Forget Islam, it's Word of Life we need to be scared about!

Well, ever since the wretched experiences of Kindergarten and 1st grade at a fundy Baptist school, I've been more than a little prejudiced. (And interestingly, at that young age, my experience, rather than souring the notion of "school", soured the ideology behind the school...Baptist. How I made that distinction at 6 yrs of age, I will not know.) But all that aside...

I had very similar thoughts that you've outlined while reflecting directly after the Sept 11 attack. In fact, because of those thoughts, I've had a hard time being all patriotic about the whole thing, because I had brief window into which i understood why they did what they did. I'm not condoning it, of course. It was just startling.

But this is also why I'm so vehemently against Christian involvement in politics. Specifically like the "christian right" Pat Robertson whatever type thinsg...as outlined in Self in Society 2. Because if they were to have their way, it wouldn't look all that different from Islamic fundamentalism, and sort of missing the point of the covenantal body of the Church.

What about Turkey? A muslim country (ask the Kurds if they are tolerant) and a democracy.

Frankly, the theonomists concern me more than the fundamentalists. They're smarter, and know enough not to take away the people's beer.

Jeannette. You're correct, except that when you focus on the covenant and the church, you find yourself being political all over again, except now biblically-so. Worship, the Lord's Supper, and Baptism all have political implications. "Jesus is Lord" requires that the United States of America NOT be lord. "Jesus is Lord" means that Bush is not.

And Josiah, many TR Reformed Christians are starting to act this way as well. If you read an Anglican (like N.T. Wright) and appreciate something he says, or if you like "Catholic" stuff like weekly communion or liturgy that respects church history, you're a heretic.

We're losing our ability to learn from those with whom we disagree.

And isn't Iraq uniquely secular? Bin Laden hated Saddam for not being Muslim enough. If any Muslim nation isn't fundamentalist, it's Iraq.

A few things, Josiah. I think you're more right than you know.

First, the kind of universal connection of fundamentalists of all stripes is something we learned about in Global Trends. I made the case there that the Covenant faculty's response to technology is largely fundamentalist: an obstructionist longing for an either expired or mythical ideal. In their case it's the academic atmosphere that existed decades ago. In the Baptist's case it's "Christian America." In the Muslim's case, it's the glory of Islamic Empire. And for that, you have to give them credit. At least they really had something.

Second, the assertion that right-wing Christians do not "declare jihad" is not entirely correct. Every now and then in the news you'll see tell of how some nutjob went and blew up an abortion clinic or some such idiocy. I think the reason that fundamentalist Christians are less violent than fundamentalist Muslims has more to do with geography and culture than with religion. Western culture has been growing increasingly opposed to the idea of force or, indeed, power of any kind. Also, Christianity grew and flourished in some of the nicest real estate you could possibly hope for. Islam, on the other hand, was inaugurated at the point of the sword and born in the blasted, sun-baked wastelands. An environment in which people die all the time of natural causes provides a different kind of outlook.

A few thoughts on secularism in the Middle East. Turkey is indeed a secular state. Nominally, anyways. There is a growing movement to (re)instate the Sharia, and though the country isn't officially Islamic it is certainly unofficially Islamic. And before you say that the Turks are basically doing well, remember the Armenian Genocide. Second, Iraq was indeed an almost entirely secular state, but Saddam used religious language the way all politicians - including our own - tend to. It's a useful tool in rallying an otherwise restless populace. This is yet another example of a nation whose fundamental problems - it was a fascist dictatorship - were entirely hidden by its superficial problems - mix ups with religion and politics.

Nick. I didn't mean that I was being apolitical (I forget sometimes I'm talking with philosophy majors) rather not "Christian America"/"Christian right" KIND of political. Political, as in, 'I'm running for office' political.

Ryan. (Weren't you in my Global Trends class with Dr. Petcher?) What do you mean "academic atmosphere of decades ago"? and "obstructionist longing for an either expired or mythical ideal"? and how is that fundamentalist? and how is that a fundamentalist response to technology? I didn't get any of that from Cov faculty.

