Is Christian Fundamentalism Essentially Intolerant?

[angellous_evangellous]

I would say any religions that claim that their God is the only 'true' God are intolerant.

The Eastern Orthodox have done it quite nicely. One of their confessions is "we know where the Holy Spirit is, but we do not know where He is not."

 

[robtex]

Is Christian fundamentalism essentially intolerant of views other than its own? Can there be a tolerant Christian fundamentalism?

What causes the intolerance seen in so much of Christian fundamentalism?

Just so we are on the same page, a similar page or at least metaphorically reading the same book what would yall called a fundamentalist Christian? I personally define it as one who believes that their version of the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Does anyone else have a different working definition to use for wrangling with these two questions?

 

[michel]

Is Christian fundamentalism essentially intolerant of views other than its own? Can there be a tolerant Christian fundamentalism?

What causes the intolerance seen in so much of Christian fundamentalism?

Terry beat me to it;

Fundementalism = a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Anything that is so unwavering in attitude has to be bad news.

I am totally and fudementally against Christian Fundmentalism.

 

[robtex]

HA!! This thread just gave me a wonderful paper idea. I am going to take speeches from important leaders in the KKK and the Nazi party and compare them to sermons by fundies, particularly Paige Patterson (he is currently in Fort Worth) and see what happens. I wonder if he'll give me an interview. Perhaps practices too. He certainly uses the rhetoric of fear.

I would be careful though about legal rammications stemming from civil alligations in the form of libel. I think taking his current speeches in print (where a souce can be cited; an advantage of print media vs interview) would be a safer avenue.

As a further footnote most Christians don't indentify with people like Phelps or Patterson and using them as a medium may not convey as strong of a message as taking a more moderate Christian with notions of absolute morality particular in the areas, of theories of zionists, gay issues, medical technlogoy and the like. Finding someone that the congregation may find a spirtual connection with may be more impactful that a far-reaching extreamist like Patterson.

 

[Sunstone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals"[3]:

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillenial second coming)[4]

In particular, fundamentalists reject the documentary hypothesis—the theory held by higher biblical criticism that the Pentateuch was composed and shaped by many people over the centuries. Fundamentalists continue to assert that Moses was the primary author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Some fundamentalists, on the other hand, may be willing to consider alternative authorship only where the Biblical text does not specify an author, insisting that books in which the author is identified must have been written by that author.

Fundamentalists differ from Pentecostals in their strong insistence upon "correct" doctrine and often advocate separatism (which often also divides fundamentalists from each other) as opposed to the experiential emphasis of Pentecostals.

Fundamentalists also criticize evangelicals for a lack of concern for doctrinal purity and for a lack of discernment in ecumenical endeavors in working co-operatively with other Christians of differing doctrinal views, even though some fundamentalists had been accused by their critics for doing the same. American evangelist Billy Graham came from a fundamentalist background, but many Christian fundamentalists repudiate him today because of his choice, early in his ministry, to co-operate with other Christians. He represents a movement that arose within fundamentalism, but has increasingly become distinct from it, known as Neo-evangelicalism or New Evangelicalism (a term coined by Harold J. Ockenga, the "Father of New Evangelicalism").

Not mentioned in the quote is the fact that fundamentalism arose as an anti-intellectual movement.

 

[robtex]

Sunstone,

Of the points one through 5 in your above post most Christians would fall under the heading of fundamentalists do to their belief in 2-5. Yet it seems the consensus on the boards is that fundamentalists make up a minority of the total Christian population. I just wanted to point-out the dicotomy of this.

 

[michel]

The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals"[3]:

• 1.Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• 2.The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• 3.The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• 4.The bodily resurrection of Jesus

5.The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillenial second coming)[4]

These are my views; I hope they offend no Christian, and

1. Innerancy of the scriptures..............Please forgive me, anyone who believes in every letter of the Scriptures. I personally believe the scriptures to be errant; the Old Testament, to me, is at best a cross between a history book and a fairy tale.
2. I am open minded on this; it sounds lovely, and that may be why it was represented in such a way; to reinforce the belief in a totally 'pure' appearence of Christ into the world. At the risk of offending some, unecessary in my view; I accept Christ for who he was, without the need for a virgin birth...but I am not picky.
3. I do believe in this point.
4. 'bodily' seems unnecessary to me, but I know of good Christians here for whom this is important.
5. The authenticity of Christ's miracles :- I am sure the miracles were authentic, but the word 'miracle' is one with which I have a problem..........I would venture (again please forgive me, those who are convinced about miracles) thay miracles were merely events which came about as a result of using knowledge which is 'beyond our ken'.

