by Donald Hank
So was Mom. So was Dad. As far as I recall, our whole family, except for 2 unchurched uncles, were radical fundamentalists who professed a naïve belief in the whole Word of God.
And here’s the bizarre part: Not one of us misfits has been observed to strap a belt of explosives to ourselves and blow ourselves up in a crowded bus terminal.
That’s because of a little-known fact, namely, that Christian fundamentalists typically exercise their religion and influence the political process peacefully.
This A.M. I caught an interview with an “expert” on terror who said that the Twin Towers were brought down by “radical fundamentalists.”
He didn’t mention the key word “Islamists” or call them “radical Muslims.” He is one of many who keep rubbing it under our noses that “fundamentalists” did the dirty deed. The clear implication is that deeply held faith is dangerous.
Since September 11, 2001 the “War on Terror” has failed to end terror. In fact, many Americans have been using that terrorist act as a pretext to accomplish something quite different, namely, an attack on Christians, which has been more successful than the fight against terror because it has confused unthinking people into equating the good guys with the bad guys. So much so that many of the “good guys” changed their names and identities, something the terrorists will never do.
Before that time, many evangelicals were still calling themselves fundamentalists. But since then, thanks to the media assault on this group, they have allowed themselves to be intimidated into dropping that name. Thus they allowed the Left to define their religion for them, which is always a mistake.
Friends, as I pointed out elsewhere, we have been allowing the Left to redefine America since the 1960s, and in so doing have shifted far to the Left as a nation, causing great harm to ourselves, our children, our unborn, our families, and our core values. Can’t we figure this thing out yet?
Let’s try harder this time. Here goes:
Webster defines fundamentalism as follows:
A militant conservative movement in American Protestantism originating around the beginning of the 20th century in opposition to modernist tendencies and emphasizing as fundamental to Christianity the literal interpretation of the Scriptures, the imminent and physical second coming of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, physical resurrection and substitutionary atonement.
I need to point out that the belief system of “Fundamentalism” was the same as that once known simply as Christianity and existing throughout European and early American history, so it didn’t originate here or in the 20th century, as this definition suggests. Further, to put things in their proper perspective, the “militant” descriptor here deceptively obfuscates the fact that the opposition to traditional faith was much more militant (causing millions of deaths) than fundamentalism. Thus the lexicographer has dutifully bowed to the liberals in writing this definition.
Be that as it may, by this definition, most of those now cowering behind the “safe” descriptor “evangelical” are in fact fundamentalists in terms of their beliefs, though few will admit it.
I have heard pastors stoutly affirm on the pulpit all the beliefs set forth in the above definition of fundamentalist. Yet when asked if they are fundamentalists, they vehemently deny it.
One evangelical pastor wrote a memo on fundamentalism, in which he states:
Not in its classical sense, but in the sense of a 20th Century subculture in America, “Fundamentalism” has been a hindrance to biblical social concerns in several ways.
First, he states that prior to the 1980s, Fundamentalism was so “otherworldly” that it saw no need for interaction with the present world. He says this is “so anti-cultural that it saw little role for the Church at all in forming a social ethic.”
Apparently, he never heard of fundamentalist radio preacher Carl MacIntyre, who was a major force for social and political change in the 60s and was anything but “otherworldly.”
He goes on:
The “moral majority” formed and quickly grabbed the limelight as Fundamentalist forces moved out to change the shape of America. Lacking a sound theological grounding and a root in tradition, these movements had their “day in the sun” and then seemed to vanish.
Did this writer not know that Jerry Falwell, the founder of this moral majority, and his colleague James Kennedy were still very much active until their recent demise, and their many organizations such as Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, and Liberty University, still carry on, greatly impacting American public life for the better? Did he never hear of James Dobson, Don Wildmon (American Family Association), David Barton (Wall Builders), Beverly La Haye (Concerned Women for America) and many others like them who are still very much active in public life, affecting legislation and voters’ behavior? One such activist, Tony Perkins, founder of the Family Research Council, is sponsoring a values-voters debate on October 19 this year which will be attended by politicians, including at least one presidential candidate. So what does he mean by “vanished”?
