Web Browsing- Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows: Windows 7: Simple vs. Easy 5 January 2009A review of the upcoming (sometime) Windows 7 offers some interesting observations about the way we use computers. He discusses the difference between "simple" and "easy" technology while debunking the notion of "intuitive" programs. Regardless of what Microsoft does with its OS, this article encourages thought about the way tec […]
- Another side of President Bush 23 December 2008It's sometimes hard to cut through the clutter to see the kind of man President Bush is. Stories like this one from the Wall Street Journal are a helpful reminder that even if we may disagree with some of his decisions, attacking him as a man is uncalled for. Even though his version of "compassionate conservatism" has drawn the ire of some con […]
- Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not - NYTimes.com 3 November 2008Do liberal faculty affect the political leanings of students? These people say no. But let's look a little deeper. One author says "it is really hard to change the mind of anyone over 15." Does this mean that the average American thinks about politics now the same way he did when he was 15? Yikes. It appears to imply that political opinions a […]
- Obama, Shaman by Michael Knox Beran, City Journal Summer 2008 3 November 2008Beran brilliant combines culture, religion, and literature into a powerful commentary on the religious aspects of Barack Obama's candidacy. The article is rich (and lengthy), but certainly worth digesting.
- Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows: Windows 7: Simple vs. Easy 5 January 2009
Dec
4
Recovering fundamentalists?
Filed Under Theology
Do these people really mean to imply that fundamentalism is a kind of sickness?
Lincoln has recently posted his observations about a Facebook thread called “Recovering Fundamentalists.” Since he has closed comments, I will make a couple of observations here.
1. Victimization in Fundamentalism
Sure, so-called fundamentalists have abused people. The people whining on the Facebook thread are almost certainly not among the more serious cases. Besides, we shouldn’t critique an ideology because of the way people have abused it. If we did, we should critique Christianity itself (think Inquisition, Crusades, etc.). We critique ideologies for what they say. Fundamentalism (as an idea) does not condone spiritual abuse–quite the opposite.
2. Ingratitude
Lincoln fails to make a subtle point in his initial post. He corrects it in his last comment. The problem is not necessarily that these people aren’t grateful. It’s that you can’t tell. One commenter observes that gratitude does not preclude criticism. Of course it doesn’t. But one should still be grateful, even if criticism is justified. The problem with these Facebook conversations (and I’m sure there are other forums for them as well) is that few seem genuinely grateful. It’s all criticism (and other less refined sniping).
3. Myopia
I think these threads are myopic, but maybe not in exactly the sense Lincoln mentions1. Many on these kinds of threads seem to be unable to see past their own nose. There are factual inaccuracies, hasty generalizations, fallacies of accident, and a host of other logical and rhetorical blunders. The funny thing is, these people seem to think that their time away from BJU (for that is really the topic most of the time) gives them an outsiders considered perspective. In reality, most of their thinking is still governed by the fundamentalist (BJ) culture. They’re just reacting to ideas they disagree with, rather than offering substantive original ideas. Their methods offer little for edification.
A word on my view2: I tend to think that a number of the more thoughtful commenters on these threads actually have some decent ideas and criticisms. But the ideas are buried so far beneath the caustic rhetoric that they are no longer powerful.
I think fundamentalism, even the BJ variety, could stand a little more self-criticism than it sometimes gets. Not everything in the movement is worth keeping. In some places, tradition and cultural distinctives have supplanted biblical truth. In some places, theology has become suspect (though this is rare in the BJ circles, IMO). But regardless, the tone and substance of the few Facebook discussions I’ve seen are doing nothing to help solve any problems, much less help anyone reading and participating.
- I’m not sure that these people have enough impact on those around them to seriously damage the future cause of the Kingdom. Maybe some do, in which case, Lincoln’s comments are sound back↩
- In thinking about this subject, I considered the difference in content and tone between the Facebook threads I’ve read and a site such as SharperIron. SI has its share of people who don’t care for BJU or certain aspects of fundamentalism. However, the tone with which people criticize BJU and fundamentalism in general is quite different from that on the Facebook threads. There are some interesting demographical differences between the sites, which actually may contribute to the difference between their treatments of the issues at hand back↩
Comments
5 Responses to “Recovering fundamentalists?”
Leave a Reply
For the sake of clarity, what exactly are we supposed to be grateful to? Fundamentalism? Or BJU? Or are the two conflated? Does the answer make a difference?
And let me get this straight…
If, just hypothetically, you had a professor from whose teaching you profited, but later you found that you disagree with that professor on some things (even some very important things), would you be justified in publicly charging that that teacher with, say, ignoring, twisting, or explaining away key biblical truths, or perhaps with promulgating partial truths and ungracious polemic? Would that violate your duty to be grateful for the benefit you have received at that professor’s hands?
And even if it is true, these hypothetical charges, would you be right to say so in such a public forum, given that you might cause others to follow you out of ignorance? Or do you have a duty to warn them from what you believe is dangerous?
Just trying to figure out the argument.
Why I consider myself to be a recovering fundementalist:
The “fundementalist” movement began to combat the modernist movement, espically such things as the social gospel and darwinianism. It affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth, the literal bodily ressurection, Sola Scriptura, the literal creation, etc. etc. As far as this original definition of fundementalism goes, I am unashamedly and totally a fundementalist. These fundementals are what I refer to as the “inward fundementals.” Someone who rejects these basic biblical precepts either has an obvious heart problem and very likely is unsaved or has very little grounding in the scriptures and after biblical study will accept them as true.