I second the watch-out-for-theonomists motion. Josiah, just remember Marcus (the one on my hall) and um, yeah... that should be enough reason to be worried.

If I understood Ryan correctly, I believe he was refering to the faculty's (and staff's) negative response to "wiring" the dorms/campus.

"academic atmosphere of decades ago" would indicate to me a certain idealistic remembrance of "the good ol' days" when you spent hours in the library practicing "traditional" academics. Hence, "obstructionist longing for an either expired or mythical ideal" I would interpret to be also a longing for "the good ol' days". Much like I've heard elderly people talk about how much better things were when they were young. Covenant was fundamentalist in it's academic ideals in that they were wary and hostile to new technologies being implemented on campus. They had the minimum, but from what I've heard faculty say this is only due to some hard battles won by a select few of the professors. Of course I could be entirely misinterpreting Ryan as well.

I went to a fundamentalist Baptist elementary school as well. Yes, it made me biased against them. I'm not a philosophy major, but that's ok I'm comfortable with my inferiority.

Back to Islam, I too drew correlations between fundamentalism in a variety of religions. The issue simply seems to be a desire to accrue power. Religion has always been a tool for political justification. As for Christians declaring "jihad" I would remember the past Crusades and wars fought in the name of the church through out Europe.

On that note, I wonder if anyone else has been disturbed by the so called "patriotism" here in the US? I particularly dislike the "Power of Pride" bumper sticker. Since when has one's pride been a legitimate call to power? I almost feel like patriotism has become a kind of civil religion in its own right.

No, Jeanette, I was in Barb Scheur's section Spring '03. And Matt has a pretty good interpretation of my thoughts.

I wonder a bit about how much the Crusades play into this. They certainly display the use of religion for political goals, but I've kind of gotten the impression that fundamentalism tends to use politics for "religious" goals, thelogical or otherwise. With hte Crusades, various European bigwigs were growing nervous/envious of the Islamic empire, so they provoked the Pope into launching a Crusade, which they also sponsered. In the 20th century, we have individuals and groups using political tools - legislation, litigation, terrorism, etc. - to achieve their eschatology. It's a big difference, I think.

Gosh, guy goes offline for a couple hours and comes back to chaos...

What I'm particularly interested in is the psychology of the American fundamentalists. I'm not talking about Southern Baptists, nor am I talking about Pentacostles or charismatics. I'm talking about fundamentalist non-denominational baptist churches particularly in the northeast where they represent the bulk of Christians up there.

What's amazing is that the entire group is a self-propogating group. For all their emphasis on evangelism, there were little to no "new" converts to the groups that I ran with for many years. It's like there's this entire interconnected world between Bob Jones, Pensacola, and the rest where they just feed on each other back and forth.

The ahistorical aspect is really interesting. It was just fascinating to be in a school where in Bible class they had absolutely no idea who they were or where they came from. The only thing that really mattered were the Jews, not drinking, and whether your were pre-mid-or post trib in your premillenialism. Those were the "three" millenial viewpoints...

I'm also amazed and their attitude towards culture. I mean, this is a sect of the church who considers standing on a street corning yelling at cars as they go by a virtue. Sure, they call it "street preaching" but instead of it being a crazy smelly homeless man yelling "the end is near" stuff at cars, you've got a hair gelled college student in a black tie suit.

Anyways, I remember a discussion once with Doug Wilson about whether or not he felt the need to be completely accurate in his portrayals of folks who's viewpoints he felt were incorrect, like, liberals or modern evangelicals. He said no, that the movement was more important than doing careful research.

{note: this last paragraph intended to annoy Nick Smith}

There are, indeed, striking similarities among fundamentalists of all kinds throughout the world. That notwithstanding, it is essential not to develop an 'us vs. them' mentality that lumps Christian fundamentalists in with 'them.' Christian fundamentalists do have this going for them- that they are Christian. And this not just nominally.

