MondayMorningInsight.com > Why I’m No Longer A Fundamentalist

HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

Why I’m No Longer A Fundamentalist

Orginally published on Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 9:03 AM
by Todd Rhoades

Bible_1 We've had an interesting few days here at the MMI blog talking about the word 'fundamentalist'. We've been discussing how the term and meaning of the word has changed over the years.

James Rutz has an interesting article recently posted at WorldNetDaily.com on why he doesn't consider himself a fundamentalist anymore. It's an interesting read. James writes...

I was reared as a fundamentalist, and I'm proud of it.

I've got credentials coming out my ears. At age 9, I beat out 5,000 other kids in a Bible memorization contest. At 17, I started a campus Bible study in college. I annoyed my professors by writing papers on obscure Christian subjects and asking cheeky questions in class. Even at this very late date, I could still produce a long list of things I don't do – plus a dusty boxful of oak-leaf clusters for Sunday School attendance. I'm sure you would be terribly impressed by my obvious holiness.

But despite my former fixations on all the externals and rigamajig of devoted churchianity, I would do it all again. If I could reboot my life, I would still opt to grow up on the fundy track. (For a few years, at least.)

Why? Roots. The fundamentalist lifestyle may be weak on social and cultural involvement, but it gets you started with a solid foundation in the Bible. Which means that by 18, you're probably grounded in common sense and the greatest set of values in the world (in stark contrast to many of your peers).

That doesn't mean you'll be impervious to the assaults of liberal blather. After all, there are several million Southern Baptist Democrats – oxymorons all. But even if you don't know right from left, you will know right from wrong, and your chances of doing right will improve vastly.

My confidence in the Bible hasn't waned an ounce in all these years. But I am now what you'd call an evangelical, committed to changing the world through the Gospel and my best human efforts. And therein lies the reason for today's column.

In my slow little march toward making a difference on this planet, I've violated the tenets still held by many fundamentalists today: that the church is foredoomed to be a miserable failure and will have to be rescued from utter disaster by Christ's return; that we have no business trying to reform the world, our job being only evangelism; and that we should meekly "be subject unto the higher powers." (Reminder: When you vote, you are the higher powers.)

As my reward for filling up this space on a weekly basis, I get e-mails – with ever-helpful suggestions. Some of them are from keen-eyed fundies dutifully noting my drift into misguided efforts to reform humanity and clean up the planetary swamp. They fire off sharp rebukes for my naivete and lack of biblical perspective. Their fresh prose even includes clever phrases like, "polishing the brass on the Titanic."

But by far their most effective challenge is, "Jim, where does the New Testament say we're supposed to go out and reform society? Jesus just told us to love God, lead holy lives, and disciple the nations." Well, I must admit that apart from some general commands to be "salt and light" and so forth, there aren't a lot of specifics. No plans to unseat Caesar or combat that era's rampant infanticide, for instance.

But the early believers did those things – and more – without even a settled New Testament to tell them to. Why? Because that's what we do. We are Christians. God lives in us, and we recoil against corruption, immorality and the 1,001 faces of sin.

When a drug ring moves into town, we don't consult the Bible to see if we should do anything about it. When an abortion clinic wants to set up shop next door, we don't accept their nonsense about "choice." When politicians siphon off public money, we don't look the other way. When TV producers want to show homosexuals making love, we don't shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, it's a free country."

When a tornado destroys a city, we're among the first to show up with help. When whole tribes or nations are hit by famine, we organize to bring food. When the homeless are down and out, we are usually there with our soup kitchens and shelters.

And likewise when the New World Order and hundreds of other Illuminati retreads aspire to destroy the world by restructuring it along God-free lines, we fight them tooth and nail. It's not that we have abandoned the Lord's great commission to evangelize the world or slipped back into the 1920s "social gospel" of self-improvement. It's just what we do. We are Christians. We hate evil, and we fight it by our deepest instincts.

---

Some people think that it's impossible to be like James... to keep biblically sound without retaining the word 'fundamentalist' attached to your name. I would side with James on this one. I, as well, grew up as a 'fundamentalist' but would not use that name to describe me now. I have not changed at all in regards to my theology or basic belief in the tennants of the faith; however I don't fit the narrow social path or agenda of the old-school fundamentalist.

