Fundamentalism turns 100, a landmark for the Christian Right
“Conservative theologians responded by developing the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy asserts that the Bible is errorless and factually accurate in everything it says – including about science.” - The Conversation
- 1 view
Gets some facts right but pretty much gets the story wrong.
To get the story right, you have to understand orthodox Christian doctrine in the first place as the starting point and modernism as the departure. Only then can you see the fundamentalist movement for what it tried to be: a return to/defense of original Christian beliefs.
The quoted bit is an example… as though nobody believed in an inerrant Bible until American fundamentalists decided they hated Darwinism.
(The description the 12 volume series The Fundamentals also suggests the writers didn’t complete their historical homework. SI readers who have followed our republication of The Fundamentals may have noticed that there is relatively little defense of inerrancy in them and almost nothing at all about socialism and capitalism… and there is even a little bit of old-earth creationism.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The person who write the article is clueless.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Aaron Blumer]To get the story right, you have to understand orthodox Christian doctrine in the first place as the starting point and modernism as the departure. Only then can you see the fundamentalist movement for what it tried to be: a return to/defense of original Christian beliefs.
Aaron, what is orthodox Christian doctrine? What time period and sects of Christians are you referring to? The reason I ask is because I am unaware of hardly any major historical grouping of Christians that today’s fundamentalist would even consider orthodox. Maybe some post-Reformation protestants I guess but who else?
Is it fair to appeal to orthodox/historical Christianity if in fact you don’t believe that they were orthodox at all? I am referring to early church doctrine which I would say was quite whacked out in major areas and of course, Catholicism.
Discussion