Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com (GKEvans) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Fundamentalist doctrines Message-ID: Date: 16 Jul 90 06:54:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NCR/OISD Columbia Lines: 270 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu After an earlier article I posted, several people have requested a list of doctrines associated with "fundamentalism," and how they (might) differ from "conservative evangelicalism." I have prepared a brief list of doctrines commonly subscribed to by fundamentalist groups. Please recognize that when I state "fundamentalists believe...", even among these groups a complete consensus will not be found. I have attempted to list the major doctrines common to fundamentalist groups, but please keep in mind that much hair-splitting goes on and I have only hit the very highest points. Please note: The order of the doctrines does not in any way indicate a prioritization. I have included a short bibliography at the end for those who wish to read further. 1. Inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible This is perhaps the most advertised characteristic of fundamentalist groups, but they do not have a monopoly on this belief. Various statements of inerrancy abound, as do definitions of inspiration, but by and large, fundamentalists regard the Bible as sufficient by itself for answering all of man's problems, and that it is true and accurate in every matter with which it deals. 2. Monotheism/Trinity The doctrine that God is one, yet manifests himself in three persons (or personalities) is a defining attribute of Christianity. This orthodox view excludes all polytheism. It also excludes denial of Jesus as part of the triune Godhead, and states that the Holy Spirit is a Person and not just the emanation of God's energy. 3. Virgin Birth of Jesus This is an area of great contention within the Christian church, but fundamentalists regard the virgin birth as central to Christ's claims of deity. Only if Christ was born of a woman could he be fully human, and only if he was born of the Holy Spirit could he be fully God. 4. Authenticity of Miracles performed by Jesus Fundamentalists regard the miracles Jesus performed as evidence of his divinity, as Jesus himself appealed to his miracles as evidence of who he was. 5. Physical Resurrection of Jesus The acceptance of Jesus' resurrection as a physical, not just spiritual, being is regarded as a necessity to fundamentalists. Only by physically overcoming death could he show his complete sovereignity over the universe, and maintain his identity with (physical) man. 6. Man/Sin/Fall Fundamentalists accept the existence of the Garden of Eden as an actual, historical event. They believe in the creation of man by God according to Genesis (but even some staunch fundamentalists of the early 20th century were not literalists in this area). They accept that God's original purpose in creating the universe was confounded by man's willfully disobeying God (sin) and that, as a result,the entire universe fell--and death and decay entered the world for the first time. I do not think I would be too far afield by concluding that most fundamentalists accept or lean toward the view that we, today, have inherited Adam's sin, but I should note that the concept of "original sin" is a fluid one, even among fundamentalists. 7. Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Sin broke the relationship man originally had with God. Man broke it, but only God could restore it. This is why Jesus came to die (doctrine of blood atonement), not to show us how to live "good" lives. 8. Salvation/Grace The doctrine of salvation by grace states that Christ's sacrifice restored the broken relationship which man had broken. Those who accept this undeserved gift of restoration and commit themselves to follow Christ will be saved -- i.e., freed forever from the penalty of sin, which is spiritual death. This restoration is not something man can earn, nor does man deserve this pardon. Only God's grace (from the Greek charis; Gk. charismata = free gift) and love could provide what we could not achieve on our own. The fundamentalist teaching of holiness is important here. This grew out of the revivalist heritage in the late 1800s, early 1900s. It emphasized the importance of individual decision and commitment: one is not saved because he was raised in a Christian family, or because he goes to church, etc. A personal, individual commitment of one's life to follow Christ is required. Holiness teaching also emphasized the need to deny the trappings of culture (entertainment, liberalism, etc.), and concentrate on soul-winning through evangelistic effort. 9. Second Coming of Christ Fundamentalists of the first 3 decades of this century went round & round on this issue. Between the American Revolution and the end of the 1800s, many faith groups held the "post-millenial" view: Christ would return to earth only AFTER 1000-years of social perfection and harmony on earth. These groups emphasised a social gospel because they believed that Christ would not return UNTIL this change in society had come about. At the turn of the century Post-millenialism eventually gave way to Pre-millenialism: Christ would return and THEN the 1000-year reign of righteousness would begin on earth. Pre-millenialism then gave way in some quarters to "dispensational pre- millenialism" (see Marsden for a good discussion on this). 