Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII
Who is leading the charge ... really is not my point ...
The language in defense of many of these standards is changing ... and if the "intelligentsia" and the "rank and file" are now recognizing that some of this stuff ain't bible ... but rather tradition ... this marks a major shift in the paradigm, imo.
|
You are correct. I thought that I saw just such a significant shift in Bernard's "The Apostolic Life" a few years back when it first came out.
The thing with Bernard is that he's so circumspect and ever so careful about the way he words things that his "shift" is almost imperceptible to most of his audience.
In fact, he may not even be "shifting;" it could be that as a young man he had some sort of vision for a reasonable and practical approach to faith and holiness, but he largely kept his mouth shut and played ball with the likes of J.L. Hall and Nate Urshan.
He's still not that different from their position on most issues, but he doesn't demand that folks accept the unprovable and the unreasonable the way the "Old Guard" did.
The "Old Guard" demand that we just swallow whatever came out of their mouths when they were excited or agitated. That was the "Voice of God" speaking to us, we were assured. Bernard (and Shaw, Crownover, and many others today) actually allow us to take some time and think things through, ask questions and not force us all to jump on every bandwagon that pulls out of the station.
The whole "anti-emergent" thing of the last couple of years is an example of just one of those "bandwagons." C.W. demanded that everyone accept his vague and ill conceived accusations as some sort of clear and "certain sound." Shaw gave us a "heads up" that we don't have to follow that kind of witch hunt any longer.
Linear Mode
