Hi Keith

Well, I stole ‘Hylot’ from someone else, so no credit to me on that one.

It isn’t a matter of acceptable or unacceptable. The label is descriptive. It’s not a club you join, its descriptive of what you are based on certain characteristics. I bear the label “Canadian” even though there are a lot of Canadians with whom I have very little in common and would really rather have nothing to do with (including a few blood relatives, alas).

In comparing errors, I am not sure we are saying the errors of Neos are worse than the errors of Hylots. We are just saying that evangelicalism as such has almost completely embraced most of the Neo errors, especially including the error of being soft on dialogue/cooperation/acceptance of liberals and hard on the separatism of the fundamentalists. As such we are denying there is any such thing as a ‘silent majority’ that is not quite new evangelical but not fundamentalist.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I don’t have any problem with that understanding — it’s why I don’t object to being labeled “evangelical”, or even by some folks, “fundamentalist.”

However, what I can’t understand at all, is why some think it is acceptable to be identified with, and share a label with, some errors but not others (that are equally or more egregious).

What on earth makes the errors of the “Neo Evangelicals” worse than the errors of the “Hylots” (Don’s term)? Why would one be ok sharing a title with one, but not the other — especially if one will not fellowship with either?

Again, if all one is saying is that “those who don’t cooperate with liberals or those who cooperate with liberals are fundamentalists, and those who do aren’t” then there is really no discussion. I agree with the law of non-contradition — A is not non-A. I just thought that the discussion was about more than that — are there more non-A options than B.

Thanks, Frank.

I think you are getting what I am saying.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Keith,

You asked:

“Then of what use is the category?”

I think part of it depends upon how you are using the category. If you are using the categories as the end-all be-all of identity, then I would agree that the broadness of the category (commonly understood) is useless. However, if it is understood as one aspect of identity – in particular, a person or ministries disposition towards separation/ecumenism, etc., then there is some limited value in the using of the terms – even though fuller identification is needed.

Off the top of my head, I wonder if a helpful parallel might be the issue of political conservatism. In the last election, a significant number of people (in the 40%, I believe) identified themselves as “conservative”. However, within that group would be Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, etc. Surely this would include some strange people with whom we would have significant disagreement and even embarrassment that they would also be identified as “conservatives”, but it would be disingenuous to say, “No, they are not conservatives.” It would be more accurate to say, “Yes, they qualify as conservatives – but I would have nothing to do with them because they are off on X and Y, etc.”

Anyway, I hope that helps, some.

Frank

@Dave

You said

To put it another way, separation philosophy is the basis of cooperation, in your opinion?

Obviously not, since there are fundamentalists I won’t cooperate with. Separation philosophy is one of the key means of distinguishing evangelicals from fundamentalists. Probably it is the major factor, but I think there may be some others, see Ockenga’s distinguishing marks for the new evangelicalism.

@ Keith

The category describes a certain set of characteristics and a stance towards the wider world of Christendom and is useful in distinguishing a general stance towards the culture of the world.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Then of what use is the category?

To put it another way, separation philosophy is the basis of cooperation, in your opinion?

Beyond that, I can’t come close to engaging you on this issue in the way that Keith already has, so I’ll let you answer, if you want, and be done for now.

Thanks.

Hi Dave

Well, there are broad categories encompassed by the terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘evangelical’. There are obviously distinctions within those categories, but there are general characteristics of each category that are true of everyone in the category. That doesn’t make them all allied or cooperative with one another, there are many fellows who fit the category of fundamentalist, generally speaking, with whom I would have no ministry cooperation whatsoever.

But by definition, there is a wide difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals that precludes any real cooperation between the two, regardless of areas of commonality between them. That is what I am getting at with the question, “was the new evangelical policy of cooperation with liberals absolutely wrong and unconscionable?” The answer to that question will determine whether one can really have ministry cooperation with another brother. Fundamentalists find the new evangelical compromise so wrong that it demands withdrawal of fellowship. Evangelicals may admit there were some mistakes made, some errors along the way, but on the whole was a necessary corrective to fundamentalist separation. As long as such evangelical attitudes are held, the possibility of ministry cooperation doesn’t really exist with fundamentalists. And as professing fundamentalists start answering the new evangelical question with evangelical lingo, they can be seen to be sliding out of fundamentalism into an increasingly compromised position.

That is not to say that there are no distinctions among evangelicals, with some taking better stands than others. But they all tend to see the new evangelical compromise as generally positive and a worthwhile contribution. To one extent or another, they embrace those philosophies as their own. Until they begin to see the new evangelical error for what it was, they will not be able to embrace fundamentalists in ministry cooperation (or vice versa).

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Seriously, though. From this discussion it appears to me you have two categories. Fundamentalists more or less like you, and all the compromisers and apostates.