Defining terms.
You know what they say: whenever you are losing an argument, just stop and require your opponent to define their terms ad infinitum. That way the argument gets lost in the hopeless idea that all you are doing is talking past each other. It is a dirty move in debate, but, in reality, we do need to stop every once in awhile, catch our breath, and define our terms.
The term “fundamentalist,” I find, is very ambiguous. It is very difficult to know what people mean when they use it. Nine times out of ten I would not call myself a fundamentalist; eight times out of ten I would repudiate the designation. This is why I was quite taken aback when John Piper tweeted this the other day:
“An easy way to gather a wimpy army is to summon all the soldiers who are boldly determined not to sound like Fundamentalists.”
I was even more surprised when so many people “retweeted” (RT) it (i.e. they thought it was a good statement that they should pass on through their Twitter account).
When I read this, I thought to myself, Sheesh, I am quite determined not to sound like a Fundamentalist. In fact, I don’t want to sound like one, act like one, or be designated as one. So there! But then I thought, I am not wimpy. I am not wimpy at all. You should see me get after my bag in my garage. There ain’t a wimpy bone in me. Well, come to think of it, I have been getting sick a lot lately. But I will get over it. You know why? Because I am not wimpy!
But I suspect that I am defining “fundamentalist” a bit differently than Piper. At least, I hope I am.
I am an Evangelical, not a fundamentalist! I say this with a bit of pride. But I have come to recognize over the years that many times when I make this distinction, some people don’t get it. “But, but, but, I thought they were the same thing,” some people respond.
The Fundamentalist movement began in the late nineteenth century in reaction to liberalism. So far, so good: I am not a liberal. I am going to use some traditional hard-and-fast designations here (that still work!). A “liberal” in Christian scholarship refers to a movement in Christianity brought about during the enlightenment. Liberals of the time rejected traditional Christianity for a more “enlightened” version. They challenged everything from the historicity of Christ to the possibility of miracles. “Higher criticism,” as it is sometimes called, brought into question just about everything that the Bible seemed to teach. The Fundamentalist movement was an early twentieth century movement that sought to counter theological liberalism by reaffirming orthodox Protestant Christianity. It was an issue of identity. Christianity was beginning to lose its identity as liberals, who looked nothing like the historic Christian faith, were calling themselves Christian nonetheless. Still so far, so good. There were some great men involved in this movement, e.g., J. Gresham Machen and B.B. Warfield. At the time, the term “Fundamentalist,” first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner, became synonymous in American Protestantism (especially in the south) with “orthodox Christianity” or simply non-liberal Christians. I can identify with that.
But in the 1930s Fundamentalism gradually shifted in its focus. It took on a more extravagant separationist mentality. Fundamentalists began to be identified with a much more legalistic version of Christianity. It was no longer just those fundamentals of the faith that were under attack by liberals that fundamentalists separated from, but from every doctrine and practice of those that they considered to be in cahoots with the liberals. If the culture believes it, if the culture does it, we don’t. Why? Because the culture is evil. Therefore, movies, smoking, card playing, drinking, and cussing became among the fundamentals of the new fundamentalists. The doctrinal statement of these fundamentalists became long and burdensome, allowing for very little freedom in beliefs or practice, even among the issues that others believed were debatable and unclear.
For this reason, the Evangelical movement began. “Evangelical” was not a new term: it was used to describe the Lutherans at the time of the Reformation. That is why many called this modern Evangelical movement “neo-Evangelical” (coined by Harold J. Ockenga in 1947). Ockenga argued that Fundamentalism had lost its way, having the wrong attitude about the church’s relationship to culture. He believed that fundamentalism was doing more harm than good, and had not had the desired effect on Liberalism either socially or theologically. Edward J. Carnell argued that fundamentalism was “orthodoxy gone cultic” because of its convictions that went well beyond historic Christianity as represented in the early creeds. Others argued that fundamentalism was a new form of anti-intellectual Christianity that could not defend itself and would eventually lose relevance and bring Christianity down in the social market of ideas. Evangelicalism came to regain focus and lighten the load. With leaders such as Ockenga, Billy Graham, and Carl F. Henry, Evangelicals represented a “third way” (tertium quid) between liberals and fundamentalists. They were committed to traditional doctrine and practice, but allowed for much more freedom and diversity in the areas that were biblically debatable and/or less important. Evangelicals sought to reengage the intellect and encourage Christians to reenter society and gain what was lost in the market of ideas.
From this, one can see that there is a great chasm that exists between Evangelicals and fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are not Evangelicals and Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Of course, within Evangelicalism you find those that are more traditional (such as David Wells, John Piper, and John MacArthur) but you also have those who would be more “progressive” (such as Roger Olson, Stanley Grenz, and N.T. Wright). The progressives are more willing to push the envelope either in areas of doctrine or practice, while the traditionalists are about maintaining the traditions as they have received them. It is hard to maintain ground as an Evangelical. There is always the temptation to slip back into fundamentalism or to progress too far toward Liberalism. But there are those who could be seen as maintaining the middle ground (such as Billy Graham, Chuck Swindoll, J.I. Packer, and Chuck Colson).
