What is a Fundamentalist?
Thomas Hankin
Mark and Bev Tindall
> What does Fundamentalist mean to you?
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday, Sydney: 1995)
pp 36 -42
*********************************************
The word 'Fundamentals' in this context - in the sense of certain doctrines
or elements which are foundational to Christianity, and in the absence of
which it would cease to exist or at least no longer be recognisable as
Christianity-was first used in the early part of this century in the USA and
of course gave rise to the term Fundamentalism. In due course a consensus
formed in Fundamentalist circles that there were five such Fundamentals~ the
infallibility of scripture, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the
Virgin Birth, and atonement through the blood of Christ. And it was made
clear both to Fundamentalists and to those outside the magic circle that
unless you accepted each of these articles of the faith and 'believed' them,
then you were not properly speaking a Christian.
The main reason for identifying and setting out these Fundamentals was the
encroachment on traditional belief which had been made by biblical
scholarship, or 'modernism' as the Fundamentalists called it. For example,
the suggestion that the Bible should be viewed in principle like any other
historical document, was abhorrent to the conservative Christian mind, which
rather saw in the divine origin of the Bible the guarantee of salvation: if
you attacked the status of the bible you were attacking the Christian faith
at its foundation, at its Fundamentals. Similarly if you suggested that the
Virgin birth stories were legendary and arose out of a desire that prophecy
should be fulfilled, or if you understood the resurrection of Jesus as a
symbolic story intended to convey his enduring presence, or if you claimed
that a proposition like 'the Word was made flesh' was unintelligible in the
twentieth century and that Jesus was simply a human being (although a human
being with a unique insight into the nature of God), or if you questioned
an objective connection between the death of Jesus and the reconciliation to
God of sinful humanity-in all these cases you were fundamentally undermining
Christianity. The time had come, thought the Fundamentalists, for a clear
statement to be made of the essentials of the faith, so that the faithful
should know just what it was they were expected to believe, and so that
Christianity could look 'modernism' squarely in the eye and say 'Thus far
and no further'.
Of course there was nothing new in all this. The historic creeds of
Christianity in the third and fourth centuries were drawn up for very much
the same reasons. Various adventurous minds had explored the implications of
the Christian faith in new directions and in the light of different
philosophical backgrounds. In some cases 'the Church' decided that their
conclusions or tentative suggestions were dangerous to the stability of
what the majority considered to be common ground-in other words, orthodoxy.
The Church thought it necessary therefore to formulate that common ground in
a coherent statement, both to lend official weight to orthodoxy and to
identify and exclude what it deemed to be heretical. So that the various
elements in the creeds-the creation, Jesus as the son of God, the trinity,
the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of the body, the forgiveness of sins, and
so on-could very well be described as the Fundamentals of early orthodox
Christianity
There are, however, certain problems associated with any such attempt to lay
down what is essential to the faith or that by which, in a historic phrase
the Church stands or falls. First of all there is the practical question of
who decides. In a period where there is a universal Church, when everyone is
a Christian and the only dispute is whether they are orthodox or heretical,
it is relatively simple: the Church decides. But what happens when the
Church begins to fragment into various denominations, and the 'Fundamentals'
of a particular denomination are different from those of another, each
claiming to be orthodox? What happens when the Fundamentals of a Christian
movement which claims to be impeccably conservative are different from the
Fundamentals of early Christian orthodoxy? Is there not, for example,
something odd in the fact that Fundamentalism's five Fundamentals do not
include everything in the classic Christian creeds?
And that leads to the second problem, a logical problem. What is the status
of those elements of Christianity which are not included in the
Fundamentals? Take the residue of the Apostles' Creed which is not covered
by the five Fundamentals of Fundamentalism: for example, the creation and
the Holy Spirit. Does their absence from the Fundamentalists' creed imply
that they are unimportant, optional, mistaken? I suppose the Fundamentalists
would argue that their insistence on the infallibility of the Bible takes
care of the creation and the Holy Spirit, but in that case why single out
the resurrection and the virgin birth for special mention? Is it in fact
possible for any movement claiming to stand in the tradition of orthodoxy to
make any pronouncement at all on the Fundamentals of the faith, which does
not simply repeat previous such pronouncements? In other words, can
something which has once been stated to be fundamental to Christianity ever
cease to be fundamental?
