My goodness. An “Episcopal Fundamentalist” from New Jersey?! 😉 Wow!
The Rev. Kenneth D. Aldrich’s op-ed is great reading. A loud Amen to his conclusion.
Confessions of an Episcopal Fundamentalist
07/15/2007
Fundamentalist: That abominable “f word;” so inimical to polite society in The Episcopal Church; the most offensive term of opprobrium the liberal religious establishment can use to demean its adversaries. It would seem that one may be almost anything in The Episcopal Church today except a fundamentalist.
Even in centers of American Anglican conservatism, this appellation is taboo. Calling someone at Ambridge or Nashotah a “fundamentalist” quite likely could result in your being regarded as a persona non grata on campus.
Over the course of my ministry, I began to notice that whenever my revisionist colleagues were not able to refute an orthodox argument, they could reduce their opponents to embarrassed stammerings of protested innocence, and thereby regain the upper hand, merely by declaring “You sound like a fundamentalist.”
After personally enduring this supercilious putdown on a number of occasions, I turned the tables on my antagonists by responding, “Yes, you’re right. What’s wrong with that?” This retort reduced opponents to stunned silence and forced the debate back to a reasoned discussion of the issues at point. The other side could no longer carry the argument by dismissively stigmatizing the traditionalists with a pejorative label.
As time went on, the more I owned up to being a “fundamentalist,” the more comfortable I felt with the appellation. What is so bad about affirming the fundamentals of the Christian faith set forth in the historic creeds of the Church?
During one of my interviews in the Ordination Process, one priest asked me: “Are you a fundamentalist?”
I responded: “What do you mean by ‘fundamentalist?'”
He said: “I’m asking the questions here.”
So, I replied: “If by ‘fundamentalist’ you mean someone who believese every word of Holy Scripture is literally true such that the world was created in six 24 hour periods known as days, then no. I am not one. However, if you mean someone who believes the fundamentals of the faith as set forth by the Nicene and Apostles Creeds and the Book of Common Prayer, then yes – I am a fundamentalist.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thank you Dr. Aldrich for a well-written, thoughtful exposition of what it means to be an Anglican “fundamentalist”. Very encouraging!
Phil,
Well said, sir! Recently, I have noticed that the phrase “Neo-Puritan” is starting to be used in a similar fashion. And much like “fundamentalist,” the people who use the term are not happy when you ask them what they really mean.
APB
Everyone is a fundamentalist. You simply need to identify those matters to which they hold as fundamental.
Those who use the word have little knowledge of the early strong roots of American fundamentalism towards the beginning of the 20th century, which outlined several “fundamentals of the faith” and was quite ecumenical, and then in successive generations declined into separatist, dispensational, non-denominational legalism.
Re #4
While there are undoubtedly lots of people whose head knowledge has never become personal knowledge, this is a false dichotomy, if I understand what you’re getting at by the bare quotation. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of knowing Jesus Christ personally by virtue of one’s also affirming the historic teachings of the Faith. The attempt to separate the two, and act as though the latter somehow stands in the way of the former, is in fact a time-honored liberal tactic designed to undermine the gospel message and substitute a religion of feeling and whim for Christianity. If this isn’t what you’re suggesting, say so plainly.
#1 Phil,
How did the ordination process turn out for you?
I am a fundamentalist, too. My retorts to their condescension: Are you a nonfundamentalist? a nonessentialist? an adiaphorist? an irrelevantist? an insignificantist?
This gentleman has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fundamentalism is.
Robroy
“I am a fundamentalist, too. My retorts to their condescension: Are you a nonfundamentalist? a nonessentialist? an adiaphorist? an irrelevantist? an insignificantist? ”
That is very good….I’m printing it, going to memorize it……and will use it…..thanks…..
This gentleman has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fundamentalism is.
As do the revisionists who attempt to use it as a slur. Sarah stated the case accurately, although I hasten to add that I’ve known true Fundies who were not legalists, and were lovely people to boot. It’s also worth noting that Fundamentalism derived, partly from the post-Darwin era, and the rise of rationalist biblical criticism. Therefore, science and history are important facets of what they mean when they speak of biblical inerrancy; while not all hold to the 24 hour day of creation, nor a young earth theory, I’ve never encountered a fundamentalist who didn’t believe in a literal Adam, Eve, Garden of Eden, and so on.
