I have been asking for some fundamentalists to explain and define their version of fundamentalism because:
1. its much better to let people define themselves with their own words than do it for them which often leads to inaccuracies and personal attacks.
2. There is a lot of good stuff in fundamentalism that is covered up by some ugly excesses . . . and love believes all things
3. Over the past year, the fundamentalists have turned up in the backyard of text-driven blogdom, and many emerging church bloggers are having their first interaction with them - lots of heated discussions and fiery darts coming from both groups. But also room to learn from each other, if we do it right. Time to talk about it so we can move ahead together, as much as is possible this side of eternity.
I may pontificate on another blog post about my days as a wild fundamentalist street preacher, and boast of my youthful, zealous acts for God such as leaving gospel tracts inside Catholic hymnals, and on the windshields of their cars while they were in mass, and preaching through John MacArthur Jnr's "Charasmatic Chaos" at my Baptist church, and rebuking Christians for listening to rock group Petra . . . and also my fantastic experiences in the Word of God that are still with me - hey, i had a really good time as a fundamentalist and really don't hold any grudges. In fact, I still turn up and preach in their churches. But before I write that post . .
Here are some links to start the journey (and you can recommend others)
- I posted "Are "Fundamentalists in the Emerging Church?" which kind of kicked off this series.
- CaptainSacrament has a good post entitled "Facing Opposition: An Open Letter to Emergent Christians" I like his tone.
- Challies, who once called himself a funkdamentalist, posted "The Fundamentals of Fundamentalism"
- PryroManiac is one of the best looking fundy blogs (actually, it beats the emerging church blogs also) and its a helluvalot better designed than mine. Heck - I feel graphically challenged everytime i visit - a severe case of pixel envy! Anyway, this fine looking blog became the unofficial gateway for John MacArthur's thoughts a few days ago under "Recovering the Spirit of Early Fundamentalism."
"Certainly any list of fundamentals would have to begin with these doctrines Scripture explicitly identifies as nonnegotiable: the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura), justification by faith alone (sola fide), the deity of Christ, and the Trinity. Since the Apostles' Creed omits all those doctrines, it clearly cannot be regarded as a sufficient doctrinal basis for building ecumenical bridges."
I felt that John MacArthur was avoiding the centrality of eschatology in early 20th century fundamentalism - back in the days when your view on the tribulation and the millenial period dictated your allegiance to either the liberals or the fundies. I might be wrong on that, but I left a little comment on Pyromanc,
"john's list does not include premillenialism - one of the original 5 marks of fundamentalism from Princeton in the 1920's.
Do you think John is opening the door for some flexibility in fundamentalist eschatology, or is that issue already open to various interpretations without the accusation of aligning with liberals?
Nobody has come back on that one yet . . which doesnt really matter. I just want to stay in the conversation long enough until I am a little more conversant with the new version of fundamentalism which is taking shape on the blogosphere. I am quite open to be admonished and learn from the group that I had fellowship with more many years, and I have a strong feeling that there is a reason for them here in the blogosphere.