Toward a Positive Agenda for Young Fundamentalists
Being up to my ears in SharperIron.org doesn’t qualify me to speak for Young Fundamentalists or try to prescribe an agenda for them. A scan of my bona fides doesn’t reveal anything that would especially commend me for the job either. But I do care, so I offer here some thoughts on a question that is on some minds these days (examples here, here, and also to a degree here). The question is this: what should Young Fundamentalists* be doing?
The challenges
It’s a great question and we’re deep into the right season for asking it. The fact that a large number of younger Fundamentalists have different emphases, attitudes and aims than many of the older generation is now no longer in doubt. And the steady (and apparently still increasing) disappearance of many young leaders from the Fundamentalist grid is also no longer shocking news. Younger leaders who want to keep identifying with “Fundamentalism” in some sense are interested in what shape that might take. Those who want to keep YFs from “jumping ship” are interested in what reasons can be found to make them stay on board.
An exciting, attractive and unifying agenda for the YFs would seem to be just the thing. But some pretty big challenges face those who aim to develop this agenda.
1. The era of productive self-criticism is just about past
Of course, the time never comes when believers or ministries—or even movements—no longer need to reflect, face weaknesses and errors honestly and seek to correct them. But the time when Fundamentalists were unable or unwilling to identify major flaws in the movement is behind us, and the work of identifying Fundamentalism’s root problems has been thoroughly undertaken not only by numerous amateurs, but also by men with a great deal of learning and skill behind their efforts. A few examples in no particular order:
- Bob Bixby: “Fundamentalist Groupthink and the Inevitable Paradigm Shift”
- Kevin Bauder: “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving”
- Brian McCrory: “A Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving”
- Stephen Davis: “Theology Light: Achilles Heel of Fundamentalism”
- Mark Farnham: “Has Fundamentalism Become Secularized?”
- Jeff Straub: “The Fundamentalist Challenge for the 21st Century: Do We Have a Future?”
- Andrew Burggraff: “A Young Fundamentalist’s Viewpoint on our Movement “
- Thomas Pryde: “Knowledge, Humility, Zeal and Leadership”
- Joel Tetreau: “Three Lines in the Sand”
Arguably, the turning point was Doug MacLachlan’s 1993 publication of [amazon 0918407028]. In the wake of that act of courage, increasing numbers of Fundamentalist leaders were willing to stand up and say “we’ve been wrong” in reference to various attitudes and practices.
Kevin Bauder’s analysis of the deeper philosophical and theological undercurrents of the Fundamentalist movement (“Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither?”) delves into some negative influences in the movement previously unexamined by Fundamentalists. But that series of essays will reach its conclusion relatively soon, and it’s hard to imagine what ills could be left to uncover after that. We’ve about done all the diagnostics (if you see the movement as alive) or postmortem analyses (if you see it as dead) that one sick body—or corpse—can sustain.
I can almost hear some objecting, “But there are still so many Fundamentalists who are so messed up—most of them! Surely, they need to honestly face the diseases in the movement!” Yes. But the key word there is “they.” It’s increasingly apparent to me that just about every Fundamentalist who is willing to face Fundamentalism’s flaws has already done so, and that the rest are not listening, and probably never will.
One thing is for sure. Whatever a YF is exactly, he is not a Fundamentalist who is unwilling to criticize Fundamentalism.
The result is that a lasting YF agenda cannot consist entirely—or even mainly—of enumerating the errors that characterized Fundamentalism’s past and which continue only in its non-YF present. Unless more YFs are truly in a position to influence the rest of the movement (or its decaying fragments), they will be rehashing old complaints and preaching them to the choir.
But, on second thought, does the era of productive Fundamentalist self criticism have to be over? What if YFs begin an era where the self-criticism is truly self-criticism. That is, what if YFs aimed to identify and correct the weaknesses of YFs? (There are some signs of willingness to do this. For example, Christian Markle’s recent article.)
2. Positive expressions of purpose often lack uniqueness
YFs who are working on an agenda for the future have not been purely negative. They have also labored to identify positive aims worthy of Fundamentalist’s energies. Several of the “Standpoint Declarations” express positive goals.
