You know that word, don't you? I'd suspect that the mere reading of it might create a tension in your stomach. Those fundamentalists are ... well ... crazy. Now, to be fair, most people today hear "fundamentalists" and think "Islamic terrorists" and that's not entirely unfair. However, most also lump in "fundamentalist Christians," too. Because there is a tangential element that calls themselves "fundamentalist Christians" who are ... well ... crazy. They are anti-government, militant, and potentially as violent as the "Islamic fundamentalist" types. And they are an extreme minority ... and hold views in direct opposition to Christ.
Huh. That's odd, isn't it? "Christians" whose views are in "direct opposition to Christ"? Can you classify them as "Christian"? That kind of logic doesn't disturb most people these days.
What is "fundamentalist," then? The Encyclopedia Britannica (and many others) define it simply as a group "characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts." That's it. That's all. There are, of course, other ramifications, but that, at its core (at the fundamentals), is it. Now, if you take that definition and overlay it on, say, Islamic fundamentalists, does it fit? Why, yes ... yes it does. They take their sacred scriptures as literally true. It says "jihad" and they do. It says "kill infidels" and they do. It fits. It is not the fundamentalists of Islam who are off the mark from their scriptures; it is the moderate Moslems.
Let's try that again. What about those crazy "fundamentalist Christians" who seek to overthrow the government, who embrace violence, who are more nationalist than Christian, etc.? How does that work? Not well. Christ commanded love. Christ commanded to turn the other cheek. Scripture requires that believers submit to authority. Repeatedly the Scriptures say to consider the welfare of others over your own. Biblical Christianity and that particular group so often perceived as "fundamentalist Christians" don't correspond.
"So," you may be asking, "are you saying there are not fundamentalist Christians?" No, that is not what I'm saying. Taking the proper definition, there are genuine Christians who take the Scriptures as they are written and work to apply them to their lives. They have some sort of bizarre belief that God is good and God is capable of transmitting and maintaining His actual ideas (2 Tim 3:16-17) and they seek to follow them. So when Jesus says, "No man comes to the Father but by Me," (John 14:6) they conclude that the only way to God is through Jesus. When Jesus says, "You must be born again," (John 3:3, 5) they conclude you must be born again. When Scripture says, "Consider others as more important than yourself," (Rom 15:2; Php 2:3-4) it becomes their goal to do just that. These are genuine Christian fundamentalists. Turns out they are the most tolerant people on the planet (Rom 14:1-3) not because they embrace all the ideas and values that contradict biblical principles and morality, but because they tolerate them as "sojourners and exiles." (2 Cor 5:1; 1 Peter 2:11; Heb 13:14). Thus, to the extent that Christians receive God's Word as God's Word and seek to conform their thinking and living to it (and not the other way around), they are genuine Christians and, correctly, fundamentalist. However, as we know, that kind of fundamentalist is unacceptable to the god of this world and, therefore, to his followers, so if there is any way he can turn people away from that kind, he will. Welcome to our world (1 John 2:15-17).
2 comments:
I believe most who are labeled "fundamentalist Christians" are not so much Christian as they are political. But aside from individuals who believe themselves Christian first, but strongly political as well, the term is a pejorative in its most frequent usage. That is, to be called that is not an indication of the speaker's respect for a Christian's devotion to Christ, but a slap against those Christians who are, by their devotion, seen as crazy because of that devotion. Case in point, Baronelle Stutzman, who is criticized for adhering to her beliefs as if she's done something truly harmful when she's done nothing to anyone but refuse a specific, particular request...as if the "victims" have never done such a thing themselves. I don't believe Christians who are militant are "fundies", even though they may express their own devotion...such as it is...to Christ. But because of their self-identifying as Christians, that is used against the entirety of Christendom should they be more likely just referred to as militants. There are those who are the "anti-fundies"...those who are keen on disparaging Christians every chance they get until such time Christians forsake their devotion and join the "in crowd" who indulge in all manner of sinfulness, like a good progressive should.
Partly my point, in fact. The label "fundamentalist" is improperly applied all over the place. It is certainly used solely as a pejorative these days while most of those who use it are themselves "fundamentalists" in the sense that they adhere strongly to their own "scriptures" (like "science" or "social justice").
Post a Comment