rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (05/10/84)
Christian Fundamentalism has acquired a bad name in recent times
because the word has been distorted primarily by
Hollywood and the News Media to mean a fringe belief
system attaching itself to Christianity.
Popularly, the Fundamentalist is famous for what he or she
doesn't do:
We don't smoke
And we don't chew
And we don't go
With girls what do
Anyway, I thought that Fundamentalism ought to be defined.
Fundamentalism as a doctrinal position came into being
around the turn of the century (1900) and was a restatement
of the basics in response to the relativism that had by then
gained a foothold in Christianity as a result of the Enlightenment
and the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. of A.
The position revolves around five basics or Fundamentals:
1) The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, trustworthy on all
subjects that it deals with.
2) The Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, that He was/is God incarnate
and the awaited Messiah of Israel.
3) The Virgin Birth, that Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit.
His mother was Mary, Joseph's wife.
4) The Crucifixion and shedding of Jesus's Blood as remission
for everyone's sin problem.
5) The Resurrection of Jesus, bodily, and His imminent return.
It is important to note that Fundamentalism was an
interdenominational phenomenon. In fact, with the exception
of the Roman Catholic Bible (which contains some extra books)
these five fundamentals are generally agreed to by many Christian
denominations.
Keeping in mind Romans 10:9 and the thief who was on the cross
next to Jesus, Salvation probably only requires 2 and 4.
However, I have heard arguments that since the Bible is the only
record of the beliefs and practices of Jesus and the early church
if you don't accept #1 how can you be sure of nos. 2 - 5.
As you can see, classical Fundamentalism has nothing to do with
whether you smoke, drink alcohol, wear rimless glasses, dance,
play cards, attend movies, etc.
This is not to say that if you enter a relationship with Jesus
that your behavior will not be changed but it will be from the
inside out not imposed on you by a group.
These legalisms are the work of people and groups who either had
those traditions, prohibitions, etc or added them.
Also notice that inerrancy of Scripture doesn't require you to take
every Scripture literally - there are such things as figures of speech.
When Jesus says "I am the door..." I don't expect to find a door knob
appended to Him.
Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (05/10/84)
Here I am again: A nice Episcopalian putting out objections that I am sure most secular net.religion flamers will post on their own. My problem is this: While Bob's original outline of the original tenets of Fundementalism are, in fact, pretty much lifted directly from that old fin-de-siecle chestnut pamphlet "The Fundementals of the CHristian Faith" (I don't have my "A Religious History of the American People" here at my terminal, so that's probably not the exact title), he is a bit naive to suggest that American Fundementalism in its current form (a cultural/political/religious entity) is based entirely on that statement of belief. There are some problems with that formulation. I'll try a brief one, and lower my head when the flames return from those of my brethren more in the Fundementalist tradition. It is true that much of Fundementalism's early insistence on the inerrency of Scripture is a direct response to the trraditions of Hermeneuticial scholarship in the late 1800s, Fundementalism in its current form would, I think, hold to a more rigourously defined sense of "inerrency" than Bob's outline would suggest. That more rigourous definition is, furthermore, becomes a point of polarization for Fundementalists. The modern Fundementalist usually uses the phrase "plenary verbal inspiration" to further qualify the authority of the Scriptures. That is-the Bible is absolutely correct on ALL matters (many people are, of course, intelligent enough to add the phrase "as translated." Simply put, not all Christians believe that some of the Scriptures can be read by the 20th century person apart from the cultural context in which they were written. Further, the mechanism by which Biblical writings and texts are/were scrutinised suggests that some of what appears in, say, the King James text, is based on unreliable textual materials. For the FUndementalist, this notion is a difficult one to deal with. (It is even harder for the non-Fundementalist sometimes...don't get me wrong). ANyhow, when we go about discussing and dfeining F., I'd suggest that it might be useful to talk about how Fundementalism came to pick up the cultural baggage that Bob alludes to. Is it, for example, the result of an extension of the emthodology and frame of reference of the Fundementalist into realms other than the authority of the Word? THis is yet another one of my late-nighters. I see that looking over it, there is much that will perhaps be misunderstood. There are at least 57 ways of leballing me a donkey in the third paragraph alone. I offer my apologies to those of you I may have offended, but I think that there is a really interesting opportunity here to talk about a rather substantive issue here. The flamers on this line seem to view anyone with a bit of religious commitment as a monolithic pack of idiots (their characterizations are usually based on a charicature of a Fundementalist). Here's a chance totalk about those differences. I know there are some good Kierkegaardian Lutherans out there (you listening, St. Olaf?). Clean this up and try saying it again, please? gtaylor
lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (05/11/84)
Bob Brown's definition of Fundamentalism squares pretty well with my understanding. The "bad name" that it bears stems, in my opinion, entirely from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which flies in the face of science, history, and common sense. By the way, a while back there was some discussion of Jesus's failed prophecy that he would return before "this generation passes away". This was answered by someone by saying that "generation" meant "race", or something. As strained as this is, it fails to answer the version in Mark, wherein Jesus states with almost legalistic specificity, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1) Even conservative Christian scholars admit this is a failed prophecy. Many see it as an insertion expressing the continued hopes at the time of writing for an imminent Second Coming. It is only the Fundamentalists who try to squirm out of this embarassment by the contorted interpretations which so typify their thinking, and which place them beyond the pale of reason. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (05/11/84)