The third problem is partly logical and partly psychological. The
implication of the Fundamentalists' Fundamentals is that you must believe
them before you can claim to be a Christian. But how can you be required to
believe anything? Does the formulation 'You must believe' make any sense at
all? We do not in fact decide what to believe or if we do we are misusing
the word 'believe'. The content of a belief constrains us to believe. To
that extent it does make sense to say I must believe it: I must believe it
because it's true. But I cannot be compelled to believe anything by external
authority, not just because l might wish to resist that authority but becau
e belief cannot be coerced.
Now if the Fundamentalists say that they are simply stating in their
Fundamentals what is true, and that is why I must believe them, the question
naturally arises: what about all the other aspects of Christianity, the
non-Fundamentals? Are they less true, or untrue? It seems that any statement
of what must be believed can only apply
to the whole of Christianity, that is, to the whole truth. Once the
Fundamentalists attempt to concentrate on 'Fundamentals' then either they
become logically incoherent or they are in fact trying to force us to
believe, which is impossible.
But the most important objection to Christian Fundamentals, or essentials
of the faith, is a theological objection: the whole idea of an irreducible
minimum of belief is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. It is not easy
to explain why, except obliquely - by saying, for example, in Kierkegaard's
arresting simile, that it is like trying to paint the god Mars in the armour
which made him invisible. I was once asked on a radio program to sum up in
one sentence the message of Jesus. I racked my brains feverishly for a
minute, but then I thought, 'No, why should I play this game?' if Jesus
could have said in a single sentence why he had come, then it would have
been quite unnecessary for him to come at all - except in order to utter
that sentence.
We live of course in an age of definitions. There are so many rival messages
and so much competition for media space and time that we have to be able to
convey instantly what it is that is distinctive about us, or else people
will have lost the thread or lost interest. But the trouble with definition
is that - by definition - it puts limits on things. When you define you
exclude: if you define what you stand for, you simultaneously distance
yourself from everything else.
Now if someone comes with a message about the love of God, a love which is
absolute in the sense that it reaches everywhere and covers every situation,
which cannot be excluded, which is entirely without condition but which can
only be responded to adequately by completely surrendering ourselves to
it-how can such a message possibly be defined? Because to define the love of
God would be to exclude the situations to which it did not apply, or to lay
down the conditions on which it could be won, or to indicate the appropriate
ways of responding to it in particular circumstances. Such a message can
only be conveyed indirectly, by hints, by deeds, by stories.
That is why Jesus spoke so much in parables: not out of condensation to an
illiterate audience, or, as the gospels on sometimes suggest, to prevent
outsiders from understanding what he meant, but because only the parables
with their 'it is like' formula, are adequate to something as elusive and
all embracing as the love of God. You cannot for example decode the parable
of the prodigal son, and say that Jesus is here teaching us that God's love
knows no barriers, or forgives everything, or is always there waiting for
us. Such impersonal, generalised abstractions do no justice at all to the
parable, which can only be grasped if you have had a prodigal son yourself,
or been one yourself, or can imagine what it is like to have or be one-and
then there is nothing more to say. All that needs to be done with the
parable is to repeat it.
And the same argument applies to Christianity as a whole, or to the life and
death and teaching of Jesus as a whole. You cannot generalise or abstract
certain principles or 'Fundamentals' and attach some saving significance to
them, or make of them a test of allegiance and put everything else on the
level of non-essential or optional or whatever. Of course it is entirely
understandable why people should want to do so. As Dostoevsky's Grand
lnquisitor saw so clearly, people don't want freedom, they want to be told
what to do. And psychologically there is nothing more satisfying than a rule
book, or a party manifesto, which tells you simply and categorically just
what you should do and what you should believe. And that psychological need
is so great that you remain blind to the fact that a religion which wants to
~~ from rules and exclusiveness and seeing God as a possession, and to open
you up instead to the absolute love of God is immediately involved in a
hopeless contradiction whenever it allows itself to be reduced to certain
essentials or 'Fundamentals'.
Undeterred, however, the Fundamentalists might reply that their beloved Paul
himself thought in this way when he said, 'If Christ has not been raised,
your faith is futile'. Isn't this a classic example of identifying a
Fundamental of the faith-- the resurrection? There are several possible
answers. One is that the appeal to the Bible as the rule book which decides
the issue simply proves my argument. Another is that Paul himself may be
succumbing here to the same psychological need for abstractions and
generalities, and that two blacks don't make a white.
A third possible answer is that there is a difference between on the one
hand a necessary condition, a causa sine qua non or a cause without which
the effect would not have taken place, and on the other hand a
'Fundamental', an essential ingredient. For example, your mother-in-law is a
causa sine qua non of your marriage: if it weren't for her your wife and
therefore your marriage would not exist. But it is not necessarily the case
that your mother-in-law is 'fundamental' to your marriage in the sense that
your marital bliss is inseparably bound up with her. In the same way it is
no doubt a necessary condition of Christianity that Christ should have
lived and died, but it would be superfluous to insist on these facts as
Fundamentals of the faith, unless of course someone were to deny them-as
indeed was the case with the early heresy called Docetism (from the Greek
'to seem'), according to which Christ was entirely divine and only 'seemed'
to be human.
But there is a fourth answer, and that is that when Paul speaks about the
resurrection of Christ he is not laying down something which you must
believe before you can call yourself a Christian; what he is doing is
describing his own experience of Christ, and therefore what Christianity
means to him. He is in fact taking up a position which is diametrically
opposite to that of Fundamentalism, and saying that Christianity has nothing
to do with propositions or formulations of essential ingredients: it is the
lived experience of the living Christ.
And in that sense Christianity is incommunicable, in any direct sense. It
doesn't proceed on the analogy base camp in mountaineering, and 'teach'
certain minimum beliefs which you can then build upon for the purposes of
your individual attempts to climb higher, but below which you need never go
in refreshing yourself and taking stock. Much more apt is the anaIogy of the
pilgrimage or voyage, which is different for everyone, and on which you
never come back to the same point.
It is your pilgrimage, your voyage, and no one else has ever taken exactly
the same route. You can get advice from other people, hints on the sort of
things that might happen to you and the sort of things you might do; but no
one can travel with you, far less instead of you. And dictating to you the
Fundamentals of Christianity, telling you what you must believe js
precisely trying to travel with you or instead of you.
And, as if to prove a point, it is on this question of the incommunicability
of Christianity that the Fundamentalists really become angry. They quoted a
sermon of mine on the subject at one stage in the heresy proceedings,
without comment, as if I was condemned out of my own mouth. Because it is
here that we are fundamentally opposed. The whole basis of their religion is
that it offers salvation through acceptance of propositions about God and
Jesus Christ-the Fundamentals of Christianity. And their whole purpose as
Christians is to persuade themselves and others to accept these
propositions, to be converted. But that is precisely why they will never be
converted. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus offers freedom to the Jews but in
reply they deny that hey have ever been slaves. You cannot liberate those
who think they are free. You cannot convert a Fundamentalist.
****TBC****
"Thomas Hankin" <thomas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D51EACBF5B0th...@66.185.95.104...
> What does Fundamentalist mean to you?
Lets break it down, shall we?
Ok!
The first part of the word is "Fun", and the second is "Da", short for "Day"
and so we see "Fun day" and shouldn't everyday with Jesus be a "Fun Day",
yes indeed!
Next we have "mental" so that diffidently makes me a fundamentalist.
And last but not least we have "List" and yes here again I am one cause of
course you known,
I have a list for everything!!!
(TBC)
alexiastation
"****TBC****" <moun...@nospamfuse.net> wrote in message
news:408a562b$0$73091$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
count on you LOL.
Blessings,
Beth
Eric Fisher
individual who is skeptical of new methods and ideas and trying to draw
the focus to what they consider to be the bare basics.
i notice the tag has been worn by, and thrown on, many different types.
Brenda G. Kent
> What does Fundamentalist mean to you?
Bigotry.....my way or the highway.
