Have you ever been called a fundamentalist? This is a term that has been slung around in a negative context and in most cases in this day and age it is a term used to degrade those who hold a strong religious belief. In our modern society most people use the term strictly to define a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles, mostly religious principles of any kind. But that was not necessarily always the case.
At one point to be called a fundamentalist meant that you were part of the Protestantism movement that emphasized the literal interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching. Anyone who was a part of this movement or anyone who gave adherence to such belief was called a fundamentalist.
In 1895 at the Niagra Bible Conference the founding fathers of fundamentalism met. There messages were focused around the doctrines of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, missions, and prophecy. Just some of the premise of what the fundamentalist believes is as follows:
1. The Inerrancy of Scripture
2. The Deity of Christ
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Substitutionary Atonement
5. Bodily resurrection
6 Heaven and Hell
This period of time was also the era that the term “soul winning” was coined by various fundamentalists. So a fundamentalist, according to those who coined the name, is a soul winning believer who believes in the inerrancy of scripture, who believes that Jesus Christ was in fact God in the flesh, who believes that Jesus was born of a virgin and died on the cross in our place as our substitute, who believes that Jesus then physically rose from the dead and who believes that Jesus has created both heaven and hell as two very real places.
So what does that make me? A Bible believing, slightly Calvinistic, truth loving, conservative theologian who just happens to be a fundamentalist to boot!
Just some food for thought,
Pressed
Actually, i think it makes you an intolerant bigot
Well, thats what they say. Nowadays you have to be called an intolerant bigot if you say you love truth and beleive in absolute morals. Problem is, if that is the case then God would be an intolerant bigot too… Hmmm.
Interesting bit of history on fundamentalism, Pressed, I didn’t realize that about the Niagra Bible Conference. I’ve definately been called a fundamentalist in the negative context numerous times.
Really, I’ve never quite understood the term fundamentalist, because, really it just means one agrees with the faith they already say they agree with. Its kind of a sad commentary on the “health” of the Church, I suppose, that we must specifically denote those that actually agree with the Bible… (I know that all too well from my previous denomination).
Anyway, I too am a Bible believing, conservative, slighly Calvinistic fellow (I usually refer to myself as a “moderate Calvinist,” which caused one friend to ask me awhile back “it’s possible to be *moderately* Calvinistic?”.
eheh. Well Timothy I am probably a little more Calvinistic than I let on.
regarding the thing about being an intolerant bigot…there is a difference between believing in absolute truth\morals and being completely and totally closed off to differing points of view. non-fundamentalists HATE it when fundamentalists come across as intolerant and uncaring. let’s talk about homosexuality here. shocker shocker everyone, i actually think the homosexual lifestyle is a sinful lifestyle. HOWEVER, i do not think it is good to run out and condemn homosexuals and their lifestyle and say you’re going to Hell etc. while i agree that they are going to Hell unless they accept Christ, i think it is far more effective to approach these individuals with an attitude of love, genuine concern, and care. fundamentalists in America are NOTORIOUS for being in-your-face, boisterous individuals who refuse to listen to other points of view and engage differing individuals in debate and discussion.
legalism also plays a role in fundamentalists getting called a bigot. i am a Christian, however, i would go on a few dates with a non-Christian. would i marry one? not unless God calls me to. but would i go out with one for a little bit? yes, in a non-dating-for-marriage context.
I actually don’t like the term “soul-winning”. To me it de-humanizes people. We stop thinking of them as individuals and we just start thinking of them as “souls to be won for the Kingdom”. Then we start counting how many souls we’ve won so far. And the whole thing just degenerates from there.
That’s how we get Christians pushing themselves in other people’s faces and irritating them by telling them they’re going to hell unless they repent. Sure, it might be true, but at the same time, we have to remember that each “soul” is a real person, deserving of respect and love.
“Soul winning” is also a misleading term because it’s not *us* who wins souls, it’s the Holy Spirit’s work to convict. We just “preach the Gospel” - that’s our mandate in the Great Commission.
I’m a fundamentalist, unashamedly so.
Well, I guess that makes me a fundamentalist. All those things listed are not up for debate.
I better watch out being around such a big group of bigots! Certainly this can be nothing but a bad influence on me.
joseph j. fell says: “non-fundamentalists HATE it when fundamentalists come across as intolerant and uncaring.”
