Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Hi
I'm not here to bash or criticize your fundamentalist tendancies. I'm just genuingely interested in hearing why you think so many people find your "brand" of Christianity so off putting.
Many, many, many people are off put in listening to or reading, especially from a Christian, who speaks or writes from the perspective or presupposition that absolute objective truth exists. The relative theory of truth has been taught and ingrained in so many, and from a young age. Personally, I believe in both, and in practice, people whether conscience or not, act as though they believe in objective truth all the time. An example, when the gates come down and the lights flash and alarms siren at a train crossing, do we stop or ignore them as something true for the passengers in our automobile, but not for us? I would hope not!
I'm not a big fan of stereotypes myself, and it's because of them I refrained so long from posting here, even though, I know I am a fundamentalist. Maybe it's impossible to totally escape stereotypes. At any rate, what exactly is a fundamentalist? Fundamentalism, as a label and movement within Christianity, arose in the late 19th to early 20th century. Here it should be noted that the core of Christian Fundamentalism, is nothing less than historical Christianity, which is to say, just because we're talking about a more modern movement, it doesn't follow the central tenants of the movement are also modern, because they are not. From Wiki...
" Fundamentalism had multiple roots in British and American theology of the 19th century.[9] One root was Dispensationalism, a new interpretation of the Bible developed in the 1830s in England. It was a millenarian theory that divided all of time into seven different stages, called "dispensations," which were seen as stages of God's revelation. At the end of each stage, according to this theory, God punished humanity for having been found wanting in God's testing. Secularism, liberalism, and immorality in the 1920s were believed to be signs that humanity had again failed God's testing. This means that the world is on the verge of the last stage, where a final battle will take place at Armageddon, followed by Christ's return and 1,000 year reign.[10] One important sign is the rebirth of Israel, support for which became the centerpiece of Fundamentalist foreign policy.[11]
A second stream came from Princeton Theology in the mid-19th century, which developed the doctrine of inerrancy in response to higher criticism of the Bible.[12][13] The work of Charles Hodge influenced fundamental insistence that the Bible was inerrant because it had been dictated by God and written by men who took that dictation. This meant that the Bible should be read differently from any other historical document, and also that modernism and liberalism were believed to lead people to hell just like non-Christian religions.[14]
A third strandand the name itselfcame from a 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.[15] Sponsors subsidized the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version[16] stressed several core beliefs, including:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis.
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
By the late 1920s the first two points had become central to Fundamentalism. A fourth strand was the growing concern among many evangelical Christians with modernism and the higher criticism of the Bible. This strand concentrated on opposition to Darwinism. A fifth strand was the strong sense of the need for public revivals, a common theme among many Evangelicals who did not become Fundamentalists. Numerous efforts to form coordinating bodies failed, and the most influential treatise came much later, in Systematic Theology (1947) by Lewis S. Chafer, who founded the Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924."
Personally I am not a Dispensationalist, and prefer not to be mistaken for one. However, I do believe the core beliefs quoted above. I am not ashamed to be associated with the Princeton theological giants like C. Hodge. I have not read all of the many many articles in the multi-volume "Fundamentals" book set, but I do own a set and know among other respected known authors, one of the many many authors is B.B. Warfield, another giant of the Reformed faith. I also know the set made Christianity Today's top 100 books of the century list years ago, if that's worth anything, perhaps not.
Like intolerant of fundamentalists? Or intolerant of Christians who believe in a young earth? Or intolerant of Christians who believe in absolute truth? Intolerance, I think, is something everyone has to deal with on a personal level, and does not characterize Fundamentalists. Some people become more tolerant with age, some people less tolerant with age. Really tolerance has nothing to do with fundamentalism or fundamentalists. I'd like to think I am tolerant of others, quite often far more tolerant than I ought to be, making compromises that do not agree with my faith. I could probably stand to be more intolerant of sin and those enticing me to do the same, it would help me in the long run.
I think most everyone can say they have struggled with Biblical interpretation and analysis at one time or another. I have to say, I am thankful to have taken a college course in biblical interpretation, it made a profound impact on how I interpret the bible, provided me with rules of interpreting. Some parts of the Bible are much easier to interpret than others. Anyone that cannot admit to struggling with biblical interpretation is only kidding theirself. Why do we have so many biblical commentaries, dictionaries, translations, etc.? To help us interpret the Bible. Why? Because we all struggle.
I fail to see how level of education, defines a fundamentalist. I have seen where non-fundamentalists attempt to make fundamentalists come off as uneducated morons. Well, personally I am a college drop out. I guess the shoe fits me on that one eh?
It may be that fundamentalists tend to be right wing, just as liberals tend to be left wing, however, I fail to see how one's political party plays into fundamentalism as outlined above. Personally, I am a conservative, I vote right-wing, but that is because a solid Christian independent will not win an election in America. I am not happy with politics in general, not satisfied with right or left wing politics. I think both are doomed to fail. However, there are certain moral issues within party politics, ones that should be 'red flags' for any halfway knowledgeable Christian with a conscience. I find the notion of Christians supporting a party that openly and obviously goes against biblical principals to be repulsive if not a mockery.
I'd say that most fundamentalists have never protested an abortion clinic, and neither is it a central tenant or ordination or initiation to being a fundamentalist. I have never protested an abortion clinic, however I am not against those who do, I am not intolerant of peaceful protests. I am opposed to the radical protesters whom have injured or killed people in the name of pro-life (kind of ironic eh?).
I despise most everyone equally without bias.
Let's just say, I like the Josh Thompson song that goes like this "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son."
Both of my parents love to hunt. I've gone hunting with them, even got a doe one year, but it's not for me, though I have nothing against, or lack of tolerance for those who do hunt. I should qualify that statement, or is it quantify, anyway I do not agree with trophy hunting purely for antlers/mount, what I mean is, if a person kills...say a deer, they should not waste the meat, it should at least go to someone who will eat it.
Seriously fundamentalist = racist? Not hardly. Seriously though, most of the Churches I've attended only had one race...white, but that's because there were not many other races in the area where I live. However, over the past ten or so years that has rapidly been changing. The Presbyterian Church I attend, people of different races are welcome and do attend. I've found most racists, tend to be left wing minority supporters. I didn't know fundamentalist take every word in the bible literally....I mean history is history, poetry is poetry. Surely fundamentalists agree that figurative language is used in poetry, and the Psalms contain much poetry, and that figurative language is found in prophecy, and parables and such. This fundamentalist doesn't take every word in the Bible literally, however I do prefer mostly literal Bible translations, and I would say there is more Scripture that should be taken literally than Scripture that is to be taken non-literally.
Caught me there, it has gone mad, but I do not see how it relates to the Christian fundamentalist movement.
No, certainly not. I've laid out what a fundamentalist is above, from Wikipedia. One of the common stereotypes surprisingly not mentioned, is young earth Creationism or maybe even old earth Creationists too, or Creationists in general.
Since I am a Christian fundamentalist my answer is of course biased, but to answer in a different way, I think what is most discrediting and embarrassing to Christiandom are those things, those many things which are not biblical, even contrary to the Bible. Those things which are so unbiblical, as to make non-believers laugh, even if in secret.
Upvote
0
