Fundamentalism Part Deux

This week David and Curtis offer a follow up discussion on fundamentalism, clarifying some key ...

By
26

This week David and Curtis offer a follow up discussion on fundamentalism, clarifying some key points from the previous episode and diving deeper into how we can become fundamentalists without even knowing it! Do our increasingly homogenous social groups perhaps push us toward fundamentalism and even radicalization? How might the presence of even a few diverse voices impact these groups? This then leads to a discussion about liberal democracy and how it is under assault, not just globally (as in Russia/Ukraine), but even here in the US. How should our Christian faith inform things like our system of government and our embrace (or rejection) of liberal democracy?

Show Notes:

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By
Comments (26)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Trey Bush

    My first community comment...

    I have been listening to David French for a couple years now on AO and The Dispatch, but I would honestly say this podcast could be his (and Curtis') seminal work. This has done more for me as a christian than most other punditry combined. Hearing an educated, thoughtful, conservative conversation wade into topical and applicable cultural conversations WITHIN the church is incredibly refreshing and edifying. I was in the midst of a 2+ year stint of apathy, and at times nihilism, directed at the American Church. This particular 2-part series has reassured me that my observations are not made from a lonely vantage. I have sent this to several other struggling Christians who are fully established in their love for Jesus, but saddened by the Evangelical Church and even less inflamatory many Protestant Church orgs. Needless to say, it was a blessing to them as much as it was to me.

    Tl;DR - many have found a lot of courage, reassurance, and faith in our fellow believers through the way David and Curtis tackled this topic and more broadly facilitate thoughtful discussion in this podcast.

    Thanks y'all! Grace and love abound!

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Bill Shannon

    Thank you David & Curtis! My wife and I really enjoy your pod cast and these past two have been great.

    When I graduated from High School in Oregon I was given the superlative of “Mr. Conservative” through my experience in politics I ended up attending Harding University in Searcy, AR which is another Church of Christ school. I was not a member of the Church of Christ and it was quite the experience! I found out quickly that while I was a conservative in Oregon, I might as well have been a flaming liberal in Arkansas especially within the Church of Christ. I only lasted two years and that was enough.

    But I do have to wonder, if Lipscomb University was known as “Liberal” in the CofC community. What did they think of Pepperdine?!? I didn’t find out they were CofC until I left so I’ve always wondered.

    Collapse
  3. Adam Shields

    I want to recommend Doctrine and Race: African American Evangelicals and Fundamentalism between the Wars by Mary Beth Swetnam Mathews

    It is a history of the black church and its relationship to white fundamentalism and the coming evagelicalism and the more mainline liberal protestant streams of Christianity.

    Part of understanding Fundamentalism as a concept is seeing it in relationship to other movements that we may not have thought of.

    The black church tradition has largely be theolgical orthodox and conservative and would have agreed with many of the theolgical tennents of fundamentalism, but both were not invited to that movement (it is widely talked about that the book series The Fundamentals was sent to every pastor in America, but it was only sent to white pastors). And it was not particularly interseted in the fight between fundamentalism and liberalism because other issues were of more interest.

    I think having something like this book to bounce off of, may be helpful for having a discussion about fundamentalism that take into account not just the theology but also the role that culture and hisotry also play.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Julie from Texas

    It was amusing to me that David described David Lipscomb University as having the nickname David Liberal. I attended Abilene Christian University, a college also rooted in the [acapella] Churches of Christ, and we thought we were among the more liberal in our denomination while Lipscomb was super-conservative. I agree, however, that if you talk to either Lipscomb or ACU students now and explain the rules and mores we followed back in the 1980s, they cannot relate.

    Collapse
  5. Pohl

    I enjoyed this podcast. Some of the notes you struck on Christian engagement track nicely with the Catholic positions set forth, for example, at Vatican II. The Church renewed the call to the laity to bring the special light of faith to their actions in the world, including politics.
    While the Church recognizes the autonomy of the state in its proper sphere, it also knows the dark role of sin in the world. Thus, Christians have a special mission to help the body politic achieve its own natural ends. This is challenging in a pluralistic society, but it is important to keep in mind that men of good will can come together on practical matters while acting with diverse motivations.

    Collapse
  6. John Swedberg

    Speaking as a self-described fundamentalist with a degree from a fundamentalist seminary, I think I understand what David is talking about when he describes fundamentalism as a psychology more than a theology. I have interacted with some who have the combativeness and ferocity he describes. But the sine qua non of fundamentalism rightly understood is still a commitment to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is a theological approach, though one that has been sometimes infected with a combative spirit.
    I would highly recommend you interview an actual fundamentalist to explain where we stand. I know highly qualified professors and pastors that could engage in a good discussion with you. I tried sending both David and Curtis a DM on Twitter but was unable. Perhaps I will give you some suggestions on the Dispatch contact form.

    Collapse
  7. Joy Lamentation

    I left this week’s podcast less certain about the way you are defining fundamentalism. Not saying that’s a bad thing- it’s prompting me to look into this further on my own.
    I went back to last week’s podcast and made notes about your definitions just to refresh my memory. Here’s a summary for anyone that might have had the same confusion:
    David’s definition: Looking at Fundamentalism as more of a psychology than a theology that combines: 1. certainty with 2. ferocity and 3. a flattening of values (treating all beliefs with the same intensity of importance) with 4. very little tolerance for deviation from whatever is deemed fundamental. Often characterized by a higher priority of knowledge with certainty over love and humility.
    Curtis’ definition in 4 parts: 1. The Relationship to the wider world is viewed as ‘us vs. them’ with ‘them‘ out to get us; 2. The Relationship to Co-religionists is highly factional with a highly divisive instinct that we have it right and others have it wrong. Therefore we need to separate from them, cancel, disfellowship, expel, disassociate; 3. The Relationship to the text is a literal, strict interpretation where the text often gets elevated above all else even higher than what the texts are actually pointing to; 4. The Relationship to Truth is with a high claim to certainty and is defined by a set of abstract propositions and principles.

    These definitions were covered pretty quickly last week and I’m finding I need to spend more time thinking about them. I will probably go back and listen to this episode again with these definitions in mind.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kim

    Curtis, I noticed you used “the Ukraine” at least once in your discussion. This stuck out to me because in my recent reading I ran across an article about the difference between “the Ukraine” and “Ukraine.” The main point was that by saying “the Ukraine” you are referring to a region…much as Putin sees it. When you say “Ukraine” you are recognizing it as a country. This is a small, yet major, distinction. I’m making it a point to say “Ukraine.”

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pastorfbt

      This! An easy mistake to make when we are unaware of the specific history going back to Stalin.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kim

        I’m reading “Red Famine” by Anne Applebaum and I’m noticing that Stalin’s tactics in Ukraine in the 1930’s are eerily similar to what’s happening today.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    You make a good point that fundamentalism can apply to secular things: according to Marco Rubio, I’m a “free market fundamentalist”…

    In all seriousness, good discussion. Curtis, I appreciate your willingness to correct your characterization of Moody Bible from last week. The opening few minutes definitely helped me understand the nuances of evangelicalism v fundamentalism a little better.

    Collapse
  10. Mark Goddard

    I am quite disappointed that there is not any discussion of the potential positive aspects of holding to the fundamentals of the faith. Some views are open for dissent, but there are some that aren’t. I find that confessional Christianity is the correct balance between fundamentalism and evangelicalism without any guiding principles.

    Collapse
    1. Adam Shields

      I think part of their distiction is that the differences between evangelicalism and fundamentalism are more about orientation toward culture and truth claims than theology.

      Evangelicalsm on the whole are very orthodox in their theology. Their approach to culture and truth claims are not about rejecting confessional Christianity.

      What I do find interesting is that generally many evangelicals and fundamentalists are resistant to the historic creeds. Which make it difficult to really talk about the historical creeds.

      Collapse
      1. Mark Goddard

        I don't like the term evangelical precisely because it is so loosely defined, especially in a secular political context. I think confessionalism is a good balance between certainty of belief and excessive legalism.

        Collapse
Load More