The writer also says “today we see Fundamentalist social concerns attitudes [sic] which are cynical of anything humanitarian or governmental—almost acting, in my opinion, as if God had limited sovereignty over the affairs of state.”
Firstly, since he says they have “seemed to vanish,” how is it he knows what they are up to today? Secondly, and more to the point, God has not generally used rocks and trees or other inanimate objects to promote His agenda. Since the beginning of time, He has always used mostly human beings to influence the affairs of state, such as the writing and execution of Jewish Law and the Bible, and the preaching of the Gospel. The fact that He relies on human effort to perform His work does not make Him less sovereign.
But equally incomprehensible is this pastor’s claim that this memo is “written to stimulate debate,” yet he does not say how or when we are to debate him on this. He doesn’t even include his email address. (I received my copy through a friend).
Legions of pastors like this one have allowed the liberal agenda to have its way with them.
A few liberals speaking on TV after 9/11 sent them scurrying to come up with a name and a new definition for themselves that would be less offensive to the enemies on the Left.
These are the same bold souls who advise others to ask: “What would Jesus do?” and then to act accordingly.
Jesus was anything but a coward. Yet His followers are in effect denying Him in public.
For an evangelical Christian to deny the name “Fundamentalist” is to deny the virgin birth, the second coming and the substituionary atonement.
Given the timidity of church leaders, and their habit of running away from their own identity to placate the enemies of God, it is no wonder that churches are having such a hard time selling their beliefs.
After all, it’s hard to sell a product if you keep insisting you haven’t got it.
This is what I think Christians’ attitude should be regarding their own identity and the struggle against Islamism:
We are what we are and we will not be intimidated by unbelievers to redefine ourselves. The Left may not change us. Its opposition to us reaffirms us. Referring to murderous Islamists as fundamentalists is a transparent subterfuge aimed at making Christian fundamentalists look bad. We refuse to be judged based on false associations with people whose ideology is alien to ours.
After all, if for you the war on terror is nothing more than an excuse to denigrate Christians, then you, at the very least, aren’t taking resistance to terror seriously.
In fact, by attacking us, you are siding with the enemy.
This is so because Christianity is the only means to effectively combat Islamism. This is obvious when we look at Europe. Already, two German nationals have become jihadists, plotting an attack on a US Air Force base, and the reasons for this are clear if one understands Europe today:
Western Europeans have only 2 choices:
1—They can be secularists or atheists and blend in, or
2—If they want to worship freely, they can profess Islam and worship in a mosque.
They can’t worship freely as traditional Christians, who are marginalized, and are seeing their worship discouraged and openly hated in the European Union (EU). Poland’s resistance to the homosexual agenda on religious grounds, for example, met with a severe reprimand and threats of sanctions by the high priests of Secularism in Brussels. Christians who choose home-schooling in Germany risk having their children kidnapped by the Gestapo-like social services system.
Of course, America is not far behind in its abuse of Christians, who are marginalized on campus and have already been threatened with jail for expressing their views on gay sex. Any professor who dares to express any doubts about Darwinism will likely not be tenured.
The party line these days, one that, sadly, even “evangelicals” are swallowing, is that Christianity and Islam are parallel and equivalent religions, and that by denying the fundamentals of Christian faith, we can somehow induce Muslims to do likewise.
This is nonsense. Islam is by its very nature fundamentalist in the Muslim sense, because it rejects the notion of a forgiving God. Therefore, it is behavior-focused. Christians, however, including fundamentalists, believe in a forgiving God and are focused on the acceptance of Christ’s atoning blood, which is to be accompanied by a change in behavior thanks to the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalists on the Christian side, unlike Christian liberals, are better able to represent this forgiving God to man because they do not deny the supernatural origins of their faith. “Christians” who doubt the fundamentals do not appeal to sinners and will therefore not increase the body of believers.
Yet as Christianity diminishes, Islam increases. Therefore, a trend toward diminishing fundamentalism in Christianity is a trend toward Islam (as demonstrated already in Europe), whose avowed purpose is to enslave us.
All of the founders of our faith were fundamentalists, without exception. For their pains, they were martyred. Yet their reward was eternal life.
Most pastors today are pathetically running after earthly comfort, denying the tenets of their faith and their Christian identity, and denying Christ when such is convenient. The earthly comfort they garner for this is their reward.
