So, to repeat, "unbiblical" is not a euphemism on its face; it is a euphemism when used as a stand in for a hermeneutical argument.
Today, I thought we'd poke at the liberals a bit, since the conservatives around here seem to be on the defensive. The euphemism of today is,
fundamentalist.
Again, I'm not implying that fundamentalists do not exist. They do. But liberals and progressives often use "fundamentalist" as a cheap and easy stand-in for someone who has a more conservative biblical hermeneutic.
Fundamentalism as a concept may have started centuries ago, but it was only named as such at the end of the 19th century, at the seminary of my PhD studies. By 1910, five "fundamentals" had been named:
But we all know -- even Dan Kimball knows -- that's not what's meant by "fundamentalist" these days. Today it's a cultural category, often equated with the "God Hates Fags" crazies and Bob Jones University.
All the more reason that liberals and progressives (including some of the commenters on this blog) sin when they refer to thoughtful, right-of-center evangelicals as fundamentalists. To over simplify, let's think of Christian theology like a Bell Curve. Evangelicals and Progressives (including Progressive Evangelicals) make up the middle two standard deviations -- you've got to go out to the 13.6% on the edges to find the fundamentalists and the liberals.
In fact, these boundary categories are what Phyllis Tickle talks about as the 10% of each quadrant that will reify in the corners and not join the Great Emergence in the center.
QED, Evangelicals are not fundamentalists, so let's stop calling them that.
These days, some claim that heritage in Christianity, and there are even denominations with "fundamentalist" in their names. And then you've got evangelicals like Dan Kimball announcing that they are fundamentalist, according to the original definition. Indeed, the American evangelicalism of the 1940s was an attempt to chart a third way between fundamentalism and liberalism (see George Marsden for the low down on that movement).
- The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
- The virgin birth of Christ.
- The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
- The bodily resurrection of Christ.
- The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
But we all know -- even Dan Kimball knows -- that's not what's meant by "fundamentalist" these days. Today it's a cultural category, often equated with the "God Hates Fags" crazies and Bob Jones University.
All the more reason that liberals and progressives (including some of the commenters on this blog) sin when they refer to thoughtful, right-of-center evangelicals as fundamentalists. To over simplify, let's think of Christian theology like a Bell Curve. Evangelicals and Progressives (including Progressive Evangelicals) make up the middle two standard deviations -- you've got to go out to the 13.6% on the edges to find the fundamentalists and the liberals.
In fact, these boundary categories are what Phyllis Tickle talks about as the 10% of each quadrant that will reify in the corners and not join the Great Emergence in the center. QED, Evangelicals are not fundamentalists, so let's stop calling them that.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Is there a thread anywhere on Beliefnet that Mr. Incredible has not hijacked?
After the list of Five Fundamentals were outlined (by the PCUSA), a subgroup of Presbyterians added Dispensationalism to the list and were, to my knowledge, the first, and for awhile the only, church people to self-identify as "fundamentalists". It would be interesting to review subsequent groups of people who embrace the term to see if they also push for "plussed up" doctrinal lists. And also whether those who feel "unfairly" labeled fundamentalist likewise adopt and add-on to the five....
Your Name
November 9, 2009 4:19 PM
Is there a thread anywhere on Beliefnet that Mr. Incredible has not hijacked?
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, having the opportunity to post here, you choose to post that. Now THAT is unbelievable.
"Hijacked"? I've hijacked nothing.
Aren't there enough electrons for everybody? Who's stopping somebody from posting?? Not I.
I would suggest "We're stepping out on faith" as a euphemism for..."we have no plan, and have not thought this through, but we are going to presume on God's provision and do something wreckless."
My issue is that many of the supposed liberals and Progressives have very little problem with the 5 fundamentals themselves. I have encountered so many so called liberals that made my fellow alumni from Moody Bible Institute feel very comfortable. That is why it drives me crazy to hear them calling conservatives "fundamentalists". It is so anti-intellectual that it really does beg to question if they understand the term. Thanks for this. I would question whether there are numerically many evangelicals that really question the 5 fundamentals except for the smaller circles that you and I run in, but that is to move away from your excellent point.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.