How is Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity an Outlier?

[CG Didymus]

My understanding is that fundamentalists aren't representative of Christians as a whole because fundamentalists go back to the fundamentals of their religion, so they would believe that the Bible is literally the word of God, that the historical stories did occur

And a good Christian should believe this. But believing the Bible too literally also leads them to believe that all the other religions are wrong. That to compromise their beliefs is wrong. So liberal Christians that have compromised their beliefs are wrong. Since they believe that society has compromised "God's Truth" for "man's" truth, they are wrong. So everybody is wrong but them. But within "Fundamentalism", there is a "not too bad" to "totally extreme". But there are many Protestant churches that believe "basics" of the Bible... that it is the literal Word of God. They don't call themselves "fundamentalists", but they have pretty much the same beliefs. I don't think it would take much to move some of them into the "totally extreme" category? But the champions of God in the Bible did do "totally extreme" things for God. So is the problem taking the Bible too seriously?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but the thought occurs to me that I quite often on this board see good and decent people talking about "religion" as if all religion was fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. Sound familiar? Or did the limb just now break beneath me?

To be forthcoming, I am fairly sure some know better but do not care, while others do not know better at all (and possibly do not care to know better). However, this thread is not directed to either of those groups.

Their members are welcome to join in, of course, but the thread itself is rather meant for those other good and decent people who do care that their usage of the word "religion" bears some greater resemblance to reality than does its usage as a virtual synonym for "fundamentalist Protestant Christianity".

With that in mind, I would ask posters to focus on responding to this question...

In what specific ways is fundamentalist Protestant Christianity NOT representative of Christianity as a whole -- and/or of religion as a whole?

They're an outlier because they're so new compared to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. They have They're the minority out of the bunch, too. There's around a 1 billion Protestants but that would include traditional mainline Protestants like Lutherans and Methodists, fundie Protestants would be a smaller number of that. Whereas, there is about 1.2 billion Catholics and 260 million Orthodox Christian, so the ancient churches combined are the majority of Christians. You could possibly throw in Anglicans because they're a sort of middle way between Catholicism and Reformed Christianity. They're not all-out Protestants.

I also dislike using fundamentalist Protestants to represent Christianity because it insults Christianity. It's rather shallow and lacking in a rigorous theology such as the ancient churches have. They're just very loud, wish unfortunately amplifies their presence more.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It would be interesting if the polls included increases in these fundamentalist groups ranks at the same time you see the middle collapsing and atheism increasing. These groups that are big into making converts tend to swoop in to prey upon the vulnerable. And as the mainstream churches flounder and fail, those affected by that are targeted by these groups, who show them how they were not the true church to begin with, and if they join them, then they'll get to heaven.

But the real thing they are offering that appeals to the vulnerable, is the sense of belonging to a family. The cultic nature of these, creates that sense of "family" for those disenfranchised by their own religious families falling apart as others drifted away. The belief structures are created tightly, particularly authoritatively presented, which members bind themselves to each underneath.

As a personal aside to support what I am saying, it has been a life's mystery to me personally about myself, how it is I ended up in my early 20s in one of these groups I am describing above, which resemble groups like the JWs in their own particular ways, born at that same period of time in American history. I am a rational person, and grew up raised by a father who was solidly Modernistic in thought, spiritual but not religious. A mother who was culturally Christian, Episcopalian background, who may have gone to church a total of 8 times while I was a kid, on holidays or other occasions. They were very open minded and accepting of differences in others. It was not a religious household with religious training for us growing up.

How is it I would end up in one of these fundamentalist cults? It didn't last for too long, maybe 5 years? After wrestling with this question, since my views today are quite a bit more beyond what I used to believe, or at least tried to believe, I think I have the reason for it. A family. While my family was relatively financially capable, as well as good intelligence and education, and unconditional love from both of my parents, I had a sibling who developed emotional and psychological problems while I was growing up. It hit at such a time as it disrupted the normal developing relationships between a child and his parents. It disrupted that. It disrupted many facets of my life during that time, in school, with friends, with my own happiness in life.

