I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to this.

First, I would like to suggest that a significant percentage of fundamentalist pastors of about my age group see the problems of “YFdom” essentially as I outlined, i.e., basically a reincarnation of the New Evangelical compromise.

I also appreciate the input of both you and Greg regarding the idea of hypocrisy in point no. 1. I think I understand what you are saying. I hope to make another post later when I have some time (things are crazy right now) to explore this idea further.

On points 2 and 3, I think I noted that the parallels were inexact, but I thought the examples of Dallas, Masters, etc., were specific enough. I don’t quite understand what you mean by “Plus I completely reject the notion that any substantial number of people are trolling for evangelical props.”

On point 4, being influenced is not the same as embracing. When I read Pickering, I believe his criticism of evangelicalism on this point is that they were embracing the spirit of the age, which is what I see “YFdom” doing. Perhaps I am reading too much into Pickering, but that is what the point means to me. (How’s that for a postmodern answer!)

I agree with your criticism of the Christian School movement. I believe it has sidetracked many fundamentalist churches. They have become schools that have churches and not the other way around. But when the evangelicals were criticising fundamentalism in the 50s for its lack of social action, they weren’t saying “You don’t have any schools.”

On the point that fundamentalism is often not separatistic enough, that is another issue I would like to write about in the future. I think that you and I are going to remain in disagreement on this point. It is here that I think you completely misunderstand the fundamentalist idea. I don’t have the time to elaborate on this one now, so we will have to just agree to disagree here for now.

I want to say again that I REALLY appreciate your taking the time to interact with me on this. Your perspective is helpful. The reason I read your blog and post there from time to time is because I find what you have to say interesting and helpful. I should also say that I don’t see you as representative of “YFdom”. You seem to be more serious than most, which I appreciate.

Thanks for posting.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Please note that I am only speaking for myself. I do not claim to have my finger on the pulse of YFdom. Here’s my response to your response:

1. Replace the word “negativism” with the word “hypocrisy” and you’ll be a lot closer. Greg already addressed this point well. Fundamentalism the movement abandoned fundamentalism the idea long ago. It tolerates all sorts of things that scream out in opposition to the gospel.

2. and 3. You have radically redefined Pickering’s points, and you’ve given no specific examples. Plus I completely reject the notion that any substantial number of people are trolling for evangelical props.

4. Everyone is subtly influenced by the spirit of the age, whether old or young, fundamentalist or evangelical. David Wells would be one great author to read on this point.

5. Fundamentalism has isolated itself to the degree that it has very little tangible impact outside its own walls. I blame the Christian school movement in large part, not because the kids aren’t in public schools, but because churches have become ministries of schools rather than vice versa. And the Christian school movement is as much a reflection of the neo-evangelical mindset as the fundamentalist mindset. Social action in the sense of mercy ministries aren’t the main issue.

6. Fundamentalism is sometimes too separatistic. It is far more often not separatistic enough. See 1.

Yes.

:D

I think there would be people who fit both descriptions in your preceding comment, as well as those who would be closer to what you describe in your post.

Like I said, they’re not all singing the same song.

Are you saying that the complaints of some YFs are NOT about negativism but rather about failures to be ‘fundamental enough’?

or

Are you saying that the complaints of some YFs are NOT ONLY about negativism, but also about failures to be fundamental enough?

It sounds like your comments here are similar to something Ben said on his blog a few weeks ago. I may have more to say on this later.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I grew up in a little evangelical church on the prairies of Alberta. I went away to Bob Jones University in the mid 1970s and became a fundamentalist. I have many friends [and know others] from my school days who reacted to the negativisim in fundamentalism then. They ended up as evangelicals. The YFs today are singing the same song. I really don’t see how there is ANY difference between the attitude of the evangelicals of the 50s and later in the 70s and the YFs today. Same song, different verse.

————

Don,

It’s not the same song with everyone. I would say that there are a number of people who are not so much reacting to the negativism of Fundamentalism as they are what Fundamentalism positively embraces and tolerates in its own ranks. Your assesment here seems to take the slant that Fundamentalism as a current movement (with its emphases, strongholds, politics, and piety) represents ideal Christianity, as opposed to the idea/concept.

There are some who would fit the profile of which you speak- but certainly not all.