My purpose here isn't to debate the pros or cons of fundamentalism; or to debate the definition. But I do wonder this... how many of you would consider yourself to still be a fundamentalist? How many of you would consider yourself to be an ex-fundamentalist? How many would have never called yourself one? I find this interesting... let's hear what you have to say.

Oh, and the words "Rick Warren" are not allowed to appear in any of your reponses.

Todd

This post has been viewed 256 times so far.

TRACKBACKS: (0) There are 84 Comments:

Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 5:12 PM

The World didn’t like the Word Baptist, so the weak removed their outward association with it, now just wisper their association.

The world doesn’t like fundementalism, even if it only stands for holding to literal scripture and doctrine. So those that are fundemental in the faith back off because of image.

The World is getting more angry and intollerent everyday with the word “Christian”. Shall we separate ourselves from this name? I count my Lord much to worthy to let the World dictate my allegience.
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 6:35 PM

This has been an enlightening exercise really.

It’s not so much that the word “fundmentalism” has changed, it’s that the world’s view of it has increasingly become more hostile, which has forced many to remove their connection to it.

The same has occured with the world’s view toward the term “born-again”. Because the world has associated that term with fundementalism, most christians will no longer use that either, choosing a softer phrase like “beginning a faith relationship”. Once again becoming more ashamed of holding fast to Truth. This has made me more aware how we let the World make us ashamed of Truth. Mainly because we don’t like the feel of being the outcast.
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 6:47 PM

Here’s the thing folks.

Who decided to change the term fundamental to be something so negative?

Is fundamental basketball player or fundamental baseball player negative??? How did it become negative in the Christianity?

I would suggest it is the sinful world that has influenced this shift, not Believers.

Have we now been convinced that it is the Believer ("fundie") that is the enemy???

Has the world pitted us against each other? OR is it possible that one group is ready and willing to submit fully to Scripture (these are they who say “what does Scripture say") and the other may not be (who would rather submit the Scripture to their subjective world view)???

Think about it.

If someone were to suggest to me I was wrong about something, doctrine or deed or both, what should my response as a Believer be?

Nuh Huh!

OR

Please show me in Scripture where I am wrong.

This is the FUNDAMENTAL difference.

Seriously, think about, pray about it, you’ll see this is true.

Just what are the fundamentals?

Inerrancy, etc… those are the keys that we all agree on… where the departure takes place is in approach (influenced world view) to Doctrine.

Sovereignty - Election - Atonement - Grace/Mercy - Work

Peter: [Just who has an “objective” opinion?]

God! Meaning HIS WORD!

Great point Kent about wanting to be with the “band wagon” (ie...cool group/kids)

[Here’s an excercise, go out onto a street corner and ask 10 passers-by what they think the word “fundamentalist” means. I dare say you will NOT get the classic definition.]

Great point Peter… which is why it is SOOOO dangerous to associate a Christian Fundamentalist with a Jewish or Muslim Fundamentalist (which those 10 passer buys would say are “radicals” and “terrorists” - because that is what they her day in and day out on the news media for the last 3 years).

[Peter, with all do respect, we have clearly seen the definition has not changed, what has changed it the way the World views it. The Worlds definition of “Christian” is getting worse and worse everyday and I’m sure because of that many christians will drop that name as well.]

Bingo. In fact, they have already dropped it in many camps they just call themselves “believers”. Which is the next movement… we all believe (who is “all” and what do they believe???).
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 6:56 PM

Wendi, I appreciate your follow-up - primarily, I suppose, because we agree!

A sad chuckle escaped my lips when I read of Philip Yancey’s encounter with the woman in jail. I found it interesting that an anti-abortion group once staged a Sunday-morning demonstration outside the church I used to attend because they believed we had not taken a strong-enough stance against abortion. An interesting - and tragic, I think - expenditure of time and energy. I guess our very strong support of a Christ-centered crisis pregnancy center down the street wasn’t enough.
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 7:30 PM

Kent, I’m curious about what seems to be your staunch defense of “traditional,” dictionary definitions of the terms Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Baptist, and Christian. The first two are a-biblical terms (i.e., they do not appear in the Bible) that have only come to have meaning in our culture in probably the past couple centuries. (Your own posting of the dictionary definition of Fundamentalism indicates that it is primarily a 20th-century label.) “Baptist” appears in the Bible only in reference to John the Baptist, and the term “christian” appears only three times.