I don't think I am a very good Christian, looking at the above.....but at least I am no hypocrite.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Is Christian Fundamentalism Essentially Intolerant?

Yes.

Anyone doubting this should look up Christian Fundamentalism on wikipedia. I just did it, and spent the last hour or so reading up on the subject, which led me to very interesting links on evangelism, anti-semetism as well as numerous other links.

Fundamentalism, according to the definition I got from wikipedia would have to be exclusive of other religions and ideologies, by its very nature.

B.

 

[john63]

Remember that the KKK http://www.kkk.bz/ is a fundamentalist Christian organization, and an excellent example for how the fundamentalists #1 agenda is self-preservation at all costs. They only care about the preservation of what they think 1950s America was like, with its race segregation and all. The white suburban family with no divorse, no homosexuality, and every pregnancy going to term needs healthy capitalism preserved by white men only giving other white men jobs and economic serucity.

WOW!! That's quite an accusation! The KKK is the KKK. If they claim to be Christian, that doesn't mean Christians endorse them in any way. The Nation of Islam is aslo a racist orginisation claiming to be Muslims, but the Muslim world does not endorse them. Sheesh!!

 

[robtex]

WOW!! That's quite an accusation! The KKK is the KKK. If they claim to be Christian, that doesn't mean Christians endorse them in any way. The Nation of Islam is aslo a racist orginisation claiming to be Muslims, but the Muslim world does not endorse them. Sheesh!!

It is not a accusation. It is a reality. They worship Jesus just as surely as other Christians do. As a matter of fact membership requires one to accept Jesus as their savior.

From there website, http://www.k-k-k.com/

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions, and has received a Charter from US Congress."

and further on down:

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The IKA is a private Christian organization. In the past the KKK received a Charter from US Congress because of our great moral and good Christian behavior."[/font]

 

[john63]

It is not a accusation. It is a reality. They worship Jesus just as surely as other Christians do. As a matter of fact membership requires one to accept Jesus as their savior.

From there website, http://www.k-k-k.com/

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions, and has received a Charter from US Congress."

and further on down:

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The IKA is a private Christian organization. In the past the KKK received a Charter from US Congress because of our great moral and good Christian behavior."[/font]

Not my point robtex. My point is that mostly all the denominations of Christianity would never endorse an orginisation such as the KKK, even though they profess Christian faith. That's just like condemning all Muslims as terrorists even though we know that's a rediculous notion.

 

[Katzpur]

It is not a accusation. It is a reality. They worship Jesus just as surely as other Christians do. As a matter of fact membership requires one to accept Jesus as their savior.

From there website, http://www.k-k-k.com/

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions, and has received a Charter from US Congress."

and further on down:

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The IKA is a private Christian organization. In the past the KKK received a Charter from US Congress because of our great moral and good Christian behavior."[/font]

I'm speechless! I had no idea!

 

[greatcalgarian]

Not my point robtex. My point is that mostly all the denominations of Christianity would never endorse an orginisation such as the KKK, even though they profess Christian faith. That's just like condemning all Muslims as terrorists even though we know that's a rediculous notion.

How many denominations of Christianity endorse Catholics?
How many denominations of Christianity endorse Jeohvah Witness?
How many denominations of Christianity endorse LDS?
How many denominations of Christianity endorse Methodist?
How many denominations of Christianity endorse Eastern Orthodox?
How many denominations of Christianity endorse Eastern Mennonites?

I believe not more than five for each of the above questions??

 

[RagnarGalt]

Intolerant of others views? Aren't we all... It is really a question of standards, not tolerance... All of us here (certainly) have NO tolerance for the belief that it is okay to be a pedophile or murderer... Most of us here have no tolerance for the belief that it is okay to steal, or cheat on our mate, however, some think that cheating the government on taxes is okay or that maybe flirting at the local restaurant is okay if we don't touch... Many of us are completely intolerant of liars, however, most have no problem telling a white lie every now and then to save embarassment or to get away with a little something... I have noticed a trend however, that when someone finally meets that person with a more restrictive standard of morals than their own, they begin to say that the other person is a 'bigot' or 'intolerant', wholly forgetting that they themselves have a whole slew of behaviors and beliefs that they are intolerant of... The real question is who has the right to set the standard? A fundamentalist Christian SHOULD be using the Bible to set the standard, and the same standard that they apply to others should apply to them... One who quotes the Bible to refute lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, should be equal quick to recognize their own fault when they cheat on a marriage mate or steal from an employer by calling in sick to play golf or they are being hypocritical to say the least... The Bible DOES support intolerance of behaviors, and anyone that reads it will recognize it... It does NOT support intolerance of individuals... But for one to become a Christian, it is expected that they change wrong behaviors first... If a person comes to you and says, I would really like for you to get to know more about God's Kingdom, and his son Christ Jesus, but you need to quit robbing package stores to support your heroin habit as a first step, they are NOT being intolerant of the individual, but the behavior...

