fundies and liberals -understanding the Gospel or not

[ecuworrier]

fundamentalism and liberalism....  i know we dwell on this a lot... i was though recentoly intrigued by a comment from a church leader (who is not a fan of liberalism.. oh no! not when there's all that hell to think about!)  who claimed that in history it tended to be the liberals who did social action helped the poor and all that....  not the fundies then? i could not help a bit of a smile  .....you see, what is the difference?

i have to confess i am having a bit of an interesting time with all this at the moment and i wonder what you think the key points of understanding are that seperate fundies from liberals from doing love and where do they get things wrong?  and well how should it translate ?  and is it just a case of what folks believe in their heads?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[EliB]

I  was recently told that if I believe in Creation, then I am going to be categorised as a Fundamentlalist.
Now "Fundamentalist" could be the term for someone who believes in the "fundamental" aspects of any given religion/faith, but the term has become so inflamatory that I was actually offended by the remark!

[Jan]

I  was recently told that if I believe in Creation, then I am going to be categorised as a Fundamentlalist.
Now "Fundamentalist" could be the term for someone who believes in the "fundamental" aspects of any given religion/faith, but the term has become so inflamatory that I was actually offended by the remark!

I believe in Creation (seems fairly evident if we look around I'd say)  and I think I would be surprised by being referred to as a 'fundy' too 

(people do like their boxes and umbrella's don't they  )

[AndyHB]

Ironically, if we go back to many of the real 'social action' developments - such the campaign against slavery, prison reform, workers rights, street work, etc. it was predominantly the evangelical wing of the church who led these - though the fundie/liberal divide didn't exist at the time since neither of these 'terms' existed; if anything, the evangelicals were thought of as the liberals of their times!!

That said, I think that the divide that ecu refers to is something that existed in the mid-1900s (probably from post- WW1 to about the late50s/early 60s).  It was the likes of John Stott, David Watson, Bishop David Shepherd, Tim Dudley-Smith, (Arch)Bishop George Carey, Michael Baughen and even my own father (in the Anglican arena) who redeveloped the link with social action from the 60s onwards.  There were evangelical leaders in the Baptist, Methodist and other non-conformist denominations who mirrored their work - but I don't know their names as well as I know the Anglicans'.  As such, I suspect that the divide is now more anecdotal than actual.  If anything the divide is now between the ultras on either end of the spectrum, where either social action is the be all and end all of the theology being espoused, or " ... all that hell to think about ... " at the other end.

It should also be noted that this is very much a UK view: the situation in the US is probably nearer our mid-1900s scenario, but with some groups such as Wimber's Vineyard groups both strongly "all that hell to think about" AND social action.

[Martin]

Active liberal churches and movements have pretty much majored on social action and real help for poor people in developing countries. I think what Andy says about Evangelicals getting their act together in recent decades holds a substantial amount of truth.  There is a difference that I perceive quite often (not always), in that liberal social action tends to come with few strings attached, the emphasis being on plain help. Evangelicals more often use their works as a sort of vehicle for proselytisation, and this, I think can get in the way of the good things they do and can pervert the compassionate motivations they have.  As I say, Evangelical action cannot all be lumped in the same category (nor can liberal action) and for that we can be grateful.

[AndyHB]

There is a difference that I perceive quite often (not always), in that liberal social action tends to come with few strings attached, the emphasis being on plain help. Evangelicals more often use their works as a sort of vehicle for proselytisation, and this, I think can get in the way of the good things they do and can pervert the compassionate motivations they have.

This would certainly be the is that the work is primary and any form of proselytisation (which is probably the wrong word in the first place) is largely a distant secondary or even tertiary issue.  I make my comments about proselytisation because many governments use it wrongly.  It has a very specific meaning which has been lost in recent years: it refers to promising physical or economic benefit in return for conversion, and is frowned on by the majority of Christians, evangelical or otherwise.  It is not synonymous with evangelism.

