[Jordan M. Poss]

I was reading a piece by G.K. Chesterton today, and as part of his argument he included this passage. I found it interesting as an outside observer's assessment of the chief problem with Fundamentalism. I've set what I think the most important thematic sentence in bold type.

Quote:Catholicism, in a sense little understood, stands outside a quarrel like that of Darwinism at Dayton [the so-called Scopes "Monkey" Trial]. It stands outside it because it stands all around it, as a house stands all around two incongruous pieces of furniture. It is no sectarian boast to say it is before and after and beyond all these things in all directions. It is impartial in a fight between Fundamentalism and the theory of the Origin of Species, because it goes back to an origin before that Origin; because it is more fundamental than Fundamentalism. It knows where the Bible came from. It also knows where most theories of Evolution go to. It knows there were many other Gospels besides the Four Gospels, and that the others were eliminated by the authority of the Catholic Church. It knows there are many other evolutionary theories besides the Darwinian theory; and that the latter is quite likely to be eliminated by later science. It does not, in the conventional phrase, accept the conclusions of science, for the simple reason that science has not concluded. To conclude is to shut up; and the man of science is not at all likely to shut up. It does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally.

So, even stripped of the schismatic, nitpicking, obsequious traits we all know from the broader culture of IFB-brand Fundamentalism, do "the Fundamentals" work, or is Chesterton right that they undermine themselves? Thoughts? In the interest of disclosure, I think Chesterton is dead-on.

[Elijah Craig]

(02-01-2011, 06:46 PM)Jordan M. Poss Wrote: I was reading a piece by G.K. Chesterton today, and as part of his argument he included this passage. I found it interesting as an outside observer's assessment of the chief problem with Fundamentalism. I've set what I think the most important thematic sentence in bold type.

Quote:Catholicism, in a sense little understood, stands outside a quarrel like that of Darwinism at Dayton [the so-called Scopes "Monkey" Trial]. It stands outside it because it stands all around it, as a house stands all around two incongruous pieces of furniture. It is no sectarian boast to say it is before and after and beyond all these things in all directions. It is impartial in a fight between Fundamentalism and the theory of the Origin of Species, because it goes back to an origin before that Origin; because it is more fundamental than Fundamentalism. It knows where the Bible came from. It also knows where most theories of Evolution go to. It knows there were many other Gospels besides the Four Gospels, and that the others were eliminated by the authority of the Catholic Church. It knows there are many other evolutionary theories besides the Darwinian theory; and that the latter is quite likely to be eliminated by later science. It does not, in the conventional phrase, accept the conclusions of science, for the simple reason that science has not concluded. To conclude is to shut up; and the man of science is not at all likely to shut up. It does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally.

So, even stripped of the schismatic, nitpicking, obsequious traits we all know from the broader culture of IFB-brand Fundamentalism, do "the Fundamentals" work, or is Chesterton right that they undermine themselves? Thoughts? In the interest of disclosure, I think Chesterton is dead-on.

I agree that Fundamentalism destroys Fundamentalism in the way he says.

But before I agree with him fully, what does he mean by Catholicism?

[Darren]

(02-01-2011, 07:00 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote: But before I agree with him fully, what does he mean by Catholicism?

I am pretty sure Chesterton was referring to the Roman Catholic Church in the quote.

Thanks for posting this, Jordan. Fundamentalism always has been reactionary and man-centered. When Fundys say they stand on the Word of God, what they are really saying is that they are standing on their interpretation of the Word of God. And when they come across someone with a different interpretation, instead of promoting dialogue they separate. On the other hand, the RCC stands on 2,000 years of history and tradition. I am not Catholic, but it is still an interesting juxtaposition of the historic attitudes of the two movements.

[Elijah Craig]

(02-01-2011, 09:37 PM)Darren Wrote:

(02-01-2011, 07:00 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote: But before I agree with him fully, what does he mean by Catholicism?

I am pretty sure Chesterton was referring to the Roman Catholic Church in the quote.

Ah. Roman Catholicism. I thought he was talking about this over-arching body that transcended all disagreement and all history.

