Holding back on A W Tozer's analysis a little longer, let's look at where Christian fundamentalism has reached today.
In his book What People Ask About the Church, Dale Robbins writes: "In the broad sense, fundamentalism may be used to describe Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum - exactly how every believer should live." In all probability, this is how serious evangelical Christians the world over would describe themselves. It is therefore a neutral, general description, which distinguishes such believers from liberals on the one hand and ritualists on the other.
However, as Robbins points out: "In recent times, because of increased activism by those identified as fundamentalists, who have promoted unethical actions such as bringing violence against abortion clinics, some academic circles believe that fundamentalism has been redefined by our society... [In their eyes] fundamentalism has evolved into a legitimate form of extremism, with views too radical for the balanced, evangelical Christian."
The analogy with Islamic fundamentalists is never far away. That term only gained currency during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-80. The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of the Ayatollah to a Western audience, described it as "a fundamentalist version of Islam". So Islamic fundamentalism was a merging of religious teaching and social revolution, and this idea has now been carried back to Christianity - at least in the eyes of an onlooking world.
Now, therefore, some Christian theologians refer pejoratively as "fundamentalist" to any Christian thinking or plan of action which they see as too literal-minded and with the potential to rock the boat. On wonders what would they have said of Jesus Christ and the twelve Apostles? The persistent criticisms which they (and non-Christians) level at fundamentalist evangelicals are triumphalism (they make simplistic claims which they cannot prove) and selectivity (they are happy to be literal-minded about Jesus' miracles, but not about Christians sharing all things in common).
The key issue, as I would see it, is open-mindedness. Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, puts it helpfully: The new fundamentalism of our age leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and to the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours. If we, as Christians, reach the point where we are no longer able to question, to "test all things and hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), then our particular brand of fundamentalism is teetering on the edge of the very idealistic extremism we might condemn in others. A sorry state indeed!
Away with the mixing of religion and politics kind of fundamentalism! But, anyone who is certain of what he believes about God is labeled a fundamentalist, and this pejorative term is designed to squash all certainty and definiteness. One of the reasons for the persecution of the early christians was their certainty: they had no doubts and this drove their neighbors crazy!
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts from Tertullian on our degree of 'open-mindedness'
"Let it be granted, that the words, Seek, and you shall find, were addressed to all men (equally)… I lay down that there is some one, and therefore definite, thing taught by Christ, which the Gentiles are by all means bound to believe, and for that purpose to seek, in order that they may be able, when they have found it, to believe… You must seek until you find, and believe when you have found; nor have you anything further to do but to keep what you have believed provided you believe this besides, that nothing else is to be believed, and therefore nothing else is to be sought, after you have found and believed what has been taught by Him
Your object, therefore, in seeking was to find; and your object in finding was to believe.
Once for all I would say, No man seeks, except him who either never possessed, or else has lost (what he sought). The old woman had lost one of her ten pieces of silver, and therefore she sought it; when, however, she found it, she ceased to look for it. The neighbour was without bread, and therefore he knocked; but as soon as the door was opened to him, and he received the bread, he discontinued knocking. The widow kept asking to be heard by the judge, because she was not admitted; but when her suit was heard, thenceforth she was silent. So that there is a limit both to seeking, and to knocking, and to asking. For to every one that asks, says He, it shall be given, and to him that knocks it shall be opened, and by him that seeks it shall be found." from Prescription against Heretics
[Hello, Trevor. I'd like to share the following which I read on the web. Any reaction? Irving]
ReplyDelete(This article reveals research that's No. 1 on the "hate list" of millions of "fundy" Christians
because it shows that their idolized "rapture" belief - the inspiration behind Lindsey's and LaHaye's all-time bestsellers - is only a 19th century invention and that credit long given to John Darby should go to a long unknown 15-year-old girl in Scotland!)
Margaret Macdonald's Rapture Chart !
"church" RAPTURE "church"
(present age) (tribulation)
In early 1830 Margaret was the very first one to see a pre-Antichrist (pretribulation) rapture in the Bible - and John Walvoord and Hal Lindsey lend support for this claim!
Walvoord's "Rapture Question" (1979) says her view resembles the "partial-rapture view" and Lindsey's "The Rapture" (1983) admits that "she definitely teaches a partial rapture."
But there's more. Lindsey (p. 26) says that partial rapturists see only "spiritual" Christians in the rapture and "unspiritual" ones left behind to endure Antichrist's trial. And Walvoord (p. 97) calls partial rapturists "pretribulationists"!
Margaret's pretrib view was a partial rapture form of it since only those "filled with the Spirit" would be raptured before the revealing of the Antichrist. A few critics, who've been repeating more than researching, have noted "Church" in the tribulation section of her account. Since they haven't known that all partial rapturists see "Church" on earth after their pretrib rapture (see above chart), they've wrongly assumed that Margaret was a posttrib!
In Sep. 1830 Edward Irving's journal "The Morning Watch" (hereafter: TMW) was the first to publicly reflect her novel view when it saw spiritual "Philadelphia" raptured before "the great tribulation" and unspiritual "Laodicea" left on earth.
In Dec. 1830 John Darby (the so-called "father of dispensationalism" even though he wasn't first on any crucial aspect of it!) was still defending the historic posttrib rapture view in the "Christian Herald."
Pretrib didn't spring from a "church/Israel" dichotomy, as many have assumed, but sprang from a "church/church" one, as we've seen, and was based only on symbols!
But innate anti-Jewishness soon appeared. (As noted, TMW in Sep. 1830 saw only less worthy church members left behind.) In Sep. 1832 TMW said that less worthy church members and "Jews" would be left behind. But by Mar. 1833 TMW was sure that only "Jews" would face the Antichrist!
As late as 1837 the non-dichotomous Darby saw the church "going in with Him to the marriage, to wit, with Jerusalem and the Jews." And he didn't clearly teach pretrib until 1839. His basis then was the Rev. 12:5 "man child...caught up" symbol he'd "borrowed" (without giving credit) from Irving who had been the first to use it for the same purpose in 1831!
For related articles Google "X-Raying Margaret," "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "Pretrib Rapture's Missing Lines," "The Unoriginal John Darby," "Deceiving and Being Deceived" by D.M., "Pretrib Rapture Pride," "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" and "Scholars Weigh My Research." The most documented and accurate book on pretrib rapture history is "The Rapture Plot" (see Armageddon Books online) - a 300-pager that has hundreds of disarming facts (like the ones above) not found in any other source.