Modernists vs. Evangelicals vs. Fundamentalists

[RankStranger]

Greetings Heathens 

 

Yesterday I came across an interesting video by Bob the Tomato.  He goes into some history about major splits among the Protestants in the early 20th century.  In this video he makes the distinction between the Modernists, the Evangelicals, and the Fundamentalists... and they ring true in my experience.

 

Personally I've often used 'fundamentalist' and 'evangelical' interchangeably- and those two approaches have definitely mixed over the decades.  But there is a distinction, and Bob the Tomato does a good job of pointing it out.

 

 

[RankStranger]

My original church was decidedly Evangelical, per the Tomato's description (Billy Graham was revered in our church- still is).  And while these Evangelicals share more or less the same stated beliefs regarding Biblical Inerrancy as the Fundamentalists, their approach, their priorities, and their politics (to a decreasing extent these days) are quite different than the Fundamentalists.  Despite being in 'the south', my people were historically abolitionists... not hiding pro-segregation views behind Jesus like the fundamentalists.  

 

To me this helps explain why my family's world-view was so fundamentally different than the Baptists (who were about 90% of the county's population).  Segregation, proud anti-intellectualism and a stupid/blind Jihad against the teaching of Evolution... these are Fundamentalist values.  I have no interest in that sort of 'Christianity', and little interest in people who do.  These are the same fools preaching Trumpism from the pulpit.

 

My wife's family are mostly Methodists (she's not), presumably among the 'modernists' in Bob's video, and our church experiences were totally different.  For the most part I like what I've seen from the Methodists, so I've lately been attending a Methodist church.  Their songs, theology, and ethics are all familiar to me... without the Fire & Brimstone.  Granted, they're all going to hell according to my original church... but that's not my problem.

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

IMO, Doctrine and theology matter.  Not just in terms of salvation or Salvation, but these ideas determine the character of the church culture and even the broader culture surrounding that church/theology in very real ways.

 

I may butcher Bob's concepts a little bit, but I'm finding this to be a useful contrast between three trends in 20th Century American Christianity (mainly Protestantism, to keep things simple).  It helps me understand where I came from, where I am now, and where I may be going.  None of this is intended to be complete or authoritative.  This is just an outline and open to criticism/correction.  Please interrupt and/or derail this thread if you can.

 

 

Modernists: 

 

Denominations include (1):  Episcopalians, Congregationalists, (many)Methodists, (a few) Baptists, (most)Lutherans, (most)Presbyterians, Anglicans, (some) Catholics (well, they're not Protestants, so they don't really fit here.  But many appear to subscribe to Modernist ideas).  I think any denomination describing themselves as 'progressive' will likely fall into this camp (Seventh Day Adventists not withstanding).

 

1.  Believe the Bible is holy and in some way inspired, but with contradictions, cruelty and worse that can't be denied, and can't necessarily be totally understood.  Open to and in many cases guided by historical and textual criticisms of the Bible.  Willing and able to openly admit that they don't follow certain parts of the Bible, for articulable reasons.
2.  Reflexively progressive in their politics.
3.  Female preachers are common.  It's considered a non-issue.
4.  Not sure which modern leaders they revere.  I'm new to this scene.

 

Evangelicals:

 

Denominations include (some) Baptists, (some) Anabaptists, (some)Lutherans, (some)Prespyterians, (some) Methodists... usually with "evangelical" or similar in the church name.  Also Holiness Movement churches including Nazarines, (some)Church of God, Wesleyans, Missionary Alliance, Salvation Army, Free Methodists, (many) Pentecostals, etc.

 

1.  Believe in the authority and truth of the bible, but are not technically fundamentalists.  While often extremely socially conservative (more so than a lot of fundamentalists even), these folks understand (at least some of) the importance of history and context, and they're not (as a matter of doctrine) hostile to science in particular or education in general (individuals can vary greatly here though).  Here's a good explanation (trigger warning. the Holy Spirit lies in wait for any who click here): 

https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=lsci_facp#:~:text=While both fundamentalism and Wesleyanism,not by inerrancy (67).