However, and this is a big however, from my experience growing up in today’s fundementalism these basic biblical principles are no longer the major focus of fundumentalism. Fundementalism has become more and more about the outward instead of the inward. It is about looking and acting a certain accepted way. Fundementalists don’t drink, dress in a certain way, are clean cut, don’t smoke, don’t go to the movies, etc. I believe that the only things worth separating over are those which are specifically addressed by the Bible in a manner which leaves no doubt as to the right. Areas such as dress, music, and others heavily emphasised by the fundementalist movement are ones which can be interpreted in many different ways, much as the passage in 1Cor 11 on covering the head, and are a matter of private conviction which should not be forced on others. I am not going to tell my friend who listens to the Newsboys and has hair to his shoulders that he has a heart problem merely on those grounds. Sure, I may think his hair looks ridiculous but it’s none of my business and the Bible doesn’t condemn it. Yes, these may be a manifestation of other issues, but on the other hand he may be growing out his hair for locks of love (like someone I know) and doesn’t care what he looks like while his parents are fine with it.
For example: there is a large, reletively well known, fundementalist church in my area. This church has a christian school and a few years ago started a college. I have visited this church and I know many who attend/have attended/go to school there but I myself do not go there. I have a friend (now a Freshman at BJ and from a well know at BJ missionary family in South America) who went to school there for her senior year of highschool while her family was on furlough. She told me that it was one of the worst years of her life… the other teens there were some of the most rebellious and unspiritual she had ever met and that she felt that the basic doctrine of this church/school was: don’t drink, don’t go to the movies and (girls) don’t wear pants. Several of my friends have confirmed this view of the church - a church specifically mentioned to me by the principle of the BJH as “one of his favorite churches to visit, very likeminded.” This is also the attitude I picked up from many many others in the fundementalist movement, it is not just one abberition, i merely use it as an example.
I feel that the fundementalist movement has become very legalistic and judgmental. I call myself a recovering fundementalist because I myself have fallen into the error of thinking that if someone did not hold to my own private convictions they were not a good christian. I have lost many friendships to my own pride and legalism, something I sincerely regret. I do not wish to be seen as a legalist and therefore disassociate myself from the “fundementalist” movement. After all, doesn’t God look at our hearts, not our outward appearances? Why should I be any different? I have many friends who are very far from being in line with what is seen by the fundementalist as a “good christian.” They listen to rock and/or CCM, the don’t dress conservatively, they go to the movies (as do I), they may drink socially(I don’t), but many of them have even closer walk with God than I have. Who am I to condemn them?
I do not feel that I am in any way ungrateful. As regards BJU, I am very grateful for my teachers. I learned a great deal from them and respect most of them very much. I am very sad when my friends are called in to see their dorm sups and other so-called spiritual leaders and told they have a heart problem because of their own personal beliefs that do not necessarily correspond to those of the BJU handbook, when they have broken no rules but merely expressed an opinion. But I have taken the good that I learned and not thrown that away with the bad. Would I go to BJU again if I had to do it all over again? Probably not. I am not whining or complaining, just stating a fact. I am not calling myself a victim. In fact, I might say that there are those in the past who have been my victims. I am not hastily generalizing. In fact, I could enlarge much more but time and space limit me.
Becca:
I don’t think you’re incorrect in pointing out genuine errors. But the biblical principle that comes to mind is to entreat an elder as a father. I realize that the word “elder” has a fairly narrow meaning in most places in the NT, but the point it suggests is good advice. The kind of polemical griping that typically gets aimed at some teachers isn’t necessary or edifying.
As far as it relates to gratitude, I don’t doubt that one can be grateful and critical at the same time. What I’m saying is that the gratitude is next-to-invisible on most of the forums under discussion. People say that they’re grateful when asked, but usually you can’t really tell. What does that communicate? And it’s not what to be grateful to; it’s what to be grateful for. Public gratitude to the Lord for His gracious use of flawed people is never out of line.
(BTW, I do not conflate fundamentalism with BJU. In my reading on Facebook, however, it seems that some do.)
Miranda:
I sense that you are trying to distinguish between fundamentalism as an idea and fundamentalism as a movement. I sympathize. As a movement, fundamentalism has managed to display all sorts of problems that one might expect of sinful people. The idea of fundamentalism, as you pointed out, is biblically sound.
Contemporary fundamentalism is changing. It is no longer a homogeneous culture (if it ever really was). There is a growing divide particularly between people our age and the older generation. Our generation is coming into leadership, and they are bringing with them strong criticisms of the prevailing fundamentalist culture. My advice to you (and others like you–including myself to a degree) is to be patient with the movement and keep tight to the idea. May I point you to this address by Dr. Kevin Bauder.
A couple of direct responses–God looks at our heart, but He also cares about our outward appearance. The oft-quoted passage from 1 Samuel doesn’t negate our need to obey externally. It merely points out the potential pitfall of judging people based only on their outward appearance. There are a host of characteristics of genuine believers in the NT; we can’t look and act like the rest of the world and claim to be Christian. (Of course, what it means to look and act like the world may be a matter of considerable debate, and I’m going to try to avoid it for now.)
I did read Dr. Bauder’s address and found it interesting and helpful in understand better what exactly Fundamentalism is. It also made me feel more comfortable in dismissing it–I try to explain why in my own post on the topic, but it at least helps me be less angry about it.
I can respect what “little f” fundamentalism was trying to accomplish and what it was responding to. Perhaps my perspective is colored some by my exposure to more ancient traditions that seem to have responded to those problems in other ways.