While I applaud your defense of fundamental, evangelical theology, it seems to me that your emphasis on keeping tight hold on the labels may be misguided. Paul provides us a good example in 1 Cor 9 when he speaks of becoming “all things to all men”. Perhaps a paraphrase of his words is in order: “To the Fundamentalists I became like a Fundamentalist, to win the Fundamentalists.” He goes on to say that among the lawless, he becomes like the lawless - yet without giving up his responsibility under Christ’s law (v. 21). I have a feeling that Paul - like his savior and mine - would likely walk into a bar, pull up a stool, and start a conversation with the guy next to him. He may even (gasp!) order a beer! The Pharisees (of which Paul was one) would certainly never do that, and many of the self-avowed Fundamentalists that I know would be right there with the Pharisees, wagging their fingers and saying, “tsk, tsk”.

So, if a non-believer sees Jesus in my life and experiences something of His grace from me, and still labels me a fundamentalist...or born again or baptist or Christian...I’ll accept that. But if I insist on labeling myself a fundamentalist or born again or baptist or Christian - and they DON’T see Jesus in me and DON’T experience His grace, then I’ve got a problem. I think Jesus is far more concerned with how I live and I how draw others to him than with what arbitrary, 20th- or 21st-century label I wear.
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 7:55 PM

Randy said:

[But if I insist on labeling myself a fundamentalist or born again or Baptist or Christian - and they DON’T see Jesus in me and DON’T experience His grace, then I’ve got a problem.]

As I read through these posts, I’m thinking that one sentence hits on the main difference between some of us participating in this discussion.

I happen to agree with Randy, if someone far from God doesn’t or isn’t able to see Jesus in me because I insist on wearing a label – then I have a problem.

Kent and BeHim – I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I would suspect that based on our many discussions that you would say if a lost person has an issue with me calling myself an evangelical or fundamentalist or Baptist or born-again Christian – then THEY have a problem.

I think it is MY PROBLEM to do everything in my power to break down unnecessary barriers (which terms are) between me and “the world,” and I don’t think I must accommodate the world one bit to do so. Kent – you are absolutely right; the world does have a problem with the terms we’ve discussed on this post. As I see it, and I think you do not – it is MY PROBLEM to solve so that like Paul I can “by all means, reach some.”

Wendi
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 9:18 PM

Well sir it’s like this!

I ani’t funding nothing for no one if they are going to play it and I can’t… Just joking.

I’m not… I don’t like these words with “ism” or “ist” on the end.. From the definintion that Kent gave us it is to much like being a Pharisee, a Saduccee, a lawyer, and a nut…

I’M just a old fashion sinner saved by grace, where this is room at the cross for one more. So if you ain’t saved and want to be come on down…

Last point, Jesus saved us so we didn’t, have to live by all that mummbo jummbo stuff they taught, because he knew that we couldn’t, keep all those rules and regulations, but that we should’ve, died the death he did, but instead he FREED US… Jesus said it before M.L. King did, the day he died on that cross his last words were, “It is finished”. M.L. King said, “Free at last, free at last, thank God I am free at last”

That is what I said the day I was saved “FREE AT LAST” I am a free man to go and live again.”

Sorry for going off on a tangent like thise you all, but my bees are humming and making honey.. In short…

I AM FREE.. I ANI’T NO FUNDIMENTALIST.
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 9:33 PM

Just a Biblicist
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 10:07 PM

Let’s keep in mind WHY the term fundamentalist is being discussed. There is a rhyme and reason to it:

ASSOCIATION.

I bring this up because (and I’m not accusing anyone only hoping to point out a method) of the tactics. They are the same tactics the secular professors and liberal activists will use to avoid revealing their True position.

Again, I’m not calling anyone, any of these things as a label only pointing out their methods.

Allow me to give an example: “It depends on what you mean by the term “IS”. We all know where that came from.

By removing the association and strictly going to the definition of the term, we’ve really missed the point of the purpose behind our discussing “FUNDAMENTALIST”.

