Often, when something becomes a target of acerbic human wrath, I step back and take another
look. To do so may or may not result in a change of mind,
but it frequently leads to a greater understanding. This has been true with
regard to the vigorous and vicious attacks against the “abusiveness” of Fundamentalism.
Legalism and abuse easily
cohabit; however, legalism and Fundamentalism are not synonymous. Frankly, I am
indebted to Fundamentalism for solid teaching with regard to the matter of potentiality in the
command to abstain from all “appearance” of evil. That potentiality has to do with non-absolute (contextual) self denial issues.
My wife and I have the
privilege of serving a ministry to homeless people who seek to get back on
track. These individuals come from paths of crisis which
necessitate radical adjustments in what they can and cannot allow in their
lives. Some of the changes involve matters which you or I might not need to
consider, but they are matters which have become catalysts for serious wreckage in their lives.
I have frequently used
card playing as a template for this discussion. The non-legalistic Fundamentalist
recognized that some individuals can indeed be lured into bad company and bad
choices through an inordinate passion for such innocuous past times. They erred
in thinking the problem could be solved by across-the-board prohibitions; but
they were on to something notwithstanding.
Great Fundamentalists such
as A. W. Tozer had no intention of telling people that a list
of taboos would make them spiritual or acceptable; but they had every
intention of confronting individuals with the possibility that some things they
allowed in their lives might prohibit them from being all they could be or from accomplishing all they could accomplish in serving the Savior whom they professed to love. This was not legalism. It was simple practicality.
Previous: The Mother of All Self-Denial Mandates
Next: The Elephant Behind the Freedomist Pulpit
Home: The Withered Grape
Previous: The Mother of All Self-Denial Mandates
Next: The Elephant Behind the Freedomist Pulpit
Home: The Withered Grape
I'm enjoying the series. I'm tempted to write a rebuttal, but I dealt with the topic under my "Recovering fundamentalism" series. In reading, I think we're more in agreement than not.
ReplyDeleteOne pattern I see is each side straw man's the other. That said I treat legalism as a false teaching and fundamentalism in tension with being missional. In life there are tensions and sometimes resolving those tensions has a worse outcome than living with it. Some lean more towards fundamentalism (MacAurthor) and some towards missional (Keller), but both operate from a true Gospel and a high fidelity to Scripture.
I do think a major flaw with fundamentalism is that it didn't call out with disdain the false Gospel of legalism... Wonderful and well thought out series!!!
Thank you so much, Ty. I miss the get-togethers we had on occasion in Cortland. I trust this finds you doing well and enjoying the grace of God. Keep on keeping on.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me think of the older generation and they viewed certain things as sin {even though it was not sin in itself to do it}, yet they abstained for the fear of falling into a sinful trap down the road. It's funny how I consider some of those things to be silly, yet the generation coming after mine probably considers some of my abstaining standards to be silly as well. Each generation inches closer and closer to the edge.....who will finally fall too far?
ReplyDelete