2.  Includes both Liberals and Conservatives, though there has been a strong trend toward political conservatism for 40+ years.  Have historically engaged in both Progressive and Conservative politics, depending on the issue in question, the individuals in question, the time and place in question, etc.
3.  Often allow for and respect female leaders and pastors (details vary a lot).  In my experience, female pastors aren't the norm, but it's not rare and is often well received.  My grandma was a Holiness preacher, and so is my cousin.
4.  Revere Billy Graham and the like.

 

Fundamentalists: 

 

Denominations include: Southern Baptists specifically, many many other assorted Baptists (independent and otherwise), Ass of God, (a few crazy) Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, JoHos, (some) Pentecostals. Some Mormons (WTF?), (a few) Methodists, Church of Christ.

 

1.  Strict inerrancy of the Bible.  Every jot and tittle is claimed to be true.  In many cases they claim that God Himself is bound by the text of the Bible.  Salvation can hinge upon a single verse, even if the rest is ignored (John 3:16, usually).  Openly hostile to or dismissive of historical context or textual criticism beyond Strong's Concordance or (insert charismatic preacher).  Commonly hostile to science, education, uncomfortable questions, etc.
2.  Reflexively conservative in their politics.  Open worship of the military, Trumpism, segregation, and (their vision of)America, etc. is pretty common, but not universal.
3.  Usually don't allow female pastors.  I'm sure there are exceptions.
4.  Revere the likes of Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones

 

 

 

I was raised as an Evangelical.  And while the distinction between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (as described above) may not be important to an ExChristian, it's important to me personally.  It explains a lot about how I relate to Christianity.

 

So far I've enjoyed spending time with the Methodists.  They're apparently not interested in Fire & Brimstone.  They're not anti-intellectual (for the most part).  They share many of the same theological roots that I grew up with, with different takes and emphasis.  They don't (as far as I've seen) worship the military or political authoritarianism.  Most apparently have no desire to burn gay people at the stake- though homosexuality is a fraught issue within the church.  I don't yet know if I can truthfully say that I'm a 'modernist', but I'm willing to pray with them and listen to what they have to say.  I can't say that my beliefs are 'evangelical' either... we have major disagreements.

 

The United Methodist Church is in the process of splitting, over the issue of gay bishops and pastors.  The church I've been to close to home is still with the UMC, which recently appointed a gay bishop, to the horror of many.  Churches all over the world are leaving the UMC over this issue- particularly but in no way limited to Middle America.  I don't know if the church I've attended intends to stay with the UMC or leave... it hasn't come up, but they are UMC at the moment.  There are tons of Methodist churches out there still in the UMC who are planning to leave, or will be abandoned by large chunks of their congregation should they stay.  I don't have any hard numbers, but dozens in my state have already left the UMC.  Many more are still in the 'discernment process', deciding that their particular church will do.

 

I haven't really made up my mind what I think about the whole thing, and I'm not in a hurry.  I'll likely attend churches on both sides of the split, and see what I think.  I have concerns about both sides of the split.
 

[RankStranger]

@Edgarcito Ed, as a fellow Christian, your thoughts are particularly welcome here.

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Nobody on an ex-christian website cares how christians define themselves?  I'd have never believed it!  Say it ain't so... 

[RankStranger]

10 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Nobody on an ex-christian website cares how christians define themselves?  I'd have never believed it!  Say it ain't so... 

 

Most ExChristians appear to be arguing against Fundamentalism, so I thought there might be some interest in discussing where Fundamentalism comes from, and how it relates to other takes on Christianity.  I'll just go cry in my room if nobody wants to talk to me about it 

 

I was hoping that Ed would at least chime in.  Since he's routinely accused of being a Fundamentalist, but he apparently isn't.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I know the feelsies, bruh.  There's been a half dozen times, at least, that I spent days preparing for a new thread--putting my thoughts together, anticipating arguments and constructing counter-arguments, planning for ever possible contingency--only to type out my Opening Post and watch the entire thing be completely ignored, while the 30-day automatic lock timer slowly ticked away, leaving me regretting my life choices and wondering how it all came to this...

 

It's worse than the girl at the bar giving you a fake number.  At least, that's what I've been told; I wouldn't know, since all my wives have been ordered from online catalogs.  Pro-tip: if they offer an English-speaking upgrade, it's not worth it; incessant nagging is much more pleasant if you can't understand what they're saying.

