Angry deconvert syndrome

https://randalrauser.com/2020/01/the-myth-of-the-authoritative-deconvert/

What's unintentionally comical about Rauser's post is that he himself epitomizes the angry deconvert syndrome. He constantly reminds us that he's a former fundamentalist, raised in a fundamentalist church/family. He constantly rails against fundamentalism. He finds it frustrating aggravating that he can't get most Christians or atheists to take his progressive theology seriously. He tries to discredit the testimony of angry deconverts, but he discredits his own deconversion testimony in the process. He acts like his personal experience growing up in a fundamentalist church/family makes him an authority on fundamentalism. Just like apostate atheists with the same background.  

The birth of neo-evangelicalism

There’s a popular narrative about the birth of neo-evangelicalism that goes something like this: after fundamentalists lost the Scopes trial in 1925, the movement became very inward looking. In the 1940s, there was a schism, when neo-evangelicals broke with the separatism and anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalists.

I question the accuracy of that narrative. I have my own theory.

Admittedly, the fundamentalism of that era was separatistic. I think that much is accurate.

However, was the Scopes trial really a defining moment or pivotal event in the history of fundamentalism? Why would the ruling of a state court be that influential? It’s not even a Supreme Court ruling. I’m guessing this version of events is an urban legend, popularized by H. L. Menken, and Stanley Kramer (a la Inherit the Wind).

Also, is it true that fundamentalism was anti-intellectual? No doubt the movement had a lot of backwoods preachers who were, to some extent, the public of the movement. I’d also grant that in the 1940-50s, the intellectual talent pool for fundamentalism was pretty shallow.

However, consider fundamentalists like Merrill Unger, S. Lewis Johnson, Gleason Archer, and Charles Lee Feinberg. They were contemporaries of the neo-evangelical founders or leaders. But they weren’t anti-intellectual. They were just as scholarly as anyone on the neo-evangelical side.

Now, there was a different orientation. Scholars like Unger and Archer were writing for the church. Writing to edify the faithful. They weren’t interested in opening a dialogue with British or continental scholarship, unlike, say, George Eldon Ladd.

I have my own theory. I think the fundamentalist/Neoevangelical divide split along essentially regional lines. Fundamentalism started out as more international, interdenominational, ecumenical affair, with Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Calvinists, &c. For instance, you can see that from the contributors to The Fundamentals (1910-15), which included contributions from James Or, B. B. Warfield, G. Campbell Morgan, R. A. Torrey, Bishop Moule, Griffith Thomas, &c.

The fundamentalist center of gravity later shifted to the South. Became predominantly Baptist. Moreover, fundamentalism became almost synonymous with dispensationalism.

Now, consider the background of the founders and leaders of neo-evangelicalism. Ockenga was a Congregationalist, born in Chicago, to Methodist parents, and educated at northeastern institutions.

Ladd was a Northern Baptist, born in Canada, raised in New England, and educated at northeastern institutions.

Carl Henry was a Northern Baptist, born in New York, educated in the Midwest and northeast.

Edward Carnell was born in the Midwest, and educated in the northeast.

Charles Fuller was a Californian. Francis Schaeffer was born, raised, and educated in the northeast.

Bernard Ramm was born in the Midwest, educated on the west coast, northeast, and Continent. Kenneth Kantzer was born in the Midwest to Lutheran parents, then educated in the Midwest, northeast, and Continent.

So I think an obvious reason for the break with fundamentalism is the geographical and autobiographical fact that most neo-evangelicals didn’t identify with Southern culture and piety. That wasn’t their world. Their formative influences took place outside the Southern milieu. Southern religiosity wasn’t their defining experience. Their social identity and intellectual inspiration lay closer to home.  

Let’s consider some potential exceptions to my theory. Billy Graham is the most conspicuous prima facie exception. However, that’s easy to account for. Once Graham’s ministry went national and international, he was bound to break with fundamentalism, for his mass evangelistic methodology, and follow-up ministry (i.e. discipleship) required coordination with local churches on site. That was antithetical to fundamentalist separatism. Had Graham remained a regional figure, preaching revivals below the Mason-Dixon line, he might have stayed within the fundamentalist fold

Fundamentalist flagships like Biola and Moody Bible Institute might also seem to present an exception to my theory. (Of course, Biola is now very ecumenical.) However, these were founded long before fundamentalism became so Baptist and Southern.

Of course, men can adopt a theological tradition very different from their upbringing. I don’t deny that. But there does seem to be an overwhelming demographic pattern to the founders and leaders of the early neo-evangelical movement.