One potentially confusing aspect of fundamentalism is that the name of a particular instantiation has been used to describe the deeper and more pervasive ideology. In the early 20th century, conservative Christians who were concerned about the liberalizing and modernizing tendencies of the church fought back by subsciribing to a list of foundational Christian beliefs. These were called the "Fundamentals." For the most part, these beliefs were those necessary to Christianity; things like the deity of Christ, virgin birth, vicarious atonement, etc. On the positive side, it is their genuine belief in these points of doctrine that qualifies them to be true Christians. Negatively, their use of these fundamentals to achieve the Christian America ideal quaifies them as fundamentalists in the current and broader use of the term.

Given the presence of the Liberal church, which denied such basic Christian beliefs, is there any other way in which the fundamentalists could have reacted? The Liberal denial is a result of the predominate modernistic worldview that had been developing in the West. To give a simplistic overview, once the Cartesian dualism and then Newton's mechanistic universe are accepted God becomes more and more irrelevant unitl he is finally pushed out of the picture. The historical progression seems to go something like this: mechanism, deism, evolutionism, atheism. Remember, though, that this progression does not describe the downfall of the abysmally stupid. It is the result of the intelligent reflection of those who have accepted the original premises. But here is the interesting part: Fundamentalist Christians subscribe to these same original premises. They hold to the same worldview without reaching the same conclusions. Instead, they tenaciously hold to their list of fundamentals. It has never occured to them that the problem of liberalism was the result of a faulty worldview; consequently, they never examined their own. The basic difference, as they see it, is found in the acceptance or rejection of the list. While the Liberal Christian is consistent with his worldview and, thereofore, no Christian at all, the Fundamentalist Christian must retreat into anti-intellectualism in order to live through the tension of his beliefs. Consider the severe mercy of God who, in order to save a particular segment of his church, ensures its inability to think.

Here is where the name confusion comes in- because of the history of Christian fundamentalism, it is easy to see conservatism and anti-intellectualism as necessary components to fundamentalism in general. This is not the case. As Ryan stated it, fundamentalism is an obstructionist longing for an ideal. Along with this comes intelorance of all those who oppose it. By this definition, fundamentalism is not the exclusive domain of the theologically conservative. The older and more devastating form of fundamentalism is to be found in the Liberal church with its vehement stand against supernaturalism.

Fundamentalism is a child of modernism. The fundamentalist must believe that his views are true for everyone, despite what they may think. Fundamentalism cannot flourish in the context of post-modernism in which a variety of views are considered to be equally valid. If the fundamentalist's beliefs are actually true, then every effort must be made to live by them, and to get everyone else to live by them. Hence, the infamous fundamentalist penchant for legalism.

Islam is a modern religion. True believers are therefore prime candidates for fundamentalism. This would, in fact, seem to be the only option. Along a continuum, one can either be a nominal, secular Muslim or a fundamentalist. This dichotomy is the case for all modern religions. Christianity escapes this. It is not a modern religion (depite the fact that the fundamentalists within it have a adopted a modernist mind set). However, as opposed to post-modernism, it does not treat all views as equally valid. The gospel is objective truth.

Unlike Islam, which is a religion totally given over to human works, Christianity is a religion given over to the work of Christ and to the power of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, fundamentalism is not the only option for the theologically orthodox. As Reformed Christians, we have the intellectual heritage to investigate worldviews, the theological responsibility to stand firm on matters of doctrine, and the ability to act according to the divine grace given to us when relating to everyone else around us.

CIRCLE THEM WAGONS, BOYS!

Once I went to a very fundamentalist 'Independent Baptist Church'.
Some guy I didn't know and had never met picked on me for having facial hair. I was greeted with, "Boy, you tryin' to look like some kinda hippie or something with that hair on your chin?" "I may have a goatee," I replied,"but you're ugly to the bone and I can always shave."

Never went back. They can keep their lousy ethnocentric view of the world.

Actually, Kevin, what I was trying to say is that fundamentalism seems to be a broader sociological concept than just religion. Being an Islamic fundamentalist and being a Christian fundamentalist are really only two different instantiations of the same drive. One is Christian, one is not, but being a fundamentalist doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not one is a Christian.