Taking things to the literal and no room for interpretation.
Ego taking over..."us and them " mentality. Exclusionary.
Disrespect for others. The outer way...superficial...kindergarten
level.
That's my opinion.
Blessings
Bren.
Brenda G. Kent
Good quotes!
Blessings
Bren.
Brenda G. Kent
Fundamentalist to me...means paranoia.
Blessings
Bren.
Thomas Hankin
> What does Fundamentalist mean to you?
>
From the New World Dictionary of American English:
Fundamentalism: 1. Religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of
the Bible, regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals 2. the
20th-cent. movement among some American Protestants, based on these beliefs
- fundamentalis adj.
Griz
>What is a fundamentalist to you?
Hmm . . a real head-scratcher that one!
Maybe that's someone who's focus is on the fundamentals of the Gospel of
Christ and the fundamental guidelines for operation of the body of Christ
(and the individual members thereof) as spoken of in Scripture. They find
the fundamentals of God's character woven all throughout Scripture and
fundamentally, accept it as God's Holy and plenary word, unified and useful
in all situations. There are fundamentals to human nature that basically
put is all in the same boat spiritually (a sinking boat), and the
fundamentals of God's plan of Salvation save us out of that situation and
make us joint-heirs of eternity with Christ Jesus.
Fundamentally speaking of course
But personally I have no idea where we picked up the name "Fundamentalist"?
Fundamentally yours,
Griz
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > What does Fundamentalist mean to you?
>
> Bigotry.....my way or the highway.
> Taking things to the literal and no room for interpretation.
> Ego taking over..."us and them " mentality. Exclusionary.
> Disrespect for others. The outer way...superficial...kindergarten
> level.
>
>
> That's my opinion.
... and mine.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> >What is a fundamentalist to you?
...
> Maybe that's someone who's focus is on the fundamentals of the
> Gospel of Christ and the fundamental guidelines for operation of the >body
of Christ (and the individual members thereof) as spoken of in
> Scripture.
Maybe it's someone who uses their fundament to think with rather than their
God-given brain.
> Fundamentally speaking of course
Would you do anything else?
Yours in Christ,
MARK
#####################
sensible2me
Thomas Hankin <thomas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D51EACBF5B0th...@66.185.95.104...
> What does Fundamentalist mean to you?
sensible2me:
Break down the words.
Fund....a....mental....list.
List all the Mental Funds a person pays to go to heaven.
It would be a very long list.
1. They give their life away as if it has no value to God..
2. They pay a preacher to think for them.
3. They fear trust in God
3. They see life as cheap and sold out.
4. They sell their souls to man rather than trust fully in God.
********************************************
I can say this cause I was one. That WAS me at one time. No more fund-a
mental-list for me.
Please don't let them give you a mental list and ask you for your funds to
pay for it.
Bradley
I'll just use an example:
I did Martial Arts for over 6 years. I started around the same time I
became a Christian. It happened that I was challenged about my
involvement (by some fundamentalists it happens lol) but I felt God
convicting me to give it up. So I made a clean break throwing out my
uniform, medal, books, belts etc. For me that was the right thing to do
as it had become something that was harming my Christian walk. During
that period I came under a lot of spiritual attack. I also felt a dark
cloud lift off my shoulders and since have grown into a much better
person.
My first reaction was Martial Arts is wrong for Christians, all
Christians. I challenged the friend I introduced to Martial Arts and he
too felt convicted and left and also for him it was defininately the
right thing to do. I think if there is a conviction of the heart and it
is confirmed afterwards then you did the right thing.
It was then that I started a journey of seeking answers regarding
Christianity and Martial Arts. Mainly so that I could answer anyone who
asked me about it.
Initially I was a fundamentalist on this issue. It was black and white.
It was a natural thought process that got me there which I have no
problems with, the important thing is that I didn't stay there. The
important thing is that I search on.
My journey led to one of my web sites as I collected articles on
different view/issues. My views are now more tempered and the issue of
Martial Arts is no longer black and white (although I will say that some
of the issues within it are black and white and some aren't).
Fundamentalism can be a total mindset, or it can grab you on just one
issue.
