FYI, I'm writing this from my new Macbook. Yes, for all 5 of you who occasionally check this, I have seen the error in my ways and have repented of my PC usage. And I'm loving it. Did you know that if your cellphone has bluetooth, you can edit your own ringtones in GarageBand?? Needless to say, Derek Webb and a smokin Keith Urban guitar solo are now ringtone options on my phone. Weeeeelllll, I wanted to post a thought that I don't necessarily whole-heartedly think is accurate, but it gets me thinking and wondering when I read it. See what you think, and let me know, you 5....
"Fundamentalism is more dangerous than liberalism because everything is done in the name of the Lord; in the name of the Lord, the fundamentalist condemns all who disagree with him... he uses the Bible as a club with which to beat people over the head, rather than a means of personal strength and a revealer of God. To the fundamentalist, the test of fellowship is correct doctrine. If you do not agree with his doctrinal position, he writes you off and will not have fellowship with you.
There is no room in his world for those who have a different persuasion. He feels threatened by diverse convictions and writes them off as sinister and heretical. As long as you support his position, he is with you. Cross him, and he has no use whatever for you... the fundamentalist tactic is simple: hatred, bitterness and condemnation of all whom they despise... in the name of the Lord they will launch vehement attacks on individuals and churches, in the name of the Lord they attempt to assassinate the character of those whom they oppose, they direct their attack most often on other Christian leaders with whom they find disagreement...."
-Jimmy Draper, 'The Church Christ Approves'
Southern Baptist Pastor, Fundamentalist, and former President of Lifeway Christian Resources
6.16.2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
He is overgeneralizing.
First of all, I'm not anonymous. Secondly, replace fundamentalist with legalist, and replace more dangerous with AS dangerous, and I would agree with the statement. Fundamentalim is ABSOLUTELY necessary. The fundamental beliefs of the faith - salvation by grace through faith etc.. are irreplaceable.
I am a fundamentalist, not a legalist or a seperatist.
It seems to me that many 'fundamentalists' are really legalists then. Doctrines to them are like bricks in a wall, and that wall serves to separate them from 'liberals' and 'heretics'; basically anybody else who doesn't see scripture through exactly the same lens as they do. Many 'fundamentalists' have earned the bad reputation they have gotten; they claim to have an exclusive understanding of what is theologically and doctrinally true and accurate, but they sorely lack an understanding of things, like love, and humility, and selflessness. I don't care how seamless your system of thought about God is if your life shows little evidence of being changed by Him. With all that said, I think you can hold to what we have defined as the 'fundamentals of the faith' without being a 'fundamentalist' in your attitude and behavior.
Josh,
I agree with you that doctrine is important. However, what is more important, defending EVERY brick in the wall of conservative doctrine to the detriment of fellowship, or loving our enemies? What matters more, defending a conservative cessationist view of speaking in tongues, or putting missionaries out 'on the field?' These are the kinds of problems I see with quite a few in the 'fundamentalist' camp. I guess what I'm trying to say is that liberalism and denial of the obvious fundamental truths of scripture is a serious problem, but what is just as (if not more) serious is those who claim to have the right understanding of what God's word says, but whose attitudes and actions betray and reveal them as prideful, hard-hearted, and unloving. Just because you know what the truth is (or what you may think it is) does not mean that you are living like it. Probably the majority of 'fundamentalists' are not like this, but there's enough that are that it makes me want to not associate with fundamentalists as a group. Will I hold to fundamental truths about who God is, what He has done for us, and what He has said is going to happen? Yes. But call myself a fundamentalist and be lumped into a group of people who generally tend to be known for their pride, arrogance and cold-heartedness towards anyone who believes slightly different than they do? No thanks. It's not ok to believe many of the things that 'liberals' believe, but I'm fine with people THINKING that I'm a liberal just because I don't associate myself with the fundamentalist camp.
By the way, whoever anonymous is, please leave a name and email next time. If you're going to leave your thoughts on my page, give me the opportunity to do the same. Any further comments from anonymous authors will be deleted. Thanks!
ok so i'm too physically/ mentally exhausted to delve into the deep waters of this entry but....
congrats on the macbook! welcome.
hope your summer is going great rob!
My brother in law recently had his fundamentalist school dis-associate with him because his mission board didn't take a firm stand on the place of the rapture - that's right, the RAPTURE. Not the millennium, but when Jesus will take his church home. I don't have a firm stand on that either!
I agree with your frustration over the separatist attitude of the leglist, but boycotting them is actually alligning yoursel against them - being THEM to THEM. Shouldn't we simply be Biblical about our doctrine and relationships.
You know the tension I live with in that very environment. I would absolutely take that over trying to live and teach true doctrine inn an environment that doesn't value the inspired Word of GOd.
I love your thughts Rob, continue to hash them through.
And Yes, I do agree about the legalist calling himself a fndamentalist. What the legalist holds to is NOT fundamental, but ADDITIONAL. They hold to fence laws that "protect" the fundamentals, as if God need their help!
I've been asking alot of people about the term fundamentalism, and they are in agreement - with you. Apparently if someone believes in the fundamentals of the faith, they would be a Biblicist, whereas a legalist and a fundamentalist would walk hand and hand (unless they were opposite sex on Bob Jones or Pensacola campuses).
I've been asking alot about this thought process. Apparently most people agree - with you. Apparently the term fundamentalist walks hand in hand with legalist (except on the campuses of Bob Jones or Pensacola where that would be breaking the rules). Apparently the thinking today is that a person who holds to the fundamental Biblical doctrines, but is free of the dogma and fense laws that often accompany that belief system would simply be dubbed a Biblicist.
Post a Comment