That first link about ruined my coffee break. "Sophistry" is too poor a word for such high-minded thought; that kind of scriptural and hermeneutical fallacy qualifies for "Sheer Buffoonery". I have heard two spinning sounds this morning: the one is Calvin in his grave and the other is my head which boggles that any person could draw a parallel between God's allowing divorce in the Bible and a modern-day allowing of homosexual practice.

Also, I find it truly incredible that when I ask such folks as those on Rethinking Christianity, "Where are you coming from biblically to say that this is how church ought to be done," the response is a blank stare followed with a bit of mumbling about how Acts says the first Christians were meeting from house to house. This is annoying to hear from strangers and painful to hear from friends.

I'ma go wash my brain out with gritty soap now.

Clearly this is not the work of the intellect.

I'm not even gonna bother to look and read. I've tasted other examples of his nonsense gumbo - some with more red pepper than others.

This is what happens when the huckstering culture of fundagelicalism meets the hubris of higher ed(sic). You get a snake oil salesman with a PhD, trying to molest your son. The defense, Your Honor, is that he was practicing a religious sacrament.

Ask him what he believes and he recites some creed, while he gives himself latitude to redefine every word and break all the rules of syntax.

Used car salesmen make an honest living by comparison.

Well, Yes and No. Clearly this is dismissible bumpkin skollership, but I tend to think we make more of Oprah than we should and less of her audience than we should.

I think we should take note of the moment. If we all were in house churches, sitting on sofas and searching for answers with Clement, Augustine, Tertullian, Aquinas, Origen and Ambrose, I might warm to the idea of small group discussions.

Emergence, whatever will eventually come of it, has codified a religious attitude. Emergents could not be so contemptuous of the pulpit if fundamentalists and evangelicals had not already been so dismissive of it. Fundagelicals are superficially enamored of the Reformation, but they fail to appreciate the role of liturgy and preaching—what we need most right now.

I also think there is a principle here: fundamentalism is in the cultural sub-basement, has recognized that fact, and supposes that by some naïve, well-meaning effort it can rise above itself. Evangelicalism is hopelessly adrift on questions of orthodoxy; they too think that by exerting themselves in pronunciamentos they can fix things.

So the bumpkins are not important in themselves, but their audience is telling us something in very certain terms. Pagitt & Playmates tell us this is how theology was always done.

I think we should take note of some striking differences, not just in the décor but in the essentials.

FWIW, I am not sure that Calvin College would really have claimed a place within fundamentalism or evangelicalism; it's Reformed and proud of it. It's a third strain. D. G. Hart, as one example of a Reformed thinker, writer, and churchman would argue that the Reformed were never part of either the fundamentalist or evangelical movements.

Having said that, Hart also laments the fact that many of the Reformed have tried to integrate with the evangelicals, so perhaps this professor is an "evangelical" who has crept in unawares. I hesitate to use that term given his stance on Scripture, etc.

For what it’s worth, I would always differentiate between the entire reformed tradition, fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism. Those are three different animals.

No question.

On the other hand, Evangelicalism has been defined—legitimately—in such a way that it could reasonably be said to include Reformed. This is one of the problems with people who have low opinions of, or are careless about, definitions. That’s been our problem.

With reference to the post, I would be very surprised if Corcoran represents the considered opinion of his school. I infer nothing about Calvin College from KC. The only reason I made the connection in the post is to head off any criticism that the sort of piffle we view on rethinkchristianity.com is limited to a few overgrown fourth-graders.

“Re-inventing”, “re-imagining” and “re-thinking” church is very much what this is all about.

The problem we must always contend with is the rampant dishonesty displayed by religious folk. As Phillip Johnson pointed out, you cite the ludicrous ideas of emergents and watch them scatter. They want it to be an innocuous conversation until it turns silly, then they want to draw impromptu lines to suit their high opinion of what they do.

Fundamentalists have done the same thing; hold their feet to the fire and all of a sudden it’s “the fundamentalism I’m familiar with”. And of course the same thing is true of neo-evangelicals.

