A little blog from an upstart theologian that will do its best to exemplify Christ while sharing a thing or two along the way.
|
|
| Preachin's Blog A little blog from an upstart theologian that will do its best to exemplify Christ while sharing a thing or two along the way. |
|
|
Thursday, November 04, 2004 Why I'm not a fundamentalistRecently it has been pronounced that I am attending a "fundamentalist" seminary. This is something that I was not aware of, nor that I think is actually true (because you can't become fundamentalist overnight.) One of the reasons I chose my current seminary was because it was theologically conservative, but not fundamentalist. To be sure, I have thoroughly enjoyed and been blessed by my time at my beloved seminary and value my time here. This question of whether or not I am a fundamentalist has come up from time to time with some friends and recently I was again queried as to why I am not a fundamentalist, my response is as follows. Dictionary.com defines fundamentalist as: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. I think this definition is fitting, but I will also add my two cents. Fundamentalism is a facet of Christianity that can be classified any number ways. One of the clear  aspects of the fundamentalist is dogmatism of beliefs. Of course there can be theologically liberal people who are dogmatic of their beliefs and fall into this category. Yet the evangelical fundamentalism which I am speaking of is an über-conservative theological approach that combines dogmatism with modernist philosophical tendencies out of a Protestant heritage. With fundamentalists there is a cogent distinction from conservative evangelical Christians where they take traditional positions of this group and move to an extreme. Fundamentalism exists in all religious expressions and the area of coherence with all of them is an intellectual approach that suggests anyone who disagrees with you theologically has occupied some height of theological/philosophical lunacy. (How you deal with these people varies, but the extremists have their violent ways.)
More fitting of a definition in our current context is how the fundamentalist Christian addresses the matter of primary & secondary separation. The doctrine of separation has to do with how the Christian community interacts with and participates with the secular world in their striving to bring about the Kingdom of God. The doctrine of primary separation deals with not involving the secular community outside of the church in accomplishing the work of the Gospel. For example: people who hold to primary separation believe it is wrong for the church to engage a group like the Peace Corps in doing a work in a needy area to help spread the Gospel. Now the doctrine of secondary separation states that no Christian community (New Testament church) should ever engage a group of Christians who are outside of the fundamentalist’s particular brand of theological vodka. Out of these two areas does truly flow the waters of fundamentalism. I can hold that the Bible is the authoritative, inerrant, Word of God and still be okay (as I am) in interacting and working with people and groups within Christendom who do not share my view. A fundamentalist, on the other hand, will suggest that I am completely wrong for doing this and will shun both myself and those groups with whom I am working. The problem of fundamentalism is that with dogmatic pursuit of a theological system there is a limiting placed on how we interact and read Christianity both historical and contemporary, even leading to caution to more emergent forms. The great cornucopia of theological insight from various strains of Christianity will certainly broaden one’s horizon and give substance to their spiritual journey. Another matter is that in limiting one’s theological introspection leads to both theological arrogance (my position is the only right one) and anti-intellectual behavior (any person who disagrees with me based on an academic response is certainly wrong.) Fundamentalism attempts to say that old traditions are bad, yet they have their own penchant traditions which cannot be broken. So why am I not a fundamentalist? Because I believe that there have been much smarter people than I who disagree with me on some issues. Also I cannot believe that God, who has offered me so much grace in my cravenness cannot offer that same grace to those who disagree with me. A final point on my disagreement with fundamentalism, I see much of it as pure religiosity for the sake of religiosity. As I read the New Testament I see that Christ seems to be far more concerned with our motivations than our route acts of obedience. My motivations for serving Christ must come forth from a position of love and devotion to His Gospel than according myself with some foolish system of rules and regulations. Does this make fundamentalists bad people? Certainly not, in many cases some of the best people I know are fundamentalists. I cannot for a second find better people who serve Christ and witness with more passion than some of my fundamentalist friends. I admire their devotion to spreading His Gospel to a lost and dying world, though I might disagree with their methods. There are times when the fervor of fundamentalists hurts both the witness of Christ to the world and to those in the Church. When we confuse religion and politics we never end up on the right side of the fence. I love many of my friends who are fundamentalists. Yet in my love I see how I am different than they. I appreciate those fundamentalist churches which tell you they are “KJV only, fundamentalist, premillenial, pretribulational” and such because they don’t guise their beliefs and presuppositions (like many other people I know do.) I am not a fundamentalist, yet I love my fundamentalist brethren. posted by Preachin Jesus | 8:09 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
Read my Profile
