Trends in losing their religion (Part 1: the unsurprising)

The Religious Views of 20-Somethings, Part 1 | Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders

Last semester I assigned the students in the community college World Religions course I teach a series of writing exercises that (I hoped) would help them personalize and internalize the subject matter we were reading about and discussing in class....
First some trends I did not find surprising.
Spiritual but not religious.....

Happy to believe many things at once. ....
Religion irrelevant

While I'll agree with all three of these, I think there is at least two other factors involved (at least in Christianity):.  First, not only is doctrine taught in toto, but in a manner that brooks no questions.  Second, beliefs that are not expressly taught by scripture (although often not expressly rejected by scripture either) are being taught as doctrine.
(Note that a reply by "elegance" seems to have been removed between the time I read the replies and submitted my own).

Actually, I agree with sheerahkahn and if elegance wants, I can quote any number of passages from Blinded By Might (written by two men who held prominent positions in the Religious Right) that support his(?) statement chapter and verse. Or, if you still don't believe us, then explain why you think that the Betty Bowers website is so popular. If it wasn't close enough to the original for people to recognize what it was trying to parody, then it would fail to work as parody. For many Americans (both Christian and non-Christian), theological conservatism and sociopolitical conservatism are inseparable- IOW, they see no distinction between the fundamentals of the Christian faith and the attitudes mentioned by sheerahkahn. To them, being Christian (or at least orthodox and/or fundamentalist) necessarily entails being part of the Religious Right.
And I half-agree with Tim: a lot of it does have to do with presentation. However, I think another problem is that we have mixed in un-biblical (although not necessarily anti-biblical) concepts and presented them as doctrine.
(N.B.: the distinction I would make between un and anti biblical would be this: anti would include beliefs that are contrary to scripture, such as unitarianism, reincarnation, etc., while un would include things neither supported nor rejected by scripture such as capitalism, democracy, etc.)

The article is also available on the author's blog, where I left the following response:

Saw this article over at Leadership Journal, a.k.a. Our of Ur (who, BTW, have the audacity to have not updated the link to your blog, but I set them straight :) ). I left a somewhat different answer there, but to sum it up, I wonder if much of the problem is not only are they expected to "adopt an entire belief system in toto" but to do so without questions (theirs) or explanations (the church’s). Maybe it’s just me, but when I’m learning a new job, it helps if I know not only what I’m supposed to do, but why I’m supposed to do it as well. Similarly, I think it’s possible that some young people might get turned off if they’re simply being told what to believe without being given a sufficient reason why to believe it (and, no, "because that’s what the church has always believed" does not count as sufficient).
Just wondering if you’ve seen some of this in the responses as well and, if so, if this might contribute to the "buffet effect".

Six Signs that Your Depiction of Fundamentalists Relies More on Media Stereotypes than Historical Research

Ten Signs That You Might Be a Fundamentalist - Free Online Library

Do all ten of the characteristics apply to all fundamentalists? In reality, folks are probably fundamentalist by degrees. However, the two elements of certitude and a supporting, indoctrinating subculture are universal characteristics. I want to end with an assignment. Go back over the list and write the inverse of each point. What would such person or society acting on reverse characteristics look like?

My main objection to the article is that I could not find a characteristic that either didn't apply to all fundamentalists, or, even if it did, also applied to the general population (although in some cases, with minor changes in terminology; note that I added the second item, edited the third and moved several lower than what they originally were):

1. You fail to notice that the first four items in the above list, with minor changes in terminology, are applicable to a wide variety of people. For example, if one substitutes "irrationality", "irrational", and "rational" for "Dominion of Darkness", "evil", and "righteous", one winds up with the views of many atheists. Furthermore, the tenth item is applicable not only to much of Christianity (e.g., I've heard many non-fundamentalist Christians question whether I'm really a Christian because I'm a fundamentalist), but other religions as well.  
2. You believe that the more vocal, more controversial, and more political fundamentalists speak for all fundamentalists and are totally unaware (or else ignore) the original definition of the term "fundamentalism". This is akin to saying that Madalyn Murray O'Hair or the new atheists represent all atheists. Thus, items 6-10 are not characteristic of all fundamentalists.
3. You believe there is such a thing as "Islamic fundamentalism" (an idea that is refuted in the link to the original definition of fundamentalism above).
4. You view the terms "Religious Right" and "fundamentalist" as synonymous.
5. You believe that "theological conservatism" must necessarily lead to "social and/or political conservatism".
6. You have no explanation as how one can reject the fundamentals of the Christian faith and yet still be considered "Christian".

