One of my correspondents challenged me on this subject after the latest rough and tumble debate at SI. My correspondent said to me
You are not charitable with the CE’s IMHO. You do hold them to a higher standard than our fellow Fundamentalists.
My correspondent cites some situations where fundamentalists shared platforms with dubious characters and one where a fundamentalist made a judgement in a church discipline situation that appears to have been at least unwise, if current available information is accurate. I have advocated a ‘wait and see’ position in the latter case. In the platform fellowship cases, I have not had a lot to say, although I have said some things.
My correspondent concludes:
Taking a wait and see is fine, but not when you are so hard on the CE’s. You are not consistent in this area in my opinion.
Until we take out the beams in our eyes, we will not honor and glorify God!
I promised my correspondent a response here at oxgoad, so this is it.
The fact is that I am hard on Conservative Evangelicals. They aren’t conservative enough for me and they still have most of the errors of New Evangelicalism as part of their philosophy and modus operandi. They are very little different from the original New Evangelicals (although some differences can be discerned).
And the fact is that I tend to take a wait and see approach to the errors (real or alleged) of fundamentalists because on the important questions, fundamentalists get the answers right. I might add that I take a wait and see attitude toward fundamentalists of various sorts, including those I criticize most. Some of my other correspondents are ready to virtually tar and feather some of the more leftish fundamentalists. I am not ready to do that yet. These correspondents might think I am too soft.
Why the difference and what does it reveal?
Comments