From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Fundamental
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:22:18 GMT
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.

In article <Dec.11.02.11.16.1992.13623@athos.rutgers.edu> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
>The following chart is a graphic attempt to represent all of Christianity in
>its various *physical* manifestations on earth.  It includes all who would
>claim christianity to some extent.
>
>LEFT                              CENTER                                 RIGHT
>   1               2                3                   4                 5
>|--|---------------|----------------|-------------------|-----------------|--|
>|____________________________________________________________________________|
>
>1. Universalist
>2. Liberalist
>3. Centrist
>4. Fundamentalist
>5. Supremacist
>
>Explanations:
>
>Right:  A term representing the "conservative" or reactionary
>political/religious policies or views.
>
>Left:   A term representing the "egalitarian" or reformist/revolutionary
>political/religious policies or views.

   < rest deleted >

Hello, 

This is a truly an entertaining thread.  Mostly I like what you have said.
May I interject some comments?

When attempting to analyze these kind of left-right spectrums, it is 
helpful to define as specifically as possible the issue in question
and the parties involved in the dispute.

Here are some examples:

Issue: Does God give power and authority over spiritual matters into
       the hands of an institutional church?

Parties: Western European Christians

Polarity:

Baptists            +
Presbyterians             +
Methodists                      +
Lutherans                             +
Anglicans                                   +
Roman Catholics                                    +
                  <---------------------------------->

ans:              No                               Yes

This question, these parties, tend to fall into a fairly
uniform spread that is manifest in the different groups
doctrines regarding church government and the sacraments.
The churches toward the "right" side of this scale as I
have drawn it tend to be sacramental, (i.e. the church
grants grace and salvation through the sacraments) and 
tend to have more centralized church government structures.
There is also more of an emphasis on the teaching authority
of the church.

The churches to the "left" of this scale make the sacraments
more ceremonial such that they are not efficacious with 
respect to attaining salvation.  Salvation becomes a very
individual matter to the point that for Baptists it is 
important that each individual first repent and believe
after which they may receive a believer's baptism.  Church
government is decentralized and democratized.

This particular scale is evident in the denominational 
structure of our churches because these differences were
worked out in past centuries and the differences manifested
themselves in the denominations we have today.

Issue:  Does God grant to individuals the ability to determine 
        their own salvation?  

Parties:  Protestant Christians 

Calvinist (supra)     +
Calvinist (infra)          +
"Calminian"                     + 
Arminian                             +
Weslyan                                    +
Pelagian                                         +
                    <------------------------------>
                     no                         yes 

My understanding is that supralapsarian Calvinists believe 
that God has predestined all to be either elect or lost.
Infralapsarian Calvinists believe that God and predestined 
some to eternal life.  Others are permitted to make their
own inevitable choice to reject truth and be lost.

"Calminian" is not a real word, but I have heard it used 
not a few times by those who describe themselves as accepting
some, but not all of the "five points" of Calvinism. 

I am using Arminian to refer to those who believe that it 
is the individuals choice whether or not to accept or 
reject Christ that is fundamental issue that determines the 
person's future state.  (i.e. God predestinates those who he
foresees will accept Christ.)

I am using the term Weslyan to refer to those who are 
Arminian and who also believe that it is possible for a 
Christian to lose their salvation by sinning badly enough,
perhaps to lose it and gain it back several times.

Pelagian refers to those who believe that human nature 
is perfectible, that individuals can save themselves by 
repenting of sin, receiving God's forgiveness, and from 
now on live holy and obedient lives.  If you are good 
enough, you are saved.

Issue:  Does God reveal Himself to believer's through
        experiences and signs?

Parties:  Protestant Fundamentalists

Pentacostals          +
Charismatics                +
Holiness                          +
Pietists                                +
                                              +
anti-charismatic                                    +
                    <------------------------------->
                     yes                          no

Here it is clear enough that Pentecostal fundamentalists
think that God is regularly revealing himself through tongues
and signs and wonders to the point were many believe that if
God is not revealing himself by granting the gift of tongues
to a particular individual, that individual is not a Christian.
Charismatics believe in tongues and signs, but are less extreme
than the Pentacostals.  Holiness groups will often reject tongues
and signs, but still believe that God reveals himself in a 
special second work of grace.  Pietists will not accept signs
and wonders or second works of grace, but there will be an 
emphasis on a deeper life, devotions and experience of the love 
and working of God in the life of the believer.

I have left a blank for those believers who do not believe in,
practice, or promote peitistic quiet times and devotions because
having right doctrine and practice is sufficient.  Deeper experience
of God is not necessary.