Furthermore, affirmations of the centrality of the gospel and the task of communicating it are frequently identified as today’s battlefront. And who can argue with that?
The fight to uphold the gospel is indeed the highest and best agenda any of us could embrace (though some of us would prefer to frame it strongly in a “glory of God” context). But as a positive agenda for YFs, this, too falls short. How so? Because we are talking about an agenda for Fundamentalists as distinct from others. The fight for the pure gospel of grace is precisely the same agenda as that of T4G and the Gospel Coalition (and, for that reason, their efforts are worthy of respect and cause for rejoicing). But if the YF agenda is identical to that of an existing conservative evangelical agenda, why not simply join these efforts and the drop the “F” from YF? (On these points, see also Chris Anderson’s “Fundamentalist Deja Vu.”)
The goal of greater unity with conservative evangelicals suffers from a variation of this problem as well. In addition to the fact that the evangelical right is not particularly interested in ties with Fundamentalists, it’s unclear how forming such ties (or working toward them) could serve as a rallying point for sustaining a Fundamentalist identity. Though, arguably, a more nuanced practice of separation could result in some increased cooperation while not—in itself—erasing the distinct identity of the Fundamentalists involved, this greater unity cannot provide young Fundamentalists with any long-term reason to remain Fundamentalists.
3. What’s left is not very cool
So we come to the question of what’s left. If the self-critical work cannot provide a sustainable YF agenda, and the positive gospel-centered and unity goals are shared by most evangelicals, what is left for YFs to work together to accomplish as Fundamentalists?
There are almost certainly additional possibilities I am not yet seeing, but two possibilities suggest themselves immediately. I fear they are not likely to be to be embraced by many YFs, though. Perhaps I give them (“us”?) too little credit. I would sincerely love to be able to apologize for that.
Two items YFs could add to what conservative evangelicals are already pursuing are these:
- Compassionate, but thorough and unembarrassed separatism
- Thoughtful, but aggressive and unembarrassed application of Scripture to cultural issues
That neither of these are strengths of the current conservative evangelicalism shouldn’t require much proving. Though a few exceptions are noteworthy (C. J. Mahaney’s book [amazon 1433502801], for example), evangelicals have generally not given a great deal of attention to what it means to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present age. And evangelicals of all stripes continue to show a noticeable gravitation toward the cool and an amazing quickness to embrace the latest trendy gimmick.
The Fundamentalist movement of my childhood was often reactionary and arbitrary about cultural issues. I’m not talking about returning to (or clinging to) that. But the solution to that problem is not to affirm that Jesus is Lord of all life then declare—in teaching or just by neglect—that in entertainment, fashion, speech patterns and the like, anything goes. Perhaps the most valuable thing Fundamentalists can add to the goals of conservative evangelicalism is a prophetic voice in the areas of holy living (as an example of what I’m talking about, see Bixby, “Phil Johnson on Worldliness… Hmmm”) and separatism.
Replacing authoritarian leadership with biblically authoritative leadership is certainly an excellent goal. Promoting faithful exposition in our pulpits is as well. Certainly, we need a strong emphasis on the gracious, transforming, inner work of the Spirit in believers’ lives. And yes, we need to wisely discern the difference between comfortable customs and biblical mandates and to work together better where Scripture allows and wisdom commends. But a YF agenda that has any reason to exist as something Fundamentalist must find unique emphases that speak to our times in ways that others are not speaking.
Notes
*For the purposes of this article, “young Fundamentalists” are those who still identify with Fundamentalism in some way but want to see what remains of the movement go in a new direction. For the most part, they are middle aged or younger. Most emphasize that more love and unity and better handling of Scripture are desperately needed. Some interesting links on the subject from a few years ago: Mark Perry (2005), Ben Wright on Convergence (2005), Colin Hansen (2007).
- 8 views
Tim Davis
At the end of the day, people united over a view of separation is just silly. It’s far too insubstantial a cause to serve as a primary identifier. So, there can be Dispensational Baptist Fundamentalists, but they’re drawing their theology and practice far more from their Baptist and Dispensationalist convictions than from their “fundamentalism.”