 

Anyhow, there's a book called "Azusa Street" that anyone who endures the full ASSemblies of god indoctrination eventually has to read.  It tells the story of the birth of modern-day Pentecostalism.  It was required reading for me in bible college. 

 

It all started back in the nineteen-fucketies with revival camp meetings taking place in a small non-denominational chapel on Azusa Street, which was very convenient, since that was also the name of the book.  I mean, it would have been terribly confusing if the book were called "Azusa Street" only for the reader to later find out the camp meetings were taking place on Orleander Avenue.  

 

As the story goes, the camp meetings would carry on late into the night, and start right back up again at first light.  Eventually, a few of the regular attendees commenced to babbling incoherently.  Looking back now, I suppose sleep deprivation might have been a more reasonable explanation.  As it was, though, the verbacious gobbledygook was attributed to the holy ghost--a boner-fide miracle.  Pentecost was proclaimed; and with it the modern-day outpouring of the holy spirit upon all of humanity. 

 

The ASSemblies of god was born; and while still in its infancy, almost immediately split into the church of god, and later, the foursquare denominations.  Because it there's one thing churches are good at, it's splitting. 

 

I suppose, beyond that, I've never really cared, or even thought much about the origins of modern christinsanity... I mean christianity.

 

If you'd like to conversate on the subject, I'll do my best to uphold my end; but I can't promise anything beyond that.

[RankStranger]

I wouldn't ask for any more than conversating.  Unless of course you would like to derail the thread, which I would encourage.

 

So were you a Pentecostal?  I know an ex-Pentecostal.  She's still nuts even without the religion.  She no longer obsesses over religion... she just turns that OCD loose on other things.  

 

 

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

My own mail-order bride is an Ex-Methodist agricultural model produced on a homestead, but educated and equipped for deployment in either urban or rural environments.  English is standard equipment on the Professional American model 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

At least, that's what I've been told; I wouldn't know, since all my wives have been ordered from online catalogs.  Pro-tip: if they offer an English-speaking upgrade, it's not worth it; incessant nagging is much more pleasant if you can't understand what they're saying.

 

 

7 hours ago, RankStranger said:

English is standard equipment on the Professional American model 

Perhaps we have inadvertently hit upon the crux of the matter: jesus and his bride obviously do not speak the same language. 

[RankStranger]

Today at the Methodist Church, we heard a message about feeding people.  How important it is, how it's done, and how (for instance) homeless people can be fed with respect (Blessing Boxes in this case).  Requiring no creeds or church attendance or drug treatments or means testing or lectures or anything else.  Just put the food in a curb-side fridge (only within the expiration date) and they can pick it up as they like.  I like this approach and the reasons for it.  A fair amount of bible-preaching to back it up too, including the fact that Jesus didn't ask the multitudes to pledge allegiance to the Pharisees or the Sadducees.  He didn't admonish them for their lack of Personal Responsibility in not bringing their own food.  He just fed them with his magic (loaves and fishes).

 

On several points she referred to differences in the story between different Gospels.  She brought in a bit of historical context about where these people lived and what was going on at the time. The overall theme I'm getting so far is that our first duty to Jesus is to love each other.  Judgment is God's.

 

One thing I find interesting about the Methodists is that they're in the process of splitting, mainly over the fact that the United Methodists now have an openly gay bishop.  I haven't asked people in the church specifically about this, and I don't plan to.  I just want to hear what they have to say, and how they say it. And how they back it up with scripture.

 

At some point I'll show up at a local Global Methodist Church.  That's the other side of the split.  Those who have left the UMC because they feel that gay bishops aren't acceptable.  At some point I'll want to hear what they have to say, and how they say it.  And how they back it up with scripture.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I was fixing to ask if that was a United Methodist church.  They're about as liberal and humanist as possible while still being "christian."  I mostly agree with them in practice; obviously not so much in theory.

[RankStranger]

10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I was fixing to ask if that was a United Methodist church.  They're about as liberal and humanist as possible while still being "christian."  I mostly agree with them in practice; obviously not so much in theory.

I like this post.