I have previously blogged about what fundamentalism is. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with me, and that is unfortunate for a number of reasons, but perhaps most of all because I (and those like me) end up as the defendants to some extremely absurd accusations.
The BBC is reporting that fundamentalists are responsible for the global climate problems. This assertion is troubling on several counts. First, the "global climate problems" are not universally recognized. There are many who doubt the validity of the claims of global warming and the like. I am no scientist, but it seems to me that on a planet assumed (by them) to be billions of years old, a hundred years of data about temperatures and climates is way too small of a sample to determine anything meaningful. It would be like judging the quality of your day by examining the last 1/10000th of a second. Except that 1/10000th of a second of your twenty-four hour day is a much greater sample of your day than one hundred years is of the four billion years that the earth is suggested to have been in existence. If the global warming advocates believed in a young earth, their reasoning would be much more convincing because the statistical sample would be greater. As it now stands, we have no way of knowing what a two hundred year cycle of weather is like, or a three hundred year cycle. But that is really a side issue to my main concern.
The bigger point is this: Why am I being blamed for it? The fact that this Lord May of Oxford is not aware of what a fundamentalist actually is does not mean that I am guilty of his charges. It would be better for him not to make wild-eyed accusations in hopes of reflecting negatively on people he doesn't agree with. It would further help for him not to label fundamentalists as a "denial lobby," whatever that means.
Fundamentalism was, is, and will continue to be a Christian theological movement. What is the fundamentalists position on the environment? All fundamentalists agree that Christ will destroy this world when he returns. One well-known pastor said if you think it is messed up now, just wait until you see what Jesus does to it when he comes. We should not abuse it, nor should it be our god. God has created man to live in it, to use it, and to care for it. Beyond that, there is no fundamentalist position on the environment.
But as fundamentalists, we are first and foremost Christian (not Jewish, Muslim, Republican, Green, etc.) and theological (not political, enviromental, economic, etc.) in nature. Don't be confused with people who try to accuse fundamentalists of being something else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is why Dr. Bob III is right that Fundamentalists should abandon that term and find another one. Insisting that the rest of the world (in a non-moral sense) learn your definition (not you personally) and use it your way would be nice, but it ain't going to happen. Therefore, eschewing the term "fundamental" (-ist, -ism) in favor of something more descriptive and less evocative is the best course of wisdom, IMO.
That said, I do not like Dr. Bob's suggestion "preservationist." Nor do I like the term "separatist" because, while accurate, it conjures up visions of Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver, and armed guys wearing windbreakers that say ATF in huge letters on the back.
Hey, maybe we should borrow from the Supremes and go with "strict constructionists" or something. Christian Alitos? Scaliamentalists? Renchristians?
Open up Word and type the word "fundamental" and run the thesarus and you might get some new ideas. I have given this a little thought, but have not been about to come up with any single word to describe us. This is apparently the case with Dr. Bob. since he has not mentioned it lately.
Post a Comment