What do you think?
Rate this book
Square Peg: Why Wesleyans Aren't Fundamentalists
You've heard the old saying, "You can't fit a square peg in a round hole." You can try to manipulate or force the peg, but really the only way you can make it fit into the round hole is by shaving some of the sides off. But once you do that, you can change the peg. In the same way, if we adopt the tenets of fundamentalism, we'll inherently change our Wesleyan faith- we'll end up with something different. In Square Peg, well-respected educators, pastors, and ministry leaders demonstrate the distinct differences between Wesleyan theology and fundamentalism. Through historical, biblical, scientific, and theological exposition, you'll explore the history of fundamentalism and its impact on denominations in the Wesleyan tradition, the differences in their views on Scripture, and the relationship between modern science and the Christian faith, and much more. In order to help Wesleyan churches remain true to their theology and identity, it's important to understand how our tradition will never be able to fit into a fundamentalist framework.
162 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2012
5 people are currently reading
37 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 16, 2023
Great book, especially for Wesleyans. It is very helpful to understand differences in Christian traditions, rather than just harboring muddled thoughts about a nebulous thing called "Christianity".
These are my personal notes on the chapters.
Chapter 1: History of Fundamentalism
A history of fundamentalism and what the movement is and where it came from. Very helpful to know this, as the word is uncritically slung as a pejorative nowadays.
According to the author, Wesleyans are not fundamentalists for 4 fundamental reasons:
1 - Fundamentalists operate in a Calvinist framework (whether realized or not).
2 - Fundamentalists make choosing a single eschatological viewpoint (typically premillennialism) a top priority.
3 - Fundamentalists have a different doctrine of scripture than Wesleyans.
4 - Fundamentalists have a generally low viewpoint of modern scholarship (usually because of their doctrine of scripture).
Chapter 2: Doctrine of Scripture
Fundamentalists build set of propositional statements from the bible to which they use as a foundation of truth. The bible is dissected into statements that inerrantly support these propositions. In this light, the bible is essentially a bunch of information. The Wesleyan view is that God himself is the revelation, not information about God.
For Wesley:
1 - Scripture is how we know God.
2 - Scripture is to shape us into holy living, not deliver information. It forms us, rather than informs us.
3 - Our reading and comprehension must be through the work of the Spirit. What is the intention of reading?
For Wesleyans, the words of scripture must become flesh in us for the scripture to be the scripture.
Chapter 3: The Bible, creation, and science
Bible - Wesleyans understand the bible's human authorship, their understanding, and context.
Creation - Wesleyans trust the study of creation and do not believe God is deceptive in what study of his creation teaches.
Science - God speaks through and to his people where they are at. Wesleyans don't expect God to speak to the authors of scripture with 17th century European rationalist peccadillos in mind.
People try to make the bible something other than it is. Concordism seeks to correlate the bible with modern science. YEC seeks to correlate modern science with the bible. Wesleyans read scripture understanding the context and people it was written by and to.
Chapter 4: Expressions of the Christian Faith
It is difficult to contrast fundamentalism and Wesleyanism because they are from two different times and concerned with different things. We need to understand who they are if we are to compare them. (This should have been the first or second chapter).
Fundamentalism's control belief and starting point is 'truth', specifically the correspondence theory of truth. The philosophy behind this is Scottish realism (common-sense philosophy). This is why there is a big apologetics push by fundamentalists. The goal is to create logical conclusions that all people can and must acknowledge (no Holy Spirit really necessary).
Wesley knew of the rationalist apologetics of his day, but felt them inadequate. The world will know Jesus is Lord not by being convinced of propositions, but by the unity and love of Christ's disciples.
Wesleyan's control belief and starting point is 'salvation'. The bible's purpose is to bring us into a salvific relationship with God.
This means:
1 - Fundamentalism's focus on inerrant autographs is moot for Wesleyans. Internal Spirit witness is of greater importance than impressive, highfalutin external arguments for some proposition that needs to be upheld as foundational. Scripture is upheld on the basis of the risen Lord, not some modernist argument.
2 - Wesleyan theology also employs other sources of knowledge for expressing Christian faith. Famously, the Wesleyan quadrilateral. Tradition and Reason can revise our understanding of scripture, the corporate experience and internal witness of the spirit can "test" how our interpretations should be expressed. Fundamentalists are stuck in a literalistic paradigm which isn't actually scriptural, but is itself a specific tradition.
Wesleyans tend to speak of "the whole tenor of scripture", whereas fundamentalists tend to cite specific verses.
Ironically, fundamentalism sought to fight against the modernism of it's day, but it was and is unknowingly bound to the very modernist framework it rebelled against. It sought to bring down a movement using the very framework of that movement as its basis. Wesleyanism stands outside of both.
Dwight and Nina Gunter's section on "Why It Matters" is a great couple of pages and worth the price of the book itself. Fundamentalists aren't more faithful Christians, we're talking about two different groups here. Wesleyans need to understand the difference for their own faith and practice.