[Update: If I were to this over again, I would have split the second into two as follows:
2. You are totally unaware of (or else ignore) the original definition of fundamentalism and therefore believe that one can be fundamentalist "by degrees".  On the contrary, either one believes all five of the fundamentals or one doesn't.
3. Because of this second error, you mistake the more vocal (strident?), more controversial, and more political faction(s) of fundamentalism as the authentic representatives of the movement.
Furthermore, I would have added an eighth sign:
8. You consider a Inherit the Wind as a historical recreation of the events of the Scopes Trial.]

A few more notes:
1) I realize in cases of ex-fundamentalists such as Mr. (my apologies if I should use "Dr." or some other honorific instead) Alexander's, personal experience probably plays a larger role than media stereotypes. The point I was trying to make in the title, however, remains: most of these characteristics are either not true of all fundamentalists or are also true of most of culture as well (with perhaps minor changes in the terminology used as noted).
2) My mention of "media stereotypes" is not meant to imply a belief in a general media conspiracy against fundamentalists, but rather that the media tends to focus on controversy because that's what tends to sell.
3) As for the assignment mentioned in the last paragraph, I doubt that such a person really exists. I think that everyone displays a certain amount of certainty about his or her beliefs (otherwise, why hold them?). Furthermore, I've yet to find a subculture that didn't have some beliefs beyond question... or someone who has said "question everything" who hasn't added a (usually unspoken) "except for what I tell you" to it. Besides, my first question after someone tells me to "question everything" tends to be "How can I be sure I'm questioning everything and not just looking for rationalizations to believe what I want to believe?".
4) As for an assignment I'd like to give: study the original fundamentalists and note the differences between them and how fundamentalists are portrayed today (for those interested, a good start might be my "Myths about Fundamentalists" series).

While my response originally appeared on the webpage linked at the beginning of this article, it appears to have been subsequently removed.

Of ancient texts and modern historiographical standards

Getting Inerrancy Wrong | Parchment and Pen

Sadly, though, it is becoming increasingly clear (again) that even some of those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture have different interpretations of what inerrancy means. I believe in inerrancy. But maybe not how others define it. No I am not trying to redefine anything, but the fact is that when it comes to this issue there is a spectrum of belief in those who confess the doctrine. I am sure that there would be those out there who would see my view of inerrancy as a liberal compromise.
Inerrancy: the Biblical doctrine that says that the Scripture, in the autographs (originals), when interpreted correctly, is true in all that it teaches and upon which it touches.

My response (with minor editting and awaiting moderation):

When discussing inerrancy, one of the major pitfalls that people fail to avoid is judging ancient historical texts by modern standards of historicity. For example, Tony Woodman writes that Tacitus’ frequent use of of what Woodman calls "substantive imitation’... may sound scandalous to the majority of his modern readers, who evidently still regard him as a faithful historian[*], but that is because they fail to take account of the way in which ancient writers wrote history.... [A]ncient historians resorted to ‘substantive imitation’ far more regularly than is sometimes supposed" (from his essay in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, pp. 152-153; emphasis added). Rather than utilizing a "just the facts" approach to recording history, the ancients were more interested in imitating the writings of past worthies and writing dramatic narratives- both which, they hoped, would make their writings more memorable. Thus, they saw nothing wrong with arranging events in achronological order or utilizing such rhetorical devices as mimesis (another word for Woodman’s "substantive imitation"), telescoping events, etc. as long as the basic facts were correct. Applying this to the biblical texts, it would be just as wrong to judge their historicity by modern standards as it would be to similarly judge the writings of other ancient historians.
* I’m not sure whether Woodman is implying that Tacitus wasn’t a "faithful historian" for failing to live up to modern standards of historiography. If so, I would argue that one would first have to show that the modern standards are somehow more accurate in recording history than the ancient standards before doing so.

