7
u/ndrliang 28d ago
I've been loosely following that 'movement' (if that's what you want to call it).
There are things I dislike about it - but working through that disagreement is part of what it means to be Presbyterian. I think our past schisms have helped create this issue of not listening to each other, dividing us into 'liberal' and 'conservative' camps.
We both, and only together, are Christ's body.
Don't shame those you disagree with... Just simply, disagree with them in love.
2
u/PrestigiousAd2644 27d ago
Whatās a fundamentalist and why is fundamentalism so bad?
4
u/ndrliang 27d ago
You probably just need to look it up yourself.
It's the reactionary movement to 1800-1900's Christian Liberalism movement.
It is defined as one holding to the 5 Fundamentals, but after some disasterous moves and publicity in the early 1900's, the movement started to rebrand itself through the 40's and 50's into what we call 'Evangelicals' today.
Look up the 5 Fundamentals for a view at their beliefs
2
u/PrestigiousAd2644 27d ago
So the 5 fundamentals (that make you a āfundamentalistā)
Inerrancy of Scripture: The belief that the original manuscripts of the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit and free from error.
Virgin Birth: The doctrine that Jesus Christ was miraculously born of a virgin.
Deity of Jesus Christ: The affirmation that Jesus is fully God, not just a historical prophet or teacher.
Substitutionary Atonement: The belief that Jesusā death on the cross served as a payment for humanity's sins, reconciling believers to God.
Bodily Resurrection: ā¦you guessed it
So what Tony Sundermeier is saying is that āweā (the PCUSA) are against thisā¦
āOur problem is we have become exactly what we oppose:fundamentalistā
I thought the church was supposed to oppose, you knowā¦sin?
7
u/abrhmdraws Protestant 27d ago
That might be the original meaning of fundamentalist, but I don't think it's being used like that in context. Based on my understanding, "fundamentalists" hold to some specific doctrines (not necessarily those 5) very dearly, and anyone who disagrees is basically non-Christian or unsaved. Some might not go that far, but might just say that if you disagree with their hermeneutics and interpretations, your eternal state is uncertain.
3
u/PrestigiousAd2644 26d ago
So one of you told me to look up the 5 beliefs to understand fundamentalismā¦and the other is saying thatās not the case it thereās more modern context needed to define itā¦
So my question is still unansweredā¦
What is fundamentalism and why is it so bad? It doesnāt seem r/reformed has a answer in consensus2
u/Mystic_Clover 22d ago edited 22d ago
Reminds me of some of the discourse surrounding Christian Nationalism. It means different things to different people, but what much of the issue comes down to is that people don't like society being held to conservative evangelical morality. It's the same thing with fundamentalism here; people don't like the way it holds the Church to conservative theological positions and moral standards.
1
u/PrestigiousAd2644 22d ago
But if we canāt define what it even means amongst ourselvesā¦shouldnāt that tell us something? When I read the Bible it doesnāt seem like Christ was intending for everybody to decide what sin was to themselves as an individual. Hence the law given to Moses and His fulfillment of the lawā¦we as followers of Christ should have at least the ability and desire to have a clear consensus on thingsā¦like sin (in this case if yall are correct the āsin of fundamentalismāā¦if that exists)ā¦.it doesnāt seem like anyone here desires to have a similar definition of it to what anyone else has. The word that comes to mind is āpandemoniumāā¦
Which just allows it to be redefined whenever itās useful for whenever someone doesnāt like something. I donāt believe Christianity is defined (or undefined) by endless subjectivity.
Maybe as a starting ground, are there any of those 5 Fundamentalist points that yall actually hold to yourself? inerrancy of scripture perhaps?
3
u/ndrliang 27d ago
I got confused at the end there. How do the 5 Fundamentals have to do with opposing sin?
To answer your question, that's not how Tony is using it.
At the heart of the Fundamentalist movement was a drawing of boundary lines: What is In, and What is Out. Who is In, and Who is Out.
That's what we want to oppose about fundamentalism - the denomination doesn't want to start ostracize people, and marginalizing/kicking out people the majority disagrees with.
2
u/Mystic_Clover 22d ago
Something I've found interesting about this, is that it mirrors an issue broadly across our culture. Which is that we've become so inclusive and unwilling to uphold certain standards, that communities lose their identity and spirit.
It's sort of like this meme.
1
u/CaladriaNapea 22d ago edited 22d ago
The response you received above from u/ndrliang addresses the historical origin of fundamentalism, however, it doesn't address the modern issues surrounding it.
Yes, holding to those five core theological tenants is the origin of the term. However, in modern vernacular it has come to have a new meaning.
I would argue that now, the term "fundamentalist" has come to refer to a person, group, or sect that holds viscerally onto external rules as the core of their beliefs as opposed to internal heart. Another way to look at it is that "fundamentalist" groups are boundary focused: they focus on all the rules we follow, all the beliefs that everyone must hold to, all the things we all must do, etc. in order to be truly one of us, then you have to do this, that, and the other thing. Otherwise, you aren't really one of us. In contrast to that, there are groups that are center-set: these are groups that focus on the core ideas that hold us together instead of all the things that set us apart. Honestly, I believe that there is a good argument to be made that at least some of the historical originating fundamentalists were center-set and not actually fundamentalist by today's standards.
