TaTiera Richardson

Dr.Magallanes
Exo/Deu
9/19/2013

Book Review #1: Square Peg, Why Wesleyans Arent Fundamentalist
Square Peg: Why Wesleyans Arent Fundamentalist is a book edited by Al Truesdale and
Published by Beacon Hill Press that explores the principles of Wesleyan culture, a subset of the
religious Methodist Denomination. As given away by the title a good portion of this book is
dedicated to explaining the fundamental differences between Wesleyans and Fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism is a termed coined in the 1920s that characterizes a segment in the orthodox
Christian faith that emphasizes the preservation of biblical authority and inerrancy (Truesdale
12). Truesdale breaks his book down into eight chapters, each with a specific purpose all leading
to his ultimate goal of ushering the apostolic Christian faith into an era of informed conviction
(Truesdale 9). By breaking down key principle differences in religious culture does Truesdale
give his reader a spiritual face lift?
Square peg starts with its introduction which gives it reader a peek into the scope of the
book. As written Square peg examines two significantly different ways of understanding nature
and the role of the bible that mark different parts of Christs church (Truesdale 8). The first is
represented by fundamentalist and the second through Wesleyan theology. Differences reach
even further to the nature of revelation all the way to science and discipleship (8).Furthermore
the goal of the book is to help persons of Wesleyan denomination to understand its distinct
differences between it and fundamentalism. These differences are so distinct that one cannot
Richardson 2

adopt a piece of one without forfeiting another (9). It progresses on, into the heart of the text
which starts with an historical overview of Fundamentalism and its origins from a series of
books titled the Fundamentals(9). The fundamentals as mentioned in the text was established
in the united states between 1910 and 1915, the booklets used the term fundamentals to
identify doctrines thought to be essential or nonnegotiable( 12).
Fundamentalist key principle lies in the literal sense in which it takes the bible. That very
principle is also the reason why Wesleyans believe doing so undermines the bible as the
revealed, inerrant and authoritative word of god (13). By upholding the literal meaning of the
word fundamentalist naturally reject theories of evolution and upholds creationism exactly as
Genesis teaches it (13). Fundamentalist literal interpretation opens the discussion for its opposing
side and a staunch reason why fundamentalism developed. During 1920s the bibles inerrancy
was under attack of modernist trends that used historical criticism or analyzing the bible as
historical or literary documents not as a primary source for absolute truth (18). In the modernist
point of view close observation and examination are the criteria of authority. Modernist can take
the bible for what it is without having to accept its worldview. Modernist did not just refuse to
believe anything in the bible but it rejected standard religious beliefs to avoid the stigma of being
superstitious (19). In doing so it was believed it preserved the an intellectually acceptable way to
understand the bible and its message(19).Contrastingly fundamentalist believed that word of god
was divine authorship and accepting the bibles supernatural origin was a part of the Christian
faith and no man or woman could be saved if they doubted the divine teachings (19).
Fundamentalist increasingly though there goal was to save Christianity from humanism and
rationalism thus preserving the bibles sacredness and the deity of Christ (20).
Richardson 3

The first portion of the book ends with the first examination of Wesleyan beliefs against
Fundamentalist. Wesleyans have a difficult time embracing fundamentalism for a couple of
reasons as mentioned. The first being fundamentalist tend to follow a Calvinistic culture while
Wesleyans assign prominence to the doctrine of Christian holiness in a way not normally
supported by Calvinists theology. Wesleyans reject the doctrine of predestination, which is the
idea that a select few are predestined for heaven furthermore Wesleyans also do not believe or
stress the conditions for continuing in the Christian life. Second Wesleyans will not commit to a
single eschatology because they does not believe the New Testaments treats it in a way that make
it so a conclusion can be formulated. They also do not believe in stressing about the end of time
because it can distract one from leading a holy life. The Holy Spirit is the way to salvation in
Wesleyans words, not who is right and what biblical text says. Furthermore Wesleyans cannot
accept the authoritative nature that is place upon scripture in fundamentalism principle;
Wesleyans cannot embrace doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Lastly they do not reject scientific
information that strays away from the creation story by doing so it can impose limitations on
what modern science can teach us about origins (26).
Chapter three of Square Peg opens discussion on the examination of the bible and
science. It examines from three different accounts, the first being the concordance approach
which seeks the bible to comply with modern science so they are in agreement (46). With this
approach the bible is stripped of its independent voice and is forced to speak the language of
modern science, a language unknown to the bibles original recipients and writers (47). Much of
ANE language and customs have not been discovered until recently, so it would be hard to gauge
just exactly the writers of the bible where saying. The second explanation is the YEC or young-
earth creationism which forces science to comply with genesis (47). The last being cosmology of
Richardson 4

Genesis 1, which acknowledges that we often need to read into the text to understand culture.
Furthermore it recognizes the need to let the science and biblical word to stand separately.
Truesdale then progresses into a discussion on Princeton theology and its error in its roots
in Christian doctrine and science. In closing Truesdale explains why instead of opposing free
scientific pursuit, Christians should encourage scientific discoveries and learn from them. In sum
going back to the beginning Truesdale see the importance of critically analyzing what we
believe, until then we cannot be informed Christians.
Square peg in total did exactly what it claimed, before reading I did not have much of a
clue of what I actually claimed as my faith. I learned tools to defend my religious convictions
while believing in the miracles of science. Although its view is biased in the Wesleyan tradition
it fairly distributes clear knowledge of Fundamentalist views and those of others. In todays
society most people group all Christians in the same category, when one is informed of the small
difference he or she is more clear and then receives a spiritual face lift being free of all what
has learned, ultimately bring him or her closer to god.