Ryan, I got your point and agree with what you're saying; I was just taking things from a different angle. I referenced your comments because it turned out to be a much more succinct way than I had in mind of stating the similarities between various fundamentalists. As to my point that fundamentalist Christians actually are Christians, I started formulating what I wrote before I noticed your own reponse to Josiah's post. I was trying to say that if we overemphasize the similarities between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, it would be very easy to slip into the notion that fundamentalism is necessarily a non-Christian phenomenon. I know that Fundamentalists can be Christian because all but the last eight years of my own Christianity were spent as a fundamentalist.

I do disagree with your point that the Christian resistance to a jihad mentality is more connected to geography and culture than to religion. Geography may explain the Muslim pracitce; however, I do not believe that Christianity placed in the same geographical circumstances would have acted in the same way. As to culture, this is tied into the dominant worldview of a society. Western culture is becoming increasingly opposed to the idea of force or power because it has become increasingly post-modern. To the extent that fundamentalists are modernists, I am more inclined to ascribe the Christian fundamentalist reluctance to kill their neighbors to the fact these fundamentalists are, in the end, Christians.

Aaah. I realize that being out of the loop on the wired debate at Cov I didn't quite get Ryan's comment.

Thanks, Kevin, for your reminder of the historical development of the term Fundamentalism. We are all fundamentalists in its original sense of the term, but socially, it has gotten quite another implication. After all, our patriach Machen was a Fundamentalist.

And responding to the point about Crusades. Yes, there is a sense in which they were waged for power/land/wealth, but there is also a sense in which they were waged for the very expression of them. It was a kind of act of piety to declare war against the "infidel" and to protect the Holy Mother Church. And this won points in pergatory for whatever king or duke and brownie points with the Pope who was really the one in charge. Veeeery different from jihad and aforesaid acts of violence. I think jihad is a little misunderstood. There are those who physically go out and blow things up, but they represent a small portion of Muslims. I think it also means sort of a spiritual battle inside oneself to kill sin. So it's a much more nuanced word than blowing buildings up for the sake of religion. Those who are truly religious in their Islamic faith are probably just as aghast as we are at those who try to blow up abortion clinics.

A few quick bursts. Some related. Some kind of:

-What if I said that I'm a conservative, Fundamentalist Christian, who attends Highland Park Baptist Church (one of the institutions on Josiah's list), and believes that George W. Bush, in prophetic terms, could ACTUALLY wind up being the antichrist? This is my opinion, and is not preached at my church.

-In terms of patriotism, I believe that the ONLY reason that America STILL remains the strongest nation in the world is because of our support of Israel.

-People who want to "take America back for God" are foolish, and do not know their bibles. Faith in country, patriotism, and free trade take a back seat to the saving blood of Jesus Christ - plain and simple.

-Where I see the trouble with the word "Fundamentalist," is in many church movements today. Most "christian" churches are moving towards a new age, one-world church, devoid of Jesus Christ. They have gotten that way because the world says that "Fundamentalism" is bad. And what is "Fundamentalism"? A belief in the fundamentals of something. And a "fundamentalist christian" should believe in the fundamentals of Christianity, which are ONLY found in the Word of God - not in paradigm shifting, not in works, not in emotionalism, not in the intellectualizing and psychology found at so-called Christian Universities and Institutions, not in signs and wonders, and not in the world.

-The Word of God can, and does, defend itself. It has to be taken on faith, FIRST, before its meaning is revealed to you. After it is revealed to you, you STILL have to study it, as it is still a book.

-We are in the LAST days. "Fundamentally" we need to be leading people to the Lord.

Bill,

I don't know you, so your initial statement, "What if I said...," makes it difficult to determine whether your subsequent comments are hypothetical or a real representation of your beliefs. In any event, your impersonation of a Baptist is quite impressive and so, for purposes of this response, I'll assume that this is actually the case.