Fundamentalists, evangelicals, and emergents: are we to believe that their faith is so weak as to have succumbed to Eliot's Darstellung of Becket's first tempter?

It seems to be, at the very least, the common denominator in their apostasy from the permanent things.

dissiden's said:

I also think there is a principle here: fundamentalism is in the cultural sub-basement, has recognized that fact, and supposes that by some naïve, well-meaning effort it can rise above itself. Evangelicalism is hopelessly adrift on questions of orthodoxy; they too think that by exerting themselves in pronunciamentos they can fix things.

What? No Alcoholic's Anonymous affirmation that the first step to recovery is admission that you have a problem?

I can understand why I shouldn't sit on a couch and engage others with my metanarrative on the eschatology of sex. I can understand understand that Pettit's music belongs at Mickey Gillie's and not to the magnification of the Almighty. I can understand why I shouldn't follow the "leadership" models of even a chastened fundagelicalism.

But woe is me . . . I go to church. I do my best to worship. Brothers and sisters are met, prayed with and for, etc. We try to serve, give to what we think we ought. We are members, because we are instructed to be such. Our church identifies with fundamentalism. It can do nothing different. If I started a church - like the one is Sachse - it would have fundamentalist proclivities. I cannot entirely rid its stench from my suit.

So, we go home and have dinner. I reinforce what the pastor said that was right. I critique elements in the service that could be better. We try to pass on what little we know that has stood the test of time.

Shall we exit into the night? Resign our positions? Leave our churches? Wonder through the woods like a post-Providence Roger Williams?

I have no aspirations or even hopes of changing the current system, but I don't think that we can erect anything better alongside it. Generations may pass before we have anything of any serious usefulness to God, and even then, we won't have the birthright our forebears gave away.

Well, I understand the frustration. Believe me.

I spoke with a family member just last week who was considering the options presented to the family on moving to another town. _________ _________ Baptist Church was not an option because that pastor taught (among other novelty doctrines) that women could not wear pants; not even pajama pants to bed! This is one of those fundamentalist churches no one seems to have encountered. So no reasonable options exist: you can a) be fed spiritually by a crackpot who proudly stands well outside the practice of the Church, b) attend a local assembly some distance away and in terrain that severely limits involvement, especially in winter, or c) start yet another struggling church (to compete with _ _ BC) much like the one you speak of, with no realistic hope of improving the spiritual climate.

Now of course this is one of those real life situations everyone denies exists, but they seem to crop up enough to complicate our lives in ways we don’t care to contemplate.


Should we exit into the night?

I think we are in the night.

Resign our positions?

That doesn’t strike me as a solution—though I have found it necessary on occasion for reasons of conscience.

Leave our churches?

An odd question these days. It seemed so obvious 50 years ago! ; )

Wander through the woods…?

I really have come to the conclusion—and one you don’t want to impose on anyone else until they are prepared to embrace it—that there is no solution, there is only a duty: see to it that something from the past remains alive into the future so that should God move, he has someone to work with.

Dissidens, do you believe that the notions espoused here on Remonstrans are native to the soul of every true believer? If so, how is it that so few churches (or Christians, for that matter) seem to truly manifest genuinely conservative convictions about how the Lord is to be honored during the assembly of His saints? There are so many places in America where "the best church in town" offers as much fellowship to a sincere believer as sitting in a meat locker amidst the sides of beef. Where are they?

Wow, that was unclear. "Where are they?" refers to Christians with clear convictions about church and life in the Spirit.

It's late and I have eaten too many carrots in the last three days.

Chris,

If I understand your question, No, I don’t.

Goodness, beauty and truth transcend our natures. Men have corrupt, sentimental and indefensible opinions about them, and the fact that goodness, beauty and truth are always in dispute tells us something. Whatever it is, it cannot be innate.

I think our desire for goodness, beauty and truth is widely shared, but goodness, beauty and truth themselves are things to be learned. They are, in the Kirkian sense, “artificial”. Not native.

For us to enjoy goodness, beauty and truth requires a study we are not willing to make.