The reason that we come across this way is because we believe in absolute truth. If the Bible is absolutely true and its claim is that homosexuality is a sin, then that means homosexuality is wrong. It’s not that we refuse to “listen to other points of view” that makes us hated, it’s the fact that we listen to these other points of view and don’t accept them as fact because they are wrong compared to our standard of truth, the creator of all things. The reason we are called bigots and intolerant is simply because we believe in an ultimate standard of truth which reveals what is right and wrong. Morals are not relative to the individual there are absolute standards and that is what people hate because it means they can’t do whatever they want and still be right.
joseph j. fell says: legalism also plays a role in fundamentalists getting called a bigot. i am a Christian, however, i would go on a few dates with a non-Christian. would i marry one? not unless God calls me to. but would i go out with one for a little bit? yes, in a non-dating-for-marriage context.
Yeah well there are a lot of things you would do that Christians don’t do joseph. For instance, lets recall some of your previous comments that explain your views on Christianity:
”i don’t really see the point in trying to “stick out” from the world. i really get annoyed with Christians who don’t drink alcohol, listen to rap music, really censor what they watch, etc. A lot of non-Christians look down on Christians like that, which makes witnessing a lot harder.” - joseph
“You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes and enemy of God.” - (James 4:4)
“I live with 5 non-Christians this year and a lot of them have made comments about how i’m not stuck-up and overbearing with my evangelism but i still lead a life of a Christian person and they respect me for that. and yeah, i listen to rap (i love eminem), drink, swear every now and then, and talk about girls and relationships. i think it makes me more of a real person with faults and sins when they see me like that…” - joseph
”Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.” - (1 John 2:15-17)
“look at bono, the lead singer of u2. he’s a Christian, but he also drinks, curses, smokes, etc. however, he is VERY popular with the world. why? because he is someone who is living for Christ but isn’t living like a self-rightous, overly pious, “look how great i am” person, which a LOT of Christian musicians do.” - joseph
Shouldn’t our ultimate standard be Christ? Shouldn’t we live as Christ lived and not measure ourselves to anything less, such as Bono. The very act of obedience to God will make us more and more like his son, which will also make people think that we are self-righteous, when if fact our righteousness comes from the cross. Joseph I don’t know what bible you are reading, but certainly the lifestyle you live is contradictory to the lifestyle mandated by the true God.
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” – (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Posted by: Pressed on April 10, 2003 12:03 PM
Forgive me for intruding, I just happened upon this site (looking for different religiously oriented blogs :).
As someone who is Christian but not fundamentalist (by the definition given, or most definitions), it is not the belief in ‘absolute truth’ that bothers me about ‘fundamentalism’. I believe there is an absolute truth. But I do not believe that I can know all this truth, or that I am inerrant in my perception or interpretation of truth. What bothers me about fundamentalism (actually, in most forms, whether Christian, Islamic, Hindu or Jewish) is the belief that the truth they hold is absolute, whether it be the inerrancy of their scriptures or the finality of their ‘morality’.
There is an absolute truth, and it is our duty as followers of Christ to seek it out and to live it. But because we are weak and our perception clouded, we will never fully find, understand or live truth, and thus the saving grace of God was given to bridge the gap between ourselves and the absolute truth and morality.
To believe one has the absolute and inerrant truth can and does often lead to bigotry and judgemental pronouncements, and sometimes to hate. (ex: Islamic terrorism, Christian anti-gay hate speech, Inquisitions, Hindu attacks on mosques and/or muslims, and so on and ad infinitum).
This is my main concern with Fundmentalist Christianity as you have described it.
Posted by: Trey on April 10, 2003 04:43 PM
My biggest problem is the idea that all truth is relative. If all truth is relative then whatever one person believes is right for them while someone else beleives something else and that is right for them, even if those two beliefs completely contradict each other. I don’t think that is right at all.
I beleive that God gives us the ability to know some absolute truth and that truth is found in his infallable word. God’s word was given not to save us, but to make us consious of what is right and wrong. To me this means that sin cannot be relative to the individual. Who is the judge of right and wrong? Ultimatly God.
“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” - (Romans 3:20)
Posted by: Pressed on April 10, 2003 05:47 PM
Just returning :).