Deof Movestofca's Grand Web Tour #1: 20 links in 56 days

Note: the following first appeared on the "¤ Deof Movestofca's Web Tour ¤" static page, but were moved here to keep it from getting overloaded with links.

Proud Fundamentalist makes observations similar to my posts in my "Myths about Fundamentalists" series, but from a different angle

Bumper Sticker Christianity A fairly good assessment of "minimalistic" Christianity.

Deeper Issues Behind the Same-Sex Marriage Discussion The main issue, as I write in response to the article, is whether marriage is a God-made or man-made institution.

John Piper: I Was Racist | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction I find myself agreeing with some of what Piper says and disagreeing with other statements of his.  In this case (an excerpt of an article by [about?] him that appears to have been printed in Christianity Today), I find his writing to be too muddled to know whether I agree with him or not.  Perhaps he becomes clearer as the article progresses, in which case I might be doing his writing a bit of a disservice here.  From the excerpt itself, however, I couldn't find any indication of what specific point he was trying to make in the article.

Argument Poor, Make Fun of the Opposition add a side of appeal to ridicule with that bacon.

The Problem of Evil: Lesson 03 While the lessons over all are good, I disagree with many of the author's objections to the free will defense.

The Problem of Evil: Lesson 04 So does the author agree with free will or not?

Oh no! My wife’s coming home Well, not my wife, rather that of the author (who makes a very good analogy between cleaning house physically and cleaning house spiritually) of the post

Recall Notice A bit of humor over at TWeb

Why Won't God Heal Amputees No, not the website, but a post trying to "help" it by positing the "argument" that if God existed, He would have created 25-hour days. Since a day only has 24 hours, He doesn't exist.  (An example of Poe's Law, atheist style?)


Is There Really a non-Fundamentalist Christian? I don't see how one can deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith and still claim to be a Christian

Is Inerrancy Idolatry? A Few Simple Thoughts If an inerrantist believes that God is the source of all scripture, and that an effect (in this case, scripture) cannot be greater than its cause (in this case, God), how could they possibly place scripture above God?  An argument only a few intelligence points above the "God would have created a 25-hour day if He existed" one.

The Sad Lack of Rational Argument...  In which an argument by Dr. James F. McGrath against inerrancy on the basis that it relies on circular reasoning is shown to rely on circular reasoning.  Oh, the irony!

exclusivism If living in a pluralistic society didn't stop Peter, John, and Paul from proclaiming an exclusivist message, why should it stop us today?  (I found Johnathon Shelley's satire of the post-modern rationale behind inclusivism especially funny)

voting on heresy Who's next, Arius or perhaps Marcion?

intergenerational warfare Anyone who has heard The Who's "We Won't Be Fooled Again" or Genesis' "Land Of Confusion" should recognize this as being "same song, different verse"
.
Rob Bell takes his message to the churches Nothing really to add here

Does Hebrews Tell Us to Move On from the Gospel? "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text."

pluralism Not all pluralisms were created equal

NB: I give up on making this page looking like I want it to.  Some of the spacing between lines is off, but I've already copied and pasted the entire post to notepad, copied and pasted it back to Blogger, and then re-did the links.  Anyone who thinks I'm going to do it again needs a psychological examination even worse than I do.

Sorry, Mr. Shore, you seem to have fundamentalism confused with social conservatism

Tell Me, Christian, That You Hear This Boy | JohnShore.com

Tell me that your belief system didn’t help but the hot tears on this kid’s cheeks. Tell me that the bullies who torment this kid aren’t in any way encouraged or empowered by your tacit approval of their actions. Tell me that the shame this kid feels about himself has nothing to do with the shame that you believe all gay people should feel for themselves.

