Return to Answer

St. Augustine specifically makes the point that there was no sun or earth on the first day, so how could days be counted?

I wouldn't really point to the 20th century as when fundamentalism kicked off though; remember Galileo was condemned because his views didn't fit with certain literal interpretations that the church had at the time. I would view this literal fundamentalism as more of something that comes in waves, just as liberalism does. The lifetimes of Galileo and Darwin are two big waves that often get talked about in history. The sexual revolution of the 70's was another one.

I also seem to remember St. Augustine musing about there being no sun or moon on the first day of creation, so what was the meaning of "day". I think it's somewhere later in Confessions when he is meditating on the nature of time.

-- Edit, remove stuff about Galileo, cuz Wtrmute is probably right.

I'm not sure I'd point to the 20th century as when fundamentalism kicked off, you can probably read lots of church history and find disputes between those who could be termed "fundamentalists" or "liberals" and you may find yourself on one side or another depending on the context.

In chapter one Mr. Douthat paints 2 major movements within Protestant Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century; modernists/accomodationists who want to change the church's doctrines to be more palatable to skeptics and fundamentalists who wanted to preserve the church's beliefs. Modernists were willing to challenge the inspiration of the scriptures, virgin birth, reality of the miracles of Christ, and even the resurrection and incarnation. Fundamentalists insisted on preserving all these doctrines and that you had to believe these these things to be Christian. The picture given is that some, or most, fundamentalists became overzealous in their defense and strayed into an error of their own by insisting on literal interpretations simply to oppose whatever modern theory they felt threatened them and condemn Christians who entertained them.

He specifically points to the 1920's as when Evangelical and Fundamental took on their more negative connotations and strict biblical literalism came into fashion. This decade is when the fundamentalists took the issue to court and attempted to ban evolution from school textbooks and lost.

In chapter 1 Mr. Douthat points to 2 major movements within Protestant Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century: modernists/accomodationists who want to change the church's doctrines to be more palatable to skeptics and fundamentalists who want to preserve the church's beliefs. Modernists were willing to challenge the inspiration of the scriptures, virgin birth, reality of the miracles of Christ, and even the resurrection and incarnation. Fundamentalists insisted on preserving all these doctrines and that you had to believe these these things to be Christian. The picture given is that some, or most, fundamentalists became overzealous in their defense and strayed into an error of their own by insisting on literal interpretations simply to oppose whatever modern theory they felt threatened them and condemn Christians who entertained them.

He specifically points to the 1920's as when the terms "Evangelical" and "Fundamental" became associated with strict biblical literalism. This decade is when the biblical literalists in Tennessee took the issue to court and attempted to ban evolution from school textbooks and lost.

The dispute appears to have been around a long time.

In Confessions Augustine mentions that some of his contemporaries teach a literal 6 day creation period, but that he thinks this is incorrect due to the fact that on the first day there wasn't even a sun or earth with which to measure days. However, he doesn't regard the issue as a reason to break communion with any of his contemporaries.

I also know that St. Basil the Great has been quoted in support of a literal 6 days of creation.

So we know that as early as the 4th century either view was held and there was disagreement about the matter, but I don't think anyone accused anyone else of not believing in the Bible because of these differences as I've heard some contemporary pastors do.

I will be able to look up some references for this material later. I am sure of Augustine's position, but I'll have to find some specific writings of Basil to be sure about him; I'll post some quotes from both when I can.

First of all, the dispute has definitely been around for a long time. Here is a link defending an allegorical day interpretation. It references Origen (not a saint) and St. Augustine:

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis

St. Augustine specifically makes the point that there was no sun or earth on the first day, so how could days be counted?

And here is a link using the writings of St. Basil to defend a literal day period for creation.

http://creation.com/genesis-means-what-it-says-basil-ad-329379

The debate clearly existed in the church pretty early on, but it was never accepted as grounds to accuse someone of being a heretic, no councils of the church mention the dispute is what I mean (that I know of).

As for our current state, I think Ross Douthat's book Bad Religion does a good job of addressing this. So I'll sort of paraphrase him and hopefully not oversimplify too much.

In chapter one Mr. Douthat paints 2 major movements within Protestant Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century; modernists/accomodationists who want to change the church's doctrines to be more palatable to skeptics and fundamentalists who wanted to preserve the church's beliefs. Modernists were willing to challenge the inspiration of the scriptures, virgin birth, reality of the miracles of Christ, and even the resurrection and incarnation. Fundamentalists insisted on preserving all these doctrines and that you had to believe these these things to be Christian. The picture given is that some, or most, fundamentalists became overzealous in their defense and strayed into an error of their own by insisting on literal interpretations simply to oppose whatever modern theory they felt threatened them and condemn Christians who entertained them.

He specifically points to the 1920's as when Evangelical and Fundamental took on their more negative connotations and strict biblical literalism came into fashion. This decade is when the fundamentalists took the issue to court and attempted to ban evolution from school textbooks and lost.

However, even orthodox Protestants weren't anywhere near uniformly "fundamentalist" in this sense. Some more specific information comes in chapter 4 of the book. In the 40's Fuller Theological Seminary required its students and faculty to affirm that the Bible was as "exact a guide to geology and biology as it was to the history of salvation". However in the 60's the position of most of the faculty and students shifted to limited inerrancy, meaning that the Bible was only inerrant in the realm of theology. 2 professors even published a book with the thesis that the rigid understanding of inerrancy was invented in the 17th century. This triggered a dispute which resulted in the "International Council on Biblical Inerrancy" which defended a strict position, but with allowances. J.I. Packer (supporter of strict inerrancy) is quoted at the council as saying:

I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture ... but exegetically I cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or another ... Scripture was given to reveal God, not to address scientific issues in scientific terms

So Mr. Douthat concludes that even though inerrancy was upheld in the 70's its implications were reinterpreted to allow for non-literal understandings and truths.

I suppose that his view can be summarized as fundamentalism rising to answer (badly) the challenges of modern scientific skepticism and liberalism. He even labels fundamentalists as anti-intellectual in some cases.

I wouldn't really point to the 20th century as when fundamentalism kicked off though; remember Galileo was condemned because his views didn't fit with certain literal interpretations that the church had at the time. I would view this literal fundamentalism as more of something that comes in waves, just as liberalism does. The lifetimes of Galileo and Darwin are two big waves that often get talked about in history. The sexual revolution of the 70's was another one.

I would say the currently the literal trend seems to be subsiding. Just the other day my Evangelical friend (who listens to way too many podcasts) noted how allegorical interpretations are becoming more popular. You could even point to Rob Bell as an example of an Evangelical pastor who has some very allegorical (and probably heretical) interpretations.

A real answer to this question probably involves a whole big study of 2000 years of Christianity. I don't necessarily think taking creation as a literal 6 days is bad, but I think that Genesis has some much deeper spiritual meaning that will be missed if it is simply used as a beating stick for more liberal Christians.