Define 'fundamentalist', please

Terry MATTingly on Religion ^ | May 16th, 2011 | Terry Mattingly

[Alex Murphy]

I always thought a fundamentalist was a guy with the ability to read minds enjoying himself... I could be wrong.

You're only wrong if you think I'm doing it for free.

[irishtenor]

That’s the guy! The Fundamentalist!

[annalex]

I used to argue back and forth with an American (white and mainstream in every other way), who became Muslim, and learned a lot from him about Islam. One thing he liked to point out is that every Muslim, by definition is "fundamentalist": there is a core set of beliefs that are not questioned, inerrant and inspired nature of the Koran first among them. He said, call us militant or peaceful, traditionalist or modernist, Sunny or Shia, -- but do not call us "fundamentalist" because the word does not apply to just some of us, but to all of us.

And indeed you cannot deny the Muslim vigor. That is one thing they have going for them.

My advice to that certain branch of Evangelicalism is not to resist the term. As Zionist Conspirator beautifully explains in 6, it is to a religious person the only way to be; as a conservative Catholic I would be happy to describe myself "fundamentalist", but you guys own the term now and I don't want to confuse people. (There is a Catholic idiot with his head in TV who calls Catholics of my disposition Taliban Catholics). The opposite of "fundamentalist" is not "enlightened" as the left would like to think, but "poorly educated", "shallow", or "lukewarm". I'd rather be called Taliban than that.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Thanks for the kind words. Just remember: facticity.

[blue-duncan]

“Most self described fundamentalists I know consider themselves Evangelicals”

Being one of them “stupid sumbitchs”, I tend to disagree that Fundamentalists consider themselves Evangelicals. Fundamentalists split with the Evangelicals over “easy believism” in modern revivals and the anxious, self-conscious need of Evangelicals to be socially and intellectually acceptable to the Modernist intellectual elite. The core beliefs of the Fundamentalists were; The inerrancy of the Bible; the literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially Jesus’ miracles, and the Creation; the Virgin Birth of Christ; the bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ; and the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Within the Fundamentalist movement some have also made Dispensationalism in all its various forms, KJV only, and either 4 or 4.5 or 5 point Solas as part of the core beliefs depending on which branch of the “stupid sumbitch” family to which one belongs.

Some Evangelicals may consider themselves “Fundamentalists” but I don’t know of any self respecting Fundamentalist who considers himself an Evangelical. He would lose the secret word and have to turn in his KJV for an NIV. If he was seen at a Billy Graham or Luis Palau rally he might have to settle for “The Message”.

[annalex]

belief in the facticity of religious truth

Facticity and historicity.

[annalex]

So you would disagree with this definition:

Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s[1] and gained popularity in the United States during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century.

Its key commitments are:

• The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
• Actively expressing and sharing the gospel
• A high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy
• An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and subsequent resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.[2]

David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism, noting, "Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism."[3]

Wiki

I am not trying to pick a fight, -- I am truly curious. If anybody asked me, I would define "Evangelicalism" as above, and then Fundamentalism as its subspecies that sticks to scriptural literalism.

[blue-duncan]

“Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s”

Evangelicalism as a movement as we know it today started in the 1930s and 40s as a reaction to the liberal perception that Fundamentalists were “stupid sumbitches” with their simple “Bible Schools” and “Bible Institutes” that only prepared the unwashed for pulpit ministry or missions but not scholarship. It is a break off of Fundamentalism.

The definition that Wiki has was probably written by an Evangelical scholar to lend a richer historical foundation to what is otherwise a plain spiritual ego split.

[annalex]

So if you were to describe the part of Protestantism by the four points in the Wiki article, and perhaps stress that you exclude any high church Protestantism, you would not call that group by any single name? You would say, “Evangelicals and Fundamentalist” or maybe “Baptists, Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, and the like”? Or would “low-church Protestants” be a good catch-all term?

[blue-duncan]

I don’t know if “High Church” or “Low Church” is the proper differentiation when discussing Fundamentalism. There were many “High Church” (Episcopalians and Presbyterians) that were Fundamentalists and there were many “Low Church” people who were in the Liberal camp. Those that call themselves Evangelicals come from both “High” and “Low” camps.

I think what distinguishes the Fundamentalists now is the issue of separation based on the 5 points, how they view the Solas, Dispensationalism, revivalism, ecumenicism, version of Bible, etc. In other words, Fundies can separate for whatever reason they think advances their agenda.

I have to deal with it with my clients all of the time. I usually read their covenants and and talk with them to know where their line in the sand has been drawn.