I am not going to dispute that there are those who call themselves fundamentalists who tacitly, if not openly, condone such treatment suffered by the young man in the video.  What Mr. Shore fails to demonstrate, however, is how such approval is inherent to fundamentalism- or even to those who think that homosexuality is sinful.

Sorry, but as a fundamentalist, I refuse to fit your stereotype.  I do, however, call anyone who has sinned- including myself- to repent.  And it is up to each person to decide for himself or herself whether to do so or not.  Any attempt to coerce another person to do so, whether through physical violence, derogatory language, or other means, would result, at best, in false repentance.  If God does not force anyone, including me, to repent, then what right do I have to try to force someone else to?
Furthermore, we were all created human.  To treat another person as non-human, to try to dehumanize another person, to act or even feel like another person does not deserve to be treated like a human being is a lie and thus an affront to the Creator.  I feel nothing but moral repugnance for the treatment this young man has suffered.  Whatever sins another person has committed does not in any way abrogate a Christian's duty to treat him or her as a fellow human being.  To ignore such a duty is a sin and, if left unrepented of, is just as liable for judgment as any other sin.
"Tell me that the bullies who torment this kid aren’t in any way encouraged or empowered by your tacit approval of their actions."
Tacit approval?  How much more strongly do you want me to condemn such behavior?
"Tell me, please, how you love this kid."
I love this kid.  He is a fellow human being.  The same salvation that has been offered to me has been offered to him.  If he has not found it, I hope he does.

"Tell me how you understand his pain"
I don't claim that I can understand anyone else's pain.  As much as I might feel or have felt similar pain, each person's pain is their own.

"Tell me how when he cries, you cry."
When he cries, I cry.

"Tell me how you want to do everything in your power to make sure that no one, ever again, feels free to in any way victimize a young gay person."
No problem.  I want to do everything in my power to make sure that no one feels free in any way to victimize a young gay person ever again.

"Tell me that the shame this kid feels about himself has nothing to do with the shame that you believe all gay people should feel
for themselves."
Actually, I think it's the shame I believe all people- and I include myself here- should feel when they sin.  Then again, you seem to believe that the people who victimized this young man should feel shame that they did so.  If you do, why do you condemn others who also believe that those who sin should feel shame?  The only difference between you and them is what each side considers to be sinful.

"Tell me that your belief system didn’t help but the hot tears on this kid’s cheeks."
Let's turn this around and suppose that a fundamentalist reading what you wrote about him or her causes him or her to cry.  Would you agree with the accusation that you are somehow guilty for causing such tears or would you claim that it is not your fault that truth is sometimes painful?

"Tell me that you can’t comprehend the connection between your conviction that God finds homosexuals repulsive, and the fact that this kid finds himself so repulsive that he habitually cuts his own flesh."
Again, sin should be repulsive.  I am repulsed by my own sins, but that does not cause me to cut my own flesh.  Rather, it leads me to repentance.  Thus the problem would seem to be an improper response to the revulsion, although I am well aware that there are other factors that contribute to such behavior which you failed to mention in your question.

 Oddly enough, Mr. Shore makes the following statement three posts later which explains exactly why my sister doesn't feel threatened by my beliefs (emphasis added):

What fun we will have, imagining a world in which what a person believes is considered completely irrelevant compared to what they actually do.