I fully understand why we are discussing it here but please remember at the end of the discussion, regardless of the final agreed upon definition, it still isn’t the “fundamentalist christian” that is the enemy of the 21st century OR The Gospel or The Kingdom of Heaven and that is the REAL issue.

[I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I would suspect that based on our many discussions that you would say if a lost person has an issue with me calling myself an evangelical or fundamentalist or Baptist or born-again Christian – then THEY have a problem.]

No, I would say the unbeliever already has an issue with my entire worldview Wendi. The unbeliever is already hostile to what I believe (doctrine) and do (deed). The Bible is clear about this Wendi. The world doesn’t like me because I’m not of the world. If I were of the world, like them, they would accept me.

What’s most troubling now Wendi, is that now, other believers are also having the same issue with my worldview, just like the unbeliever does. It is almost as if the unbeliever has convinced a group of believers that a certain group of “other” Believers are the REAL enemy of God, His Love, His Gospel and His Kingdom.

I suppose the same could be said about me. Except that I’m not willing to associate the believer with a radical or terrorist, I’m hoping the believer will go to the Scriptures for reproof and correction. IF a person who calls him/her self a Believer but will not go to the Scriptures for correction and reproof, then what else is there? Then it really does become opinions, feelings and emotions that drive our self-deceiving doctrines and deeds.

If somone truly believes I am wrong somewhere, I ask (and you yourself can bear me witness), let’s go to Scripture and show me where I"m wrong. I understand a person may “feel” or “Think” or “believe” I am wrong but we both need, as Believers, to subject ourselves to The Word as our Authority for both doctrine and deed, which will (hopefully) change our “feelings” “thoughts” and “beliefs”. I am and hopefully always will be, Lord Willing, ready to test all things with Scripture.
Posted by

Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 10:11 PM

[I think it is MY PROBLEM to do everything in my power to break down unnecessary barriers (which terms are) between me and “the world,” and I don’t think I must accommodate the world one bit to do so.]

What IS the NECESSARY barrier between you and the world?
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 12:50 AM

Behim said “What IS the NECESSARY barrier between you and the world?” Not being real and using false names and being afraid to let people see who you really are and what you have been saved from can be a real barrier. Being transparent and honest does a lot for the kingdom and personal growth. God knows so why do we pretend?
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 1:07 AM

BeHim - I don’t need to have the last word, we are miles apart and its best to just throw in the towel.

But . . . you asked a good question about barriers. It’s a good question, causing me to ponder. I’m sitting here trying to think about what would be a barrier that should necessarily prevent an open and respectful two-way conversation between me and the most worldly, decadent, carnal unbeliever (maybe Charles Manson or Hitler). I can’t think of one. There are lots of barriers that would prevent me from linking arms with or endorsing the worldview of the worldly, decadent and carnal unbeliever, but none of us were talking about that. We were just talking about how to posture ourselves in ways that engender dialogue. So to answer your question about barriers to dialogue, for me there are none.

You said: [What’s most troubling now Wendi, is that now, other believers are also having the same issue with my worldview, just like the unbeliever does.]

BeHim, I don’t think you read what any of us wrote. Not one posting took issue with your worldview. We are all fundamentalists in our worldview (we share a biblical worldview) – we share your high view of scripture and its inerrancy, we believe abortion and homosexuality is sin, and that the Allah is a false god. We just want is to lose the label, which is found nowhere in scripture, so who cares?

Wendi
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 1:08 AM

If you would like to share your name, location and testimony, by all means LD, please feel free to do so. As far as I know, Todd has been very open to such things.

I trust God not men and sometimes it is prudent to not share information on the Internet.

I don’t mind hate email but I do feel it prudent to keep my family safe wouldn’t you agree?

BTW.. A NECESSARY barrier would be something like Sanctification. Prudence is wise too though.
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 1:13 AM

[I don’t think you read what any of us wrote. Not one posting took issue with your worldview. We are all fundamentalists in our worldview (we share a biblical worldview) – we share your high view of scripture and its inerrancy, we believe abortion and homosexuality is sin, and that the Allah is a false god. We just want is to lose the label, which is found nowhere in scripture, so who cares?]

