Very perceptive questions. Particularly insightful is, "Why are fundamentalisticists committed to attitudes which have stigmatized and discredited the movement so thoroughly?"

In fact, modern fundamentalism would be unable to survive without the stigma of discredited attitudes and beliefs.

Modern Protestantism finds herself squeezed between Rome on one side and scientific atheism on the other, and feels a need to distinguish herself from both. Now that Rome has reformed many of the most egregious offenses that sparked the reformation, and now that scientific atheism has proven capable of answering many questions (Dickie Dawkins has even proven that man was formed from dust!), it becomes increasingly difficult to simultaneously find flaws with both competing systems.

What the fundamentalists are left with, perhaps since Calvin, is an unhealthy obsession with doctrinal nattering about "justified by faith, not works". Modern fundamentalists are incapable of understanding "faith" in a nuanced manner (the same could be said of their understanding of "love"), so "faith" comes to mean "belief in anything ridiculously irrational and unscientific".

By insisting that science and reason are wrong (tools of the dirty atheists), the fundamentalist proves the staggering largeness of his "faith". Only a man with a really big, swinging faith could dare to believe that the preponderance of scientific evidence is exactly and horribly wrong. And by continuing to insist that authority is also wrong (the tool of the dirty Papists) and asserting their right to go "church-shopping" until they find a doctrine that they judge acceptable, they become unhinged.

Since they are forced to define their doctrine as being distinct from science, reason, and ecclesial authority, they have only random scriptural passages taken literally or out of context. And the creed must change if any part of it is adopted by the enemies. People become "born again" instantly after reciting a "sinners prayer" (or chanting "om mani padme hung", perhaps?). The profession of the creed matters more than actually understanding or internalizing the creed. And God wants nothing more than to have as many people chant that mantra as possible. So the fundamentalist demonstrates what a big, pendulous "heart for the lost" he has by expertly deploying manipulation techniques to get as many people as possible to recite that mantra. New converts are conscripted into recruiting friends and family before they ever understand what they believe -- in fact, drilling into what they believe is considered to be a sign of sin and doubt. Belief is demonstrated only by attempting to propagate the cult -- preachers say absurd things like, "if you're not fishing, you're not following". It's a numbers game, since it couldn't possibly be anything else.

1. Modern believers? I think a genuine appeal to imagination would be lost on most modern believers. I am afraid my experience says that the imagination of 95% of modern believers is too polluted with kitsch to do them much good. As a rule, they turn up their noses to any genuine appeal to imagination - some because they think it's pretentious for art to require work and imagination, and others (these are more honest) because they know that they haven't the skill to enjoy good art even if they wished. I think we'll have to wait a generation or two before we see people for whom a genuine appeal to the imagination might be worth the trouble - my children or my children's children might be capable if we may educate them properly and from an early age.

2. a)intellectual rigor b)orthodoxy rooted in a tradition lasting longer than a century or two c)honesty d)the language and the art to give expression to piety. Not an exhaustive list by any means.

3. When their children have grown up.

4. Not sure what you mean by a contemporary seperatist. But my favorite place for a peaceful exchange of ideas is among friends in my study over a pipe of tobacco.

5 & 6 Let me sleep on it.

Joshua Allen:

Well, Josh, it seems you’re still working through a good deal of stuff here.

I’m genuinely sorry that fundamentalism has acquitted itself so poorly, and I will be the last person to defend fundamentalists’ respect for nuance. But I think you’d do well to tidy up some of your own conclusions; the last thing the world needs is more people with a desperate commitment to oversimplifications.

And that includes this prejudice against all things “irrational and unscientific”. Many people besides fundamentalists believe that some irrational and unscientific things are nevertheless true. The Pope included.

I appreciate David Berlinski’s observation that science has not offered any coherent explanations adequate to the complexity of human experience. His I take to be a truly rational (not to say nuanced) viewpoint.



MAS:

I agree that 2a, b, and c are scarce and devalued. But I do think there must be a way for 2d to be restored; after all, we are commanded to express our religious perceptions. I suspect we will look for ways to do that once we have perceptions to communicate.

By “contemporary separatist” I mean to denote those embarrassed by fundamentalism but who nevertheless heed St. John.

dissidens:

You are correct. In matters of wisdom and discernment, I have a lot of material to "work through" and "tidy up", and appreciate any opportunity to do so.

On the other hand, nobody has ever accused me of having a prejudice against "all things irrational and unscientific". If anything, I've often been accused of being unscientific when I point out the superstition, idolatry, and worship of authority that pervades much of the modern scientific establishment. I consider Dickie Dawkins to be a prime example, as you probably inferred from my comment about "formed from dust".

I would agree with the specific Berlinski argument you cite. Modern evolutionary biologists seem to agree that man's body could have been formed from dust as was reported in Genesis (a triumph of science!), but are very far from any consensus about an evolutionary mechanism for consciousness or free will. I don't spend a lot of time reading the screeds of apologists on either side, but I do read the research and have a good grasp of which matters scientists consider to be "settled" within the realm of science and which not. Modern science is nowhere near de-mystifying "Imago Dei" or "breath of God".

My belief about evolutionary theory is consistent with Barfield's analysis in "Saving the Appearances". I don't want to presume about what you've read or haven't read, but I'll point out that the rebuttals to an absurdly reductionist materialist framework are much older than Barfield and continue to be valid to this day. There is nothing terribly innovative about Barfield, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton; or even Goethe or Iranaeus or St. Paul in this regard. Even the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas addresses the issue directly. But I found that Barfield had a very good way of putting it.

My comment was specifically regarding the sort of absurdly anti-scientific "litmus tests" that define modern fundamentalists. For example, when a child is taught that the Grand Canyon is believed to be more than 100 million years old, this is seen as proof of Satanic deception, since the litmus test of scriptural literalism proves that the earth is only 6,000 years old. The fundamentalist congratulates herself for great faith in the face of reality's cruel persecution, for believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old. No longer is the Bible "merely" a guide for wisdom and morals and God's will, it is now the primary authority on the materialistic field of physics! One can only imagine what a quandry the literalists would be in if the book of Enoch were still canonical. We would have to assert that the measurements of our telescopes were being slowly distorted by Satan's power!

As far as I can tell, such assinine litmus tests are the primary identifying factor of modern fundamentalism, matched only by the Amway-like fervor for recruiting new conscripts by any means possible. I assume that these are the sorts of things you meant when you asked about "attitudes which have been discredited"? As I explained, the fundamentalist sectarians adhere to these attitudes specifically *because* they have been discredited.

BTW, I am not arguing that the unhinged modern fundamentalists are unhinged because they are not Catholic. I myself am a member of a Protestant denomination. I am simply arguing that the modern fundamentalists have become unhinged because they exaggerated and took to an unhealthy extreme some of the things which were right about the reformation. The doctrine of justification through faith predated the reformation, and was correct when Luther articulated it. I think it's safe to say that Luther's experience of this doctrine was rather different from today's fundamentalists who make careers out of bloviating about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. In their own minds, their superior discernment about this doctrine is what signifies their righteousness. Considering that their sense of salvation depends upon their belief in superior discernment of Romans 6 relative to other Christian sects, it's no wonder that they do some of the wacked-out things they do.

Josh:

I think everything of Barfield’s is worth reading and re-reading, most especially what he has to say about language and meaning. (Parts of that are worth memorizing.) I also recommend Saving the Appearances: Barfield as an anti-materialist is a must-read.

I also agree on the matter of anti-anti-creationism; I just think you have an odd way of grasping this stick. For example, “scriptural literalism” does not require a 6K-year old universe, and literalism and fundamentalism are not the same thing. Not all literalists are fundamentalists and not all fundamentalists are literalists. Political necessity, not logical consistency, drives them to make their kooky tests of fellowship.

These are people who naturally fear that looming Second Book. Before they can understand their plight I think they should first be held accountable for those intermediate steps they have not taken. Then they may be in a position to reconsider their certitudes. Why argue about science with a guy who invariably takes the expedient position for political reasons?

He is not a scientist; he is a moral being.

You say “…such assinine litmus tests are the primary identifying factor of modern fundamentalism…” and this is where we differ. Yes, they have the tests; no, they aren’t the primary identifying factor. Were we to replace their asinine litmus tests with ours, they would still be fundamentalists.

And there’s no doubt about the divide between fundamentalists and the reformers. It was ever thus: read Machen.

OK, I suppose I'm not very good at making precise distinctions between the various factions of Christianity: "fundamentalist", "evangelical", etc. so I muddle them all together. To be perfectly honest, I'm probably guilty of lumping everything into just two categories: "idolatrous wacko claiming to be Christian" and "sincere person trying to be Christian". This is a deficiency on my part, and I'll attempt to remedy it.

By Machen, do you mean Arthur Machen? I am about halfway through "Heiroglyphics", and really enjoying it. He's a fantastic writer. While reading his protagonist's impassioned defense of gambling, I couldn't help thinking of various points by Mandelbrot and Taleb about epistemological error and ludic fallacy, but I could appreciate Machen's grasp of human nature.

Interestingly, I found this blog indirectly via a search for Machen and Barfield. I very recently discovered Machen, and on reading some of his views was surprised by the similarities with Barfield, so I searched around to see if there was a connection. I found "Unknowing" was one of the few places on the web that mentioned both authors, and ended up reading every post on his blog. One of his posts vouched for "remonstrans" being "the best blog in the world" or something like that, so I had to check it out. Really good stuff.

I'm really pleased to have found both blogs. It's like a whole new world for me, to discover that there are other people who've been chewing on these issues longer than I have (and who are still alive).

No problem. We tend to have seminarians, pastors and even an occasional seminary president drop by to vent. Just trying to keep the categories somewhat tidy.

It’s been said that if you don’t define yourself, your enemies will define you. In American Christianity it’s even worse. You can have three or more contingents in any movement competing to define, undefine, and redefine themselves to best advantage. Having a conversation is a little like herding cats.

Actually, I had John Gresham Machen in mind. He left Princeton—for good reason—and started Westminster Seminary. He said (especially relevant at this moment in church history) “I see with greater and greater clearness that consistent Christianity is the easiest Christianity to defend.”

I think this explains our difficulty in defending the faith today.

Incidentally, the nice guy running Unknowing is moving to Colombia. We’re hoping the blog survives.

And welcome.

Great news! I just talked to Unk yesterday, and he plans to keep feeding the blog as long as it is affordable to do so. I forgot to ask if it's going to be in Spanish now, but he'll probably ship decoder rings to his loyal readership. He's that kind of guy.

Yes, last we spoke everything was go. I'm just hoping circs beyond his control don't frustrate the good intentions.

Thanks. I just read the article at http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ran_oliver/CH.Oliver.Machen.1.html (and page 2 as well), and very much sympathize with the picture of the man presented there. A cursory review of the WTS web site likewise suggests a very commendable attempt to stay true to the core of Christianity. Pandering after popularity and changing to suit the social cause du jure is the quickest way to kill the Church (and drive the children to Buddhism on the one hand or Mormonism on the other).

Or Emergence.

I learn something new every day. I know plenty of ex-Christians who have become Buddhist or Mormon, and plenty who put "Coexist" bumper stickers on their cars, but I never heard of "Emergence Christianity" until now.

I read: http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/does-emergence-global-religion/

The author sounds like Derrida on weed, like a time-capsule from 1994 when universities were still teaching deconstructionism. What putrid sophist pap.

I remember reading an expose of "Maitreya Foundation" that had been loosely associated with Benjamin Creme back in the 70s. They were collaborating with Alice Bailey's "Lucis Trust", which still operates to this day with some funding from U.N. They are all saying the same thing as "Emergence", but using pre-deconstructionist language. I've even recently seen posters of Lucis Trust's "Great Invocation" in downtown Manhattan, and heard a speaker delivering it at some 9/11 memorial.

http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/the_great_invocation__1

I don't think that these movements ever attract large, committed memberships, because everyone knows that they are modern inventions. Movements like this are mainly useful for corrupting a body from the inside out and destroying it. After Churches are destroyed with this blasphemy, the people move on to other belief systems -- I mean, why would your kid call himself an "Emergence Christian" when he can just slap on a Coexist bumper sticker and profess paganism? These are simply political tools used to appropriate religion to advance a political agenda.

And wasn't this exactly what was going on in the areas surrounding Pergamon 2,000 years ago? A crass politically-motivated unification and appropriation of local religions meant to increase social cohesiveness and compliance of the population?

Oh boy, if you are new to Emergence, you have a lot of fun reading ahead of you. Every college graduate I’ve talked to knows that deconstructionism has already decomposed; only emergents find it intellectually stimulating.

Paton is not atypical. He thought deeply once and described himself this way:

Laboratory theologian, shepherd of some songs, watcher of vegetables, dad and honorary girl, multi-instrumentalist (shut that bloody bazouki off). Never short of ideas, always in search of silence.

Watcher of vegetables and honorary girl. When I was young and people talked like that they wore helmets.

It is hard to make an emergent talk sense, so to distinguish the official twaddle from the freelance blather, you might check out emergentvillage.org, not for clarity of thought, mind you, just if you want to snag any up-to-date epiphanies. It’s a kind of watering hole for lunatics.

I agree that they are not likely to attract a lot of non-dropouts, but I think it is important to judge the appeal implicit in what they say.

Wow, the comments section on that emergentvillage board is a complete brawl.

I appreciate your patience. This is very educational for me. I am realizing just how much I don't know as I filter through all of the discussions about the Dan Sweatt incident. I think I now have a better (but still incomplete) understanding of the distinctions between "fundamentalist", "evangelical", and so on.

That discussion sheds some light on something that was puzzling me to no end for the past couple of years.

You see, we have a church here in Seattle (Mars Hill) that gets a lot of local press for the fact that its members are (reportedly) all hip young skateboarders with tattoos, AND they're Calvinists! I couldn't care less about whether or not someone professes to be a Calvinist, and I couldn't care less about whether they ride skateboard -- so I could never understand why this combination was reported so breathlessly. The juxtaposition is always presented as if it is something gravely important and earth-shattering. It was never a major issue for me, since I never interact with them. But it is something I thought was a more than a little bit odd, and which I hoped to understand some day.

I *might* be finally beginning to understand why the matter is so important in their minds. The tattoos emphasize their disregard for fundamentalism's "dress code", and the Calvinism emphasizes that they are even more "hardcore" about God's sovereignty than the wishy-washy fundamentalists. It's a sort of self-identification chosen to emphasize (in their own minds) how much better they are than the fundies.

But perhaps that's unfair to people who have really good motives for professing Amyraldism vs. Calvinism vs. Arminianism. The fact that I cannot think of any good reasons (beyond picking fights) for making such distinctions, doesn't mean that none exist. If only I could understand that whole mess...

It’s really a hoot, isn’t it?

I’m still not sure how much fundamentalism’s dress code prompted this lunge for grunge. Many certainly try to score off fundy excesses, and the fundies certainly have made that claim minimally plausible, but I don’t really see how that works.

Not arguing with you, I really am not sure. I have this quiet doubt lurking in the shadows.

And a significant number of emergents despise Calvinism with the same keen theological mind Dan Sweatt displays.

As always, there are similarities and dissimilarities.

Joshua wrote: "I remember reading an expose of "Maitreya Foundation" that had been loosely associated with Benjamin Creme back in the 70s."

Well Joshua, Benjamin Creme has never been associated with "Maitreya Foundation".

Joshua wrote:"They were collaborating with Alice Bailey's "Lucis Trust","

No, in fact the Lucis Trust has never approved of Benjamin Creme's information that the Christ has returned. In fact, members of the board have been specifically critical of Creme.

Joshua continued: .." which still operates to this day with some funding from U.N."

The Lucis Trust may still be associated with the UN, but Share International is not. SI was associated for some time as an NGO, but not for some years now.

Joshua wrote: "I don't think that these movements ever attract large, committed memberships, because everyone knows that they are modern inventions. Movements like this are mainly useful for corrupting a body from the inside out and destroying it. After Churches are destroyed with this blasphemy, the people move on to other belief systems -- I mean, why would your kid call himself an "Emergence Christian" when he can just slap on a Coexist bumper sticker and profess paganism? These are simply political tools used to appropriate religion to advance a political agenda."

hmmmm. Your statements sound like a modern version of those which may have been used to describe Jesus' activities. It is interesting, no? I'm not aware that
Maitreya has a political agenda. He is a Teacher.

The reappearance of the Christ is a hopeful message which appeals to the young especially.

Lizabeth,

The denial that "the Lucis Trust has never approved of Benjamin Creme's information that the Christ has returned" is a bit evasive. I made it clear that I was talking about the period before Creme made specific date-bound predictions which failed to come true. And you don't deny that Creme traces lineage from Alice Bailey.

In any case, you have vividly proved my point that this particular variant of the "emergence" blasphemy is alive and active today. I trust that you are not a regular reader of "remonstrans" who happened to notice my comment? The likely fact that you found this blog comment in a search and responded so quickly ... really freaks me out.

I really don't know what to say to you, if you still think that you'll get lots of converts by claiming that Jesus has returned as a Buddhist named Maitreya, and that his presence is mediated via some white guy named Benjamin Creme who studied Theosophy. As cults go, that's not a recipe for success, and I think history bears that out.

It also shows a staggering ignorance of what Christians believe. We say "Mara na tha", which is a cry for the eschaton, not a typical desire of the young. And in the meantime, ever since the Pentecost, Christ lives in this world through his body, which is a Church of many people and not an individual Buddhist person, and through his spirit which is also not a Buddhist person.

Dissidens,

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the "dress code" was actually the *cause* of the lunge for grunge. I'm just speculating that the two primary differences (tolerance for grunge and profession of intolerance for Amyraldism) are convenient and easily identifiable differences which can be exaggerated for marketing and self-congratulatory purposes. This could explain why these two differences are so heavily emphasized in that church's media interviews.

Personally, I'm worried that the pendulum swing against congregational rules like dress code or worship music has gone too far. Regardless of whether there is direct scriptural support for saying (for example) that men shouldn't wear shorts to church, or that guitars should not be used in church, lay people express their love and obedience to God in part by obedience to their church's human leaders. I thought this is what Matthew 16:19 is about? If the leaders of my church decide to "bind up" something so innocuous and painless as a Sunday dress code or worship music, why not obey, and thank God for lobbing such a softball my way? Grousing about absence of guitars at worship service and immediately shopping around for a new church, seems to be completely missing the point and undermining the gift.

My discernment on these issues is rather imperfect, so I'm definitley not an authority -- just clarifying that I'm not at all opposed to congregational dress codes and other such restrictions, lest I be misconstrued.

And I'm looking forward to working through the reading list suggested in links from this blog to the point when I finally understand the whole "Calvinism" vs. alternatives debate. It's been years of puzzlement for me, but I feel some progress since coming here. If you have any additional recommended reading that would help orient me, please let me know.

Oh no, and I didn’t infer it. In fact I didn’t even use the word cause.

Much of what the people in this movement are committed to is visceral reaction. So much of what they wrote and said did not include any sort of rational justification, it was an attitude prompted by a rejection of what they’d known and what they found uncomfortable.

“Certitude” for instance. It really frosted them that people were certain about what the Bible said about God. And they are blanking sure that certainty is not achievable.

If there was anything that was typical of “marginalized people”, they turned it into a pose: dress, profanity, body art, indie music, child-rearing, queer theory…

Turns out that Emergence = Deviance. It’s easy to deviate, much harder to emerge--as their transitions of power demonstrate.

Joshua wrote: "I really don't know what to say to you, if you still think that you'll get lots of converts by claiming that Jesus has returned as a Buddhist named Maitreya,"

No, Creme's information is that Jesus has already returned as a Master, a Senior member of the Spiritual Hierarchy of this planet. Maitreya, who holds the office of the Christ, and who overshadowed His disciple, Jesus (who then became Jesus Christ for the last 3 years of his life) 2000 years ago in the age old method which the great Teachers like the Buddha used to teach humanity, has returned to the modern world himself with his disciples the Masters of Wisdom to teach humanity the principles which are to be lived for the next 2300 or so years of the Age of Aquarius. Maitreya is not a Buddhist, he is a Teacher. Historically, the great Teachers came and gave their teaching through a disciple. The Buddha overshadowed Prince Gautama (who became Gautama Buddha, Jesus gave the Koran to Mohammed, a disiple). It was their followers who started the religions.

Josh continued: " and that his presence is mediated via some white guy named Benjamin Creme who studied Theosophy."

Again, no one mediates Maitreya's presence and teaching. That is why he has come himself...to avoid the distortions of interpretation. He is already here. Many have experienced his powerful Love energy and those experiences have changed their lives. The many miracles which continue to be reported world wide are signs of his presence. Jesus created a self portrait of himself in light on a wall in my home in 2003, and it shines there every evening when the front porch light comes on in the evening. Letters to the Editor in Share International magazine give testimony to the fact that many people have seen and experienced healing and blessing from both Maitreya and Jesus. This is an experiential movement. A heart thing rather than a head thing, so to speak.

Creme is not interested in converts at all. People hear the information and respond however they respond. It is the mis-statement of facts which I think needs to be addressed. I am not trying to be critical or competitive. Just trying to keep the facts straight, if possible.

@Lizabeth: You continue to respond with evasive and misleading non-denials under the guise of "keeping facts straight", and then use the opportunity to evangelize your twisted testimony of darkness. At least you've mastered the "when I say no I mean yes" technique of evangelization.

I am sure that your experience of visions makes you feel very special. Much like the 1st century women who followed the heretic Marcus and experienced visions and miracles. Perhaps you feel so special that you are not motivated to test whether these signs are from good or evil spirits. Both Christ and Mohammed taught extensively about how their followers are commanded to judge between visions that are of God or of the devil. The fact that you are unaware of this would indicate that you are not interested in knowing the answer. I also find it interesting that you are not preaching your blasphemous philosophy in a place like Yemen. If Mohammed endorses your "experiential truth", you shouldn't be afraid to share it with his most ardent followers. Christ himself had a warning for you, too. It is Matthew 7:22-23.

There is no other label for what you are preaching but blasphemy, and far from being anything revolutionary or unique as Christ was, your blasphemy is the oldest, most tawdry, and most trite. I have spent 20 years understanding this river of offal, and it's becoming clear that you have nothing to tell me. When I say no, I really mean no -- I will come visit your web site if I ever become insane and want to worship satan. Until then, please leave me alone.

Likewise, I will not bother attempting to correct your infinite errors. I take the command in Matthew 7:6 very seriously. You can still be saved from ruin, but not through a dialectic process of arguing with the body of Christ on message boards. Step one would be repenting of your alliance with blasphemy and crying out to God for mercy.

was this thread just hijacked?

Heheheh. It only appears to have been.

I’m leaving the participants a length of rope so as not to stifle the exchange prematurely. If the tangent persists, some may discover that there is a loop at one end.