The minute my loyalty to any movement obligates me to be aligned with someone whose teaching or personal life is an embarrassment to the gospel, I'm no longer a conscientious fundamentalist—right? Whenever I am forced by the protocol or politics of any movement to defend something that is indefensible, I have ceased practicing fundamentalism. Whenever I have to kowtow to someone else's list of dos and don'ts in violation of my own conscience, I have forfeited the integrity of the fundamentalist principle. If I ever have to stifle valid, weighty, and biblical concerns about someone's doctrine or practice just because that person has clout in the movement, I am instantly set at odds with authentic, historic fundamentalist principles.
--Phil Johnson in Dead Right, Part 2: Taking a Second Look at Fundamentalism
I don't know if any comments on my part are necessary. But I'll make one anyway and let you draw your own conclusions: This statement by Johnson made me think of chapel. (That is, certain chapel messages, as well as the occasional exhortations not to criticize God's messengers.)
2 comments:
It strikes me that a lot of things people choose to distinguish "Fundamentalism" aren't actually very "fundamental." Am I alone on this?
Nope.
It seems like we have a dictionary definition of "Fundamentalism" as well as a practical definition... or maybe it's more like a theological definition versus a cultural definition?
Post a Comment