Historical antecedents to modern-day Christian fundamentalism

Hi,I posted my opening thread and went away for a couple of days. I apologise to all of those who didn't get a reply from me. I'll read through the 105 (!) posts and try to get back to some of you.CheersMick

You could do worse than sketch a broad historical progression like this:16c - Protestant Reformation (Europe)
17c/18c - Pietism (Europe)
18c/19c - Revivalism (Great Awakenings, USA)
20c - Fundamentalism (1910f, USA)Fundamentalism began as a reactionary movement among evangelical Protestants.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You could do better too, unless you know of direct connections I'm unaware of. This is not a ladder of progression by any means. Although all these movements have their own peculiarities, in general the Fundamentalists came out of Calvinism or Calvinist type thinking, while Pietism and Revivalism were reactions against Calvinist thinking {edit: though historically and doctrinally unrelated to each other as far as I know}, although all of them would have agreed on the fundamentals that were reasserted in fundamentalism.Pietism was a reaction against the intellectual dryness of the Reformation. It was treated as a stepchild or near heresy by the mainline Protestants, as it is now by the Reformed churches, and basic Reformation theology continued through the Puritans, in the form of Calvinism. This line of thought that opposed Pietism also later strongly opposed the Revivalism of the 19th century, which was led by Charles Finney. In the century before that, however, the Great Awakening had strong Reformation Calvinist and Puritan inspiration, led by the likes of George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, and the Calvinist Anglicanism/Methodism of the Wesleys.Liberalism was the reason for the development of the Fundamentalist reaction, and I'm not sure if there was a particular denominational seedbed in which liberalism sprouted. Maybe you know. Unitarian universalism seems to have come out of Puritan New England, but Deism is associated in my mind with Anglicanism, the American South -- the state of Virginia anyway, Jefferson etc, where Anglicanism was the main denomination. It came primarily of course from the influences of the Enlightenment, challenges to supernatural belief, and later, Darwinism.For your list to make sense you'd have to show that liberalism took over or grew out of Pietism and Revivalism. Is this your claim?In any event, it was these liberal trends that took over some mainline denominations (and continue in those denominations) that were eventually opposed by the fundamentalists in the early 20th century. J. Gresham Machen emerged as the leader of the fundamentalists although he was not completely in favor of all their tenets. He himself was a Calvinist, who founded Westminster Seminary on Calvinist principles. Fundamentalism degenerated into legalism in some areas but theologically it was a formal statement of the Bible-based theology of the Reformation against liberalism. It was basically a statement of the Bible-based principles of the Reformation against liberalism.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

In any event, it was these liberal trends that took over some mainline denominations (and continue in those denominations) that were eventually opposed by the fundamentalists in the early 20th century.

---

I won't argue with that (sounds like you know more about this than I do), but I would also point out that Darwin's theory was proposed not long before the Civil War, and had it not been for that war and Reconstruction, I think fundamentalism would have become a strong movement about 50 years sooner than it did. It's really only the name 'fundamentalism' that came about in the early 20th century. It just happened at a time when the nation's attention was available, and that fact allowed the movement to grow and gain power.

---

W.W.E.D.?

That I don't have any way to judge. But except for some quirks, the legalism and so on, the fundamentalist "movement" was nothing but a return to the traditional faith -- really, not even a return but just an assertion and defense of it against liberal encroachment, as the traditional faith was still held by a majority of Christians anyway. That's what the essays collected in The Fundamentals were all about, an answering of liberalism according to the traditional faith, in the spirit of the anti-heresy writings of the early centuries of Christianity. And again, the leader of the fundamentalists was J. Gresham Machen, who, again, wasn't in favor of all its tenets (I forget why now), but he was a Calvinist and he founded a perfectly orthodox Calvinist seminary. Fundamentalism in its essence and its inception, if not always in its practice, was nothing but a reassertion of traditional Christianity, far from anything novel, which "movement" might seem to imply. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes me:

quote:

---

Fundamentalism in its essence and its inception, if not always in its practice, was nothing but a reassertion of traditional Christianity, far from anything novel, which "movement" might seem to imply.

---

Point taken, but I hadn't intended to imply anything novel, other than a new resolve to discredit the theories of Darwin. But even that wasn't without precedent; the church had had altercations with science before.Religious "awakenings" like Protestantism have happened from time to time over the centuries, of course, as you've pointed out yourself.

---

W.W.E.D.?

OK, as long as we agree fundamentalism is nothing but the traditional faith. All kinds of heresies over the centuries have tried to kill it, but it is always reasserted against them.Fundamentalism wasn't really a revival though, just those who were left in the churches who still held the traditional faith objecting to the liberals who were changing everything. There have also been revivals over the centuries, though, and I wish we might have one now.