[Hyperbole] To me, the whole idea of contemporary Fundamentalism is sort of like me going around and finding all the people who are dichotomists rather than trichotomists. Then, I start gathering all the dichotomists together and having conferences. We start naming our churches “Independent Dichotomist Baptist Church” and joining the “Dichotomist Bible Fellowship.” We grumble at the hyper-Calvinists and the Semi-Pelagians, but try to remain civil, because, after all, we’re all committed dichotomists and that’s what’s really important. The big issue, though, is what to do with the dichotomists who are talking to the trichotomists. How much talking is ok? Some seem to think that the trichotomists are really saying pretty much the same thing as we are, it sort of looks and sounds different. They’re the Type-C dichotomists. [/Hyperbole]
OK, so the doctrine of separation is probably a little closer to the top than dichotomy/trichotomy, but I don’t see it as being nearly enough to name a movement for. When it meant, “Not liberal,” yes, it made sense. When it means, “Not conservative evangelical,” the distinguishing factor starts to look insignificant.
So I hope there are Reformed people who hold solid doctrine of separation, and I hope there are Baptists and Dispensationalists and free churches and whatever else. I just think that people need to consider what doctrine is really important to them and label themselves appropriately. I would much rather walk into a conference where everyone is united about the nature of saving faith than into one where everyone is united about separation.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] I just think that people need to consider what doctrine is really important to them and label themselves appropriately. I would much rather walk into a conference where everyone is united about the nature of saving faith than into one where everyone is united about separation.Charlie, that’s well said.
I think that one of the root causes of the ‘fracturing’ of the ‘movement’ was that everyone paid homage to separation, yet they weren’t agreed on all it’s nooks and crannies. When they couldn’t agree, the importance of ‘separating’ trumped anything else and it tore itself apart. That’s kind of why I wrote that piece on unity a couple years ago.
"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
But it seems to me that as long as there actually is an idea of Fundamentalism (followed by action) there will be benefits in networking and gathering for solidarity.
I don’t see why the movement should die if the ideas live.
(Edit: though, arguably, “movement” is no longer precisely the right word)
[Charlie] I see no reason to believe that there will ever be “an” agenda for Fundamentalists of any kind. Simply put, you can’t build a whole theology, philosophy, and praxis from your stance on separation. Think of it this way. If Josh Harris and Covenant Life Church were to announce officially a stance on ecclesiastical separation that sounds just like BJU’s, would BJU be comfortable with Harris? Not likely. Or, what about Rick Warren? Or R.C. Sproul? Or N.T. Wright?.What you’re missing here is that separation doesn’t stand alone. It’s separation from something and the something derives from Scripture. So if Josh, Rick, RC, NT and the rest were to truly embrace separatism and practice it, they would have to be using Scripture as the standard and would invariably move closer to those who are trying to do the same thing (though never reaching total agreement on absolutely everything, of course). So whenever people passionately pursue the faith and strive for purity, a real unity develops, regardless of what is going on officially or outwardly.
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.
Very thought-provoking article. I have no “global” answers for the questions you raise. The biggest thought that comes to my mind as I read it, however, relates to this statement:
“But the time when Fundamentalists were unable or unwilling to identify major flaws in the movement is behind us, and the work of identifying Fundamentalism’s root problems has been thoroughly undertaken…”
Not sure on that one. It’s been only 20 years since major elements of the Fundamentalist movement were willing to overlook, if not actively cover-up and cooperate with, some fairly egregious and scandalous material. What I have seen happen in the last 10 years or so is some institutions changing their ways in some of these regards, if for no other reason than they had no choice but to adapt.
But is a fresh, new positive agenda springing up hither and yon under the face of “Young Fundamentalism?” Not in my experience. I see many fundamentalists my age and younger abandoning the movment altogether (as you allude to) once they graduate from said institutions — usually moving in one of two directions: Reformed theology or whatever-the-latest-trend-is-at-the-moment. I am not excited about either of those two options.
