I cannot help but mention my conviction that this problem is partly the result of our present system for training theologians. To qualify for college or seminary positions, a theologian must earn a PhD, ideally from a prestigious liberal university. But at such schools, there is no training in the kind of systematic theology I describe here. Liberal university theologians do not view Scripture as God’s Word, and so they cannot encourage theology as I have defined it, as the application of God’s infallible word. Students are welcome to study historical and contemporary theology, and to relate these to auxiliary disciplines such as philosophy and literary criticism. But they are not taught to seek ways of applying Scripture for the edification of God’s people. Rather, professors encourage the student to be “up-to-date” with current academic discussion and to make “original contributions” to the discussion, out of his autonomous reasoning. So when the theologian finishes his graduate work and moves to a teaching position, even if he is personally evangelical in his convictions, he often writes and teaches as he was encouraged to do in graduate school: academic comparisons and contrasts, minimal interaction with Scripture.

In my judgment, this is entirely inadequate for the needs of the church. It is one source of the doctrinal declension of evangelical churches, colleges, and seminaries in our day. Evangelical denominations and schools need to seek new methods of training people to teach theology, educational models that will force theologian candidates to mine Scripture for edifying content. To do this, they may need to cut themselves off, in some degree, from the present-day academic establishment. And to do that, they may have to cut themselves off from the present-day accreditation system. (Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, p. 278 n. 6)

What this also makes me ponder is what my modern Fundamentalists friends are contemplating in contrast to our Reformed Evangelicals brethren. It seems as though I am right in line with John Frame’s statements rather than my prestigious Fundamental brethren who are seeking recognition from a broader segment of Christianity.  On this issue of new educational models, I would second the necessity for cutting ourselves away from the present day academic establishment. It is amazing that he says such means cutting themselves away from the present-day accreditation system. Most will shy away from this extremism, but our present day government might do this for us. It is very possible that a theological education would no longer be an acceptable form of higher education. How will the church respond to such dictates? One thing is certain, if the church isn’t ready to answer it, doctrinal decline will continue to ferment in the halls of our Christian academic institutions as well as our Christian churches.

“Traditional philosophy was concerned with a quest for absolute reality as such. Science was seen as pursuing the same goal, but utilizing a different method. Pragmatism emphasized that there is no absolute truth; rather, the meaning of an idea lies solely in its practical results. Peirce concentrated on the repeatable experiments of the community of scientists. James, on the other hand, stressed the particular beliefs of the individual as a human being rather than as an intellectual investigator.

The goal, then, is not metaphysical truth, statements about the nature of ultimate reality. Rather, the meaning or the truth of a proposition is its experienceable consequences. Peirce observed, for example, that there really is no difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant views of transubstantiation. For while the adherent of two views maintain that they are describing different metaphysical conceptions, they actually agree as to all the sensible effects.”

It is easily understandable that within a worldview that says there is no absolute truth this methodological approach is all that one’s has to work with. However, to see this as the foundation to most of our theology within the American church is rather disturbing. These tenets are at the core of most practices within evangelical churches and is the center of most theological discussion. Where does such teaching led to, consider what Erickson says about John Dewey’s thought concerning pragmatism.

“Dewey’s instrumentalism stressed that logic and truth are to be understood in terms of the capacity to solve problems and of their impact on the values and moral development of human beings. Religion, in his view, has the instrumental value of bringing persons together in a unity of communication, of shared life and shared experience. Religion that does not contribute to this unity, for instance, institutional and creedal religion is to be rejected.”

Unity is the supposed result of such teaching, which is an admirable goal, but the unity is around communication, life, and experience. In my view, such unity is swallow for it is only a result of life experiences; therefore, if one doesn’t share the same life experience, is there unity among those two individuals. Biblically, unity goes deeper than what is on the surface.

Here is a excerpt from The Body (p. 61-62):

“There’s the dreaded word. It conjures up images of uneducated bigots, backward Bible-thumping preachers, and the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni. But it’s a bad rap.

‘Fundamentalism’ is really akin to Lewis’s ‘mere Christianity’ discussed earlier, or the rules of faith in the early church; it means adherence to the fundamental facts — in this case, the fundamental facts of Christianity. It is the term that was once a badge of honor, and we should reclaim it……….

These were then {the historical fundamental tenets; my insertion concerning his argument}, as they are today, the backbone of orthodox Christianity. If a fundamentalist is a person who affirms these truths, then there are fundamentalists in every denomination — Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren, Methodist, Episcopal…. Everyone who believes in orthodox truths about Jesus Christ – in short, every Christian — is a fundamentalist. And we should not shrink from the term nor allow the secular world to distort its meaning.”

I know some would agree with Colson’s rationale for holding the term, but my question is ‘who’ is robbing the term — the bible thumping individuals or those who do not view a true biblical viewpoint on ‘separation.’ It is obvious by the title that his purpose for this book is unity. While a worthy goal for the true church to unify, my question relates to whether all brethren in these denominational traditions can unify around these five fundamentals. It might be achievable, if we seek the lowest number of common denominators — i.e. the five fundamentals; but in actuality the only common denominator for unity in Chuck Colson’s argument is that which concerns Jesus Christ. While all five fundamentals relate to Christ, Christ’s isn’t the only common denominator. One’s view on Scripture, the supernatural in contrast to the natural, eschatological resurrections are also necessary prerequisites  for a bond of unity to be achieved.

It seems to me that David Wells, in his book Courage to Be Protestant, testifies, that the attempt by Colson and others in evangelicalism at achieving unity on the basis of the lowest common denominator, has been unsuccessful. His rational for this evaluation has been that believers in the community of faith have been drawn away from the centrality of God’s word and have been moved to other modes of delivery with reference to the dispensing of truth.

I am thankful for the book Contending for the Faith by Fred Moritz, which exposed me to Colson’s writing on this term ‘fundamentalism.’ In it, he demonstrates ‘how’ certain evangelicals from the 80′s and 90′s high-jacked the term from its historical meaning within the evangelical movement itself.

]]> http://ddsinse.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/does-chuck-colson-like-the-term-fundamentalism/feed/ 0 ddsinse