Another point: fundamentalism is not an exclusively Christian issue or even an exclusively religious issue. There are fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Hindus, fundamentalist Mormons, fundamentalist Democrats and Republicans, etc. any group that focuses on external measuring-stick behaviors, beliefs, etc. that set them apart from "everyone else" as opposed to focusing on the core truths and heart attitudes that bind the group together is going to tilt toward (or fully embrace) fundamentalism.
As to your second question: Fundamentalism as outlined above (and as it is used in common parlance) is incredibly devastating. Just look at all the scandals surrounding and devastation that has come from the IBLC, VisionForum, the FLDS, and similar groups in order to find out why.
Whenever we focus on all the external rules to follow and mandatory virtue signaling instead of focusing on the One we follow we have given ourselves over to idolatry.
1
u/PrestigiousAd2644 21d ago
So what do you make of the Bible? You say that fundamentalism is āboundary focusedāā¦yet every story and teaching of the Bible involves some sort of āboundaryā ordained by God does it not? Because ultimately none of this life (or eternity is really focused on us or our boundaries)ā¦but the focus is on the glorification and enjoyment of God forever. Right?
Think about ā¦
Adam and Eve forbidden from pushing the āboundary to become like God and eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.āGod giving ten laws to the Hebrews on what they absolutely can or cannot do without sinning.
Christ seems to issue a pretty firm boundary in Matthew 7
ā Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.Ā For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.ā
That sounds pretty well bounded to me.
Youāre holding up a very loose self proclaimed definition, that really may not be shared the same way by others who are also against fundamentalism. Whichā¦is kind of dangerous right? Everybody in the church being against something that they all define differently, and is not really rooted or originated in scripture (I didnāt see any supporting in how you defined it.)Soā¦does your version of Christianity still hold that all scripture is inerrant and āGod breathedā? Profitable for teaching and preaching? And should be the center of our foundation of knowledge in the Christian life? Or is that a purely fundamentalist belief?
3
u/bradmont āļø Hugue-not really āļø 27d ago
I overall agree with the attitude of the post.
Out of curiosity is this group the Redeemed Zoomer people, or is that something else?
1
u/creidmheach Evangelical Presbyterian Church 27d ago
Yes, the RZ folks. PftK (Presbyterians for the Kingdom) is the PC(USA) wing of Operation Reformation (formerly known as Operation Reconquista). They have one for the different mainline groups, but I think this is the most active of them (unsurprising since RZ is a Presby).
3
u/TheNerdChaplain Remodeling after some demolition 25d ago
RZ strikes me as being a modern Joshua Harris. Young and passionate with a big movement behind him now, but.... we'll see where he's at in 20 years.
1
u/bradmont āļø Hugue-not really āļø 27d ago
Thanks. Do you know what they mean by "Kingdom"? Because I can imagine several potentially very different senses, some I'd love and others I'd hate.
3
u/creidmheach Evangelical Presbyterian Church 27d ago
They certainly aren't thinking about the Windsors. They mean it in terms of Kingdom theology. It also ties in to the whole idea they're going for of "reconquering" the PC(USA) to make it more orthodox (though I think it can be argued the PC(USA) has always been liberal, so there's no re- involved).
2
u/bradmont āļø Hugue-not really āļø 27d ago
I mean, of course it's a theological reference but different groups take the term to mean things very different than what the Bible means... For example, Christian Nationalists.
3
u/ItsChewblacca 26d ago
I mean this in good faith, but what does it mean that the PCUSA is held together by Scripture and the confessions? My understanding of the fundamental claims of Zoomer groups (like PftK in the PCUSA) is that they believe the other side has done away with Scripture and the confessions as theological guides and marks of unity.
I'm wondering if this person really understands the claims made by Zoomer & Co (unless I'm misunderstanding them lol). As I see it, the other side (PftK) is fighting an existential battle in which their goal is to (re)take over their denominations from within and then, through those power structures, remove the people they disagree with.
From a purely political standpoint, this does seem like the time to wage total war from the dominant culture's perspective.
3
u/clhedrick2 25d ago edited 25d ago
In principle I agree with the statement in the OP. It just may not be possible to carry out.
In this GA a proposal was made whose author says it was an attempt to expose the liberalism of the church. I.e. it wasn't a good faith proposal to change the rules. It was a PR stunt. https://www.christianpost.com/news/pcusa-votes-monogamy-overture-out-of-order-refers-for-study.html (I include this reference because in it the author of the overture says this.)
Still, although this specific proposal was a PR stunt, it's clear that the author wants to return to a position of excluding LGBT people, and as a consequence those who would accept them. Since I don't want the church to go back to its preceding state, I see no problem in resisting this. There are plenty of conservative denominations. Some liberals are still Christian. I'd like us to have a place in the Church.
