Fundamentalism is the basis of everything that I have ever known. I was born while my father was attending a fundamentalist Bible college. He planted a fundamentalist church in New Jersey. My parents homeschooled me and my two sisters until I was in 11th grade, when I went to a small fundamentalist school. I graduated from a fundamentalist Bible college and worked in a fundamentalist church for the first seven years of my ministry career.
My problem is that I never bought into it. Everything about the fundamentalism that I grew up in felt forced. Whether it was knocking on my neighbor’s doors to hand them tracts or going to summer camp and getting ‘rededicated.’ I was always the slightly offbeat kid who did not quite fit in. Unlike my friends, I never hid the ‘unchristian’ parts of my faith, especially in the area of music.
It might have had something to do with my childhood problems (I had some kind of scar tissue in my brain that required several medications to repress neural activity until my brain could work around it) but in my teens, I saw the substance in my faith and just basically ignored everything else.
If we were singing hymns, I wanted to kick up the rhythm. If I was asked to preach, I almost always got talked to later about crossing some line or another. I repeatedly got in trouble while teaching at a Christian school because I had no problem with swearing, teenagers holding hands, etc. In short, I have always been a terrible fundamentalist. I conformed if I had to, but I never drank the Kool-Aid.
I like to believe that historical fundamentalism embraces truths that unify believers, not distinctions that give us excuses to separate from them. For me, fundamentalism begins and ends with a belief in the historical-grammatical, literal interpretation of Scripture. When you interpret the Bible literally, you will arrive at the conclusions that were the doctrinal foundations of fundamentalism:
- A rejection of the higher criticism of Scripture
- Acceptance of the virgin birth, incarnation and deity of Jesus
(People will argue lists that range from 5 to 11 ‘fundamentals’ but they all boil down to these two points).
My place in this blog is as one of the historians. I am fanatic when it comes to historical accuracy.
JasonS
July 28, 2009
Erik,
Amazing that we would actually decide to post such similar posts on the same day!
Looking forward to your historical contributions.
I know that yours will be much more in depth than mine, too.
Jeremy Pierce
July 30, 2009
Have you read Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s account of what it means to call someone a fundamentalist?
John
July 31, 2009
As with Jason, this is my “niche” as well – I prefer calling myself an apologist.
I am interested in your definition of “fundamentalist” and “literal”. Few know about The Fundamentals that the name came from – most associate it with the fairly socially separatist movement that arose in the early 20th century. Which side of the fundamentalist vs Evangelical split did you land on?
I pretty much hate the word “literal” because so many take it outside the meaning you implied and think it means we do not understand all the different litery forms in scripture.
I look forward to your writings
Jeremy Pierce
July 31, 2009
It’s a misuse of the term ‘literal’ to say that anyone, and I mean anyone at all, doesn’t take the early chapters of Genesis literally. Read those chapters to someone totally unfamiliar with them, and then ask them if the word for snake refers to a snake or to something else (e.g. a man’s sex organs) as it might in a book like the Song of Songs. Ask them if the word for tree refers to a tree or to something else (as in the prophets, where it might refer to Israel symbolically). The language is being used literally. Even those who don’t think the events happened historically will accept that within the account the terms are being used literally. What people might do is take the entire account to be a non-chronological, theological account of how God interacts with us and explains the problem of sin. But that’s not the same thing as saying the language is metaphorical. It’s mostly literal language. The birds in the creation account aren’t symbols of the Holy Spirit or anything.
JasonS
July 31, 2009
Jeremy,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Just curious; how is this comment relevant to this post?
Jeremy Pierce
August 3, 2009
It’s a response to the use of the word ‘literal’ in the original post.
Erik
July 31, 2009
I think the word “literal” gets abused by far too many people. To me, historical-grammatical literalism requires that you interpret the passage as it was intended to be read by the original audience. The best way to illustrate this is the concept of matrices (plural of MATRIX, not the movie but the original idea of ‘womb’). You see, the original author wrote into an original context. His ideas were conceived and executed in a matrix – a culture, a language, a social group within both, etc. The Scriptures were transmitted to us through various other matrices which interpreted things in various ways. And today, we are in yet another matrix or web of matrices, composed of not only the original matrix and subsequent conveying matrices but also elements not included in either.
The complexities of matrices (again, remember that the word means ‘womb’) is at the core of what Jesus has to say in John 3 where he challenges a Jewish leader who himself was entangled in various matrices to be ‘born again.’ It is not enough to THINK we know everything about a passage of Scripture. We must be willing admit what we do not know.
Allow me to use Jeremy’s tangential statement about the Cosmological passages of Genesis 1-3. There is not definitive evidence to support his position other than his matrix. Sitting down to read the Bible, he assumes that everyone would assume that the is meant to be taken historically. But what do we know of the culture in which it arose? We know very little of the narrow matrix which gave us these books, but we do know enough about the greater culture of southwestern Asia in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages to know that the literal reading of their creation stories was often more teleological than historical. I have written more about this here. The original audience would not have read this allegorically – which is what Jeremy is rejecting, and I would reject as well. But literal does not necessarily mean historical. Sometimes literal means metaphorical; sometimes it means teleological; sometimes it means idiomatic.
As to the meaning of the word “fundamentalist”, I outlined plainly what I mean by that term above – rejection of higher criticism and acceptance of the virgin birth, incarnation and resurrection of Jesus.