Oz

On the one hand:

I often have the impression that these authors, all members of something called The Gospel Coalition, have a fundamentalist mentality. That is, they approach and exposit doctrine from within a fundamentalist ethos. In varying degrees they treat truth as black and white (absolutistic). Beliefs are either “gospel truth” or heresy.

 

In this atmosphere of absolutism and fear the traditional evangelical middle, what I call moderate evangelicalism, is disappearing…So what is the disappearing middle ground I talk about and seek?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/05/how-to-believe-without-being-fundamentalist/

On the other hand:

I believe that someone needs to finally stand up and in love firmly say “No!” to egregious statements about God’s sovereignty often made by Calvinists. Taken to their logical conclusion, that even hell and all who will suffer there eternally are foreordained by God, God is thereby rendered orally ambiguous at best and a moral monster at worst. I've gone so far as to say that this kind of Calvinism, which attributes everything to Good’s will and control, makes it difficult (at least for me) to see the difference between God and the devil. R. Olson, Against Calvinism, 23.

Hmm. I don’t see much middle ground in Olson’s view of Calvinism. Seems pretty black and white, if you ask me. Olson’s view of Calvinism reflects a “fundamentalist mentality.”

Can’t he moderate his rhetoric just a tad? Split the difference? Meet us halfway?

Why the devil? Why not a demidevil, like Hellboy? Why a monster? Why not a werewolf like Oz, who’s only monstrous once a month?

Many people have asked my opinion about an attempt to identify an “Arminocalvinist spectrum”… The question Warnock seems to be attempting to answer is whether there are versions of Calvinism and Arminianism that are closer to each other than to other versions of their own views of God’s sovereignty.  I think that assumes some measure of commensurability of real Calvinism (not “Calminianism!”) with real Arminianism.

 

My concern with the attempt to place Calvinism and Arminianism on a shared spectrum is that some people will take this as permission to be “a little bit Calvinist” and “a little bit Arminian” as if that were possible.  It isn’t.

 

I think Geisler’s account of grace and free will is simply inconsistent. It’s an attempt to bridge Calvinism and Arminianism, but I think that is always unsuccessful (with regard to the key points of TULIP–namely, U, L and I.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/12/is-there-an-arminocalvinist-spectrum/

Once again, it doesn’t seem like Olson is trying very hard to find middle ground. Roger’s definition of middle ground seems to be synonymous with the Democrat’s definition of bipartisanship: Do it my way!

Self-appointed inquisitorial neofundamentalist heresy-hunters

Roger Olson has weighed in on the Rob Bell controversy over at his blog:

Here we go again.  The self-appointed evangelical inquisitors are already attacking Rob Bell on the basis of a book not yet published.

What’s ironic about Olson’s missive is the way he proceeds to do the very thing he faults others for. He attacks “self-appointed inquisitorial neofundamentalist heresy-hunters,” yet he himself is a self-appointed scourge of Justin Taylor, the Gospel Coalition, &c.

Why are so many Arminians so morally oblivious? Why are those who loudly proclaim the universal love of God among the least loving towards their theological opponents?

I know, because I’ve been on the receiving end of it…Another self-appointed evangelical inquisitor, heresy-hunter…

So the Bell controversy is just a pretext for Olson to settle old scores. That’s so very 1 Cor 13, don’t you think?

Several self-appointed evangelical heresy-hunters have publicly listed me among the open theists.  I have never espoused open theism. 

No, he’s not an open theist. At least not yet. However, he is, by his own admission, very sympathetic to open theism. He classifies open theism as a legitimate evangelical option. He’s left the door open (pardon the pun) to open theism. And that’s consistent with his libertarian priorities.

The people I’m referring to are all part of the same network–publishing with the same publishers, meeting together, producing materials together, etc.  Is there a conspiracy?  Well, perhaps not a highly organized one, but certainly there is a network of neo-fundamentalist heresy-hunters out there who get their jollies out of jumping on everyone they suspect possibly guilty of some heterodox opinion.  They reward each other for it.

I suspect Olson is nursing a grudge.  The last angry man.

He’s said things here and elsewhere on his blog to indicate that he represents a throwback to the “moderate” old guard in the SBC, before the conservative counterinsurgency. Back in the 70s, when the SBC was moving left. When SBC seminaries relinquished inerrancy.

Indeed, Baylor, where Olson holds court, is a notable holdout. The last bastion of the fading, graying, old guard. Like an ousted gov’t in exile.

When will someone with real influence across the evangelical movement stand up and say “Stop!”? 

Surely he’s not suggesting that a “self-appointed” umpire settle the issue by unilateral fiat.

