Tony Payne, publishing director at Matthias Media and a Sydney Anglican Evangelical, explains why he is generous to fundamentalists but not to “those who have given up on the fundamentals and who seek to teach others likewise.”
- The former, he argues, are orthodox believers (albeit ones, from his perspective, who “may be or think or do all sorts of things that we find strange, unattractive or even distasteful”).
- The latter, he argues, are people whom the NT urges him to fight.
If we are thinking of the same fundamentalists then simply calling them “strange, unattractive or even distasteful” is far the truth. If by fundamentalists he means those who add moral requirements to those of the Bible, advocate complete separation and isolation from the world and hate those who do not live up to their self-made standard then they are just as unorthodox as liberals.
Why is one form of disobedience and denial of Jesus’ teachings worse than another. Jesus and Paul both command believers to repent from self-righteousness, divisiveness, superiority, exaltation of tradition and hatred (things that characterize the fundamentalists I know) just as much as they taught theological truths.
Why is it more acceptable for the fundamentalists to add absolute morality to Bible (alcohol, movies etc.) than for liberals to take away absolute morality from the Bible (homosexuality).
Why is it more acceptable for the fundamentalists to add absolute doctrinal adherence (separate from the world, KJV Bible) than for liberals to take away absolute doctrines from the Bible (exclusivity of Jesus, substitutionary atonement).
Are not the ethical commands of the NT just as fundamental as the theological ones? Is believing in the divinity of Christ more important than having the fruit of the Spirit as the character of one’s life?
Fundamentalists are not better than liberals. They are both equally wrong. They are both equally unorthodox.
Daniel, I think your first phrase might solve this problem: “if we are thinking of the same fundamentalists.” That word is unusually flexible and connotes sharply different images for different people, often tied to their past experiences with it (which may evoke strong emotions!). In the case of Payne’s article, I don’t think he’s using the term exactly as you are. (You are welcome, of course, to comment on Tony Payne’s blog to clarify what he means.) Further, his approach to the issue seems relatively mature and loving rather than reactionary and bitter.
I agree with no problem, it definitely depends on what you mean by fundamentalists. Not all definitions are create equal.
I did read Tony’s blog, I agree that he was gracious, I just think we need make sure we are not elevating orthodoxy over orthopraxy, or vice versa. I would almost want to say that to really be orthodox, you have to actually live what you believe, if you don’t then you don’t really believe it.
Agreed. And many self-identified fundamentalists agree. This is a frequent theme, for example, in the speaking and writing ministry of Kevin Bauder. For example, he wrote this just last month:
“Conservative Christians believe that orthopathy (right affection) is equal in importance with orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right conduct).”