REGARDING MY SBL RESOLUTION POST, Kenneth Litwak e-mails:

I find the comments about the resolution (many of which I agree with) opposing �Fundamentalist� practices while using them to be troubling. I do not style myself as a �Fundamentalist,� and in fact, don�t even know what that represents in 2005 to anyone except a catch-all term for views of the Bible that are opposed by others. I would, however, be interested in knowing what practice is in view here and why it is viewed as the primary property of �Fundamentalists,� whoever they are. Lots and lots of scholars, clergy and others use the Bible to prove their point of view. It�s unclear to me why that is particularly �Fundamentalist.�

I think I said "fundamentalist" because I read the SBL resolution to have in mind people who treat the Bible as a unity with an unambiguous central message about "values" which embodies uniquely Divine and nonnegotiable authority. I suppose one could debate whether "fundamentalist" is an adequate shorthand term for that demographic. It seems more to apply to Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals than, say, Catholic or Jewish fundamentalists. For the last two, the Bible is less centrally urgent and going back to the "fundamentals" of the faith does not involve a principle of sola scriptura.

But if you don't think the term fundamentalist is accurate or useful, you may be right. In that case, please edit my original statement by deleting "fundamentalist" wherever it appears and replacing it, if necessary, with "opponent," adjusting the grammar as needed (e.g., "the fundamentalist view" -> "the view of the opponents," etc.). I don't need to define the opponents of the (still anonymous) authors of the resolution more specifically than they do. I am perfectly happy with that formulation and would have written it that way if I'd thought of it. But granting that change, I think my points remain.