Time to speak up for us LGBT Christians (literate, godly, biblical, traditional)!
We’re here, we’re clear, get used to it!
Fundamentalism at its best believes: 1. the Bible is inerrant and must be interpreted in a common sense manner, 2. we did not evolve from earlier forms of life, but were directly created by God (as presented in Genesis), 3. the virgin birth was a biological phenomenon that miraculously brought forth the saviour of the world, 4. Jesus was crucified paying the penalty we all deserved and saves us through the shedding of his blood, 5. Jesus was bodily (carne-fleshly) resurrected from the grave and went into heaven to advocate on our behalf, 6. in order to have salvation we must be ‘born again’, that is experience a full spiritual encounter with God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Fundamentalism wasn’t devoid of philosophy (and as you see above theology). It generally followed the philosopher Sir Francis Bacon and the Scottish common sense philosophy of Thomas Reid. In its time it was a vibrant movement that appreciated the life of the mind and produced many great theologians.
Unfortunately, in current times fundamentalism has suffered a loss of the life of the mind and intellectual credibility due to its inability to come to grips with changing paradigms in science and philosophy. It is unable to compete in modern academia and has developed a siege mentality using the the defence of anti-intellectualism. The former Wheaton College faculty member (now at Notre Dame) Mark Noll states: “the scandal of the evangelical [in which he includes fundamentalists] mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
(literate, godly, biblical, traditional)!
And humble… don’t forget humble.
# 15 – hey, c’mon – just puttin’ the fun back in fundamentalism!
William #8 – Well, I am a Deacon in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I serve at St. James Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Dallas. I was ordained just over 3 years ago. For me, The Process (cue dramatic chord) was an emotional rollercoaster where everything I saw or heard or experienced either confirmed my call to ordained ministry (and thus was a “high”) or disconfirmed my call and brought me screaming back to earth. I learned so much during the process and there is nothing I went through that could not be used to further form me as a deacon.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Fr. Aldrich is a wonderful priest and his ministry in NJ is sorely missed. I understand his tactic of embracing the disparaging term revisionist opponents use against him, but I’m not sure the tactic works in this case. He’s most certainly NOT a fundamentalist in the way that term is historically understood. He has a deeply rational and thoroughly traditional Anglican understanding of the Christian gospel, which is hardly fundamentalist in the way historians of religion would use that term. I think Rev. Snyder’s strategy in this case is better than Fr. Ken’s, that is to ask: “What do you mean by ‘fundamentalist”? If by using the term “fundamentalist” you mean understanding Christian scripture in the manner in which the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ has historically understood and debated about the meaning of scripture, AND if you mean the way that the VAST majority of Catholic Christians today understand Scripture, AND if you mean the manner in which all recognizable branches of the Church Catholic understand Scripture, Yes, I’m a “fundamentalist.” I think it’s wise to challenge people when they use the term “fundamentalist” to define exactly what they mean, but less successful to simply embrace the term and then redefine it.
#9 & #11
I like this line of thought. Perhaps we could come up with a list: are you an obscurantist? a trivialist? a peripheralist? a prodigalist? an abandonist? an accommodationist? a dissolutionist? I like taking the offensive, so to speak.
And the LGBT thing is great–here, clear, and bi-testamental.
Virgil you write:
[blockquote]Fundamentalism at its best believes: 1. the Bible is inerrant and must be interpreted in a common sense manner, 2. we did not evolve from earlier forms of life, but were directly created by God (as presented in Genesis), 3. the virgin birth was a biological phenomenon that miraculously brought forth the saviour of the world, 4. Jesus was crucified paying the penalty we all deserved and saves us through the shedding of his blood, 5. Jesus was bodily (carne-fleshly) resurrected from the grave and went into heaven to advocate on our behalf, 6. in order to have salvation we must be ‘born again’, that is experience a full spiritual encounter with God through faith in Jesus Christ.[/blockquote]
Which, if any, of these do you believe?