At the very least–hold the fire until the book is published.  You can’t judge a book by one or two chapters…

Well, sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t. It’s not uncommon for an author to present his basis thesis in the introduction or the very first chapter. The remaining chapters furnish the supporting argument.

…and you can’t judge a theologian by one book without at least having a conversation with him (if that’s possible).

Did Olson have a private conversation with Justin Taylor before launching this very public attack?

By the way, I know Brian Mclaren and Doug Pagitt personally. I’d like to know Rob Bell as well. I would hesitate to attack any of them without a face-to-face conversation. I’ve found that kind of encounter often sheds light on what a person writes that is missing from a simple reading without knowing the author.

Did he hesitate to attack Justin Taylor before having a face-to-face conversation with Justin? I guess it’s okay to have a hair-trigger reaction as long as your opponent stands for everything you resent. Then you can dispense with the amenities and break out the pitchforks.

I also wonder why some people love hell so much? I can only conclude (tentatively, open to correction) it is because for them hell is necessary for the full glorification of God. Take away hell and God’s attribute of justice cannot be fully displayed. Many Calvinists say as much. However, of course, that takes something away from the cross of Christ which, in their theology, at least, displays God’s justice and wrath. Did it do so imperfectly or incompletely?

Well, that’s an interesting criticism. Does he take the position that hell is unnecessary? A gratuitous evil?

If God’s just wrath was completely displayed at the cross, why Noah’s flood? Or the Babylonian exile? Of the fiery judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah?

Does he think God is a sadist? That God visits judgment on sinners to “get his jollies” even though his wrath and justice were adequately manifested or satisfied at Calvary? 

Forgetful Francis

Francis Beckwith
April 8, 2010 1:00 PM

http://francisbeckwith.com

We are so trapped in the present that many of us forget--or don't remember, or never know--that American Christian fundamentalism never required a belief in young-earth creationism.

In the 1950s Biola University had on its faculty, Bernard Ramm, a strong critic of the creationism that was dominant at the time: http://www.amazon.com/Christian-View-Science-Scripture-Bernard/dp/0802814298. It was not considered a big deal then, since in the famous five volume THE FUNDAMENTALS, theistic evolution was defended by James Orr! So much for fundamentalists all being young-earth creationists.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/04/evolution-defense-behind-theologians-ouster_comments.html

Francis Beckwith is so trapped in the present that he's forgotten–or never knew–that James Orr was a Scotsman, not an American. What is more, Orr was hardly a fundamentalist.

Mark Driscoll and Mordecai Ham

From Steve:

Many critics have drawn attention to Mark Driscoll's lack of pulpit decorum. You only have to compare his uncouth ways to the courtly, dignified presence of a genteel, old-school parson like Mordecai Ham to see how fast and how far the younger generation has gone down hill.

Harold Hoehner, R.I.P.

Harold Hoehner died yesterday. Due to its central interest in OT prophecy, fundamentalism has been producing fine OT scholars for a long time. But it took longer to produce a NT scholar of comparable stature. I daresay that with Hoehner, fundamentalism came of age in the field of NT studies. And he, in turn, led the way for the next generation, viz. Darrel Bock.

Hoehner was a contributor to the ebook which Dr. Anderson and I edited (Love the Lord with Heart and Mind).

As I recall, Hoehner answered my questionnaire on the same evening I sent it out.

Not once saved, never saved

Zane Hodges died last month. Justin Taylor said:

“I join Dr. Wallace in strongly disagreeing with many of Dr. Hodges's views, but it is important to remember that the man was a Christian, called by Jesus Christ, and should be honored in his death.”

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/11/zane-hodges-19332008.html

I disagree. He should not be honored in death. He was a heretic. And it wasn’t some abstruse point of heresy, but a very practical heresy. Hodges was a high priest of nominal Christianity and false assurance. Hodges was to Protestant theology what Tetzel was to Catholic theology.

Dan Wallace has testified to Hodges’ Christian character:

“Zane was a very honorable and ethical man. He was a man of prayer, and his life was one that was lived for Christ’s glory.”

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/11/zane-hodges-1933–2008/

That may well be the case. But that also exposes the gulf between Hodges’ doctrine and his private piety. For, according to Hodges, a Christian needn’t be ethical or honorable. Needn’t be a man of prayer. Needn’t live his life for Christ’s glory.

Hodges nailed the sign of Heaven to the gates of Hell—thereby misdirecting many unsuspecting souls from the pilgrim path to perdition’s path.

All too often, “once saved always saved” is synonymous with “not once saved, never saved.”

The best way to honor Hodges’ memory is to forget his life and work as quickly as possible.