Tag Archives: definitions

Fundamentalism

2 Replies

I don’t have a problem with fundamentalism, _per se_, though I suspect that I technically don’t fall into that category of religious faith as the definition stands currently. The word ‘fundamentalism’, as applied to religion, varies in its definition across various contexts, but the most common definition is “literal interpretation of sacred texts.” “#”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism While this approach works great with historical passages, it struggles to provide accurate understanding and meaningful depth to passages containing prophetic visions and stories that are lush with imagery. This definition also does not really fit the root word it is attempting to define – ‘fundamental’.

What is a fundamental? It is something that “[relates] to the foundation or base” and is “elementary”. “#”:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamental In short a fundamental is a basic building block for something else. It serves as the unshakable, rock-solid foundation upon which you build something far larger, bigger, and grander. In the context of religious faith, a fundamental is a basic truth upon which all other truths are built. This _does_ involve a certain amount of literal interpretation of sacred texts – the Bible, for Christians – for what structure can be built upon a foundational text whose true meaning is not entirely clear?

The basic foundations of Christianity itself, though, _are_ built upon very clear, very defined principles, those principles that we call the Gospel – the fact that all men are born into sin, that no man can attain Heaven by his own merits because no man can possibly live up to a holy and righteous God, that God sent His only, perfect Son to pay the price for men’s sins by dying on the cross, that the Son overcame death by rising from the dead on the third day, that the Son ascended back into Heaven to prepare it for His people. Everything else we know and believe and practice is founded upon that Gospel, and all too often I think we lose sight of that. The existence of the Gospel changes everything, it renders the Law of the Old Testament days archaic, and it establishes a new order for the way God relates to His people. In effect, every single man and woman alive can now have a personal relationship with God because his Son Jesus serves as our intercessor, as the link between man and the Father. These are the fundamentals of our faith; everything else is the icing on the cake.

Yet, somehow, we allow the icing to destroy our fellowship, to divide our churches, to condone violent and hateful acts that are completely contradictory to the fundamentals of Christian faith. We are a people of peace and love and compassion. We are to reach out to our fellow man and extend grace and mercy to him, meeting his physical needs every bit as much as we meet his spiritual needs. We so often forget this, choosing instead to recite vain rhetoric that, while sounding pretty, does little to meet anyone’s need or demonstrate how following Christ can have the ability to change anything, let alone for the better.

This is why I think of myself as something of a fundamentalist, not so much because I believe that every word in the Bible needs to be interpreted literally but because I believe Christians, particularly those in America, have a great need to return to the fundamentals of our faith and exercise a degree of flexibility about what kind of icing we put on our cake. So long as we agree that there is only one way to Heaven, we can have fellowship in the Holy Spirit, and we can work through the rest together. We may still have disagreements, to be sure, but our fellowship can still be sweet, we can still learn and grow together, and we can still work to bring others into the Kingdom before it is too late.

Loving and Hating

Leave a reply

A “series of questions”:http://www.xanga.com/godchaesr/402392715/god-loves-me-god-hates-me-at-the-same-time.html thrown out by “godchaesr”:http://www.xanga.com/godchaesr:

bq. could it be that hatred and love are not opposites? could God love someone and hate them at the same time? What is hatred? How would you define it? Could we define it as complete/total disagreement with?

These questions prompted me to take out my “Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary”:http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=xD6JwZSChB&isbn=0785211608&itm=2 and conduct a little bit of research. There are several ways that the word ‘hate’ is used throughout the Bible.

The first (and most common among Americans) refers to a strong sense of jealousy — everything from bitter disdain to outright hatred. Another use of the word is “ingressive”:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ingress, specifically, in this context, of beginning to hate, of initiating these adverse feelings. A weaker sense of the word indicates being set against something, as in hating, or being set against, murder, crime, sin, etc. ‘Hate’ can also mean to be unloved, untrustworthy, may indicate failing marital relations or alienation, and may indicate a preference of one person or thing over another.