Out of respect for Todd, I won’t post the full response here, I’ll email it to you.

Again, it is association that started this and really in the end, it doesn’t matter what the definition is, it is the association that doesn’t change.

Perhaps reading the article on the “Tolerance” tshirt and “Response to Tolerance tshirt” may shed some light.
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 1:44 AM

BeHim, Not trying to bust your chops but the same reasons you quoted for not being transparent could apply to any of us. I think the body of Christ just needs to get real and hiding behind any facade defeats that purpose.We all love you and you can be real with us.Peace.
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 1:53 AM

In what way are you suggesting I’m not being “real” with you LD?
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 2:04 AM

You don’t have to pretend that you are someone you’re not. I don’t want to anger any brother or sister in Christ so I will leave it at that. I think I will be leaving this site for now and I just pray for everyone here that they will come into a personal, transparent relationship with the Lord that deepens every day. God bless you all.
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 2:12 AM

You mean like snickers LD?

As I’ve said, if YOU feel called by God LD to share your name, location and testimony, by all means go for it.

I however am not convicted in anyway holding to my identity online as BeHim. If you want to discuss more personal items, no problem, my email is always there but prudence is the better avenue on the Internet. You never know “who” might consider you an “enemy”.

BTW. You’re not “busting my chops”, I’m not easily manipulated by someone else’s desires.
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 2:15 AM

100% fundamentalist! And very glad of it. Having been raised as a Catholic, I knew very little of the Bible and more of the church’s rules. Once I received Christ, I sat under a old school fundamentalist and he also was saved at an older age (I was 24). We went to the same college and he had instilled the heart for ministry in me as a fundamentalist. We marched against closing Christian schools in New Hampshire in 1978 and would do it again if called upon. We stood shoulder to shoulder being counted at the anti-abortion rally in 1980. I have written letters, voiced my fundamentalist opinion and voted for Reagan, Bush, and Bush. Appalled by the Clinton fiasco presidential years, prayed for the troops when I sat in Korea while the guys were on the Gulf front in 1991 and witnessed to many a young soldier for their sins were as mine were, unforgiven. Fundamentalist? You bet ‘cha. Salvation by grace, freedom to be free in the Lord, love for my fellowman, and knowledge that without those things, our life is just as a tinkling cymbal or a sounding brass. Don’t wanna change now or never.
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 3:01 AM

[BeHim, I don’t think you read what any of us wrote. Not one posting took issue with your worldview. We are all fundamentalists in our worldview (we share a biblical worldview) – we share your high view of scripture and its inerrancy, we believe abortion and homosexuality is sin, and that the Allah is a false god. We just want is to lose the label, which is found nowhere in scripture, so who cares?]

If we’re all fundamentalists, why would we as fundamentalists be considered the enemy of the 21st century?
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 4:07 AM

Even if I wanted to be a “Fundamentalist”, I could not with integrity qualify, Because I am too wierd in that God actually does speak to me through His Word, i.e. Scripture. In order to be a Fundamentalist I would have to be 100% sold out to the exclusivity of a “Literal” translation of Scripture. “Literal” by definition as relates to Scripture, means that the ONLY acceptable means of understanding the Truth of God’s Word is by “The Letter of The Word.”

Well, since Jesus Himself had a real problem with that,...what was it He said? Something like “You search the Scriptures because you think in them you find life, but it is them that point to me.” I tend to lean toward aligning myself with Him and His Spirit, even concerning the Word since He told us it was the Holy Spirit (not Scripture) who (not what) would guide us into ALL TRUTH. And since even the Scripture tells us that it is impossible to understand the things of God (Scripture is a thing of God) with the natural mind, i.e. that cognitive faculty of mass with which one would have to make EXCUSIVE use to abide by a LITERAL understanding of the LETTER OF SCRIPTURE, I have to live by faith and trust the presence of the Holy Spirit to guide and reveal the Truth of the Word and all other truth.

So,...can’t be a Fundamentalist!

I doubt I qualify as an Evangelical either, because I’m so persuaded this movement has got the proverbial cart so far out in front of the horse that our Lord’s passion, prayer, and purpose for us becoming one has been abandoned to triviality as though it is an insignificant “given”, when in fact it is the ONLY WAY the world will ever come to know Him.

