In The Nick of Time

Read Part 1.

Fundamentalists are notorious for their refusal to dialogue with other points of view. To some observers—and to some fundamentalists—this refusal to dialogue is part of the definition of Fundamentalism. It is an aspect of their self-identity. It makes them what they are.

I’ve just returned from the fourteenth Bible Faculty Leadership Summit. The BFLS is sponsored annually by a different institution within mainstream fundamentalism. It is attended by biblical and theological faculty from the mainstream fundamentalist institutions. The point of the meeting is to challenge one another academically and intellectually. It is an event in which the educational leaders of fundamentalism help each other to think, write, and teach better.

One of the most frequent complaints against premillennialists is that they lack a social conscience. The opponents of premillennialism charge that it is a pessimistic eschatology. It is supposed to bias its advocates against activities that aim to improve the world.

^{Note: This article is a reprint of an essay published on June 24, 2005.}

Christian theology moves between two poles. On the one hand, it is impelled by the desire to understand God. Understanding implies explanation, and explanation is essentially a matter of giving reasons. This impulse leads us to ask why God is or does thus or so. If we cannot find clear reasons, then we at least seek for careful definitions. We may not be able to say why God is Triune, but we at least attempt to formulate as precisely as we can what the Trinity means. This theological pole could be called the rational impulse in theology.