To answer the first question — _’could it be that hatred and love are not opposites?’_ — in some cases they are, at least humanly speaking. Typically, when a person says they hate someone, there are no feelings of love in their hearts whatsoever, though, of course, this is not always the case, since saying, ‘I hate you’ can actually mean ‘I really dislike you right now.’ God Himself does not hate His creation with outright hatred, though He may hate in the sense of setting Himself against something or someone. So the second question is answered — _could God love someone and hate them at the same time?_ — by recognizing that God loves all people, though He may be set against them at times or prefer one over another (see, Israel, Esau, etc.). The last questions — _What is hatred? How would you define it? Could we define it as complete/total disagreement with?_ — have, to some extent, already been covered merely by elaborating on the research. Several definitions and uses have been laid out above? Could we define it as complete/total disagreement with? Yes. Yes, I think we can, though it would be considered a weaker use of the word. Such a use would probably fall under the same sort of header as ‘set against’, since the times in history that God was set against Israel was when they went against His directives. God had to set Himself against them for a time to bring them back to Himself.

Good questions, godchaesr.

Finding Our Way to Clear, Accurate Communication

Leave a reply

I’m reminded again of just how important clear communication is. I actually had my employment with my temporary services agency terminated a couple of days early due to what ended up being a pretty major miscommunication. (My contract was to expire at the end of this week, anyway, since I start my new job at Purdue on Monday.) What started simply as an erroneous assumption became something more significant because people failed to listen appropriately and failed to say what they actually meant.

Communication is a 4-part exercise — Person A has to listen, Person B has to clearly articulate the message, Person A then has to clearly articulate in response, and Person B has to then listen to that response. If even just one part of this process breaks down, the message fails to be communicated effectively, oftentimes leading to uncomfortable or angry confrontations.

The philosophy of our politically correct culture doesn’t always help the process of communication. We have attempted to remove, in the name of fairness and sensitivity, all language that would be offensive, that would potentially hurt someone else’s feelings. Negative language has been pushed aside as much as possible because we don’t want to give cause for anyone to feel bad about themselves (or about us). What we end up with is a form of dialogue that beats around the bush without always finding its way to the point. Verbal exchange hints at and implies actual meaning, as we find ways to soften our words.

What’s sad and frustrating about this is that, in a discussion of two, one may walk away feeling like good, productive discussion was had while the other is left feeling confused and unclear about the resolution. The former may think the message was communicated and that the job will get done properly, and the latter may either wonder what the job is supposed to be or think he knows what it is and do it, only to find out later that the actual job was something completely different. Or the former may communicate his dislike for the latter, only using terms that are ‘warm’ and ‘non-confrontational’, which may leave the latter thinking he is well-liked and appreciated. The possible combinations for confusion are endless.

No one likes confrontation, and most people will do anything to avoid it, if possible. Where one runs into trouble, however, is when confrontation is unavoidable. Rather than facing it openly, honestly, and humbly, one might couch his words in softer language, which, in turn, may not communicate the concerns or criticisms as effectively.

Honesty is a virtue, however much it may hurt sometimes. The real world tends to be harsh and cruel, and while we as communicators can avoid behaving similarly, we can still speak honestly and openly in a way that speaks actual feelings and thoughts, rather than shadows of the same. Smoke and mirrors have no place in communication (unless your intent _is_ to deceive). Where possible speak plainly, speak clearly, and speak with a frankness that, althought possibly uncomfortable, is clear, concise, and precise. Add to that the skill of listening as others are speaking, hearing what is said, what is implied, and what is left unspoken, and you will find, rather than a foe, a great friend in open communication.

