John Piper: An easy way to gather a wimpy army is to summon all the soldiers who are boldly determined not to sound like fundamentalists.

What’s even worse is fundamentalists determined not to sound like fundamentalists.

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.

The follow-up to Piper’s tweet seemed to be confused that Piper called himself a fundamentalist. My guess is that Piper means he is fundamentalist in the sense of historical fundamentalism, or that Piper is dissatisfied with the compromises that evangelicalism has made to culture and in theology (ECT, N.T. Wright, etc.). It’s obvious he doesn’t mean he is a fundamentalist in the distorted was that Jack Hyles was.

I’m sure he’s not claiming the term. His point probably that evangelicals get very wimpy when they try too hard to not sound like fundies… so they swing too far the other way.
My remark was about some fundamentalists who seem to want to avoid sounding like it just as much as the “wimpy” evangelicals he alludes to.

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.

I’m talking about the follow-up article listed with Piper’s tweet on sharperiron.org home page. The fellow who wrote that seems lost as to why/how Piper would call himself a fundamentalists.

I see now… the Michael Patton piece. Hadn’t seen that. Looks like he’s pretty much missed what fundamentalism is about. Piper at least understands fundamentalism, though he doesn’t claim it.

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.

According to Patton the difference between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is that Fundamentalists don’t agree with Billy Graham, hold to young earth creationism, think certain activitivities are unbecoming to Christianity such as modern Hollywood movies, gambling, drinking alcohol, and cussing, and that Roman Catholicism is a false gospel. According to Patton Evangelicals hold no particular view of creationism other than somehow that God did it (when and how are of no importance), practicing Roman Catholics may indeed by saved, Graham’s compromise is fine, and cussing-gambling-drinking-smoking are all OK for a Christian. Well, I am a fundamentalist and do not apologize for sounding like one.

Pastor Mike Harding

In that light, Patton does seem to pretty much make Piper’s point rather than refute it. Sometimes Piper reminds of—was it Agrippa?—“Almost thou persuadest me to be a Fundamentalist.” But I’m not holding my breath or anything. :)

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.

I came to this thread because I saw all these posts about “Patton” and “Patton Evangelicalism” in response to the Piper quote. I was disappointed to find out they were with reference to somebody named “Michael Patton”. I thought it was about “George Patton”.

I’m glad that Piper didn’t slap anybody. ;)

You mean this guy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Pattonphoto.jpg
Yes, that would be something a little different!

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.

Actually, George Patton taught Mark Driscoll how to preach.

[Bob T.] Actually, George Patton taught Mark Driscoll how to preach.
Brilliant! :)