RE: “As do the revisionists who attempt to use it as a slur.”
Bingo, Words Matter. This article is effective because it takes the [utterly false] definition that revisionists are using for the word “fundamentalists”, redefines it further, then presents it back to the revisionists with a bow and a smile. But there’s not an Episcopalian alive [or dead] who qualifies for the American separatist groups accurately called “fundamentalists”.
Still — the bow and the smile are nice. ; > ) And it’s important to point out, as he does, that when reappraisers attempt to insult, it’s not generally effective, since first a reasserter would have to be “insultable” by reappraisers.
Being retired, I no longer have a real business card; however, I had one printed up that identifies me not only as an “Old Duffer” but also as an “Anglican Fundamentalist”. I usually constrain myself to handing it out to Episcopals who cling to ECUSA. The usual reaction to the card is disbelief and no further comment.
Phil,
I too am your kind of FUNDAMENTALIST !
“This gentleman has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fundamentalism is.” Thanks for that put down, Brian #10. Let’s look at what the article says about fundamentalism:
+ [i]They affirm is that precisely because God the Holy Spirit inspired the books of the Old and New Testaments…are true and authoritative for all God’s people in all times and all places.[/i] I say, “Amen.”
+ [i]clearly affirm that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and Pharisaism is totally inimical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.[/i] I say, “Amen.”
+ [i]that God calls Christians to walk in newness of life as a grateful (and grace-filled) response to all that Christ has done for us…aligning one’s personal values, attitudes, and lifestyle with the timeless and ever timely principles and precepts set forth in scripture.[/i] I say, “Amen.”
+ [i]honest scholarship is highly prized and much encouraged in fundamentalist circles.[/i] I really say, “Amen” (holding two doctorates).
+ [i][We] are people of faith, embracing Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord.[/i] I say, “Amen.”
+ [i]without Christ’s redeeming and salvific love, humanity will surely perish, we take the great commission of Matthew 28:19-20 very seriously.[/i] I say, “Amen.”
So, Brian, sorry if it offends you, but yes, I am a fundamentalist.
#20…I believe in the <i>inspiration</i> of scripture, thevirgin birth, the atonement wrought by Jesus’ sacrifice, the bodily (corpus) resurrection of Christ, the ascension, the parousia of Christ, and yes, we must be born again (or from above) which as Episcopalians/Anglicans, we believe affected by the sacrament of baptism.
I do not interpret these beliefs as narrowly as fundamentalists do, but, I do believe they all have a factual basis. If they were not connected to the world factually (either empirically or ontologically), our beliefs would be a dillusion.
AMEN!
The word “fundamentalist” has been hijacked by the revisionists as surely and as deftly as they hijaced the Episcopal church.
When a MLB team reports to Spring Training, what do the players work on? The peripherals? No, the fundamentals of the game. To say a young player is fundamentally sound is high praise, indeed.
And if one is concerned with fundamentals, he is likely to be quite tolerant on matters that are not fundamental. The MDGs? You can take ’em or leave ’em. Immigration reform? The church has no fundamental position, except, perhaps, comlying with Romans 13. Tax laws? Not fundamental, other than don’t cheat. Minimum wage laws? If you can’t find the answer in Scripture, you can use your best judgment.
No, the Episcopal church is not fundamentalist. It is peripheralist. The strictness of its doctrine varies inversely with the specificity of Scripture on that particular point.
Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism.
Is that not where the issue is joined, these days?
Tell me, are we not in the midst of a grand debate about whether there are [b]fundamentals[/b] which can be held as normative?
• The Communiqué from [i]Dar Es Salaam[/i] certainly was based on fundamentals. The churches of the Southern Cone are certainly growing by emphasizing the fundamentals of the Christian faith in the Triune God. Each Bishop from the Southern Cone that I hear seems to have the same set of fundamentals on which they act and live.
• The responses, thus far, from TEc have certainly appeared to deny that there are fundamental issues of faith. What is most fundamental for TEc is the [b]canons[/b] of TEc, which are dispositive, especially as regards the physical plants of the various parishes therein, and the utterly sovereign voice of General Convention.
