Knee Jerk?

Let me start this post with a few disclaimers:

1. I haven't been saved very long (almost 12 years), let alone around fundamentalism very long.

2. I don't know all the "circles" within fundamentalism nor the individual men that make them up.

3. I may not be reading the right blogs.

What I'm trying to say is: I don't have an omnipresent, omniscient perspective when it comes to the subject I'm about to address. I'm only presenting my humble view and theory. So, here goes...

I've come across several blogs that are authored by people who have come out of "hyper-fundamentalism," "IFBxdom," "psuedo-fundamentalism" or any of the other little nicknames they create. To a degree, I understand what they're talking about. On the other hand, it seems a little over the top.

Dennis Prager (yes, I listen to him quite a bit) was talking about how people raise their kids and he brought up a great, but obviously not universal, point. He said that children who are brought up strict tend to raise their children more loosely, whereas children who are raised loosely tend to raise their children more strict. My first thought was: there will be a consistency if generations raised their children according to the Bible. But that's beside the point.

Anyway, it kind of made me think about the "fundamentalist" movement. As I read, it seems there has been an ebb and flow to the emphasis placed on certain aspects of Christian faith and practice. It's kind of like the parent who was raised in a strict home that raises their child loosely or vice versa. The parent wants to give their child something they feel they missed out on. If they missed out on liberty, they go over the top with giving their child liberty. If they missed out on direction and standards, they go over the top with rules.

To me, that's how fundamental Christianity has gone for the past few centuries.

People in certain generations look back at the generation that raised them and say, "My parents (figuratively speaking) didn't give me...fill in the blank." As a result, they go over the top with whatever they feel they missed.  I see a lot of bloggers who seem to have this attitude. I see blog titles and sub-titles like "Ichabod" and "encouragement for those longing to break free."  I read of the terror of KJV-onlyism and ruthless, overbearing pastors.  Our church only uses the KJV.  Our pastor leads our church.  I love it that my church would just be lumped in with the "IFBxers."  Don't bother asking why we use the KJV or how my pastor leads.  It must be tyranny.  (By the way, I've been serving at my church for almost a year and I've never heard my preacher rant about or even mention the KJV in a message.  Also, I know that he loves our people more than anything but God.  And...he graduated from Hyles Anderson.)

I really don't know what these people have experienced, but I don't feel like I'm in prison! If it wasn't for a "fill in the nickname" church, I wouldn't be saved today! It just bothers me that I see very little gratitude for the heritage people have been given. Are those that gave the heritage perfect? No. But neither are you.

Here's my prediction: those that are "reforming" and moving away from some of the emphasis of their fathers are going to raise a generation that sees weaknesses in them and that will "reform" back to be like the original generation. For example: one generation emphasizes passion, another emphasizes doctrine. The doctrine generation produces the passion generation. The passion generation produces the doctrine generation.

Is there anything wrong with that? Not necessarily. Would it be better if there wasn't so much criticism and more gratitude for heritage handed down? I think so. Would it be great if we could find a balance and stop the "swings?" Absolutely.

As long as sinners are handing down the heritage, there will always be weaknesses in the heritage. Just don't have a knee jerk reaction.