3 comments on fundamentalism

[Robyn Banks]

"The members of the fundamentalist community cannot tolerate uncertainty. The world seems to them dangerously chaotic. To overcome the uncertainty created by multiple translations, interpretations, and commentaries, they restrict themselves to a single translation and insist that it is absolutely correct and unambiguous. The Bible makes the world predictable. It reveals the secrets of the future. They accept the prophecy in Revelation that the world is coming to an end and that they alone will be "raptured," that is, saved, by virtue of their belief. They see the world outside their community as wicked, depraved, and doomed to apocalyptic destruction. Their community stands alone as an island of righteousness that, by virtue of their beliefs, in the end will be saved and rewarded."
- Mortimer Ostow, “The fundamentalist phenomenon: a psychological perspective"

"Largely because of the imperatives of the faiths themselves, fundamentalism is not just a theological reaction to modernity: orthodoxy is invariably linked to orthopraxy. In practical terms, this means that all fundamentalisms our characterised, to varying degrees, by a quality of organised anger."
- James Davison Hunter, “Fundamentalism in its global contours”

"Central to being a fundamentalist is perceiving oneself to be in the midst of religious war. Fundamentalists are particularly fond of the metaphors of war. The universe is divided between the forces of light and darkness. Spiritually enlightened Christians can tell who the enemy is. In such war, there can be no compromise."
- George M Marsden, "Defining American fundamentalism"

[Solly]

Today @ 08:07 AM
Robyn Banks:

"The members of the fundamentalist community cannot tolerate uncertainty. The world seems to them dangerously chaotic. To overcome the uncertainty created by multiple translations, interpretations, and commentaries, they restrict themselves to a single translation and insist that it is absolutely correct and unambiguous. The Bible makes the world predictable. It reveals the secrets of the future. They accept the prophecy in Revelation that the world is coming to an end and that they alone will be "raptured," that is, saved, by virtue of their belief. They see the world outside their community as wicked, depraved, and doomed to apocalyptic destruction. Their community stands alone as an island of righteousness that, by virtue of their beliefs, in the end will be saved and rewarded."
- Mortimer Ostow, “The fundamentalist phenomenon: a psychological perspective"

--I take it this refers to American Fundamentalism. There are elements of truth in this that reflect orthodox Christianity, and always have done, back to the likes of Augustine and justin martyr. But not every "Bible believing Christian is a "fundie" in these terms, as you will see if you check out the eschatology forum, where we are defintely not end time watchers.

"Largely because of the imperatives of the faiths themselves, fundamentalism is not just a theological reaction to modernity: orthodoxy is invariably linked to orthopraxy. In practical terms, this means that all fundamentalisms are characterised, to varying degrees, by a quality of organised anger."
- James Davison Hunter, “Fundamentalism in its global contours”

--Not sure if he is making any particular sense here, other than the fact that it sounds good.

"Central to being a fundamentalist is perceiving oneself to be in the midst of religious war. Fundamentalists are particularly fond of the metaphors of war. The universe is divided between the forces of light and darkness. Spiritually enlightened Christians can tell who the enemy is. In such war, there can be no compromise."
- George M Marsden, "Defining American fundamentalism"

--Again, as with quote one, this reflects orthodoxy as a whole, but has perhaps been given a keener edge under the cultural conditions within which American Fundamentalism exists, particularly during the cold war.

[spl_cadet]

Heh, according to those quotes I'm a fundy with the exception of believing in the Rapture.

[Jaltus]

I like how there is no definition of what a fundamentalist is.

:rofl:

[Carl Smuda]

I've read some about American Fundamentalism. A interesting thing to study from the 20th century American religion. Anyone ever heard of or seen those books published called "the Fundamentals"? I haven't. But as I understand, American protestant interests did want to establish basics that the liberals were loosing up. Virgin birth, Inerrant scripture, I don't know what all. What I like about fundamentalists is they want to get to the true Word of God. So I think those interests might have reminded a lot of people about the hard work done by the scholars who can tell us professionally what we have in writing from the ancient days, and what we don't.

