Graeme wrote:

>
> "Rowland C. Croucher" <> wrote:
> I don't believe that there was any
> ignorance on the part of Jesus concerning the second coming. Perhaps
> your assessment of "fundamentalism" is a little astray??

Then how do you read the statement about the Son of Man not knowing the time of his return? Ignorance = not knowing I would have thought...

>Garry Allen wrote:
>>
>> Rowland you said
>> >As I've said before, Fundamentalists inhabit simplicity this side of
>> >complexity; Liberals complexity the other side of simplicity. It's
>> >better to move beyond simplicity, through complexity, to simplicity on
>> >the other side of complexity. I think the Evangelicals (as distinct from
>> >the Fundamentalists) do this best.
>> ?? What on earth do you mean Rowland?
>> Simplicity=>complexity=>simplicity on the othe side of complexity. Could
>> you please clarify this or provide an example.
>> Garry Allen
>> Would you believe none of the SU web sites provide the current doctrinal
>> statement.

OK class, 'put your thinking caps on' as one of my old teachers used to say.

Simplicity this side of complexity is inhabited by Fundamentalists - of all types, politic/religious, the exact ideology doesn't matter - who want us to 'Keep it simple stupid! So complex issues are reduced to black-and-white answers. This is to be 'simplistic/childish'.

Complexity the other side of simplicity is inhabited by Liberals. They like making things complicated (though they'd deny that). Sometimes you don't have to be complicated, though, to be fair, Liberals are not afraid of the hard questions, or coming to conclusions that might cause them to live with some 'cognitive dissonance' (do you understand that? It's when ideas collide and seem irreconcilable).

The saints/prophets (prophets are 'noisy saints') have moved beyond childish simplicity, faced the tough questions, and moved beyond complexity to simplicity on the other side... The best place to be: read, for example, James Fowler's stages etc. So a Fundamentalist, for example, studying the Jesus of the Gospels, is likely to have a docetic view of Jesus' humanness. The Fundamentalist can't reconcile Jesus' ignorance (about his second coming, for example) with his Godness, so errs on the side of Jesus' deity. (Same with the Bible).

The Liberal enjoys relating to Jesus as a human being, and relishes doing the sort of study the Jesus Seminar people are doing, and talk a lot about how much of the material in the Gospels is really primitive, or simply redaction upon redaction. Understand? That's good.

The third position is to accept fully - yes fully - Jesus' humanness and his deity, and where you can't reconcile some things (and you won't, I promise you) live with the ambiguity of that. See my article on 'ambiguity' on our website (I'll have to do a Steve Winter and have that as an automatic paste sentence!)

I'm leaving the following unsnipped. It's a good post. I would add, however, that Fundamentalists are essentially rationalistic too. Their doctrinal/dogmatic strictures often go beyond the clear sense of Scripture. They attempt to clarify what God in Scripture has left ambiguous. Naughty.

Yes, the Liberals are rationalistic - and they generally don't deny that. They can't live with what can't be fitted into their current world-view. But they handle antinomy/ambiguity better.

As I've said before, Fundamentalists inhabit simplicity this side of complexity; Liberals complexity the other side of simplicity. It's better to move beyond simplicity, through complexity, to simplicity on the other side of complexity. I think the Evangelicals (as distinct from the Fundamentalists) do this best.

Darren R Middleton wrote:

>
> G'day Folks,
>
> I thought I might share some of my thoughts on theological tags in light
> of their usage on arc.
>
> Liberal: A Christian who subjugates revelation to reason.
>
> Evangelical: A Christian who holds the belief reason is fallen and only
> revelation (Scripture) is authoritative for Christians.
>
> Fundamentalist: A Exasperated Evangelical who objects to liberals
> hijacking the tag evangelical but is in fact a true (original)
> evangelical.
>
> Let me explain;
> I think that a lot of the Churches who claim to be evangelical (today)
> are in fact liberal in their understanding of Scripture (reason is King,
> Scripture is everything from queen to a mere subject). As a result,
> there seems to be a different meaning creeping into the term evangelical
> which then causes the term fundamentalist to be used to describe the
> traditional meaning of the word evangelical. Moreover (annoyingly)
> liberals have forced evangelicals into the tag of fundamentalist (and
> all of the bad connotations) which is unfortunate.
>
> Personally, I believe there is no such thing as progressive or
> conservative evangelicals, or indeed fundamentalists as these terms are
> superfluous. Either, reason is king, or revelation. Its either
> Liberalism or Evangelicalism.
>
> I leave you with the words of the WCF chapter 1:X ... The supreme judge
> by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all
> decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and
> private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to
> rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the
> Scriptures.....
> Now that evangelical!
>
> Regards

> Darren Middleton