{"id":315,"date":"2006-08-23T17:20:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-23T17:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2006\/08\/23\/and-now-back-to-work\/"},"modified":"2006-08-23T17:20:00","modified_gmt":"2006-08-23T17:20:00","slug":"and-now-back-to-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2006\/08\/23\/and-now-back-to-work\/","title":{"rendered":"… and now, back to work"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the crush of activities for this weekend, including getting the kids off on their journey, see below, I have been neglecting my reading. Last week I started the last chapter of Pickering’s book, The Tragedy of Compromise<\/span>. The chapter is entitled “Gray Hairs Are Here and There”. In some ways, this seems to be the best chapter of the whole book. Dr. Pickering outlines the appeal of the new evangelicalism to the fundamentalist and then lists little compromises that add up to the slide of fundamentalist institutions and churches into an evangelical mindset.<\/p>\n

Quite frankly, I think this is the problem in the many debates at sites like Sharper Iron and others. Most of the participants are not fundamentalists, though they claim to be.<\/p>\n

Pickering quotes Dr. David Beale, one of my professors at Bob Jones University, as saying of faux-Fundamentalists:<\/p>\n

“Unlike present-day Fundamentalists, they refuse to regard the militant defense of the faith and the full doctrine and practice of holiness as intrinsically fundamental.” [from In Pursuit of Purity, p. 261ff., quoted in Pickering, p. 159.]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One cry of faux-fundies is that there is no adequate definition of what a fundamentalist is. Dr. Beale’s statement here should be sufficient. There are two distinguishing marks:<\/p>\n