gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com (GKEvans) (07/16/90)
After an earlier article I posted, several people have requested
a list of doctrines associated with "fundamentalism," and how
they (might) differ from "conservative evangelicalism."
I have prepared a brief list of doctrines commonly subscribed to
by fundamentalist groups. Please recognize that when I state
"fundamentalists believe...", even among these groups a complete
consensus will not be found. I have attempted to list the major
doctrines common to fundamentalist groups, but please keep in
mind that much hair-splitting goes on and I have only hit the
very highest points. Please note: The order of the doctrines
does not in any way indicate a prioritization.
I have included a short bibliography at the end for those who
wish to read further.
1. Inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible
This is perhaps the most advertised characteristic of
fundamentalist groups, but they do not have a monopoly on this
belief. Various statements of inerrancy abound, as do
definitions of inspiration, but by and large, fundamentalists
regard the Bible as sufficient by itself for answering all of
man's problems, and that it is true and accurate in every matter
with which it deals.
2. Monotheism/Trinity
The doctrine that God is one, yet manifests himself in three
persons (or personalities) is a defining attribute of
Christianity. This orthodox view excludes all polytheism. It
also excludes denial of Jesus as part of the triune Godhead, and
states that the Holy Spirit is a Person and not just the
emanation of God's energy.
3. Virgin Birth of Jesus
This is an area of great contention within the Christian church,
but fundamentalists regard the virgin birth as central to
Christ's claims of deity. Only if Christ was born of a woman
could he be fully human, and only if he was born of the Holy
Spirit could he be fully God.
4. Authenticity of Miracles performed by Jesus
Fundamentalists regard the miracles Jesus performed as evidence
of his divinity, as Jesus himself appealed to his miracles as
evidence of who he was.
5. Physical Resurrection of Jesus
The acceptance of Jesus' resurrection as a physical, not just
spiritual, being is regarded as a necessity to fundamentalists.
Only by physically overcoming death could he show his complete
sovereignity over the universe, and maintain his identity with
(physical) man.
6. Man/Sin/Fall
Fundamentalists accept the existence of the Garden of Eden as an
actual, historical event. They believe in the creation of man by
God according to Genesis (but even some staunch fundamentalists
of the early 20th century were not literalists in this area).
They accept that God's original purpose in creating the universe
was confounded by man's willfully disobeying God (sin) and that,
as a result,the entire universe fell--and death and decay entered
the world for the first time.
I do not think I would be too far afield by concluding that most
fundamentalists accept or lean toward the view that we, today,
have inherited Adam's sin, but I should note that the concept of
"original sin" is a fluid one, even among fundamentalists.
7. Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus
Sin broke the relationship man originally had with God. Man
broke it, but only God could restore it. This is why Jesus came
to die (doctrine of blood atonement), not to show us how to live
"good" lives.
8. Salvation/Grace
The doctrine of salvation by grace states that Christ's sacrifice
restored the broken relationship which man had broken. Those who
accept this undeserved gift of restoration and commit themselves
to follow Christ will be saved -- i.e., freed forever from the
penalty of sin, which is spiritual death. This restoration is
not something man can earn, nor does man deserve this pardon.
Only God's grace (from the Greek charis; Gk. charismata = free
gift) and love could provide what we could not achieve on our
own.
The fundamentalist teaching of holiness is important here. This
grew out of the revivalist heritage in the late 1800s, early
1900s. It emphasized the importance of individual decision and
commitment: one is not saved because he was raised in a
Christian family, or because he goes to church, etc. A personal,
individual commitment of one's life to follow Christ is required.
Holiness teaching also emphasized the need to deny the trappings
of culture (entertainment, liberalism, etc.), and concentrate on
soul-winning through evangelistic effort.
9. Second Coming of Christ
Fundamentalists of the first 3 decades of this century went round
& round on this issue. Between the American Revolution and the
end of the 1800s, many faith groups held the "post-millenial"
view: Christ would return to earth only AFTER 1000-years of
social perfection and harmony on earth. These groups emphasised
a social gospel because they believed that Christ would not
return UNTIL this change in society had come about.
At the turn of the century Post-millenialism eventually gave way
to Pre-millenialism: Christ would return and THEN the 1000-year
reign of righteousness would begin on earth. Pre-millenialism
then gave way in some quarters to "dispensational pre-
millenialism" (see Marsden for a good discussion on this).
10. Symbolic Ordinances
Baptism and the Lord's Supper (communion) are recognized as
required symbolic ordinances. Most groups would not go so far as
to say they are required for salvation, but they all emphasize
the need to follow these ordinances because Jesus himself
participated in them and commanded his followers to emulate him.
FUNDAMENTALISM vs. PROTESTANT CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALISM.
I now want to make some comments about the concept of
"fundamentalism" beyond this litany of doctrines. I disavow any
authoritative perspective. The following are personal
observations which I share at no additional cost - and they might
be worth even less.
