Fundamentalism

Originally posted - Wednesday, October 25, 2006


I said in my last blog that I would explain the emergence of the term "fundamentalism" and display a connection to Islam, so if you haven't read my last blog, then you need to before this one. And once again, this will likely be long and philosophical, so if that bores you, now would be the time to stop reading. What I'm about to say might be controversial even to my conservative readers. That is okay. If you have a problem with it, then just email me and we can talk about it. I "could" be wrong.
Fundamentalism is a Protestant movement emerging out of the early 20th Century backlash against the rise of secularism. Namely, this involved Darwinism and liberal theology. Trust me people, popular theology was very liberal coming into the 20th Century. Names like Hegel and Schleiermacher were the "head" thinkers in "high" theology at this time. I don't have time to go into their theologies though. Let's put it this way, the Bible was an after-thought. Basically, people got tired of the garbage out there in their world, so they wrote down 5 points that one HAD TO believe in order to be a Christian. Now this is the part that makes me truly a non-fundamentalist (although I am one in a different since). I believe Jesus Christ is the ONLY "have to" in Christianity (I'll leave that vague). However, I do believe in all 5 points and find it troublesome to be a Christian and not believe these points. Here they are: 1. The Virgin Birth (biblical) 2. The Physical Resurrection of Jesus (Hegel and Schleiermacher denied this, biblical) 3. The Infallibility of Scriptures (this one is the most tricky because what does "infallibility" mean?) 4. Substitutional Atonement (A simple way to understand this is that Jesus stood in the place of you for the payment of sins. We are allowed relationship with the Father through the act of the Son, biblical) 5. Physical 2nd Coming of Christ (biblical). Do you see a pattern here? All of these are biblical points. Even though I didn't list the 3rd as biblical, it really is because there are passages (Timothy) which describe the Scriptures' nature. This is a circular argument though, so I won't press that. Anyway, those who held to these five points and the necessity that others did as well were called "Fundamentalists" because they held to fundamental/core Christian beliefs. Jesus was a radical. To believe these points in the early 20th Century was radical. To believe them now in our post-Christian society is radical. Now I want to bring in Islam.
Muslims who kill the infidel (aka "unbeliever") are labeled as "extremist radicals." Muhammad did not just lead a new religion; he led a war—Jihad (Holy War). It is true that he died rather early on, but his followers continued and even increased the warfare. Islam began in 622. By 636, they won a major battle against the Christians at Yarmuk. Two years later, they took Jerusalem. 641 saw Alexandria fall. 695 saw Carthage end its reign as a place of great theologians including Augustine. It wasn't until 732 (over 100 years) that the Muslims lost a major battle. In all of this conflict, pagans were forced to convert or they were given the sword. Christians and Jews were not always killed, but their evangelical efforts were not allowed. By 700, nearly all of Arabia was unified under the bloody sword of Islam. Interestingly, Christianity gained its strength by blood too but it was Christ's and the martyrs. Notice a difference? Anyway, terrorists today are not extreme forms of their religion. They are "Primitivists." What this means is that they seek to return to the primitive or beginning ideas of the religion. Consider the Suburbia Jesus and the societal Christians you know. Aren't they just followers of a watered-down religion with no real-life in it. Their religion is decided more by society than by its foundational truths. It's a religion, not a relationship. What I'm suggesting is that the world is perfectly okay with watered-down religion. It seeks that. In an odd way, I can understand why terrorists act for Allah. They're attempting to hold to their "orthodox" (beginning) religion. They work for their salvation, while ours has already been worked for.
My central point for bringing the Muslims into this discussion is this. Their religion, at its core, is not a loving one. It is a religion of the sword. It is one based on the original deception of Muhammad. Those that follow it, as it really is, are labeled extremist fundamentalists partially to mask its true identity and partially because a watered-down religion is acceptable to society. We're told that the few who commit these acts aren't representative of Islam. The reality is that they are the ones who actually follow their religion.
Here is my final point. I'm a fundamentalist. I'm a primitivist who believes in the necessity of the restoration of the church as John Calvin argued. I list myself as a Protestant because I "protest" (which is where Protestant comes from) the way the Catholic Church had moved away from its foundation in Christ. I believe in the 5 points of fundamentalism. They seem, to me, to be exactly what their title says they are—fundamental. I'm radical to this world and its Suburbia Jesus. According to our culture, I'm a radical for being a fundamentalist, and that is the way I like it. If Jesus was, then I probably should be too.
As a side-note, if you agree with these points, don't go around calling yourself a fundamentalist. People won't know the difference that you intend. They will believe your goal in life is to bomb an abortion clinic. Remember that fundamentalism was intended to just return to the Apostolic (Apostle's faith). It just wishes to worship the triune God as he revealed himself in Scripture without bowing to society. That was their intention, and it is mine.