No. 5 That was interesting. Sometimes the Missouri Synod is accused of fundamentalism, because it teaches verbal inspiration. Are we fundamentalists? What does the term �fundamentalism� really mean? >>PROFESSOR ROLAND ZIEGLER: Well, fundamentalists use today as a kind of -- it's really a call word. Whatever you don't like and it's to your right, it's fundamentalistic. You try to smear your opponent really when you say it's fundamentalist most of the time. If you're fundamentalist, well, then you are narrow minded, bigoted, anti-intellectual, just some kind of an ignoramus. On the other hand, there are some people who proudly bear the name fundamentalists. There are churches who call themselves fundamentalists. They bear that name because they refer back to the historical origin of that word which began in the 20th Century. From 1910 until 1915, 12 volumes of paperbacks were published called "The Fundamentals." They contained of essays defending the conservative evangelical or Protestant position against the theological liberalism of its time. And part of them were first rate theologians that contributed to it. After World War I the movement became more aggressive on social and political issues. Now they really try to roll back the theological liberalism in some denominations. And also the issue of Darwinism became a very hot one. Especially Darwinism taught in schools. And the highlight and maybe also the end of fundamentalism is a broad and very influential movement. It was the famous Scopes trial in 1925 when in Tennessee a schoolteacher was accused of having violated a Tennessee statute that forbade the teaching of evolution in school. And you had for the defense the famous Clarence Darrow, one of the most famous lawyers of his time from Chicago. And for the prosecution you had William Jennings Bryan, who was not some kind of ignoramus. But he was a presidential candidate of the Democratic party and actually the Secretary of State in the Woods Administration. So important and also an educated man. It ended that Scopes was found guilty. The public effect was so disastrous that the Fundamentalist Movement was totally discredited in the larger public. And sometimes the Scopes trial is still celebrated as the victory of the enlightened community of science against those backward Tennesseans. Fundamentalism then retreated somehow in the -- in small churches that became more and more separatistic and also in movements in larger church denominations. And after World War II you had the emergence out of fundamentalism of the so-called New Evangelical Movement, which was less separatistic and less confrontative than the old Fundamentalist Movement. And of course the evangelicals had a great rise in the '70s and '80s. Now, the fundamentalists, the name really comes from that series of paperbacks and also from the idea that there are certain fundamentals of the Christian faith. And these were the five fundamentals: One, the inerrancy of Scripture. Second, the virgin birth of Christ. Third, the atoning death of Christ. Fourth, the bodily resurrection of Christ. And fifth, the return of Christ. So that's the historical use of the term fundamentalism. Most of the time it is no longer used in that way. We hear everybody can be a fundamentalist. You hear about fundamentalist Jews, Muslims, Hindus, whatever. In Germany there were even the -- in the Green Party the ecologists. There were fundamentalist Greens. And for those who didn't want to participate with other parties but wanted to keep the doctrine pure. Be in a fundamental opposition. And fundamentalism in that use has become a term that describes the opposition against modernity. That parts of a population are disturbed by the development of modern society. And they react against that. They object to it. They want to turn the clock back. Sometimes even violently. So it's a movement borne out of modernity. But it is anti-modern. And from this use of the term, fundamentalism has became an equivalent for reactionary, bigoted sometimes even violent. When Christians, fundamentalist Christians, can then suddenly be compared to fundamentalist Shiite. Which of course you charge the Christians because you say: Well, you know, you're fundamentalists so you have the same kind of mind set. So it's just a question of time that they start suicide attacks, whatever. Which is of course demagoguery has nothing to do with reality. But it comes in handy in political debates. You know, if you want to -- if you want to defend the teaching of Darwinism in schools, for example, oh, those fundamentalist Christians, next thing is that they want every woman wearing a burqa and things like that. Now, as a fundamentalist church is sometimes asserted is the LCMS. Well, historically the LCMS was never part of the Fundamentalist Movement. Of course when the fundamentalists defended the inspiration of Scripture and these basic doctrines of Christianity against the theological liberalism, the Missouri Synod really applauded. But it applauded from the side. It was an observer, not a participant. The Missouri Synod did not participate in the Fundamentalist Movement because there were some serious theological differences between them and the fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is said as a movement of conservative evangelicalism and Protestantism and comes out of a certain strength which is typical of a large segment of evangelicalism. That is it's pietistic and revivalistic. Fundamentalism stressed not only the five points as a kind of minimal basis for unity but also into personal sanction also combined with teetotalism. And you can't say much about the LCMS because they were never really into teetotalism. They never really pushed prohibition in the saving of souls through revivals. So LCMS was all for saving souls. But they didn't put up the tents that had the Gospel songs there or the sensationalistic, revivalistic methods that for example Billy Sunday used. Whenever you come to Fort Wayne you have to make a trip to Winona and visit the Billy Sunday House. He was the first big showman evangelist. The Missouri Synod did not approve of these kind of methods. Also throughout its history fundamentalism was