« The Future of Faith: Equivocation? | Main | The Justice Project »

October 27, 2009


Plano Michael

I can see where Cox is coming from. I remember the first time I read your use of the term, fundagelical...I honestly thought that there was no such thing. The stripe of fundamentalism I came from, which is hallmarked by inerrancy, debates over KJV-onlyism, and hyper definitions and degrees for all things "of the world", would not allow itself to be lumped with evangelicals. It distances itself from the neo-calvinism whether Driscoll gives them permission to cuss and drink or not. They intentionally distance themselves from missional ideas because they seem to be labeled "liberal" -- so left unexplored.
This version of fundamentalism, imported to the global south which is most racked with war and genocide, makes no sense. It's "doctrine" can't mix with real life. It is definitely shrinking.
I don't know that it is the same idea of fundamentalism that Cox deals with, but I could certainly agree with him at first blush.


I'm also not clear on what he's trying to say. (Not that that means anything--I haven't read the book, and probably won't have time until next year.) As an atheist, the only practical difference between churches that I bother to make is whether or not I'm likely to be able to have conversations with the members. The dividing line has nothing to do with denomination, doctrine, creeds, church structure or the amount of "Spirit" language they use. It's all about whether they view people as people, or try to reduce them to supporters of a church authority for the sake of institutional propagation. (Or, to borrow gospel language, whether they view the Sabbath as being for people, or people existing to keep the Sabbath.) Sure, super-concrete versions of fundamentalism are dying out as their older members do. But the strains of fundamentalism that are flexible about supporting a wide variety of subjugation to authority are doing just fine, and I have no reason to think they won't do so indefinitely.

tripp fuller

The things you are pointing out I thought, although in a less critical way. I think the age of the spirit began to make sense to me only if you say to yourself - what is faith assuming the three big new realities on rise. Yoder would have like the anti-empire bit too.


It's interesting to note that Jesus himself condemned tradition for the sake of tradition. The fundamentalism is certainly not dead, a quick glance around you in Oklahoma can quickly reaffirm that. The Bible Belt has possibly become less conservative in recent years but is still predominately more conservative than its northern counterparts.

Good thoughts here.

The comments to this entry are closed.