Skip to main content

Why Fundamentalism is not Orthodoxy

I'm just starting to read Thomas C Oden's systematic theology, Classic Christianity, his preface is great fun. Oden was a theological liberal who has rediscovered orthodox Christian faith, as you read him you get a great sense of his own awakening to the reality of 2,000 years of church history and reflection on God's revelation in Christ. He is scathing of contemporary theologians who strive for novelty and controversy while in his own work he seeks to say nothing new but only bring to light for a new generation what the church has always believed. It is very encouraging in our time of uncountable denominations and factions to realise someone can write a nearly thousand page book in small print detailing what all Christians, protestants, roman catholics, eastern orthodox, coptic, etc, have believed through the centuries. He provides a helpful table detailing why historic Christian orthodoxy should not be confused with fundamentalism. I couldn't find it anywhere on the net, so here it is for your edification. (Square brackets are my elaboration)

Classic Christian Consensus: A work of the Spirit who came to dwell in the disciples after the resurection
Fundamentalism: A literal approach to Scripture

CCC: Focuses on the meaning of the resurrection
F: Focuses on the historicity of the resurrection [to the neglect of its meaning]

CCC: Longevity: two millenia
F: Longevity: Since the 1895 Niagara Conference

CCC: A faith shared worldwide by believers of twenty centuries of diverse generations and cultures
F: A particular crisis between parties within North American Protestantism

CCC: Has lived through and beyond hundreds of alleged modernities
F: A defensive response to particular challenges nineteenth-century "modernity," especially Darwin and rising secular humanism

CCC: Scriptural authority received and tested by lay consensus of believers
F: Scriptural authority asserted against tradition

CCC: A catholic and orthodox faith is established through authoratative texts tested in many cultures
F: A truncated orthodoxy is cast in the terms of the crises of modernity, lacking in the whole fabric of historic orthodox belief

CCC: Confident through historical change based on historic experience [i.e. don't panic! God is in control]
F: Often expecting the worst from the human future [i.e. the sky is falling!]

CCC: Recognition of metaphor and varieties of expression of inspired doctrine in Scripture
F: Single legitimate interpretation of each text

CCC: Texts viewed within historic contexts
F: Texts viewed apart from historic contexts

Of course the problem is that in our globalising world the USA is increasingly managing to export its fundamentalism to other nations, I can certainly testify to its negative influence in both NZ and the UK, and that short sighted and fear filled approach to modernity is in danger of choking the life out of the church.

Let me know what you think, :-)

Comments

  1. Hmmm...yep. That about does it. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the most important is:

    CCC: Has lived thorugh and beyond hundreds of alleged modernities
    F: A defensive response to particular challenges nineteenth-century "modernity," especially Darwin and rising secular humanism"

    That about sums up the rest of them since the rest of the F are basically defensive statements against the challenges of late modernity. That's why I feel fairly comfortable that fundamentalism will be mostly dead within 100 years - the things that it was defending against will dominate less and less as post-modernism takes stronger hold on the western world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How is Fundamentalism defined by Oden?

    I certainly agree that there are many unhelpful tendancies that he outlines in the modern (and even post-modern :) ) church, but I'm not sure whether what I am thinking of would be considered fundamentalism. Or does the acceptance of certain positions automatically put you in that box whether you identify as one or not?

    I personally remember struggling with the implicit teaching (and probably explicit, though I can't call any examples to mind) that only those who believed the Bible in the way modern evangelicals did in the the 1990's would be saved. It was very liberating to recognise God's work in history and other parts of the Church.

    I also remember rediscovering how broad the gospel was as opposed to the cling-wrapped version championed by many churches in my youth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi , Steve, Ryan and Ali, nice of you to drop me a comment. Ali, I think this list is his definition of fundamentalism. So fundamentalists may or may not be into "creation science" or "dispensationalism" but it is the reason why they are into those things and the way they are into those things that make them fundamentalists, not necessarily the individual articles of faith they hold. I think. If you are interested he has written a book on it, "After Modernity, What?" but it isn't the one i'm presently reading.

    he says

    "I'm making a very simple point, that fundamentalism is an extremely modern notion. It is far less in touch with the early Christian writers, the martyrs, the saints, the writers of the early Christian period, and certainly with the Reformation writers. I would make a distinction between Christian orthodoxy and fundamentalism."

    http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=authorbio&var1=AutRes&var2=310

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

ANZABS 2018 program and abstracts

ANZABS CONFERENCE 2018
6-7 December, 2018


Venue: Wesley Hall, Trinity Methodist College,

202A St Johns Rd, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072

Thursday 6 December
9.30 am – REGISTRATION
10.00-10.10 – mihi
10.10-11.00 – Keynote speaker: Robert Myles – Fishing for Eyewitnesses in the Fourth Gospel
11.00-11.30 – Morning tea
11.30-12.00 – Lyndon Drake – Economic Capital in the Hebrew Bible
12.00-12.30 – Anne Aalbers – Resurrection and Celibacy: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
12.30-1.00 – Jonathan Robinson – "And he was with the beasts," (Mark 1:13): Ambiguity,
Interpretation and Mark as a Jewish Author
1.00-2.00 – Lunch
2.00-2.30 – Ben Hudson – Ethical Exhortation and the Decalogue in Ephesians
2.30-3.00 – Csilla Saysell – The Servant as 'a covenant of/for people' in Deutero-Isaiah
3.00-3.30 – Afternoon tea
3.30-4.00 – Jacqueline Lloyd – Did Jesus minister in Gaulanitis?
4.00-4.30 – Mark Keown – Jesus as the New Joshua
4.30 – AGM
Friday 7 December
9.30-10.00 – Ben Ong – Pākehā Readin…