I would love to be part of a fresh, new, positive YF-type movement, and certainly there are some places where the ground is laid for that more than others. On the whole, however, in the average little “country church” (a term which I do not use with a positive connotation), there remains a tremendous amount of work to be done before that type of thing could really take hold. In the meantime, I will invest my theological energies in areas of greatest concern — dispensationalism, creationism, etc. — and will do all I can to help those are truly interested in Truth.
As an aside, I listened to a new GTY CD this weekend by MacArthur and Johnson on apostasy. I thought it would be a bummer…boy was I wrong! It was a wonderful, energizing reminder of the power of Scripture and the need for the believer to be part of a positive spiritual environment. I would commend it to all as an example of the type of thinking which needs to be woven into any kind of new “YF” movement.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
You said, “Two items YFs could add to what conservative evangelicals are already pursuing are these, 1) compassionate, but thorough and unembarrassed separatism and 2) thoughtful, but aggressive and unembarrassed application of Scripture to cultural issues.” I heartily agree with both of these points. As the call for a declarative gospel voice increases, both of these points should increase to the same degree. The re-emergence of “unity over the gospel” message sounds an awfully lot like the beginnings of the New Evangelical movement. That message alone does not seem to be very durable.
Genuine separation, definite application of Scripture to cultural issues, and the access of God’s grace is definitely the need of the hour. Thank you for this article.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
I ultimately see YF’s defecting to Conservative Evangelicalism and fundamentalism going down in smoke.
I hope I’m wrong.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
Good questions and considerations in this article. This is been a subject that has been close to my heart. As a 28 year old YF pastor, I’ve been around long enough to know what I DON’T want to be or be a part. That being the case, my exposure to what I DO want to be has been very isolated and I’m not sure what to do about it. I’ve not left fundamentalism as of yet, but frankly I think there are many of us who are left only because we don’t know of a good Biblical alternative. Using myself as an example: I’m baptistic in my beliefs and polity, but am frustrated with how IFB churches are defining themselves in ways I believe to be unScriptural, and being defined by others as radical (some accusations being legitimate). I’m fundamental in my doctrine, but my loyalty is to Christ - not a movement or a label. I have a high priority on God honoring worship, but am not convinced that the answer is found in my hymnbook alone or in the piano and organ. I believe respectful to God is a Biblical principle but believe that often a suit and dressing up on Sunday often works more towards pride than worship. I believe in preaching from a formal translation, but believe the era of the KJV (a great translation for its day) should be over. I see great Biblical need for preaching but still don’t understand the Biblical reason why we have a massive pulpit and an “altar.” I see the Biblical mandate to reach the lost, but don’t see the mandate to win them to my traditional culture. I see the need to obey Scripture’s command to be separate from the world, but do not see the command to be isolated from culture either. I see a great need for Biblical literacy and education, but wonder why many of us are loyal to a 7:00 Wednesday prayer meeting when hardly anyone comes and seen many who are pretty well opposed to small groups (this is quickly changing-I know small groups isn’t as big of a deal anymore). I’m a 4 point Calvinist, but am sickened by the venom of both sides towards one another and the loyalty to the label of Calvinism. I am not into entertainment in worship but I love technology and would love to integrate it more into our services. I could go on…
You’ve read enough from others to know that I’m not alone in a lot of these points. Do you see the dilema for YF’s? Where do we go? What do we do? Do we have the freedom in our Fundamentalist churches that we’re beginning to pastor to address these issues when the people have been taught for generations to hold to traditions is being loyal to Scripture? How many would walk out if the pulpit was gone the next Sunday? Are our ideas welcome or are we seen as a threat? I have so many more questions than answers - typical for a YF, I know. :-) What I do know though is that I have personally experienced much resistance to these concerns and thoughts on multiple fronts, none of which have been for Biblical reasons but have been sourced in tradition and logic.
I believe that there is at least one thing that us YF’s need to consider. One of our “beefs” has been (at least mine) that Fundamentalism has been by and large defined not by what we stand FOR but what we stand AGAINST. That being the case, us YF’s need to be careful not to fall into the same trap and be defined by following Christ, standing up for truth, and sharing the Gospel. I think many YF’s are being defined as those who are AGAINST traditional Fundamentalism and separating over this issue. It’s not that we’re FOR something, it’s that we’re discontent with the errors of what we know and are seeking other places that do not have those same errors (even though our new friends may have a host of others) where we have the freedom to express our ideas. Isn’t that the same thing that we were upset with an older generation for doing - leaving a movement or a denomination and being defined by being “we’re not those other guys” rather than “for Christ.” We need to be careful not to be “we’re not those old time Fundamentalists” and work on BEING a faithful follower of Jesus and have His imprint on our lives be our definition, not just that we’re AGAINST something.