--
regards,
Bradley
Brenda G. Kent
:)
Blessings of Gods light.
Bren.
--
Eric Fisher
My first reaction was Martial Arts is wrong for Christians, all
Christians. I challenged the friend I introduced to Martial Arts and he
too felt convicted and left and also for him it was defininately the
right thing to do. I think if there is a conviction of the heart and it
is confirmed afterwards then you did the right thing.
It was then that I started a journey of seeking answers regarding
Christianity and Martial Arts. Mainly so that I could answer anyone who
asked me about it.
Initially I was a fundamentalist on this issue. It was black and white.
It was a natural thought process that got me there which I have no
problems with, the important thing is that I didn't stay there. The
important thing is that I search on.
My journey led to one of my web sites as I collected articles on
different view/issues. My views are now more tempered and the issue of
Martial Arts is no longer black and white (although I will say that some
of the issues within it are black and white and some aren't).
Fundamentalism can be a total mindset, or it can grab you on just one
issue.
--
regards,
Bradley
thanks for sharing this,
my thoughts and experiences are similar. with the activities changed to
protect the innocent, or something like that.
alexiastation
"Bradley" <bra...@REMOVETHIScomcen.com.au> wrote in message
news:408b...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
don't think,act or do the way that she thinks the bible, and her red bat
phone directly to G-d that you of course could never obtain, says then your
totally in need of being dragged(literally) to the altar and covered in oil,
there is no room for questions or growth. Life is pretty boring as her, I am
glad I embrace the world anew each and everyday as though I was just born,
because afterall if Messiah Yeshua was walking around today, and He is ;)
Then He would go to your house and talk to you about you and to my house and
talk to me differently. Although it is true there is basics as Eric put it,
to believers, there are things we can not move on and things we can. I
always believed my church back home should have their picture under the word
fundamentalist in the dictionary though, for I can't think of a better place
that fits that description.
Blessings,
Beth
alexiastation
Roy Mock
"Eric Fisher" <ericf...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24393-408...@storefull-3295.bay.webtv.net...
> <snip>
> My first reaction was Martial Arts is wrong for Christians, all
> Christians. I challenged the friend I introduced to Martial Arts and he
> too felt convicted and left and also for him it was defininately the
> right thing to do. I think if there is a conviction of the heart and it
> is confirmed afterwards then you did the right thing.
> It was then that I started a journey of seeking answers regarding
> Christianity and Martial Arts. Mainly so that I could answer anyone who
> asked me about it.
> Initially I was a fundamentalist on this issue. It was black and white.
> It was a natural thought process that got me there which I have no
> problems with, the important thing is that I didn't stay there. The
> important thing is that I search on.
> My journey led to one of my web sites as I collected articles on
> different view/issues. My views are now more tempered and the issue of
> Martial Arts is no longer black and white (although I will say that some
> of the issues within it are black and white and some aren't).
> Fundamentalism can be a total mindset, or it can grab you on just one
> issue.
At a basic level martial arts are built on a world view-that is contrary to
His. I have Asian heritage so that wherever I dip into an aspect of that
tradition I am continually confronted with this world-view dilemma - be it
the art, music, medicine, design, food etc. Martial arts is but one aspect
of that culture.
As to 'fundamental', I think the American use differs somewhat than here in
Australia. It came apparent to me when Spong came out with his first major
book on fundamentalism. It me he meant literalism [face value of the words]
than literature [allowing for writing genre and purpose].
Bradley
> "Eric Fisher" <ericf...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:24393-408...@storefull-3295.bay.webtv.net...
>> <snip>
>> My first reaction was Martial Arts is wrong for Christians, all
>> Christians. I challenged the friend I introduced to Martial Arts and
>> he too felt convicted and left and also for him it was defininately
>> the right thing to do. I think if there is a conviction of the heart
>> and it is confirmed afterwards then you did the right thing.
>> It was then that I started a journey of seeking answers regarding
>> Christianity and Martial Arts. Mainly so that I could answer anyone
>> who asked me about it.
>> Initially I was a fundamentalist on this issue. It was black and
>> white. It was a natural thought process that got me there which I
>> have no problems with, the important thing is that I didn't stay
>> there. The important thing is that I search on.
