Army Lieutenant and Med School Student Matt Perkins, who blogs as Northwest Anglican, links to Portland Monthly's transcript of an exchange between atheist Christopher Hitchens and a self-described "Liberal Christian" minister. Matt has the key exchange here...
Marilyn Sewell (Liberal “Christian”): The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Christopher Hitchens (Atheist): I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
7 comments:
I've seen both Dawkins and Hitchens say this kind of thing in videos - I believe, debates with Alistair McGrath.
A problem here though is that media these days are able to make impressions very quickly, and enough Spongs and Crossans on youtube and in blogs will promote this meme that Ms. Unitarian here is propounding: that "fundamentalist Christians" believe in the resurrection and the divinity of Christ, but the others don't. That will be utterly horrid for average Joe Christian who just wants to be a good bloke but doesn't go to church. A great loss of faith - many will fall for it - "I've never considered myself a fundamentalist, so I guess I don't believe that stuff."
Wilf - such a good comment. Hitchens here makes a point with some depth - that core beliefs in our creedal truths are the meaningful identity of Christianity. How terrible that so called "Christians", especially those designated as "scholars" and clergy, are sending an opposite message, which has nothing to offer the unbeliever and only discouragement or confusion for the sincere believer or seeker.
No confusion here, "Wilf" -- I'm perfectly clear that, while there are many issues that delineate fundamentalists from liberal Protestants, belief in Christ's resurrection and divinity are not among them. Sewell sounds about as Christian as I am (and that's not good for a pastor!).
I'm still trying to figure out what Mainline Denomination folks exactly mean by the term "fundamentalist."
Whatever it is exactly is apparently up there somewhere between some deviant pervert in a yellow rain coat and Hitler. But what exactly they mean by it is a mystery.
I remember I posed a question once in a theology class in seminary (one of the few times I opened by mouth) about whether there was such a thing as a liberal fundamentalist. Talk about getting death stares...
I remember it was interesting to watch the reaction. Half the class scoffed at the notion that a theological liberal could be a fundamentalist, despite my specific definitions of the fundamentals raging liberals cling to by whatever means necessary and the way they go ballistic when said fundamentals are challenged by academic critique.
The other half of the class immediately challenged my definition of what a fundamentalist even was. (Apparently if it didn't have "right-wing" and "scriptural literalist" in the definition, it was apparently a void definition on its face.)
So I asked them to define what it meant, and no one couldn't give me a definite and coherent answer other than vague Kindergarten level "bogeymen" descriptions. It was a truly fascinating discussion as I recall.
I found out later that if one identifies as a fundamentalist, they really have no earthly idea how to respond. I think I gave the example of the Trinity, and said to me, the doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental revelation of God, and is therefore in my mind a doctrine that is non-negotiable. And if that made me a fundamentalist, I'd happily take the title. Talk about watching the wheels coming off...
cah & archer,
I think you both point out that too many of the Mainline/Oldline denominations have just stopped thinking all together. They've adopted a baby boom approach, all about emoting and turning disagrement into a cosmic blowup. Vocabulary has no meaning except in the speaker's feelings - all language is subjective and there are no common words to which we can appeal. Yet they crow about "tolerance and diversity" as they push away more and more people who don't serve their feelings. Sigh.
The typing error in the headline makes my teeth itch. Please fix it.
Aw, c'mon, Henry. I was simply using my command of German dipthongs to make sure it was properly vocalized. Many readers chant my blog entries, this being an Anglican blog 'n' all.
It's on you now if you hear a mens' & boys' choir intoning "A - THIGH - 'st" instead.
Post a Comment