Why you can't always trust what "they" say about dwarfs and trolls*

People were streaming past the Watch House. [Corporal] Carrot [of the Night Watch] stopped a couple by the simple expedient of sticking out his hand.
'Mr Poppley, isn't it?" he said. "How's the grocery business? Hello, Mrs Poppley."
"Ain't you heard?" said the flustered man. "The trolls have set fire to the Palace!"
He followed Carrot's gaze up Broad Way, to where the Palace stood squat and dark in the early evening light. Ungovernable flames failed to billow from every window.
"My word," said Carrot.
"And there's dwarfs breaking windows and everything!" said the grocer.... "I'm off! I'm not stopping to see Mrs Poppley ravished by the little devils! You know what they say about dwarfs!'
The Watch watched the couple head off into the crowd again.
"Well, I don't," said [Night Watchdwarf Watchman Lance-Constable] Cuddy, to no-one in particular. "What is it they say about dwarfs?"
Carrot fielded a man pushing a barrow.
'Would you mind telling me what's going on, sir?' he said.
"And do you know what it is they say about dwarfs?' said a voice behind him....
'They say...' Dibbler [a roaming merchant of questionable foodstuffs, like sausages] began....
'Who says?' said Carrot.
'They say,' said Dibbler. 'You know. They. Everyone. They say the trolls have killed someone up at Dolly Sisters and the dwarfs have smashed up Chalky the troll's all-night pottery and they've broken down the Brass Bridge and--"
Carrot looked up the road.
"You just came over the Brass Bridge," he said.
"Yeah, well... that's what they say," said Dibbler.
"Oh, I see." Carrot straightened up.
"Did they happen to say... sort of, in passing... anything else about dwarfs?" said Cuddy.

-Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms

As much as I would like to get certain previously mentioned dictionaries to change their inaccurate (and illogical) definitions of "fundamentalism", the realistic part of me realizes the likely futility of such a campaign.  In wrapping up this series, I intend to reveal another, more important purpose.  However clichéd the following question is danger of becoming, it still accurately reflects my sentiments: "So you think that you know me?"- simply by my self-identification as a fundamentalist.  Usually it's the more controversial segments of fundamentalism that garner the most media attention because that's what sells papers.  Thus, while it's somewhat understandable that some err in believing that fundamentalism is as monolithic as the coverage makes it appear, it's still a mistake.  The reality is that they no more necessarily speak for me than Madalyn Murray O'Hair necessarily speaks for all atheists.  True, in both cases there's often a great deal of overlap concerning basic beliefs, but beyond those basics, there are those for whom the differences outweigh the similarities.  In other words, there are a wide variety of subjects on which my views differ from theirs.  One would do well to ask me whether I agree with them on a particular subject beyond the fundamentals .that I've previously listed instead of assuming that that all fundamentalists accept their self- (and, to a certain extent, media-) proclaimed status as spokespeople for them.

* (and fundamentalists, as well)

Who wants to be (able to identify) a fundamentalist?

While I could probably keep making new posts listing the various myths about fundamentalists, it would probably be easier just to get them all out of the way.  So I've decided to fast forward this a bit:
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲ [CLICK] [CA-CHUNK}
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲
Sorry about that, I'm currently experiencing some technical difficulties.  Let me try that again:
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲ [CLICK] [WHIRR]
Ah, that's better.  I should be able to turn it off just about here:
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲ [CLICK]
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲
Welcome, one and all, to today's edition of "Who Wants To Be (Able To Identify) A Fundamentalist?", the game show with potentially millions of participants playing from the comfort of wherever they are at the moment (assuming that they're comfortable wherever they are at the moment).  Skipping to the final round, the question will be: Which of the following is defining characteristic of fundamentalists:
A) holier-than-thou
B) politically and socially conservative
C) anti-intellectual
D) seek to protect the essential, or "fundamental", doctrines of the Christian faith such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, His deity, His substitutionary atonement and second coming, and the authority of the Bible (usually expressed in such terms as "infallibility" or "inerrancy").?
And now to lock... um, contestant #2593 (you don't really believe with this many potential contestants, I'm really going to be able to remember all of their names, do you?), you have a question?  No, sorry, there are no lifelines here, you must be mistaking this for some other game show.  But to make it easier for anyone who really needs it, here's a short list of other "ists" and "-isms" that have appeared in Christian history that maybe perhaps might display some sort of trend that a discerning mind could very well use to identify fundamentalists:

• Anglicanism- "the faith and doctrine and practice of the Anglican Church"
• Catholicism- "the beliefs and practices of a Catholic Church"
• Methodist- "a member of any branch of a Protestant Christian denomination that developed from the evangelistic teachings and work of John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, and others in the early 18th cent.: so called from the methodical study and worship practiced by the founders in their 'Holy Club' at Oxford University "
• Protestantism- "The quality or state of being protestant, especially against the Roman Catholic Church; the principles or religion of the Protestants", "Protestants are so called after the declaration (protestatio) of Martin Luther and his supporters dissenting from the decision of the Diet of Spires (1529)...."

