With all the talk about religion, I thought I'd add some information. This is summarised from "Boundaries of Faith", a book by Roger Stump on religious fundamentalism over the world including Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jews and Sikh, more specifically the chapter he writes on the rise of Protestant fundamentalism in N. America.

The basis of Protestant fundamentalism in N. America were the booklets titled, "The Fundamentals" written by Baptist minister A. C. Dixon in 1909 and funded by Millionaire Lyman Stewart.

The essays in "The Fundamentals" focussed on the defense of the core doctrines of conservative Protestantism. The most prominent was belief in the literal truth in the Bible, which had been challenged in the 1800s by a new approach which cast the Bible as a mixture of folklore, history and poetry rather than a divinely authored text. Other elements of the essays were belief in the virgin birth, resurrection, the second coming and attacks on other Christian faiths.

The essays were inspired by conflict in the 1800s between conservative Protestants and an increasing number of liberals who sought to accomodate scientific beliefs, for example in evolution. Another factor was that in the 1800s, the large evangelical Protestant factions dominated the American religious landscape. Now not only was there increasing secularism and dissesnsion in the ranks, but increasing competition from Jewish and Catholic immigrants.

The most significant issue was the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In fact, during the 1890s, conservative Presbyterians brought formal charges of heresy against three prominant seminary professors who did not strictly follow the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Two were dismissed and the third resigned.

Another important development within conservative Protestism in the late 1800s was the widespread acceptance of the doctrine of dispensational premillenialism, a supernatural interpretation of history based on a literalist reading of the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelations and first made popular by John Darby. According to this doctrine, all of history is divided into distinct eras (or dispensions). Within each era, God sets a test for humanity which it ultimately fails so that each era ends in a catastrophic event e.g. the flood. The present age is the "Church age" which is the sixth or next-to-last era. Most people have failed to achieve salvation and Christianity itself has been corrupted by heresy. At the end of this dispension, will be the rapture of true Christians followed by catastrophe. The last era will be marked by the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the final judgement. This became one of the most distinctive features of conservative Protestantism in the 19th century.

An important development beginning in the 1870s were a series of non-denominational Bible conferences which brought together conservatives to discuss and reaffirm their beliefs. It was in these conferences as well as Biblical schools such as founded by evangelist Dwight L. Moody that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and dispensational premillenialism became popularised amongst conservatives.

Only after the civil war did liberalism become an important force in the US religious scene. They believed that religious beliefs should be reconciled with modern scientific findings even if they contradicted traditional doctrines e.g. the abandonment of the account of creation where God created the world in 6 days. They also approached the Bible in a way known as "higher criticism" where the Bible was the work of human rather than divine origin. Liberals strongly emphasised the concept of free will. Sin was a form of error or the product of social ills rather than an intrinsic component of human nature. This fostered belief in humanity's redemption through the spread of Christianity. They thus rejected the catatrosphe and Second Coming theory espoused by conservatives.

At this point the chapter continues with discussion of confrontation between conservatives and liberals wihin different Churches, the Scopes Monkey trial as an example of how after failing to change the denominations from within, conservatives attempted to target teaching in public schools and finally the transformation to the modern potent political force they are today.

arrrrg, protestant heresy ;)

With all the talk about religion, I thought I'd add some information....

The basis of Protestant fundamentalism in N. America were the booklets titled, "The Fundamentals" written by Baptist minister A. C. Dixon in 1909 and funded by Millionaire Lyman Stewart.



Actually, the basis of Protestant fundamentalism in N. America is the Bible. ;)

basis of Protestant fundamentalism in N. America
Actually, I've never heard of Protestant Fundamentalism outside N. America. ;)

Actually, I've never heard of Protestant Fundamentalism outside N. America. ;)

It's not as well known but it exists, but mainly in the English-speaking world. Australia, in particular, has some pretty hardline people, some of whom I've met (in fact they were sort of investigating me for heresy, but that's another matter). There are also very many in Britain, including in the Church of England: these are the people who make up, for example, Reform (http://www.reform.org.uk/), a very powerful and vocal fundamentalist pressure group within the Church of England. Also related is the rather misleadingly titled Forward in Faith (http://www.forwardinfaith.com/), which is opposed to women priests (about a decade too late). That's more theologically mixed, of course, since opponents to female ordination come from the extreme Anglo-Catholic wing of the church as well as the extreme conservative evangelical wing.

Be aware, also, that the views of Protestant fundamentalists are extremely similar in many respects to those of many Pentecostalists, especially in Africa, which is now the most important Christian continent. The largest Anglican church in the world is not the Church of England but the Church of Nigeria, which means that although its archbishop, Peter Akinola, technically answers to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he is in reality more powerful. Akinola, of course, is the one who says that homosexuals are lower than beasts and who calls the pro-gay attitude of much of the American Anglican (Episcopal) Church the work of Satan.

All this is still English-speaking, of course. You would be hard-pressed to find an equivalent of Akinola or indeed Billy Graham in other major Christian areas, such as continental Europe, South America, or South Korea. Note in particular that the theological liberalism mentioned in the opening article developed above all in Germany in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and simply had far more impact on the church in general there than it did in the English-speaking world (any British churchmen who tried to incorporate the findings of biblical scholarship into their views in the nineteenth century tended to lose their jobs; fortunately things are a little more enlightened now, though not always).

I think also that the prevalence of fundamentalism in the English-speaking world is probably largely to do with the influence of the Puritan heritage (which was an English movement) over its development, and that in itself is a good reason why the heartlands of Protestant fundamentalism remain in the United States, a country that not only has a strong Puritan heritage but actually celebrates the fact every November!

