There are some who continue to maintain its priorities.

Case closed.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

When I say that no one uses the term the way you do, I did not mean that Webster’s definition is faulty. I meant that you are applying the definition (using it) to a wider group of people than specified in the definition. You aren’t using the definition in a way that is very common today. Very few people talk about “those modernists.”

Also, are neo-pagans modernists? Are they liberals? Could they be one and not the other? Same questions for contemporary mystics? What about postmodernists? Do you really think that all the contemporary “liberals” devalue supernatural elements (as per Webster)?

My original point — what started all this debate about the term — was that the specific movements which were originally identified as “modernist” and “fundamentalist” no longer exist. Is that really debatable?

The original modernists were an identifiable movement who were very concerned with devaluing supernatural elements and being scientific. They were trying to live up to the enlightenment. They were the “in” thing. That movement fell apart. There are some who continue to maintain its priorities. However, today’s liberals are just as often disenchanted with the enlightenment as they are orthodoxy.

No one uses ‘modernism’ the way I do? Really? Is the Merriam-Webster dictionary so out of touch then? It is the # 2 definition. If it were #9 or something, you would have more of a point. But it is #2, so… really, it is you who are out of touch with reality on that one.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Not at all. That is exactly my point. No one uses “modernism” the way you do.

Usage of a linguistic group — not of an individual or tiny subgroup — determines meaning.

And, the usage of “Modernism” determines that it refers to a particular philosophy and movement — not to whomever it is that you disagree with.

If you want to maintain that there were modernists in the ancient world — then you aren’t letting usage dictate meaning. You are eliminating meaning from words.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the notion that usage determines meaning. And perhaps you should become a little more familiar with dictionaries. I realize they may be a little too elementary for some, but still and all, one would think they have some value.

And modernists in the ancient world? Of course. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Find me one significant theologian who identifies himself as a “Modernist” as part of a “Modernist Movement.” Then you might have a gotcha for me.

In the meantime, what you’ve got is nothing — since by that definition there were modernists in the ancient world.

Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition # 2:

often capitalized : a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary., Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).

Hmm… and that’s not happening now? Wow!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

In the past, modernism and liberalism were interchangeable terms — back when modernism was the new kid on the block. But, what happens when modernism falls out of favor and pre-modernistic orthodoxy is still rejected? What happens when you want to be liberal (free from the chains of historic orthodoxy), but you don’t want to be modern?

Well, all sorts of things happen — neo-orthodoxy, postmodernism, etc. etc.

The institutions you mention are not officially committed to modernism. They are institutionally liberal in what they permit in relation to historic orthodoxy.