So, guess I’m not an Evangelical.

How about Christian? Well, I’m not too sure! Don’t have a heart attack or puke or anything! It’s just that, actually, our brothers and sisters in the Lord who followed after Jesus, really did not call themselves Christians. That title was given them “BY THE WORLD”, i.e. those who were opposed to their faith in Jesus as the Son of God and their redeemer.

So, I suppose, if someone recognizes me as a follower of Jesus, sees the life I live as being a witness of who He is, and as a result considers and calls me a Christian, then I guess that’s what I am...to them.

I prefer to think of myself as a son of God and bond-slave of Jesus (at least when I’m feeling real spiritual), but it would probably be much more accurate to say I’m a “MESS”! But I’m a really blessed mess cuz when the fat lady sings, you’re gunna find this mess lookin Just like Jesus!

So, call me whatever you want, and wear whatever titles you want! I mean, the world will never run out of new ways to dress up the old fig leaf! But if you want to see this Pastor get riled up and in your face, just try pushing any form of legalism on any brother or sister in the lord when I’m in the house!
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 7:21 AM

BeHim,

[If we’re all fundamentalists, why would we as fundamentalists be considered the enemy of the 21st century?]

Two different words “fundamentalist” that’s how. The media has co-opted the meaning (not the definition) and as we deal with non-believers in this world we live in, we are forced to deal with it. What it meant in 1909 is VERY different from what it “means” to people who hear it today. Since that includes both believers (as we’ve seen here) and unbelievers (as the word has been misused by the media and the consequences shoved down their throats by anchormen and newspapermen), and since it’s not a word that someone has to understand to come to faith in Christ (and it’s not in the Bible), I’ll avoid it.

Jim… Amen! Redeeming and restoring GRACE trumps the law!
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 7:43 AM

Good Morning Jim Eaton… I take it you made it home safe and sound.. It’s good to see you back on MMI.

Next,I just wanted to say that I was reading over the all the comments just now, and it seems to me that a few of them are tit for tat… Please you all lets do things different this year ok. This is a very contriversal issue but lets don’t get in to he said she said, and all that. This sort of thing hurts me.

I have told my side of the story and I have read BeHim’s comments. Yes, he and I have even spoken to each via email on certain issues. It does not mean he is wrong and I am or have to change him, and his beliefs.
The reason I say that is this.. He is my Christian brother and I love him with all my heart. We both believe the same way in coming to salvation and the only way to do that is through what Christ did on the cross.

Love you all.. Jeff “Clairvoyent 1” Ruble…
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 9:23 AM

[I think it is MY PROBLEM to do everything in my power to break down unnecessary barriers (which terms are) between me and “the world"]

“Terms” aren’t the issue, the heart is. The world isn’t against the “terms”, they against what the terms stand for. Just as “born-again”, “saved” and “Christian”. So should we throw those out to? I’m sure many will, once again wanting approval from the world, more than the approval of God.

Look how difficult it was for Nicodemis to understand what born-again meant. Did Jesus try to use a softer term? no he needed to show Nicodemis how crucial it was to be “born again”. Many of us Christians on the other hand would have fumbled all over ourselves trying to find another term like “faith relationship”.

No folks, the terms really aren’t the issue here, it’s our desire to be accepted.
Posted by

Friday, January 27, 2006 at 10:04 AM

Kent,

Your example of Nicodemus is great. But don’t you think that Jesus bent over backwards to express himself to Nicodemus as clearly as possible? I think that’s what folks like Wendi and me are trying to do in our contemporary world.

You said [No folks, the terms really aren’t the issue here, it’s our desire to be accepted.] But, kent, actually we think (I’m speaking for others here, but I bet they agree) it’s our desire for the GOSPEL to be accepted, and we want to be the greek to the greek and the postmodern to the postmodern…

Peter

Page 2 of 4 pages

< 1 2 3 4 >

Post Your Comments:

Hi... I'm Todd Rhoades. I'm a Christ-follower, husband, father and I love to connect leaders with other leaders. Hopefully you'll find something here at MMI you like and will return often. If you want, you can find out more about me or follow my every step on Twitter.