The other side of the coin

So, that was, in a nutshell, Biblical criticism. There is more --so much more to it all --but I think you can probably catch the drift. Biblical criticism is textually based examination of holy scripture.

And Hauerwas stated that literalist-fundamentalism and the critical approaches to the Bible are but two sides of the same coin.... (p17)

So, (2) What is literalist-fundamentalism?

Wikipedia defines it thusly: The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart.

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":^[8]

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

First observation, one can tell that 'Fundamentalism' is a totally and thoroughly modern invention. It has not been part of the Christian package except for the past century or so.... And it seems that the inerrancy of the Pope, a dogma begun in 1870 of the Roman Catholic Church, and inerrancy of Scripture (seemingly begun about the same time) spring forth from the same modern rupture: Authority.

The modern pressures of multiple authorities --of science, of scholars, of theologians, of churches, of the individual, of the Nations --how is one supposed to choose which authority is supreme?

I hope I do not have to wax on about Fundamentalism --it has reared its head in every facet of our lives... and it is not limited to one system, one faith.... and has impacted even our daily lives....

But, in 1993, when Hauerwas wrote this book, I do not think many people of mainstream Christian houses of worship, protestant or Roman, feared fundamentalism --it was a fringe activity, left to those who were ignorant and uneducated....

We now know that is not true. Our own house of worship --The Episcopal Church and its sister churches in the wider Anglican Communion, have been wracked with division and schism, much of it fomented in the turbulent arena of biblical interpretation and authority.... Not to mention the fact that much of the public view of what it means to be a Christian at all has been largely shaped by "bible" churches.

So, again, why does Hauerwas suggest that biblical scholarship and fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin?

C'mon --give me your best.... {and then we will get to the (4)--and what does he begin to establish as the "third way" in approaching, reading, interpreting our holy scriptures that we call the "Bible" ??? Like --what does he mean by "necessary mediation by the Church!!!!????}