Alternate History: No Christian Fundamentalism

[quarkstomper]

My own impression, and it's probably a vague and supreficial one, is that Christian Fundamentalism is one aspect of a greater reaction against the Enlightenment which also included the Romantic Movement in the arts.

The church I grew up in was the result of this reaction. A bunch of Lutherans in Saxony didn't like the way the State Church was becoming too Rationalist for their tastes, and so they moved to America where they could teach Sola Scriptura the way Martin Luther indended. And there were a lot of other religious movements in the 1800s that reacted to some of the more staid and intellectualized denominations with varying degrees of success; (the Latter-Day Saints is probably the most successful of these)

That said, the publication of "The Fundamentals" gave the movement a manifesto that the myriad sects of American Protestantism could agree on. So perhaps if they were never published, the reactionary elements in American religion would be less organized, and the denominations which the Fundamentalist decry as "modernist" would be considered Mainline and Traditional.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by quarkstomper

My own impression, and it's probably a vague and supreficial one, is that Christian Fundamentalism is one aspect of a greater reaction against the Enlightenment which also included the Romantic Movement in the arts.

The church I grew up in was the result of this reaction. A bunch of Lutherans in Saxony didn't like the way the State Church was becoming too Rationalist for their tastes, and so they moved to America where they could teach Sola Scriptura the way Martin Luther indended. And there were a lot of other religious movements in the 1800s that reacted to some of the more staid and intellectualized denominations with varying degrees of success; (the Latter-Day Saints is probably the most successful of these)

That said, the publication of "The Fundamentals" gave the movement a manifesto that the myriad sects of American Protestantism could agree on. So perhaps if they were never published, the reactionary elements in American religion would be less organized, and the denominations which the Fundamentalist decry as "modernist" would be considered Mainline and Traditional.

That's an intriguing definition of Christian Fundamentalism, and one that I can't find any fault with.

So... (looks at thread topic) ...what would a world without this reaction be like?

Hmmmmm... A little more rational, a little less mystical (using the definition of "mystical" as "not rational"), a little more willing to accept that science and religion are complementary studies rather than being perceived to be at odds with each other... Hey, wait a minute - am I describing the Jesuit mindset here?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

It was popularized by William Jennings Bryan, a prominent Democrat.

Probably most famous as Baum's Cowardly Lion or for his role in the Scope's Monkey Trial.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Christian Fundamentalism was originally a Protestant movement that grew up as a reaction to Modernist Bible Interpretations. They refer to the fundamentals of Christian faith as:

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

It was popularized by William Jennings Bryan, a prominent Democrat. In recent decades it has grown into a political force to be reckoned with, especially in the Republican party (it's possible I'm missing something here since I write from Sweden and is limited in my access to news sources).

But what if it never got popular? What would change in the 20th century if Fundamentalism never became a large movement you had to be aware of as a public figure?

Note: As always, this forum is not the place to argue about the existence of God.

Your list in in error,bro..

Only the first two items are 'fundamentalist', and only in part. You should distinguish between a Christian who believes that the Bible is true and divinely inspired, and a fundamentalist Christian who believes that his particular sect has an exclusive claim on an inerrant interpretation of Scripture. It's not the same idea. (You seem to have made this distinction in another post).


I’ll deal with the problems of your inclusion of ‘literalism’ below, especially in regards to the Creation and the miracles of Jesus.


The other three items are basic articles of faith in the religion, things that all Christians everywhere believe or at least profess.
I'm not talking about ancient Gnostics and some other minority heretics, mind you, but the historical Christian Church-- including all major denominations.

The first item flows from Luther’s idea of Sola Scriptura, but marries it to a certain style of hermeneutics that Luther didn’t actually use.

The second item relates to the first and gets two different parts of Scripture mixed up. Genesis may be interpreted as a poetic or mythological creation story that imparts important truths. Christ's miracles are historical events that were witnessed by historical persons.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

The other three (and part of the second) item are basic artciles of faith in the religion, things that all Christians everywhere believe or at least profess.
I'm not talking about ancient Gnostics and some other minority heretics, mind you, but the historical Christian Church-- including all major denominations.

Except Unitarian Universalists...

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Except Unitarian Universalists...

I've barely ever heard of those. Chances are, if I go outside (at a time of day other than around midnight) and grab 20 random people off the street, the vast majority of them won't have heard of Unitaran Universalism, let alone have any clue that it's a kind of religion.

So maybe they don't count as a major denomination?

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I've barely ever heard of those. Chances are, if I go outside (at a time of day other than around midnight) and grab 20 random people off the street, the vast majority of them won't have heard of Unitaran Universalism, let alone have any clue that it's a kind of religion.

So maybe they don't count as a major denomination?

They aren't Christians.

Sir Pudding is just messing around.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Except Unitarian Universalists...

They aren't Christians and they are a minsicule minority.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

They aren't Christians and they are a minsicule minority.

They often self-identify as Christians. This gets into that weird thing about whether Jefferson was a Christian, doesn't it? You might say he wasn't, but lots of your fellow conservatives will argue that he (along with all the Founding Fathers) was.

I think there are two equally valid definitions of "Christian":

• Member of a religious sect that has adopted the Nicean and Apostolic Creeds.
• A follower of Jesus Christ. One who strives to be "Christ-like".

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

So maybe they don't count as a major denomination?

There's a big-ass church (an entire block of converted office suites, actually) a block from here. They don't pay any taxes on it. So they certainly are something.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

They often self-identify as Christians. This gets into that weird thing about whether Jefferson was a Christian, doesn't it?

I think there are two equally valid definitions of "Christian":

• Member of a religious sect that has adopted the Nicean and Apostolic Creeds.
• A follower of Jesus Christ. One who strives to be "Christ-like".

Number two is totally irrelevant to a discussion of history and the doctrines of Christians as a whole. Indeed, it arguably covers all the Muslims of the world, as they recognize Jesus as a great prophet. Did I mention they also believe in the Virgin Birth? Yep.
BTW, your beloved wiki claims that less than 20% of UU identify as Christians. Some are atheists, for goodness sakes. 80% do not identify as Christians.


:)