Chapter 5: Saul's Armor
Fundamentalism was a way to fight liberalism or modernism. The Princeton theologians (from Archibald Alexander, to Charles Hodge, to A. A. Hodge, to B. B. Warfield, to J. Gresham Machen - all staunch Calvinists) used these tools to defend the bible and ended up making the bible something it never was.
It built on Scottish Realism - that all knowledge is built upon propositional truths - to create a tower of impenetrable inductive reasoning for everything ( ala Francis Bacon). Here, there is no wiggle room for error or questions. If all people would just think correctly, they would be Christian (and probably presbyterian). Fundamentalists believe for all this to take place, the inerrant truth of God must be communicated through an inerrant medium. Every word must be inerrant or the whole thing is a waste.
This is, for a Wesleyan, a disastrous foundation to build the faith on (if even one word is wrong, Christ is not raised and our faith is in vain). This is NOT what Wesleyans have as their foundation. Fundamentalists have an underlying assumption that reason is all you need. Wesleyans (along with the Reformers) understand that only the Spirit's work can accomplish what the fundamentalists try to argue.
Chapter 6: Harmony of Faith and Science
Too little space in this book for what is needed, and in fact it might be out of place, as there is not much of a comparison to fundamentalism, but more of an option for Wesleyans. This chapter was a strange mix of concordism, OEC, ID, and theistic evolution.
Chapter 7: Unity and Diversity
Fundamentalism is rigid and has parameters with little room for disagreement, as they bring many things into the category of "essential" that Wesleyans don't. Wesleyans are more likely to understand that there are many who are Christian who are not Wesleyan. There is a built-in tolerance here.
Chapter 8: Biblical Authority
Joel Green argues that words like infallibility and inerrancy concerning scripture kind of miss the point. What does it mean for a poem or a story about catching fish (e.g) to be inerrant? Wesley pointed out that what really matters in regards to our submission to the bible is orthokardia - that our hearts overflow with love by the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalists tend to focus on "right opinions" (which is basically a negative phrasing of orthodoxy).
Wesleyans are fine with scholarly investigations into technical datapoints regarding scriptural origin and transmission, because the purpose of scripture is transformation of the reader. Scripture having authority means we read it and let what we read shape our hearts and minds.
Carla Sunberg's "Why it matters" section is great. Often, laypersons say they just want the bible. Fundamentalist preachers say that's what they are doing, but they are being deceptive. Any preaching from the bible comes with an inherent interpretation. Better to know this is happening as you do it (ala Wesleyans) than to do it without realizing you are doing it (ala fundamentalists).
These are my personal notes on the chapters.
Chapter 1: History of Fundamentalism
A history of fundamentalism and what the movement is and where it came from. Very helpful to know this, as the word is uncritically slung as a pejorative nowadays.
According to the author, Wesleyans are not fundamentalists for 4 fundamental reasons:
1 - Fundamentalists operate in a Calvinist framework (whether realized or not).
2 - Fundamentalists make choosing a single eschatological viewpoint (typically premillennialism) a top priority.
3 - Fundamentalists have a different doctrine of scripture than Wesleyans.
4 - Fundamentalists have a generally low viewpoint of modern scholarship (usually because of their doctrine of scripture).
Chapter 2: Doctrine of Scripture
Fundamentalists build set of propositional statements from the bible to which they use as a foundation of truth. The bible is dissected into statements that inerrantly support these propositions. In this light, the bible is essentially a bunch of information. The Wesleyan view is that God himself is the revelation, not information about God.
For Wesley:
1 - Scripture is how we know God.
2 - Scripture is to shape us into holy living, not deliver information. It forms us, rather than informs us.
3 - Our reading and comprehension must be through the work of the Spirit. What is the intention of reading?
For Wesleyans, the words of scripture must become flesh in us for the scripture to be the scripture.
Chapter 3: The Bible, creation, and science
Bible - Wesleyans understand the bible's human authorship, their understanding, and context.
Creation - Wesleyans trust the study of creation and do not believe God is deceptive in what study of his creation teaches.
Science - God speaks through and to his people where they are at. Wesleyans don't expect God to speak to the authors of scripture with 17th century European rationalist peccadillos in mind.
People try to make the bible something other than it is. Concordism seeks to correlate the bible with modern science. YEC seeks to correlate modern science with the bible. Wesleyans read scripture understanding the context and people it was written by and to.
Chapter 4: Expressions of the Christian Faith
It is difficult to contrast fundamentalism and Wesleyanism because they are from two different times and concerned with different things. We need to understand who they are if we are to compare them. (This should have been the first or second chapter).
Fundamentalism's control belief and starting point is 'truth', specifically the correspondence theory of truth. The philosophy behind this is Scottish realism (common-sense philosophy). This is why there is a big apologetics push by fundamentalists. The goal is to create logical conclusions that all people can and must acknowledge (no Holy Spirit really necessary).
Wesley knew of the rationalist apologetics of his day, but felt them inadequate. The world will know Jesus is Lord not by being convinced of propositions, but by the unity and love of Christ's disciples.
