Un-fundamentals Christians?

Gina,

Would you please list the fundamentals of Christianity and which ones you think Joshua rejects (since we all know this is what this thread is about... ). The reason I ask this is because there may be some controversy as to what the fundamentals of Christianity are.

Joseph Botwinick

 

To many American Baptists I could be labelled liberal because I am not a dispensationalist. In Canada, I am a conservative, which is often interpreted in the USA as being liberal.

We have "liberals" in Canada who follow different theologies, but are as evangelical as the next person in relation to the gospel. I am afraid labels are often dangerous in philosophical fields.

I can even remember being called liberal because I did not accept a universal flood, but then the gap theory in Genesis was once a popular viewpoint, but is deemed ridiculous now.

I guess we all have hats to wear and only the other person can read the writing.

Cheers,

Just Jim

 

Good Morning all. Sorry I didn't get back to you last night but I was a little swamped. My posting will probably be a bit erratic since Advent is one of our busiest times of the year.

Gina, I have no problem with the fundamentals of Christianity. I do have several problems with Christian fundamentalism. To whit:

- despite all its protestations against modernism, fundamentalism is a movement completely defined by modernist propositions (i.e. to be "true" the Bible must be literally and historically accurate in all senses)

- in my opinion, fundamentalism offers an inconsistent hermeneutic; interpreting the Bible literally when it's convenient and metaphorically when it doesn't agree with a particular, socially conservative worldview

- fundamentalism essentially ignores the past 200 years of biblical scholarship

- fundamentalism chooses to reinforce some aspects of first century culture (oppression of women and homosexual persons) and ignores others (slavery) - hence my comment about bigotry

- in America fundamentalism has, for profoundly unbiblical reasons, aligned itself with the un-Christian political agenda of the Republican party; another sign that it is more rooted in a sub-culture than the Bible

- fundamentalism lends itself to a profound and sometimes laughable legalism

I'm sure I can think of other concerns, but that should give you some idea of where I'm coming from (although none of this can be much of a surprise).

As movements, classical and contemporary liberalism also have their failings - just as fundamentalism has its strengths. Thats one of the reasons I have great sympathy for neo-orthodox theology; which I think is of increasing relevance in a postmodern culture.

Joshua

[ December 02, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

http://www.bju.edu/aboutbju/pca/spring02.xml</font>[/QUOTE]BJU embodies most of the problems with fundamentalism.

How about if we all stay fundamentalists and they change theirname?

Mike

[ December 02, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]

 

Gina:

1. No contradiction at all. Fundamentalism is a movement that claims to built on the "fundamentals" of the faith, but the assumptions fundamentalist make about what is "fundamental" are by no means universal.

I have no dispute with the fundamentals listed by Bob and rsr, with the exception of the "separation from apostasy." In theory it sounds good, but in practice it smacks of a kind of anti-ecumenism I've always opposed.

2. Fundamentalists generally believe Genesis 1-11 has to be literally & historically true to be true. I do not, and I would argue that most Hebrew Bible scholars argue likewise.

3. The "living Word" is Jesus, not the Bible. Biblical interpretation is not a cut-and-dry matter (as we've discussed ad infinitum here). In my opinion, the fundamentalist hermeneutic is inconsistent.

4. Fundamentalism ignores any scholarship that challenges its preconceptions about the "true" meaning of Christianity. There's a difference.

5. I find the story of Sodom interesting as well, but I don't think it's a statement on healthy, committed homosexual relationships.

6. Destruction of the environment, favoring the interests of big-business over the interests of the poor, supporting the continued oppression of homosexual persons all come to mind. Many would argue that support for the death penalty falls into that category as well.

7. Liberal Christianity can (and in many cases does) offer a very strong and separatist statement of obedience. Fundamentalists somehow manage to never notice it.

8. I see your smiley, but "neo-orthodoxy" was a theological movement that placed responsible scholarship and social justice in the context orthodox faith.

Joshua

 

Alas,, Christian Fundamentalism is often not about Christian fundamentals at all, but more about a six day creation, prayer in schools, and abortion.

I cosider myslef a fundamental Christian. But I'm not a Christian Fundamentalist.

[ December 02, 2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

This is true only if you reject inerrancy and verbal inspiration of the Bible. Once the Bible is accepted, there are several "fundamentals" that come from a normal reading of the text along with many less clear issues that fundamentalists do not break fellowship over.

Please demonstrate how Christ or the Apostles favored unity over truth.

So in your world, the acknowledgement that there is an objective truth and that this truth has been revealed to us in scripture is inconsistent while rejecting these truths is consistent? How can you claim consistency when liberalism is based largely on the opinions of men rather than any objective standard?

Liberalism rejects any fundamental that challenges its preconceptions about the "true" meaning of Christianity.

The Bible calls it sin directly. The Bible calls it sin indirectly by condemning all sex outside of marriage while not ordaining any form of homosexual relationship. In short, there is no biblical basis for your supposed "healthy, committed homosexual relationships." You usurp the authority of God by attempting to define such a thing.

...as opposed to pseudo-science resulting in millions of burned acres due to poor forest management... not to mention what is for all intents and purposes a religion of nature worship.

To say that Democrats or even liberals are less guilty of this than Republicans is laughable. Big business execs are just as likely to be Dem as Rep. The "wealth" of conservatism and Republicans is small businesses.

