No, and probably not. I’ve not read anything by FS lately. Reading this, I have to wonder if FS has not apostatized. Is he still even a member of the EO church?
On his website, you see a *lot* abouthis recent books on the military and his novels about “fundamentalism” – nothing about his earlier works on the Orthodox church. Curious…
I’m not sure that suspecting him of apostasy is entirely fair. One of the things that led him in the direction of Greek Orthodoxy is that communion’s embrace of mystery and rejection of fundamentalisms and scholasticisms.
His characterization of Ratzinger is not at all fair, but his characterization of fundamentalists who dig Ratzinger is not far wide of the mark.
Perhaps I’m not getting what is “wrong” with his sentiments. Do we not fear the same absolutism inherent in the “duncanian” vision of some Southern Presbyterians. If Lig doesn’t represent a Puritan fundamentalism, I don’t know what does.
No, MIchael, I think you got it wrong. Lig Duncan is not an enemy, certainly not a “fundamentalist” enemy. He’s a Presbyterian brother in Christ. We lament the way he comes after other Presbyterian brothers with whom he disagrees. We plead with him to think carefully about those he attacks and be careful about the words he uses to critique them. But we are with him on most core issues. We would never denounce him publicly before the watching world like FS has done.
God created the world in six days. The Bible is inerrant. Christ rose from the dead on the third day. Abortion is murder. Jesus is absolute Lord over all things, including the state. His law must be obeyed. Homosexuality is wicked. If affirming these facts is “fundamentalism” and “absolutism,” then I guess I’m on FS’s hit list. FS’s thoughts about “religion” and “religious people” are a sell-out to modernism’s Kantian dichotomy. To publish something like this in a SF paper is to identify with the wrong people, or more pointed still, it is to identify with the enemies of the Gospel by ridiculing those who stand for the truth, however compromised they may be in selected areas of thought and behavior. In other words, if these words of his are a real indication of his heart and loyalty, I’d rather be by Dobson’s side than FS’s on the Last Day.
Given the great respect I have for you, I gave Schaeffer’s article a third read with your comments in mind. Nevertheless, I remain bumfuzzled by yours and Mark’s reception of his sentiments. Perhaps I am missing something of the deeper context of his departure from Bible Pres. environs, but while his criticisms of Benedict XVI are certainly off the mark, the sentiments in general are well-taken.
Beyond that, I’m not sure where w differ. For my own part, I would consider Lig more of an interlocutor/respected opponent than an “enemy.” Certainly I would not casually lump him together with the malignant fundamentalisms of, say, Bob Jones or Jerry Falwell, but one need not be malignant to be a fundamentalist. I would not limit my definition of Christian fundamentalism to those who profess chiliasm and would argue that it is more identifiable by theological type than by a set of dogmas. On Frei’s scale of types, Duncan’s style would be pretty close to a type five in my estimation.
Regarding your list, I would probably agree to some, object to some, and nuance others (I think a literal six day creationism is exegetically indefensible, for example), but its not so much the content of belief as the quality of that belief that Schaeffer seems to have in mind here. Whether it is a concession to Kant, a nod toward Van Til, or a gesture in the direction of Ricoeur, we do live in a post-critical age where we must reckon with the mediated nature of our knowledge. Human finitude and the noetic effects of sin do not nullify a robust confession of belief, but they do require that we clothe our proper confidence with a proper humility. Your admonitions that Duncan “think carefully” and “speak carefully” capture these sentiments well.
I am not uncritical of Schaeffer. He has the same, jaded “convert’s zeal” that Scott Hahn and Patrick Henry Reardon have. That said, where he is creating space for a way beyond fundamentalist immediacy and modern cynicism, I applaud the effort.
BTW – We still need to connect for lunch. (847) 372-7129.
Oh, Michael, that’s you, huh? Yeah, we do need to get together. Call me or contact me via email and leave me your phone #. Thanks!
Creating space for a way beyond fundamentalism and cynicism is one thing, but I don’t read FS’s screed as coming close to such a program. I embrace the mediated nature of knowledge and understand, or at least try to understand our post-critical situation. What I read in FS was nothing like this, but a modernist relegation of religion to realm of the individual choices, a Kantian dismissal of the Christian faith’s objective claim on all of life, including politics. If the fundamentalists are poisoned by pre-postmodern absolutist conceptions of truth, FS seems to have run to the other pole of the dilemma where religion is strictly a private matter. Maybe I’ve read FS wrong. It’s hard to judge a man from one little newspaper essay.
I just wonder about people who are so sophisticated in their theological tastes – if indeed that is the case with FS – that they are unwilling to associate themselves with prominent Christians whom the media has labeled as fundamentalists. I could indeed wish that Dobson and others might adopt a more faithful style of ministry and theology. But I will not publicly piss on them like FS has simply because they haven’t read Milbank or Vanhoozer. Does that make more sense? Let the discussions about theological types and styles continue. It’s great. But in the meantime let’s support our troops, as the saying goes.
I’m sorta in-between on this one I think. I’m not sure FS said much that was overtly/directly disturbing to me, but his reaction to fundamentalism lines up almost exactly with how Hauerwas describes the modern liberal, i.e. willing to tolerate anyone except someone who believes things so firmly that they actually make some sort of difference.
Liberalism (not the theoretical kind, but what is actually out there in our world) seems based on the principle that religion is ok as long as it is a privately held matter which keeps fairly quite about things. Any opinion is ok EXCEPT some sort of fundamentalism. Thus the true enemies of the liberal order are Islam and Christianity; the latter only of the variety which actually bellieves in things.