A big difference though is, in Australia at least, Protestant fundamentalism has never obtained the same level of political power as exists in the US. An example of this can be seen in that an Australian politician who talks about God and Jesus in public as much as a typical US politician would be seen as a unelectable. Religion is considered to be a private matter and not to be brought into public service. This is the reason why there was a big stink over Howard appointing a former archbishop as Governor-General (he resigned after getting involved in a scandal involving protecting priests accused of having sex with children though and learning his lesson Howard put someone eminently forgettable and unknown in his place).

Recently, a fundamentalist Protestant party did get several seats in the Senate but not that many people voted for them. It was because of some weird preference deals they did with the major parties. Secondly even they tried very very hard to disavow any links or ties with fundamentalist Christian groups in the US. Thirdly they try not to talk about religion too much in public and emphasise that they are not a religious party but a "family values" party.

The type of Protestant fundamentalism that exists in America is considered very extremist in Australia. Australia is much closer to Europe than the US in regards to what is considered left and right wing. For example, despite being personally opposed to abortion, one of the most conservative PMs in decades, John Howard has refused to reopen the debate on abortion because he knows he will lose mainstream support if he does so. He even made a public statement that he expects his health minister (who nearly became a Catholic priest) that he expects him to implement *government* policy and *only* government policy. In fact, our abortion debate would be considered laughable in the US. Even those politicians who are opposed to abortion are only willing to propose not using Medicare to fund abortions. And the Australian evolution debate - it doesn't even exist...

I guess the difference is

1) It's not as mainstream as in the US.
2) It's nowhere near as politically powerful as in the US. Which is probably related to 1.

It's not as well known but it exists, but mainly in the English-speaking world. Australia, in particular, has some pretty hardline people, some of whom I've met (in fact they were sort of investigating me for heresy, but that's another matter). There are also very many in Britain, including in the Church of England: these are the people who make up, for example, Reform (http://www.reform.org.uk/), a very powerful and vocal fundamentalist pressure group within the Church of England. Also related is the rather misleadingly titled Forward in Faith (http://www.forwardinfaith.com/), which is opposed to women priests (about a decade too late). That's more theologically mixed, of course, since opponents to female ordination come from the extreme Anglo-Catholic wing of the church as well as the extreme conservative evangelical wing.

Be aware, also, that the views of Protestant fundamentalists are extremely similar in many respects to those of many Pentecostalists, especially in Africa, which is now the most important Christian continent. The largest Anglican church in the world is not the Church of England but the Church of Nigeria, which means that although its archbishop, Peter Akinola, technically answers to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he is in reality more powerful. Akinola, of course, is the one who says that homosexuals are lower than beasts and who calls the pro-gay attitude of much of the American Anglican (Episcopal) Church the work of Satan.

All this is still English-speaking, of course. You would be hard-pressed to find an equivalent of Akinola or indeed Billy Graham in other major Christian areas, such as continental Europe, South America, or South Korea. Note in particular that the theological liberalism mentioned in the opening article developed above all in Germany in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and simply had far more impact on the church in general there than it did in the English-speaking world (any British churchmen who tried to incorporate the findings of biblical scholarship into their views in the nineteenth century tended to lose their jobs; fortunately things are a little more enlightened now, though not always).

I think also that the prevalence of fundamentalism in the English-speaking world is probably largely to do with the influence of the Puritan heritage (which was an English movement) over its development, and that in itself is a good reason why the heartlands of Protestant fundamentalism remain in the United States, a country that not only has a strong Puritan heritage but actually celebrates the fact every November!

[Uiler] An important point to bear in mind in this regard is that the link between Protestant fundamentalism and right-wing politics is also very much an American thing. The "religious right" does not really have an equivalent in other countries, even among fundamentalists. In fact I would say that there are probably a lot more left-wing fundamentalists in Britain than there are right-wing ones. (I once heard one state that she couldn't see how anyone could be a Christian - that is, a fundamentalist one - and vote Conservative!) There are, of course, right-leaning religious groups, but these are more likely to be Anglo-Catholics and suchlike rather than extreme Protestants. I think part of the reason for this is that the fundamentalist movement in this country has very strong links with universities, where there is a very high turnover of members - people get converted, become enthusiastic fundamentalists, then become disillusioned with it and drop Christianity altogether (because part of the myth of fundamentalism is that it *is* mainstream Christianity, and other kinds of Christianity are either minor heretical groups or don't exist at all).

An exception to this would be the phenomenon of "urban elite" fundamentalism that you find in places such as West London. I'm thinking of Holy Trinity Brompton, home of the Alpha Course. Even a casual glance at the carpark of this famous church whilst its congregation are inside listening to the Eton-educated Nicky Gumbel spout his views will show you that these are not people who take "blessed are the poor" literally.

[Uiler] An exception to this would be the phenomenon of "urban elite" fundamentalism that you find in places such as West London. I'm thinking of Holy Trinity Brompton, home of the Alpha Course. Even a casual glance at the carpark of this famous church whilst its congregation are inside listening to the Eton-educated Nicky Gumbel spout his views will show you that these are not people who take "blessed are the poor" literally.

Oddly enough when I went to an Alpha Course at my Church, we first had supper and you could donate $5.00 for the supper, but it was ok if you didn't, making it accessable to anyone regardless of income. Dunno, if it's different, because it's a Baptist church, or in Canada, or the Organizers of the program at my Church themsevles, or other factors/a combination.

I do find it funny/interesting how Christianity can get so categorised and factioned, I guess it wouldn't be such a problem, if people weren't so closed minded and only think their believes on certain details are the true interpretation.

Uiler, Good Post, very informative, helps explain a lot about the current ideology in the US.