"Fundamentalism has a wonderful future because it is based on the truth of the Bible"

[Jay C.]

[Don Johnson] I would suggest that you listen to Mark Dever and Al Mohler in particular when they speak of fundamentalism. I think they are quite aware of the history. I have read / heard both of them express appreciation for some aspects of fundamentalism and also express the notion that the new evangelicalism was a necessary corrective on the ‘excesses’ of fundamentalism. As long as this view is maintained, we will be on differing trajectories.

I will do this…are there any particular MP3s or whatever that I should look for and listen to?

You have to listen and look for it when they speak or write. Mohler said something about it on one of his podcasts within the last 6 months or so, but I didn’t save it. I once listened to a bit of his radio program that Ben Wright linked to years ago… but I can’t find the link now. And you will see Dever say things occasionally. I know I should be organized and file these things away…

LOL, Jim. I’m also old enough to remember that song and commercial when it was originally played and old enough to remember my father muttering something about “hippie freaks…..communist conspiracy….end of America….John Birch…..” under his breath while it was playing. :-) Perhaps this is why I’m a Pepsi man to this day — diet/decaf of course.

If you and Joel Tetreau come along to referee me and Don around a campfire with soft drinks, I might agree to a coke at least once however. LOL.

Seriously, I would do a backflip and drive to Greenville and back to sit down across a table with Canadian Don and pick his brain. I’d find him FAR more interesting than anyone who might agree with me too much. I’m a lot nicer in person anyway….

[Don Johnson]

[Dan Burrell] But in some ways, on this forum at least, you have become one of several who consistently represent what I would describe as stridency.

Well, that depends on who you ask. How can you discern tone on the internet? It is a dodgy science at best. Of course, I recognize that I was saying you were snide in your earlier remark, so I note that I miss tone just as much as anyone else. Perhaps it would be better for you to just simply be direct and straightforward.

[Dan Burrell] While I realize that you and many who see the world as you do believe that one of the reasons young people are leaving their fundamentalist heritage is because of the appeal of a less restrictive and theologically mushier form of evangelicalism. I wouldn’t argue that frequently that isn’t the case.

I am not exactly sure what your double negative means, but it seems to me like you are conceding my point, in some measure at least.

[Dan Burrell] But I would ask you to consider whether or not some of the stridency of the rhetoric and the quick-triggered separatism that is common among some branches of fundamentalism is not also responsible for the flight of some of our sons in the ministry. Perhaps, you’ll disagree with my thesis, but I know at least anecdotally that is the focal point of way too many conversations with young men in the ministry who specifically tell me, “I no longer want to be identified with how fundamentalism behaves and sounds. I want to be true to my beliefs, but not at the expense of appearing to be associated with the ugliness.”

Well, I do disagree with the thesis, but perhaps not in the way you think. I suspect that some may say they object to ‘stridency’, but they are going to find strongly opinionated people wherever they go. Back in the days of Compuserve, I was on SBCnet, a Southern Baptist discussion board. I interacted with many guys who now teach at Southern Seminary and other prominent SBC schools. Russell Moore was one of the participants, if memory serves. I don’t think Mohler was on there. But there were a whole lot of lesser lights from the SBC as well. I can assure you that the “stridency” was often much stronger than it is here on SI.

My point is this, if you want to avoid stridency, go find a quiet job somewhere, join a quiet country church, and live a quiet life. But even there, I expect you might still find stridency.

So while some may use an excuse about tone and stridency, etc, etc, the real reasons are quite different. I would say that there are some complaints about the behaviour and practices of some fundamentalists which are legitimate. I disagree that the answer is to head for evangelicalism, but I recognize there are legitimate complaints.

But if you are so thin skinned that you can’t handle strong personalities… well… good luck finding a place where they don’t exist.

You are correct, Don, that sometimes it is often difficult to ascertain tone on forums and in email….that’s why I feel weirdly dependent on emoticons to try and help me with that when I write. I fear that I frequently come across harsher than I intend. However, one man’s “direct and straightforward” can be another man’s “harsh and condescending” and maybe the only way we can tell if we are leaving a flawed (or perhaps intentional) impression in that regard is to listen to the feedback of others. I know my North Jersey friends struggle with tone issues when communicating with many of us Southerners (thought I am a transplant.) Perhaps Canadian communication is a bit more blunt than it is down in our parts, but I believe you lived in this neck of the woods for time and may already be aware of that. I was just calling them as I saw them.

Regarding the double negative, I reworded that sentence once and still didn’t get it right. (I’m not going to admit right now that I used to teach HS grammar.) However, in spite of the mangled sentence, I indeed was conceding the point to a degree. I believe some DO leave fundamentalism due to starry-eyed infatuation with so-called evangelical “rock-stars” — a sad reality. And I believe that they are foolish to do so. Indeed, I find many swing back to the right after a time in most cases — though few ever return to the fold of self-identified fundamentalists….again, largely due to the tone (of gracelessness) they left.

Back to the stridency issue, I won’t deny that stridency can be found in just about every subset of strong opinions. However, the fact that it exists doesn’t make it effective or right or less-offensive/obnoxious. So I’m not sure of your point there.

Thin skin is not an issue with me — particularly when debating. With 30 years in the ministry and 17 of those as a senior pastor, thin skin is as much a consequence of survival as it was a necessity for leadership. But surely you are not really saying that the communicator has no responsibility to measure his words when speaking so as not to let the tone of the message impede the substance of the message — or perhaps the attitude of the messenger drowning out the importance of the message. That kind of smacks of a “put on your big boy pants and take it or get out” attitude that is consistent in the world of demagogues and tyrants, but not in the ministry of ambassadorship and shepherding. Indeed, some people are naturally or temperamentally gentle, thin-skinned or carry individual hurts and experiences that make them overly sensitive. Should we give that reality no regard when forming our communication?

Again, I reference the admonition of “speaking the Truth in love” and the example of Christ who only used harsh words against non-believing “religious” charlatans. Whether with the erring brother, Peter or the silly pettiness of the Sons of Thunder or the intentionally misleading response of the women at the well of Sychar — we see his tone was firm, but gentle and never punctuated by any of the excesses of what is rather common in fundamentalist dialogues these days.

I really appreciate Susan’s definitions and perspective a few posts up. I sometimes disagree with her, but she is consistently an example of straight-but-gentle communication. I sure wouldn’t be nominated as a good, consistent example, I’ll concede. But I do try to correct it when called out on it. I find sarcasm and sharp wit to be hilarious and engaging at times and I don’t categorize it with stridency at all. Sometimes, however, what is funny or witty to me is painful to someone else. But I’m really not even referencing sarcastic close calls. I’m plainly stating that for some fundamentalists — harsh, dogmatic, abrasive rhetoric is preferred and at times, even seen as a virtue of some sort. It smacks at times of silly locker-room behavior indicative of testosterone laden thugs or ill-bred rednecks. I firmly believe in doctrinal militancy. I simply see stridency as confusing those who might otherwise agree that doctrinal militancy is important — but because they can’t hear what they need to hear for the angry tone (or simply become exhausted by it and other manipulative techniques) they DO leave. That I know for a fact.

So I probably have sufficiently beat this horse to death, but I have found the dialogue helpful and enlightening.

And I wasn’t kidding about doing a backflip at the opportunity for lunch with Don. I’d even buy. In Greenville. :-)