• Is a True Creator God, Who has spoken clearly and intelligibly through the Holy Scriptures to us, His creation, fundamental? Or did we invent God because we felt like it?
• Is a True Incarnate Son, come to save us from sin and death, and lead us to Everlasting Life, fundamental? Or is sin just a left-over from a pre-scientific view of the world?
• Must that Son be literally raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven in order for us to follow Him there? Or do all go to Heaven? Or is death the end?
My observation is that some revisionists prefer to set up straw men rather than deal with fundamental issues. Rather than demonstrating the intellectual superiority of the revisionist view, this shows instead an inability to consider ideas and a refusal to consider other points of view. Others, much more skillful with words, have pointed out that the term [b]liberal[/b] once meant capable of listening to others, but that liberal now means closed-minded.
It all comes back to the same question: “who do you believe?”
Science cannot tell us whether we (mankind) evolved or were created. The blunt fact is that we cannot go 10 million years or 100 million years into the past, start over, and watch the hypothesis of the evolutionary development of mankind all over again. So Science cannot have either proof or disproof of that particular evolution. Science can construct hypotheses and test them. Science cannot even point to an identifiable mechanism by which “good” changes in the reproductive cells of a male and female who will mate can happen on the same chromosome in the same place in such a way as to become hereditary, at least if one does not accept Lamarck.
By good changes I mean those which provide the heir with an increased likelihood of survival.
So whose word will you take?
robroy
I’m not offended by your or Aldrich+’s definition, it is simply wrong. Look at post #14 from Virgil and #6 from Sarah for the correct definition and history. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, it doesn’t offend me, it just perplexes me. But it takes all kinds.
There is often a battle between what words ought to mean, and what words are understood to mean in common usage.
A trivial example: in English, “a la mode” now means “with ice cream.” Is that what it’s supposed to mean? No, but if you see it on a menu, that’s what it does mean.
The way the word “fundamentalist” is used by most people in this country, it usually means “a biblical literalist” and quite often specifically “a young-earth creationist.” Is that what it should mean? No, not really; but if you’re conversing with someone and they use the word, odds are good that’s what they mean by it; and if you use it at them, odds are good that’s what they’ll assume you mean.
You can try to “educate” people about the proper meaning of the word, but at this point I think it’s a lost cause. At the very least, if you’re having a conversation that includes anyone outside of yourselves, you need to carefully define the term when you introduce it; otherwise people will assume you mean the popular definition and confusion will result.
Virgil, thanks. But then you go on to say: “I do not interpret these beliefs as narrowly as fundamentalists do but, I do believe they all have a factual basis.” And this qualification put us back at our starting point. In what way are these fundamental principles narrowly interpreted by us? That is in what since are you using the term fundamentalist? Ross says a biblical literalist, but again what is meant by that term? I take the Bible “literally”, but I am aware of the many different genres in Scripture. I am aware that hyperbole and poetic language is used. I think that when God says that there are to be no other Gods but Him is to be taken in the literal and plain meaning of the words used.
I think that all to often the intent is to shut us up by accusing us of being something we are not. If you want to accuse of of being “young earth creationists†then say so.
Brian says, Rev. Aldrich’s definition of fundamentalism “is simply wrong.” Wow, we have Mr. Semantics or Daniel Webster. No, your equating of fundamentalism with ignorant legalism is wrong and intentionally ascribes pejorative connotations where there are none. What the article discusses and you illustrate is how revisionists, when flustered, attempt to resort to ad hominem by dismissing those who are besting them with the moniker “fundamentalist.”
#31…I agree that we use the term fundamentalist in a pejorative sense, which is just ignorance or an ad hominem way of avoiding dialogue and rational argument.
Today, many Christians (including fundamentalists) are de facto logical positivists, rejecting all metaphysics as meaningless or as unreal. So, when I talk about the “meaningfulness” of the resurrection in metaphysical terms, and not in empirical terms, it is assumed I don’t believe in the resurrection, when actually I believe in its factuality.,
When God enters into our experiential sphere (incarnation), he is ‘reality to us’. But does this mean he isn’t also ‘reality beyond us’? Of course not! But those two designations, traditionally expressed in the terms transcendence and immanence are important, but artificial ways of explaining the one reality by dividing it into parts.
