Though I found the entire discussion fascinating, the last 8 minutes are particularly intriguing and lend themselves to brief summary. In response to Jason Janz's question, "What would you say are the hallmarks of a fundamentalist?" Delnay responds with five marks, which I'll summarize here:
- A love for Scripture
- Dispensational, pretribulational, premillennialism (Delnay specifically denies that any accomodation for diversity in eschatological views is acceptable within fundamentalism.)
- Authenticity of life ("walking with God")
I think of young guys--many of them out there--who would gravitate toward separatism and biblicism and premillennialism and indeed have common cause and fellowship with one another if they didn't have such a bad taste in their mouths to that word "fundamentalism."Delnay attributes this "bad taste" to bad leadership:
I think maybe our greatest problem was the careless choice of personnel—either the leaders that we followed who built big churches or the people that we hired to work with us. And I think that matter of earnest, prayerful, careful consideration of personnel may be the most important thing we're going to have to do in the days at hand.Obviously, some of even the most militant, separatist fundamentalist would disagree with Delnay's second point.
I'm much more interested, however, in Delnay's conviction that young guys are running from fundamentalism not because of it's contemporary condition, but about past mistakes in leadership and personnel choices. My opinion is based on nothing more than the spectrum of people I talk to, but as best I can tell I don't think this part of his assessment is correct. It seems that frustrations are grounded far more in certain aspects of the fundamentalist movement as it exists today than in the mistakes that were made in the past.
I know I could explain that a little more, but I'm curious to hear first whether my experience is consistent with what anyone reading this has found to be true.