Fundementalism and neo-evanglicalism

[Michael Wrenn]

Nope. That was your imagination. If you were a self-proclaimed liberal (in the classic sense beginning with higher criticism), then I wouldn't have implied it, I would have said outright that you didn't believe the Bible. But I've never discussed the "moderate" position one single time on the BB, and to tell you the truth I'm not quite sure what it is.

Then tell me, what are the "fundamentals" of the far left? That's what fundamentalism starts with, a set of fundamental doctrines believed by all who claim the name. I'm not aware of any such theological positions/doctrines taken by the left. (I assume you mean theological left here, right? Because the political left is another ball game entirely. For the record, I was against Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.)

And while we're on it, many fundamentalists are not what you think we are. I've known leading fundamentalists who knew liberals personally and yet never condemned them personally.

The "fundamentals" of the far left are the same as for the "far right" -- intolerance and condemnation of any and all beliefs different from theirs. That being the case, it renders specifics rather irrelevant.

 

[John of Japan]

The "fundamentals" of the far left are the same as for the "far right" -- intolerance and condemnation of any and all beliefs different from theirs. That being the case, it renders specifics rather irrelevant.

I suggest that you know little to nothing about what fundamentalism is and it's history. There are fundamental doctrines that define fundamentalism to which all fundamentalists adhere. The far left have no similar set of doctrines. We fundamentalists define ourselves beginning with those doctrines. Your reply here brands you as completely ignorant of this history.

I thought maybe we could actually have a civil discussion here, wherein you tell me what you believe as a moderate and I interact with that. I honestly don't know where you're coming from. But no. Your tolerance only extends to those like you. You are completely intolerant of us fundamenalists! (What did I ever do to you to earn such intolerance?) You obviously want nothing whatever to do with me. Have a good one.

 

[John of Japan]

I completely agree with you on the flag. Many years ago I read a book by a well known historian who said there is no place for the flag of a country to be on display in a church. The flag represents the political world, the secular world, the world of power and greed. Christ said to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” But Christ never said to mix the two.

I agree that that right-wings politics in not a necessary position a person must take to be a fundamentalist. My point is that many fundamentalist are right-wingers and, to me, that takes away from their stated belief in the teachings of Christ. Christ talked much more about how we should treat each other than in what we believe.

Far too many Americans confuse the two and, IMHO, that is a serious mistake.

Sorry, somehow I missed this post.

I agree with you except where you say "Christ talked much more about how we should treat each other than in what we believe." He actually talked a great deal about what (who, actually) we are to believe in, Himself! That is the main theme of the Gospel of John, and in fact the entire NT. (Which is not to say that how we treat each other is not of vital importance.)

Now concerning that, a true fundamentalist will take his stand on that very thing, faith in Christ, based on 2 John 9-11--

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

This passage is clear that the doctrine of Christ, Christology if you will, is of fundamental, vital importance. And that is where fundamentalism originally came from, an effort to defend the doctrine of Christ: His virgin birth, deity, sinless life, sacrificial death, bodily resurrection and 2nd coming.

 

[Salty]

The "fundamentals" of the far left are the same as for the "far right" -- intolerance and condemnation of any and all beliefs different from theirs. That being the case, it renders specifics rather irrelevant.

Okay, please name at least three well known far left fundamentalists.

 

[DHK]

Okay, please name at least three well known far left fundamentalists.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[Jack Matthews]

Historically speaking there is no such thing as "left-wing fundamentalism."

Historically speaking, you're correct. However, recent broader usages of the term "Fundamentalist" have come to mean those who are intolerant of any interpretation of scripture that differs from their own, and is now applied to anyone whose intolerance appears to be built around their own, very legalistic interpretation of any particular set of beliefs, such as "Fundamentalist Muslims," for example.

I have heard the term "fundamentalists of the left" applied to those in the SBC conflict who left after the conservatives regained control of the denomination and formed their own groups, like the Alliance of Baptists and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Within those groups are those who push for ordaining women to serve as pastors, and ordaining gays and lesbians, and are so insistent upon their position that they want to break fellowship and exclude those who don't want to go that route. I don't know if the term has been applied from within the Episcopal Church or not, but their governing body is forcing acceptance of gay ordination on the church, even at the expense of losing members in droves, and in some cases, entire congregations. I've heard a few refer to those individuals as "fundamentalists of the left," though I don't know that the term has common use inside the Episcopal Church.

The term "fundamentalist" is becoming equated with "intolerant," regardless of the belief system involved.

 

[Jerome]

Salty, I ran across this pastor of some note while researching Hamilton Square Baptist Church guest preachers:

From Pastor Albert Ehrgott's daughter's book Family and Berkeley Memories, p. 260:

His social liberalism (he called himself a Christian Socialist) had cost him his church in Cleveland. But he was a fundamentalist Christian

http://archive.org/details/familyberkelymem00fielrich

 

[OldRegular]

John, for me it is not that they believe the words of Scripture that make many who are called fundamentalist extremist. For me that is no problem. I believe I am pretty fundamental in that regard. For me it is the extreme right-wing political stances that many fundamentalists that make them extremist. Have you noticed how often such folk quote Paul and how seldom they quote Jesus?

If one believes in the inspiration of Scripture, that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the words of Paul are the words of Jesus Christ. I believe Scripture tells us:

Jophn 1:1, 2
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.

 

[OldRegular]

Naw, I don't pay much attention to that, though I vote. Ask me about Japanese politics, though. :type:

I do think there are fundamentalists who go too far in that direction, and I don't think it is proper to have an American flag on the platform of a church. (Japanese Christians of any stripe would never have a "Hi no Maru" flag in their church.) But I don't think that right-wing politics are either necessary to be a fundamentalist nor limited to fundamentalists in American Christianity.

