"Things are not looking too oojah-cum-spiff at the moment."

--- Bertie Wooster to his Aunt Dahlia

It has been my contention here all along that we need a generation of shepherds who a) are competent in ideas, who b) have a functioning sensibility and who c) can make judgments; men who know the rôle of criticism and who know how to defend the faith. Defending the faith these days means writing a paper, having a conference, distributing a cassette tape—or passing a resolution condemning effective Bible teachers and winsome personalities as being the greatest peril to fundamentalism.

(Incidentally, I wrote to the OBF gang and asked what constituted "unguarded use of these people". I didn't know if I should separate from my wife because she reads MacArthur and listens to him on her i-pod. That was back on 3 April 2006 and I have yet to hear back. Apparently the threat is not as urgent as was represented.)

David Wells published No Place For Truth in 1993. He closed that book with a chapter, The Reform of Evangelicalism. This was a reasoned and unobjectionable warning which was followed by three more books, God in the Wasteland, Losing Our Virtue, and Above All Earthly Powers. Since the first book, and coincidental with the rest, there has appeared the emergent movement led by—how shall I put this in a way that demonstrates my commitment to "engagement"?—led by men too dumb to come in out of the rain. In this same span of time we have witnessed an alleged upheaval in thought at Willow Creek. It rocked their world.

Evangelicals recently issued a "Manifesto". It was so crystal clear and so unambiguous that two evangelicals discussing its meaning (http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-05-12) wondered if they'd read the same document. One signed; one didn't.

We read an explanation of "eschatological hope" and an eschaton so disconnected from reality and traditional theology that we have reason to wonder if the insane asylums had been emptied for Spring cleaning.

There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that a Tom & Jerry comic book is better researched and more professionally written than The New Christians. Tony characterized Schweitzer's apostasy as an academic trend. The only other option was snake-handling. So you had this choice: you could side with men who were admittedly embracing academic trends or you could join snake-handling fundamentalism.

Your seasoned sailor tells us it takes a certain amount of time and space to turn around an aircraft carrier, but compared to our seminaries and the boards of directors of our denominational institutions, an aircraft carrier can dart and wheel like a hummingbird.

I have a high regard for Wells' work. I think Carson has been very helpful. But where has it gotten us?

No place. This has become nothing more than a badminton tournament.

We have lost the ability to feel toward God as we ought to feel, and most church folk are acting like another paper defense of the truth is what is called for.

Fundamentalists are telling us they are serious when it is obvious they don't yet know what it takes to become serious: just listen to their liturgy. Evangelicals don't know what is true, have no way of determining what is true, and every new attempt at defining truth fractures the movement even further. We have gotten to the point where the clearest articulations of truth are found in books showing us how it no longer exists in our institutions.

Seeker-sensitives are still claiming that they will figure out how to feed the flock of God when they "deeply listen" to their consumers: they "wrote a book and launched a website". Emergents are certifiable nutjobs who misrepresent philosophy, theology, church history, Latin roots, and who don't know what to do with a narrative when the Holy Spirit gives them one.

Where in all this is a defense of the faith? If this is contending for the faith, can we call ours a credible resistance?

__________________________

* In response to ex libris.