 

[Buttons*]

i attend school with Christian fundamentalists... its not fun, to see why you can see my "death be not proud" forum... quite saddening people see things this way...

 

[Smoke]

All fundamentalisms -- whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever -- are by nature and by definition reactionary, irrational, and intolerant. There are varieties of intolerance, though: some concentrate on eliminating every difference of opinion within their own group, while others direct their crusade outward, at society or even at the world.

 

[Smoke]

Not my point robtex. My point is that mostly all the denominations of Christianity would never endorse an orginisation such as the KKK, even though they profess Christian faith.

Most Christian sects don't endorse other Christian sects.

What do you mean by "an organisation such as the KKK"? An organization that institutionalizes bigotry and discrimination? Like maybe an organization that considers women subject to men? That considers women and/or homosexuals ineligible for full membership or ordination?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would suggest that there is a basic error in mistaking extremism for fundamentalism. What you label as "Fundamentalists" are merely "Extreme" in their practice of their perceived religion or ideology.

Most everyone KNOWS that the Fundamental premise of Christianity is to Love God and to Love Everyone else. As people stray from these premises, they also stray from being a "fundamental" Christian. I would also suggest that intolerance strays from these two fundamental premises. So does bigotry and hate.

Calling extremists "fundamental" gives them a credence that they really don't deserve. Identifying the KKK as a truly Christian organization is the same as identifying them as patriots. Think about it. You are giving them credence and ergo power by associating them with something that is good. However, if you can show me where the KKK practices the second premise, "Love Everyone Else", then I withdraw my claim. If you still hold to the notion that they are "fundamentally" Christian, then you must also hold to the claim that they are "fundamentally American Patriots".

Abhor the real issue. No one has an issue with "Loving God and Love Everyone Else too!". No the issue is taking things to an extreme that they were never meant to go. I am a fundamentalist: I am not an extremist.

 

[Smoke]

Most everyone KNOWS that the Fundamental premise of Christianity is to Love God and to Love Everyone else. As people stray from these premises, they also stray from being a "fundamental" Christian. I would also suggest that intolerance strays from these two fundamental premises. So does bigotry and hate.

On the contrary. Although Jesus taught that the commandments to love God and your neighbor are the most important, I have never seen any evidence that those commandments are fundamental to, or even significantly important to, Christianity. One certainly wouldn't get that impression from the conduct of the average Christian, or the policies of the average church.

Calling extremists "fundamental" gives them a credence that they really don't deserve. Identifying the KKK as a truly Christian organization is the same as identifying them as patriots. Think about it. You are giving them credence and ergo power by associating them with something that is good.

You assume that Christianity is good. It doesn't appear that way to me. If I say the KKK is Christian, it just means that they profess the Christian religion. I don't mean it as a compliment.

However, if you disqualify the KKK from being called Christian because of their hateful behavior, will you apply the same standard to all Christians? Are all people and churches whose conduct is contrary to the teachings of Jesus non-Christian?

 

[Scuba Pete]

On the contrary. Although Jesus taught that the commandments to love God and your neighbor are the most important, I have never seen any evidence that those commandments are fundamental to, or even significantly important to, Christianity. One certainly wouldn't get that impression from the conduct of the average Christian, or the policies of the average church.

What is the "average Christian"? What are this Christian's goals? Are they like an average American? Do you set the standard of patriotism by the slugs who won't do a THING to help this country? Are all Americans like the KKK? Go to the original text if you want to see just WHAT is fundamental.

You assume that Christianity is good.

I assume nothing. Christianity has proven to be true.

It doesn't appear that way to me. If I say the KKK is Christian, it just means that they profess the Christian religion. I don't mean it as a compliment.

Then we disagree and I find your propensity to over generalize rather alarming.

However, if you disqualify the KKK from being called Christian because of their hateful behavior, will you apply the same standard to all Christians? Are all people and churches whose conduct is contrary to the teachings of Jesus non-Christian?

I don't have to: Jesus did that for us.

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'NIV

and...

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.


34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' NIV