, the usual answers came rolling in, obey God the 1st time, don't be a re-tread, etc.

All I got were blank stares when I told them the message of Jonah is "the just-ness of a sovereign God answering the prayers of sinners for salvation." Even after going through the book, and seeing each of the elements of that statement repeatedly mentioned, they seemed dumbfounded that the book could really meant that. Were they against the idea? No, not at all. But I think they would just as soon stick with their preconcieved "sunday school" ideas of what Jonah's purpose in the Canon is. I do not think they were against thinking, just not used to it.

2/21/2006 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Ryan Martin said...

Good points, Brad. "Un" probably is better than "anti."

I can think of several examples where we fundamentalists are guilty of this. One such is our bent towards leaders with personality and charisma over thoughtfulness. This is not a universal for the movement, but certainly a tendency.

2/21/2006 12:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fundamentalists (and others too) are most definitely anti-intellectual. pure intellectuals rely only on humanity's rational capacity. fundamentalists reserve this place for God's revelation.

when fundamentalists attempt to be "intellectual" they are at best dishonest, because they misunderstand what intellectualism really is and what presuppositions are required.

2/22/2006 05:56:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home