An analogy in the Bible is the use of merismus where the universe (Gen 1.1) is broken up into two parts: sky and earth. There is only one universe, but we see it in two aspects as if there were two separate realities, which is an artificial construction.
There is a natural utility to taking the fundamentals of our faith at face value, to live in the story because it is real, and to really take up a part in the Christian story. Borg’s approach, for example, is an attempt to access the truth of our faith through a metaphorical approach. There is always some distance through this kind of method. Now this distance is desire d if you want to manipulate the story to suit your own agenda. Ironically, the primary goal of such methods is to allow the doubtful a way of fooling themselves into believing so they can access the blessings that come with true faith.
I have recently been telling people how much I admire a fundamentalist approach to the faith for the very reason of the immediate connection to or faith that true belief grants. So I am pleased to see this discussion going on for so long. The public usually means ‘Militant Fundamentalist’ when they critique the psychological out look of fundamentalism. There are many beautiful spirit-filled believers in communities that hold Fundamentalist teaching. They enjoy a directness of expression and experience that the doubtful cannot. I have chosen the doubters path in the past, and find the faithful direct path profoundly rewarding. Far from narrowing my view it opens me up to the enormity of the house of He who has called us.
Unfortunately, when it comes down to my faith is better than your faith and I am therefore holier than thou, the underlying message can go right out the window. And you lose people who might have become interested and end up embroiled in disparaging one another. I don’t think that is what the Gospels intended us to do.
#34…I don’t see Borg, or the metaphorical approach, as an attempt to manipulate the story to suit his own agenda, but as a means to make sense for today of the Gospel within the scope of his subjectivist postmodern thought. Now, as with all interpretative models, it has the objective limitations of the philosophy behind it. If I were to critique his approach, I would accuse it of being too closely attached to a cultural subjectivism and relativism. Is such a cultural subjectivism an accurate reflection of reality? It has its good points (understanding metaphor is important), but as an overarching theory
meaning, it fails.
The author of the very first essay in _The Fundamentals_ (from which the movement got its name) was an Anglican canon, Dyson Hague. Several other Anglicans/PECUSAns contributed essays.
The essays are online here:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm
No, your equating of fundamentalism with ignorant legalism is wrong and intentionally ascribes pejorative connotations where there are none.
I did no such thing. I stated the fact that Fundamentalism and Fundamentalists believe in inerrancy of the Scripture. You are obsessed with what the article said, but you are not reading any actual sources (nor apparently my posts)
Re #29
I’m sorry I misunderstood what you were seeking to communicate. What I do not understand is why you quoted the passage from the article and then seemed to juxtapose it with Chambers’ quote attacking the substitution of “credal faith” for “personal faith.” The juxtaposition seemed to be suggesting that Aldrich was guilty of what Chambers was condemning. Perhaps you could explain what you were getting at.
RE: “The way the word “fundamentalist†is used by most people in this country, it usually means “a biblical literalist†and quite often specifically “a young-earth creationist.—
Maybe — but that’s not how Episcopal revisionist activists use the word. They use it if you 1) believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, 2) believe that Jesus was God, 3) believe that the New Testament clearly speaks about the immorality of same-gender sexual relations, 4) believe in baptism before communion, and 5) don’t believe in [insert any random progressive innovation here].
Which is precisely what this article is addressing. If a reasserting Episcopalian says what they believe, the revisionist Episcopal activist says “ah hah — you’re just a fundamentalist” — and this article writer has nicely announced that he doesn’t give a tinker’s *** whether the progressive activist chooses to call him that or not.