My Own Private Riot » I Hate the Word ‘Blog’

5 Replies

My Own Private Riot » I Hate the Word ‘Blog’

“Mr. Porcupine”:http://ionfish.wordpress.com/ makes the “statement”:http://ionfish.wordpress.com/2005/10/30/i-hate-the-word-blog that he hates the word ‘blog’ — and frankly, I agree. Wholeheartedly. I have never been fond of the word, or of its paternity (i.e. ‘weblog’). I have gone to some length in the past to avoid using it because it sounds awkward and… smushy. (Ironic, then, isn’t it, that I use the very word in the title of this site? If I ever make the banner I want, that decision will make a lot more sense.) Ever heard the sound a trumpet makes when it blats so loudly that it hurts? That painful bleating noise that sounds good only in the right context (read, ‘jazz’)? ‘Blog’ kind of reminds me of that. I shudder at the thought of my writing being conceived of in terms of something so distasteful.

It occurred to me that we might make a concerted effort to replace the word ‘blog’ with something that is more suitable. Work with me here.

_’Journal?’_ I suppose technically that is what we do with our sites, journal the things we think about, but I’ve always associated journaling with pen and paper. More tangible, less digital. Try something else.

_’Diary.’_ Uh-uh. As a guy I vehemently protest this one. Scratch it off the list of potentials.

How about simply calling it a _’log?’_ Nope. This one calls to mind images of salt water, creaking timbers, and cries of “Ahoy, matey!” Next.

_’Ledger.’ ‘Memoir.’ ‘Column.’_ Ugh. Strike! Pass.

What about referring to each new entry as a _’post?’_ Not fond of that one, either. But you can’t rightly call them articles — they’re not purchased by any magazines. They’re not columns because, well, they take up the whole page, not just a sidebar on a page with fancy ads and actual articles.

Maybe it would be better to coin a couple of new terms. The trouble is that I am at a loss for ideas right now. My poor noodle is baked already.

Any suggestions?

‘Holiday’ or ‘Christmas’?

Leave a reply

Boston “holiday tree” stirs controversy – Yahoo! News

I have to wonder just much this really matters. The city of Boston deviated from tradition this year, renaming the Christmas tree a holiday tree, sparking an uproar among the conservative Christian community (or at least with Jerry Falwell, who, in my opinion, is not particularly representative). The argument is that Christ is slowly being worked out of the Christian holiday, being replaced instead with a more secular tradition.

bq. Last year, California Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger lit what he called a “Christmas tree” at a state ceremony.

I wonder at the choice of verbiage in this statement. ‘Christmas tree’ has always been the traditional term for the well-known symbol, but the way it is worded in this article almost sounds like it is casting blame.

bq. Christmas has become too politically correct, said 64 percent of people who responded to an online poll by a CBS television affiliate in Boston.

I would fall under this 64 percent. On the whole I think our entire nation has become entirely too PC, worrying more about hurting someone’s feelings than about accuracy and truth.

All in all, I think this is still another stupid and superfluous battle that Christians have engaged in. The spruce tree has long been a symbol of Christmas but not, so far as I know, one of the Christian faith, _per se_. The cross still stands as the ‘tree’ of Christianity. Additionally, Christ will never be completely removed from the holiday season, so long as their are Christians alive to celebrate it. And I don’t think the point in this case is to remove Christ from the holidays, anyway. It seems like it is more of an attempt to include all peoples of all faiths in the holidays, even if renaming the tree (and ultimately, the holiday) is somewhat unnecessary. This is another case where I believe Christians would be best to just let it go.

Knowing When To Speak Up In A Post-Modern Culture

Well, Liz requested my thoughts on knowing when to speak up for your beliefs in a post-modern world, so here goes. (Liz, let me know if I’ve addressed your comment adequately.)

It’s true. It really is hard sometimes to know when to speak up in a post-modern world and when to just keep your mouth shut. So much of our culture today is driven by a philosophy of
non-offensiveness that squarely speaking your mind can often put you in a position of scorn and ridicule by your peers.

