"What fundamentalism did in the past cannot be consigned to history because it is not history at all."

Dissidens/Remonstrans,

I was a little surprised at the exhumation of my line from January 2006. I didn’t see the “relevance” then, and must confess that after reading your revised hermeneutical treatment, which sounds quite close to a sensus plenior interpretation, I still don’t get it.

I was referring back then to some activities decades ago by “fundamentalists,” most if not all of whom are now dead. Their sins, alleged indiscretions, bad attitudes, blunt words, and crime scenes created in the smoke of battle have been carefully chronicled, especially in the last few years. No fundamentalist has suggested a cover-up or ignoring of these dark spots in our anecdotal past. It is commonly complained by many in recent times that no one stood up against the old “giants” and called them to task, repentance, accountability, etc., etc. (Incidentally, there was reaction within but it never hit the headlines of The Sword of the Lord or the now ubiquitous www.)

My contention then (Jan “06) and still is that there is nothing that can be done, by the grace of an omnipotent God or human intervention, by these people in glory or those of us who are alive and remain, but to “get over it” in the best Christian sense of the term. To keep these departed ones and events continuously twisting in the wind of whomever’s fundamentalist historiography is not productive at all. It does not foster healing of any sort, generational or otherwise. It simply furthers the division. In fact, as I suggested, it could well display an unsavory whiff of adolescence if not of vengeance.

Back to the nasty now and now, the complaint against fundamentalists in the Sweatt episode is that some have indeed stood up and tried to interpose “intermediate measures,” when they apparently either should have kept quiet or respond discreetly and innocuously about it. So, fundamentalism is spanked this time for its alleged internecine warfare and for giving further evidence of its self-destruction and total implosion. This incident is especially egregious, so we are told, in the supposedly impartial and objective eyes of younger onlookers, to say nothing of more mature commentators and critics. Obviously, one can’t have it both ways.

My Jan ‘06 line still seems to me to be irrelevant to the Sweatt/Calvinism argument. The principals involved are still very much alive, and I would be the last to say, “just get over it.” Or, in your words to Bob Bixby in the parsimonious clash over “rant” and “blazing criticism”— “can’t we all just get along?”

The point of the recent difference and dispute was over the misrepresentation of a centuries-old soteriological doctrine, not just some silly accusation or a horseback interpretation of an obscure verse or minor point. Much, much more was at issue. In my judgment, the strong reaction of some fundamentalists and the kinder, gentler statement of FBFI were appropriate, and demonstrate how a non-monolithic movement/idea can respond, however untidy it might appear to critics and onlookers.

Cordially, for the Cause,
RDM