tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post113760703121245705..comments2024-01-12T09:37:16.515-06:00Comments on paleoevangelical: Deconstructing Evangelicalism: A Brief OverviewBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07113808932788409800noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-1137690459692072192006-01-19T11:07:00.000-06:002006-01-19T11:07:00.000-06:00Michael wrote:"A lot of fundamentalists seem to th...Michael wrote:<BR/>"A lot of fundamentalists seem to think that evangelicalism is a monolithic movement, rather than an almost meaningless classification. This can lead to a stereotyped view of evangelicals where the foibles and failures of some are imputed to everyone else."<BR/><BR/>Michael,<BR/><BR/>You may have heard this already, but for an excellent example of the broad-brushing of which you speak, listen to the audio of the panel discussion found <A HREF="http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1908" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-1137684824720525322006-01-19T09:33:00.000-06:002006-01-19T09:33:00.000-06:00Dave,Please take all liberties to share your impre...Dave,<BR/><BR/>Please take all liberties to share your impressions and conclusions. I can find little reason to disagree with his. I think there are some other rumblings along this line of thinking from outside traditional fundamentalist circles.<BR/><BR/>Franklin,<BR/><BR/>The Dave posting above is actually the one who first brought Hart to my attention, so he deserves the credit. If he weren't so shy by nature, maybe he would say more. ;-)<BR/><BR/>The book is actually pretty recent—published in 2004. I really think your joking point isn't too far off. The Carl Henry quote I posted last week (about fundamentalism losing the battle with modernism because it reduced essential doctrines to the five points) connects in many ways with the construct of evangelicalism reducing doctrine to a least common denominator of virtually nothing.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the objective of evangelicalism and its doctrinal minimum was to build a broad movement, while the objective of fundamentalism was to defend specific doctrines against a specific attack at a specific time. The outcome obviously led to a more narrow movement rather than a broader one. The two strains may have made similar errors, but there is an important difference between their root motivations.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-1137681967501410262006-01-19T08:46:00.000-06:002006-01-19T08:46:00.000-06:00I appreciate Hart's point. I've argued several tim...I appreciate Hart's point. <BR/><BR/>I've argued several times on SharperIron that the notion of evangelicalism as a movement is flawed. It's hard to see much in common between John MacArthur, Greg Laurie, Gary Collins, Douglas Wilson, Billy Graham, and Jay Adams. While "evangelical" may be an accurate way to <I>label</I> these men, I don't see how you can call it their <I>movement</I>. A lot of fundamentalists seem to think that evangelicalism is a monolithic movement, rather than an almost meaningless classification. This can lead to a stereotyped view of evangelicals where the foibles and failures of some are imputed to everyone else. <BR/><BR/>I know that this isn't exactly what Hart argues, but I see it as a related idea. Even so, I'm not sure that I see how we can dispense with the term <I>evangelical</I>, as misleading as it may be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-1137646106993468052006-01-18T22:48:00.000-06:002006-01-18T22:48:00.000-06:00So, it's kinda like the word "fundamentalist"? LO...So, it's kinda like the word "fundamentalist"? LOL...I couldn't resist;). <BR/><BR/>Seriously, sounds like a great read. Thanks for pointing us to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com