Hi Berberry,
I do not know if this adds anything to the debate or not, but wanted to point out something. Several years ago as a student at the college I now teach at we had a professor who was also a Presbyterian minister. And in class I used the term "fundementalist Christian". He objected to the term because Presbyterians started using the term to describe themselves in the early 20th Century. This was opposed to the Literalists such as Baptists. The early fundementalists described themselves as believing in the fundemental teachings of Jesus. Early fundementalists tied themselves to Quakers and prior abolitionists. By the 1920's Baptists coopted the term, and included Presbyterians, Unitarians, and Quakers in their count of how many Americans were "Fundementalist Christians" I am an invertebrate zoologist, not a religious historian, so I don't know the accurcy of his claim, but hope some else can take it up.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

It's an interesting question, LM, and I don't have the answer either. All I can tell you is that the use and meaning of the word 'fundamentalist' today is what's most important. Most historians, as I understand it, trace the modern use of the word to the collection of books called 'The Fundamentals'.I think Faith and I agree that the fundamentalist movement really isn't a movement in and of itself. It is more or less a continuation and/or adaptation of earlier, similar movements.Your professor may have been correct about the Presbyterians, I don't know. But it makes sense that the word 'fundamentalist' might have meant something quite different 100 years ago than it does now. The influence that those books would have was probably not immediately apparent, and it probably was some time before 'fundamentalist' came to refer to a person who subscribes, in whole or in substantial part, to their theses.

---

W.W.E.D.?

It is not correct to equate fundamentalism with 'the traditional faith' as some are doing. Fundamentalists are taught to think of their history this way, so they do. Preservation of The Real True Original Thing is a unifying myth common to most reform movements.In reality the fundamentalists embraced a few ideas from the tradition they inherited while ignoring or modifying many others. Their approach was no different in this respect from that of the theologians they opposed. They just pulled different things out of tradition's attic in accordance with their own set of values.Fundamentalists had little use for Christianity's liturgical heritage, for example. They had no use for the rite of confession, Monastic orders, the historic episcopate and many other aspects of the traditional Christian faith as it had come to them through the centuries. (This despite of the fact that they carried forward many ideas of similar origin and vintage, such as the definition of the canon, Trinitarian beliefs, definitions of heresy, Anselmic doctrine of satisfaction and so on). Their neglect of Christianity's long literary and artistic history was so complete that today most fundamentalists are culturally illiterate in matters of their own religion.Even though fundamentalists thought of themselves as defending tradition, in many respects they were not traditional at all. The same is true of their ideological descendants today..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Detail.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I only use the term "fundie" to describe myself because most people don't know anything about the divisions of Christianity and it has the virtue of emphasizing adherence to the Biblical fundamentals. Otherwise "evangelical" is the correct term.I've read quite a bit of church history and my pastor certainly has and we identify with a long line of thinkers all the way back, such as Jonathan Edwards in particular, Calvin, and Luther too, Augustine and the Church Fathers, and in between most of the "heretics" like Wyclif and the Waldensians and others, and we know why we accept or reject elements in the thinking of each. Have you read "The Fundamentals?" The basic idea in the heritage I embrace is to stick to the Biblical pattern as opposed to man-made traditions. There is nothing wrong with man-made traditions that enhance that pattern in some cases, but being extraneous they are expendable. You are criticizing the bulk of the Reformation here, not merely fundamentalism. Of course we reject Roman Catholicism. We aren't called "Protestants" for nothing. You are truly ignorant of what the TRUE heritage of Christianity is all about. The early church doctrines are embraced because they were true to scripture. The Trinity is true to scripture, the canon is obviously Spirit-inspired, the heresies were clearly heresies and well-defeated in the early centuries, and although I've read some Anselm I don't know what you are referring to about the doctrine of satisfaction. That is unfortunately the case, I agree, but you are talking to one who less so than you seem to imagine, though no where near where I would like to be -- if I had another life to pursue it. Perhaps I should drop the term "tradition" since you are including things in the word that I don't include. All I mean is the Biblical truth as it has been handed down through the ages. It even survived the superstitions and other accretions of the RC church.

this is a very true statement. i was raised reformed. we were always taught that the reformation returned the faith to what it was before the catholic perversion. (keep in mind, my church didn't view catholics as satanists, unlike most fundies now.) however, i know full well that this is probably bullshit. faith is an evolving social construct regardless of whether the god himself is real or not. we are continuously finding new ways to relate to god. if god is unchanging, why does it matter how we worship? we must come to him in spirit and in truth not in words and rituals and politics.personally, my new view of religion and faith completely decries all forms of manifestation as verboten. no religious paintings, no crosses, no worship of anyone who was wholly man-regardless of any other parts he had. i refuse to give more stock to the bible than to what my god-given heart tells me because it is engraved of ink and an abominable idol.anyone who denies that they see their god differently than those who came before are fools. our worldview changes every day and there is no possible way that the christians of today are even remotely related to the christians of the first century. we have no record of church services or any kind of interpretation. all we have are the letters (which are probably more like the talmud or the sunnah or even hadith than christians would like to admit). we have no idea what early christianity was like. and that's presuming that there were christians in the first century. to quote the fundamentalists... "were you there?"Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That which has been is that which shall be,
and that which has been done is that which shall be done;
and there is nothing new under the sun.

---

---

you know, I could've sworn that the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings was a history. It's all written as one. Plus, it covers well over two thousand years of history. And you know what--it's all just one giant ass metaphor/symbol. You can interpret the ring as the bomb, Sauron as hitler, Saruman as Mussolini. Or, you can intepret the ring as money, Sauron as capitalism, and the fellowship as commies destroying capitalist hopes of dominion (just for kicks, mind you). And yet, it's history. Is it real history? In middle earth, it is. But for here, it is nothing more than a story.fun factoid--LotR is the second best selling book of the twentieth century (at least in the west). Second only to the bible. And it only had fifty years to attain that second place status.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

So, there is no difference to your mind between the LOTR (or "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" or "Pride and Prejudice") and "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." All are histories, and all are fiction too, exactly the same sort of thing, right?