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.

[gegraptai]

I consider fundamentalism and orthodoxy to be synonymous. I am labeled a fundamentalist, not so much because I choose that word, but because it best describes my views in others' eyes. To me, I'm just a Protestant who believes the non-deuterocanonical canon is theoptneustos, or God-breathed. I adhere to the basic principles of Biblical hermeneutics and take a passage literally unless it is obviously metaphorical or allegorical.

There was a day when this wasn't considered to be fundamentalist or extreme, but normal.

[Slopeshoulder]

Thanks, can you elaborate upon the questions?

[gegraptai]

Thanks, can you elaborate upon the questions?

I'll take a stab at it, but first, how would you define the following?

• fundamentalism
• moderate conservatism
• mainline orthodoxy
• centrism
• liberalism

[Slopeshoulder]

Thanks, can you elaborate upon the questions?

I'll take a stab at it, but first, how would you define the following?

• fundamentalism
• moderate conservatism
• mainline orthodoxy
• centrism
• liberalism

Sure, with the caveat that my definitions are not perfect and i don't want this thread to become a debate about these categories. So if that's a rhetorical tactic, let's not go there.

But here's what I mean:

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.

Moderate Conservatism: Same as above, but is inclined to take modernity a bit seriously and moderate claims made that strain credulity and reason, if just a bit. But still affirms the doctrines for the most part. Tends toward a conservative interpretation and application of scripture and-or doctrine. Low theological anthropology. Possible ongoing revelation through the holy spirit. I think of protestant neo-orthodoxy, a lot of the current catholic hierarchy, etc.

Mainline Orthodoxy: Affirms the creeds and doctrines, values the bible, but balances them with modern and secular learning and thinking. Tends to take a commonsensical approach to modern reason. Medium theologicial anthropology. Ongoing revelation throuygh the spirit or conscience or creation. Usually seen among members more than among leaders, simply because leaders have to think more and usually choose another option one way or the other. I'm thinking of the mainline protestant tradition (although it tends liberal) and catholics (although these tend to be nominal).

Centrism: Scratch this one, as it's the same as above.

Liberalism: takes modernity and seriously, and so tends apply it to theological and biblical studies and engagement (if also in a complex relationship to it). As a result, many things that strain credulity or conscience are reapproched, reinterpreted, and reapplied. This has implications for theology, bible, and relations with secularism and other religions. Medium-high theological anthropology. Ongoing revelation through spirit, conscience, feeling, reason, and creation. I'm thinking urban and elite mainline protestants, rogressive catholics, yours truly, academics in elite mainline dev schools and universities, the amercian academy of religion, and christians who are seekers and dablle in multiple forms of religonon a pragmnatoic level.

I'll add one: Post-Liberal. This takes modernity and postmodernity very seriously, but decenters modernity (as a distraction and a failure) in favor of more historically orthodox forms and expression, even though the original literalisms have been largely abandoned. Mixed, but lower theological anthropology. beats me as to revelation. This includes narrative theology, radical orthodoxy, possibly paleo-orthodoxy, and possibly "remythologized" forms.

These are rough. The details of how and why require a library of material to do justice. And each have complex variations within them.

But enough for our puposes? Can we get back on topic?

[McCulloch]

A certain stigma has become attached to the terms fundamentalist and fundamentalism. This was not intended by those who created the term in the first place. Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 coined the term "fundamentalist" to denote those Christians who hold to what he saw as the fundamentals of Christian faith.

1. The inerrancy of the Bible
2. The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
3. The Virgin Birth of Christ
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ
5. The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

Fundamentalism has modified slightly since then to generally include dispensationalist theology, a rejection of higher criticism of the Bible, modernism and evolution (macro-evolution). Many movements within Christianity, (Evangelicalism, Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalism, the Heritage movement, and Paleo-Orthodoxy ) are all essentially fundamentalist, but are loath to admit it.

[Slopeshoulder]

A certain stigma has become attached to the terms fundamentalist and fundamentalism. This was not intended by those who created the term in the first place. Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 coined the term "fundamentalist" to denote those Christians who hold to what he saw as the fundamentals of Christian faith.

1. The inerrancy of the Bible
2. The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
3. The Virgin Birth of Christ
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ
5. The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

Fundamentalism has modified slightly since then to generally include dispensationalist theology, a rejection of higher criticism of the Bible, modernism and evolution (macro-evolution). Many movements within Christianity, (Evangelicalism, Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalism, the Heritage movement, and Paleo-Orthodoxy ) are all essentially fundamentalist, but are loath to admit it.

Great! Let's go with that. Very helpful, and accurate. Unlike me, McCulloch never talks off the top of his head, and that's all I ever seem to do! But memory isn't always good enough.

[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. If I were to endorse a handful of higher profile teachers, I would have to include John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Al Mohler, Alistair Begg, J. Vernon McGee (now deceased, but still has a radio presence), John Piper, etc. Teachers of times past whom I highly respect are Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, J.C Ryle, and John Bunyan.

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?

Now on to the questions:

1. Why Fundamentalism?

Please don't take offense at this, but it is my answer. 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.

God's Word as found literally in the pages of the Bible is what we live, eat and breathe. It is there that we learn of God. It is there that we are compelled to be driven into His arms and into deep relationship with him.

Why fundamentalism? Yes. That is why.

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

I think I adequately covered this above. If not, please let me know.

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?

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.

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?

