"Does Charles Spurgeon represent 'Cultural Fundamentalism?'”
‘Secondary associations’ does not equate a denial of secondary separation by fiat. If you want to elevate music to a fundamental…well, good luck with that. I’m fairly sure that Olson is saying that they’re not going to be obligated to separate from someone who endorses someone else in error. I could read something by Rick Warren, for example, and find a few things to agree with (well, I’m sure I could find something). I would not invite him to my church or use his books in a church / sunday school setting, though.
I’m not saying you’re a bad guy or unnecessarily schismatic - I just don’t understand the need to separate from someone who may or may not be in error. Especially over music or ‘secondary associations’. Have you read Bob Bixby’s newest blogpost? I would encourage you to do so.
For the record, I do believe in secondary separation and have argued for it on SharperIron.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I just read Bixby’s latest blog post. I suspect he is a good man who was badly burned, and is quite hostile to fundamentalism as a movement. He erects straw men based on the unfortunate, un-Biblical actions of those on the extreme, dictatorial, right-wing fringe of fundamentalism.
He is not somebody I plan on paying any attention to, unless he shows signs of calming down. I’ve read two posts by him. I can almost picture him frothing and spitting at the keyboard in fury as he typed each of them. There is none of that coming from the separatists at SI regarding this issue. I am honestly puzzled at why you give credence to the man. He evidently has a large axe to grind, and he has apparently posted himself at the grinding wheel for the long haul. Good luck to him. I’ll steer clear.
Your comments on levels of separation are also quite correct, and I doubt any separatist would disagree with you. Pickering wrote about the concept in Biblical Separation. McCune agreed with it in his own work, Promise Unfulfilled.
I would honestly appreciate your input on the evangelicalism article on the main SI page, specifically my contention that the original fundamentalism/new evangelicalism was over a different philosophy of ministry, one which repudiated separation. That original schism informs the entire NIU isssue under discussion here.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I just finished re-reading “Pursuit of Purity” by Beale, and I’ve been wanting to re-read Pickering and McCune anyway, so I’ll do that. I started on Moritz, but gave him up to read Ralph Vedders “The Sinfulness of Sin”, so there’s a bit of a queue forming on my nightstand. :)
I’ll check out your articles as well. Right now I’m kind of immersed in the music thing on SI and could frankly use a break from it (I say this as I swing over to read the Bixby filing thread…)
Let me encourage you to reconsider your opinion of Bob Bixby, if you really believe that he needs to calm down or that he’s ‘frothing and spitting’. He’s a good man who does think things through before he sits down to write, unlike one other blogger that I can think of. He’s blunt and sarcastic, but rarely (if ever) flat out wrong if you’re willing to give him a few minutes and consider what he’s got to say.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Yes, I’m looking for points of agreement again….
Sometimes you have to back out hundreds of yards to find any, but they are there. And it’s worth doing because (a) sometimes if you establish pts of agreement, part of the disagreement disappear because of shared inferences from the pts of agreement and (2) it’s better to disagree about what you really disagree about than to disagree about what you are just saying different ways or simply misunderstanding. Nothing quite so pointless as dismantling a view nobody holds.
I’d like to do some writing about “cultural fundamentalism,” but want to see if some pts of agreement can be established at least in the context of this thread:
Would most or all of us agree that:
- Believers are called to holy living
- Holy living requires us to apply Scripture to many matters it does not directly address
- Fundamentalism has not always gotten it right when it has reacted to cultural changes
- Non-fundamentalism has not always gotten it right when it has reacted (or not reacted) to cultural changes
- “Culture” is a really vague/ambiguous concept.
- “Fundamentalism” is a pretty vague concept anymore.
- “Cultural Fundamentalism” is an even fuzzier (z) concept than both of the constituent terms combined. (CFz > (Cz+Fz))
- It is possible to react to a problem (i.e., #3 above) by over-correcting, thus creating a new problem of equal or greater severity.
- Human beings of all persuasions are much inclined to #8.
OK, #7 might be a bit too precise for a pt of agreement, but maybe it’s a POA paraphrased as “Cultural Fundamentalism” is at least as vague a concept as “Culture” and “Fundamentalism.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Cultural fundamentalism is a term of practice, not conviction. I can love, honor, agree with, and respect those who hold fundamentalist doctrinal convictions. But let’s say you have a group of people focused like a laser beam on externals such as short hair, long pants, and alter calls, and excusing the weightier matters of the law, that’s unbiblical. Fundamentalism has pockets of great people, with great heart on this kind of thing. But it also has great failures. It would be nice if those who think the ideas of fundamentalism are wonderful would correct the BS/filthy rags that exist in the same movement.
Discussion