[AndrewF]

Posted a reply - don't know quite what has happened to it!
ISTM that fundamentalists tend to say - "I am doing this to try to bring you to faith in my religion/denomination because I know that my denomination has the RIGHT answer and if you don't believe as I do you will go to hell", whereas the liberal would be thinking "I am doing this because I believe it is the right thing to do. I hope that my actions will lead you by example to the same belief, but if not it is still right for me to do this".
Having said that I have come across a quite cohesive argument for the existence of fundamentalist liberals...., also the meaning of the labels has changed over the last 100 yrs or so!

[Martin]

I agree with most of that Andrew, especially that the meaning of the labels undergoes a certain amount of change over time.  Most liberals that I know wouldn't really add the  "I hope that my actions will lead you by example to the same belief, but if not it is still right for me to do this." bit.  What liberals really want is for people to adopt a sort of merciful, open-minded attitude within whatever religious culture they find themselves. So for example, they wouldn't necessarily be hoping that a Muslim abandons Islam or that a Jew abandons Judaism in favour of liberal Christianity, but rather that they adopt a liberal stance within their own faiths.

[AndrewF]

Once again I did reply to this but for some reason it did not arrive... anyone else been having this problem?

I would say that even most liberal Christians (which is what we were talking about, rather than liberals in general) would believe that Christianity is the best route (and most sure to achieve the goal) and would like others who are not Christians to discover this, but failing that they would want the other person to have a liberal stance in their own religion - and they would not be pushing the other person to convert!  I don't know if this makes it any clearer, or if I am simply re-stating my last post...

[Martin]

We'd be best to agree to differ slightly, I think. We probably have slightly different experiences of liberal Christianity and in any case the labels are never exactly defined categories. What I might define as, say, Open Evangelical, you might consider to be Liberal.  Labels are essentially generalisations which make for a useful shorthand when describing people, but the people themselves are always far more complex and their views are almost always more nuanced than any label would indicate.

[AndyHB]

ISTM that fundamentalists tend to say - "I am doing this to try to bring you to faith in my religion/denomination because I know that my denomination has the RIGHT answer and if you don't believe as I do you will go to hell", whereas the liberal would be thinking "I am doing this because I believe it is the right thing to do. I hope that my actions will lead you by example to the same belief, but if not it is still right for me to do this".

I suppose it depends on your definitions.  I would agree that fundamentalists and liberals probably do think along the lines you have outlined Andrew - but then there is a middle area in which the primary task is to ensure that - using Jesus' teaching as a model - people's bodies and minds are sufficiently healthy, well-nourished and strong as to allow them to make a conscience and honest decision as to whether or not to give up their own faith and convert to another.  If we were to take most of the evangelical mission agencies in the UK and Europe - such as TEAR Fund, BMS WorldMission, Bookaid, Tools With A Mission, the International Nepal Fellowship, CMS, Crosslinks, World Vision, ... - their primary role is in areas such as health, education, engineering and sustainable development and, as such, are often recipients of funding from Governments and the EU - or they are involved in training pastors and other Christians in their existing faith.

I think that to limit our thinking to 'fundamentalists' and 'liberals' is to misunderstand the present church, both here in the UK, and around the world.

Active liberal churches and movements have pretty much majored on social action and real help for poor people in developing countries.

Martin, could you give us names of any such organisations?  The one that springs immediately to mind is SCM.

[Martin]

Martin, could you give us names of any such organisations?  The one that springs immediately to mind is SCM.

Well when I wrote that I was thinking about the liberal churches that I'm aware of and of organisations such as PCN (Progressive Christian Network). But I guess you could count Christian Aid as a fairly liberal organisation too.

[AndyHB]

Well when I wrote that I was thinking about the liberal churches that I'm aware of and of organisations such as PCN (Progressive Christian Network). But I guess you could count Christian Aid as a fairly liberal organisation too.

I'd call it a fairly middle of the road organisation, Martin; I could have included it in my list, but then, listing the whole range of such groups would have taken up several column feet of the board!!

[AndrewF]

As you say Martin - I think the use of labels like these for (groups of) people is very problematic!