Fundamentalists In The Emerging Church?

A few days ago I heard ex-nun Karen Armstrong speak at Greenbelt Festival on the subject of Fundamentalism and the Battle For God.

No big surprise - | already read her excellent book "The Battle For God". But it was great to see her in public (and take her photo). Karen made the statement that fundamentalism is basically a "militant form of piety" and a "violent revolt against secular modernity".
Fundamentalism, she argued, is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and even secular humanism. It is not orthodox, she said, but rather it is a "new doctrine", characterized by the two ingredients of independence and innovation. Behind fundamentalism is the fear of annihilation and fundamentalism becomes more extreme when attacked.

She also referred to a time when she was speaking on a panel regarding the church and a loud obnoxious fundamentalist stood up and was yelling out rudely. He was asked to be quiet and (I think) leave the auditorium. As he left, the moderator noted that his dismissal was unfortunate, since he also, was a part of the conversation on how the church is emerging in this age.

Interesting stuff. She seemed regretful that they had dismissed this guy.

It made me think about the emerging church and its relation with fundamentalism. If Karen Armstrong is correct, even the emerging church has fundamentalists. And if her definition of fundamentalism as a reaction against secular modernity [Will Samson noted that "modernism" would have been a better word] is correct, then the two worlds might be quite close. Perhaps what Don Carson was reacting to in his critique of the emerging church was the fundamentalist side when he identified the main characteristic of emerging church as "protest".

This is how I see it. Inside the emerging church, which is a vastly complex movement, there are probably 3 distinct responses to secular humanism and our current postmodern age:
1. A fundamentalist rejection and protest (isolationism, exclusivity)
2. An unthinking acceptance (syncretism, accommodation)
3. A prophetic response (contextual, missional)

Obviously, its the last one that appeals to me, and the one that I applaud and support. But I have to admit the other streams are also there at the table, just as they are in the traditional church, and probably all the way through church history. Certainly Jesus encountered all three groups.

Related to this is a speech I heard the day before. Father Richard Rohr, a Franciscian Monk, told us that older believers in Christ should be mature, and being mature has to do with giving up control to God. Old people should not be mean spirited like the Pharisees but instead show their maturity by becoming childlike. We can operate out of fear or love. Love is better. And perfect love drives out all fear.

I like that . . . operate out of love rather than fear. Perfect love.
Hold fast to the truth . . yes . . . but be constrained by Christ's love.

Comments

[Scot McKnight]

Tell me more what you like about Karen Armstrong.

[andrew]

Scot

I like her approach of studying a subject (in this case, fundamentalism) in a synchronic way - as it appears side by side in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I learn a lot through relationships in media and anyone smart enough to run 3 threads of thought at the same time will get the attention of my synchronic brain.

I may not agree with everything she believes or writes, and you may not either, but I appreaciate her fairness and research.

[Aly]

"The Battle for God" knocked my socks off. Anytime someone can take a dry and frightening subject like fundamentalism and make it read like a riveting historical novel, they get my vote.

I see these three streams unfolding in the emerging church as well, though I think the emphasis among the emerging church on living a missional and contexual Gospel is holding off the #1's and #2's for the time being. But as the emerging church becomes just the plain old church, over the next 20-30 years, we'll probably see growth in these areas. Drat.

[Thomas Brown]

Andrew,

I like your "3 responses," and your comment that they have probably been there in the Church all along the way... And they are probably meant to be there, too. Or, another way of putting it: Might there be both "wheat" and "tares" in each of the three response types? We always have to listen carefuly, because we may be hearing something from God even from an unexpected source; God seems to take delight in talking donkeys.

[+ simonas]

i had to repent today as i harshly responded to a mean spirited comment on our common blog of nonformalists (read emergent re:thinkers).
god give us grace to forgive and to respond with kind words of instruction when needed.

[robbymac]

A preponderance of #2 people will create an eventual reaction that will produce more #1 people.

We need to be very intentional about #3, before that kind of pendulum swing occurs.

[Ed C]

I think a lot of people either:

a. Are doing #3 and are accused of doing #2 incorrectly.
or
b. Want to do #3, but end up doing #2.