But a faithful remnant is still there, and will gain eternal life. Quite possibly, with the help of the Almighty, they will also lead our nation to righteousness. Should they succeed, against all odds, we can confidently ask: If God be for us who can be against us?
I wouldn’t ask that just yet…
But the elitists in government (both parties), whose single-minded purpose is re-election at all costs, didn’t seem to notice. They kept propping up the failed radfem ideology, which, as I showed in an earlier column, is one of the pillars of Maoism. Here’s what all the fuss is about: Important scientific studies, like Dr. Warren Farrell’s book Father and Child Reunion, which I mentioned in an earlier column, show that children fare best in intact marriages, followed by father custody, followed lastly by mother custody. But more devastating than these figures is an analysis of PA child abuse statistics I performed for Lancaster-New York Non-Custodial Parents in 2000 showing that mothers plus the men they brought into their children’s lives after their relationship with the fathers are terminated perpetrated 4,021 child abuses in 1999 versus 2,263 perpetrated by fathers plus the women they brought into their children’s lives. Duncan Hunter wins Texas straw poll Donald Hank’s WND exclusive: Define and Conquer Winning in Iraq? Don’t ask Iraqi Christians Emerging church or God’s church?
HRES 590 is a step backward in this regard because it provides a specious prop for an agenda-driven custody system that harms children and decent fathers.
Voters are a little torn these days. Fred Thompson talks a good talk, yet voted for McCain-Feingold and Paul Viguerie warns that he might be just a tad bit bushy for American conservatives’ tastes. Hard to say. The other GOP hopefuls each have a few fatal flaws or don’t seem electable for some reason.
The fact that the erudite Phyllis Schlafly endorses Hunter speaks volumes for this man, and a look at the Hunter for President home page shows he has voted consistently conservative since the start. Conservatives may just have themselves a winner here.
Resorting to the post-modern logic that defending a Christian against non-Christians is somehow un-American, or even un-Christian, and certainly not politically correct, our government has never made a statement denouncing–or even acknowledging–the tragedy of the Iraqi killing fields for Christians.
The same logic applies to the ignored double standard in the Israel-Palestine region: Israel welcomes Arabs in its country and makes them citizens, whereas Palestine denies even entry to all Jews. Our government has never denounced this situation or even mentioned it publicly. Instead we treat both sides as if they were equally culpable. We make the right moves (sometimes) but say the wrong words–none at all when it counts.
If we fail to come to grips with this problem of the treatment of religious minorities in the Arab world, our rationale for being in Iraq is in jeopardy.
Condi, are you out there?
Christian leaders need to know whose side they are on. Too many are trying to have it both ways, serving both the “emerging church” or “church growth” movement or serving the biblical God. The Bible tells us what happens to the lukewarm. It also warns against “serving 2 masters.”
This article should help you to determine what those sides are and which you need to be on. Many Christian leaders talk like Bible believers, but hesitate to refer to themselves that way for fear someone might be offended.
No wonder church attendance is off. People who are true seekers will give that wishy-washiness a big miss.
And those who come to hear sweet talk will not be the salt of the earth.
Shaping The Global ‘Christian’ Youth
By Berit Kjos
But the elitists in government (both parties), whose single-minded purpose is re-election at all costs, didn’t seem to notice. They kept propping up the failed radfem ideology, which, as I showed in an earlier column, is one of the pillars of Maoism.
Here’s what all the fuss is about:
Important scientific studies, like Dr. Warren Farrell’s book Father and Child Reunion, which I mentioned in an earlier column, show that children fare best in intact marriages, followed by father custody, followed lastly by mother custody.
But more devastating than these figures is an analysis of PA child abuse statistics I performed for Lancaster-New York Non-Custodial Parents in 2000 showing that mothers plus the men they brought into their children’s lives after their relationship with the fathers are terminated perpetrated 4,021 child abuses in 1999 versus 2,263 perpetrated by fathers plus the women they brought into their children’s lives.
Duncan Hunter wins Texas straw poll
Donald Hank’s WND exclusive: Define and Conquer
Winning in Iraq? Don’t ask Iraqi Christians
Emerging church or God’s church?