Fundamentalist - Context is Everything
I was looking at a posting on my good friend the Jollyblogger about Rick Warren. Warren is quoted as saying he is against all forms of fundamentalism, Christian, Muslim, secular, etc... and that they are the real enemy. This shows a extremely shallow view of Muslim fundamentalism and of Christian fundamentalism. His mistake is a common one. Muslim fundamentalism is sort of misapplication of the term. In Christian fundamentalism the inerrant Word of God is regarded as such with some other cardinal doctrines. In Muslim fundamentalism has as its goal a religious state that follows the sharia, Muslim civil law. They beleive that impurity of Western civilization has desecrated them and that the road to once again recieve the blessing of their former glorious past is to create Islamic governments. While some would think this is what Christian fundamentalists want, in reality most are decidedly for seperation of church and state. They just don't think that means the state supports the religion of a secular world view. I am sure you can find the odd ball who is the exception to this rule and wants the church to run the state.
The other big issue in Christian Fundamentalism circles is outward forms of piety, such as don't smoke, drink, dance, play cards, etc... Muslim fundamentalism would likewise be narrow on outward forms of piety. But so would Rick Warren, he stresses the importance of signing committement cards, participating in small groups and tithing. All three, Muslim Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists, and graduates of C.L.A.S.S. 201 Level members class at Rick Warren's church would place a high value on tithing. In the case of the Muslim it would be called zekat. I'm not saying it is wrong, just that it is very much an outward sign of piety. I thnk all three would be trying to deal with issues of the heart by doing this.
The other big issue in Christian Fundamentalism circles is outward forms of piety, such as don't smoke, drink, dance, play cards, etc... Muslim fundamentalism would likewise be narrow on outward forms of piety. But so would Rick Warren, he stresses the importance of signing committement cards, participating in small groups and tithing. All three, Muslim Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists, and graduates of C.L.A.S.S. 201 Level members class at Rick Warren's church would place a high value on tithing. In the case of the Muslim it would be called zekat. I'm not saying it is wrong, just that it is very much an outward sign of piety. I thnk all three would be trying to deal with issues of the heart by doing this.
Comments
Barb
I agree with you that Christians should serve in public office. The motivation is that we need fulfill the cultural mandate as expressed in the book of Genesis. By the way, I do not count that the American form of government is the only 'Christian' form of government. The King of Tonga I understand is a committed Christian, though some feel he has made some glaring blunders. I have no problem with him running his country by stating that he is a Christian nor do I mind that his country is sometimes said to be Christian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1300742.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonga#Demographics
Nor do I have a problem with the King of Arminia and many other countries in the past holding that their country as Christian.
The idea of seperation of church and state was one that used to mean that the church was free from the state telling it what to do in an institutional sense. The church in early America did seek to train the people in righteousness. The groups I have heard most stridently defend seperation of church and state have been fundamentalists, especially Independant, Fundamental, Pre-millinial Baptists. I think some in the Bible Presbyterian church also stridently defend it. Both groups as I understand it hold to it in a sense that their church is a sort of a "government-interference-free-zone". In other words, you guys (the U.S. government) are in charge until you reach my door step. While I support the idea that the state should not interfer with church polity, doctrine, moral training, etc...if the church is breaking a law or wants special exceptions to state or federal laws, I'm generally not in favor of that.
In a sense, I only stated what American Christian fundatmentalists views were. You assumed that I agreed with them. I think my veiw is a little more nuanced. My view is that as the church complies with federal and state law, it is helped in propagating the gospel.
My post was on the idea that the word fundamentalism is complex and that Christian fundamentalism is decidedly different than Muslim fundamentalism. In regard to MY VIEWS of seperation of church and state, look here