In addressing the post-modern culture, there are a couple of things we always have to be aware of, things that we recognize and with which we have to deal. We have to understand that, in general, there are two separate groups of post-moderns — the group that is composed of professing Christians and the group that is composed of unbelievers. Knowing to which group the individual or individuals with which you are conversing belongs greatly affects the approach you want to take in declaring and defending your beliefs. With the Christian group, you are able to cut a few more corners, take a more direct route to your personal statements of faith, and speak from a greater pool of common ground and understanding. With the unbelieving group, you will typically have to take more time to lay out the basic tenets of your beliefs before you can talk about the beliefs themselves, to clarify the assumptions and presuppositions that are
generally taken for granted in the Christian faith, to establish a level playing field where (hopefully) everyone understands the logical and philosophical starting point of everyone else. Of course, as I have entered in many more conversations recently with believer and unbeliever alike, I have come to understand that this simplistic demarcation is much more blurred than it once was. We are required to explicitly define our terms so that, even if we disagree with the other’s starting point, we at least understand where the other begins his logical and philosophical train of thought. And even so, it is not always appropriate to speak one’s mind.

Allow me to lay out my personal approach to speaking up and to speaking out about my beliefs. This has come from many experiences, both good and bad, and I am constantly checking myself to make sure I am acting in a way that is beneficial, uplifting, and constructive to all. The rule by which I live is this — I simply wait for the appropriate opportunity to speak. Sometimes I succeed at this; sometimes I do not. As I said before, sometimes it really is difficult to know when to speak up for what you believe in. There are many factors that I take into consideration when determining if the time is right for me to say my bit. A large portion of this consideration is in determining the frame of mind of my target audience. Some topics, just by the mere mention, will fire up certain individuals into a blind rage and passion of debate that makes a lot of noise but ultimately ends up going nowhere. Those are the sorts of discussions that I try to avoid because no matter what I say or how well I phrase my own arguments, ultimately it will amount
to little more than an itch that, once scratched, goes away and is immediately forgotten. The sorts of people with whom I am really most interested in conversing are those who are genuinely open to honest discussion, who have their own opinions and stances but who are
receptive to other opinions and who are willing to recognize that they, too, are human and fallible and who desire to correct any flaws in their own logic that may exist. Those are people to whom I am most willing to open my own heart and mind, to share what I believe and why, from whom I am most willing to accept constructive criticism and challenge of my beliefs and to whom I am most willing to reciprocate in kind. Those are the sorts of people who have helped me grow the most over the years. We may end up still disagreeing on what we believe and why, but in the process we have had an exchange of ideas and of relationship that leaves everyone changed, often for the better.

It’s difficult to converse with the post-modern who holds certain core values and beliefs to be in flux due to a lack of absolutes, but it is indeed possible through the clear explanation of personal values and beliefs and through humble and open dialogue between peers. When do I choose to speak my mind? When I feel my audience is open and receptive to my ideas. Sometimes I
end up in a debate that ends in a waste of time, but sometimes I don’t, and I leave the discourse feeling as though something truly great has happened.

Christianity Gone Political

7 Replies

Here’s another definition:

fundamentalism [fəndəmentəlɪzəm, fəndəmenəlɪzəm]
A noun

1 fundamentalism

the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth


Category Tree:

I mentioned in my previous post how the word ‘evangelical’ gets thrown around by the general populace as something of a curse word (and again, here, based on the definition above, I would consider myself a fundamentalist). I was reminded today that the word ‘fundamentalist’ gets the same treatment. (See this thread and this quote — “ Yeah, the parallels between recent fundamentalist Christian pushes for legislation on private matters on behalf of society and hisba are reasonable to draw…” — for examples.)

There are two reasons, I think, why this is the case. The first is that we, as Christians, continually face the scorn of the world for our “close-minded” and unbending beliefs. Christ told us that we would be hated and persecuted by the world for our beliefs, and I think that, to some extent, we are seeing that in daily life. However, I don’t want to focus on this reason, primarily because there is nothing we can do about it except face it with grace, patience, and
compassion, sharing our beliefs with all who will listen. Rather, I want to focus on a second reason why the word ‘fundamental’ has become such a bitter taste in the mouths of our peers.

