Contending for the Faith?

I am a fundamentalist. I am a separatist. (In reality, you cannot be the former without the latter.) But I have recently been spurred to think about the matters over which we as fundamentalists are willing to go to war. There are obviously many diverse issues which we set ourselves in array over. I have recently pondered whether we have occaisionally forgotten to contend for the faith itself. There have been enough examples within the ranks to cause me some unease.

This concern once again presented itself to me after conversing with a good Christian friend regarding the person and works of C.S. Lewis. I mentioned the very clear theological error of Christ's atonement as a ransom paid to Satan espoused in the Narnia Chronicles. My friend told me that while this was a problem, it was not the biggest problem she had with Lewis. Her biggest problems with him were his views on miracles and his use of magic in his novels. I might have missed something of context in the conversation and so I am more than willing to believe that her statement was nuanced by other factors I was not fully apprehending. However, as I later pondered our conversation I put the issues "on the balance," so to speak. Which of these matters is of the most importance? In contending over any of these issues, which battle would find us truly contending for the faith? Which ought to be the first cause?

I am not for a moment suggesting that the only matter that is ever worth contending over is heretical soteriology. But should not our fundamentalism first discover itself in our tenacious, non-negotiable adherence to the faith itself?

I don't want this to just be a pot-shot at fundamentalism, but a challenge to all of us, particularly myself. Sometimes it may seem easier to debate the band-wagon issues and let matters of much more moment slide. May each of us resolve to truly obey the Jude 3 imperative, by God's grace.