Wesleyan's control belief and starting point is 'salvation'. The bible's purpose is to bring us into a salvific relationship with God.
This means:
1 - Fundamentalism's focus on inerrant autographs is moot for Wesleyans. Internal Spirit witness is of greater importance than impressive, highfalutin external arguments for some proposition that needs to be upheld as foundational. Scripture is upheld on the basis of the risen Lord, not some modernist argument.
2 - Wesleyan theology also employs other sources of knowledge for expressing Christian faith. Famously, the Wesleyan quadrilateral. Tradition and Reason can revise our understanding of scripture, the corporate experience and internal witness of the spirit can "test" how our interpretations should be expressed. Fundamentalists are stuck in a literalistic paradigm which isn't actually scriptural, but is itself a specific tradition.
Wesleyans tend to speak of "the whole tenor of scripture", whereas fundamentalists tend to cite specific verses.
Ironically, fundamentalism sought to fight against the modernism of it's day, but it was and is unknowingly bound to the very modernist framework it rebelled against. It sought to bring down a movement using the very framework of that movement as its basis. Wesleyanism stands outside of both.
Dwight and Nina Gunter's section on "Why It Matters" is a great couple of pages and worth the price of the book itself. Fundamentalists aren't more faithful Christians, we're talking about two different groups here. Wesleyans need to understand the difference for their own faith and practice.
Chapter 5: Saul's Armor
Fundamentalism was a way to fight liberalism or modernism. The Princeton theologians (from Archibald Alexander, to Charles Hodge, to A. A. Hodge, to B. B. Warfield, to J. Gresham Machen - all staunch Calvinists) used these tools to defend the bible and ended up making the bible something it never was.
It built on Scottish Realism - that all knowledge is built upon propositional truths - to create a tower of impenetrable inductive reasoning for everything ( ala Francis Bacon). Here, there is no wiggle room for error or questions. If all people would just think correctly, they would be Christian (and probably presbyterian). Fundamentalists believe for all this to take place, the inerrant truth of God must be communicated through an inerrant medium. Every word must be inerrant or the whole thing is a waste.
This is, for a Wesleyan, a disastrous foundation to build the faith on (if even one word is wrong, Christ is not raised and our faith is in vain). This is NOT what Wesleyans have as their foundation. Fundamentalists have an underlying assumption that reason is all you need. Wesleyans (along with the Reformers) understand that only the Spirit's work can accomplish what the fundamentalists try to argue.
Chapter 6: Harmony of Faith and Science
Too little space in this book for what is needed, and in fact it might be out of place, as there is not much of a comparison to fundamentalism, but more of an option for Wesleyans. This chapter was a strange mix of concordism, OEC, ID, and theistic evolution.
Chapter 7: Unity and Diversity
Fundamentalism is rigid and has parameters with little room for disagreement, as they bring many things into the category of "essential" that Wesleyans don't. Wesleyans are more likely to understand that there are many who are Christian who are not Wesleyan. There is a built-in tolerance here.
Chapter 8: Biblical Authority
Joel Green argues that words like infallibility and inerrancy concerning scripture kind of miss the point. What does it mean for a poem or a story about catching fish (e.g) to be inerrant? Wesley pointed out that what really matters in regards to our submission to the bible is orthokardia - that our hearts overflow with love by the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalists tend to focus on "right opinions" (which is basically a negative phrasing of orthodoxy).
Wesleyans are fine with scholarly investigations into technical datapoints regarding scriptural origin and transmission, because the purpose of scripture is transformation of the reader. Scripture having authority means we read it and let what we read shape our hearts and minds.
Carla Sunberg's "Why it matters" section is great. Often, laypersons say they just want the bible. Fundamentalist preachers say that's what they are doing, but they are being deceptive. Any preaching from the bible comes with an inherent interpretation. Better to know this is happening as you do it (ala Wesleyans) than to do it without realizing you are doing it (ala fundamentalists).
August 22, 2019
This is a very useful book intended for those in the Nazarene and Free Methodist traditions, but more broadly Wesleyan folks. It really is remarkable how many people, whether with theological education or not, believe in inerrancy. The book seems aimed at the undergraduate/educated layperson, and therefore doesn't go quite as deep as one might wish, but this doesn't really detract from its value
November 3, 2021
It was good. Like, really good.
I did feel like it sort of wandered away from it's thesis by the end (that's my reasoning for 4 stars)
“…allegiance to any rule antithetical to the law of love is also antithetical to the kingdom of
God.”
I did feel like it sort of wandered away from it's thesis by the end (that's my reasoning for 4 stars)
“…allegiance to any rule antithetical to the law of love is also antithetical to the kingdom of
God.”
June 22, 2017
Captivating...
June 9, 2016
Very helpful for understanding why Fundamentalism is not the answer. Gives good insight into why it is not okay to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and how such a reading stifles the Christian. Only need to read the first 3 chapters, after that it gets redundant.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews