Some thoughtful observations on the interview (including some commentary about the KJO issue) here
Bookmark to:
-
RSS Feeds
-
Current Comments
-
Recent Posts
Current Categories
Abortion Adoption Alcohol Anglicanism Anthropology Apologetics Archaeology Atheism Baptism Bible Study Blogosphere Books Charismatics China Christian Marketing Christmas Church Corporal Punishment Counseling Creationism Cremation Cults Culture Dating Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism Education Emerging Church Entertainment Environmentalism Eschatology Evangelicalism Evangelism Evolution Forgiveness Fundamentalism Genetics Giving Health Hell Hinduism History Home Schooling Homosexuality Housekeeping Human Sexuality Internet Islam Judaism Liberalism Lord's Day Hymn Lutheranism Marriage Media Methodism Missions Mormonism Music New Perspective on Paul Occult Paganism Parenting Pastors Patristics Pentecostalism Persecution Politics Polity Practical Points Pragmatism Prayer Presbyterianism Product Reviews Prosperity Gospel Racism Religious Liberty Resurrection Roman Catholicism Satire SBC Science Separation Sex Roles Skeptics Social Concern Soteriology Technology Televangelists Theology There Are No Words Tithing Tongues Uncategorized Who Said It? Worship
Archives
16 Comments
(Sigh)
I have very little in common with Kent Brandenburg and much in common with Minnick and Dever, but frankly I was very disappointed with the interview and I think that much of Brandenbur’s criticism of Minnick’s performance is painfully on the mark.
In my mind, it is pure partisanship that would blind someone to Brandenburg’s statement of the obvious.
Todd,
How is “sigh” edifying? Why not choose to either ignore a brother’s words or engage him? I’ve read several of the various blog responses to the interview and I have been challenged by them. Kent’s was helpful to me. He is a fellow pastor of one of the Lord’s churches. The belittling is really beneath you.
It is certainly true that the interview fits elements of the definition of dialogue, but not the sense usually treated pejoratively by fundamentalists. IOW, this was “a conversation between two or more persons” or even “an exchange of ideas and opinions” but it wasn’t “a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution.”
Minnick was not negotiating some settlement with Dever or trying to figure out some third way. He was explaining what he believes to someone who was interested in having others hear it (that’s why it was an interview vs. a private conversation).
Minnick did an excellent job of focusing on the central issue which distinguishes fundamentalists from new evangelicals, securing agreement from Dever on most of the load bearing points.
In my mind, to judge an interview as if it were a position statement is unwise. Anything done within time boundaries like this imposes real constraints on what is said, then add in the control of the interviewer to the process and it seems narrow minded to pass judgments like these. I don’t think acknowledging that is partisan at all.
Dave,
Help me out here. Can Minnick really be that ignorant of other influences than “BJU Fundamentalism”? It seemed like every time specifics are mentioned (Hyles, SOTL…), he professed ignorance. Like Kent observed, music was never raised, either- which would have been interesting to see how that was dealt with. I was particularly disappointed with the non-answer to Dever’s very legitimate question at the end of the interview.
The reason the specifics I think need to be addressed is it is difficult for many to see exactly what distinguishes a Dever from a Minick. Professing ignorance of Fundamentalism’s weak points (or at least it’s children’s) or ducking legitimate questions does not present a convincing case for separation, in my estimation.
I think you prejudice the discussion when you call it “ducking” questions. I have no problem with someone who knows that they have a very limited amount of time to have a conversation deliberately trying to keep the conversation on the most important issues. I don’t think that is ducking anything; that’s trying to lead the conversation toward more important issues.
Dever apparently wanted to talk about fundamentalism more than Minnick did. That’s all it boils down to. And as for your question, yes, I think Minnick is “that ignorant of other influences” than the circle he’s been in for 3 decades. There isn’t a lot of interaction between him and the other orbits. He doesn’t try to keep up with the happenings in those places and, unlike many, he is hesitant to speak about things like this since he is not up to speed on them.
