Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Indeed. 19C Evangelicals came from diverse sources including Baptists and Methodists, the former also gave birth to the Adventists, and these interacting diffuse movements gave birth to 20C fundamentalism (and also creationism).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't creationism an essential part of Christian fundamentalism? My understanding is that there were two main developments that evangelicals reacted against, thus giving rise to fundamentalism: Darwinism and modern techniques of textual analysis and Biblical exegesis that were pioneered by the Germans.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Alexander on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Creationism certainly is an essential tenet of Christian fundamentalism. An interesting (and otherwise moving) book to read in this regard is Father and Son by Edmund Gosse. Gosse, an English scholar who later became Librarian of the House of Lords, was born in the C19 into the Plymouth Brethren, of which his parents were among the early saints. His father was a natural scientist of some renown, and spent his life trying to prove scientifically that Darwin, whom he greatly respected, was mistaken. There are still fundies trying to do this, I know one and once knew another.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My only reason to separate out creationism was to point out that it came along at that time. It is an essential part, but it should also be considered a semi-autonomous sub-belief-system, one with its own tenets and massive literature that theorises about the gaps or the correct literal interpretation and tries to prove it (or at least disprove science), something that goes further than just declaring the Bible history (='biblical literalism'). Hence creationism doesn't apply to earlier Christians who were biblical literalists.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It just occurred to me that a way to avoid confusion and misunderstanding on this matter is to reserve "fundamentalist" for "post-Darwinian" literalists, so that Luther and Calvin were literalists, but not fundamentalists.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Alexander on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But that is too restrictive. The word fundamentalism can describe any where-have-we-gone-wrong, back-to-the-fundaments view, so I rather stick with the 'modern' qualifier or the (historically correct) capitalised Fundamentalist form.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The traditions go back further to the early days of the reformation. In fact, I see  hardcore evangelicals as a marriage of populist religious enthusiasm and millenarianism. Both of those, often combined, have seemed to come along on a regular basis in all the Abrahamic religions, whether we're talking Christians in the Byzantine empire, Jews in eighteenth century Poland, or present day Iraqis and US fundies. Or, seeing as we're talking religion here, perhaps I should put it this way:

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

by MarekNYC on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series