 |
|
|
On the inside of you, you will sense something prompting you to say words and syllables. Just open your mouth and let the words flow. I do not care if it is 'la, la, la,' or 'da, da, da.' The devil hates it all."
-- Rod Parsley
|
|
| |
News: The Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism
Posted on Sunday, August 27 @ 19:50:46 PDT by Virgil |
|
by Scot McKnight
Tuesday morning, in a short conversation with a colleague, we had a moment where we agreed on something we had never spoken to each other about. We have both observed the rise of a neo-fundamentalism. What struck both of us was this: We’ve been there and can’t understand why anyone would want to return to Fundamentalism.
Are you seeing this? Where are you seeing it? What are you observing about it?
I was reared in a Fundamentalist church, and we were incredibly proud of it. We were strident, largely uneducated (even dismissive of education), theologically censorious, separatistic, intolerant, and accusatory of every smidgeon of slight alteration. There were no questions; there were answers — and we had them. We saw our abrasiveness as a sign that the rest of the world couldn’t count the cost; rejection proved we were right. I’m embarrassed today mostly about what we were like as humans - we were ungracious if not unchristian.
What this colleague and I both experienced in our college and seminary days (in the 70s) was the freedom that was given us with the rise of neo-evangelicalism — and our favorite magazine was Christianity Today, our favorite publisher was Eerdmans, we were pro-Billy Graham because of his big heart, we thought going to movies and drinking beer or wine were fine, we were unified around the essentials of evangelicalism but entirely accepting of variant views on non-essentials, we loved CS Lewis and John Stott and Ray Stedman, we thought the charismatic movement was a breath of fresh air even though it wasn’t for us, … I could go on.
Out of this wide swath of American Christianity called Evangelicalism (originally it was often dubbed “neo-evangelicalism” by the Fundamentalists) has arisen now a group of evangelicals who seem to be headed back into Fundamentalism (what I’m calling Neo-Fundamentalism).
There is a conviction among Neo-Fundamentalists that one can’t err if one gets too conservative, but that is the sin of what I called “zealotry.”
What I can’t understand is why people want to go there: its history is predictable. Though I’m no prophet, this is what I think might occur:
It will become insular and separatistic,
it will become divisive and accusatory from within,
it will lack grace,
it will create Christians who are not free in the Spirit but who will be rigid and intolerant,
it will become socially withdrawn,
it will lose a prophetic voice because it will lose contact with culture,
it will attract angry, defensive, and mean-spirited individuals… I could go on.
Click here to read the entire article
Note: Because of the overwhelming response, today Scot McKnight wrote an excellent part 2 to his Rise of Fundamentalism entry, and you can read it here.
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: The Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism (Score: 1)
 by tresclavos on Sunday, August 27 @ 20:41:38 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hi Virgil,
Before I can comment on this article there are a few things I would like to know. I was brought up on a fundamentalist congregation and I can relate to the list at the end of the article. It mirrors more or less our church world view and it was not until a difficult change of leadership, turmoil, and prayer, that the congregation stands today as an example of a congregation close to Gods heart and close to the heart of the community.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I read that according to your article the difference between Evangelicalism and the so called rising “Neo-Fundamentalism” is the difference of opinion between groups on what the essentials and non-essentials of the Christian faith are. If it goes even beyond this issue I would sincerely like to know more.
If you are detecting a rising Neo-Fundamentalism, as many are, I would like to see the differences between the Old-Fundamentalist and the Neo-Fundamentalist camps are. Are they the same? I guess they are similar, but not the same thus the prefix “Neo”. I would be very interested in seeing the differences.
I would also like to see the difference between being an Evangelical and a “Neo-Fundamentalist”. Has there been a divide between “liberals as Evangelicals” and “Conservatives as your “Neo-Fundamentalists”” inside of our church? When di this happened? I hope we are not that polarized inside of the church.
Sincerely,
Eric Barreto. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Sunday, August 27 @ 21:05:53 PDT
- by Duncan2 on Monday, August 28 @ 10:13:43 PDT
- by Virgil on Monday, August 28 @ 11:48:33 PDT
- by Duncan2 on Monday, August 28 @ 14:12:33 PDT
- by Virgil on Monday, August 28 @ 14:25:58 PDT
- by Duncan2 on Monday, August 28 @ 14:37:12 PDT
- by Virgil on Monday, August 28 @ 15:50:41 PDT
- by Duncan on Monday, August 28 @ 18:41:36 PDT
- by Virgil on Monday, August 28 @ 18:59:41 PDT
Re: The Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism (Score: 1)
by paul (freebird@comcast.net) on Monday, August 28 @ 06:46:53 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | One of the things which has divided Christians as much as the Red State/Blue State seems to have been the impasse about worship. We addict ourselves to tradition for tradition's sake at great expense to connecting to the 21st Century realities, but we also addict ourselves to all things contemporary at great price, too. The latter is like burning the family album and calling anything passed down to us as invaluable.
This is why, during this time of real shaking up of many things within all Christian subgroups, that there is more good to be had than we realize by confessing together the Apostles' Creed. I know, it's not inspired by God. It doesn't state the coming of the Lord Jesus in its historic completion in Century 1. But only one word change could give all kinds of Christians some common ground: Changing "shall come" to "is come" would unite.
The Apostles commanded believers to confess the same things. This appears impossible, when there are three distinct views of the extent and nature of the atonement, of the mystery of individual accountability when the new birth is outside of the natural human will, and a host of other areas where, not surprisingly, Christians canot fully agree 20 centuries after the Apostles laid the foundation of the New Covenant Faith.
Yet, a very basic creed which does not go beyond the basics would, I believe, reduce alienation a great deal, and stem off the fear of many people that preterists are a "new" religion altogether.
God bless,
paul |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Monday, August 28 @ 08:14:44 PDT
- by JL on Monday, August 28 @ 13:03:01 PDT
- by paul on Tuesday, August 29 @ 10:52:48 PDT
| 
|
