“Karl Barth, the greatest Protestant thinker of the twentieth Century, visited the United States only once”. (Worthen, 15)
(1) I found this an interesting opening sentence. Isn’t this based off author Worthen’s own bias? Granted, he was a huge influence on theology, but perhaps depending on the lens, might there not be others that were thought of as the “greatest”? Might not Albert Schweitzer for example, as a missionary and religious philosopher not be considered a great theological thinker as well? (He also won a Nobel prize) I would not agree with her that Barth was the greatest. It is all relative.
(2) I’ve become somewhat fascinated with Gresham Machen. He was certainly not the norm. “As a staunch fundamentalist and a mainstream public intellectual” how does one negotiate all that? This seems a bit contradictory, does it not? Especially, since he believed in private Christian colleges, how does he dip his foot in the mainstream if he’s trying to cocoon fundamentalist theology? It appears the fundamentalists of today, or at least many of those …show more content…
“Obsessive apocalypticism ran contrary to her traditions respect for the limits of human knowledge.” This supports the idea of the mystery that many fundamentalists do not wish to address. Similarly, “Historically, the Nazarene church has carefully avoided any official position regarding the ‘Second coming.’” Again, this uses mystery as well as some tongue and cheek humor. (Worthen, 93)
One push back, when she writes about all the PhD’s earned by evangelicals in the 1940’s and 50’s from American institutions, I would have liked to know statistically, what the PhD ratio was for men vs women. (Perhaps it comes later). Also, with both the Sutton and Worthen, the terms evangelical and fundamentalist get a little blurred here and there. Meaning, which is which? Perhaps it depends on the lens too. (Worthen,
(1) I found this an interesting opening sentence. Isn’t this based off author Worthen’s own bias? Granted, he was a huge influence on theology, but perhaps depending on the lens, might there not be others that were thought of as the “greatest”? Might not Albert Schweitzer for example, as a missionary and religious philosopher not be considered a great theological thinker as well? (He also won a Nobel prize) I would not agree with her that Barth was the greatest. It is all relative.
(2) I’ve become somewhat fascinated with Gresham Machen. He was certainly not the norm. “As a staunch fundamentalist and a mainstream public intellectual” how does one negotiate all that? This seems a bit contradictory, does it not? Especially, since he believed in private Christian colleges, how does he dip his foot in the mainstream if he’s trying to cocoon fundamentalist theology? It appears the fundamentalists of today, or at least many of those …show more content…
“Obsessive apocalypticism ran contrary to her traditions respect for the limits of human knowledge.” This supports the idea of the mystery that many fundamentalists do not wish to address. Similarly, “Historically, the Nazarene church has carefully avoided any official position regarding the ‘Second coming.’” Again, this uses mystery as well as some tongue and cheek humor. (Worthen, 93)
One push back, when she writes about all the PhD’s earned by evangelicals in the 1940’s and 50’s from American institutions, I would have liked to know statistically, what the PhD ratio was for men vs women. (Perhaps it comes later). Also, with both the Sutton and Worthen, the terms evangelical and fundamentalist get a little blurred here and there. Meaning, which is which? Perhaps it depends on the lens too. (Worthen,