Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism, Part Six

In the opening post of this series, I stated that the present attempts to redefine, realign, and redirect Fundamentalism was striking similar to previous efforts especially those that eventually led to the founding of New Evangelicalism.  So far we have seen that much of what Dr. Bauder decries about Fundamentalism seems to be modified positions from a menagerie of sources.  Some of his criticism is rooted in the scholarship of pro-ECT (“Evangelicals and Catholics Together”) men like Dr. George Marsden and Dr. Mark Noll.  Other criticism has been found to be rooted in his trying to advance Reform theological positions that historic Fundamentalism has always rejected.  All of his criticism appears to be targeted at young, impressionable Fundamentalists to undermine any desire they have to remain in Fundamentalism.

This post will be seeking to answering the following: Whether Fundamentalism should be broader in its vision and burden and be more culturally concerned as is the amillennialist  because of his kingdom-is-now theology and the post-millennialist because of his establish-the-kingdom theology?  Why is this even a question in need of an answer?  Here are a few reasons why.

“We cannot take God seriously if we do not take humanity seriously, and we cannot take humanity seriously if we do not take the humanities seriously.” 1

“In the service of God, such disciplines as languages, history, economics, government, jurisprudence, poetics, art, music, and philosophy are the glory and crown of human kind (next to theology, of course!).  These activities require the engagement of the mind and of the affections in such a way that they become exterior expressions of the human soul.  In them is the Imago Dei most clearly glimpsed.” 2

“All of the major elements. . . are here. . . a deep commitment to a new kind of evangelical scholarship that would wrestle seriously with the important issues being raised in the large world of the mind. . . and a profound desire to engage culture in all of its created complexity.” 3

“We cannot claim that we are good Christians if we are not even good people.  Good people are not contemptuous of poetry, history, law, government, and the other humane disciplines.  Rather, they invest themselves in such activities, using these tools in the effort (however misguided and sinful) to enrich the world.  It is noble to fashion a beautiful object or an intricate idea.  It is a splendid thing to lead a nation well or to challenge an injustice.  Why should people believe that we love the greater good of the gospel if they see that we despise the lesser good of the truly humane?” 4

“For too long we have equated the term ‘humanist’ with ‘secularist.’  Let me state as emphatically as I know how: we who are Christians (and even fundamentalists) ought to be the true humanists.  We alone know the true value and dignity of humanity.  We alone know that humans are made in the image of God.  We alone know that God Himself has become one of us.  We alone know that God valued us so highly that He gave His Son to save us.  We alone know that a man will rule the kingdom of God.  Humanist?  No secular person has any right to the name.” 5

Quotes number 1, 2, 4, and 5 are all from Dr. Bauder’s address “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving” given to the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries in 2005.  Quote number 3 is actually from Dr. Richard J. Mouw’s forward to noted New Evangelical Dr. Carl F. H. Henry’s book The Uneasy Conscience of a Modern Fundamentalist.

Where in the hallowed pages of the New Testament would one find principles that advocate this kind of thinking toward the world and its culture by Christ-centered believers?  Have believers learned in Christ that they should “invest themselves” towards an end “to enrich the world” from which they are even now being delivered by Christ?  Are we all to accept without equivocation that no one is a good Christian if he does not love poetry?  Why are only the disciplines of the sophisticated mind called the “glory and crown of human kind”?  Is the hard-working but unsophisticated man unable to display the Imago Dei like others?

No, such thinking did not come out of any Scriptural text, but it can be found in the writings of men.  Is that where Dr. Bauder got his ideas, and if so who are some of these individuals that fostered his thinking?  He has answered this specific question in a fairly recent confession concerning what influences shaped his thoughts on cultural involvement, and there is no question that he wants Fundamentalism to uniformly follow his lead.  He wrote,

Ultimately, the answers came from a confluence of four elements.  These elements influenced me in different ways, some more positively than others.  None of them did I accept uncritically, but in each of them I found some key idea or ideas that helped to provide the mental categories that I needed before I could sort out the questions and find the answers.

The first element was a definitely Reformed approach to culture. I first became consciously aware of this theory when I read Machen’s essay on “Christianity and Culture.” In the Reformed theory, Christians recognize that all of culture must be brought under the Lordship of Christ. . . .

The second element was a prolonged encounter with the works and perspectives of H. Richard Niebuhr, centering on the categories in his famous Christ and Culture. . . .

