Archives for 11.30.07

I sort of agree with the complaints voiced over at My Two Cents in critique of an article entitled “Fundamentalism’s Great Softness”. I have wanted to jump in and add my voice to the comments, but have restrained myself! (Amazing but true!)

Of course, that restraint is only “so far” and “until now”.

I want to add some ‘wait a minute’ statements:

• I am reading Isaiah right now in my devotions. Last week I read Micah and Hosea. Beyond identifying the group of people these prophets spoke to (i.e., Israel, Judah, Ephraim, etc.) how often were the prophets specific in their charges or against specific individuals/institutions within Israel/Judah? Must a current writer be specific in order to make a point?
• Does anyone really deny that there is a ‘softness’ creeping over fundamentalism? Consider the many blogs purporting to be by fundamentalists yet advocating such things as contemporary music styles, looser standards of dress, and even going so far as to advocate the use of alcohol. I could list more subjects, but does anyone really deny that there is a push towards looser personal standards?

  By the way… in some respects, I am looser than some of my fundamentalist forbears, especially in areas like dress standards. I stand against immodest and worldly dress [as I understand it] but I am not against such things as ‘pants on women’ or insist on men wearing suits to church or even as a pastor dressing in a tie during the week… call me a liberal…

  My point, though, is this: let’s not kid ourselves about the lack of softness in fundamentalism. Softness is everywhere. Some of it may be a legitimate softening of previously unreasonably hard positions. Some of it is compromise with the world, plain and simple.

• Ivan Foster, no softie, publishes an article by “an American Observer” [i.e., read Anonymous Coward] entitled “Radical Changes afoot at Bob Jones University” In the article University spokesmen are quoted saying that things said in the past wouldn’t be said in the present, at least not the same way. Would you say that this is evidence of softening or hardening?

  By the way, the BJU folks may be right in making these changes. I am personally reserving judgement to see where things end up. I am concerned, as an alum and a parent of current students. May God keep the University as the premier fundamentalist institution in the world! But the changes bear watching and who can deny that this is a softening of previously held positions?

I cannot speak for the writer of The Projector article, but these last two points may be the kind of thing he was aiming at.

It is undeniable that fundamentalism has softened in many respects. I have offered examples of softening at two ends of the spectrum, so to speak. I think that the reader can supply plenty of evidence of softening in between the ‘lower level’ of softening exhibited by individuals and the ‘higher level’ of softening at some (all?) of our fundamentalist institutions. Many many churches with fundamentalist heritages are softening. Some are softening right out of fundamentalism altogether.

Some softening may be warranted. Is all of it? We don’t know the answer to that question yet.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3