I emailed Dr. Dave Doran, President of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, asking his opinion of Joel Tetreau’s system for classifying fundamentalists. I was especially interested because his name has been referenced frequently. Dr. Doran replied to me with this email, and has given me permission to post it.
_______
This whole approach is driven by anecdotal evidence that cannot be considered objective or conclusive, and often inaccurate (at least when I have been referenced, e.g., the comments about IFBAM). While it may fly in our day, one would hope for a more substantive basis for such serious claims. “Someone once told me” or “I have talked to a bunch of people” may fly for sitting around the beauty parlor or barber shop, but it shouldn’t pass for “critical evaluation of fundamentalism.” Critical evaluation would call for evaluation of actual positions (and there are plenty of them available in print and audio form) and reasoned arguments, not stories and opinions.
Mortimer Adler, in How to Read a Book, makes an excellent distinction between opinion and judgment. In essence, an opinion is something offered without reasons or argumentation, while a judgment is based on reasons drawn from evidence. Joel’s article is 99% opinion, so there isn’t much point to evaluating it or interacting with it since it all revolves around unprovable assertions. Have you noticed that every time a critique is offered, one of three answers is given: (1) I’m or he’s not saying this applies to everyone; (2) I’m or he’s not completely settled in this analysis so it is bound to change and improve; and (3) I’m or he’s just sharing his perspective or assessment of things.
The first two provide nice escape routes-all exceptions and contradictions can be ignored or a bone of token acknowledgment extended. The last cloaks it in the defense shield of subjectivity (”I have my opinion and you can have yours”). I suppose as a tribute to decline of our culture, the ultimate justification for such subjectivity is that frequently offered lines, “A lot of people agree with me” or “I hear from all kinds of people that agree with me.” In other words, shared sentiment is the strongest evidence.
So, I am not going to get into this discussion because it seems ultimately fruitless. There is no way for it to get down to anything substantive. Since it is all opinion, the only recourse is to raise questions about his credibility to offer his opinion, but why engage in that? If people can’t see the inherent contradictions, excessive generalizations, and weakness of anecdotal argument, then they will think it is just a personal attack. And then they will feel confirmed in their type casting, i.e., the A’s are just being A’s. The whole thing has a built in defense mechanism. So, since it is opinion, l am going to following the mantra of the day-everyone’s entitled to their own opinion-and stay out of it.
Filed under: Fundamentalism