Simply put, the rejection of higher criticism the rejection of the idea that the Bible is NOT the inspired Word of God. It is a rejection of the theory that the Bible is a wholly human book. It allows for the belief of any variety of theories as to the operation of inspiration but disallows the rejection of inspiration itself.
John
July 31, 2009
thank you
I agree with your definition of fundamentalist, and it is certainly true to . If you can return that word to its original historical meaning then awesome.
However, when I get hit with the title “fundamentalist” or told that I am an idiot for taking the Bible “literally” – the meanings in the culture are a little different. That is not so true of “fundamentalist”; but certainly true of “literalist”.
Frankly, the Scopes trial drove Fundamentalism right out of the public square – and made true Fundamentalists pretty separatist. This is probably what you mean by Extreme Fundamentalism. The neo-Evangelical – Fundamentalist split highlighted the question of whether we are to be “Cities on a Hill” or “Salt and light in the world”. For a while, fundamentalism was pretty quiet – withdrawing from the culture and allowing the Evangelicals to interact with it.
Then came the neo-Fundamentalists (Christian Coalition) and the Culture Wars that have ensued over abortion, gays, etc. What the overall culture views a Fundamentalist to be is a rigid, judgemental, holier-than-thou, outsider. When I hear people called fundamentalists that is subtext.
I think you and Jeremy (and me) agree on “literalist”. It is not that we think the words are the words; but whether we think the words are true – dictated by God and completely unmistaken. Do we, as literalists, believe:
- the world was forned in 7 days 4000 years ago?
- did cave children ride on dinosaurs as depicted at the Creation museum?
- do we really believe the entire scientific community is crazy to believe in evolution?
- do we really believe Moses wrote the Pentetuch?
A lot of that is wrapped up in your definition of fundamentalist; but to call ourselves fundamentalists and literalists in the context of the current culture creates some challenges.
Since, by the definitions I see here, I am both a fundamentalist and a literalist – I plan to be around
John
July 31, 2009
That code didnt work
Is there a preview button?
JasonS
July 31, 2009
John,
This blog is a work in progress, to be sure.
We intend to outline the history and doctrines of Historic Fundamentalism. We also intend to deal with the excesses of extreme fundamentalism.
We may even get into the issue of what went wrong with fundamentalism.
All of this will take quite a while.
Hang in there with us, and keep the interaction going. We appreciate sincere questions and comments.
Jason
Jeremy Pierce
August 3, 2009
I’m not sure what position you think I’m taking or rejecting, but I wasn’t commenting on how we should read Genesis 1-3. I’m not offering a view of what people would or should conclude by looking at the text, with or without knowing the cultural background. I’m offering the view that everyone reads this text literally (just as no one reads the Good Shepherd passage in John literally).
What I was saying is that someone who thinks the events happened as in the account and someone who doesn’t can both take the language literally. One might think it’s a historical account of real people named Adam and Eve who were the first human beings in a real garden with a real tree that they really ate from. Someone else might take the whole account to symbolize spiritual truths but not think there were such people as Adam and Eve. But both take the language in the text literally, because both accept that there’s a story being told that has a tree in it, and the word for “tree” is being used to refer to a literal tree in the story rather than the metaphorical usage it might have been put to in the prophets or the Song of Songs.
So the use of the word ‘literal’ seems wrong to me if what you’re trying to defend is classic inerrancy (or infallibilism, to use the more common historical term for the same view) or (as in the case of Genesis) a hermeneutic that the passage describes genuine events with real people. I think these are different views, as well, because I think you could hold either without the other. I’d rather educate about these more fundamental issues than assume someone will know what I mean when I use words like ‘literal’ or ‘fundamentalist.
JasonS
August 3, 2009
Jeremy,
Thanks for stopping back in.
You bring up some interesting points.
Since this is Erik’s post, I’ll not respond, but sit back and let you two dialogue.
I do hope that you’ll be a regular visitor and contribute to our blog. We’re new, but looking forward to dealing with the fundamentals of the faith. That will of a necessity come down to a hermeneutical issue at some time or another. Would like for your comments when we do so.
Jason
Erik
August 4, 2009
First, I was aware that you were not commenting on the reading of Gen 1-3. This is why I referred to it as tangential.
Second, I agree that literal is not confined to believing everything in Scripture is ACTUAL. Most commentators accept the use of idiom and literary technique in the Scriptures, although to varying degrees. The term literal is short hand for trying to read the Scriptures as they were originally intended to be read. It really has nothing to do with inerrancy. It is a technical descriptor. At its core, it is the embracing of the belief that the Scriptures are meant to be read as they were written. It requires the use of tools to best understand that original meaning. It, in all its various forms, is distinguished from allegorical interpretation which sees everything as representing purely spiritual truth.
Erik
July 31, 2009
Indeed. For the most part, I do not use the term fundamentalist. I will say that I affirm the fundamentals of the Christian faith; but the word FUNDAMENTALIST is so charged, especially since its use in the media when referring to terrorists and radicals.
I have struggled with the term literal, and I general use the term historical-grammatical interpretation, but even that has some baggage. This is why I adopted the term ‘matrix’. It is, unfortunately, tainted by pop culture but it actually applies to my method of hermeneutics.