The above list should also explain why the typical dictionary definitions discussed a few posts ago are so patently ridiculous.  One would think that any group of people whose common belief was to read every word of the Bible literally would have chosen to designate themselves by something that included the word "literal" (such as, I don't know, literalists, maybe?[/sarcasm])

Of patriots and prophets

No prophet also, except perhaps Jeremiah, felt more keenly than Isaiah the cost of genuine patriotism, or the burden which all true prophets in every age are forced to bear.  He saw clearly that a man cannot be a faithful patriot and always be optimistic, saying complimentary things about his nation or their deeds.

-George Livingston Robinson, p. 22

While I might quibble with Robinson about how one could possibly measure the comparative keenness of feeling among the ancient prophets, I agree with the gist of his statement.  It would appear that Isaiah (and Jeremiah as well) would not have confused love of one's country with blind, jingoistic loyalty.  The quantity of prophecies against Israel and/or Judah made by other Old Testament prophets shows that they were hardly the only two prophets who rejected a "my country, right or wrong" mentality (1).  Rather, such an attitude seems more appropriately attributed to those who opposed them.  For example, Amaziah's adjuration to Amos that he should "go, flee thee away into the land of Judah" (Amos 7:12 KJV) would play well with the "America, love it or leave it" crowd, while his accusation that Amos' pronouncements against Israel constituted conspiracy (7:10) seems eerily  analogous to claims that equate criticism of the U.S. by Americans with sedition or treason.  However, the willingness of the prophets in refusing to whitewash the sins of Israel and Judah stemmed from love: they saw the self-destructive paths down which the two nations were headed and saw repentance as the only means to avoid such consequences.. and repentance requires that one recognize one's sins and amend one's behavior accordingly.  And that's just as true for nations (including the U.S.A.) as it is for individuals.

(1) According to the popular (mis)interpretation of the saying, rather than its original intention by Stephen Decauter.

Robinson, George Livingston.  The Book of Isaiah in Fifteen Studies.  New York: Young Men's Christian Association (1910)

It's the end of the world as we know it (or maybe not), and I feel fine (either way)

So when do I think Jesus is coming back?  Well, maybe not today.  Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of my (after)life, although I reserve the right to add the following proviso: God's view of "soon" might differ from yours or mine.  One should not mistake my tone as disinterest in the subject when I have a great concern over the final destination not only for me, but for my fellow human beings as well.  Instead, it is based on the following realizations:

• God has His own timeline regarding the end of the world, and nothing I or anyone else can do can change it;
• others have to decide for themselves whether or not to follow God and however much I or anyone else might be able to influence another's choice, it cannot be forced; and,
• I can see one of two scenarios occurring: first, I die before Jesus returns and either my name is written in the Book of Life or it isn't or, second Jesus returns before I die and either my name is written in the Book of Life or it isn't  Ultimately, the second part of either scenario (whether my name is written in the Book of Life) is of far greater importance to me than the first (whether I'm still alive when Jesus returns).

A related myth is that fundamentalists look forward to the end of the world and the punishment of sinners with anticipatory delight.  Like the issue of theocracy,  while such a view might be held by some fundamentalists, it isn't held by all of them.  Speaking for myself, I think heaven is going to be one big party with the theme "the more, the merrier".