[Scorpio]

(02-01-2011, 09:37 PM)Darren Wrote: When Fundys say they stand on the Word of God, what they are really saying is that they are standing on their interpretation of the Word of God.

I guess that means they really stand ALONE on the Word of God. The B-I-B-L-E.

[IFB No More]

Honestly, IFB-ism should thank other denominations greatly for developing what they are today. They have little, if any, original of their own.
They share little in common with the historic Baptists of the past - be it the Anabaptists, the Reformed Baptists or even the Waldeneses.

Combine the moralistic and perfectionist fervor of the 19th century Holiness movement (main ingredient!), the dispensationalism of the Plymouth Brethen, and fervent extreme-right "Know Nothing" American nationalism, throw in a few Anabaptist/Amish flavors, and "Baptist church polity", and you have IFBism.

[Jordan M. Poss]

Yes, Chesterton was talking about the Roman Catholic Church and this paragraph comes from his essay "Why I am a Catholic," but I left those out so as not to--potentially--detract from the main point, which was about Fundamentalism.

(02-02-2011, 10:58 AM)IFB No More Wrote: Honestly, IFB-ism should thank other denominations greatly for developing what they are today. They have little, if any, original of their own.
They share little in common with the historic Baptists of the past - be it the Anabaptists, the Reformed Baptists or even the Waldeneses.

Just try and get them to admit that, though. I know many Baptists--and Darrell has documented quite a few on the site--who believe Jesus was a Baptist and there have always been Fundamentalist Baptist church hiding out, under the radar of history.

[JimE]

It is sometimes hard to determine the scope of the paragraph when only reading the paragragh. IMO, Chesterton has made some mistakes in analysis.
The first part, I would agree with, The RCC has been around for a long time and has weathered through many trying times and circumstances that have destroyed other orgainizations. The RCC is a mature orgainization that acts with more wisdom and on more knowledge than most.
It is this statement that that I have disagreement on , or I just am not understanding. "The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; ..." The methods of interpretation, allegorically vs. literally, does cause disagreement, not the Bible text itself. I guess it is my perception that the words read is not the same as the idea communicated to the reader.

Perfect communication replicates the idea in the mind of the transmitter to the idea in the mind of the receiver. With humanity, this communication is rarely perfect, so in this case, I am focusing on the medium of that communication, the Bible text, and not the reader's interpretation or the method used to receive the idea.

[Elijah Craig]

(02-03-2011, 11:40 AM)JimE Wrote: It is sometimes hard to determine the scope of the paragraph when only reading the paragragh. IMO, Chesterton has made some mistakes in analysis.
The first part, I would agree with, The RCC has been around for a long time and has weathered through many trying times and circumstances that have destroyed other orgainizations. The RCC is a mature orgainization that acts with more wisdom and on more knowledge than most.
It is this statement that that I have disagreement on , or I just am not understanding. "The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; ..." The methods of interpretation, allegorically vs. literally, does cause disagreement, not the Bible text itself. I guess it is my perception that the words read is not the same as the idea communicated to the reader.

Perfect communication replicates the idea in the mind of the transmitter to the idea in the mind of the receiver. With humanity, this communication is rarely perfect, so in this case, I am focusing on the medium of that communication, the Bible text, and not the reader's interpretation or the method used to receive the idea.

So which part of your argument contradicts what Chesterton said?

[JimE]

Chesterton said:

(02-03-2011, 11:40 AM)JimE Wrote: "The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; ..."

(02-03-2011, 09:33 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote: So which part of your argument contradicts what Chesterton said?

Move the adverbial clause to the begining if you must.

When it [the Bible] is a cause of disagreement, the Bible [it] by itself cannot be a basis of agreement.

I'm not sure if we are in contradiction. Chesterton seems to be implying that the Bible text, not the interpretation of it, causes disagreement. My understanding of his statement could be wrong. I do not believe that the Bible text causes disagreement. I believe that differing interpretations of the text causes disagreements.

I hope this clarifies my previous post