Yow! I just read my own posting, and have decided to post a quick followup. My musings took off quite a bit from what I'd intended to say. To be fair, let me try it again. The definition of Christian Fundementalism given misses the point in my view in that it does not address the notion that its definition has changed considerably since the late 1900s. Somewhere along the way, it has picked up a substantial bit of cultural baggage. Many American Religious historians see it as a distinctly American movement, with strong roots in the traditions of American as a Republic (hence the identification of America as the new promised land, etc.). I cannot say as I truly have any real disagreements with the original outline posted as credo (though the Nicene creed says it all in a much more compact and poetic manner)-but that that definition does not take into account the patterns of cultural practice that characterize Fundementalism. It is those practices which are the brunt of much lampooning. Somewhere over the last several years, they have changed from a credo of affirmation to one of negation ( and I do not mean this merely as a way of talking about their critics...other Christians say as much upon occaision. Over and above those hardy souls who are chuckling with glee at the opportunity at the chance to attack "Fundies" as everything from Nazis for Neurotics at the ballot box, I think there may be a few sincere types out there who would like to try to separate the cardboard figure from the real thing. I am not sure that a definition which seeks to ignore either the perceptions of one's accusers (which may have a grain of truth) or doesn't take into account the notion that things may have changed since 1900 will be of much aid. That's better.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (05/11/84)
[from Lew Mammel:] >Bob Brown's definition of Fundamentalism squares pretty well with my >understanding. The "bad name" that it bears stems, in my opinion, entirely >from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which flies in the face of science, >history, and common sense. >By the way, a while back there was some discussion of Jesus's failed >prophecy that he would return before "this generation passes away". This >was answered by someone by saying that "generation" meant "race", or something. >As strained as this is, it fails to answer the version in Mark, wherein >Jesus states with almost legalistic specificity, "Truly, I say to you, there >are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom >of God come with power." (Mark 9:1) Even conservative Christian scholars >admit this is a failed prophecy. Many see it as an insertion expressing the >continued hopes at the time of writing for an imminent Second Coming. >It is only the Fundamentalists who try to squirm out of this embarassment >by the contorted interpretations which so typify their thinking, and >which place them beyond the pale of reason. I feel like Lew has his mind settled on the issue on biblical inerrancy, but that is not done so easily as he does here. I share Lew's disdain for contorted interpretations of Scripture, but I don't think their existence lays a good foundation from which to reject completely its inspiration or inerrancy. I don't think many Christian scholars who hold the inerrancy doctrine interpret "generation" to mean "race". The context of the saying is in Matthew 24. In speaking about the end of the world and his own return Jesus indicates certain signs that will precede the event. Among them are fammines, wars, earthquakes, the darkening of the sun and moon and the stars "falling from the sky" (so to speak) and the preaching of the gospel to all nations. Many think these events to be still in the future. Some believe they are beginning to happen already. Seen in that light, when Jesus spoke of "this generation" he did so in the context of the events described. In other words, the generation that sees these signs will be the last before the End. To assume that Jesus is talking about the same event in Mark 9:1 is taking an exegetical leap, in my opinion. I see the Kingom of God as having already come. It came "with power" after the resurrection. I suppose its coming could be pinpointed on the events described in the first two chapters of Acts. I think it will be comsumated when the End comes. Thoughout the Gospels Jesus speaks of the "Kingdom of God" and the "Kingdom of Heaven". These two terms are not exactly interchangable. Just what each implies is a subject requiring detailed study. (A pretty good one is "Thy Kingdome Come" by C. Leslie Mitton [Eerdmans]). Paul Dubuc
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (05/14/84)
I need to apologise to Lew Mammel for brushing off the idea that
some biblical scholars interpret "generation" in Matt. 24:34 to
mean "race" in support of the belief that that verse does not
contain a failed prophecy. I was looking though Gleason Archer's
"Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" over the weekend and found that
he seems to favor that interpretation over the one I gave.
Not being familiar with the "generation = race" interpretation, Lew's
article gave me the impression that "race" was interpreted to mean
the human race. (Pardon me for not thinking.) As it is, "generation"
(gk. genea) is taken to be a synonymn of *genos* ("race", "stock", "nation",
"people"). It is taken to refer to the Jewish "race". In retrospect,
the survival and flourishing of the Jews in the face of the many persecutions
and dispersions they have experienced is truly remarkable. The
reestablishment of Israel as a nation is a biblical prophecy that many
scholars tried to work around before it became a reality.
Archer goes on to say, "Although this meaning for *genea* is not common
it is found as early as Homer and Herodotus and as late as Plutarch (cf.
H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, *A Greek-English Lexicon*, 9th ed. p 432)".
He also notes the interpretation I gave, saying that it has the advantage
of preserving the more common usage of *genea*, but has the disadvantage
of making the verse a prediction of what would normally be expected to
happen anyway. In that light it could not really be considered a prophecy,
just a statement stressing that the End is imminent. Far from being
"strained", as Lew suggested, I think either of these interpretations to
be sensible.
Archer also says the following concering the interpretation of "generation":
Perhaps it should be added that if the Olivet Discourse
was originally delivered in Aramaic (as it probably was),
then we cannot be certain that the meaning of this prediction
hinged entirely on the Greek word used to translate it.
*Genea* and *genos* are, after all, closely related words
from the same root. The Aramaic term that Jesus Himself
probably used (the Syriac Peshitta uses *sharb ta'* here,
which can mean either "generation" or "race") is suseptible
to either interpretation, and thus could mean the Jewish
"race" rather than the circle of Christ's own contemporaries.
As I stated in my last article, Mark 9:1 cannot be considered a different
version of Matthew 24:34. If you look at the context, they happened
in two different places: Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27) and the Mount
of Olives which was just outside Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1-3).
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd
"The true light that enlightens every man was coming
into the world..." (John 1:9)