Why I don't call myself a fundamentalist

Recently, another Baptist preacher in town wrote an article on his blog (and probably for the newspaper as well) advocating fundamentalism. I thought it was very well written. Besides making his case well, he framed his argument to make it very difficult to argue with him without looking like a jerk. Nevertheless, I would avoid the use of the label "fundamentalist" to describe my theology.

Generally, I would say that I would agree with the five fundamentals of the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, the diety of Christ, that Christ died on the cross for my sins and rose again on the third day, and will return in the last days to judge the living and the dead. I think most Christians do believe these things. I do not see this as that much different from the Apostle's Creed which says,

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Ok, so I have one "problem" with the Apostle's Creed. I don't think the "descent into hell" has enough Biblical foundation to make it into a creedal statement. Although that statement does allude to a "Christus Victor" approach to the atonement, which says something a little differently than someone who believes the only proper understanding of the atonement is a "penal substitutionary" model of understanding christ's saving work on the cross. I tend to think a penal substitionary understanding of the cross and a Christus victor understanding of the cross can stand alongside one another and both be right. But I digress....

I am not a fundamentalist. It is not because I don't believe in foundational Christian belief. I am not a fundamentalist for four reasons. First, I am not a fundamentalist because I do not support all of the subsequent non-negotiables that fundamentalists generally add to more fully support those five fundamentals. Secondly, I am not a fundamentalist because I am not defined by who or what I am against, as fundamentalism is, but who and what I am for . Third, I am evangelically ecumenical. Fourth, because I take the Bible and its authority very seriously, I believe in reading Scripture through the lens of its social, literary, and historical context--which fundamentalists refer to as 'higher critical methods'.

Let me explain each of those points, step by step:

1. The subsequent non-negotiables

I believe in the authority of Scripture. If forced to answer, I would even say Scripture is inerrant, though I don't like that term because it is generally meant to be more descriptive of a teacher's opinion about Scripture instead of Scripture itself.

Generally fundamentalists have an understanding of the inspiration of Scripture that is peculiar to fundamentalists. First of all, most of them believe in what is called verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture--or a dictation theory of Scriptural inspiration. In other words, fundamentalists believe that those who wrote the books of the Bible did not have any of their own personality infused into the cadence, writing style, or vocabulary that were used. Instead, God dicated to the writers of Scripture word for word, sentence for sentence what they wanted taught.

Most evangelicals, like myself, believe that Scripture is divinely inspired and without error, but that God worked through the personalities, settings, and skills that he had given the writers of the Biblical text in order to accomplish his perfect will in forming his perfect Word.

Many fundamentalists believe that God inspired only one English Translation. That translation is the King James Version of Scripture. Most evangelicals believe Scripture to be inerrant in its original languages, but do not believe that only one translation is acceptable.

Most fundamentalists understand a young-earth seven day creation as the only acceptable viewpoint for Bible believing Christians. They are agressively anti-Darwinist. This they believe stems from Scriptural inerrancy. Many evangelicals, such as myself, are less rigid in seeing this view of creation as a non-negotiable, and believe that when one looks at this text in its literary and historical context, other views can resposibly be taken by faithful Christians. These faithful Christians include those in the "Princeton School of Innerrancy" that the aformentioned article refers to, especially BB Warfield.

A majority of fundamentalists are influenced by the Scofield Reference Bible, and its theology. This theology is referred to as dispensational. Dispensational has a unique view of the end times, and of history as a whole. Dispensationalism is a fairly recent invention, and while it does not completely contradict historic Christian belief, it does not support it either.

2. I am not a fundamentalist because I am defined by what I am for, and not just who I am against.

Historically, fundamentalism is a protest movement. It attempts to define its adherents as the good guys, and the people that disagree with them on any issue as "apostate". It then severs ties with many churches who are associated with "apostate" groups, and refuses Christian fellowship with most of the body of Christ in the name of doctrinal purity.

This is the history of the whole movement. From the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy (I would share more doctrinal affinity with the fundamentalists in this debate) to the modern day, Fundamentalism has had a hostile and reactionary toward groups who do not neatly fit into their fold. In Fowler, this is demonstrated with the unwillingness of fundamentalist churches to participate in cooperative ministries and events with other churches. It often is in other places as well.

Culturally, as a group, fundamentalist churches tend to, in my opinion, understand holiness as "being against". Fundamentalist expend a lot of energy being against certain people, against culture, and against a variety of things instead of standing for the many beautiful things that Christ and the Scripture commend.

3. I am evangelically ecumenical

I believe in the unity of believers across denominations. I have fellowship with pentecostals, charasmatics, fundamentalists, Methodists, Lutherans, and Catholics. I don't agree with them on everything. But I do believe there are many things I can work together with them on. I believe that many Methodists, Lutherans, and Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Chirst. I need to find ways to share ministry with them, and partner with them without compromising my beliefs.

4. I believe in interpreting the Bible in its literary, historical, and cultural context.

Higher critical tools have been misused by people with a militant agenda that is anti-Christ.(see Bart Ehrman for an example of this). This does not excuse avoiding tools of Biblical interpretation, and reading the Bible through the lens of a 19th or 20th century white male.

I am uncomfortable with some sorts of redaction criticism, especially those that imply that the text is somehow lying to us. I do not, however, have a problem of using other tools.

I think to properly understand Scripture, you need understand it in the flow of the book it is placed in. I think you also need to understand what kind of literature that specific passage is, and how that effects one's understanding of the text. I think to properly understand everything that the Bible is saying through a passage one also can be helped by understanding that given passage's location in time and history, and how that effects the passage's meaning.

There is much more to say, but that is it for now. Just thinking outloud.