Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Sunday, August 5. 2007Fundamentalism is not a four-letter wordA summer message to the congregation from The Rev. Charles Hoffman, rector of Grace Episcopal Church, Old Saybrook, CT: Fundamentalism is not a four letter word. Dear Friends in Christ: The present controversy in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Community is primarily over the issue of the authority of scripture and our interpretation of it. Those who hold to a devotion to the Bible as the Word of God are called many names from “conservatives” to “fundamentalists,” as if these are derogatory terms. I have come to believe that being faithful to the fundamentals of the Christian faith contained in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds and in the 39 Articles of the Church is essential to the preservation of the core doctrines of the Christian Church. Much of orthodox Christianity depends on the way we understand God’s written word to us. When I was ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church in 1969, the Bishop of Chicago asked me the following questions from the Book of Common Prayer (1928): “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?” “And are you determined out of said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?” To which I replied: “I am so persuaded and have so determined, by God’s Grace.” (1928 BCP p. 542) By this oath I promised to uphold the authority of Scripture in my life, my ministry, and in the church I was called to serve. When I came into the fullness of faith through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and was born again and baptized in the Holy Spirit, I personally accepted the Bible as the Word of God to be the rule of my life. As I began to preach more faithfully from the Bible and to call people to new life in Jesus Christ, I was accused of sounding like Billy Graham, as if that would not be a great honor, and I was often called a fundamentalist. When asked the question of whether I took the Bible literally, I often responded by saying, “I take the Bible literally where it is meant to be taken literally. I take the Bible figuratively where it is meant to be taken figuratively. But I always try to take the Bible seriously.” So what does it mean to be called a fundamentalist? Fundamentalist Christianity or Christian Fundamentalism is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by evangelical Christians, who in a reaction to modernism actively affirmed a fundamental set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible (Sola Scriptura), the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. While there was no single founder of of fundamentalism, many ideas and themes had been suggested by American evangelist Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) and British preacher John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878-1897) and in 1910 to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the “five fundamentals:” 1. The inerrancy of Scripture But consider these questions: Are these five fundamentals not the core of the Christian faith and life as contained in the Creed and traditions of the church? Are they not held as the teaching of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as reflected in the teaching and praying of the Book of Common Prayer? Are they not what the church has believed throughout its history? So why should we be ashamed of being called a fundamentalist? Perhaps if the Episcopal Church returned to these fundamentals of doctrine, we would find our way back into the fullness of the Christian faith and heal the many divisions in the church. So the next time someone calls you a fundamentalist, respond by saying: “Yes, and which of these fundamentals do you reject?” In Christ,The Rev. Charles L. Hoffman, D. Min.Rector Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Doesn't "sola scriptura" mean only scripture? I.e., not just the inerrancy of the Bible but also that there is no authority outside the Bible, such as tradition?
I cannot answer for the Rev., but, the way I see it, Scripture is "Word" and the traditions are the quickest paths to it, based on 2000 yrs of thought, prayer, and experience.
But I could be wrong. "“Yes, and which of these fundamentals do you reject?” "
The one you didn't mention: 6. That fundamentalists are intolerant of any who do not adhere to the first five fundamentals. Who cares if fundamentalists are "intolerant?" As long as their form of intolerance is that they just disagree with their opponents or try to use the legitimate political processes of this country to advance their agenda, I don't care.
I mind the kind of intolerance that leads people to kill non-believers or force their conversion. I don't see that in American fundamentalist Christians. I can put up with (ie, tolerate) their intolerance. (Thanks, BD -- your explanation makes sense.) Simplistic thinking, I believe. The nice gentleman begs questions he does not answer like 'what exactly is inerrancy and how does one determine who has the authority to interpret and execute judgments?' 'Substitutionary atonement' suggests that is is all accomplished and leaves no work for the faithful, but there is at least the work of faith including confession and the necessary practices of reconciliation. Rather than substitutionary perhaps we should talk about exemplary atonement. This singular event is grace visible in such beauty that it draws the faithful to it and in so coming they chose to adjust their lives and behavior.