10. Symbolic Ordinances Baptism and the Lord's Supper (communion) are recognized as required symbolic ordinances. Most groups would not go so far as to say they are required for salvation, but they all emphasize the need to follow these ordinances because Jesus himself participated in them and commanded his followers to emulate him. FUNDAMENTALISM vs. PROTESTANT CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALISM. I now want to make some comments about the concept of "fundamentalism" beyond this litany of doctrines. I disavow any authoritative perspective. The following are personal observations which I share at no additional cost - and they might be worth even less. I suspect that some Christians on the net unfamiliar with the basic doctrines of fundamentalism might have looked at the list above and recognized their own doctrines there. It is quite true that many "moderate" groups hold the same beliefs, and that is why I think this is important to point out that fundamentalists really have not introduced any "new" doctrines into Christianity, but they have distinguished themselves by their emphasis on what they regard as God's "acceptance criteria" to claim that one is a Christian. Many evangelicals today disdain the term "fundamentalist". While the above doctrines can be associated with either fundmentalism or conservative evangelicalism, fundamentalists (IMHO) are distinguished by a remarkably dour view on life (no flames, please, I am only relating my personal observations). They live their lives in what I might call a sub-culture of Biblical guidance - more akin to Biblical oppression, I think. They often seem to regard the world with a seige mentality. Dancing, playing cards, even watching movies - these and other forms of enjoyment are shunned by some, but not all, fundamentalist groups. Only Christian music is allowed in many fundamentalist homes. Intellectual or spiritual tolerance is usually not high on their list of social graces, but here, too, exceptions are found. Conservative evangelicals, however, do not convey the same degree of oppression by life and the world. While they, too, submit themselves to Biblical guidance, I have found the members of the church I now attend (conservative evangelical) to be some of the happiest people I have ever known. They go to movies (selectively like most other people), and they read both Christian and secular literature. Yet they still have a recognizable peace and sense of hope in their lives amidst the daily upsets we all experience. This peace is an easy target for non-Christians to ridicule, but the ridicule itself seems to be a tacit recognition that the peace is there. Anyway, my experience indicates that a fundamentalist will often brow-beat you with the Bible, and inform you that you have a reservation in hell because you do not believe "correctly." My experience in a conservative evangelical congregation for over two years indicates that the evangelical will attempt to convince you of your errors, but will respect your right to believe as you wish - but I also recognize that this more tolerant attitude is often very dependent upon the leadership of the church's pastor. Evangelicals are also usually aware (but not always) that they have no justification to pass judgment upon anyone's state of salvation. The Bible just does not give any human being that authority. Alas, this, too, is often overlooked. So, in my humble opinion, the primary distinction between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals is not a doctrinal distinction. Rather, I see it as their respective willingness or unwillingness to recognize that the message of Jesus Christ must be delivered in terms the hearer will understand (e.g., Jesus never used a canned presentation; he always gave his message at the level his hearer could relate to, and in the cultural contex of his listeners), and to recognize that God speaks differently to different people and that how we worship is important - but not so important as WHO we worship, and whether love comes from that worship (see Galatians 5:22-23 for a list of the fruit of the Spirit that should be in one's life as a believer). I am sure our excellent moderator could add some valuable information to this note, and I invite him to do so. SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL READING: _Fundamentalism_, James Barr, Westminster Press. Out of print (published in 1970s) but available in some libraries. Barr is Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford. It is a very comprehensive study based on British fundamentalism, but he is clear in the areas where British and American fundamentalists both agree and diverge. _Beyond Fundamentalism_, James Barr, Westminster Press. This is an interesting book. It is a "pastoral" book which Barr wrote to help persons who have lost their fundamentalist beliefs, and who are struggling to still find meaning in Christianity, and in the Bible. _Fundamentalism and American Culture_, George Marsden. A comprehensive and rather well-balanced analysis. Recent publication. _A History of Fundamentalism in America_, George W. Dollar. Prof. Dollar is (according to the dustjacket) Chairman of the department of Church History at Bob Jones University, a very conservative institution. I liked getting the view of fundamentalist history from a fundamentalist. It is very readable. _Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks_, Rod Evans (no relation) and Irwin Berent. This is a "liberal" approach: the introduction is by Isaac Asimov. The stated purpose of the book is "not to discourage either faith in God or reverence for the Bible, but rather to point out some potential hazards associated with viewing the Bible in the ways in which many fundamentalists typically view it." I feel they achieve their goal: it is well researched and pretty well balanced. But, IMHO, James Barr treats the same issues more thoroughly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary K. Evans, Software type |'The time has come,' the Walrus said, gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com | 'To talk of many things: These are my opinions, |Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax, and not my employer's. | Of cabbages--and kings....' | --Through the Looking Glass --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [I'm reluctant to comment very much on this issue because it seems to me that the term "fundamentalist" is such a vague term. I've heard it used most commonly by "liberals" as a term of criticism, to characterize over-literal Biblical interpretation and legalism. If that is its definition, then it's not surprising to see the rather negative feelings about it that you express in your last few paragraphs. Most properly it seems to characterize groups in the late 19th and early 20th Cent. who drew up lists of fundamental doctrines under attack by "modernism". I'm just not sure at the moment that it has a sufficiently sharp meaning to be useful. --clh]