That being the case, I would also encourage YF’s to state their grievances yes, but then move on in what Christ would have you to do. I’ve seen a lot of embittered fundamentalists at the errors/people/denominations that they separated from. I’ve seen much ungraciousness and venom directed towards erring bretheren, but brethren none the less. In some cases, I’ve been given many accusations against even conservative evangelicals (like they’re all about entertainment, they don’t preach with any depth, etc) and have since found those accusations to be in error. However, I would encourage us YFs to be gracious and to not be bitter against those whom we disagree and speak the truth in love. I don’t want to see YF’s lose their zeal for Christ and Scripture because of bitterness.
Thanks again for your post Aaron!
And it will happen.
Yes. These new decades in this new millennium in America carry incredible opportunities for upcoming young men who will be the Timothy and the Titus for Paul. And pure Gospel grace will be their trainer as they live their lives for the glory of the three-Personed God of all.
Aaron, thanks for the article and refreshing my mind on all these past links.
[Aaron Blumer] Charlie… I don’t think I disagree that there will always be multiple agendas to some extent. The question I’m wrestling with right now is what overlap there can be and how large… if there is something that can give the movement renewed reason to exist and renewed focus and unifying force. The alternative is a completely non-movement future in which people and ministries who believe in Fundamentalist principles and practices each apply them as the need arises with no visible coherence with others who are doing the same.Here’s a great point for discussion. I do think that there should be networking, and perhaps there can be some organization, but the issue needs to move to the periphery. For example, I am all for church planting. I think individuals should talk about church planting. I think churches should work toward church planting. I think church planters should network and hold conferences and help train each other and all kinds of stuff. However, I’ve never seen a church sign that reads, “Church-planting Bible Church.” I’ve never met a pastor who identified himself as an “Independent Church-Planting Baptist.” I’ve never asked someone what kind of Christian they are and heard the answer, “Church-Planting.”
But it seems to me that as long as there actually is an idea of Fundamentalism (followed by action) there will be benefits in networking and gathering for solidarity.
I don’t see why the movement should die if the ideas live.
(Edit: though, arguably, “movement” is no longer precisely the right word)
So, church planting does not currently serve as a primary identifier. My argument is that neither should Fundamentalist. It does not communicate substantial enough information to serve in that capacity. You should be a fundamentalist in the way that you are a church planter or an expository preacher - it contributes to your Christian identity but doesn’t describe or circumscribe it. You may go to an expository preaching conference, but I doubt you see the people assembled there as “the movement.”
To my way of thinking, this is similar to what Bauder is talking about. For the last several years, the thrust of his critique is that Fundamentalism’s lowest common denominator approach to unity is unsuccessful. Rather, a significant amount of theological critical mass is necessary to drive unity, cooperation, and purpose. The KJVO wing of fundamentalism is struggling with this. As much as they might agree about this one issue and rant and rave about it, two pastors who share a conviction concerning the KJV can nevertheless have totally different perspectives on Christianity, ministry, and worship. The KJV issue cannot be “the tie that binds.”
I think you would be interested in what is going on in the conservative Reformed world right now. I think the NAPARC denominations are a few years ahead of where YF’s are right now. They realize that they want to be a dynamic movement, and that dynamism comes only from shared core values. Now, we are in the process of shaping the vision of NAPARC’s future as a confederation of confessionally Reformed churches. I believe you would find Recovering the Reformed Confession by R. Scott Clark very stimulating. It might be considered the Reformed analogue to Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
___
Regarding Separation as a movement-maker…
I do agree to some extent with Charlie. Separation is important, but it’s not enough to base an entire movement on. In fact, this underlying weakness is probably why the movement degenerated into what it did for awhile. Garrison Keillor has a quote about Separatism…something about it being like a dog in the chicken coup. Once we get a taste in our mouths for being the only ones who are right, we’re just no good anymore.