Actually, one can believe that we can not know the absolute truth absolutely and not believe in ‘relative truth’. It is a fallacy to say that believing this means one believes that truth is relative. What is true for me isn’t necessarily ‘the truth’ and what is ‘true’ for one person does not make it right for that person. There is still “Truth” and truth that is absolute. Truth is not relative. What is relative is our abilities to know and understand truth, not the Truth itself.
We can know truth, understand it, and some better than others, some times better than others and some things better than others. Understanding that there IS a truth to strive for, but that we don’t know it absolutely that leads to discussion, consensus, understanding, justice and mercy. It doesn’t mean we have to accept everyone’s ‘truth’ as equally valid. God gave us the words of prophets, Jesus, apostles, wise men and women, our rational facilities and our spirit to discern truth.
But to claim to have the absolute, inerrant truth strikes me as hubris in the face of God.
That will be my last word on the subject, thank you for letting me voice a few words
Posted by: Trey on April 10, 2003 10:23 PM
Trey. Very wise, I do agree with you wholeheartedly. Thanks for your comments.
Posted by: Pressed on April 10, 2003 11:29 PM
im sort of a fundamentalist, or rather a reductionist dogmatist: that is saying that adhering to empiricism and that all knowledge must first originate from the perceptual and sensually measurable level. in other words i’m a fundamentalist atheist. hah.
Posted by: keegan on April 10, 2003 11:45 PM
Oh yeah…I believe in absolute morals; I guess I’m an intolerable bigot too? Nah. I believe in objective truth. Hehe. But I’m an atheist.
Posted by: keegan on April 10, 2003 11:48 PM
Yeah we heard you the first time.
Posted by: Pressed on April 11, 2003 12:21 AM
haha. i wish all christians were like pressed.
Posted by: keeg on April 11, 2003 02:17 AM
Sorry to butt in, but I ran across this completely by accident…….
I guess I’m fundamentalist by your definiton there. But I always have noticed something. Those that proudly walk around calling themselves fundamentalists have certain behaviors:
1. They listen to music no one else would like to
2. When preaching they begin to be loudly monotone
3. They know all that you do wrong
4. They let you know about #3 every time
5. They believe that anything secular is purely evil
Does any of that sound familiar?
I just wish that so many fundamentalists could grasp the truth of creation:
God made it ALL
God allowed evil to be
God allowed us to use our gifts in many ways, both Christian and non-Christian
Truth can be found in almost anything. It does not have to have a cross stamped on it to make it true! God is that big! If we can look at the entire world, and draw out of it the truth that he wants delivered in the many shapes, sizes and voices that are out there, I believe that we can be doing what he really intended for us to do…..
Be in the world, not of it.
Be caring for the world, not hating them.
Connecting with all, not just those we are like.
Showing Christ’s love as he did,
Unconditionally
My problem with fundamentalists is they’re not fundamental enough! Yeah, that’s right! Fundamentalists are great when it comes to trouncing post-modernism, defending biblical inerrancy and sola scriptura, etc… However, most of them are RANK Arminian (usually 4 pt.) and openly claim that God loves men in their sins (hate the sin, loves the sinner heresy) and that men have “free will”.
Why do some fundamentalists say it is wrong to drink. It is drunkenness that the Bible says is wrong, not drinking in moderation. Saying you should not drink at all because it is wrong to be drunk is like saying you’d better not eat because gluttony is a sin. lol
Brandan, we do have free will. If we didn’t, God would be the author of sin, which He is not. And since we are judged for our sins, obviously we had a choice to commit them.
Alicia,
Saying you should not drink at all is nothing like saying you better not eat. The fault in your example is the fact that we have to eat to survive. We don’t have to drink… Drinking is not only wrong because of drunkeness, but there are many other reasons.
We have free will because God is not the author of sin? Can’t say that I agree. Human will has never been free, but it has always been bound the rules that God has set in place. Is it possible for someone, other than God, to create something out of nothing? Who created evil?
Well I am not a Calvinist so I don’t believe God forces us to sin and then punishes us for it. I believe God permits sin, but he doesn’t force us to sin like we are puppets or something. But if you believe in predestination then I can see why you would believe that. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this and the drinking issue.
I never said that God forces us to sin… He doesn’t really have to for that matter. I also do not think that Calvinism even teaches that God forces us to sin and then punishes us for it. The term ‘puppets’ is a fallable term used by people who attempt to argue against calvinism without really understanding it. Calvinism does not teach that we are puppets and it never has taught that. The problem is that people hear words such as predestination and election and without taking the countless hours of time and study to try and understand what it means and what the different viewpoints are they make quick, judgmental arguments to try and dis-credit the view they do not agree with at the cost of bending truth and making things say something that they really do not say.
If you discredit predestination and election then you must discredit the Bible, because it speaks often of such things. Funny, the Bible mentions predestination and election over and over again and never one time does it mention ‘free will.’ To say that you do not believe in predestination is to say you do not believe in parts of the Bible, and with that I could understand why you would be liberal in your understanding of drinking and theology. If you believe the bible has errors then you can just pick and choose what you want to believe and not believe. Pretty convenient… but I don’t really know what you believe so I will make no assumptions other than you do not believe in ‘predestination’ or ‘election’ dispite their prominent place in scripture.
I am not liberal. I am politically moderate and Biblically conservative. Just because I am not a Calvinist does not make me a liberal. I am pro-life, anti homosexuality, pro death penalty, and believe in all of the essential doctrines of Christianity. There are many conservatives who are not Calvinists and many conservatives who believe the Bible does not prohibit moderate social drinking. For example, J.P. Holding of http://www.tektonics.org and Glenn Miller of http://www.christian-thinktank.com. I am sorry I misunderstood what Calvanists believe. I have been reading the articles at http://christian-truth.org, who claim to represent Calvinism and they teach that God makes us sin and then punishes us.
The problem I see with moderate social drinking is the image that it represents. The drinking scene carries with it a connotation of evil… and we are to flee all appearance of evil. The fact that a Christian socially drinks can have a devastating effect on a persons witness, especially to those who’s lives alcohol has destroyed. If I lived in a family with alcoholic parents who cared nothing for me and beat me all the time when they were drunk I would grow up with a hatred for alcohol. Now when a Christian comes along to witness to me and I see them or hear of their drinking then I would immediately associate them with my parents who were drunks and not trust them thinking they were no different. Not only does it hinder your ability to witness, but it also can cause another brother to stumble. For example, every single male in my family history for 4 or 5 generations have been alcoholics, including my father. Because of this, if I were to start drinking it is scientifically proven that I will most likely become an alcoholic as well. Now, if I have some of my ‘Christian’ friends telling me that it is ok to drink ‘moderately’ (as if that is some justification) and I go out and start to drink because they said it was alright and then I become addicted and an alcoholic then my Christian friends have caused me to stumble, which the Bible speaks specifically against.
Even if the Bible is silent on social, moderate drinking there is absolutely no good reasons to drink. There are plenty of other liquids out there to quench your thirst, why alcohol? What purpose does it serve? Because it tastes good and gives you some momentary pleasure? Because all of your friends do it? Because it gives you a little buzz that you enjoy? Because some doctor said a glass of wine a day would help you? Why drink alcohol? Even if social drinking isn’t ‘wrong,’ so to speak, it is still entirely better not to drink. The Bible doesn’t say much about smoking pot or sniffing cocaine either, does that make it ok to do those things?
I’m glad you brought up the issues of smoking pot and sniffing cocaine. They would fall under the prohibition of drunkenness, since they are all a form of intoxication. And I agree with you that alcohol, while not a sin, is not beneficial. There is a verse somewhere in the New Testament that says what is permissable may not be beneficial. I still drink moderately, every now and then but I do not try to encourage other people to if they don’t want to and I do not drink around someone I know is an alcoholic, causing them to stumble, nor do I provide it to people who are underage.
What is true for me isn’t necessarily ‘the truth’ and what is ‘true’ for one person does not make it right for that person.
If it’s true for you and not for me, then it ceases to be true at all, right?
—-
I guess I’m fundamentalist by your definiton there. But I always have noticed something. Those that proudly walk around calling themselves fundamentalists have certain behaviors:
1. They listen to music no one else would like to [NO ONE?]
2. When preaching they begin to be loudly monotone [I don’t preach]
3. They know all that you do wrong [I’m sure you do much more wrong than I know about]
4. They let you know about #3 every time [That’s between you and God, until it involves my family]
5. They believe that anything secular is purely evil [not purely]
I’m proudly a FUNdamentalist by definition, but not by the public’s definition. I’m actually quite lovely!
I am a fundamentalist too thanks pressed.
Add A Comment