Anyway, Charismanglican, I identify closely with the perspective of your first comment and appreciate your willingness not to trample over our fundamentalist brethren in our mad dash toward Rome or Canterbury. As one of the ‘us’ you well described (I personally self-identify as baptocathlodox, but I like charismanglican), I too find the fundamentalist who genuinely seeks to conform her whole life to a living, active Jesus Christ within particular, conservative parameters much more tolerable than the liberal who has domesticated her religion into a suitable part of her identity.

Yet, Nick’s point above is actually more than snarkiness (and I don’t think he intended it that way). Much of the evidence for this is largely anecdotal, but in my experience friends of fundamentalist conviction, particularly reformed, ‘Sovereign Grace’ types, not only differ with regard to terminology, but with the very possibility that terms and grammars of theology different from theirs might merit consideration, rather than dismissed as ‘unbiblical.’ An Augustinian belief that language is always at least somewhat provisional, always bound by its horizon of representation before reaching the mystery of the Trinity, seems to be a prerequisite for the kind of meaningful dialogue you and I both would want to have with our conservative evangelical family. But for them, the very terms of their particular theologies (Jesus as ‘personal Savior’, penal substitutionary atonement, a very specific understanding of the creation narrative, etc.) are typically taken in practice if not in official confession to be just as ‘inerrant’ and thus irrefutable as the Bible which prompted them. To note this view of the language of theology is to say that until the ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church’ is a phase found in the Bible, it will always be viewed with a degree of suspicion in those types of circles.

I don’t say that to disagree with your conclusion that we should be pursuing partnership with such folks, only to note one of the many difficulties I’ve experienced in that pursuit.

I’m already partnered with them, whether I or they like it or not.

That’s the thing that I’m defending. It’s not as if I’m going to go volunteer for 9 Marks.

Part of that partnership is pointing out their BS. Part of that partnership is to recognize whatever is noble, excellent or praiseworthy. I only meant that 9 Marks might not be the scariest wing of the Church, nor the smelliest part of the body of Christ.

I’m guilty of hating this stuff only because I was so recently a part of it. The zeal of recent converts is strong. But we can speak the truth charitably, especially when we’re speaking of family members.

A nice sentiment, but it’s too bad they have no interest in partnering with you. :)

The e-Journal may be an instantiation of fundamentalist memes, but I’m not about to label Dever a fundamentalist. The fundamentalists don’t make enough noise, so I think we often forget what they really look like. I DO understand why you see him and the men under his purview in such a light, though.

I’m really close to them in a lot of ways, but I too share concern when my brothers are standing around casting stones.

I do think they are rightfully called fundamentalists as historically and theologically described by Ernest Sandeen, George Marsden and James Barr. In fact, I think that e-journal perfectly displays the marks of fundamentalism, anxiety about “liberalism,” strong dichotomy between doctrine and practice, strong dichotomy between Gospel and social justice, flattened literalist reading of scripture, modern scientific understanding of biblical authority as inerrancy.

I’m not upset at the e-journal because I think it is evidence they wave American flags in their churches or tell people to vote Republican; I’m outraged that the journal is (a) inaccurate and irresponsible; (b) woefully intolerant of anything but a very narrow, very novel, very selective understanding of the Gospel; and (c) calls “liberal” very biblical and traditional convictions and impulses.

What transpires in these little tissy-fits is the same type of crap that goes on all day long on cable news.

Where’s John Stewart when you need him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE