I think he does a good job of refuting fundamentalism, but while I understand the pragmatic reasons why a Catholic apologist would do this, I don’t think this is the most important task.
Since the most vigorous forms of Protestanism these days incorporates large swaths of Fundamentalist beliefs, Karl’s book is very germane. I’ve seen from firsthand experience that even the “mainline” Protestant groups now entertain Fundamentalist beliefs that they used to shun.
If scripture could ever be the supreme authority, judging by Protestantism, it would have to be the most schizophrenic authority in the history of the world.Could you provide examples of such beliefs? Gracias.
I granted that fundamentalism is aggressive and visible. However, you’re vague about these “large swaths.” What are they?
Examples, please?
No, the orthodox principle of the supremacy of Scripture, which Protestants have sometimes (ill-advisedly, in my opinion) expressed as “Sola Scriptura.” As far as I can see, the term serves no useful purpose at this point–it’s simply become a rhetorical crutch to avoid real thinking on both sides. (Perhaps the Calvinists can still use it usefully, but the rest of us should stay away from it.)The “orthodox” principle of Sola Scriptura?
But why would I judge by Protestantism’s misuse of the concept? That’s exactly what Catholics and Protestants did to each other for centuries, which is why we’re all in the mess we’re in. Only with the 20th-century re-emphasis on the early Church have we started to get somewhere, by looking at the roots from which both Protestants and Catholics draw.
You can get away with most any theory if you use the slippery word “tend.” But as a matter of fact most Protestants don’t do any of these four things–though fundamentalism is by far the most popular option of the four.
In my experience, the fundamentalist model of Protestantism is most prevalent in the workplace where many people spend most of their time. I’m constantly approached with " are you saved?" I believe that the Episcopal Church and the mainline Protestant denominations are not very vocal and therefore get lost in the mix of fundamentalism. As a Roman Catholic, I experience many prejudicial remarks from those who fail to seek an intelligent and informative approach to my faith. So, yes, I’ll have to agree with you on this one, Edwin. There is nothing more exhausting than defending uneducated remarks and the real issues are ignored… God Bless
I would be particularly interested to know if a fundie has ever challenged the book in any type of recorded media.
Do bear in mind that there’s a difference (though not a clear-cut dividing line) between fundamentalism and the far more prevalent evangelicalism (or you could define fundamentalists as a subset of evangelicals, but the point remains the same–there are a lot of fundamentalists out there but even more evangelicals who are not fundamentalists). The two do blend into each other–there are evangelicals (such as myself) who are very far from fundamentalism, but there are many others who might not use the term but who look to outsiders very much like fundamentalists.
The Episcopal Church is very vocal. It is one of the leading Churches in advancing liberal Protestantism and the social gospel.
An evangelical who is also probably a fundamentalist. Although, really, isn’t it the sort of question that all of us as Christians should be concerned about the answer?
In my experience, a Southern Baptist; usually followed by the question, “Do you believe the Holy Bible is the literally true, inerrant Word of God?”…
I prefer to answer… which Bible?
I am not sure what you mean here, a tendancy means that a group is prone to a particular area. If the most popular option is fundamentalism isn’t that the tendancy of thought?
My Answer?
Then I would proceed with the Nicene Creed. And then reply:
I just left behind a hint.
First of all, most Protestants don’t choose any of these options, so the premise is wrong. However, my main point is that using this language allows you to ignore what people actually believe. I’m not sure you can in fact show that statistically more people move toward one of these options than away from them–but supposing you could, that would not mean that those who don’t go along with the “tendency” are somehow to be discounted. And that is what RNRobert appeared to be doing–defending a focus on fundamentalism by arguing that Protestantism tends in this direction (or toward extreme liberalism).
I think the main usefulness of books like this is to prevent Catholics from becoming fundamentalists. The book does point out some of the basic fallacies of fundamentalism and it refutes some of the arguments fundamentalists use to “hook” Catholics. So a spiritually hungry Catholic might read a book like this and say, “maybe I should give my Church another shot–maybe these nice ‘Bible believers’ don’t have all the answers they claim to have.”