It’s not that I’m not a separatist. I just think it shouldn’t be in the driver’s seat. Unity is the default position among true New Testament believers. Separation is the sad exception, always done mournfully, with a view toward repentance. It’s a last resort. Last resorts can’t be the basis for a movement – at least not one that is intended to last.
Aaron says Charlie is missing the point, but he’s on to something here. Most of the reasonable Fundamentalists seem concerned that the Fundamentalist idea that must live on, regardless of what happens to the movement, is separatism. But separatism is only meaningful as it is inter-relates with other ideas.
Regarding “the time when Fundamentalists were unable or unwilling to identify major flaws in the movement is behind us”…
I agree self-criticism is happening. I agree that it cannot be stopped. I agree that some leaders have surrendered to the inevitable. I’m not sure “willing” is the right word for some of them.
The big change that brought this self-criticism to the forefront was the internet. People can now communicate other than at their alma mater’s reunions, and anybody with a good point can communicate it to thousands, whether they are a “big name” or not. The impact of this “leveling” of the discussion has been, on the whole, healthy.
[timbdavis] In the midst of all of the discussions concerning the ills of older fundamentalism (and I’m not denying that those exist) that many YF have no historical appreciation for the battles that the older fundamentalists fought on behalf of the truth of God.I would argue that it depends on the battle. The war against Theological Liberalism is much appreciated by the YF’s that I know. If you’re talking about the war against slacks on women, well, there’s a bit of ambivalence.
Perhaps this is why many YF’s relate more with historic Fundamentalists than with the more recent vintage movement loyalists.
I spent my teen years in old fundamentalism but the Lord didn’t save me until I was in my late 20’s. That was 30 years ago and I was introduced and indoctrinated to the same fundamentalism that put the burr under the saddle of the YF’s. Separation was the primary doctrine that was taught and the list of issues, practices and people that “we” were to be separated from was immense and a person’s fundamentalism was judged by his level of separation.
Thankfully, I wound up attending a church where I learned that separation “from” was not the whole story. Separation is also “to” Christ and it’s purpose is not to achieve some Pharisaical level of personal purity but to be become closer to our Savior.
20 years ago, I was introduced to John MacArthur and appreciated his Christ exalting preaching and practical writing. It was preaching that built me up instead of beating me up. It was writing that addressed matters from a Biblical perspective. (BTW, a simple exchange of letters between him and me settled the “blood” issue.)
In the ensuing years, I’ve waited and prayed for fundamentalism to stop preaching on issues and start exalting Christ. I’ve waited and prayed for them to write in a manner that could be understood. Thankfully, I’m beginning to see it happen.
That being said, I’d like to close with a few words for you “young whippersnappers”. Be patient with the older generation, some of them will listen and they’re not all like the characters that are usually in the fundy spot light. Don’t be afraid of showing some passion when you preach (I’m not talking emotion, shouting or wheezing.). Preaching is not just an exercise in academics—you gotta have heart! Finally, exalt Christ in everything you do. It’s all about Him!
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
So… yes, there are still folks around who want to try to develop a “loyalty to Fundamentalism” etc., but the healthy currents in the movement have probably always sort of rolled their eyes a bit at that. Fundamentalism can’t be about Fundamentalism and continue to have anybody involved with a biblical sense of priorities.
So… all that to say I don’t think we disagree on that. (I actually have heard some guys identify themselves as “church planting Baptists” though)
Mike D…. you mentioned that separation doesn’t have any meaning without reference to other truths. Absolutely agree. But, again, sensible Fundamentalists (and even most senseless ones) have always thought so. Separation for separation’s sake was just about what all that was trickling down sometimes when I was in college, but things sure didn’t begin that way. Maybe I just hang out in better places, but it’s been a long, long time since I met anyone I thought might believe in arbitrary separation.
If meaningful separatism could largely define Fundamentalism in its early days, I think it can certainly contribute to a healthy identify for it in the future. But yes, it must be connected very much with “other truths.”
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.
Discussion