fundamentalism

Christianism and Liberalism

Bruno Gonçalves Rosi Culture, Liberty, Religion , , , , ,

In 1929 John Gresham Machen dropped his professorship at Princeton Theological Seminary to establish Westminster Theological Seminary. Machen fought the Theological Liberalism in the seminary and in his denomination (PCUSA) for many years, until he gave up and decided to form a new seminary and eventually a new denomination as well (the Orthodox Presbyterian Church).

Machen’s attitude of abandoning his seminary and his denomination might seem harsh. After all, can’t we all just get along? Theologically he was considered a fundamentalist. His followers are called to this day “Machen’s Warrior Children,” people who are theologically unwilling to compromise.

People have all the right to disagree, but for Machen, some things were not negotiable. That is why he wrote Christianity and Liberalism (1923), a book in which he unapologetically calls Theological Liberalism “another religion,” separated from historical Christianism.

Interestingly, the same Machen who so fiercely opposed theological liberalism was not a conservative regarding politics, because he was suspicious of mixing religion and politics. He found attempts to establish a Christian culture by political means insensitive to minorities. In practical terms, he opposed school prayer and Bible reading in public school. He also opposed Prohibition, something very costly considering that at that time abstinence was common ground among Protestants. In sum, Machen was, politically, a libertarian.

In Road to Serfdom, Hayek observes that Liberal Christians, who don’t believe in the supernatural aspects of the Bible, tend to embrace Social Gospel and tear down the wall of separation between church and state. Machen, on the other hand, was a living proof that a fundamentalist Christian can want nothing but a distance from the government.

Is Fundamentalism a problem?

Bruno Gonçalves Rosi Religion , , , , ,

Today when a terrorist attack happens, the press too often avoids naming the perpetrators and instead seeks to be uncompromised by phrases like “car hits people.” But not long ago, the press usually blamed fundamentalists for terrorist attacks.

The name fundamentalist originated, interestingly enough, in Protestant circles in the US. Only much later was it used to describe other religions, and then mostly to Muslims. Among Protestants, the name fundamentalist was used to designate people against theological liberalism. I explain. With the Enlightenment, an understanding grew in theological circles that modern man could not believe in supernatural aspects of the Bible anymore. The answer was theological liberalism, a theology that tried to maintain the “historical Jesus,” but striping him from anything science couldn’t explain. Fundamentalism was an answer to this. Fundamentalists believed that some things are, well… fundamental! You can’t have Jesus without the virgin birth, the many miracles, the resurrection, and the ascension. That would be not Jesus at all! In other words, it is a matter of Principia: either science comes first and faith must submit, or faith comes before science.

The great observation made by fundamentalist theologian Cornelius Van Til is that fundamentalist Protestants are not the only fundamentalists! Everybody has fundamentals. Everybody has basic principles that are themselves not negotiable. If you start asking people “why” eventually they will answer “because it is so.”

If everybody has starting points that are themselves not open to further explanation, that means that our problem (and the problem with terrorism) is not fundamentalism per se. Everybody has fundamentals. The question is what kind of fundamentals do you have. Fundamentals that tell you about the holiness of human life, or fundamentals that tell you that somehow assassinating people is ok or even commendable?

Stupid Fundamentalists; Obstinate Ignorance.

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , , , ,

Stupid fundamentalist Protestants in Florida burn a Koran publicly because it’s their constitutional right. Stupid Muslims in New York, who say they are not fundamentalists, insist on their right to build a mosque near Ground Zero because it’s their constitutional right.

It all sounds very malicious and moronic but fair.

Speaking of morons, I catch a bit of the far-left show “Democracy Today” on the radio. Some guy whose name I did not catch sermonizes the West about the lack of clean water access for millions of people in the underdeveloped world. He intones that one week of the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be enough to provide clean water wells to most of those who lack them.

The speaker does not seem to know the basic facts of life: In places like Afghanistan, in most of the underdeveloped world, if you give the government money to dig wells in the countryside, it ends up in Switzerland or on the French Riviera. The solution, of course is to entrust the money to NGOs (voluntary non-government organizations). Oops, NGO workers are targeted for assassination in places like Afghanistan! The assassins are the very people our military are trying to control. There are very mean people who are mean to their own people. Deuh!

Money is not the issue. If his figures are right (they might be), the costs, technical, constructions cost, of providing clean water to nearly everyone could be covered by voluntary subscription in the US and in a handful of other developed countries in one week. We are not selfish or stingy, you left-lib moron!

I keep wondering how an adult man can have the shamelessness to preach on the radio in full ignorance of such basic facts, of facts everyone can ascertain. Oh, well, the President does it all the time.

Obstinate ignorance and the insanity of the sane: Two topics that interest me endlessly. They tend to merge into each other.