Then I had a spontaneous Awakening experience when I was 18, as the result going through a deep existential crisis for myself at that point in life. It was facing that existential Void, and entering to and through it that opened up Reality to me. For the moment, of course. Now I could see Life, but I was still that broken kid who had a lot to deal with coming out of that. Add to this, that vision of Light to reach to as Home. And it truly is that for me, as my past 4 decades since that has been to come Home to that.

But in that early search to come Home, to find God as I had touched and tasted That. I was encouraged to talk to Christian minsters, and none of them had anything that remotely talked to that experience. At least not for me at that time. And it was when I encountered one of these "We have the right answers, and they're all wrong" groups, that something resonated for me, strangely enough.

What it really gave me was a family. It gave me structure. It gave me a sense membership. That was the core emotional pull of it, aside from the promises they gave me that I could know God, as I had experienced it before. What I discovered though, even in those very first few months while I was happily taking it all in as much as I could hold, is that that "unity" we had, which they proudly quoted from scripture, was based upon common beliefs. It's like we were the people of the red flag, versus those who rally around the blue flag. It was based upon agreeing with each other theologically. That's not really love, I could recognize, but I did not want to acknowledge because I was getting something out of it emotionally for myself.

So that rather long, and fist time I've ever shared that before post, is to understand sympathetically what it is for people who are looking for family, and how these groups like this tend to target and swoop up the vulnerable, are picking up those like me who fell through the cracks in a family life. The same thing would apply to their church family, which is what traditionalism offers people. When the traditional church fails, the home is disrupted and people experience real genuine loss, as I did in my life growing up.

Did I gain some good from it? Sure, and I don't wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But that baby in the bathwater, was always me to begin with.

Thanks for sharing some of your life story with me. I know we haven’t always seen eye to eye with one another but feel we have a lot in common.

I think we are a similar age and I briefly became caught up in Christian fundamentalism in my early to mid 20s before taking a different course though still retaining that original connection I had with Christ. I grew up with Christianity and I have retained that connection throughout my life. I briefly courted atheism for about nine months in response to my fundamentalist encounter but psychologically couldn’t deny Christ.

Having Faith in Christ makes sense while biblical literalism doesn’t. I’ve often had scriptures quoted at me such as John14:6 or been told if I don’t believe in the literal resurrection of Christ I’m not a real Christian. Faith comes from within and I feel no need for any prescriptive approach to Christianity the fundamentalists would want to impose.

Many of us have had damaging experiences growing up and I’m no exception. That doesn’t mean I’m going to unquestioningly commit to Christian fundamentalism or anything that doesn’t feel right. That being said it did appeal in my early 20s though I left at age 26 to become a Baha’i.

Perhaps the fundamentalists have helped me to become more assertive in drawing a line in the sand as well as studying the bible to discover a theology that works.

Thanks again for your post. It meant a lot to me.

 

[Windwalker]

Thanks for sharing some of your life story with me. I know we haven’t always seen eye to eye with one another but feel we have a lot in common.

I think we are a similar age and I briefly became caught up in Christian fundamentalism in my early to mid 20s before taking a different course though still retaining that original connection I had with Christ. I grew up with Christianity and I have retained that connection throughout my life. I briefly courted atheism for about nine months in response to my fundamentalist encounter but psychologically couldn’t deny Christ.

That's interesting. We share that run with atheism in common as well. It took me a little longer than you with it though. Yes, atheism was a response to fundamentalism. Most definitely.

I think my joining the fundamentalist world was the need to connect with others in a family-like context, and that the clearly defined rules and boundaries was something that I needed developmentally, which had fallen through the cracks growing up in a home with a mental illness consuming everyone's energies on regular major crises.

But the price for fitting into that was my rational mind. Most certainly, I tried to make all their structures work for me, but the flaws in the rational basis for the things they were teaching, became apparent to me while I was in one of their better respected Bible colleges at the time. Long story short, after graduating, I had to face my misgivings about them, and overcoming the fears about questioning things, I ended up leaving them.

Enter a major personal crisis following that, and years of putting on the backburner questions of faith, since I had no found nowhere to hang that hat structurally, I had a bit of a "spiritual" re-awakening of what had been deliberately sidelined lacking any home for it. Poetically it seems, it was while I was watching the PBS special called The Shape of Life. It was a show about the origins of life through evolution.

In that moment, I felt I was freed from the anthropomorphic deity, literally understood, through the Christian image of God I was exposed to, which threatened independent thought as a "test of the devil". I actually found Beauty in the world through that, that "God" could be seen outside of their closed system of literalist understandings.

That lead to a full out rejection of that narrow view of God. I had to clear the table, as I'd built so much up around that image, trying to make it fit my mystical experiences. I began identifying as an atheist, as I did in fact not believe that image of God. It could not fit into my rational mind. But more deeply, as was the case even back in Bible college days, I could not fit emotionally and spiritually that image of God with my experience.

So rationally, I became an atheist. I became a bit of a voice, in online communities. Yet, the spiritual would not let go, nor should it. I remember the gradual reopening of it, where I was not shutting it out for fear of that fundamentalist nonsense I'd put behind. I remember feeling hypocritical about it, but tried to fit into that identification as a "spiritual atheist". Of course, the fellow atheists were not impressed.

Eventually a friend said to me, "I don't know why you call yourself an atheist. You're a mystic". And that got me thinking about this whole identity thing. In the same way I had "outgrown" fundamentalism, I was ready to outgrow that atheism. Eventually, that has led to a whole landscape of reality that is quite challenging to talk about. But I'd say, what I began to search for, has become the beginning of the rest of the story. No answers, only freedom to discover.

Having Faith in Christ makes sense while biblical literalism doesn’t. I’ve often had scriptures quoted at me such as John14:6 or been told if I don’t believe in the literal resurrection of Christ I’m not a real Christian. Faith comes from within and I feel no need for any prescriptive approach to Christianity the fundamentalists would want to impose.

That's actually a major step to be able to liberate God from fundamentalists! I know that, because it was for me.

Many of us have had damaging experiences growing up and I’m no exception. That doesn’t mean I’m going to unquestioningly commit to Christian fundamentalism or anything that doesn’t feel right.

Personally, I think it was fear. Fundamentalism is fear-based. It appeals to fear, and uses fear to keep you fearful and close to the fearful flock. Fear needs fear to survive.

To break away from that, is in fact an act of true faith. Wherever we end up, it's faith that says, I will overcome fear, even that threat of damnation for questioning this. That ties into atheism as well, as an act of faith breaking away from the terrifying threats of fundamentalist though which damns everything to hell but their own fear.

Perhaps the fundamentalists have helped me to become more assertive in drawing a line in the sand as well as studying the bible to discover a theology that works.

Certainly. Overcoming their fear, exercises faith. Leaving them for atheism, is also an act of faith.

Thanks again for your post. It meant a lot to me.

Sure. It's hard to try to process everything over the course of this winding path for me. But it's good to be able to breathe some fresh air a little now.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Welcome to my religion, Pagan branch.

It's all coming together for me now. Thanks!

 

[Samael_Khan]

And a good Christian should believe this. But believing the Bible too literally also leads them to believe that all the other religions are wrong. That to compromise their beliefs is wrong. So liberal Christians that have compromised their beliefs are wrong. Since they believe that society has compromised "God's Truth" for "man's" truth, they are wrong. So everybody is wrong but them. But within "Fundamentalism", there is a "not too bad" to "totally extreme". But there are many Protestant churches that believe "basics" of the Bible... that it is the literal Word of God. They don't call themselves "fundamentalists", but they have pretty much the same beliefs. I don't think it would take much to move some of them into the "totally extreme" category? But the champions of God in the Bible did do "totally extreme" things for God. So is the problem taking the Bible too seriously?

