Question for fundamentalists

[Slopeshoulder]

Hi:

First let me say that I am asking the question in good faith, and have ZERO intention of debating or criticizing. My question is sincere and well-intended.

I have been impressed lately that a few have openly labeled themselves as fundamantalist, as opposed to merely confessing or orthodox, and in my eyes this at least acknowledges that other strains of christianity exist and may be real.

So here's the question (with notes and subquestions)

1. Why Fundamentalism?

2. Why not moderate conservatism, mainline orthodoxy, centrism, or liberalism?

3. What does it provide you that the other faithful alternatives do not? What is at stake for you, what in it do you value?

4. Crucially, would you say that in rejecting the alternative Christian orientations (orthodox, mainstream, liberal) you really conducted a thorough and sympathetic reading of their best representatives?
(FWIW I think I can say yes about all of them, as well as fundamentalism, before landing as a liberal, specifically a pluralist semi-agnostic-theist catholic modern-postmodern with eastern tendencies and a mythopoetic mindset, over a 30 year period.)

5. Lastly, what is your take on other religious and secular fundamentalisms? How do you think about them, and how they differ? Is it possible to do so without making circular claims?

Please note:

- I am NOT asking you to make the case or try to convince anyone or bring evidence or argument.

- I don't think to will be useful to say anything like that you know you are right, others are wrong, or to make circular claims like the bible is inerrant, etc.(even if you believe this, which I won't challenge.) That doesn't answer the questions.

- Rather, I genuinely desire to know from your perspective why and how you chose this orientation and also maintain this choice.

- I'm interested in the role or reason, study, emotion, prayer, experience, visions, pathology, genius, mentoring, convenience, culture, etc. in the decisions we make regarding our orientation.

Thanks very much. And again, I don't envision a debate. Maybe just a few follow up questions or friendly inquiries, or prods to stay on topic. This will NOT be a war. Please try to stay on point.

And let me ask others, please provide a safe and respectful place for anyone kind enough to answer. I do hope 5-10 people chime in.

[Slopeshoulder]

Ack! You butchered the bbcode quotes, Slopeshoulder. I'll fix them in my reply. Or maybe McCulloch could sneak in and fix them

Let me guess: Cognac? Brandy? Sherry? You are, after all, a Bostonian highbrow, aren't you?

Just playin' with 'ya. A little humor never hurt.

I may be a day or two in responding, but I will definitely reply to the last post.

ACK!. if not fixed yet, I'll see if I can fix it!

[gegraptai]

Fundamentalism: there's no one definition of course, and that is part of my question. But basically a fundamentalist is someone who takes biblical claims re: supernatural events and beings literally or very close to literally, reads the text at face value or in a plain sense way, assumes most or all is god-breathed, and is comfortable to put aside modernity and secular logic, science, and learning if need be when it conflicts with the text or doctrine. It privileges the claims and the text as self-validating truth. Very low theological anthropology. Closed revelation. Examples are southern baptists, televangelists, anabaptists, premoderns (although not really because fundamentalism is a modern movement, not a return to past beliefs), many mega church members, the usual visable suspects. Franklin Graham qualifies.

Thank you for the definitions. These will be very helpful as a plumb line from which to begin the discussion. I would like to clarify my positions a bit as they deviate from this description. I do not want to be confused as supporting the theology of the majority of televangelists, such as Joel Osteen, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren, Joyce Meyer, Paula White or anyone who is even remotely associated with TBN (Trinity Broadcast Network). These are the people with the largest profiles, but they certainly do not represent the core base of fundamentalists.

Check. Got it.
Rather than assuming I know why, can you give me a brief summary? Is it because they are careerists, spotlight seekers, lightweights, or people who got soft on sin? Can you clarify? It's off topic, but I'm curious.

Well, you hit that nail on the head. Primarily because they are lightweights, Osteen NEVER mentions repentance or sin and focuses on, "Your best life now," which is as far from the Gospel as you can get. Others focus on various errant teachings while ignoring the important ones. Rick Warren is leading a growing ecumenical movement (to me, ecumenism is a four-letter word), and the big-haired TBN preachers are just plain heretics.