If you want to muddy the waters, I think we need to do all three actually. Sometimes we affirm things, sometimes we reject things, but our overarching responsibility is missional engagement. The trick is to figure out what that looks like in your own context. That's something that books and blogs can't tell you "how to do" and living in that engagement will be one of our greatest challenges as Christians.

[Russell]

Interestingly, your three reactions are to secular humanism and the postmodern age. As a traditional church, Paleo-orthodox Reformed pastor, let me suggest that the emergent church will have three similar reactions against the traditional church:

1) Fundamentalists (nothing good can come from traditional churches -- tear them down)
2) Syncretists (Hey, whatever floats your boat)
3) Loving Engagers (Build relationships that involve dialogue and critique).

Honestly, the fundamentalism that I see most in the emergent church is of this kind.
Russell

[iggy]

Andrew,
The biggest difference is the inability for a fund'y to see beyond his own view... In that regard I pray we never are referred to as Fundamentalists. In my run ins with most fundy's I have not felt anything but judgementalism. To me the one thing we have in common is that they are against modernism... but do not be fooled, they are very premodern (in denial) and are not usually open to postmodern at all. In fact they have a big tendency to grossly misrepresent PM views.
I have never had a true conversation... on received rebuke and monologue

Blessings,
iggy

[Larry]

IGGY,

You say that they (fundamentalists) have a big tendency to grossly misrepresent PM views. As a fundamentalist, I have seen nothing here that properly represents my views. Don't you think you are saddled with the same problem you complain about? (HINT: You should think so, or else you are guilty of your first complaint, about not being able to see past your own view.) Not all fundamentalists are the same. Christian fundamentalism has absolutely nothing in common with Judaic, Islamic, or any other kind of fundamentalism. To include them in the same idea is a misrepresentation of church history (and secular history for that matter). The only commonality is that someone gave them the same name.

My plea is for you to recognize that you just did the very thing you complained about, misrepresented someone because you can't see past your own view.

Larry

[andrew]

Larry

a lot of people do not know the history of Christian fundamentalism, or the social gospel issues in the 20's in USA that gave birth to the postive side of this movement.

Karen Armstrong is considered a world authority on the subject, and no one would rubbish her critique, but she may not have your angle.

Could you write up something and come back and give us a link to it?

[D. Goodmanson]

"there are probably 3 distinct responses to secular humanism and our current postmodern age"

I think there are 3 intepretations (theological) to secular humanism and our current postmodern age but their also are 3 responses (missiological) to these interpretations. eg.

Reformed Missional
Isolationist yet syncretism

If a person goes to brign a "prophetic response (contextual, missional)" what is the message (interpretation) of the message of the Kingdom of God?

[andrew]

Drew, thanks

you have a great point - it is not just the message but how we respond with that message.

[Larry]

Andrew,

If you will give me a day or so. I am in the midst of building a porch on my house, hopefully to be finished tomorrow, as well as preaching today. I will try to give a short synopsis of what I think the issues are.

Thanks,
Larry

[iggy]

Larry,
I am speaking from my own personal run ins with Fundamentalists. These are not in the "terrorists" category, nor do I think of them as such. I can give a personal letter from one who accused me of teaching false doctrine... only because I did not agree with him.

And he was not the only one. I point out assumption that he based on scripture, showing the possibility he was believing the traditions of man.

I understand the history, the backlash against modernism. I do not see fundamentalism having to do with PM/E at all. In fact I see that if one is KJV only, anti tongues, knowledge and prophecy, and willing to be judgmental... then on will fit in. Again, these are the mainstream "Baptist" variety I am talking about.

I find it interesting that that you judged me and my "view", yet you have no idea what my "view" is. Be carful to point fingers.

I am open to fellowship with those who are fundy's, yet; because I am PM/E many would not fellowship with me.

I know of a local fundy church that kicked an unwed mother out because of her sin... is that Christ's love?

I think many confuse the basic tenants of the Christian faith with fundamentalism... they are two separate things. One brings unity, the other divides.

Blessings,
iggy

[andrew]

I think its really important for any group to have the power to define themselves and to control that definition

Thats why Larry needs to come back and lay out the whats and whys of his fundamentalism.