The last group which I have labeled "anti-charismatic" refer to 
those believers who are opposed (often strongly) to the Pentacostals
and charismatic groups.  I have encountered believers of this kind
in Calvinist reformed groups (Have you seen the little tracts, "Five 
Things God Wants You to Know?" with the TULIP on the cover?) and 
some dispensational groups.   

Issue:  Does God reveal Himself to believer's through revealed
        objective prepositional truth revelation in the Bible?

Parties:  Modern Christians 

Unitarian            +
Liberals                   +   
Moderates                        +
neo-evangelicals                       +
evangelical                                  +
fundamentalist                                     +
                    <-------------------------------->
                     no                          yes 

I am using Unitarian as a label to refer to those who do not 
accept that the Bible has anything special to say beyond what
great literature has to say.  It is not revealed prepositional
truth.  I am using Liberal to refer to those who claim to be 
Christian and find much that is of special value in the
Christian Scriptures but who hold to very liberal views 
theologically.  A good example may be Paul Tillich.

Moderates are those who accept most modern liberal critical 
scholarship of the Scriptures but believe that God speaks to 
men through the Scriptures regardless.  Neo-orthodoxy is 
a typical moderate stance ranging for say Bultmann on the 
left to Barth on the right.  By neo-evangelical, I am referring
to believers that are conservative and accept most or all 
of the fundamental beliefs of historical Christianity, but
who do not accept the doctrine of inerrancy.  Most of these
who identify themselves as being evangelical.

I am using the term evangelical to refer to those who are 
essentially fundamentalist in doctrine and believe in the 
doctrine of inerrancy.  Evangelicals, however, restrict 
their interpretations of the text to what is minimally
required by the language.  Evangelicals of this strip are
not highly legalistic and find considerable latitude in
accepting a wide range of interpretations of the Biblical
texts as being valid.

I am using Fundamentalist to describe those who are 
fundamentalist in doctrine, inerrantists, and who restrict
the interpretations of Scripture within narrow confines.
These confines maybe set by tradition or they maybe the 
result of the use of special principles of interpretation.
Such groups have an emphasis on separation from the world 
and from other believers who are not sufficiently pure in 
their stances.  Examples are the folks at Bob Jones 
university, and many modern dispensationalist groups who
reject non-dispensationalists as being on the slippery
slope leading to liberalism. 

Have I stepped on many toes?  I admit to a lot of ignorance.
These left-right polarization charts, however, seem enlightening
to me.  The last one I gave is the one most like the one 
Rich Bellacera gave in his post.

The charts are most interesting when dealing with a specifically
defined but broad issue.  Narrowly defined issues such as 
"Should the church grant to women the right to be pastors?"
usually correlate fairly well with one of the broad issues
because the broader issue often deals with issues that 
underlay the narrow issue.  For example, fundamentalists and
most evangelicals would not grant women the right to be 
pastors based on certain relevant Scriptures which are held 
to be authoritative.  Other evangelicals and neo-evangelicals
grant that right based on either a less traditional or looser 
interpretation of the Scriptures.  Some neo-evangelicals, 
moderates and liberals grant that right because the Scriptures 
are not authoritative in this regard.

The correlation, however, is often very imperfect.  There are
Pentacostals churches who have ordained women for decades and 
who in all other respects are fundamentalist.  Attempts to 
combine all positions into a single left-right polarization
end up confounded by a plethora of contradictions. There are
no grand schemes that describe every position.

In my view, the placement of a position on the left-right scale
has no bearing on whether a particular view is true or false.
The center of an issue is no better or worse in this regard than
either of the two extremes.  Extremism as a "vice" is best 
understood in this way:  Extremists on a particular issue are 
those who take positions that are strongly at odds with the 
positions taken by the great majority.  It is often the case
that extremists who are aberrant on one position are aberrant
on many other positions and hold views that the majority 
considers to be harmful.  The majority is usually right over 
all, but the extremist maybe right on specific issues.

Extremists are usually at one pole of a left-right chart
because individuals form opinions in an environment dominated 
by the majority.  Individuals will form opinions that will
deviate from the majority some going to the left, some to 
the right probably in a bell curve like distribution.  If the 
majority are already close to one pole, then new ideological 
territory will be staked out by individuals such that the 
majority always appears to be in the center.  Extremists by 
definition are at odds with the majority and end up appearing 
to be at one pole or the other.  Extremists of various kinds 
often make common cause on particular issues against the majority 
giving rise to the illusion that left and right extremists 
converge in their views.  The fact of the case is that "left" and
"right" are defined with regard to one or more broad issues and 
some narrow issues that correlate well with the broad issues.
Common cause is made based on other issues that do not fit the 
normal definitions.

I hope some of you have found these thoughts interesting.
Thanks.

John