If we are to include what I consider to be liberal non-expository teachers like the majority of high profile teachers these days into the category of fundamentalism, we should split fundamentalism into two categories; perhaps orthodox fundamentalism and liberal fundamentalism?

You're more knowledgable than I am here. But can you elaborate on what you mean by liberal in this context? I just want to be sure it's not a buzzword for bad. But I'm assuming that what they have in common is either a softness on sin, or a focus on themselves as entertainers? Just guessing here though. But I certainly appreciate any move to make important distinctions. We liberals aren't all the same either.

When applied to fundamentalism, by liberal, I mean those who appear to non-fundamentalists as fundamentalists, but are instead as far from fundamentalism as one can get. They mention the Bible in their preaching, but rarely if ever exposit the Scripture. Instead, they pick a predetermined topic, then find a few decontextualized passages to fit the message. It is powerless, seeker-sensitive preaching designed to fill pews. A la Robert Schuller and his young protegé/clone Osteen.

It makes zero sense to me to belong to a belief system that is derived from a textual base, the Bible, then discard nearly everything it contains on the surface in an effort to extract its non-literal treasures. To be Christian is to be "Of Christ," to follow His teachings and to submit to Him as Lord, Master, Savior. To be Christian is to know, not hope, but know that He is who He claimed to be, and whom the writers of the New Testament claimed Him to be. To me, fundamentalism means that I believe what the Bible has to say. It means that it is not merely the opinion of ancient desert-dwellers who made up great and wonderful tales, rich with mythological treasures just waiting to be extracted by contemporary mankind. Rather, it is the literal, beautiful, rich and wonderful Word of God meant to lead mankind to salvation. Literal salvation. Fundamentalism sees the Bible as a treasure-trove of knowledge, wisdom and truth. Fundamentalism sees the Bible as a manual for life, containing a very thorough explanation of God's literal plan for mankind.

I bolded the passages that seemed to focus on what what fundamentalism is, rather than what it is not, or what liberalism is presumed to be. Does this seem accurate and fair? I share none of these beliefs (other than that the bible is a treasure trove as you describe, and normative). BUT it seems that the crux of the difference between us might be that word "know." I think you are right to emphasize it. Taking modernity and secular leaning seriously (back to the greeks), I feel that these are things that are not possible to know. But they are worthy things to put one's faith and trust in to the point of your very identity. So I think we can agree that this is a knowing in one's heart, soul and entire being. Is that fair? BTW, I also think the bible is beautiful, rich, wonderful, and salvific. I think the literalism is where the difference lies, and that has to do with "knowing," literalsim, plain sense, unmediated, and a difference in theological anthropology. (Yours sounds very low, mine is medium-high). Again, not arguing or debating, just discussing and seeing where we can agree.
And I appreciate your expression of what it means to you and what you find there.

Yes, that is fair, but I do not see the difference between knowing and knowing in one's heart, soul and entire being, as the entire being encompasses the mind.

What does it provide you that the other faithful alternatives do not? What is at stake for you, what in it do you value?

Well, the answer lies in a small correction of this question. I do not consider anything a faithful alternative that doesn't line up with a literal rendering of the Bible. This still leaves a wide variety of faithful alternatives, but at the same time eliminates a good chunk of them.

I actually anticipated this response as I typed the question. Can I ask, do you say that other non-literalists are not merely incorrect, not optimally orthodox, or do take it as far as to you deny their status as Christians and saved one's at that? Is this literalism your sole or primary criterion for christian identity? Or is merely your preference and recommendation?

Literalism is not the sole criterion for Christian identity, but it is in part, the starting point. I would say to your question; "All of the above." I'm not being intentionally vague, but that is a broad question indeed. My answer would depend on just which parts are deemed to be non-literal. For instance, there are many ongoing in-house debates that fall within the pale of orthodoxy, such as a six-day creation vs a much longer creation period, whether or not the flood was literal, how to view eschatology (preterist, dispensational, purely symbolic, etc.), etc. But there are things which are required to be believed to be a Christian, such as the literal bodily resurrection of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the virgin birth of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture in the original autographs, existence of sin, repentance, and more.

