The great sin in Fundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin in evangelicalism is to be narrow.
Now this statement must be understood in its context. Over the course of the 20th century, fundamentalism has been overridden by evangelicalism on a wide scale. The fundamentalists fought tooth and nail to uphold the wall between the church and the world. They thought this the best way to keep the church a holy and sanctified body. However, in the late 20th century, evangelicalism gained prominence over fundamentalism. This meant breaking down the wall of separation in many respects. This meant moving away from the narrow thinking of the fundamentalist's. We now widely live from and among this wave evangelicalism, this world-friendly Christianity. What the fundamentalist's fought so hard to repel, the evangelicals welcomed and continue to welcome with open arms. So, is the great sin compromise, or to be narrow? I say it is compromise.
So why do I say that the great sin is compromise? Something inescapable from Christianity is that it is an historic and traditionally-based religion, so when people want to do things as they haven't been done in the past, we would do well to examine and hold it up with what we know to be true. This isn't to say that we shouldn't sing new songs of worship or adopt new forms of ministry. The point is that we must always hold these things up to the guidelines of God's Word. Our best example of this is the church, for it is not a new thing to struggle with conforming to the culture. Christians have protected the church for hundreds of years from the culture, and we would do well to follow their lead. Now how does this compromise often guise itself in our day and age? postmodernism.
Postmodernism, which plagues many minds today in the church, is a way of thinking that discredits tradition, weakens history, and glorifies in relativity. It discredits tradition by relegating it contextual, it weakens history by sweeping it under the carpet, and it glorifies relativity by indulging in the latest fad and fashion. The postmodernist always looks for new ways to "do church," and will state that whatever "works" (this term itself is often ambiguous, but usually refers to the quantity and supposed interest of the congregants) is the optimum choice.
Here is a quote from J.P. Moreland that I have recently come across that shows the devastation of this worldview:
"Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in his army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claim to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood."
Feel free to post your thoughts.
Bonus: I met David Wells at a conference in SoCal last week! I got his signature in my copy of No Place for Truth, and a picture with him too!