'Fundamentalism' is not merely a polite word and the Episcopal gentleman suggests but a way of judgment and separation that destroys faith and religion. He needs to review history more closely and not attempt to build bridges to shores that do not exist. "Are these five fundamentals not the core of the Christian faith and life as contained in the Creed and traditions of the church?"
To me they certainly are; and without which it makes no sense to call oneself a Christian. One might as well be a deist, and agnostic, an atheist or, God have mercy on the poor sad soul, a Democrat. Not sure why I stick my head out where It is pretty clear it will get shot at, but there are some things I just can't be quiet about.
I think it was Dr. Feynman who said it best, and I am too lazy to go look up his words to quote them to you, but the notion I carried away was that if your explanation can not be derived from First Principles--the axiomatic things-we-believe--it is unlikely that your explanation is correct. I think the people above who speak of intolerant fundamentalists, and who speak of "what exactly is inerrancy" ought to go back and actually read what the good Reverend Doctor wrote. When I was a young man the group that I hung around with a lot believed in what I now call a sort of "dart board prophecy"--a notion that if you stood a Bible on its spine and let it fall open, then with your eyes closed put your finger-tip on an open page, under your finger would be an important message for you, or for somebody in the room. I've pretty much gotten over mot of that, but I still from time to time become convinced that a message has been delivered to me. This morning I read through a document that I was supposed to have read for a post-church discussion on (as I characterize it) we (the Episcopal Church) should endorse the institution of a Vatican and a Pope to tell us when we have done something (allowed certain marriages, or elected certain Bishops, or {gasp} allowed women behind the rail) that annoys the Africans. In making a fast pass through the blogs to see what was what, I found this article. Which the folks at the discussion group got to listen to me about for a while when some would much rather rant at length about the evils of violating church law in consecrating Bishops. I frankly am tired of the church spending so much time and effort on figuring out how not to annoy the world. My fundamental belief is that Christianity is not about the world. The world is something we ar supposed to be apart from. What was all that about " intolerance"? Who is intolerant of what? I don't see that at all.
Thinking a minute further, I guess I'd have to say that I do not view tolerance as a virtue anyway.
No, I am not a true fundie, but I often wish I were. "Who is intolerant of what? I don't see that at all."
All 205 sects of Christianity are tolerant of one another? "I do not view tolerance as a virtue anyway." That sounds mighty unChristian and lacking in grace: virtue |?v?r ch o?| noun 1 behavior showing high moral standards : paragons of virtue. See note at goodness . • a quality considered morally good or desirable in a person : patience is a virtue. • a good or useful quality of a thing : there's no virtue in suffering in silence. • archaic virginity or chastity, esp. of a woman. 2 ( virtues) (in traditional Christian angelology) the seventh highest order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy. Just to be clear, Anonymous above is not I, she who is "yak scat", etc. here. Am finishing out a thread started the other day on another blog and not wishing to comment, anymore, since there are negative repercussions to everything I say, even when I stipulate my opinions have nothing to do with persons here.
I so love people, sometimes. Here's a related link on intolerance from the Left about the intolerance on the Right (via Melanie Phillips): http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2836184.ece “We have nothing to fear from al-Qa'ida. Christian fundamentalists are the real extremist threat. That's the message from the writers of a new play being shown at the Edinburgh International Fringe Festival. “Cash in Christ, a sing-along play satirising the modern capitalist "mega- church", is arguably one of the most controversial productions in a Fringe with the largest satirical content in living memory. “Other offerings this year include Jihad: The Musical, Tony Blair – The Musical, and others centred on the porn film Debbie Does Dallas, orgasms, Asbos and thoughts of BNP members. “Cash in Christ is so controversial it had to be passed by three lawyers before it could be performed at a festival in Australia. … “The writers said that, while there is public discussion about the dangers of radical Islamic groups, the influence of the Christian far right is underestimated. ‘I've been very sensitive to extremists in other religions, particularly Islam, being demonised,’ said Badham. ‘I find the Christian right groups that are enormously powerful in our own culture a larger numerical threat than extreme Islam. They are somehow removed from public criticism, and that is one of the reasons we did the show. "Bush is from the religious right and he has the bomb; that terrifies me far more than the potential of other extremists to get their hands on nuclear weapons. In the religious right it is the self-appointed moral majority that sets its own rules, and anybody opposing them is labelled unpatriotic and shouted down." (I'd better not assume anything. Clarification: I think that play is disgusting and the minimizing of Islamic extremism morally retarded. And also that Anonymous has a point about grace. Tolerance, tho', is a slippery word to define.)
