Several Emerging Church leaders were raised in Fundamentalist churches. This includes Brian McLaren, who has admitted that as a result of his experiences, he is harder on Fundamentalists than he is on other Christian groups. More generally, there is no doubt that a reaction against Fundamentalism has played a role in the development of the Emerging Church.
The Fundamentals
Originally, Fundamentalist referred to those in the early 20th century that sought to defend what they viewed as the fundamentals of the Christian faith against attack from Christian liberals and modernists. Precisely what the fundamentals were varied slightly, but they generally included most of the following: the inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the historical authenticity of miracles and the imminent return of Christ.
On these doctrines the Emerging Church ranges from people like Dan Kimball, who is in essential agreement with the list, only preferring words such as “infallible” and “authoritative” instead of “inerrant” and preferring to leave the specific timing of Christ’s return as an issue on which disagreement is acceptable (which would place him squarely with many conservative Evangelicals) to people like McLaren, who also doesn’t like using “inerrant” (seeing that as a term resulting more from modernistic philosophy than from scripture itself), rejects the idea that substitutionary atonement is the sole way of picturing atonement (more on this in a future article) and has been highly critical of premillenial dispensationalism. However, no Emerging Church leader has, to my knowledge, rejected the virgin birth, the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ or the authenticity of miracles.
But by rejecting Fundamentalism, I don’t mean what is commonly called theology, but the legalism, separatist tendencies, mean-spiritedness, and conservative political activism, that has too often typified it.
Legalism
One issue for concern is Fundamentalism’s (real and/or perceived) legalism. Absolute prohibitions against such things as drinking alcohol, smoking, and dancing have often marked Fundamentalism, but are soundly rejected by Emerging types. Not only are they seen as fostering a poor “rule-keeping” approach to Christianity, the rules themselves are non-Biblical or even at times anti-Biblical.
Separatist Tendency
Traditionally, Fundamentalists stressed separation from the world. This began to decline after the rise of Neo-Evangelicalism beginning in the 1950′s. It’s influence can still be seen in Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical circles, by people who only listen to Christian music, insist on sending their kids to Christian schools or in home schooling them, only supporting Christian bookstores, etc. A rather hardline stance can be seen here [link plays music]. I think I’ve covered in other impulses why the Emerging Church rejects this view.
Mean-Spiritedness
From the despicable actions of extremists like Fred Phelps, to mainstream Fundamentalists, such as the recently deceased Jerry Falwell (who made statements saying groups such as “pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians” helped the September 11th attacks happen and labeling the people of a gay church as “brute beats”), the public face of Fundamentalism has often come across as hateful. Homosexuals in particular appear to be a group that Fundamentalists have a problem, following the old adage of “hate the sin, love the sinner.”
Besides such mean-spiritedness, those in the Emerging church take issues with how Fundamentalists harp on certain sins, in effect making some of them to be qualitatively worse sins than others.
Conservative Political Activism
Starting in the 1970′s, Fundamentalists started to make a strong impact in American politics, marking a departure from their traditional separatism, under which politics were often ignored. With the rise of such groups as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, Fundamentalists, along with many Evangelicals, made a large impact on politics indeed. Fundamentalist have in fact become so entrenched in political causes, that many have come to see political, and not religious issues, as their defining characteristics.
Other Christian groups, including many in the Emerging Church, have worried that this political emphasis can lead to a synergistic religion, wherein love for God and country, as well as Christianity and conservative politics are blended. Some have called for Christians to have a “purple” politics, in which they are not united squarely with either conservative or liberal politics. It is a concern, though, that some in the Emerging Church, such as Brian McLaren, may be in danger of combining Christianity with liberal politics.
How Christians should act politically in a democracy is not an easy question, but I do think it would be a step forward if we could stop making assumptions about people’s spiritual life based on their politics, which unfortunately happens far to often.
Great article, Jasen. It was particularly helpful of you to distinguish theological Fundamentalism from today’s “Fundamentalist.”
I am a Fundamentalist in the theological sense, but I am not a Fundamentalist in the modern socio-political sense. I find the blending of politics and religion rather disgusting, whether Conservative or Liberal. In my view, people should not be so quick to use the name of Jesus in a political context. Jesus is holy; his name is holy, and politics is often very base and carnal. The fact that someone would even adopt a political affiliation like “Christian Conservative” is troubling to me. I am a Christian, and in some respects may be considered conservative, but my political identity does not have a “Christian” label on it; this is compromise at its worst. Many a minister has been corrupted by this sort of thing, and it has tarnished the reputation of the Holy One who was sent from God to pay for the sins of the whole world. Something is definitely wrong when people automatically assume they know your politics because you say you are a Christian.
I agree with Chris, though I’m not sure about the last statement. For example, if you are a Christian, one SHOULD automatically assume that you’re pro-life. Beyond that, I suppose most other political positions are relatively gray area (though I think anyone who espouses socialistic viewpoints is dead wrong, but I guess an unthinking Christian could believe in socialism).
Darius said: if you are a Christian, one SHOULD automatically assume that you’re pro-life
That’s not historically true. Conferring personhood on the unborn is not universal among Christians, especially not if you look back a few hundred years. The pro-life movement is not the only worldview that is compatible with biblical Christianity.
“I agree with Chris, though I’m not sure about the last statement. For example, if you are a Christian, one SHOULD automatically assume that you’re pro-life. Beyond that, I suppose most other political positions are relatively gray area…”
But even on the pro-life stance, there is a gray area where politics is concerned. If you are pro-life, does that necessarily mean you want Roe v. Wade overturned? Probably. But do you think states have the right to make their own laws concerning the issue? Should there be a Constitutional amendment banning abortions nationwide? Should all abortion doctors be killed to avenge the deaths of the unborn? The latter question may seem a bit extreme, but you know there are people who believe that this sort of thing is justified.
I think what we are seeing here are trends which have come about as a natural response to excesses in the church world. It may not be on the same scale, but I think this is very similar to Martin Luther’s response to the Roman Catholic church. When things become unbearable, people have to either conform to the norm despite their misgivings, or go against the grain either by adopting another way or by just being a critic.
So I this as potentially being a healthy purge so-to-speak. However, it must be noted that excesses always exist in these situations; that is a given. These excesses can be manifested in a variety of different ways. Suppose rather than legalism, you adopt a policy of lawlessness. Or suppose your distaste for theological rigidity causes you to become relativistic, etc.
The excesses notwithstanding, I think much of what is taking place is good. I don’t consider myself as part of the “Emerging Church.” Honestly I only became familiar with that term after reading threads on this web site. But I think these trends transcend whatever EC is.
Yesterday I attended church with my son and his fiancée in Houston. I suspected it was an EC when we stood in line at the in-house coffee shop for muko-choco-lattos, or whatever they were called, which 50% of the congregation took with them into the sanctuary (profits go to help run the place). My suspicions grew as I observed that we were meeting inside an art gallery, with religious art on two walls. My suspicions were confirmed when Brian McLaren’s name was invoked during the service!
I could say a number of good things about my visit (maybe I should put them on my personal blog instead of here) but I did object to one thing. When it came time for the scripture reading, the pastor actually read from The Voice of Luke: Not Even Sandals by Brian McLaren. Apparently this book is some kind of retelling of the gospel of Luke. I have no general objections to paraphrases or Bible storying, but somehow it seemed like it would have been intellectually a bit more honest to explain that fact.
Here’s a link with info about McLaren’s book: http://www.precipicemagazine.com/brian-mclaren-conversation.html
Thainamu, that is what concerns me the most, the apparent replacement of Scripture as the highest authority. The EC (SP, McLaren, Pagitt) don’t like authority structures, but they replace the authority of the Bible with their own.
Jew, could you elaborate? I guess I don’t see how it makes a difference what Christians two hundred years ago believed about the definition of human life. After all, abortion wasn’t a viable option (since it usually resulted in the death of the mother as well as the baby) and we had no idea how the development of the fetus progressed in utero.
As for Christians today and our better understanding of the human body, there is NO room for any Biblical position EXCEPT pro-life (unless you get into a scenario when the mother’s health is at risk; then I can see potential gray area).
Sure. Pro-life as a moral imperative is predicated on the assumption that personhood begins at conception. The idea that an unborn child is imbued with a soul at the moment of conception is not and has not been univerally accepted by Christians. For many centuries, it was believed that the soul enters the unborn child at some point after conception but before birth. The usual points are 40 days, 80 days, or the quickening (whenever the baby first moves.) Those ideas have fallen out of favor as science has improved our understanding of the human body, but that doesn’t make them necessarily invalid. After all, there is no way to measure the presence or absence of a soul.
From what little I’ve read, it seems that even when Christians believe abortion is not murder, they still view it as evil or at least undesirable. ReligiousTolerance.org has a brief overview that lists the views of various people in church history. Historical abortion beliefs of the Christian church
I think the idea that we can pinpoint the ensoulment of the fetus as occurring at 40 days or 80 days is absurd, so I don’t agree with the church authorities who promoted those views. On the other hand, I think someone could believe those ideas and still live a committed Christian life. It’s not a critical doctrine.
This may seem overly-philosophical to some, but I don’t believe life begins at conception. (Stay with me now.) Rather, I believe life began when the Creator spoke it into existence. So procreation is an extension of the life that began in creation, and therefore is manifested through the human mother and father. So it stands to reason that if the mother and father are alive, the product of their sexual union is also alive; in that sense it has no beginning as such. I know that’s not scientific, but that’s actually the way I think about it.
However, those who contend that a fetus (Latin for baby) is not a human life, they are just wrong. Remember what God told Rebekah:
“And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23).
God not only saw these “fetuses” as human beings, he identified them as “nations.” Such is the foreknowledge of God. He told Jeremiah that He knew him before he was formed in the womb, and had already determined that he would be a prophet.
Ok, I think I agree. But politically, those positions still all fall under “socially conservative” or “right.” Someone should still be able to assume that if one is a Christian, one is generally pro-life and anti-abortion. As to how one specifies their position under that mantel is another thing (i.e. ensoulment, mother’s health, etc.). What IS a critical doctrine is that a Christian defend human life, which is made in the image of God. One can not be a committed Christian and believe that abortion on demand is fine.
Personally, I believe that the moment that a baby is conceived is when it should become protected. If you don’t do that, then you have this arbitrary “ensoulment” line that can move back and forth as people choose or science leads us. There should be only two lines that can be chosen, any other distinctions are too arbitrary. The first is conception, the other birth. The latter is very easily shown to be wrong, so that only leaves us conception.
Chris, you’re spot on.
Jasen, excellent article! Possibly the best to appear on ZFT to date! You clearly differentiated between doctrinal and social fundamentalists, described how the “fundamentals” rejected are (generally) not doctrinal, and gave examples of the positions discussed. The article was informative, suggested research done, and yet was not overwhelming. I am extremely impressed by your writing here.
@Chris Austere: “they are just wrong.”
Well, that certainly is a humble perspective, doncha know!
@Darius: “What IS a critical doctrine is that a Christian defend human life”
What I find so exasperating is how Christians are so focused on the “unborn” and how there is very little that seems to motivate Christians more than to fight against abortion yet so many are willing to cheer on efforts that kill hundreds of thousands of the “born” when the efforts are wrapped in their own nation’s flag, especially when those being killed are of a different ethnicity and/or religion.
I am a secular humanist which means to me that I value all life, not just those in my own country or of my own race. These “True Christian’s” support of these most egregious actions infuriate me, and frankly Christianity lately seems to be used to justify atrocities against other nations and other races. And yes I am talking about the religious right in the USA and the war in IRAQ and potential war with IRAN. I think we secular humanists have far greater morals than the typical Christian, at least in my experience.
For those Christians that truly practice what Jesus preached I can respect and admire them. But the more “Christians” want to impose their own world view on the rest of us (i.e. abortion views, etc.) and the more they want to oppress other peoples (i.e. war in IRAQ) the more I want to rescue “impressionable children” from Christianity and fight against the goals of the religious right. If I have the choice between saving an “unborn” and saving a “born” (i.e. not seeing them killed by my fellow countrymen), I’ll save the already born any day.
Simply put, pro-life vs. pro-choice should be an individual’s choice, not a choice enshrined in law. Doing the latter *for biblical reasons* tears down the way between church and state and that is probably the most dangerous thing that could happen in the USA. As long as we have secular laws, nobody’s religion gets special preference. As laws that favor a specific religion are enacted more and more, those of other faiths are disenfranched. And if you want to see the results of religious disenfranchment just look at IRAQ, or practically any war torn region today or in the past. Religion has been and continues to be used to justify the most horrific of atrocities. When a religious group is truly oppressed they fight back, violently more often than not (except for Budhists; God love them!) The USA was founded because of a desire for religious freedom, it’s so very short sighted that people today are trying to tear down that great foundation of the USA.
The irony is that the church leaders and right-leaning politicians would never get rid of abortion because if they did they would loose their most reliable and effective fund-raising tool. Just say “abortion” around pro-lifers and watch the money roll in. I would find it amusing how manipulated pro-lifers are on this issue, when really it’s all about money and power. It’s not about
“saving the unborn”, at least not for religious and political leaders, and if you think it is you are kidding yourselves. You (and pro-choicers too) are just acting like lemmings.
One final point about abortion; it you Christians manage to get it outlawed in the USA then be sure to prepare yourself in 10 to 20 years for a crime wave like nothing you’ve ever experienced. When the unwanted babies grow up as unwanted children of uncaring parents into teenage poverty their only real choice in life will be to turn to crime. You may not like this view of things but it is reality; just spend some time learning about a perfect test case if you don’t believe me. Learn about what happened in Romania one to two decades after the borders were closed and all abortion were outlawed. Hint: it wasn’t pretty.
Bottom line Christians: Live and let live or watch your cherished religion become a target.
“What I find so exasperating is how Christians are so focused on the “unborn” and how there is very little that seems to motivate Christians more than to fight against abortion yet so many are willing to cheer on efforts that kill hundreds of thousands of the “born” when the efforts are wrapped in their own nation’s flag, especially when those being killed are of a different ethnicity and/or religion.”
I agree with this statement.
“One final point about abortion; it you Christians manage to get it outlawed in the USA then be sure to prepare yourself in 10 to 20 years for a crime wave like nothing you’ve ever experienced. When the unwanted babies grow up as unwanted children of uncaring parents into teenage poverty their only real choice in life will be to turn to crime.”
This is the most retarded, ignorant statement of many. Pre Roe v. Wade, we really had lots of unwanted children who turned to crime, didn’t we??? Seriously, did you even think before you wrote this paragraph? Since Roe V. Wade, families have gotten worse, not better. There are more unwanted kids now than in the 60′s. Read this column by the author of Freedomnomics: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010227
It’s called responsibility, require it of the people and they will (for the most part) live up to it.
Furthermore, Truebeliever, regardless of how wrong (or right) you are about our foreign policy, let’s compare “born” to unborn deaths, shall we? Since the Iraq War began, about 3500 soldiers have been killed. Since the Iraq War began, at least 6 million children have been aborted in this country alone. Hopefully, your humanistic math is capable of figuring out which is 1700 times the other.
“Furthermore, Truebeliever, regardless of how wrong (or right) you are about our foreign policy, let’s compare “born” to unborn deaths, shall we? Since the Iraq War began, about 3500 soldiers have been killed. Since the Iraq War began, at least 6 million children have been aborted in this country alone. Hopefully, your humanistic math is capable of figuring out which is 1700 times the other.”
I basically agree with you on this, Darius. But lets not forget there have been 600,000 Iraqi deaths. Some have said this estimate is too high. I actually listened to the original conference call when these numbers were released to the press (don’t ask me how this is possible). At any rate, assuming the estimate is double the actual number, that’s still a lot of dead people.
I agree, but I purposely didn’t include those numbers because in my estimation, that blood is primarily on the hands of the terrorists. We don’t blame the Allies for the German citizens who were killed in the process of liberating Europe. Furthermore, Saddam was killing tens of thousands a year of those same Iraqi citizens. So it is quite difficult to begin comparing numbers besides our soldiers. Plus, my guess is that many of the so-called “civilian deaths” are terrorists and insurgents. After all, we are killing over 1000 terrorists a month.
I see what you’re saying, and no doubt those numbers include insurgent deaths. I have to say I think the World War II comparison is weak, though.
At some point Americans have to count the cost of U.S. involvement in wars like this. The U.S. started this war by choice, and I don’t think any honest person believes the outcome would have been different if the intelligence was more reliable. The United States government has to take responsibility for every casualty that happens as a result of our involvement in this war, because those deaths are the direct result of the U.S. decision to go to war in the first place.
Does anyone else remember the petition by the American Center for Law and Justice, which urged congress to support the president in his attempt to force “regime change” in Iraq? I remember hearing their pleas on Christian radio. For those of you who don’t know, ACLJ is a nonprofit law firm established by Pat Robertson in defense of Christian liberties, prayer in school, etc. It is headed by Jay Sekulow.
The True Believer, you should probably know that Zeal for Truth is swarming with libertarian Christians. A lot of us don’t fall neatly into the religious right category. For example, I don’t support the antagonistic foreign policy of the US government. Nor do I believe in enacting moral laws, because I don’t want the government to be the morality police.
But I’m interested to hear some examples of what you’re objecting to. So far you’ve identified only two items in your 650 word rant: abortion, and the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has not been justified on Christian religious grounds, so I’m unclear why you equate it with a Christian worldview. The rhetoric surrounding the Iraq war is about terrorists, WMDs, and oil, which aren’t religious concepts at all. Unless you are equating George W. Bush and the Neoconservative wing of the Republican party with Christianity, I don’t see how you can blame Christians for the war.
Christians more than to fight against abortion yet so many are willing to cheer on efforts that kill hundreds of thousands of the “born” when the efforts are wrapped in their own nation’s flag, especially when those being killed are of a different ethnicity and/or religion.
There is no comparison between unborn deaths and US led deaths in Iraq. That is ridiculous. I agree that there is hypocrisy in promoting “life” for the innocent unborn and then not promoting it for innocent civilians in other countries – you don’t have to be a secular humanist to come to that view.
One final point about abortion; it you Christians manage to get it outlawed in the USA then be sure to prepare yourself in 10 to 20 years for a crime wave like nothing you’ve ever experienced.
This is just poor logic. It’s like saying, if we don’t ban gay marriage there will be a rampant crime wave in 10 or 20 years.
It sounds like you are more interested in using abortion as population control and societal engineering then considering the weighty and serious ethical considerations of taking human life. I have a lot more respect for the pro-choice person who can at least back themselves up with some kind of moral argument. Your tyrannical and casually tribal views on human life reduce individuals to cogs in the wheels of the collective.
Chris Austere, thanks for mentioning ACLJ and Jay Sekulow. I hadn’t heard of them before. I went ahead and looked up the statement that ACLJ released in support of Bush’s policy in dealing with Iraq. The statement was released in September 2002 [ Link to the statement ]:
I’m still not clear on why the ACLJ, whose specialty is constitutional law, needs to express opinions on US foreign policy. It seems out of scope. But I am heartened that the support is not predicated or justified on religious principles.
“I’m still not clear on why the ACLJ, whose specialty is constitutional law, needs to express opinions on US foreign policy. It seems out of scope. But I am heartened that the support is not predicated or justified on religious principles.”
It is true that the support was not predicated or justified on religious principles. But to the uninformed, there is an implication of religious support. Its true that not everything on Christian radio is necessarily “Christian”, most people can’t distinguish the baby from the bathwater. I’m not just assuming this; you can tell by the kinds of calls you hear on the radio program.
I brought this up to underscore the point about why some people are rejecting fundamentalism. There has been such a blurring of the lines that most people aren’t sure how to separate church from state (God from Caesar).
Chris, this is due to the falsehood that Christianity shouldn’t be allowed to inform one’s opinion or policy while secular humanism, Islam, or liberalism can. How is the belief that gay marriage is wrong any more religious of a view than the belief that homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality?
Darius,
I would say both are religious if I understand your question correctly.
Exactly.
I read that Christian Separation web page. The link is provided under the “Separatist Tendency” heading in the article.
I have to say, although I think the tone of this page is somewhat misguided, there are some very important principles to be explored in the scriptures referenced: James 4:4 and 2 Corinthians 6:17. We can’t just pretend those scriptures aren’t in the Bible.
There is, in every religious movement, to become overly-reactionary and lay aside something important in favor of something more palatable. Its the proverbial baby and bathwater scenario. Does the New Testament teach separation from the world? Absolutely. But the question is: what does that mean exactly? I think if we allow scripture to interpret scripture we will get a clearer point of view. First John 2:15-17 says:
15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
So then we could define worldliness in terms of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life or pride in your lifestyle. I think the problem with the traditional Fundamentalist interpretation of these verses is that it naturally leads to legalism. People can interpret the “unclean thing” as anything they want to: cigarettes, alcohol, television (hellivision), movies, dancing, etc.
Hi all,
Great dialog going on here!
I just wanted to offer my own two cents worth. Someone wrote: “… what concerns me the most, (is) the apparent replacement of Scripture as the highest authority. The EC (SP, McLaren, Pagitt) don’t like authority structures, but they replace the authority of the Bible with their own.”
I know a couple of these guys personally and am deeply involved in the EC conversation and I’d say this is statement demonstrates a misguided understanding of EC’ers understanding of biblical authority.
EC’ers (such as McLaren, Jones, etc.) don’t reject the authority of the Bible, but rather, draw attention to the fact that what people are often defending is not the Bible, but a interpretive, systematic superstructure projected onto it.
In other words, the concern is that biblical authority be considered in light of our subjective, limited capabilities as finite creatures. We must acknowledge that the interpretation of the Scriptures always involves contextualization. Bible reading, interpretation, and application never happens in a vacuum.
That is NOT equivalent to saying that “anything goes” or that you can get anything you want out of scripture. This would be Reader Response Criticism- and that’s definitely not a main thrust within Emergent or the emerging church in general.