Emerging church people get furious when people accept definitions from critics as though they were fact. And i have shown that many of those were inaccurate - like here where most emerging people said that only 2 or 3 of Theopedia's 7 characteristics of emerging church were true about them.

Fundamentalists would not want non-fundamentalists defining them - lest Rev. Fred Phelps becomees the poster boy -

and yet Karen Armstrong has written a scholarly book and has earned the reputation as "a" or "the" world renown expert on fundamentalism so we do need to take her seriously.

Anyway, Larry. Give it your best shot.

[Scot McKnight]

Andrew,
Thanks for the synchronicity observations. Martin Marty's huge project was like that, too.

[andrew]

scot - thanks - the other reason I take her seriously and havebbought her books (last year) was because she is recognized by many as THE leading expert on fundamentalism and her books are all over the world.

[Larry]

Iggy,

Thanks for your response. Sorry for the delay in responding. You are correct that I don't know exactly what you believe. When I talked about "your view," I was referring to your worldview of PM/E. Perhaps we are just talking past each other on that. Short communication is always hard, and the death of a thousand qualifications takes way too much room and time.

That wasn't my point, however. I was simply pointing out that you were painting with a broad brush, using the same techniques you were decrying. Case in point: You talk about fundamentalists being KJVOnly. The vast majority of fundamentalists reject that view. They always have. I believe that a person who is KJVOnly has given up his right to use the name fundamentalist. He has contradicted the very fundamentals he claims to believe. If you were to take time to study fundamentalism, I think you would find this to be true.

I don't konw what this guy disagreed with you on, so I can't comment on that. There are very good theological reasons to be "anti tongues," etc. (to use your phrase). I don't think that is a fundamentalist issue however.

To talk of a church that kicked out an unwed mother is too little information. Why was she kicked out? Was she unrepentant? What were the circumstances? Without more information than you gave, there is no way anyway can draw a legitimate conclusion on that. But the way you said it prejudiced the readers here to a certain conclusion and that is unjust I believe.

To say that the basic tenets of the Christian faith unite and fundamentalism divides is inaccurate as well. I won't defend all the idiots who claim the name fundamentalism, as I am sure you probably won't defend all the idiots who participate in the "emergent conversation."

I hope, this afternoon, to write quickly and briefly about what I believe fundamentalism is and should be. With Andrew, I resist people defining me and so I will give it my best shot.

[andrew]

larry

good comment - even if you dont get around to writing something, you have given some good thoughts and provided some helpful boundaries between different kinds of fundamentalisms. I guess Rev Fred Phelps doesnt speak for all the branches of fundamentalism.

take your time - there is plenty of space here so go ahead and be liberal . . . i mean generous . . . with your writing.

"the death of a thousand qualifications" - SWEET - that should be a poem or a website. dont you think?

[iggy]

Larry,

I see that one of the very basics of fundamentalism... is isolationism, to isolate and insolate from the modern world. I see that as the foundation of fundamentalism, which cuts across the grain of the great commission. Jesus said to go... "Most" modern and fundamentalist say, "come". Many confuse the Living Word (Jesus) with the Bible and seem to worship the written word over the Living Word.

I converse with fundamentalist everyday... do you?
I have a forum, which has at least 30 plus pastors from various denominations, and with a few are fundamentalist. I read their views, I debate their views and I understand their views.

Exclusionism and isolationalism are not teachings of the Bible. Jesus prayed in John 17 that we would not be taken from the world, but that we would be protected from the evil one.
To isolate is to express unbelief in Jesus command to "GO", to be exclusive is to cut against Jesus' calling of the "whosoever".

Again, I fellowship with Fundamentalist, and would, yet many have plainly said, because I do not agree as they do, "Amos 3:3" is always misused at this point by the fundamentalist; I have been called an apostate. Mind you my views are very conservative especially for one who is PM/E.

I can only tell you from my personal experiences. Books will always tell one story... reality tells another. I agree with Jesus, that by their fruit you will know them.

