lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) (07/15/89)
In article <Jul.13.04.36.44.1989.28929@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: > Now for my major comment on Dave's response. My primary problem with > it is that it follows the classic fundamentalist method of reading ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > things into the text. Note by the way that I have seldom complained ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > about "literal interpretation". My primary problem with Personally, I don't like the way we "classify" Christians. But I always thought that most people would classify me as a fundamentalist. However, I don't think that I fit the description above. So I have a couple of questions: 1. What is a fundamentalist? 2. Does being a Biblical fundamentalist necessarily imply that you are a political fundamentalist. (i. e. Conservative Republican, flag waving, pro school prayer, pro school creationism, pro SDI, pro Contra aid, etc.)??? > I think this is the real difference between me and those we call > themselves believers in inerrancy. I can live with unresolved issues > in Scripture. I am very wary of manufacturing an easy consistency by > clever interpretation. I also thought that I believed in inerrancy. But what I thought inerrancy meant was that God's word is right. Not necessarily that I've got it all figured out. The bible has the answers, but I don't (not ALL of them anyway). God bless you all. -- Lance Beckner | INTERNET: lab@fibercom.com | UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!lab ---------------------------- 2 Timothy 2:15 ----------------------------- "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." [You are right of course. There are many fine pieces of scholarship by people who believe in inerrancy. Nevertheless there are characteristic vices of each position. The characteristic vice of the "liberals" is to attribute anything they don't like to modifications of Jesus' message by the later church. The characteristic vice of those who believe in inerrancy is to become overly eager in producing consistency where it is not immediately visible. Ideally both sides manage to avoid these vices much of the time ... --clh]
oracle@dartvax.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (07/19/89)
In a past article, Lance Beckner asks the question of: "How and why are
Christians categorized into fundamentalist vs. non-fundamentalist?"
It happens because it's necessary. The standing definition of a
fundamentalist is this:
Fundamentalist (religious connotation): one who views the Bible as being
the literal, REVEALED Word of God, rather than an allegorical work INSPIRED
by God.
Normally, this belief wouldn't cause too many problems. But a great number
of fundamentalists get caught up in the fervor of their work, and start
actively imposing their beliefs on others. The Jehovah's Witnesses are perfect
examples... completely sincere in their beliefs (I think), and very decent
citizens overall, but very pushy.
Some people aren't bothered by this pushiness, but others get quite
offended.
Another problem that non-fundamentalists see with fundamentalism is the
fact that Fundamentalists do NOT stress the notion of the loving, forgiving
God as much as they stress the fire-and-brimstone, "repent, or burn!" idea.
This bothers me especially. I cherish the idea of worshipping God because
I LOVE him, not because I'm terrified of him. Coerced reverence just seems
worthless to me.
Somehow, the "Loving God" seems more in keeping with Jesus's teaching. Think
of it from a parent's point of view: would you rather have your children obey
you because they love and respect you, or obey because they fear you?
Personally, if I found out that my children were terrified of me, I'd
probably break down sobbing, feeling utterly worthless as a parent.
{This notion of "obediance through fear" has also prompted a minority of the
fundamentalists to take *VERY* loose views about corporal punishment... some
of these cases even developing into child abuse. These cases are quite rare,
but frequent enough to gain the attention of Fundamentalists Anonymous, the
non-pprofit organization set up to help such problems.}
In short, fundamentalists are labeled thus because they are collectively
considered an annoyance, if not a threat, by non-fundamentalists... and
labeling fundamentalists is an easier way to cope with them, if you happen
to object to their philosophy.
I hope this helps.
Brian Coughlin
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
[Actually, fundamentalism was a movement of which inerrancy was only
one part. The term tends to be used to characterize any number of
different conservative tendencies. But it's mostly a derogatory word
used without any very precise meaning. As such, we should probably
avoid it. It leads to stereotypes that are often wrong. There are
people active in Usenet who seem superficially to fit some aspects of
the stereotype above. Whether they really are is harder to judge, and
to assume it is probably unfair. Most people I know who believe in
inerrancy also think of God as loving. Among people who believe in
inerrancy, there are great differences in social activism (one of our
readers is theologically conservative but apparently involved in the
issue of homelessness), in theology (the recent debate about
prestination has participants on both sides who believe in Biblical
inerrancy), and in overall style of livings as Christians (varying
from pentacostals who believe it is crucial to speak in tongues and
have a rather emotional style of worship, to intellectual types). I'd
rather look at where people fall on a variety of spectra of this type,
than try to characterize them by one word "fundamentalist".
By the way, I do not believe in inerrancy, but I certainly don't
believe that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. There are a
number of alternatives to inerrancy, but the major ones are probably
- those who still consider the Bible to be a reasonably
accurate report of historical events, but accuracy only
in the way that normal historical reports are accurate.
- those who believe that Jesus had a lot of good ideas, but
that the talk of miracles, salvation, etc., is not to
be taken seriously.
In many ways the first group may not be very different theologically
from those who believe in inerrancy, though their different approach
to Scripture may affect a few things, such as ordination of women.
--clh]