Not as primary research, no. But what they teach and believe is honestly irrelevant to me, as I draw my beliefs from a literal reading of the Bible. However, I have read some of your ideas regarding the mythological approach and can say with certainty that if this is an accurate representation of liberal Christianity, and if this is the product of modern seminarian intellectualism, then I feel strongly pulled in the direction of anti-intellectualism, primarily as a protest of sorts. I've never felt that before, but it is a direct result of reading your take on things. Some of the influences that are keeping me from diving headlong into anti-intellectualism are the killer posts from Theopoesis. He gives me hope that seminaries and universities are still producing great minds that are capable of retaining a modicum of Biblical soundness.

Please don't take this personally. I figure you will respect my honesty, and will find a straight-up discussion preferable to a bunch of bush-beating. If you consider this to be uncivil, please let me know and I'll take a lighter approach.

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?

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

[Slopeshoulder]

Gegraptai:
Thanks for the detailed and forthcoming answer. I'd like to offer a few comments and ask a few questions. But is VERY important to do so in the spirit of discussion, not debate, and certainly not argument. With that in mind, see below.

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.

If I were to endorse a handful of higher profile teachers, I would have to include John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Al Mohler, Alistair Begg, J. Vernon McGee (now deceased, but still has a radio presence), John Piper, etc. Teachers of times past whom I highly respect are Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, J.C Ryle, and John Bunyan.

I'm sorry to say I have not heard of these people. I was familiar with Francis Schaeffer, Josh McDowell, and (non fundamentalist) CS Lewis back when I was in a brief evangelical phase in '82. I will check these people out over the next few weeks. Actually, Sproul rings a bell.

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.

1. Why Fundamentalism?

Please don't take offense at this, but it is my answer.

No worries. I think you are painting with a broad brush and mischaracterizing your opponents, but I don't see it as a personal attack, or at least not an uncivil one.

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.

God's Word as found literally in the pages of the Bible is what we live, eat and breathe. It is there that we learn of God. It is there that we are compelled to be driven into His arms and into deep relationship with him.

Why fundamentalism? Yes. That is why.

Well expressed. Very well. I get that. I don't know if you'd aprreciate this expression, but it strikes me that as catholics invest the church itself with a sacramental presence, protestant fundamentalists invest the text with this sacramental divine presence. This is crucual to them (you) and why the idea that it's a crappy human book is so very very offensive. The text is the Word, in a very real living sense. I actually have a lot of respect for that, because I like sacramental thinking, and while I don't take it literally, I seek to preserve that presence even so. So I tend to push back if someone suggests that the bible is merely literature or ancient opinions. I think there's more to it, liberalism notwithstanding. Actually, as I see it, the mythopoetic approach to the bible is actually what allows this sacredness to be maintained in a non-literal context. The Bible is considered a sign, as it "particpates in the reality" to which it points: God.

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?

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?

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?

Not as primary research, no.

I appreciate the honesty.

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.

However, I have read some of your ideas regarding the mythological approach and can say with certainty that if this is an accurate representation of liberal Christianity, and if this is the product of modern seminarian intellectualism, then I feel strongly pulled in the direction of anti-intellectualism, primarily as a protest of sorts. [/quote]
It's just my best expression of what I learned and think. And what many many many others think. But there are many liberals who are more conservative than me. Within Christianity, I'm not at the fringe, and stand in the broad liberal tradition, but I'm pretty damn liberal. I admit that, mostly because I'm a pluralist and a panentheist. I have more in coomon with a jesuit contemplative who lives in Japan than a presbyterian in missouri.
But to be fair to them, there are an extraordinary group of devout giants of the church outside the fundamentalist community who are more orthodox than me. Don't judge them by me. Interstingly, the modern-liberal Christian may take modern and secular learning seriously, but the goal is to make Christianity intelligible, relevant, living, transformative. Not to kill it. It's an act of loyalty. Really. I'd despair to see Christianity disapear between the poles of fumdamentalism and secular humanism. But this isn't about me.

[quotes] I've never felt that before, but it is a direct result of reading your take on things. [/quote]
Dammit, you hate me! But thanks for reading my posts. I guess infamous is still famous.

Some of the influences that are keeping me from diving headlong into anti-intellectualism are the killer posts from Theopoesis. He gives me hope that seminaries and universities are still producing great minds that are capable of retaining a modicum of Biblical soundness.

Putting the assumption of what constitutes soundness aside, I could not agree more. theopoesis is my hero. Extraordinarily learned, intelligent, honest, even handed, and creative. Great guy and great mind. We have corresponded and are friendly. As he is a postmodern fideist, he doesn't claim to "know" and recognizes the arbitrary nature of his choice of evangelical orthodoxy. He and I actually agree on a LOT not that he shares my orientation or endorses my core beliefs; i can't speak for him). We have a friendly disagreement insofar as 1. I try to straddle modernity and post-modernity, whereas he rejects modernity (while being parasitic on it?), and 2. I choose the pluralistic mythopoetic postmodern path, and he chooses the fideistic post-liberal orthodox path. I think these are the two main broad options for those who take postmodernity seriously, and I could talk to him once a week over a beer by a fireplace about these topics. Our disagreements are friendly and the basis for ongoing conversation, although it's been a while. He's not a fundamentalist, but I can certainly understand why he might earn some of your respect, or help you hold out hope for a place for the intellect in religion (which is a catholic teaching BTW, and I'm loosely catholic).

Please don't take this personally. I figure you will respect my honesty, and will find a straight-up discussion preferable to a bunch of bush-beating. If you consider this to be uncivil, please let me know and I'll take a lighter approach.

No worries. You're not being uncivil and I appreciate the candor.

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?

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.

Again, thanks for sharing and engaging. I look forward to your follow up if you have the time and interest.
And from others too.

[gegraptai]

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.