John

I agree whole heartedly with you on the flag.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by John of Japan
Now concerning that, a true fundamentalist will take his stand on that very thing, faith in Christ, based on 2 John 9-11--

Quote:
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

This passage is clear that the doctrine of Christ, Christology if you will, is of fundamental, vital importance. And that is where fundamentalism originally came from, an effort to defend the doctrine of Christ: His virgin birth, deity, sinless life, sacrificial death, bodily resurrection and 2nd coming.

The above are essential to the Christian Faith. I believe a person who has been regenerated by God the Holy Spirit and confessed Faith in Jesus Christ as their only Savior will come to believe these essentials. I would add at least one more as defined in the Chalcedon Creed {below} and perhaps others.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


http://carm.org/christianity/creeds-and-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-451-ad

I do not accept the Roman Catholic or Orthodox understanding of Mary as the Mother of God. She was the mother of the human nature of Jesus Christ. God has no Mother!

I would also add that Christians would do well to heed the words of Jesus Christ as given to the Apostle John and quoted above!

 

[OldRegular]

All too frequently people equate religious conservatives, those who hold to the fundamentals of the Faith, with those considered politically conservative. That is certainly not true in all cases though there are some on this Forum who are liberal politically and religiously.

I would note that Barry Goldwater was a political conservative but would be considered a religious liberal [Episcopalian] by many. I would also note that Pat Buchanan is considered a right wing nut by many but being Roman Catholic would be considered a religious liberal by many!

 

[John of Japan]

Historically speaking, you're correct. However, recent broader usages of the term "Fundamentalist" have come to mean those who are intolerant of any interpretation of scripture that differs from their own, and is now applied to anyone whose intolerance appears to be built around their own, very legalistic interpretation of any particular set of beliefs, such as "Fundamentalist Muslims," for example.

Lingistically speaking, the term has come to have a negative connotative meaning in addition to its historical denotative meaning. I consider this to be the fault of the leftist media, and am disappointed that good evangelical Christians have bought into it, as can often be seen on this forum.

I know Fundamentalist leaders who are aware of the negative connotations of the term but are not sure what to do about it. Our identity has been besmirched and stolen, and there is little we can do about it. However, that is true of Bible-believing Christians. We bear the "reproach of Christ" (Heb. 11:26) and are "outside the camp" with Him (Heb. 13:13).

This is one problem of the new evangelical approach. They want to be accepted by the world. They want new evangelical scholars to be respected by liberal scholars. It just doesn't happen!

I have heard the term "fundamentalists of the left" applied to those in the SBC conflict who left after the conservatives regained control of the denomination and formed their own groups, like the Alliance of Baptists and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Within those groups are those who push for ordaining women to serve as pastors, and ordaining gays and lesbians, and are so insistent upon their position that they want to break fellowship and exclude those who don't want to go that route. I don't know if the term has been applied from within the Episcopal Church or not, but their governing body is forcing acceptance of gay ordination on the church, even at the expense of losing members in droves, and in some cases, entire congregations. I've heard a few refer to those individuals as "fundamentalists of the left," though I don't know that the term has common use inside the Episcopal Church.

Thanks for this information. I didn't know this.

The term "fundamentalist" is becoming equated with "intolerant," regardless of the belief system involved.

This is due to Christians following the semantics of the secular press. Fortunately, in Japan the media uses a different term for "fundamentalism" for the Muslim radicals than do Christians over here.

 

[John of Japan]

John

I agree whole heartedly with you on the flag.

Would that our pastors and churches would think about this issue more deeply. I think we're past the point in America where we can hold up our society as "Christian" like we used to. Therefore, do we still want to give the message in our churches that fundamental Christianity = patriotism? Such a view is anathema on most mission fields of the world. Only in America!

 

[Yeshua1]

Lingistically speaking, the term has come to have a negative connotative meaning in addition to its historical denotative meaning. I consider this to be the fault of the leftist media, and am disappointed that good evangelical Christians have bought into it, as can often be seen on this forum.

I know Fundamentalist leaders who are aware of the negative connotations of the term but are not sure what to do about it. Our identity has been besmirched and stolen, and there is little we can do about it. However, that is true of Bible-believing Christians. We bear the "reproach of Christ" (Heb. 11:26) and are "outside the camp" with Him (Heb. 13:13).

This is one problem of the new evangelical approach. They want to be accepted by the world. They want new evangelical scholars to be respected by liberal scholars. It just doesn't happen!
Thanks for this information. I didn't know this.

This is due to Christians following the semantics of the secular press. Fortunately, in Japan the media uses a different term for "fundamentalism" for the Muslim radicals than do Christians over here.

Wouldn't the actual term trefer to mainly though tot he fact of Christians who choose to stand firm in the Fundamentals of the faith when Liberal christianity viewoints the Bible, cross, jesus hit the church?

 

[John of Japan]

Wouldn't the actual term trefer to mainly though tot he fact of Christians who choose to stand firm in the Fundamentals of the faith when Liberal christianity viewoints the Bible, cross, jesus hit the church?

"Standing firm" is the key. It does not make one a fundamentalist simply to believe in the fundamentals, since the 1950s New Evangelicals believed exactly like the fundamentalists on the fundamentals of the faith. I would go so far as to say "stand against" liberalism (not liberals, but their heretical beliefs). Many fundamentalists say separatism is necessary to be a fundamentalist, and I lean towards that. At the very least, being a fundamentalist will make the liberals and moderates separate from you, as seen in the SBC in recent years!