Though neither the progressive Episcopal activist, nor this article writer uses the definition appropriately for the American separatist Christian sects that are still common here, that’s neither here nor there. The writer “calls the bluff” of the progressive Episcopal activists’ rhetorical sophistry, and I smile and say “good on ya, mate!” ; > )
T19 Brian – There is a certain ignorance among many Episcopalians about things biblical, because many Episcopalians are biblically illiterate, albeit otherwise “educated”. If the average Episcopalian went on safari to the wilds of ‘fundamentalism’, as I did for 14 years in a Foursquare Church, one takes in by spiritual osmosis, if nothing else, the comparatively rarified air of people who, as a group, in comparison to their Episcopalian brothers and sisters in the Lord, are walking a daily walk of sanctification, a term rarely discussed in Episcopalian circles I’ve experienced [ except a Nigerian one in LA ]. Christians are to be judged , says the Lord, by their fruits. If that be the case, what are the Christian fruits of TEC the last 30 years? In my opinion, the average evangelical Christian will demonstrate a far greater knowledge of how the bible affects his/her daily than will the average Episcopalian, simply because they are trying to live it out in their ‘walk with the Lord’; a manner suggested by the bible, and from that experience they derive a hopefully closer understanding of the ‘truth’ of the bible. They really tithe. They speak in tongues. They pray every day. They really believe that three or more in prayer is a powerful thing. They are, in many ways, separated from the world, yet they are in it. They live as the early Christians did [ and as I did ] in ‘discipleship living’ environments for the purpose of building each other up spiritually [ we are al weak ] . Evangelicals bring their bibles to church and their bibles tend to be full of notes and raggedy around the edges from use as constant “reference” books. Your and others’ use of the term ‘fundamentalist’ as a weapon reflects a confrontational mode not unlike that suggested in #1 above by Philip Snyder’s experience. It is interesting to note that there were no more sacrifices a la the Hebrew Bible [ Old Testament ] after the Crucifixion: no goats, no sheep, no sons, no nothing. That, to me, is pretty ‘fundamental’. The term ‘fundamentalism’ is a 19th C. construct. It is used in a pejorative sense by you and others [ it’s ‘wrong’]. It’s not necessarily a biblical concept, but a Protestant put-down. It is, in my opinion, intellectually disingenuous to suggest that science has left ‘fundamentalists’ behind. Those scientists involved in the drama of the latest Hubbell telescope suggest that the findings of that instrument have reinforced the biblical concept of the Big Bang. Several years ago scientists in Israel, as reported in the LA Times, reported biological matter was seen to become real from desert mud. These are ‘fundamentalist’ biblical concepts in nature. As to whether the earth was formed in 7 days, and as to how the Resurrection occurred, I do not think a guy at Wheaton has the final answer, but I think people who attempt to walk the walk are to be given slightly more credence then those who simply talk the Virginia Theological Seminary talk.
[blockquote] There is a certain ignorance among many Episcopalians about things biblical, because many Episcopalians are biblically illiterate, albeit otherwise “educatedâ€. [/blockquote]
They must have read some of the Bible – they do seem to know that Leviticus mentions something about shellfish…
I have remarked before – maybe too often – that it is a contemporry custom to black out a word’s denotation for the sake of creating a set of connotations which serve one’s agenda. We have seen this with tolerance, gay, inclusiveness, multi-culturalism and fundamentalism. Because they have lost their denotations in the vulgate, they have become snarl words (or purr words) which tell us nothing about the respondent, much about the speaker. They are useful as cliches are useful; they are thought substitutes. We have come to call this the bumper-sticker mentality (a nice and telling phrase) for a culture whose attention span is limited to what can go on a bumper sticker. The author here is trying to reestablish fundamentalist’s denotation. But it is too late. The word has been destroyed as a conveyor of meaning because it has become a conveyor or feeling, of attitude. The word is now useless because every use which diverges from the vulgate will require an essay for its redefinition. LM
Sarah
I believe in the first four of your assertions. Does that make me a Fundamentalist;-)
Juandeveras,
Great post! As were many others.
I’ll admit I’m a fundamentalist. Always have been and will be.
Brian from T19, here’s something for you.
Definition of Inerrancy
Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences.
http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancyTOC_Gerstner.html
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm
……………………………………………………………………………
Fundamentalism originally referred to a movement in North American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism , stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. This original “fundamentalism” holds as essential to Christian faith five fundamental doctrines:
the inerrancy of the Bible,
the Virgin birth,
physical resurrection,
atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and
the Second Coming.
Brian writes, “You are obsessed with what the article said.” Well, I thought it was a pretty good article, but I haven’t wallpapered my bedroom with it…yet. I haven’t started the perseveration, either.
