[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the ring of truth (was This Week's Recommended Reading)
--- John Davis <biglight at pacbell_net> wrote:
> >And just what are we reacting against>
> Against two things: the theory of evolution (hence
> the emphasis on
> reading the Bible as a scientific document) and
> against Henry
> Fosdick's Social Gospel movement,which stressed the
> Gospel as a means
> of healing society, rather than on individual
> salvation.
I think it would be a bit shortsighted to suggest (if
indeed you are) that evangelicalism - or even
fundamentalism - exists as a reaction of these two
things. Sure, this sort of thing may have
strengthened the fundamentalist movement in the early
20th century, but they weren't responsible for the
existence of the F's.
Then again, I might have totally misunderstood what
you were saying.
> Yeah, it is, in one way, by the fact that he's
> reacting against what
> he sees as a bad trend in the way Christians are
> perceived as being
> made up of the most extreme examples. The fact that
> something is a
> reaction doesn't invalidate.
I agree. It just didn't seem that was your tone when
you referred to fundamentalism as a '20th century
reactionary ideology'.
Bawer focuses more on
> the fact that
> fundamentalism is of the 20th, not the 1st century.
This might be true for the term 'fundamentalism' but I
would argue that fundamentalism as an ideology can be
traced at least back to the reformation era. This is
where we have to make a distinction between
fundamentalism and Fundamentalism. One is indeed this
movement over the last couple hundred years or so that
you seem to be referring to and the other is the
belief that scripture is inspired and authoritative.
> Evangelicalism (as it is today) grew out of people
> like Billy Graham
> and others rejecting the Fundamentalist
> anti-intellectualism, and
> trying to engage American culture in the marketplace
> of ideas. And
> that does result in different behaviors. But at the
> root beliefs,
> there's not much difference. Unless you have some
> other difference
> you think is important you'd care to share, that is.
Sure. If you're speaking of the basic tenets of
Christianity, then yeah the F's and the E's are pretty
much in agreement. But once again, they would merely
be holding on to the orthodox Christianity that has
existed for 2000 years. One only needs to look at the
creeds and councils from the early church to recognize
this. I suppose the main similarity between the two
groups is there adherence to these tenets, and this
similarity would set them both against liberal
Christianity.
I would suggest, however, that the differences are
significant. Fundamentalists - in the sense in which
I think we're speaking here - are ultra right-wing,
King James only, typically very separatist, suspicious
of modern culture, very homogenous, and basically all
white Americans.
Evangelicals, on the other hand cover a much broader
spectrum. (Some are even Democrats! and millions are
neither white or American.) They are, as you suggest,
concerned with engaging culture. Basically the only
thing they have in common with fundys is their
adherence to orthodox Christianity and the belief that
the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God.
Actually, the best way to tell the difference between
the two groups is their handshake. ;)
I may actually be just repeating your argument. I'm
just saying that I see these differences as being a
much bigger thing than you seem to see them.
> >Kelvinism is the only true religion!
>
> "Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to receive your
> newsletter."
> (Homer to Bart)
coming soon to a list near you!
Kelvo
=====
Time is precious
Talk is cheap
So make it mean something.
-- Rob Jungklas
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups:
References: