#11,613 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Fundamentalism and American Culture (New Edition)
Sentiment score: 3
Reddit mentions: 3
We found 3 Reddit mentions of Fundamentalism and American Culture (New Edition). Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
- OPI Classic Collection
- Tickle My France-Y
- OPI Nail Lacquer was voted Best Nail Polish in Seventeen magazine's Best Beauty Awards
Features:
Specs:
Height | 6.32 Inches |
Length | 9.26 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 1.18167772432 Pounds |
Width | 0.98 Inches |
Conservative usually just refers to holding traditional views on a topic. I could have conservative views on changing rules in major league baseball, for example, and argue against the designated hitter rule or inter-league play since that is not the way the game was played originally.
Fundementalism originally defined itself as traditional theological views in contrast to the rise of modernism in mainline denominations in the early 20th century. Modernism denied inerrancy of scripture, miracles, the virgin birth, literal six-day creation, etc., conservative Christians published a series of booklets called The Fundementals defending traditional Christian doctrine against modernism.
By mid-century, fundementalism was increasingly associated with hyper conservative views and conservative politics (KJV only for example, or joining the John Birch Society, protesting integration, etc.) Many conservative Christians began using the designation "evangelical" for those who held to traditional doctrines like miracles and inerrancy, but were not necessarily right-wing radicals.
I highly recommend two books by George Marsden on Fundementalism and Evangelicalism: Fundamentalism and American Culture and Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism.
The designation "evangelical" has slipped in the last few election cycles, now it is used in the media for hyper-conservatives who have confused support for right-wing politics and gun laws with evangelical theology.
The Evangelical theological Society, for example, has two points on their doctrinal statement, the Triune God and Inerrancy. The society defined inerrancy in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and there are a wide range of theological views in the ETS, and papers offered at the national ETS meetings are generally non-political. There are a few (southern baptists) who might be conservative politically, but there is nothing in the ETS requiring a conservative political view, and there is a great deal of angst over the current use of the word evangelical and the use of the word by the president as he tries to portray himself as a Christian.
One example: Within the ETS, there is a wide range of opinion on creation, from Young Earth to theistic evolution. All those views are acceptable since they all agree "God created the Universe" even if they disagree on the mechanics of that creation since the mechanics are not clear in Scripture. On the other hand, there would not be a range of opinion on the Virgin Birth or Jesus doing Miracles, since these things are stated in Scripture.
Great questions. I don't think there's an easy or foolproof answer to them.
>should lay people who have zero expertise in a field trust such general academic consensuses as being broadly correct?
Broadly correct? I would think that's a solid way to look at things. I'm in agreement with you.
>Are there good reasons for non-experts to be skeptical about the scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change or evolution?
"Good" reasons? Eh........I'll give a few scattered thoughts here:
>If the bible is errant, the whole thing falls apart; not just bits and pieces. It's like the entire concept of Christianity: there is no in-between, you're either saved or you aren't.
Not necessarily. Numerous biblical scholars accept the errancy of the biblical texts but remain Christian, consider Marcus Borg, NT Wright, John Dominic Crossan, among many others.
Their practice of Christianity may be unfamiliar or they may not retain all the doctrines you think essential but there are ways to hold a realistic, historically-informed perspective on the Bible while considering yourself a Christian.
Recall that the earliest Christians would not have even had the New Testament (since it hadn't been written), much less regular access to the Hebrew Scriptures. When Paul's letters first went out to church, they probably weren't consider inerrant or infallible scripture (modern concepts which emerged in response to the perceived threats of modernism, Darwinism, and higher-criticism of the Bible).
I'd recommend the following:
If you're interested in how concepts such as inerrancy and infallibility became codified, check out: