Plus ca change!

~~~

Here's an interesting bit of history: Google's first archived article from me to a couple of Oz. religious Usenet groups.

Message-ID: <>

Fundamentalists vs. Liberals Part 2

Hi! My machine's been at the computer-hospital, and I've come back to 18 responses to my post about Fundamentalists and Liberals...

Interesting how cognitive dissonance works: if the clues aren't complete our finite post-Fall minds have to complete the puzzle somehow...

Best way to respond to the eight or nine key issues is to conduct an interview with myself.

Interviewer: Rowland, are you a fundamentalist?

Rowland: Yes, if you mean by that an orthodox Christian who believes that the supreme authority of Scripture for all matters of faith and conduct takes supremacy over other authorities (like reason, tradition etc.)

However, it's not so simple: reason and tradition influence so much of our interpretation of the Bible...

Billy Graham when asked this question used to say 'Yes, if you mean I hold to the ultimate authority of Scripture. No, if you mean I'm belligerant, dogmatic, unloving, and unteachable.' I like that.

I: Are you liberal?

R: Yes, if you mean there are many ways of relating to God-through-Christ. And if you agree that the Bible itself affirms diversity

I: But I'm confused. Back to the Bible, do you think it's inerrant?

R: I'd prefer the word 'infallible', which relates to its purpose to disclose God's will to us. A doctrine which posits a notion of 'inerrancy in the original autographs' is too liberal for me. I don't believe something like that because the Bible doesn't say so, and I'd prefer to stick to the Bible...

I: So there are mistakes in our Bibles?

R: Sure. Plenty. There are discrepancies between parallel accounts of stories in Kings/Chronicles... what did the voice from heaven say to Jesus at his baptism? etc. etc. Simple proof humans are fallible (which doesn't alter God's Word being infallible...)

I: So you're saying your view of Scripture being authoritative doesn't depend on its 'inerrancy-in-the-original-whatevers'.

R: Yep. I believe in the authority of Scripture because Jesus and the apostles did. Our faith is to be in Christ, not our clever liberal theories about inerrancy...

I: So what are you - liberal or fundamentalist?

R: Neither, and both. Probably you'd best put me into the category 'Charismatic progressive/ radical evangelical' (like Jesus :-)

I: Are you ecumenical?

R: Yes, if you mean by that I believe the devil is active in _all_ 25,000 [now 34,000] Christian denominations, and the Holy Spirit is doing something in _most_ of them. But no, if you want me to be an uncritical fan of the World Council of Churches: I think that body is somewhat spiritually arid in many respects.

I: Your consultancy job: do you go to all churches, as you said in your original post?

R: Pretty well - unless a church isn't teachable :-)

I: Charismatic/Pentecostal churches?

R: Yep. Love 'em. I had a dynamic experience of the Holy Spirit in Seoul in 1978, and have a marked affinity with those people... I'm doing some seminars with AOG pastors in Queensland in Feb - also with an AOG church in Victoria. I've been privileged to share pulpits at charismatic conferences with Dr. Paul Yonggi Cho, Bob Mumford and others...

I: Shouldn't you have put the liberals on the left, fundamentalists on the right, as <> suggested?

R: Yes. Social psychologists say any group committed to the perpetuation of an ideology, whether political or religious, will have people ranged across a spectrum (from left-to-right):

Radical - Progressive - Conservative - Traditionalist

I: Where do various Christians fit across this spectrum?

R: Well, a few examples would be:

Liberationists - Mainline churches - Evangelicals/ - Fundamentalists/Orthodox/Hyper-Calvinists

I: Back to the two groups in the original post. You said there was a fatal flaw in both. What?

R: Liberals tend to be theologically too open, fundamentalists too closed. L's fall prey too easily to current rational/theological fads; F's are too unteachable and dogmatic. Liberals let you believe anything; Fundamentalists insist you agree with their (narrow)interpretation of Scripture. Liberals, over time, lost their sense of urgency about preaching the Good News, because they can't easily agree with Jesus and Paul about the 'lostness' of people without Christ. Fundamentalists sometimes tie their gospel preaching into a legalistic system of beliefs and behaviors. Jesus and the apostles wouldn't have fitted into either general category I believe.

I: Final question: who's going to heaven?

R: As I said in my post 'Is Ghandi in Heaven?' (it's on our website)I think God can handle that without our help, and we're all going to be surprised.

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher

*** Note new JMM website URL*** http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ http://articlesandreviews.blogspot.com/