Third, at the same time I was reading Niebuhr, I was also reading broadly on cultural issues.  When I say broadly, I mean to include sociologists such as Emile Durkheim, Ernst Troeltsch, Max Weber, and especially Peter Berger.  My reading also included critics such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Matthew Arnold, Jacques Barzun, and the Marxian, Raymond Williams. It also included shapers of the postmodern theory of knowledge such as Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jürgen Habermas, Michael Polanyi, and Thomas Kuhn.

The writings of these individuals were instructive, but stronger influences came from a disparate and sometimes quirky collection of my favorite authors.  During this period I devoured the writings of Richard Mitchell, Russell Kirk, E. D. Hirsch, T. S. Eliot, Abraham Kaplan, Leonard Bernstein, Aaron Copland, and especially Richard Weaver and C. S. Lewis.  As I completed this reading, a definite theory of culture and its relationship to Christian faith was taking shape in my own mind.

The fourth and latest element that influenced me was a profound interaction with what I will call the “theologians of affection” (the proper name for this approach is fideism).  Theology of the affections is very Augustinian, and therefore it is also Calvinistic. 6

This admission of his deserves greater Biblical scrutiny than I am willing to give it in this series.  Therefore, I will only say that I am troubled as to why he felt it necessary to promote his ”A Fundamentalism Worth Saving” apparently detached in both time and space from vital information about the sordid influences that formed some of its substance.  Also, why is he reading and studying this mixed caldron of individuals (many of them enemies of the cross) for the explicit purpose of gaining insight to spiritual questions?  Finally, as initially raised by Evangelist Dwight Smith in his “A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder,” why is the Word of God not listed among the important sources that shaped his cultural approach?  Perhaps it is because he firmly believes that doctrine does not simply arise from the text without mediation that I addressed in the previous post in this series.  However, when spiritual questions plagued believers’ minds the way out of their confusion and into the light of truth is not from immersing themselves into the flawed thoughts of other men.

“Tolle, lege; Tolle, lege,” “Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures.  7

By taking up and reading the Scriptures, the true answer concerning how believers should approach cultural issues can be found and held to with great confidence.  This takes me back to the heart of this post about whether Fundamentalism should be more culturally concerned, and since this question is not so much about the history of Fundamentalism as it is about what the teachings of the Scriptures are, to the Scriptures I will look for answers.

However, the real crux upon which this issue turns is not any particular Old Testament example or the ministry of our Savior or apostolic doctrine as recorded in the epistles.  The crux is the hermeneutic approach that men use to interpret the Scriptures.  Those who follow Covenant or Reform theology use an allegorical hermeneutic and thereby have no literal Kingdom but only a present spiritual one and thus cultural matters are more important to them.  Those who adhere to Dispensationalism use a literal hermeneutic and possess a certain hope of a literal coming Kingdom established by Christ Himself.

One of the chief reasons why New Evangelicalism disliked and discarded historic Fundamentalism’s Dispensationalism was due to the lack of cultural concerns that Dispensationalists had because they looked for a city whose builder and maker was God not man.  Believers are in the world but not of the world.  Everything even the best of things including the “glory and crown of human kind” are only temporal and will in the end be consumed and forgotten forever.  Therefore, as strangers and pilgrims in this world, the best use of our time and talents is to invest them into the treasures of Heaven.  Biblically, noteworthy accomplishments in the areas of science and art were the fitting epitaphs of the ungodly such as Jabal, Jubal, and Tubalcain (Genesis 4:20-22).  On the other hand, the faithful such as Enoch had the testimony that they walked with and pleased God (Genesis 5:24 & Hebrews 11:5).  Nothing in the world can compare to that.

The prosperity of America has greatly distorted our view of Biblical Christianity.  I am sure that the martyrs had little to no discussions among themselves about how “to enrich the world” that crucified their Savior and meant to rid His followers from the face of the earth.  The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write, “And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.“  I may be wrong, but that does not seem to infer anything about poetry.

1. Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving” speech delivered to the AACCS, 2 February 2005. Viewed at http://www.aaccs.info/media/Bauder%20A%20Fundamentalism%20Worth%20Saving.pdf
2. Ibid.
3. Dr. Richard J. Mouw writing the Forward to Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of a Modern Fundamentalist, ed. 2003, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1947.
4. Bauder, “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving.”
5. Ibid.
6. Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, In the Nick of Time: “Conundrum,” Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, 12 February 2010. Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick254.html.
7. Augustine, S. August Confessions quoted in the Preface, King James Version Bible, 1611.

Read Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism, Part 7.

Read Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism, Part 5.

Advertisement