No, and probably not. I’ve not read anything by FS lately. Reading this, I have to wonder if FS has not apostatized. Is he still even a member of the EO church?
On his website, you see a *lot* abouthis recent books on the military and his novels about “fundamentalism” – nothing about his earlier works on the Orthodox church. Curious…
I’m not sure that suspecting him of apostasy is entirely fair. One of the things that led him in the direction of Greek Orthodoxy is that communion’s embrace of mystery and rejection of fundamentalisms and scholasticisms.
His characterization of Ratzinger is not at all fair, but his characterization of fundamentalists who dig Ratzinger is not far wide of the mark.
Perhaps I’m not getting what is “wrong” with his sentiments. Do we not fear the same absolutism inherent in the “duncanian” vision of some Southern Presbyterians. If Lig doesn’t represent a Puritan fundamentalism, I don’t know what does.
Michael+
No, MIchael, I think you got it wrong. Lig Duncan is not an enemy, certainly not a “fundamentalist” enemy. He’s a Presbyterian brother in Christ. We lament the way he comes after other Presbyterian brothers with whom he disagrees. We plead with him to think carefully about those he attacks and be careful about the words he uses to critique them. But we are with him on most core issues. We would never denounce him publicly before the watching world like FS has done.
God created the world in six days. The Bible is inerrant. Christ rose from the dead on the third day. Abortion is murder. Jesus is absolute Lord over all things, including the state. His law must be obeyed. Homosexuality is wicked. If affirming these facts is “fundamentalism” and “absolutism,” then I guess I’m on FS’s hit list. FS’s thoughts about “religion” and “religious people” are a sell-out to modernism’s Kantian dichotomy. To publish something like this in a SF paper is to identify with the wrong people, or more pointed still, it is to identify with the enemies of the Gospel by ridiculing those who stand for the truth, however compromised they may be in selected areas of thought and behavior. In other words, if these words of his are a real indication of his heart and loyalty, I’d rather be by Dobson’s side than FS’s on the Last Day.
JJM
Jeff,
Given the great respect I have for you, I gave Schaeffer’s article a third read with your comments in mind. Nevertheless, I remain bumfuzzled by yours and Mark’s reception of his sentiments. Perhaps I am missing something of the deeper context of his departure from Bible Pres. environs, but while his criticisms of Benedict XVI are certainly off the mark, the sentiments in general are well-taken.
Beyond that, I’m not sure where w differ. For my own part, I would consider Lig more of an interlocutor/respected opponent than an “enemy.” Certainly I would not casually lump him together with the malignant fundamentalisms of, say, Bob Jones or Jerry Falwell, but one need not be malignant to be a fundamentalist. I would not limit my definition of Christian fundamentalism to those who profess chiliasm and would argue that it is more identifiable by theological type than by a set of dogmas. On Frei’s scale of types, Duncan’s style would be pretty close to a type five in my estimation.
Regarding your list, I would probably agree to some, object to some, and nuance others (I think a literal six day creationism is exegetically indefensible, for example), but its not so much the content of belief as the quality of that belief that Schaeffer seems to have in mind here. Whether it is a concession to Kant, a nod toward Van Til, or a gesture in the direction of Ricoeur, we do live in a post-critical age where we must reckon with the mediated nature of our knowledge. Human finitude and the noetic effects of sin do not nullify a robust confession of belief, but they do require that we clothe our proper confidence with a proper humility. Your admonitions that Duncan “think carefully” and “speak carefully” capture these sentiments well.
I am not uncritical of Schaeffer. He has the same, jaded “convert’s zeal” that Scott Hahn and Patrick Henry Reardon have. That said, where he is creating space for a way beyond fundamentalist immediacy and modern cynicism, I applaud the effort.
BTW – We still need to connect for lunch. (847) 372-7129.
Michael+
Oh, Michael, that’s you, huh? Yeah, we do need to get together. Call me or contact me via email and leave me your phone #. Thanks!
Creating space for a way beyond fundamentalism and cynicism is one thing, but I don’t read FS’s screed as coming close to such a program. I embrace the mediated nature of knowledge and understand, or at least try to understand our post-critical situation. What I read in FS was nothing like this, but a modernist relegation of religion to realm of the individual choices, a Kantian dismissal of the Christian faith’s objective claim on all of life, including politics. If the fundamentalists are poisoned by pre-postmodern absolutist conceptions of truth, FS seems to have run to the other pole of the dilemma where religion is strictly a private matter. Maybe I’ve read FS wrong. It’s hard to judge a man from one little newspaper essay.
I just wonder about people who are so sophisticated in their theological tastes – if indeed that is the case with FS – that they are unwilling to associate themselves with prominent Christians whom the media has labeled as fundamentalists. I could indeed wish that Dobson and others might adopt a more faithful style of ministry and theology. But I will not publicly piss on them like FS has simply because they haven’t read Milbank or Vanhoozer. Does that make more sense? Let the discussions about theological types and styles continue. It’s great. But in the meantime let’s support our troops, as the saying goes.
I’m sorta in-between on this one I think. I’m not sure FS said much that was overtly/directly disturbing to me, but his reaction to fundamentalism lines up almost exactly with how Hauerwas describes the modern liberal, i.e. willing to tolerate anyone except someone who believes things so firmly that they actually make some sort of difference.
Liberalism (not the theoretical kind, but what is actually out there in our world) seems based on the principle that religion is ok as long as it is a privately held matter which keeps fairly quite about things. Any opinion is ok EXCEPT some sort of fundamentalism. Thus the true enemies of the liberal order are Islam and Christianity; the latter only of the variety which actually bellieves in things.