fundamentalism by blunt instrument
A bit more from my Church History notes. We were nearing the end of the semester when we discussed revival and revivalists. The heading of this lecture is the subject line of this post, “Characteristics of Revival”. Here they are:
While words are elastic and meaning changes over time, terms do matter. For example, would you say you “pro-life” or “anti-abortion”? (For the other side, it would be “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion”, eh?) While either one of the first pair is not all that offensive to me, the second term “anti-abortion” is primarily used by the “pro-choice” side as a pejorative against their opponents.
Many of the terms used in the debate are seen as political framing: terms used to validate one’s own stance while invalidating the opposition’s. For example, the labels “pro-choice” and “pro-life” imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty and freedom, while suggesting that the opposition must be “anti-choice” or “anti-life” (alternatively “pro-coercion” or “pro-death”). Such terms gloss over the underlying issue of which choice or life is being considered and whose choice or what kind of life is deemed most important.[1]
But my topic tonight isn’t what you might suspect. What I want to talk about are these terms: “cessationist” and “non-cessationist”. Here is my question: who is ‘framing’ whom with these terms? Where did they come from and what is the purpose of this terminology?
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments