fundamentalism by blunt instrument
In an article today in the National Post, a university professor lays the blame for religious decline squarely at the feet of Christians:
He said most people assume religious ignorance came about from the secularization of U.S. schools, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court banned devotional Bible readings and prayer in the 1960s.
But he believes the problem can be traced back 100 years ago to changes in Christianity itself.
Two recent posts are offered on the approach fundamentalism needs to be taking in the 21st century. The first is outrage is easy, the second is outrage is easy . . . or is it?
My arguments in outrage is easy . . . or is it? fall along what I consider to be traditional fundamentalist argumentation in the last half of the 20th century, i.e., an opposition to compromised associations. I think the argumentation is valid, yet the argumentation fails if the issues over which I object are inconsequential.
Let me try to illustrate [I know that I am often guilty of obtuse language]: Person A engages in practices/preaching that the Fundamentalist shuns and proclaims wrong. Person B does not engage in those practices/preaching but is willing to overlook these matters and joins with Person A in cooperative religious efforts. The Fundamentalist, according to my argumentation, shuns Person B because his association with Person A constitute a violation of clear commands of Scripture to ‘touch not the unclean thing’.
If the practices/preaching of Person A are not, in fact, wrong, then the Fundamentalist is wrong in shunning either one.
Regardless of any other factors, this is the crux of argument against compromised associations. The shunned preaching or practices must be sufficiently antagonistic to the cause of Christ to warrant the shunning [to whatever degree the shunning takes place].
I say ‘sufficiently’ because we are all fallible men and we tend to want to give others the benefit of the doubt to some extent – or at least, we ought to. I say ‘to whatever degree’ because there are what some call ‘degrees’ of separation. It is not my purpose to agonize over such degrees here. I am simply looking at the essential argument as I made it in the earlier post.
It seems to me that the issues we most argue about today in the shunning/separation/fellowship debates is largely culturally focused. Whether it be the culture of music, motion pictures, dress, the use of alcohol, or any other issue you care to name, the argumentation is largely focused on culture. Some say the problem is simply a matter of taste. In the area of music, the ‘good old hymns’ of broad fundamentalism are nothing more than the popular music of the late 19th to early 20th century. Some might add that culture is not theological, no doctrines are at stake, your criticism is nothing but Pharisaism, etc.
In this article, I am going to contend that the challenge to orthodoxy we face today is a much more subtle attack on orthodoxy than we have faced heretofore.
Our Sunday morning message focused on the theme of the Christian and his role in the local church. For the afternoon, we looked back at Leviticus for our communion service.
Our proposition: “Christians, gathered in local churches, are God’s agents for the purpose of strengthening one another’s spiritual life.”
Last week I wrote that outrage is easy. It really is, isn’t it? I commented to a friend that I could simply be a ‘shadow-blogger’ of, say, Christianity Today, and bring you nothing but outrage all the time. So outrage is easy, and we could easily make outrage our constant focus.
In another post, I mentioned a well known Seattle church and pastor. In a recent sermon about worldliness, I commented on an announcement concerning the New Years Eve party held at their church:
Our second annual New Year’s extravaganza! Ring in 2008 in Red Hot Style. This New Year’s Eve party features internationally known artist, Bobby Medina & his Red Hot Band. This 12 piece big band does it all, from Swing, to Latin to Motown and beyond and are widely considering one of the top dance bands in the Northwest.
New Years Eve at our Christmas fellowship, my wife noticed near the end of the evening that her diamond from her engagement/wedding ring was missing. Our 25th anniversary will be this year, so you can imagine her sense of loss. We searched everywhere, that night and then the next day. Nothing.
Today, after church, one of our older men noticed something in the carpet runner in our church hallway. He poked at it with his cane … and thought he saw a glint of light. There it was. Five weeks later, my wife’s diamond was found!
The fellow who found it told my wife, “I’ll sell it to you now!” What a bit of rejoicing! One of our ladies said, “it was a perfect end to a perfect day at church.”
Well, it was a blessing to us. It is just a thing, and we had given it up for lost. But we are rejoicing! Thank you, Lord!
I just thought I would share that with you. I’ll give you the update later.
As an observer of the wild world of Christendom such as it is in North America, it is all too easy to be outraged. Many things done and said in the name of Christ are outright travesties. It is easy to be outraged about them.
As a blogger, outrage is a constant temptation.
Sunday was a wintry day. Attendance down a bit. For us, winter means temps around freezing, but usually very little snow if any. Also, for us, winter only lasts for about two weeks. Spring should be here in mid February.
Two prayer emphases in this message: 1. What it means to constantly pray for others. 2. What I must do to bring about the answers to my own prayers.
I wrote about women and the workplace yesterday. The subject of male/female relations and the Bible have long been an interest to me. It is a critical battleground today. Tim Bayly offers a post that deals mostly with the meaning of Eph 5.21ff, although it is ostensibly about politics. How many times have you heard or used the term ‘mutual submission’? Do you realize how unbiblical the notion is? Here’s a key comment, but read the whole thing. And don’t miss the comment of my online friend, Bill Mouser (10:43 time mark).
Those who hate authority, and specifically the authority of father-rule ordered by our Creator, make much of the “submit to one another” command, trying to use it to trump or confuse or hide or obfuscate the “wives submit to your husbands” command immediately following it.
Read the whole thing… [a little blogging lingo there!]
Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
A lot of ‘young fundamentalists’ repeat the mantra that fundamentalism is a ‘subset’ of evangelicalism. This same notion is perpetrated in a PBS interview I read today.
In the article, John Green, a senior fellow at the PEW Forum on Religion and professor of political science at the University of Akron, is interviewed about ‘young evangelicals’ and politics. Green repeats the revisionist notion that fundamentalists really are evangelicals.
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments