When I hear how many in the news media and among liberal circles of the general population use the term “fundamentalist,” it’s somewhat of a relief to know they’re not talking about me - well, at least if they’re using the term in its historical setting.
You see, the whole concept of being a fundamentalist Christian came about as a result of a movement which began in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Presbyterian Church and later spread to the Baptists and other branches in the Reformed or Protestant category of churches.
From an 1895 Bible conference held in Niagara, N.Y., came a statement containing what later became known as the fivepoints of fundamentalism: The verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, a substitutionary atonement for sin, and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Jesus Christ.
A series of 90 essays called “The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth,” edited by A. C. Dixon and later by Reuben Archer Torrey and published in 12 volumes from 1910 to 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles were designed to affirm historic Protestant beliefs and defend against the liberal theology of the time. They are viewed by many as the root cause of the modern fundamentalist movement within Protestant Christianity.
Historically speaking, a fundamentalist Christian is one who holds to certain “fundamental” articles of doctrine.
Why am I not a fundamentalist, you might ask? My answer is simple. I am not satisfied to simply adhere to certain “fundamental” articles of doctrine - important though they may be - I happen to believe all of the Bible is God’s Word and that He would have me believe and teach every article of doctrine contained therein. And though I would agree with much of what was propounded by the fundamentalist movement, there are some places where they got things wrong - their teaching and Biblical teaching just don’t match up.
And so, though some may call me a “fundie,” I’m not. Of course, they may even call me something worse when they learn that I believe every word of the Bible and am not satisfied to hold only to certainfundamental parts of its teaching.
I’m a plenary and absolute Christian - not that I’m in any way perfect or without fault (I trust in the shed blood of Jesus), but I am not willing to yield any teaching of the Bible. After all, it’s God’s book and His word, not mine. What right do I have to compromise any part of it? Perhaps that makes me an “extremist Christian” without being an “extremist” in the bad sense of the word because I don’t advocate “hate crimes” against those who quite obviously hate me and what I believe and propound.
Yes, I know the word “fundamentalist” has evolved in its usage and is meant in ways other than its historical roots would indicate. After all, the media and liberal groups of society speak not only of fundamentalist Christians, they apply the term to other religions as well, including the Islamic and Jewish Faiths.
Basically, the term is now used to refer to anyone who holds strictly to the tenets of their faith. Thus, a fundamentalist Jew would hold strictly to the Hebrew scriptures and traditions and a fundamentalist adherent of Islam would hold strictly to the Koran.
Now, if you stop and think about it, what the “fundamentalist” name callers are really saying is that it’s all right to be of the Christian, Jewish or Islamic Faiths as long as one does not hold to the basic and fundamental tenets of that faith. In truth, they advocate hypocrisy.
And of course, if you really stop and think about it, all the politicallycorrect talk saying this religion or that religion is okay as long as one is not a “fundamentalist” is really saying of the faith - whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or some other faith - that it is fundamentally flawed.
I do wish the politicians and liberals who use the terms “fundamentalist” or “extremist” in a derogatory way when they speak of members of religious groups would just come out and say what they mean and imply and see how many people still vote for them in the next election or give any credibility to their writings and broadcasts.
For those of us who are Christian, they are fundamentally saying that Christianity and the Bible are “fundamentally” flawed. And if one holds to all the Bible teaches, he is most certainly “extremely” flawed.
Of course, their very name calling only further proves the Bible to be true - Matthew 5:11-12 - in a fundamentalist and extremist kind of way.
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Decatur Herald and the Gentry Courier-Journal. He may be reached by e-mail at rmoll @ nwaonline .com
Opinion, Pages 5 on 04/28/2010