1 I like the term "historic fundamentalist". But I still would prefer a substitute for fundamentalist, even when used with historic. My earliest recollection of the use of the term fundamentalist was when, as a teenager, I was dragged to a youth conference at Jack Hyles church. Almost in the same sentence that he called himself a fundamentalist, he was asking a young man with long hair to leave the building. Then he proceded to pick on The Imperials. (my favorite group at the time) So even by putting "historic" in front, I get squeemish about being identified as a fundamentalist of any kind, when in fact....I am.

2 I'm finding a lot of people calling themselves 'Biblicists' -- that might be the way to go, I don't know. Labels are difficult things -- even the term "Christian" was coined by our enemies. I went to a Hyles youth conference when I was 16. Heard all about how you shouldn't kiss a girl until you marry her. That never took (and I know some guys who were VERY disappointed when some of the girls mentioned how much they LIKED that idea).

3 I'm a little surprised to find Frank Schaeffer (whose work I've enjoyed over the years - even the Calvin Becker books) calling his father a fundamentalist with all of the overtones that that word carries in the Protestant world. Schaeffer himself used the label Bible believing Christian and was certainly embraced far more readily by those who considered themselves evangelical than by those who styled themselves fundamentalists (at least that was the case in my neck of the woods). Most of the fundamentalists I knew considered Schaeffer to be too intellectual and too worldly (after all he listened to the Mother's of Invention, watched Satyricon and actually knew who Picasso and Dali were). In Sham Pearls For Real Swine Frank makes some valid points about American fundamentalism/evangelicalism. None of that book seemed to be pointed at his parents, both of whom in their published works disassociated themselves from the sort of high culture denying/pop culture embracing that he was critiqueing. It seems strange that he now uses the word fundamentalist to identify both of his parents. Francis Schaeffer towards the end of his life obviously had problems even with evangelicalism (The Great Evangelical Disaster deals with that). I suspect (as does Frank himself) that had his father lived longer he might have found himself in one of the historic branches of Christendom. Frank moved to Greek Orthodoxy, in large part because he was rejecting the logical rational thought of Western Christianity. After reading Sham Pearls and at least one book that he referred to in it, I ended up ultimately becoming a Roman Catholic. Greek Orthodoxy would have been a less painful move (although not a very realistic one in my area), but my study of Church history led me home to Rome. I understand why Frank rejected Protestantism, I even understand why he became Orthodox. What I have difficulty understanding is why he now identifies his parents with a branch of Protestantism that they conciously chose to not identify themselves with. Perhaps he is only using the historic definition of fundamentalism, but the word is so loaded at this point, and he knows that, that it seems like a slur to use it in reference to his parents. A lot of people have assumed that the Becker books are thinly veiled pictures of the Schaeffers. While there are details that obviously come from real life (the pot throwing and Calvin's lack of education) as detailed by Edith and by Susan Macaulay, it seems to me that much of what Frank is caricaturing is the lives that people who came to L'Abri described. I suspect that he has combined the worst parts of his parents with the worst parts of the true fundamentalists he was exposed to as he wrote the Becker books. The admiration that he clearly had for his father and the love he has for his mother has come through even in these post Becker years. When you read about their reaction to his getting Genie pregnant when he was 17 you do not see the reaction of the Beckers. You see the reaction of the Schaeffer's as Edith portrays them in What is A Family. Both Francis and Edith made it clear over the years that when you expect perfection or nothing you will get nothing. The problem in fundamentalist circles was and is so often that perfection is what is expected. That is why it is so disturbing to see Frank identifying his parents with something that they clearly (at least in their published work and audio tapes) rejected. I continue to be enriched by much of what the Schaeffers wrote, even while my conclusions have led me to a place they would not have intended. I do not consider Dr. Schaeffer's word the final authority, but I do consider that he raised questions that Christians need to consider in our post-modern world. Many people have come along since Dr. Schaeffer's death to grapple with these questions, some in response to Dr. Schaeffer, others because they in their own study began to realize the importance of the issues. I rarely look at my Schaeffer books anymore, but I will freely admit the intellectual debt that I owe him. I never would have dared to ask the questions, read the books, watch the films had he not challenged me to move beyond the fundamentalism of my youth. I suspect that Frank would not be Orthodox today if his father had been a typical fundamentalist. I suspect that all of the high art to which he was exposed played a part in where he ended up.

1 The last paragraph reminded me of Mark 9:39-41 "...for whoever is not against us is for us." Good post.

2 What unites us is greater than what divides us. While many Evangelicals (like me) had the greatest respect and admiration for Pope John Paul II, there were some things that troubled us about him. The depth of his Marian devotion led some to question his salvation. Praise God that the burden of judging such a great man as Karol Wojtyla belongs to Him alone. Pope Benedict XVI appears to be poised to move towards greater Christian unity. In "Dominie Iesus", which was widely considered to have been authored largely by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the "filique" was dropped from a restatement of the Nicene Creed. Also Ratzinger was very prominent in outreach to Evangelicals and Protestants during John Paul II's papacy. The new Pope has made Christian unity a priority for his Papacy.

3 I applaud the positive attitude of the authors of the book, who emphasize that Christians, if they are indeed Christians of the faith preached by Christ, must emphasize what they have in common, not what divides them. To answer the question, however, IS the reformation over, I have to believe that no, it continues, it multiplies, it dissents, argues and splinters. To follow just one branch, we see that the Methodists begat the Pentecosals, who begat the Assembly of God, who begat Jimmy Swaggart, who begat TBN and Benny Hinn. Somewhere down the road Joel Olsteen popped up. If you are a masochist, you can detour to Ken Copeland. One splinter of the gospel taken from the previous splinter becomes the basis for a whole new megachurch. Who dares guess what their descendants and offshoots will preach in 20 years time? Sadly, the reformation continues. Those who value the faith of Christ will try to brake that development. Izydor