I see now. You confuse Fundamentalists with inerrantists. Fundamentalism is much more than inerrantism. But because we believe that Scripture is God given, we don’t play fast and loose with it (e.g., KJS’s ridiculous statement about David and Jonathan being homosexual lovers, see Anglican TV # 30 or the dismissal of interdictions against homosexuality as being merely historical statements).
Re 3: I am proud now to be a Neo-Puritan. And believe it or not, Puritan and Reformed churches are making a big comeback, mainly filled with young people. See http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html
In addition to the Presbyterian church I now go to, I often visit a nearby Reformed Baptist church (Calvinists who believe in believer’s baptism). The Reformed Baptists have wonderful inspiring services, mainly singing a capella (sometimes with a violin and viola accompanying) the old hymns and the Psalter, reading portions of the Westminster Catechism, and wonderful preaching directly from the Bible. Its simplicity is a breath of fresh air compared to the “productions” that many churches put on now to entertain people. And it’s packed with primarily 20-30 year olds.
You confuse Fundamentalists with inerrantists.
I really can’t help the fact that people do not understand what it is they claim to believe. Fundamentalists are inerrantists. There are some who have modified this view to the less restrictive infallibility, but they are not actually Fundamentalists.
In my perspective, Fundamentalists also believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of them, and this often makes them targets for derision. Many probably also like to dance and shout in church. I wonder when the last time an Episcopal danced and shouted rejoicing before the Lord in an Episcopal church.
I believe the opposite of a fundamentalist is a reappraiser. Any time I referred to scripture as having something to say I can expect to be hit with the “f” word. Terry Fullam used to talk about fundamentals without fundamentalism.
35. Pilgrim wrote:
Unfortunately, when it comes down to my faith is better than your faith and I am therefore holier than thou, the underlying message can go right out the window. And you lose people who might have become interested and end up embroiled in disparaging one another. I don’t think that is what the Gospels intended us to do. ____________________________________________________________
Not sure if you were responding to mine, #34, or in general, but you raise an important point. Are we discussing aesthetics here? Are we discussing unimportant differences, or just fringe issues? Probably a bit of both. Taking the faith as received, and taking it seriously does not exempt us from self-reflection.
I think the differences in approach we discuss in this forum shape very different forms of faith; perception and practice. That is why we are struggling as a communion. My personal wander has led me from a fairly literalist upbringing to eventual dissolution leading to an unbelieving secularism. Upon Christ’s recalling to his house I made a bargain that I would return, but not if I had to take any of this stuff literally. Slowly my faith has been nurtured toward a straight-forward acceptance of the facts of our faith. I have ‘believed’ in different ways, and as such am patient with the processes of others. I do not think this means that we are all right as we move along. I have found a bargained faith more limited. I am not saying, “My faith is better than your faith.†I am saying, “My faith to day is better that it was before.â€
A challenge is put to all of us who think an orthodox view is virtuous in its difference from the various contemporary schemes. Why? Is it simply normatively correct? Or is there an observable difference? Will this difference be witnessed in our lives?
I embrace the fundamental tenets of Christianity. Period.
T
I grew up as a fundalmentalist and was well exposed to it for about 40 years. Rev. Aldrich is correct in his asessment. There were many highly educated men in the movement. Further there were two camps of 1) extreme separatists and 2) moderates. The former were separated from and proclaimed heretical any association with others of different viewpoints from their own. The latter held to the frundamentals as expressed in the early 1900’s including:
1. the inerrancy of the Bible,
2. the Virgin birth,
3. physical resurrection,
4. atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and
5. the Second Coming.
They allowed for differences in polity, secondary theological issues, etc. Many of the moderates later described themselves as “evangelicals.” They alligned themselves with such schools as Dallas Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Biblical Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, Talbot Theological Seminary, etc.
My understanding of the original meaning of “fundamentalism” is that it was originally a Presbyterian issue, not Pentecostal or Charismatic, like a lot of people seem to think today.