It seems to me that both the words ‘evangelical’ and ‘fundamental’ carry as much political significance as they do religious. To a point I think there is a place for this, but by the same token, I think we also have to ask ourselves how political we should be. What I mean is this — I have watched Christians and politicians alike push for legislation that essentially forces our religious beliefs on the nation at large, and I have come to believe that maybe that’s not such
a good thing. For example, take the Terry Schiavo case. I’m all for the preservation of and the right to life. What troubles me is this recent move by the Congress to subvert the judicial system by making a law that is specific to Terry alone (at least as I understand it). As much as I would love to see Terry’s family win this case, I’m not convinced that this kind of special treatment is helpful, especially when other significant issues are being ignored. And what I’m hearing from certain corners is that this is yet another move by ‘fundamentalist Christians’ to exert their will upon the public, and the tone is one of anger, hatred, and bitterness. This does not help us to share the Gospel.

I’m not saying, though, that Christians should not be involved in politics. Quite the contrary, actually. I believe that Christians should be very active in politics, but that we should choose
our involvements wisely. One place that I personally refuse to back down is on the subject of abortion. I truly believe that abortion of all forms should be illegal because of the number of human lives lost each and every year. I know that in taking this stance, I am labelled cynically as ‘evangelical’ and ‘fundamentalist’, but it’s a ‘burden’ I’m willing to bear and carry because I believe it is truly right and good. (Frankly, I see it as more of an ethical issue than religious one.) There are some places, though, that I must part ways with others of like faith because I believe theirs is an abuse of the system.

There is a statement that I have heard come up in many political/religious discussions regarding personal and civil rights. The statement goes something like this: “Your rights end where mine begin.” Now, just because this statement orginated from an unbeliever does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect. It’s something that I have taken with a grain of salt, but the more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to agree with it. (At the very least, I’ve yet to think of a single exception to that rule.) Here’s my rationale: The United States was founded upon the rights of every man to worship God as he sees fit (even if it means not worshipping God at all). To that end, our laws have been established in such a way as to give every man free reign within reasonable limits) to do so. When one religious movement or another attempts to insert legislation to force certain religious beliefs on everyone else, that threatens those rights inherent to the foundation of this great nation. This is why I think sometimes churches and Christians are wrong to push for particular bills and laws. It seems to me that fundamental
Christianity should be involved in politics only to the point of preserving the basic civil rights upon which this country was founded. Leave the role of winning souls to Christ to the church,
to evangelism, to individual encounters with real, live people. We aren’t going to win the Kingdom through politics. We can only do that by showing personal compassion and love to those around us.

—————————–

I realize that post these posts may seem a little bit radical, and I welcome discussion on them. Please feel free to post comments here, but I have also posted them at Open Dialogue, so I would definitely welcome further, in depth discussion there.

—————————–

Update: Based on Joel’s comment, I opted to do a little further research, and here’s what I found:

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn’də-mĕn‘tl-ĭz’əm) pronunciation
n.


  1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
    1. often Fundamentalism
      An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
    2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

fun’da·men‘tal·ist adj. & n.
fun’da·men’tal·ist‘ic adj.

And further:

A group protesting “modernist” tendencies in the churches circulated a 12-volume publication called The Fundamentals (1909–12), in which five points of doctrine were set forth as
fundamental: the Virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, the infallibility of the Scriptures, the substitutional atonement, and the physical second coming of Christ.

And from here (backing up what Joel stated):

“Fundamentalist” is a term that is frequently bandied about in the news media these days. Unfortunately, this term has been used so casually in describing anyone who seems to hold some sort of traditional religious belief-be they a Bible Baptist TV preacher, a Hasidic rabbi, a Mormon housewife, or a soldier of the Islamic Jihad-that the word has become nearly useless.

And you can read more here.

I think I prefer the ‘five points’ definition over the original one cited above. There’s a whole lot more interesting stuff to read at each of those sites.

