[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd:Fundamentalism, etc
---Tndreamgal at aol_com wrote:
> Now if I say I am a fundamentalist, neither of these definitions
properly
> convey what I am trying to say. The trouble with both definitions
lies in the
> word LITERAL. Now, when I go to read my Bible I do believe that
everything I
> read there is true . . . however, I do not believe that everything I
read
> there is literally true. I believe that God is the God of poetry as
well as
> prose, and so a literal interpretation is not ALWAYS appropriate to
the
> context . . . even when the passage is not straight out poetry, btw,
because
> one can be poetic without writing poetry.
hmmm... i think that one has to buy into the literalness to be a
fundmanetalist....
but that's what makes fundamentalism so slippery- there's no
insititution that deinfes it the way Rome defines Catholicism. i
suppose one could consider fundamentalism as a market-driven. then the
market network of fundamentaist businessess (word records, focus on
the fmaily, 700 club, promise keeprs, whatever) would be constantly
(re)definiing fundamentalism according to what buyers want it to be...
but that's just a theory- don't quote me on it...
traditionally, though, fuindamentalism grew out of two things: the
split in ther baptis church over slavery. the southern baptist church
was pro-slavery and wanted to stay that way, and the rise of
premillenial dispensationism (the idea of a "rapture" before the
return of Christ) as proposed by the theologian Darby.
this was a reaction to abolition movements and the social gospel
proponents in the early 20th century, like the social worker Henry
Fosdick.
there was, in the beginning of the fundamentalist movement, ephasis on
"literal" interpretation, because Fosdick, et al, who were called
"modernists" beleived in evolution.
> fundament- the base on which a structure is erected
>
> fundamental-one of the minimum constituents without which a thing or
a system
> would not be what it is
>
> Based on these definitions, this is what I mean when I say that I am a
> FUNDAMENTALIST:
>
> I believe that God's Word, as revealed in the Bible(inerrant, but
not always
> literal) and in creation itself, is the base upon which
Christianity stands.
> I believe that Biblical teachings are the minimum constituents
without which
> Christianity wouldnt be what it is. Though the scriptures are
subject to
> INTERPRETATION, they are not subject to alteration. So basically
all I mean
> when I say fundamentalist is that I take the Bible seriously, which
varies a
> bit from Websters definition.
i, as a former fundamentalist, can pretty much say that this is a
rather "open" idea of Biblical interpretation...the fundamentalism i'm
used to would actually claim you weren't a real christian becuase you
beleive this way...
as for me, i take the Bible seriously, so seriously in fact, that i
remain committed to read it with full intellectual and spritiual
honsety and to the best of my ability. sometimes that leads me to a
literal reading, sometimes metaphorical, but always with the idea that
it will ead me, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, toward a
deeper understanding of God. or as blind willie johnson sang :
"i read the bible often
i try to read it right
as far as i can understand
it ain't nothin but a burning light."
yep. you're no fundamentalist. you're a *liberal.* and i bet you
didn't even know....
john.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com