I will say this; I respect the attempt at one who is trying to live true to their convictions. I will not though, live my life judged by another’s standard. The core of the evil of fundamentalism is that... pure judgmentalism that leads to the isolationism and exclusionism. "Be like us, we like you. Be different and you are going to hell." That is the mentality I will always stand against as Jesus did against the Pharisees of his day. This is the attitude and reality that keeps ME from seeing the fundamentalist as fitting into the "paradigm shifted".

You speak of a broad brush…of course I am painting that way, yet I am using the paint that the fundamentalist has given me himself… I figure I have the right to use what brush I want.

Blessings,
iggy Larry,

I see that one of the very basics of fundamentalism... is isolationism, to isolate and insolate from the modern world. I see that as the foundation of fundamentalism, which cuts across the grain of the great commission. Jesus said to go... "Most" modern and fundamentalist say, "come". Many confuse the Living Word (Jesus) with the Bible and seem to worship the written word over the Living Word.

I converse with fundamentalist everyday... do you?
I have a forum, which has at least 30 plus pastors from various denominations, and with a few are fundamentalist. I read their views, I debate their views and I understand their views.

Exclusionism and isolationalism are not teachings of the Bible. Jesus prayed in John 17 that we would not be taken from the world, but that we would be protected from the evil one.
To isolate is to express unbelief in Jesus command to "GO", to be exclusive is to cut against Jesus' calling of the "whosoever".

Again, I fellowship with Fundamentalist, and would, yet many have plainly said, because I do not agree as they do, "Amos 3:3" is always misused at this point by the fundamentalist; I have been called an apostate. Mind you my views are very conservative especially for one who is PM/E.

I can only tell you from my personal experiences. Books will always tell one story... reality tells another. I agree with Jesus, that by their fruit you will know them.

I will say this; I respect the attempt at one who is trying to live true to their convictions. I will not though, live my life judged by another’s standard. The core of the evil of fundamentalism is that... pure judgmentalism that leads to the isolationism and exclusionism. "Be like us, we like you. Be different and you are going to hell." That is the mentality I will always stand against as Jesus did against the Pharisees of his day. This is the attitude and reality that keeps ME from seeing the fundamentalist as fitting into the "paradigm shifted".

You speak of a broad brush…of course I am painting that way, yet I am using the paint that the fundamentalist has given me himself… I figure I have the right to use what brush I want. haha.

Blessings,
iggy

[iggy]

Sorry about the double post... thought I lost the first one...

duhhhh.

iggy

[iggy]

Larry,
BTW...
About the young pregnant lady kicked out of her church...

It should not matter if she was unrepentant or not if she was seeking help and support from her church. How would she show remorse? Abort the baby? I really doubt that was the issue.

She was pregnant out of wedlock... needed love and compassion as she made a mistake.

I think if she was unrepentant, she would not have gone to THAT church or any for that matter. This was her "family"... instead of love she received judgment.

Did Jesus ask questions of the lady caught in adultery other then who condemns you? Jesus then said then I don't either... go and sin no more... well this girl was not going out to get pregnant again was she? She needed love and forgivness and compassion and open hearts of kindness to restore her to her Father in heaven.
Instead she received the stones of judgment from the "church".

blessings,
iggy

[Larry]

Iggy,

With respect to isolationism, I agree. I think some fundamentalists have become too scared of people who don't already agree with us in worldview. My solution to that is different than yours, I imagine.

With respect to exclusionism, it is hard to tell exactly what you mean. The gospel of Jesus Christ is exclusive, a "my way or the highway" type of gospel. The doctrines of the faith are exclusive. There are many things about Christianity that are exclusive and we dare not compromise that. But again, I am not sure what you are talking about.

With respect to separation, when someone is teaching falsely or living in disobedience, separation is the only option, after due process. There is no way to be obedient to God without separating. That is what is so often missed. You don't have to answer to anyone else's conscience. But they have to answer to their own. Again, it needs to be handled with grace and tact, and that has not always been done, by both sides. Don't forget, you guys (broadly speaking) practice your own exclusionism. When was the last conference you were at where a fundamentalist was invited to share his view? I can think of one instance in recent memory. Fundamentalists are typically excluded, but not because there are not well-spoken fundamentalists. It is because your side is often exclusionary.