In the early 1900s there were two camps in the Presbyterian Church (the main group of Presbyterians, which today is called the Presbyterian Church of the USA). One group, like those in a lot of other mainline denominations of the time, believed the Presbyterians had to become more “relevant” and “modern” and emphasize things like social change, progressivism, etc. They believed, to a greater or lesser extent, as a result of “Higher Criticism analysis,” that the Bible really was not authentic. They also wanted to re-write and modernize the Westminster Confession of Faith, the core document of the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions. There was a lot of debate on changing the standards of ordination, so that ministers no longer had to affirm the basic principles of the Christian faith in order to be considered qualified. (Is all of this starting to sound familiar?)
The other faction, led most prominently by Professor J. Gresham Machen at Princeton Theological Seminary, believed that Presbyterians should stick with the “fundamentals,” following what the Bible taught rather than trying to change to fit modern culture, and following the principles set forth in the Westminster Confession.
Machen and other like-minded Presbyterians believed that trying to conform to the world would eventually destroy the church.
The liberal part of the church started to make fun of the traditionalists, and labeled the traditional Reformed Christians derogatorily as “fundamentalists.”
If you are a “fundamentalist,” though, it simply means you believe the 5 core principles (the Five Fundamentals):
1. The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
2. The virgin birth of Christ.
3. The belief that Christ’s death was an atonement for sin.
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5. The historical reality of Christ’s miracles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist-Modernist_Controversy
Princeton, then the primary seminary for the Presbyterians, was split into two camps along these lines. Eventually, the progressives won in the church and Machen and the part of the faculty that agreed with him left the seminary and the main Presbyterian Church. They formed a new seminary called “Westminster” and organized a new church called the “Orthodox Presbyterian Church.” It was actually the scholarly part of the church that left, and Machen is considered the last of the great “Princeton Theologians,” a line which started with Jonathan Edwards (who actually was only president of Princeton a very short time before he died).
So the original “fundamentalists” weren’t really the same as what people think today. The original term “fundamentalist” got picked up by the popular press and applied to all sorts of “Bible thumpers.” But the original issue was whether the church should stick with the basics or not. I, for one, think Machen was absolutely right, as ECUSA, PCUSA and other “relevant” churches are finding to their dismay today as people are leaving in droves for churches that have not watered down the message of the Christian faith.
Anglican Charles Spurgeon might be considered a ‘fundamentalist’. Anglican C.T. Studd, a cricket star from Eton and a member of a group of missionaries from Cambridge called the ‘Cambridge Seven’ , attended a Moody revival meeting in England, committed his life to the Lord, and spent the rest of it as a missionary in China, India and Africa with his missionary wife. I imagine he would have considered himself a ‘fundamentalist’. John Stott, another Anglican, might also be included in such a group. Oswald Chambers, author of ‘My Utmost for His Highest’, a wonderful daily missive based on biblical teachings, might as well. Fundamentalism in America took a dive publicly after the Scopes Trial, but persisted under the radar. More recently, in the ’60’s, an Episcopal priest in Van Nuys, CA, Dennis Bennett, wrote a book called ‘Nine O’Clock in the Morning’, wherein he promulgated speaking in tongues, the gifts of the spirit et cetera. At present, Jack Hayford, of the pentacostal-based ‘ Church on the Way’ in Van Nuys, CA, and currently head of Foursquare International, whose offices on Echo Park Lake in LA are literally a stone’s throw from those of Jon Bruno, seems to have inherited the mantle of those mentioned above – a highly knowledgeable, biblically-based God-fearing Christian leader who calls a spade a spade.
And finally, a quote from C.S. Lewis, not necessarily a ‘fundamentalist’, but a worthy spokesman for that tradition and his comment on what he believes can go wrong when we veer, as Christians, away from where we are supposed to be:
” When Catholicism goes bad it becomes the world-old, world wide religion of amulets, and holy places and priest craft; Protestantism, in its corresponding decay, becomes a vague mist of ethical platitudes”. [ ‘Pluriform truth’ might be a worthy example of such a platitude ].
Jim the Puritan is right. Fundamentalism was birthed by a controversy in the Presbyterian church. One of my seminary professors, was heavily involved in the controversity at the time. The issue was the authority of Scripture.