I am not sure why this is so hard to believe. I had never heard of Jack Hyles or the Sword of the Lord, for instance, until I went to college and even then only heard a little bit–those were the days when they were estranged from BJU. Even at this point, I know who the editor of the SOTL is, but don’t read it, know what is happening in those circles. I could probably slop a label on it all, but then I’d get criticized for not fairly representing them.
Minnick, it seems, is in a no-win position for some on this matter. He can’t win by trying not to speak on matters he doesn’t feel competent to address, and he wouldn’t have won if he did.
It seems that perhaps I am in the minority, but I think he did a great job in the interview.
Dave,
Dever asked the last question repeatedly. The question just wasn’t answered. I am not so concerned about the rest of the interview, I doubt I could do any better. But the most disappointing thing to me was the failure to answer the last question.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
I disagree. He did answer the question. Perhaps not in the way you’d like, but he explained his reasons. He stated: (1) that there needs to be a clear and public expression of separatist conviction and application; and (2) that the lack of clarity on separation in the SBC would raise questions about his own position.
It is wrong to ignore the answer he gave because he didn’t give the one that was desired.
Dave, if Minnick answered that question, why did Dever repeat it three or four times?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Because he, like you, didn’t like the answer that was being given.
Dave, I understand what you’re saying, but whether or not you knew the personalities in detail, surely you would acknowledge there is some familiarity with the underlying issues on Minnick’s part, and even on yours, as you have come through college and so on. Dr. Minnick contributed to a book responding to KJVOism, for example. That issue wasn’t randomly pulled out of thin air, and I assume that the authors of the book would have had to have had some familiarity in order to know the arguments they sought to refute.
To connect it with the second paragraph I quoted, Dr. Minnick certainly seems confident that he is familiar enough with the SBC to maintain a “separateness” from CHBC, for example. How would we respond if concerns about the SBC were aired, and names like Graham or Warren raised, and Dever would reply with something like “Well, that’s certainly not the SBC I’m familiar with. I’d much rather speak to the SBC I know,” and would then proceed to talk about Mohler, Ascol, Patterson, etc etc?
I know the parallel breaks down, but I do have to say that if the interview does not present a persuasive or appealing case for a separatist, Fundamentalist position to one who does not hold one.
Greg,
I take just the opposite view of this than you. That is, I believe it seems unconvincing for those of us who are “insiders” but that a conservative evangelical is left to face squarely the question of how evangelicals should relate to and with non-evangelicals. That’s the central question and on that Minnick acquits himself very well and I think that Dever acknowledges that.
I guess we all just disagree with each other on it and are unable to convince each other otherwise. Big surprise there, huh?
I’ll not go back and forth on the “did so”-”did not” debate as to whether Dever’s final question was answered. I have posted a transcript of the last 6 minutes or so of the interview here, you all can judge for yourself.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Greg, I just thought there was way to much internet expectation packed into this beginning interview.
Remind me never to do interviews.
A while back, I told Jason Janz that I would not do an interview with him.
Have a good Lord’s Day, tomorrow.
I just read the transcript and I couldn’t find the answer even though I recently acquired a Garmin Nuvi 350. Nope. No answer on the last question.
I just read the last six minutes that Don Johnson posted (thanks!!) and I think Dr. Minnick did answer in principle. He is very careful and thorough in his preaching and communication and I am sure did not want to come up with something formulaic or something that in a sound byte could be taken out of context. I am sure in a sermon or article he could come up with a more exact answer than anyone could just off the cuff.
I agree with Dave that an interview is not ideal for judging someone’s position. You’ve got the consciousness of the time factor, the strands of several parts of the conversation going on at the same time, the lack of time to really think through an answer, the desire to answer carefully in a way that no one can misinterpret — I am thankful that I am not in a position that anyone would ever ask me for an interview!!
Post a Comment