-Considering that George W. Bush's profession of faith in Christ is public knowledge, identifying him as a possible candidate for the anti-Christ is both uncharitable and irresponsible. The least you could do is wait until he sets up his image in the Jewish Temple.

-The Israeli state is an imposter. Not insofar as it exists as a secular institution- it has just as much right to exist as any other well-behaved state that does not threaten American security. It is an imposter as far as all those people who consider it to be the fulfillment of Old Testament Kingdom prophecies. It is a hallmark of fundamentalism to see the Kingdom as temporal and earthly rather than eternal and heavenly. This is the case whether it comes in the guise of the dispensational premil Baptist who thinks that the Jewish state will be chief among the nations for 1000 years, or the more rabidly theonomic Presbyterian who wants to impose OT civil law on America. The Kingdom must be seen in terms of its King. Christ rules over his subjects who exist, not in a secular state, but in the church. The Kingdom was instituted by Christ during his first advent and will last until his second advent, at which time it will continue on in an exclusivley heavenly existence. It now exists in terms of heaven breaking into this world. Inasmuch as this imples a visible manifestation of some sort, that manifestation must be co-terminous with the interadvental epoch. Even if we were to grant that the state that came into existence in 1948 is the same one that went of existence in 70, its prolonged dereliction of duty disqualifies it. While I find both postmil and historic premil views to be somewhat superfluous, both of them acknowledge that the Kingdom is also a present reality in which Christ rules over his church. However, a millenial view that equates the Kingdom with the future semi-glorification of a nation state and its allies does not recognize this present realtiy and is. therefore, an implicit denial of the finished work of Christ.

-Agreed.

-Your'e equivocating here. As to its original use, fundamentalism does mean a belief in the fundamentals of something. I am, by this definition, a Christian fundamentalist. However, the meaning of a term is determined by predominate usage. The world has no problem with fundamentalism in the original sense of the term. For instance, I like to bake on occassion. I have this fundamentalistic belief that, if I don't have any flour, you're not going to a cookie from me. The world understands this. The world's problem with fundamentalism is in terms of its definition as a socio-pathological mindset. The failure of Christian Fundamentalists (2nd use) to see this disinction evidences their anti-intellectual bias. The fundamentals of Christianity are, indeed, found only in the Word of God. The issue, then, is how that word is to be interpreted. One can either take into account centuries of teaching in the historical church; or, one can opt for good ol' American individualism. Priesthood of the believer and all that stuff. Did you know that fundamentalists are the only people in the world who have an entirely objective view of reality? Not being hampered by interpretive grids, they have absolutley no need for paradigm shifts in their thinking.

-The Word of God does defend itself. However, to take anything on faith before any of its meaning has been revealed is not advisable. I am not suggesting that we set ourselves up as judges of the scripture. Rather, the Word of God defends itself as it is preached. We are agreed on the second point.

- I take the last days to mean the time since Christ's first advent (see the opening of Hebrews). Most fundamentalist Baptisits, however, confine the last days to that generation that sees Israel become a nation once again. All of which perplexes me when it comes to the placement of your last sentence. What does being in the last days, in this limited temporal sense of the term, have to do with leading people to the Lord? Are we to suppose that the 1950's was the first full decade in which Christians had to give a damn? We likely have different definitions of what it means to lead someone to the Lord. It can either mean whatever importunate activities are required to extract the sinner's prayer out of someone; or it can mean living my life in such a way that everything I do is a conscious effort to glorify God and every moment of my time is spent in readiness to give an answer for the hope that lies within me.

Don't forget Alvin Plantinga's succinct definition of a fundamentalist: "a SOB who is more conservative than you." (Plantinga doesn't abbreviate, but this is a family blog.) While this definition has little to say about Bible Belt-bucklers or Muslims, it may have a good deal of insight into the attitude of the posts on this page. :)

Ha ha. Yeah, it would be easy for me to rag on fundamentalists, but then I remember that I read the New York Times and when they use the word, fine distinctions like Baptist or Reformed tend to be lost