But what they teach and believe is honestly irrelevant to me, as I draw my beliefs from a literal reading of the Bible.

Well, my wife is perfect for me in every way, and an incredible blessing, my experience of divine union, so I don't take any time at all paying attention to any other women in a romantic way, so I can respect that you ignore other Christianities. But it might give others the impresson that we are closed minded and shut off from the world around us. That's my only concern, the totalizing circularity. But then if you're deeply committed where you are, why look outside? But are we wrong, unsupported, and rude if we say that other christianities or other women are terrible, maybe demonic, maybe not real at all? That concerns me.

The answer to this would require a definition of "other Christianities." We are told in no uncertain terms that many will come in Jesus name, saying that He is Lord, and will deceive many. To expound on your "other women" analogy, to go after "other Christianities" is to commit adultery against the Lord, if these other Christianities are not Biblically orthodox. By orthodox, I do not mean in the eyes of the contemporary establishment, I mean this: "Do they line up with the literal Word of God?" If so, then they are orthodox, if not, they are false religions to be lumped in with the other religions of the world.

I've never felt that before, but it is a direct result of reading your take on things.

Dammit, you hate me! But thanks for reading my posts. I guess infamous is still famous.

No, I don't hate you, Slopeshoulder. I disagree with your take on Christianity, but I don't hate you as a person. I find you interesting and engaging to be honest.

Lastly, what is your take on other religious and secular fundamentalisms? How do you think about them, and how they differ? Is it possible to do so without making circular claims?

I guess I would need you to name them so that I could treat each one individually.

I was thinking of the fundamentalist mindset in general, that manifests in jewish, hindu, muslim, mormon, and secular fundamentalisms like scientism, hard positivism, and hard atheism. My question behind the question is how a christian fundamentalist can differentiate vs. others who also claim to have certain knowledge based on closed systems and literal readings of texts, other than to say you're wrong and we're right, read my book and change your beliefs, which is to say nothing at all. And how this can somehow avoid destructive confrontations.

I have no opinion regarding secularism, but as to other religious fundamentalisms, I am not concerned with telling them they are wrong and I am right, unless they attempt to conflate their beliefs with Christianity. I have no interest in arguing with a Buddhist, but I have much to say to a Buddhist Christian. Non-Christian religions do not concern me, but ostensibly Christian religions do. You mentioned Mormonism. That is a good example.

I am not concerned with convincing people of other religions that their fundamentalism is invalid and that mine is valid. I am concerned with revealing to them the gospel message and letting the Holy Spirit do His work, which is to convict, convince and confirm, among other things. The former is my job, the latter is not.

As far as avoiding confrontations, take a gander at Jesus' modus operandi for a bit of enlightenment in that arena.

[scottlittlefield17]

Ahhh, its been way to long since i've been on here but life is insanely hectic. I have been labeled and have labeled myself to some extent a fundamentalist because I believe that If i'm gonna believe the Bible I gotta believe it all the way otherwise there's no point. If I can pick and choose that what Jesus said was inspired but what Paul said wasn't 't how can I say that was Jesus said was true? It comes from the same book.

[nygreenguy]

Ahhh, its been way to long since i've been on here but life is insanely hectic. I have been labeled and have labeled myself to some extent a fundamentalist because I believe that If i'm gonna believe the Bible I gotta believe it all the way otherwise there's no point. If I can pick and choose that what Jesus said was inspired but what Paul said wasn't 't how can I say that was Jesus said was true? It comes from the same book.

I agree with you completely. I think this is the only rational choice. However, once I found the errors in the bible, this rationale also means I was forced to discard all of the bible and we all know where that led me...

[scottlittlefield17]

I agree with you completely. I think this is the only rational choice. However, once I found the errors in the bible, this rationale also means I was forced to discard all of the bible and we all know where that led me...

Grrr the OP said we can't debate on this thread but your making it so hard lol.

[nygreenguy]

I agree with you completely. I think this is the only rational choice. However, once I found the errors in the bible, this rationale also means I was forced to discard all of the bible and we all know where that led me...

Grrr the OP said we can't debate on this thread but your making it so hard lol.

Haha. Sorry. Feel free to start a new thread!