This would be a fairly difficult thing to prove since they have above avg affluency. Additionally, there is no proof that the behaviour is anything but a moral choice. They are not being suppressed by the refusal to afford them special protections from us who find their "choice" immoral.

Of course!! "Nothing is inherently immoral except for absolutes and by extention those who promote the belief in absolutes... such as Fundamentalists.

So once again with your big broad brush, you label those of us who disagree with you as somehow ignorant. I, for one, notice that you attempt to promote an ethic. It is simply so convoluted and incoherent that only someone completely blinded by their own desire to define God outside of the Bible can swallow it.

The message being that only "scholarship and social justice" that agrees with your unbiblical opinions is responsible? How typically condescending of you.

 

Many Baptists and Baptist Churches encourage seperatism and some seperate over anything and everything. I love the fundamentals because I recognize them as the issues worth seperating over! Dr. Bob I always thought it was juyst the first 5 btw.

 

With no real desire to get in deep, I do want to clear up a couple of misconceptions that Joshua has propogated.

First, we must realize that there is a "popular" fundmentalism that is unfounded and does engage in some of the things that Joshua refers to. However, there is also historic fundamentalism that is vastly different. Just as there are "popular" liberals, there are popular fundamentalists. Joshua is an "educated" liberal, which makes his misconceptions and misstatements all the more amazing.

You would have a hard time showing this to be true using the theological definition of modernism. In fact, using proper definitions, your statement falls without comment. The doctrine of Scripture is a major part of fundamentalism proper and that is why you are not one -- you do not share our view of God's word.

Fundamentalism practices a "normal hermeneutic." The reason you think it is inconsistent is becuase you don't like where it takes you. Truth be told, you use our hermeneutic everyday on everything but Scripture. Your preconceptions lead you to use a different one for Scripture in order to support your conclusions.

Actually, fundamentalism has knowingly rejected the past 200 years of "biblical scholarship" since it has shown itslef to be neither biblical nor scholarship. It has gained a following among those who like its conclusions rather than its method. That is the problem with it. Its method was faulty. It is not as if fundamentalism (proper, not popular) is ignorant of this. We have read it, studied it, are familiar with it, and reject it because we find it incompatible with God's word.

Simply wrong. Fundamentalism does not participate in oppression of women or homosexuals. We exalt women to the place God ordained them rather than dragging them down to the level that the 20th century has. As for homosexuals, Scripture clearly condemns it and we offer them hope through redemption in Christ. Considering that "oppression" only comes from those who consider Christ not to be the hope for life.

The political issue is an interesting one. As a whole, the republican party values are closer to biblical values than democratic, particularly on social issues of life and responsibility. Politics are what they are. The vast majority of democractic values are so far out of line with Scripture, it barely merits comment.

There are some fundamentalists who do this to be sure but again, this reveals a failure to recognize the difference between fundamentalism and some fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism as a movement is probably over. It is an ideal to be sure. But in the broader scope of theology, philosophy, and life in general, fundamentalism offers a truly consistent approach to all of it. This is not to say that there are no fundamentalists with weaknesses. There are to be sure ... some even dead wrong on some things. Yet liberalism has repeatedly changed over the years because of its inability to deal with the issues. It is in constant need of revisionism and by its nature, it can tolerate that becuase it has not real answers anyway. It is always searching for new truth.

My last comment would deal with something Joshua said in an earlier post that demostrates the inherent fallacy of his position. He rejected separation from apostasy because it smacks of the anti-ecumenism that he hates. In such a statement, he reveals that his guide for truth is not Scripture but his own mind ("that which he hates); He shows that he is willing to admit the possibility that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven by refusing to stand vocally against those who would deny it.

This cannot be merely glossed over as an insignificant difference. It is a major problem with those who claim the Scripture. I think Scripture clearly refutes the kind of "christianity" that Joshua espouses. While he might have a personal distaste for some of fundamentalism, it is a far different matter to support and encourage the direct disobedience of Scripture and the offering of hope outside of Jesus Christ by the support and encouragement of apostasy. These are serious issues that remove one from serious discussion about biblical theology. Theology is may be; biblical it is not.

 

Speaking about "Biblical Scholarship", shouldn't we stress the Holy Spirit's role in critical study of the Scriptures?

 

Larry - Your points are well-taken, and I think generally reflect the differences of where we stand. It is fair to say that I am addressing the cultural phenomenon of "fundamentalism" as it is represented on this board and by figures like Jerry Fallwell and Bob Jones.

I would like to clarify my comments on apostasy. I am not from the "no creed but the Bible, anything goes crowd." My concern is that, in my experience, fudnamentalists have used lines like that one to draw absurd lines of separation (they dance, we don't, etc.). My commitment to ecumenism is not, however, a commitment to pluralism.

Gina - Regarding the virgin birth, I believe it because Christians have traditionally believed it and there is no compelling reason not to believe it. As Bob said, it's not a prerequisite for salvation or even an essential of the faith in my opinion. It does, however, make for a nice story on Christmas Eve.

As for the inspiration of the Bible, there is no contradiction between recognizing its inspiration and recognizing that several of the "books" were actually compilations.

I do not believe the Bible is the literal words of God. It is a collection of the writings which the children of God have recognized as authoritative and inspired over the centuries. Elevating it beyond that strikes me as idolatrous.

Joshua