I suspect that some Christians on the net unfamiliar with the
basic doctrines of fundamentalism might have looked at the list
above and recognized their own doctrines there. It is quite true
that many "moderate" groups hold the same beliefs, and that is
why I think this is important to point out that fundamentalists
really have not introduced any "new" doctrines into Christianity,
but they have distinguished themselves by their emphasis on what
they regard as God's "acceptance criteria" to claim that one is a
Christian.
Many evangelicals today disdain the term "fundamentalist". While
the above doctrines can be associated with either fundmentalism
or conservative evangelicalism, fundamentalists (IMHO) are
distinguished by a remarkably dour view on life (no flames,
please, I am only relating my personal observations). They live
their lives in what I might call a sub-culture of Biblical
guidance - more akin to Biblical oppression, I think. They often
seem to regard the world with a seige mentality. Dancing,
playing cards, even watching movies - these and other forms of
enjoyment are shunned by some, but not all, fundamentalist
groups. Only Christian music is allowed in many fundamentalist
homes. Intellectual or spiritual tolerance is usually not high
on their list of social graces, but here, too, exceptions are
found.
Conservative evangelicals, however, do not convey the same degree
of oppression by life and the world. While they, too, submit
themselves to Biblical guidance, I have found the members of the
church I now attend (conservative evangelical) to be some of the
happiest people I have ever known. They go to movies
(selectively like most other people), and they read both
Christian and secular literature. Yet they still have a
recognizable peace and sense of hope in their lives amidst the
daily upsets we all experience. This peace is an easy target for
non-Christians to ridicule, but the ridicule itself seems to be a
tacit recognition that the peace is there.
Anyway, my experience indicates that a fundamentalist will often
brow-beat you with the Bible, and inform you that you have a
reservation in hell because you do not believe "correctly." My
experience in a conservative evangelical congregation for over
two years indicates that the evangelical will attempt to convince
you of your errors, but will respect your right to believe as you
wish - but I also recognize that this more tolerant attitude is
often very dependent upon the leadership of the church's pastor.
Evangelicals are also usually aware (but not always) that they
have no justification to pass judgment upon anyone's state of
salvation. The Bible just does not give any human being that
authority. Alas, this, too, is often overlooked.
So, in my humble opinion, the primary distinction between
fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals is not a doctrinal
distinction. Rather, I see it as their respective willingness or
unwillingness to recognize that the message of Jesus Christ must
be delivered in terms the hearer will understand (e.g., Jesus
never used a canned presentation; he always gave his message at
the level his hearer could relate to, and in the cultural contex
of his listeners), and to recognize that God speaks differently
to different people and that how we worship is important - but
not so important as WHO we worship, and whether love comes from
that worship (see Galatians 5:22-23 for a list of the fruit of
the Spirit that should be in one's life as a believer).
I am sure our excellent moderator could add some valuable
information to this note, and I invite him to do so.
SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL READING:
_Fundamentalism_, James Barr, Westminster Press.
Out of print (published in 1970s) but available in
some libraries. Barr is Professor of the
Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford.
It is a very comprehensive study based
on British fundamentalism, but he is clear in
the areas where British and American fundamentalists
both agree and diverge.
_Beyond Fundamentalism_, James Barr, Westminster Press.
This is an interesting book. It is a "pastoral" book
which Barr wrote to help persons who have lost their
fundamentalist beliefs, and who are struggling to still
find meaning in Christianity, and in the Bible.
_Fundamentalism and American Culture_, George Marsden.
A comprehensive and rather well-balanced analysis.
Recent publication.
_A History of Fundamentalism in America_, George W. Dollar.
Prof. Dollar is (according to the dustjacket) Chairman
of the department of Church History at Bob Jones
University, a very conservative institution. I liked
getting the view of fundamentalist history from a
fundamentalist. It is very readable.
_Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks_, Rod Evans
(no relation) and Irwin Berent.
This is a "liberal" approach: the introduction is by
Isaac Asimov. The stated purpose of the book is "not
to discourage either faith in God or reverence for the
Bible, but rather to point out some potential hazards
associated with viewing the Bible in the ways in which
many fundamentalists typically view it." I feel they
achieve their goal: it is well researched and
pretty well balanced. But, IMHO, James Barr
treats the same issues more thoroughly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary K. Evans, Software type |'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com | 'To talk of many things:
These are my opinions, |Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax,
and not my employer's. | Of cabbages--and kings....'