strongly influenced by dispensational premillennialism. That's a specific brand of premillennialism. And the Missouri Synod was always opposed to premillennialism in general. And especially dispensational premillennialism. So there were these theological differences. Thus, the LCMS did not really join the Fundamentalist Movement because it is a confessional church. It does not believe in five points and then you can do whatever you want. It believes that there is more to the foundation of the faith than that. I mean, it's kind of amazing that you have Protestants agreeing on five points and they don't say anything about justification for example. So the centrality of justification is not there. And if you think of the revivalistic background of people like Finney, for example, who was an outspoken ***kolasian. I mean, he did not believe in justification by faith alone. You know the LCMS could never, ever call for somebody like that or applaud "You can be as conservative as you want." It's like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe unanimously in Scripture. It doesn't help they don't believe in the Trinity nor in justification by faith. So there is more to the Christian faith than inspiration. Also the LCMS as a Lutheran Church was a sacramental church. And the Fundamentalist Movement is asacramental. Not only asacramental but anti-sacramental. If you ever talk to fundamentalist just on the topic of infant baptism and say you are saved through baptism and they will tell you you're a pagan and there's the Romanist Leaven you haven't cast out. And that's magic. You don't understand what faith is. And you'll see there's not that much unity there. As I said, these premillennial ideas are an obstacle. And you still see that among evangelicals. The success of the Left Behind Series is just an example. They are consumed with these ideas. Whereas Lutherans say: Jesus will come and that's it. And let's wait and keep the faith until he comes. It's not: What's the signs of time? And when will the anti-Christ come? And what's happening with Israel? We'll have plenty of time to talk about that later. The other thing is that the LCMS has actually a doctrine of the church. Well, fundamentalists of some kind do, too. But it's more of a movement. So it doesn't matter to which denomination you belong as long as it's ascribed to the five fundamentals. And the LCMS always said no. Okay. There are Christians in all visible communities. But there is actually a difference between belonging to a true visible church and a false visible church. Church membership does matter. What about the definition then of fundamentalism as a movement against modernity? So theologically it's unfair and it's a stretch historically to identify the misfortunate with the Fundamentalist Movement. Well, you can see it seems to fit the LCMS to some extent. The LCMS doesn't simply embrace modernity. We don't say: The times are getting better and better all the time. Everything is just dandy. And it's so great where we live. Rather we have some apprehensions. Moral relativism for example. There is an apprehension against Darwinism. And there is a widespread field that you live in a decadent culture with some right. Not that the days before were all golden. For example, if you read examples by Walther, he didn't say the 19th Century is such a great place. There's always sin. But there are differences in what public sins are accepted and not. And also there's a certain separatism if you want to call it like that from the outside in the LCMS. On the other hand, though, the LCMS is not truly a separatistic movement. Okay? members do not live in compounds or wear strange things or have this kind of fundamental opposition to a society. The LCMS didn't have an ideologically consistent opposition to modernity. Hey, we are on the Internet right now. So we don't say: Oh, it's all from the devil. It's just getting worse and worse. You should take out the hammocks and smash your computers and just go to the old ways. We are not some kind of critical Amish. So the LCMS, it's not a Fundamentalist Movement I think also in the sociological term. It has a critical relationship to modern society. Now, if you want to call everybody that has a critical relationship to modernity a fundamentalist, be my guest. But that's highly ideological. Who wants to really say that everything is just getting better and better? That sounds more like something you have out of a 12-step program but not a perception of reality. Therefore, the LCMS has certain features in common with fundamentalism but so does it with Roman Catholicism, the ELCA and others. That there are certain features in common does not mean that it is part of it. Theologically it never was and it is not now a part of the Fundamentalist Movement. We are still different. It also cannot simply subsume as an anti-modern ideology. When we hear "therefore," but that's fundamentalistic. We have to reject that and say: Okay. That's an imprecise use of the term. Don't try to take the brush out and just tar me. And don't try this kind of pigeonhole thinking instead of actually looking. But what do you say if somebody tells you after you explain to him what you believe about the real presence of Christ in the body and blood of the Lord's Supper, they can say: Well, that's Roman Catholic. That's true. There are some differences. But generally it's Roman Catholic. It doesn't mean that it's wrong. Because you can say, "It's Roman Catholic. Therefore, it's wrong." It's not a criterion of truth. If a fundamentalist happened to agree with me, good for the fundamentalist. If a liberal agrees with me, good for the liberal. I won't give up my belief because, well, the ELCA highly esteems the Book of Concord at least on paper or at least somewhat esteems the Book of Concord. You can't do that because that's what the ELCA does. I mean, that's stupid. It's not calling somebody a fundamentalist. You have to try to get back the discussion to discuss issues. Okay. Not try to pigeonhole things and thereby close your mind to actually discussing a question. Is it true? The question is not: Is it fundamentalistic? The question is: Is it true? Let's talk about that.