[roger_pearse]

Anyone ever heard of or seen those books published called "the Fundamentals"? I haven't.

They're online: http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/. They certainly give the lie to the myth of obscurantism.

But as I understand, American protestant interests did want to establish basics that the liberals were loosing up. Virgin birth, Inerrant scripture, I don't know what all. What I like about fundamentalists is they want to get to the true Word of God. So I think those interests might have reminded a lot of people about the hard work done by the scholars who can tell us professionally what we have in writing from the ancient days, and what we don't.

I'm in the UK, so I may be mistaken. But I understood that in the early 20th century, Christians were told 'science has proved your religion wrong -- adopt liberalism or be obscurantist'. This message was repeated constantly, and Christians were pretty much excluded from the educational establishment. The result, of course, was that many who refused to accept this con ended up demonised as 'anti-scientific'. (In the UK the dichotomy was less severe and people weren't forced to choose to the same extent). The lie is in the false choice, of course.

In a sense, then, it's a case of someone poisoning a well, and then jeering at his intended victim for not drinking. It's hateful stuff. The media use/abuse of the term 'fundamentalist' certainly indicates a desire to demonise, in my opinion.

The final irony, is that those who really care about science don't try to stir up animosity among the population by associating it with a given religious belief. I would never think that I was encouraging interest in science by insulting the religion of my hearers, and then telling them any other view is unscientific!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Carl Smuda]

Thanks for that URL, Roger. I've got a wonderful book that is a history of Creationists in the 20th century America. Which has been very interesting to me. I really like putting things along their historical development. That website looks like an excellent source. It is my first glimpse of just what, exactly, was in those original 12 volumes. thanks again. :smile:

[The Curtmudgeon]

One "Fundamentalist" answers:

Yesterday @ 02:07 AM Robyn Banks:

"The members of the fundamentalist community cannot tolerate uncertainty.

There is no uncertainty; it's all spelled out in the Bible.

The world seems to them dangerously chaotic. To overcome the uncertainty created by multiple translations, interpretations, and commentaries, they restrict themselves to a single translation and insist that it is absolutely correct and unambiguous.

I insist that the original autographs are absolutely correct and unambiguous; no translation can possibly be absolutely correct and unambiguous, although some are very close.

The Bible makes the world predictable. It reveals the secrets of the future. They accept the prophecy in Revelation that the world is coming to an end and that they alone will be "raptured," that is, saved, by virtue of their belief.

I accept that all Christians who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour will be saved, even though they may not believe in the Rapture until it happens to them.

They see the world outside their community as wicked, depraved, and doomed to apocalyptic destruction.

Of course; can you present any evidence that it is not?

Their community stands alone as an island of righteousness that, by virtue of their beliefs, in the end will be saved and rewarded."
- Mortimer Ostow, “The fundamentalist phenomenon: a psychological perspective"

Christianity stands alone as an island of righteousness that, whether they believe as I do or not, so long as they accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their saviour, in the end will be saved and rewarded.

"Largely because of the imperatives of the faiths themselves, fundamentalism is not just a theological reaction to modernity: orthodoxy is invariably linked to orthopraxy. In practical terms, this means that all fundamentalisms our [sic] characterised, to varying degrees, by a quality of organised anger."
- James Davison Hunter, “Fundamentalism in its global contours”

Not anger, rather sadness.

"Central to being a fundamentalist is perceiving oneself to be in the midst of religious war.

Given that this is exactly what Christ described as the Christian experience, how is it wrong for any Christian?

Fundamentalists are particularly fond of the metaphors of war. The universe is divided between the forces of light and darkness. Spiritually enlightened Christians can tell who the enemy is. In such war, there can be no compromise."
- George M Marsden, "Defining American fundamentalism"

AMEN!

The (get off your fundament and read the Scriptures) Curtmudgeon

[Blake Reas]

Hey Robyn,

I find what you say(Writers you quoted) about "fundies" to be exactly what Paul says in Scripture. Orthodox Christianity epitemizes beauty. What I mean by Orthodox are those of us who hold to the foundational creeds of the Church. If I am a fundamentalist because I would die for my Lord then count me in!

