"We [fundamentalists] should write more"

have settled out over the last decade or so, now we (Fundamentalists) have the time and qualified writers to produce more.

Would BJU benefit by hiring professors who got their Ph.D.s from conservative evangelical seminaries like Dallas or Trinity, thus raising their profile?

[Jonathan Charles]

Would BJU benefit by hiring professors who got their Ph.D.s from conservative evangelical seminaries like Dallas or Trinity, thus raising their profile?

I don’t think the goal should be to raise their profile but more, as Ward’s post suggests, to just do the best possible work they can do… and more of it, for the benefit of all. It’s likely that high quality work of enduring influence and also larger quantity would have the effect of some profile-raising. But IMO, it never works out well to make that particular result the goal.

I understand Paul Hartog just released an excellent book refuting Bauer. That was nice to see.

I just thought of Rodney Decker’s commentaries published by Baylor Press on Mark:

http://www.baylorpress.com/Contributor/512/Rodney_J._Decker.html

as an example of the kind of fundamentalist scholarship the author is looking for.

Remember the debate and discussion several years ago about Randy Jaeggli’s (BJU) The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical perspective on moderation and abstinence. BJU Press withdrew the book and had it reissued after the conclusions were adjusted.

[Jim]

Remember the debate and discussion several years ago about Randy Jaeggli’s (BJU) The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical perspective on moderation and abstinence. BJU Press withdrew the book and had it reissued after the conclusions were adjusted.

the book has not yet been released as far as I know, the conclusions were not adjusted, but the methodology was changed and the body expanded. I don’t know why it hasn’t come out yet, but I think it will be better than version 1, even though I was against pulling version 1 in the first place

It was a Filing on S/I 6 years ago:

• BJU Pulls Drinking Book
• “Recently, however, I came across a book published by Bob Jones University Press: The Christian and Drinking by Dr. Randy Jaeggli, a professor of Old Testament at Bob Jones Seminary”

You recommended the book on your blog

http://oxgoad.ca/2008/10/28/the-christian-and-drinking/

Dr. Burggraff has been saying this for a loooong time. We need to write more, we need to write more.

[Jim]

You recommended the book on your blog

http://oxgoad.ca/2008/10/28/the-christian-and-drinking/

I’d like to see more good-quality fundamentalist writing too, but the example of this book shows why that is not likely to happen. Even though the author came to a conclusion that would agree with most of fundamentalism, the book was pilloried for not being in lockstep with fundamentalist conclusions on every point on this issue. Apparently, trying to handle all the scripture accurately (as Don’s review thought the author did) is not good enough if “fundamentalism” has concluded differently.

Reading conservative evangelical authors is not without its pitfalls, but it seems to me that they are not as beholden to “group think,” and hence, although there is a lot out there not worth reading, there is plenty that will be worth the time and the effort. I figure it will take another 20 years before fundamentalist “culture” has subsided enough for authors to be able to write successfully. Of course, then the question will be whether what exists at that time is still a fundamentalism worth saving.

Dave, you have a point but the Jaeggli book controversy was, what, 7 or 8 yrs ago? Much has changed since then. Right now, IMO, the whole evangelical/fundamentalist landscape is like dunes blowing around in the dessert—only, where the analogy ends, it will all settled down again eventually. There’s just no telling what the stable geography will be.

Old battles:

• who’s ‘new evangelical’ and who’s not
• who’s ‘compromising’ and who’s not
• translations
• dress codes
• etc.

New battles:

• sexual ethics
• young earth creation
• role of women in ministry leadership
• sound, serious, expositional preaching and theology

The day is pretty much here when those who believe in biblical sexual ethics, biblical creation, and solid biblical exposition, automatically have more in common (whether ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘evangelical’) than many within in the old ‘camps’ did with eachother back in the day.

So, to return to the point, I think more freedom of thought in publishing is well on it’s way and sure to continue to increase (in many topic areas, while decreasing in others—there are always boundaries). Plus, while a university publishing arm may have some limits on what it can comfortably (or even uncomfortably) publish, there is no reason why fundamentalists can’t publish through other channels instead/in addition.

It strikes me that I can find any number of fundamentalist authors that are writing a lot—even David Hyles is able to get published, no? You can find all kinds of biographies, books about the cultural taboo of the century, and such. I’ve got a few of them on my shelves, and it’s clear that many authors are pretty prolific.

What is all too often absent, however, is scholarly writing where the author discerns between valid arguments and invalid, between useful information and nonsense, and the like. And to bring in other things we’re discussing today, a lot of it has to do with (a) do we hold our pastor/professor accountable to the truth when he teaches or preaches and (b) do we provide the secure place from whence a scholar can do his work? If we tolerate nonsense analogies (like the ludicrous claim of the bridge operator crushing his son to save people on the train) and then fire the pastor as soon as numbers don’t match what we want, we’re going to get ludicrous analogies and pastors looking over their shoulders instead of being men of the Word.

(Reason the train story is ludicrous; the bridge operator also sets the signals. So as long as the bridge is open, the signal is red, the train stops. Nobody gets hurt. It’s been this way for about 150 years—that’s why the telegraph lines run beside the rails.)

Really liked Aaron’s comment, and it reminded me of a “pyramid” of theology that a former pastor of mine provided as a quick guide to doing theology. More or less, he claimed that a man of the word ought to start with basic exegesis, go into his hermeneutics, then OT/NT theology, then Biblical and systematic theology, and then….and only then…..practical theology. He made the claim that a tragedy of modern “fundagelicalism” lies in that all too often, we want to jump to practical theology without even doing the basic exegetical work to understand what a passage is actually saying.

(great example; 1 Timothy 2: 9 primarily addresses the opulence—gold, jewels, expensive clothes—of attire, but the usual interpretation you’ll see today is how much skin is showing, or how well the clothes show the curves of the body beneath)

Probably a big obstacle to getting a theologically richer pulpit and ivory tower is our history—back around 1900, we lost the seminaries, and with that gained the suspicion that anyone looking too deeply into books, especially into the nature of ancient books, could only be looking to discredit them. There is a cultural obstacle that, per Dave Barnhart’s comment, needs to be overcome, or fundamentalism probably will die out in the next few decades.

And dare I say it; rightly so. Jumping from a single word in the text to a personal application may be deeply embedded in our culture, but it is a huge violation of Sola Scriptura and the first fundamental, the inerrancy of Scripture.

Apparently the revised Jaeggli book has been published, I might have even known that, but I forgot. The rest of my comment above stands, however.