This essay was recently posted on Roger E. Olson's (Theology Professor at Baylor University). It's written by Michael Clawson, a colleague of Roger's also from Baylor.
It does a reasonably good job, I think of explaining what he sees as an emerging movement which he calls Neo-Fundamentalism and it focuses particularly on the influence of John Piper, Albert Mohler and Mark Driscoll. Others refer to it as Neo-Calvinism.
I think it's an interesting read and it highlights some of what is arising within evangelicalism and reformed communities.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolso ... thy-essay/
The Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism - Article
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
The Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism - Article
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
narnia4
- Senior Member
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:44 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: The Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism - Article
Interesting article. Guess you could say I'm a fan of Piper.
The author here clarified his use of the term "neo-fundamentalism" several times, but I can't imagine many at all accepting the term. "Neo" may only literally mean "new", but I don't see many actually describing themselves as "neo-this or that". And Fundamentalism, we know the modern definition of that term. So anyone who sees the term "neo-fundamentalism", there's no way that the vast majority of people aren't going to come in with a huge number of preconceived negative ideas about what it must be.
Now postmodernity, I kind of think that's by and large a red herring that isn't going to have a lasting impact in serious discussions. I'm with William Lane Craig on his explanation of it here- http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=6479
I think lip-service is given to post-modernity and relativism as a kind of easy way to satisfy people of different religions and try to find some sort of unity on divisive issues so that we can come to a sort of all-inclusive theory of everything. But people still by and large believe that 2+2=4, that there are objective morals and duties, etc. Postmodern issues can still be addressed for individuals/the masses, but on an intellectual level those who hold to verificationism/scientism are the ones who seem to be the internet atheists and most hostile critics of Christianity.
The author here clarified his use of the term "neo-fundamentalism" several times, but I can't imagine many at all accepting the term. "Neo" may only literally mean "new", but I don't see many actually describing themselves as "neo-this or that". And Fundamentalism, we know the modern definition of that term. So anyone who sees the term "neo-fundamentalism", there's no way that the vast majority of people aren't going to come in with a huge number of preconceived negative ideas about what it must be.
Now postmodernity, I kind of think that's by and large a red herring that isn't going to have a lasting impact in serious discussions. I'm with William Lane Craig on his explanation of it here- http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=6479
I think lip-service is given to post-modernity and relativism as a kind of easy way to satisfy people of different religions and try to find some sort of unity on divisive issues so that we can come to a sort of all-inclusive theory of everything. But people still by and large believe that 2+2=4, that there are objective morals and duties, etc. Postmodern issues can still be addressed for individuals/the masses, but on an intellectual level those who hold to verificationism/scientism are the ones who seem to be the internet atheists and most hostile critics of Christianity.
Young, Restless, Reformed