Not crazy about theocracy

Well I define fundamentalism as the attempt to impose a single 'truth' on a plural world. And what really lies behind it is fear, a profound insecurity that makes you feel when you meet someone who is not like you, or doesn't agree with you, that that challenge is a threat against your very being. Aggression is always a sign of insecurity. And insecurity is always, at bottom, a lack of faith, not a presence of faith

-Jonathan Sacks

While I shall endeavor not to dishearten Mr. Sacks, he is not Humpty Dumpty and therefore not granted the liberty to define a word however he likes (although if this does upset him, I suppose we could call this a "sad Sacks' definition"), especially since he is no better at defining "fundamentalism" than most of the dictionaries I mentioned a couple of posts back.  While it may be true that his statement does reflect the attitude of many fundamentalists (or at least those who claim they are), it is hardly a universal trait among them.  On the contrary, there has always been a remnant within the movement who have opposed not only theocracy, but involvement in politics by the church as an institution.  Case in point: John Gresham Machen, who, according to Roger E. Olson (p. 78), was fundamentalism's "leading theologian" in the 1920s, yet would appear to be the last person one would accuse of "attempt[ing] to impose a single 'truth'" on others.  In addition to his well-known libertarianism (to the point that "[h]e even appeared before the Philadelphia City Council to argue against traffic signals" [Nichols, p. 304]), he viewed "the type of politicizing of the church that was going on in the 1910s and 1920s [as] dangerous....  His overriding fear was that the church would lose its message in the wake of political engagement."  Even Jerry Falwell initially "preached against such involvement" in "the political arena" by the church ([Blinded], p. 19; all references, unless otherwise noted, are from this source) until he changed his stance. When he did help found the Moral Majority, he "was... criticiized by 'true fundamentalists'  such as Bob Jones Jr. and his son, Bob Jones III, for getting too close to politics (p. 18; see also the "Challenges to the Moral Majority" section in the Wikipedia entry for "Moral Majority").   And while I don't remember either Thomas or Dobson identifying themselves as "fundamentalists" in their book, they write about it in very favorable terms, e.g., the latter's overview of the movement on pages 35-37.  Nor do I recall them mentioning Machen, but there are clear parallels, such as Dobson's "When pastors become entangled too deeply with politics, they harm the gospel of Jesus" as one of the "important lessons about the blending of politics and religion to be learned from the troubles in Ireland" (p. 84) and Thomas' "A sound argument can be made that the church does poorly when it seeks or receives the blessing of government and does better and exhibits real power when it is out of favor with government or being persecuted" (p. 96).


Nichols, Stephen J.  Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion of the Christ..  Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity (2008).
Olson, Roger E.  The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology,.  Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox (2004).

Unreliable definitions of fundamentalism

I know it's only my third post, but I'm already handing out a pop quiz.  Don't worry, it should be fairly easy.  Simply try to find the common theme in the following definitions for "fundamentalism":

Vocabulary.com:  "the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth"  (although Vocabulary.com is far from being alone in offering this faulty definition)

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48: "A system of beliefs based on the interpretation of every word in the Bible, both old and new testaments, as literal truth"

Hutchinson's Dictionary of Difficult Words: "belief in the literal truth of all Biblical statements, miracles, etc."

Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.: "religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals"

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching".

Ok, put down your pencils, time's up.  If you answered something like "fundamentalism = literalism", you get a gold star (only a figurative one, sorry), with bonus points if you also recognized how easy it would be to show that only the fourth (depending on how broadly one interpreted "based on") and fifth examples are the only two that come anywhere close to being correct.  How easy?  Well, that brings me to my second pop quiz: read Genesis 2:24 and then calculate your chances of finding even a single fundamentalist that believes that a man and his wife literally become one flesh.

I suppose one could attempt a defense of their definition by pointing out that many fundamentalists identify themselves as literalists.   Even that is somewhat misleading, though, since many (if not most) fundamentalists don't use the word, well, literally.  For example, Article XV of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states that "WE AFFIRM  the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text",   Thus, not all "fundamentalists" would call themselves "literalist", and even fewer who would call themselves "strict literalists", i.e., those who interpret every word of the bible as literal truth.

Maybe it would be better to let fundamentalists define themselves?