Fundamental but not a fundamentalist

I am loving Dan Kimball's book "They Like Jesus But Not The Church." I'm almost done, and can't wait for the companion book "I Like Jesus But Not The Church." The difference between the two is that "They" is more for church leaders, whereas "I" will be more for those who actually do like Jesus, but not the church.

At any rate... there are many reasons I have not been blogging much about this book. Believe me, it's not because it's not blog-worthy (not to be confused with sponge-worthy) - it's just... well... it's personal and I'd rather not discuss it - has nothing to do with the book. I like it, and I like Dan (not THAT way). I wish I had his patience, his ability to explain things, his knowledge, his relatability, etc., etc. (and certainly his hair).

Yesterday I read his chapter on the belief that people think the church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally. This is actually a beef of my own to some degree. But I liked how he dealt with it, and in fact, I have come to believe I am a bit of a fundamentalist meself - at least the way he explained it. He says on p. 188-

Christian fundamentalism began when Protestant church leaders in the nineteenth century reacted against the rise of what they felt were threats to the Christian faith, primarily the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and Darwinian theories of evolution. It's not known who first used the term fundamentalist in relation to Christian theology, but most agree that the word started being used when the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church met in 1910 and listed the "five fundamentals" of the faith: 1. The verbal inspiration (and inerrancy of Scripture). 2. The divinity of Jesus Christ. 3. The virgin birth of Christ. 4. Substitutionary atonement by Jesus. 5. The bodily resurrection and future return of Jesus.

He later goes on to say...

"If you believe there is only one God, then you have a fundamental belief. So most of us are fundamentalists to one degree or another. But most of us are not in agreement with or want to be associated with what fundamentalism has become known as....

He says being a fundamentalist today means going far beyond just having a few core fundamental beliefs. It's more concerned with things like your view of women in ministry, end times, the creation/evolution debate, baptism, cultural matters such as dress codes, alcohol, tattoos, worship styles, evangelistic methods, political involvement, etc.

Yeah... I could give a crap about most of that stuff. Well, not that I don't give a crap, but... I don't want included with THAT kind of fundamentalism. I do think it's important that we agree on certain "essentials," but I like a whole lotta freedom elsewhere. It's hard to put heart, and intent, and motive and stuff in a box. Maybe I'm an "essentialist"... but then deciding on the essentials would kick off a war of it's own too, so... hmm. Yip.

In regard to the literal interpretation of Scripture he says on p.192...

When at the beginning of the chapter I said that I"m one of those Christians who takes the Bible literally, I meant that I take literally the passages that are meant to be taken literally. I believe, of course, that there are passages that are metaphorical, such as the parables or sections of poetry. So taking the Bible literally doesn't mean ignoring the literary genre or grammatical and historical contexts.

So, yes, all in all, I agree with his statement on 206 that "We need to teach how to have fundamental beliefs without being a fundamentalist."

Amen and all that. Happy May 1 everyone.