This would fall under the discussion of whose interpretation of the bible is true. I would say that the fundamentalists view of the Bible is closer to what the first century christians believed because they take it literally as the word of God. Those who do not believe such are compromising their religion (not necessarily their beliefs).

 

[metis]

This would fall under the discussion of whose interpretation of the bible is true. I would say that the fundamentalists view of the Bible is closer to what the first century christians believed because they take it literally as the word of God.

Highly unlikely as these were in the form of letters addressed to different audiences, thus probably not viewed as being scripture until later.

Those who do not believe such are compromising their religion (not necessarily their beliefs).

Not really. In Catholicism, for example, it's never been viewed that every single item found in the scriptures are inerrant.

The concept of inerrancy actually only goes back to the 1800's as a response to "modernism".

 

[Samael_Khan]

Highly unlikely as these were in the form of letters addressed to different audiences, thus probably not viewed as being scripture until later.

You have a point. Makes sense.

Not really. In Catholicism, for example, it's never been viewed that every single item found in the scriptures are inerrant.

The concept of inerrancy actually only goes back to the 1800's as a response to "modernism".

I dunno about that. In my mind it is a matter of what did the original writers think as opposed to those who came after.

 

[metis]

I dunno about that. In my mind it is a matter of what did the original writers think as opposed to those who came after.

But we still have to remember that the original writers frequently weren't actually those who saw what may have happened, plus they were subjective, not objective authors. However, you point is well taken, which is why the Church chose certain books with little trouble or controversy.

When reading historical accounts in basically all areas, we always have to remember that we are reading the author's accounts of what may have happened.

 

[Samael_Khan]

But we still have to remember that the original writers frequently weren't actually those who saw what may have happened, plus they were subjective, not objective authors. However, you point is well taken, which is why the Church chose certain books with little trouble or controversy.

When reading historical accounts in basically all areas, we always have to remember that we are reading the author's accounts of what may have happened.

I agree with you here. I actually read the books of the Bible as written by different authors with a context in mind. I am actually in a discussion with someone on this forum who doesn't view it like that and views the Catholic Church as the harlot. So the person doesn't want to admit for instance that the writer of Luke outrightly said that he used eyewitness sources and research to write his account because they believe that God inspired the book and the whole bible has one message as it was authored by God.

 

[metis]

I am actually in a discussion with someone on this forum who doesn't view it like that and views the Catholic Church as the harlot.

Which doesn't even stand to basic logic based on the scriptures themselves, but these people generally belong to more fundamentalist groups that usually take the "my way or the highway" position.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Which doesn't even stand to basic logic based on the scriptures themselves, but these people generally belong to more fundamentalist groups that usually take the "my way or the highway" position.

Yes, the person definitely belongs to a fundamentalist group.

Just out of interest, how would you refute that statement of theirs that the Church is the harlot, using the scriptures themselves?

 

[metis]

Just out of interest, how would you refute that statement of theirs that the Church is the harlot, using the scriptures themselves?

Jesus said that he would "guide the Church until the end of time" through the power of the Holy Spirit, so if the Church supposedly got dropped by God due to whatever, which church supposedly was there to fulfill Jesus' promise? Needless to say, when I've asked them, I don't give any names, and yet they keep repeating the same 'ole same 'ole.

There were no fundamentalist churches, including the JW's, back then, and a couple of hundred years after the crucifixion of Jesus there were "heretical" churches with different agendas and different canons that differed significantly from the canon most use today. Since this canon that is widely used today was chosen in the 4th century by the Church they claim to be the "harlot", how does this make any sense?

Next time you discuss this with them, let me recommend you ask them, and then you'll also see their song & dance routine.

BTW, I grew up in one of those fundamentalist churches but left in my mid-20's mostly due to their anti-science agenda and racial bigotry.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Jesus said that he would "guide the Church until the end of time" through the power of the Holy Spirit, so if the Church supposedly got dropped by God due to whatever, which church supposedly was there to fulfill Jesus' promise? Needless to say, when I've asked them, I don't give any names, and yet they keep repeating the same 'ole same 'ole.

There were no fundamentalist churches, including the JW's, back then, and a couple of hundred years after the crucifixion of Jesus there were "heretical" churches with different agendas and different canons that differed significantly from the canon most use today. Since this canon that is widely used today was chosen in the 4th century by the Church they claim to be the "harlot", how does this make any sense?

Next time you discuss this with them, let me recommend you ask them, and then you'll also see their song & dance routine.

BTW, I grew up in one of those fundamentalist churches but left in my mid-20's mostly due to their anti-science agenda and racial bigotry.

You definitely wouldn't get any names. As an exJW, how that group reasons is that there was foretold that a great apostasy would develop immediately after the last apostle died. Then "wolves" came into the congregation and gradually deceived the congregation. Throughout the ages there were individuals who were true Christians but they were few and far between, there might have always been true Christians at any given time. So for instance, John Wycliffe would have been one of them, as he tried to translate the Bible in the common tongue. Eventually there came a point in history where God started revealing the truth again to people and his group started to be formed according to his plan. Now they are just awaiting the end.

This type of reasoning is common to many modern fundamentalist groups.

I do see their point though, because the Catholic Churches history is dark, with various persecutions, corrupt Popes, bloody crusades, inquisitions, selling of indulgences, etc. But then they do place trust in much of its decisions in the early days, such as assembly of the canon (which was mostly confirmed before the establishment of the church). The Protestants idea of the Trinity for instance was developed in the church through various councils. They also ignore the positives such as the Church supporting communities once the Western empire fell.

Even though I think that they have a solid gripe with the RCC, these groups themselves do things contrary to the Bible and also horrendous things, such as false prophesy of the end, abuse, telling members to abstain from meat, kill people, polygamy, etc. They often do the many things that they accuse the Catholic Church of. So it is like the pot calling the kettle black. One notable instance is groups telling others that the RCC is evil because they cover up child abuse, when many of these fundamentalist groups do that exact thing.

What I do find strange is that they focus on the Catholic church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church, which stems from the same origins as the RCC which I see as a hole in their reasoning.

 

[metis]

I do see their point though, because the Catholic Churches history is dark, with various persecutions, corrupt Popes, bloody crusades, inquisitions, selling of indulgences, etc. But then they do place trust in much of its decisions in the early days, such as assembly of the canon (which was mostly confirmed before the establishment of the church).

I certainly don't deny nor excuse these acts as they were and are clearly immoral. But over a near 2000 year history, with various types of leaders, some of which were not even selected by the Church itself but were forced upon it by civil authorities, bad stuff will and did happen.

Also, past history wasn't always very pleasant as well, as we see all sorts of atrocities of various types being committed within other religious faiths as well, including wars of religion and even genocide, such as against Amerindians.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I certainly don't deny nor excuse these acts as they were and are clearly immoral. But over a near 2000 year history, with various types of leaders, some of which were not even selected by the Church itself but were forced upon it by civil authorities, bad stuff will and did happen.

Also, past history wasn't always very pleasant as well, as we see all sorts of atrocities of various types being committed within other religious faiths as well, including wars of religion and even genocide, such as against Amerindians.

What i like about the catholics that I know is that they openly admit to the failings of the RCC. Many in fundamentalist groups do not see the flaws in their own religion.

To me, the Holy Roman Empire and the RCC, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church, were in charge of nations, or at least influenced nations, and they acted like any other nation would, which is a fluctuation between doing what is good and doing what is bad.

The political game is why church and state shouldn't mix, one is bound to influence the other and dominate the other at certain times.

Religious wars have spanned millenniums and haven't stopped.