>> My journey led to one of my web sites as I collected articles on
>> different view/issues. My views are now more tempered and the issue
>> of Martial Arts is no longer black and white (although I will say
>> that some of the issues within it are black and white and some
>> aren't). Fundamentalism can be a total mindset, or it can grab you
>> on just one issue.
>
> At a basic level martial arts are built on a world view-that is
> contrary to His.
I agree. (Have a look at the site if you want
www.pastornet.ner.au/response)
> I have Asian heritage so that wherever I dip into an
> aspect of that tradition I am continually confronted with this
> world-view dilemma - be it the art, music, medicine, design, food
> etc. Martial arts is but one aspect of that culture.
>
> As to 'fundamental', I think the American use differs somewhat than
> here in Australia. It came apparent to me when Spong came out with
> his first major book on fundamentalism. It me he meant literalism
> [face value of the words] than literature [allowing for writing genre
> and purpose].
Hi Roy, another Aussie eh? :)
--
regards,
Bradley
Griz
>As to 'fundamental', I think the American use differs somewhat than here in
>Australia. It came apparent to me when Spong came out with his first major
>book on fundamentalism. It me he meant literalism [face value of the
words]
>than literature [allowing for writing genre and purpose].
Hi Roy.
Actually, I was thinking the same about American usage of the word
fundamentalist differing. As I listen to the things they attribute to
fundamentalism south of the, it's clear that they are not describing the
same paradigm of beliefs that I see in fundamentalist congregations in
Canada.
This is summed up perhaps the clearest when I hear several of them
describing how fundamentalists in the States as taking the word of preachers
over the word of God. Fundamental means the basics -- and there is nothing
more basic than going to the source and taking the word of God by His Spirit
as a measure of whatever preaching we might be hearing: rather than using
the words of a preacher to measure God's word.
From here, that just seems backwards.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Thomas Hankin
news:408a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
Mark.
Yet again you show that your spirit is not that of Christ.
Diana
news:Xns94D6DE417D29Cth...@66.185.95.104...
I agree Tom. I thought there was hope for a while but I
shudder to think some who I do feel are Christians can
side with this person. How can you read that stuff? I
had to stop as I could not bear to see what he is doing
to others and to say things about the Lord and His word
like he does.
Diana shaking her head in disbelief someone can write
such horrible things.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Fundamental means the basics
fun·da·ment (fnd-mnt)
n.
1..
1.. The buttocks.
2.. The anus.
2.. ...
[Middle English foundement, from Old French fondement, from Latin
fundmentum, from fundre, to lay the foundation, from fundus, bottom.]
Hence my definition of a fundamentalist ...one who uses their fundament
instead of their God-given brain.
#################################################
*********************************************
Yours in Christ,
MARK
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Yet again you show that your spirit is not that of Christ.
Silly little fundamentalist! How would you know????
Lawrence Meckan
> "Thomas Hankin" <thomas...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message
> news:Xns94D6DE417D29Cth...@66.185.95.104...
>
>>"Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote
>
> in
>
>>news:408a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
>>
>>Mark.
>>
>>Yet again you show that your spirit is not that of
>
> Christ.
>
>
> I agree Tom. I thought there was hope for a while but I
> shudder to think some who I do feel are Christians can
> side with this person. How can you read that stuff? I
> had to stop as I could not bear to see what he is doing
> to others and to say things about the Lord and His word
> like he does.
Why can't you bear it ?
Isn't the grace of God big enough for Mark to still be able to have a
revelation of the Messiah and be significantly different than you ?
> Diana shaking her head in disbelief someone can write
> such horrible things.
He quoted someone else.
So who exactly are you calling horrible ?
lawrence
Thomas Hankin
4.3...@fe2.columbus.rr.com:
Unfortunately it is human nature to side with someone, not because they
believe the same, but because they have come together against another.
You, know, the old, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" It makes me
sad when some here who I know love the Lord address unbelievers as
brethren, thereby condoning their offenses before the Lord and against
our brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus Himself said the light has no
place with darkness.
God Bless.
Tom.