Posted on 05/25/2011 9:45:34 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Few hot-button, “fighting words” are tossed around with wilder abandon in journalism today than the historical term “fundamentalist.”
The powers that be at the Associated Press know this label is loaded and, thus, for several decades the wire service’s style manual has offered this guidance for reporters, editors and broadcast producers around the world.
“fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. … However, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.
“In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.”
The problem is that religious authorities — the voices journalists quote — keep pinning this label on others. Thus, one expert’s “evangelical” is another’s “fundamentalist.” For “progressive” Catholics, in other words, Pope Benedict XVI is a “fundamentalist” on sexuality.
Anyone who expects scholars to stand strong and defend a basic, historic definition will be disappointed. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame once quipped, among academics “fundamentalist” has become a “term of abuse or disapprobation” that most often resembles the casual semi-curse, “sumbitch.”
“Still, there is a bit more to the meaning. … In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views,” noted Plantinga, in an Oxford Press publication. “That makes it more like ‘stupid sumbitch.’ … Its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ “
This linguistic fight has spread to other faiths and, thus, affects religion news worldwide.
The Orthodox side of Judaism now consists of “ultra-conservatives,” “traditionalists,” “ultra-Orthodox” or “fundamentalists,” depending on who defines the terms. There are “fundamentalist” Hindus, as well. In Islam, journalists keep trying to draw lines between “Islamists,” “Muslim radicals,” “fringe groups” and a spectrum of other undefined doctrinal camps including, of course, “fundamentalists.”
This confusion makes it hard for researchers with good intentions to shed light on news events in complex cultures. Take Egypt, for example, a nation in which conflicts exist between multiple forms of Islam and various religious minorities, including the Coptic Orthodox Christians who are nearly10 percent of the population.
Recent surveys by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project tried to find defining lines between political and religious groups in Egypt, after the fall of President Hosni Mubarak.
“Egyptians hold diverse views about religion,” stated the report. “About six-in-ten (62%) think laws should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran. However, only 31% of Egyptian Muslims say they sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists, while nearly the same number (30%) say they sympathize with those who disagree with the fundamentalists, and 26% have mixed views on this question.”
Meanwhile, on two other crucial questions: “Relatively few (39%) give high priority to women having the same rights as men. … Overall, just 36% think it is very important that Coptic Christians and other religious minorities are able to freely practice their religions.”
So while only 31 percent sympathize with “fundamentalist” Muslims, 60-plus percent decline to give high priority to equal rights for women and 62 percent believe Egypt’s laws should STRICTLY follow the Quran. Also, only 36 percent strongly favor religious liberty for religious minorities. Each of these stances mesh easily with alternative “fundamentalism” definitions offered by experts.
To add more complexity, 75 percent of those surveyed had a somewhat or very favorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood’s surging role in Egyptian life — a group long classified as “fundamentalist” in global reports, such as historian Martin Marty’s “Fundamentalism as a Social Phenomenon” in 1988.
While there is no Arabic word for “fundamentalist,” Pew researchers believe many Egyptians have begun applying a similar term to some groups of “very conservative Muslims,” according to James Bell, director of international survey research for the Pew Research Center.
However, he added, the complexities and even conflicts inside these new survey results make it hard to say specifically who is or who isn’t a “fundamentalist” in the context of Egypt today.
“For our Egypt survey, the term ‘fundamentalist’ was translated into Arabic as ‘usuuli,’ which means close to the root, rule or fundamental,” he explained. “It is our understanding that this Arabic term is commonly used to describe conservative Muslims. … So that’s the word that we used.”
“In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.”
The problem is that religious authorities — the voices journalists quote — keep pinning this label on others. Thus, one expert’s “evangelical” is another’s “fundamentalist.” For “progressive” Catholics, in other words, Pope Benedict XVI is a “fundamentalist” on sexuality.
Anyone who expects scholars to stand strong and defend a basic, historic definition will be disappointed. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame once quipped, among academics “fundamentalist” has become a “term of abuse or disapprobation” that most often resembles the casual semi-curse, “sumbitch.”
