Symposium \u2013 a good start. Maybe too long in defining terms, or too short a session. We need to have more on this line next year, to flesh out the FBF position more clearly. I thought most panel members acquitted themselves well. I\u2019ll want to listen to this again and give some detailed analysis.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I\u2019ve now listened twice. If any venue at the meeting had the potential for fireworks, this one did. I thought Dr. Vaughn did a good job conducting the session and several important subjects were addressed.<\/p>\n
Of course, the announced subject was only all too briefly addressed, much to the disappointment of many. The subject, as I understood it, was Conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalist relationship with the same. Several observations come to mind:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
- \n
- The lengthy preliminaries, given to defining terms, was probably necessary. It is too bad that the time given up in the previous session due to Stephen Jones\u2019 illness couldn\u2019t have been given to the Symposium. <\/li>\n
- The Symposium as a whole is a good start to the conversation we need to have within Fundamentalism. We will need to hear more about this in the future. I wonder whether the Symposium format is really the most efficient way to accomplish this, however. <\/li>\n
- As we listen to the speakers in the Symposium, it seems that some differences exist between participants, but in the main, there is agreement on two things: Fundamentalism means militancy and<\/em> there remains a clear philosophical divide between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals that precludes cooperative fellowship. <\/li>\n
- Militancy\/Fundamentalism does not mean a sense that the Conservative Evangelical is not a brother, but that he is unwilling to join the battles the Fundamentalist is willing to fight (though the CE may fight some battles). <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
I would hope that next year there might be an opportunity for this discussion to continue. Perhaps a smaller group or a different format might be better. We do need to address the divide, identify it, show the young preachers (and older preachers) where the divide is, why it is right to maintain the divide, and what we can<\/em> do to call those on the other side of the divide to come our way. It is unacceptable to move in the other direction, unless you want to abandon Fundamentalism altogether.<\/p>\n
- Militancy\/Fundamentalism does not mean a sense that the Conservative Evangelical is not a brother, but that he is unwilling to join the battles the Fundamentalist is willing to fight (though the CE may fight some battles). <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"don_sig2\"](\"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/06\/don_sig29.png\" "\\"don_sig2\\"")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"