By His Grace for His Glory
Blake
P.S. Robyn thanks for the thoughtful quotes

[Blake Reas]

They see the world outside their community as wicked, depraved, and doomed to apocalyptic destruction. Their community stands alone as an island of righteousness that, by virtue of their beliefs, in the end will be saved and rewarded

TULIP and the imputed Righteousness of Christ! Amen. I do see that people with out Christ are hopeless and in need of Christ saving love.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

P.S. I am a fan of Jonathan Edwards by the way!:brow:

[Socrates]

Paul Enns states (Moody Handbook of Theology, p. 613, Moody Press, Chicago 1989):

Historically, fundamentalism has been used to identify one holding to the five fundamentals of the faith adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the USA in 1910. The five fundamentals were the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the inspiration of Scripture.

[Solly]

I think there is a very good case for questioning the reciproal effects of culture on the Church. The church creates a kind of sub-culture, and then this almost hypostatises into something that effects the church, and fossilisation sets in - I see this in my own denomination.

For instance, it has been an eye opener to me how right wing so many American Christians are; this can't simply be because Christian doctrine is right wing in its implications, because I am left wing (well, centre left) on the basis of my Christian convictions. But how many just accept this, because they take it oin with their mother's milk - America is right wing; I am a Christian, therefore...

That is why I value non-evangleical (even liberal) assesments of the Church from a sociological pov, because it enables us to see our blind spots. Self examination is a must for the church as well as Christians. True, the examiners may misunderstand and misrepresent our convictions, the outworkings of them, and effects upon us - taking for primary what is actually secondary, etc; but there is no harm done if it is received in a meek and humble spirit, and everything to be gained. Be Alert. Be Aware.

I like to be challenged from time to time by atheists, other religions, etc who say "You Christians, it's always such and such with you" because perhaps it shouldn't be, perhaps I have settled into a rut; perhaps I have accepted something because "that's the way it has always been done" but needs changing. "Reformed, and always reforming". Nietzsche said, he would take Christians more seriously, when they looked saved.

[Socrates]

Solly:For instance, it has been an eye opener to me how right wing so many American Christians are; this can't simply be because Christian doctrine is right wing in its implications, because I am left wing (well, centre left) on the basis of my Christian convictions. Indeed, at one time the Labor party in my country largely comprised working-class Catholics, who were thus strongly pro-life and pro-family. However, most of the modern left wing is hypocritical, pretending to be concerned about the weaker members of society, but supporting the Holocaust of the most defenceless people of all, children in their own mothers' wombs.

[Solly]

Today @ 10:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50101#post50101)
Socrates: Indeed, at one time the Labor party in my country largely comprised working-class Catholics, who were thus strongly pro-life and pro-family. However, most of the modern left wing is hypocritical, pretending to be concerned about the weaker members of society, but supporting the Holocaust of the most defenceless people of all, children in their own mothers' wombs.

Solly--Yes, that is the problem now. As you are probably aware, but for the benefit of others, the British Labour party, and the Trade Unions came out of the Christian Socialist and NonConformist elements of the Church. Non Conformity was the voice of the people against conservative (that is, preserve the status quo) High Church Anglican Toryism. Trendy intellectual Fabianism was around, but it was liberalism and communism that, appealing to the chattering and working classes, finally undermined that Christian character, as well as two world wars. Strangely, we now have the leaders of three parties all donning, to one extent or another, the religious mantle. What goes around, comes around.

Still, I value the critique. I was a non Christian once, and had plenty to criticise Christians for, and I still remember those criticisms, and wonder if I have fallen into the trap. Sometimes they are valid: Christians don't do this, don't do that (though the reasons for it are misunderstood), but sometimes I am just putting a stumbling block in the way, and non Christian critiques at least tell me why others are stumbling. As long as they are stumbling at the offense of the Cross, I don't mind.