With respect to the woman, yes, it matters if she is not repentant. Matt 18, 1 Cor 5, Titus 3, 2 Thess 3 and other passages make it clear that repentance is necessary to avoid church discipline. If this young lady was a professing believer who got pregnant out of wedlock, the church should love her and encourage her to repent. If she fails, the church must love God enough and her enough to discipline her from the body. This is a clear teaching of Scripture. Now, it can be handled with grace and tact, or it can be handled with acid and wirebrushes. The former is the biblical way to handle it. But we cannot just sit back and let it go. She needs help, and the first help she needs is godly sorrow that leads to repentance. When a church tolerates open sin, they compromise the gospel. Now, that is a paragraph description of something that is very involved and takes a lot of time. Please understand that. I know it sounds harsh to read, but space and time constraints have made it difficult to communicate here. I have dealt with a similar situation here, and there is much visiting, and weeping, and tears, and lost sleep that goes into it. I am praying about a situation right now and lookign for wisdom about it. But remember Paul's teaching in 1 Cor, that the body is one. When one member sins, the whole body is affected. Her pregnancy is not just her problem. It is the body's problem. Now, if this woman was not a member, we have a whole different issue. I have dealt with that as well, and in fact, have some ongoing situations here that are a real blessing because people are coming to hear the Word. And I don't pull punches with them. And they keep coming.

YOu talk of the woman who was caught in adultery and reference the "go and sin no more," followed by a comment about not getting pregnant again. That completely misses the point. The point is not that the pregnancy was the sin. The fornication was the sin. Pregnancy was the result. And the answer is Yes, she can go and sin again and in fact, at certain times during pregnancy that is a greater drive than at other times (without meaning to be to direct there). By misidentifying the sin, you have drawn the wrong conclusion. Christ did not approve of the woman's sin. "Go and sin more" was a condemnation of it. What he condemned was the Pharasaical attitudes of those who wanted to condemn sin in others while tolerating it in themselves and their friends.

I interact with fundamentalists every day. I am embarrassed by some, angered by others, ambivalent about some, just plain disinterested in some of the little intramural squabbles that take place. In the end, I have a ministry here that I will answer to God for, and that is my biggest concern.

But I have said before (and will close with this), I think one of fundamentalism's big problems right now is that we expect people to be like us to become one of us. And that is dangerous. We have to start with peopole who are not like else, and welcome them and their questions with open arms, while calling them to wholehearted submission to the King of kings and Lord of lords who died in their place to give them forgiveness, grace, eternal life, and a changed life.

Larry

[iggy]

Larry,
I have greatly enjoyed are conversation here.
Here is a true story of grace...
A woman was having an affair and felt guilty... because she was. She counseled with her pastor who told her she could repent and need not tell her husband... just go back. She decided that that was not enough and went to face her husband expecting the worse. As she began to tell her husband she broke into sobs... He told her at that time that he knew she had been unfaithful, and told her he forgave her w/o a word from her. He only hugged her tightly to emphasize his love.
They are still together today.

That is mercy and grace in action. To say a young woman needs to be judged and cast away, when she is in the greatest of need is more of a sin than whatever her sin was. She realized that she had sinned... resulting in pregnancy, yet this was NOT enough. Just because of the hypocritical view that they (this church) must not even appear evil or appear to "tolerate sin" they kicked this girl out. They where as the righteous priests who walked past the man who was beaten because they did not want to be unclean in the good Samaritan story.

We need to realize Love covers a multitude of sin, not judgment. Kindness leads to repentance, not judgment. We are to seek God's goodness and in that are righteousness... so many get that backwards and seek God's righteousness and confuse their self-righteousness with Gods totally missing God’s Goodness.

I agree that at times there is the need for discipline as the case in 1 Cor concerning the man sleeping w his father's wife and bragging that it was covered by grace... That man missed the point and need to learn that we are to grow in the Grace and Knowledge of Christ Jesus, not depravity. This man did not come to the church for comfort as the girl did he came to revel in his perversion that was covered by grace… yet even in that whole ordeal Paul never says this man is lost or unsaved… only that his body be destroyed by Satan that his spirit be saved.

I hope you understand my point.

Now, if we are not careful Andrew may tell us to get our own blogs…. LOL!

Blessings,
iggy