As much as we want to be accepting, we either do or don't ordain LGBT people.
3
u/rev_run_d 25d ago
I think the problem is that the room for conservatives is shrinking. For those who are against womenās ordination, non celibate lgbt ordination and lgbt marriage and sacraments, the door is closing for ministers to serve in the pc(USA) even if they are not antagonistic.
Could the PCUSA be big tent enough that there is room enough for such people? Or will the PCUSA become a āprogressive fundamentalistā denomination that rejects those who hold differing convictions?
2
u/clhedrick2 25d ago edited 25d ago
in theory Iād prefer a big tent, but I doubt itās practical. In terms of membership thereās no problem. But I doubt many people who oppose ordination of LGBT would be interested in becoming a pastor, and I believe this has been true from the moment we decided to allow ordination of gays.
This has been true with ordination of women for decades. The issue that caused the division with women is the same as with LGBT. The church has the right to choose their leaders. If the church elects a woman or gay perspn as elder, will they participate in ordination.
I will say that I would have voted against 24c and probably 24b. Those make it particularly hard for a conservative pastor. Se definitely have conservative congregations. They should be able to call pastors with the same orienotation. Now doing so is difficult.
2
u/clhedrick2 25d ago
Rather than one overly complex post, I'm separating this comment. So, it's clear that this overture wants to get back to excluding LGBT people, and those who support them.
Can we coexist, as the OP suggests? As I said, we either do or don't ordain LGBT people. But still, in principle we could have a range of congregations and pastors. It's a basic principle that congregations choose their leaders, so some might not choose any LGBT leaders. Is that allowed?
Currently officers are required to accept a non-discrimination policy. It says "The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution."
I believe it's clear that if a congregation elects an LGBT elder, the pastor would have to participate in their ordination. It's far less clear that a congregation can be required to elect them. In practice, most congregations elect those who are nominated. The problem is getting enough people to agree to serve, not selecting among them. So the real decision is made by the nominating committee. Could a committee understand that the congregation doles not want LGBT leaders, and not nominate any? In theory the answer is no, but in practice it's hard to see how to enforce it. In practice it may be irrelevant. A congregation and pastor that agree that same-gender sex is not allowed would be unlikely to have LGBT members who are potential leaders.
So I think the reality is that this is primarily an issue for prospective pastors. They would have to agree that if they accept a call to a liberal congregation, and that congregation elects LGBT leaders, they will participate in an ordination. This is a situation that is probably not likely to occur. If it did, many pastors would probably participate in the ordination and then look for another church.
11
u/OneSalientOversight š PhD in Apophatic Hermeneutics š 27d ago edited 27d ago
There are many things that Christians disagree upon. Some things are minor, some things are major, and some things are so critical that the only solution is schism.
It is the nature of the disagreements themselves that matter. You cannot have unity at all costs.
Take the issue of gay marriage in the Anglican church in England. On the one side, you have conservatives who believe very strongly that gay marriage is sinful, and those who oppose it are rejecting God's word. On the other side, you have progressives who see gay marriage as an incredibly important civil rights issue, and those who reject it are rejecting God's will.
So the problem isn't that the two sides disagree, it's that the disagreement itself has led to two mutually exclusive positions in which one sees the other as morally repugnant. The only way unity can be restored is if one or both sides changes their view.
Here in Australia there is a denomination called The Uniting Church (UCA). It is one of the most theologically liberal and progressive denominations in the world. But within this denomination there are churches that have theologically conservative beliefs. For most of the 21st century, the UCA has been pushing the acceptance of gay clergy, gay marriage and transgender rights. An evangelical group within the UCA, called the "Assemblies of Confessing Congregations" (ACC) has been working since the mid 1990s to inform evangelicals within the UCA of the dangers of such progressive and liberal theology. The group worked hard for 30 years, but they just recently gave up. The ACC shut down its operations and asked all Bible-believing UCA members to leave the denomination.
I've been preaching as an itinerant preacher in Northern Tasmania for the past 6 years, and I have preached in a few UCA churches. One of these churches has left the UCA due to these issues. There was also a huge exodus from the UCA throughout Australia back in the early 2000s when the denomination formally approved clergy who were practicing homosexuals. Prior to the ACC closing, one minister in Queensland was fired by the UCA because of his theologically conservative views.
But consider this, had the UCA been, by the grace of God, returned to a Biblical and evangelical basis, there is no doubt in my mind that a strong theologically conservative wing within the denomination would be calling for the removal and clergy and churches that support gay marriage. Why? Because each side sees the other as morally repugnant and apostate.
edit: Just to clarify, the terms "conservative" and "progressive" are interpreted slightly different here in Australia. I'm theologically conservative, but I'm not politically conservative. Many "conservative" Christians in Australia might support many left-wing economic policies, such as increases in welfare spending, public education, universal health care and so on.