| --Through the Looking Glass
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I'm reluctant to comment very much on this issue because it seems to
me that the term "fundamentalist" is such a vague term. I've heard it
used most commonly by "liberals" as a term of criticism, to
characterize over-literal Biblical interpretation and legalism. If
that is its definition, then it's not surprising to see the rather
negative feelings about it that you express in your last few
paragraphs. Most properly it seems to characterize groups in the late
19th and early 20th Cent. who drew up lists of fundamental doctrines
under attack by "modernism". I'm just not sure at the moment that it
has a sufficiently sharp meaning to be useful. --clh]
correll@sun.udel.edu (Sharon J Correll) (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.02.54.27.1990.14616@athos.rutgers.edu> gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com (GKEvans) writes: >After an earlier article I posted, several people have requested >a list of doctrines associated with "fundamentalism," and how >they (might) differ from "conservative evangelicalism." >... So people in this file tend to agree that most of the difference between "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" is in the "flavor" or "emphasis" of the group(s), not in actual doctrine. I'd be interested in the opinion of someone who identifies themselves as fundamentalist, but maybe there are none that read this newsgroup(!). For myself, I've thought that the term "evangelical" implies two things: * Committment to the authority of scripture (usually means belief in inerrancy, but not always) * Emphasis on personal faith (as opposed to the emphasis on the institution of the church as in the Roman Catholic Church) By this definition, fundamentalists are also evangelicals (although they might not like to use the term). But in addition to social issues (dancing, drinking, etc.), I always thought that there are a few doctrinal issues that distinguish fundamentalists. For instance, fundament- alists would be pretty firm on the idea of a 6-24-hour-day Creation, while some evangelicals would be open to some merger between Creation and evolution. -- ---\ Sharon Correll \--------------- ----\ University of Delaware \-------------- -----\ Academic Computing and Instructional Technology \------------- ------\ correll@sun.acs.udel.edu \------------
oaa@lzga.att.com (Owen A. Alexander) (07/24/90)
In article <Jul.18.05.09.39.1990.16268@athos.rutgers.edu>, correll@sun.udel.edu (Sharon J Correll) writes: > > I'd be interested in the opinion > of someone who identifies themselves as fundamentalist, but maybe there > are none that read this newsgroup(!). > But in addition to social > issues (dancing, drinking, etc.), I always thought that there are a few > doctrinal issues that distinguish fundamentalists. For instance, fundament- > alists would be pretty firm on the idea of a 6-24-hour-day Creation, while > some evangelicals would be open to some merger between Creation and > evolution. Although I would not consider myself a 'fundamentalist' in the way it has been defined relative to social issues, my church is very much fundamental in it's teachings and pratices. I respect and support this pratice and would like to comment on why fundamentalism is necessary. For me fundamentalism tends to emphasize the need to be 1) saved, 2) santified, 3) separated. I don't think many will disagree with points 1 or 2, but point 3 is where most of the discussion will come from. The Bible teaches separation in the OT (eg. Psalm 1) and NT. Why is separation needed? to minimize worldly influence upon the believer and to emphasize a difference in the believers life. Separation does not mean to not associate with the world, but to not be in a position to have the world influence you to the point that you compromise or conform your faith. An example of a fundamentalist belief my church preaches and pratices concerns boys and girls holding hands or kissing before they are married. While it can be argued that there is nothing 'wrong' with this, the church believes that the further away from sin (in your life) you are, the better the chances of not indulging in that sin. For fornication the typical pattern for young couples dating is: Attraction -> holding hands -> kissing -> petting -> sex While this may be simplistic, if you teach the young persons, that sex is worth waiting for and that it's hard for one or the other person to resist becoming more physically involved, then the best thing to do is to be friends and get to know the person, then get married. Love is more than a feeling but a choice and act of your will. Marriage is life long and you want to not do things that will endanger that relationship. Anyway to summarize, I think fundamentalism has a place in teaching discipline, committment and other things our society has forgotten. As with anything it should be checked against the Bible.
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (08/06/90)
Gary: Enjoyed the presentation of everything I believe in. However, I think that the term fundamentalist is a much abused and misused term. Why this need to put labels on folks is so rampant is beyond me. For me the matter comes down to what is the basis for our beliefs. I've already posted my position some time back. Got quite a few comments off of that. And I know that several people out there in netland disagree with me. For me, the Bible is the basis for all of our beliefs. It is not a creed, nor a confession of faith, nor the traditions of a church or denomination. Those things do not stand the test. They are aids many times, but not the foundations of faith. The essential beliefs that I share with thousands of other Christians are summed up in what you listed as fundamentalists beliefs. Am I fundamentalist? In that I accept those beliefs you ennumerated, yes. In the sense that that word is often used by the secular media and others, no! Am I then an evangelical? In the sense that I believe in the evangelical imperative of our faith (Go ye into all the world...), yes. Am I then a conservative? In the sense that this means holding to a stricter interpretation of the things of faith, yes. So now what am I? A conservative, evangelical fundamentalist!? Nope. Just a sinner saved by grace. A small child of the King. And I fellowship with other Christians at a local Moravian denominational church. For His name, Gene Gross