The term [Fundamentalism] was born when conservative Protestants in early-20th-century America committed themselves to defend the five "fundamentals" of their faith -- the inerrancy of the Bible, virgin birth and deity of Jesus, doctrine of atonement, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and His imminent return.
-- from the thread The many forms of fundamentalism
Fundamentalist: A term created during the turn-of-the-20th-century Protestant church splits to define those who held to the “fundamentals” of Christianity—the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus and his literal resurrection from the dead. The term is now considered pejorative. (Wheaton College philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga famously observed, “The full meaning of the term...can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.’”)Related threads:
-- from the thread New Kids In The Flock
See also:
The Presbyterians' Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910 [Wikipedia]
bttt
An oft-repeated maxim is that everyone more religious than me is a fanatic, everyone less so is a heretic.
I am proud to wear the label of “Christian fundamentalist”.
I don’t find the term to be pejorative or derogatory at all, even when that’s how its use is intended.
That's pretty good - I'm going to have to remember that one!
My definition of "fundamentalism" is "belief in the facticity of religious truth." This means that religious doctrines/beliefs mean what they say and are not charming allegorical myths created organically by the various ethno-cultures (ie, "faith traditions").
The other definition of "fundamentalist," the one used by everyone else, is equally simple: it's an ethnic slur. It is used exclusively of poor rural Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic Americans. One of another ethnicity, by definition, can never be a "fundamentalist" regardless of how literally they interpret the Bible (the Black community is the best illustration of this).
I like mine better: G-d is not only a "truth" (whatever that means), but a fact as well, and everything He says is also factual.
Good post. For the uninformed - Alvan Plantinga is the most brilliant and influential American philosopher of at least the last 100 years. Arguably since 17th/18th century philosopher and theologian Johnathan Edwards. He single handedly led a acedemic revolution back in the 70’s such that in many universities the philosophy department became the only faction of the college that had as many Christian faculty as agnostic/athiest faculty.
What are the diiferences among Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Oneness. Do they all adhere to Sola scriptura?
Welcome to Free Republic!
aksarben6
Since May 24, 2011
Depends. Most self described fundamentalists I know consider themselves Evangelicals. I would imagine most self described Evangelicals and Fundamentalists adhere to Sola Scrpiture. I know very lilttle about the oneness Pentacostals except that they deny the Trinity. It is a heretical, Arianist sect.
and Oneness. Do they all adhere to Sola scriptura?
No. Oneness Pentacostals I know do not believe God ended his revelations in the book of Revelation. The oneness doctrine is a result of some man’s personal revelation about the Godhead in early part of the 20th century. And they deny justification by grace through faith alone.
Define:
fundamentalist:
a person who gives funds to the mental hospital
I forgot the sarcasm/satire tag ont aht. Consider it done.
Akin to my retort to a left-winger’s loaded question of “so where do you put yourself on the political spectrum?” : everyone is a centrist to themselves, “left” and “right” is relative to that.
Blew his mind.
Oneness Pentecostals are not Arians. Arians (and those in their orbit) believe J*sus is a lesser being than the Father, a "demigod." Oneness Pentecostals believe there is only one person in the G-dhead and that J*sus is it; ie, when J*sus was on earth, heaven was vacant.
So would you characterize them as more Sabellian or Modalists?
I’ll have to remember that one.
I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I've read this stuff, but if I recall correctly the Modalists/Sabellians believed in a trinity of "modalities." The Oneness Pentecostals don't believe in a trinity at all. And I think some of them (Modalists/Sabellians) said J*sus wasn't real and didn't really die. The Oneness Pentecostals don't say that. They say he really died but that he was the one and only person in the godhead incarnated.
Come to think of it, you could probably call them modalists of a sort. Sabellians, I'm not so sure. But remember, heaven was vacant when J*sus was on earth (according to them).
I always thought a fundamentalist was a guy with the ability to read minds enjoying himself... I could be wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.