What Does It Really Mean To Be ‘Evangelical’?

5 Replies

It occurred to me over this past weekend to wonder what it really means to be ‘evangelical’? I overheard a couple of individuals (who were obviously not Christians) talking about different
kinds of Christians and what they stood for, and they threw the word ‘evangelical’ around like it was a swear word. It made me wonder what the word really meant and whether or not it means the same thing in today’s culture. So, I looked it up on this website, and this is what I found:

evangelical [i:vænʒelɪkəl]
A adjective
1 evangelical
relating
to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the
inerrancy of the Bible especially the 4 Gospels; “evangelical
Christianity”; “an ultraconservative evangelical message”
2 evangelical
of or pertaining to or in keeping with the Christian gospel especially as in the first 4 books of the New Testament
3 evangelical, evangelistic
marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause

As these definitions stand here, I see little trouble in accepting the term ‘evangelical’ as accurate and correct. I would even consider myself an evangelical Christian.

Here is where I think the problem lies. Look at the second example in the first definition: “an ultraconservative evangelical message.” I don’t have a problem with the example itself, per se. However, one word stands out to me as the place where we as Christians have problems in relating to the world around us — conservative. I believe we need to be conservative as far as preserving truth goes. However, in our practices, I think Christians sometimes have swung so far to the extreme as to no longer be conservative. Instead, so many of our churches have become legalistic, even Pharisaical. This is the real rub with those we are trying to win
to Christ. As evangelicals we strive to preach the Gospel, to share the hope that is within us. But as legalists we are harsh and cruel and judgmental. We strive so hard to preserve the
truth, to preserve the facts of our faith that we forget the human element. We forget that we
are also supposed to be compassionate and caring and sensitive. I hear a lot of gossip in our churches, a lot of judgment, and I see a lot of anger and bitterness and strife — with each other! We see the sin and faults of our brothers and sisters (and of the world around us), and we pass judgment on them and distance ourselves from them. And I fear that in this process we have damaged our testimony in such a way that it’s no wonder we find ourselves faced
with so much cynicism from the world.

Of course, I realize this is not the case with all Christians or even all churches. But the trouble is that it is so much easier to see the bad than the good, and so those of us who strive to live like Christ are overshadowed by those who think they are living like Christ but who are, in actuality, living like the very Pharisees whom He condemned. Christ said that we would be hated by the world, that we would be persecuted by it, but I see the Church bringing so much of that condemnation upon itself because of what some are doing that undermines our work. I myself struggle with a cynical attitude toward so many Christians and churches, and I have to wonder, if I struggle with this while I am part of the Body, how much more do those who are without struggle with seeing their need for this Christ whom we so poorly represent?

In our beliefs I believe we should be conservative, preserving the truth of God’s Word. In our practices, I believe we should be progressive, reaching out into the world and moving with it, adjusting accordingly as we seek to meet its needs, to display this God we love, to win them to the Kingdom. Christ came to love sinners. Why can’t we do the same?

Defining Our Terms: Are We Talking About the Same Thing?

3 Replies

Having read a couple of different discussions lately (here and here), I’ve had to wonder if we end up talking about the same thing. It seems like so much of the discussion would go more smoothly if we would first define our terms. Most words in the English language carry the same general meanings for everybody, but those same words can often be nuanced slightly differently for different people, depending on personal experiences. So,if a particular word is key to a discussion, it would make sense to clearly spell out how that word is defined initially before proceeding to make a point using that word. Otherwise, you end up running the risk of talking about two (or more) different things until someone finally figures it out and attempts to bring everyone to the same playing field.

Some words that have cropped up in recent discussions that seem to carry slightly different meanings for different people:

  • Certainty
  • Confidence
  • Faith
  • Trust
  • Belief
  • Reason

How I define such words may not be the way you define them, even though both our personal definitions are probably very similar. So, it may be advantageous to mutually define certain words (if possible) before proceeding with the dialogue.