Not meaning to intrude here. But... though the example of the play is perfect illustration of the dementedness of a few, well, perhaps many on the left and their equivalency viewpoint of jihad and Christan's absurd on its face, is there not still some valid points brought up by mr/ms anonymous. Definitions are indeed a slippery slope, not just for tolerance. One man's virtue is another man's vice I think it has been said. The point I picked up from the discussion is just that, who is it who gets to decide what a word means and then offer judgment of others based on that definition. After all, there are many different interpretations of the Book.
I was referring to the PC notion of tolerance, not the old-fashioned one.
Holding Tolerance as an abstracted virtue outside of any moral context is absurd. A few questions for Anon regarding Tolerance as an absolute:
- Should we 'tolerate' adult/child sex or child pornography? - Should we 'tolerate' in our society honor killing of woman? - Should we 'tolerate' in our society vaginal circumcision? Gagdad Bob over at Onecosmos summarizes it pithely: "Tolerance is indeed (to paraphrase someone) “the virtue of the man with no convictions.” It is not humility but moral cowardice, and as such, opens up a free space for infrahuman bullies to operate unhindered." Acting civily and with Christian understanding towards someone does not mean that their actions are tolerated. One may not 'tolerate' the deliberate killing of an unborn child and yet not feel compelled to kill the doctor. You can show your 'intolerance' for this act through more constructive means such as education, campaign for change of law, appealing to morality. 'Tolerance' as an absolute is just another clever way of undermining morality and tranditional family and community bonds. It is a stick used by the bullying left who are actually INTOLERANT of anyone who does not tolerate their attempts to weaken the moral fiber of society. When I see the word tolerance I very often think of the idea that I am "tolerant" of most any religious view -- I being undecided about religion. I consider tolerance and freedom going hand in hand, without it, one religion or established group would consider it their duty to overrun all the others. This brings up the major thing which is left out of the original blogger's text: fundamentalism, in my view, must include the notion of evangalism. It is a fundamental duty in any church I've experienced, to pass the their "word" to others. When one attempts to, expects to, is required to convert others, it is almost part of the definition of that religion that they be intolerant of other's beliefs. I, as an agnostic, would never ask anyone to "convert" to my view. In that sense I am tolerant of others' views.
What Rev. Hoffman describes above is not 'fundamentalism', but closer to the concept of Christian 'orthodoxy'. 'Fundamentalism' is a much abused and often misunderstood term and in some cases is contradictory to orthodoxy. My issue with fundamentalism as I understand it and have experienced it is with the rigidity of the doctrine, the illogical insistence on the supremacy of the Bible alone yet none stop arguments about various arcane issues of which many have not the sufficient background/knowledge which havve a direct affect on what I think is the worst part of fundamentalism - the lack of personal 'spiritual' space or experience of beauty and transcendance. The Bible is a complex work. How in the world is anyone supposed to be able to navigate it and truly understand it without guidance from others and/or tradition? For the first 300 hundred years of Christianity, the only thing the Christian community had was the Tora and oral traditions of the life and meaning of the Christ.
I'm using 'orthodoxy' similar to G.K. Chestertan in his book 'Orthodoxy' where orthodoxy is defined simply as adherence to the concepts as defined in the Nicene creed. The problem is not believing in the inerrancy of Scripture. The problems is that the fundamentalist only accept those Scriptures that were included in the canons that became the Bible, and they then requre everyone to believe in their politically inspired interpretation of what these limited number of Scriptures say. That arbitrary interpretation is most often based on a clearly erroneous King James translation, whose primary translator was burned at the stake as a heretic. The Scriptures that made it into the Bible/Canon were based on political considerations at the time, including an intent to diminish the role of women in Christ's ministry. For a better understanding of all the Christian Scriptures and the process of Bibilical inclusion, try reading "Lost Scriptures" and "Lost Christianities" by Bart D. Ehrman.
|