This article introduces a comparative element to the study of the fundamentalist–modernist controversies of the late 1920s, demonstrating that similar ideas are manifested differently in different spatial contexts. Although fundamentalism is primarily considered an American phenomenon, the article argues that the concerns animating fundamentalists in the United States also caused fierce debates elsewhere. It uses three heresy trials – in Belfast, Amsterdam and Stellenbosch – as case studies. In each case, the participants were part of an international Calvinist network, sharing the vast majority of their intellectual commitments and ecclesiastical structure. Yet these shared intellectual commitments did not result in the same outcomes when each group attempted to confront the idea of ‘modernism’ using their church disciplinary procedures. This study demonstrates that social and historical factors played a decisive role in the outcome of each trial. In Belfast, the violent legacy of the recent Irish War of Independence and partition of Ireland lent extra weight to calls for restraint and Protestant unity. In Amsterdam, the social structure of ‘pillarisation’ meant that debates were largely confined within one denomination, and so could be contested more fiercely. In Stellenbosch, meanwhile, the question of how the church should approach the fraught issue of race was the key factor.

中文翻译：

---

比较语境中的宗教争论：1920 年代的阿尔斯特、荷兰和南非

本文引入了一个比较元素来研究 1920 年代后期的原教旨主义 - 现代主义争论，表明相似的想法在不同的空间背景下表现不同。尽管原教旨主义主要被认为是一种美国现象，但文章认为，激发美国原教旨主义者的担忧也在其他地方引起了激烈的争论。它使用三个异端审判——贝尔法斯特、阿姆斯特丹和斯泰伦博斯——作为案例研究。在每种情况下，参与者都是国际加尔文主义网络的一部分，分享他们绝大多数的知识承诺和教会结构。然而，当每个团体试图用他们的教会纪律程序来对抗“现代主义”的想法时，这些共同的智力承诺并没有产生相同的结果。这项研究表明，社会和历史因素在每次试验的结果中都发挥了决定性作用。在贝尔法斯特，最近的爱尔兰独立战争和爱尔兰分裂的暴力遗产给克制和新教团结的呼吁带来了额外的压力。在阿姆斯特丹，“支柱化”的社会结构意味着辩论主要局限于一个教派，因此可以进行更激烈的争论。与此同时，在斯泰伦博斯，教会应该如何处理令人担忧的种族问题是关键因素。“支柱化”的社会结构意味着辩论主要局限在一个教派内，因此可以进行更激烈的争论。与此同时，在斯泰伦博斯，教会应该如何处理令人担忧的种族问题是关键因素。“支柱化”的社会结构意味着辩论主要局限在一个教派内，因此可以进行更激烈的争论。与此同时，在斯泰伦博斯，教会应该如何处理令人担忧的种族问题是关键因素。