Either way, the common Evangelical credo (though not originating with modern Evangelicalism) is, “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” The fundamentalist movement, as it became, would not like this credo because there is no such thing as “non-essentials.” To the Liberal, all things were gray. To the fundamentalist, all things were black and white. To the Evangelical, there is black, white, and gray.
Another way to put it: Evangelicalism has a center (anchor), not boundaries; fundamentalism attempts to create a center by the creation of multiple boundaries.
Some other more popular (and fun) ways to distinguish between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals:
How do you tell the difference between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical? Ask them if they like Billy Graham. Evangelicals love Billy Graham; fundamentalists believe he compromised.
How do you tell the difference between a fundamentalist and an Evangelical? Ask them what is the eternal destiny of Catholics. For the fundamentalist, all Catholics are going to hell. Evangelicals are not so certain.
My favorite is this:
What is an Evangelical? A nice fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists are young earth Creationists. Evangelicals have no definite stance on the origins issue other than the belief that, however creation happened, God did it.
Both fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, however, share a devotion to the absolute and final authority of Scripture. Both share in their belief that the Reformation was a good and necessary thing. Evangelicals are more prone to follow the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”) since they are not so dogmatic about all areas of theology and practice.
Fundamentalism has all but lost its association with the early years of the movement. It is now a term that is used in just about every discipline to describe those who are radically and, often, militantly committed to their cause. It is associated with narrow mindedness with an obscurantist mentality. Positively, an obscurantist seeks to protect their people from what they perceive to be dangerous beliefs and practices; negatively, the obscurantist indoctrinates their own with what they perceive to be the truth without allowance of any sort of “free thought.” In this, it is not unlike the Roman Catholic system that Protestantism left.
I don’t know what Piper meant when he said, in essence, that if you don’t want to be a Fundamentalist, you are weak. In my mind, fundamentalism and legalism is weakness. It is an attempt make sure that you have everything figured out and a list of do’s and don’ts. I think that it takes much more strength to be a true Evangelical than it does to be either a liberal or a fundamentalist.
Either way, whatever he meant, this gave me the opportunity to write a blog about the difference between fundamentalists and Evangelicals. I hope this was helpful.
63 replies to ""I am not Wimpy" or What is the Difference Between an Evangelical and A Fundamentalist"
As one who would call himself a fundamentalist but is opposed to much of the movement I must disagree with your characterization of fundamentalism. Many of the accusations that you laid at the feet of the fundamentalists are accurate with regard to some fundamentalists. I think that the weakness of your post is that you view fundamentalism as a monolithic movement. This weakness is the same weakness that fundamentalists (there are many weaknesses of the movement which I readily admit) have regarding evangelicals. In my younger years I did not see any difference between members of the evangelical movement. I’m sure you would have to admit that Clark Pinnock and John Piper represent distinct flavors of Evangelicalism. This is also true of fundamentalism.
Unfortunately, the representation of Fundamentalism that you provided is not unfounded. There are many fundamentalists who would be guilty of separation over non-essentials, but there are many who merely want to firmly hold to orthodoxy and not imply an endorsement of anything heterodox by cooperating with it.
Fundamentalism is undergoing a significant shake up right now. There are many who would identify with the term fundamentalist in reference to the idea, but flee from the movement. This group is trying to transform Fundamentalism into a concept characterized by both commitment to orthodoxy and charity in the non-essentials. I’m sure this doesn’t change your opinion of Fundamentalism but I think it is important that you recognize that it is no more monolithic then broader Evangelicalism.
CMP,
You’ve done it. You’ve questioned the icon of the neo-reformed. The wrath is about to begin.
Very helpful post. I found it stimulating.
Jeromy,
Thanks so much for the comments. I would say that since the 1940s Fundamentalism became fundamentalism. In other words, it would not, in my opinion, be accurate to call it a movement any longer, but a mindset. I would say that the only vestiges that remain that are distinct are their legalistic tendencies. In this, they are monolithic.
Of course, Evangelicalism is diverse as that is a built in intension of the movement (and Evangelicalism can be, I believe, called a movement).
It can be said that Evangelicalism has a center, not boundaries. Fundamentalism attempts to create a center by the creation of boundaries. Hmmm…I like that. Going to add it to the original post!
Thanks for the comments and participation here on the blog!
Luke,
I thought that I was the icon of the neo-Reformed! 🙁
I’m not sure what Piper meant, but there is a grain of truth in it. We evangelicals are weak when we try to avoid saying things that are part of classical orthodoxy because non-Christians associate the statement with militant fundamentalism.
Example: “Jesus is the only way to God”
And yes, there is a new poll on the upper right!
CMP,
You become the icon of the neo-reformed only when one questions what you say, and hundreds of people respond by defending you, writing blog posts about it, preaching sermons about it, and calling the person who questions you a liberal. It’s similar to the kid at the playground saying his dad can beat your dad up. The icon is the daddy the neo-reformed defend at all costs, no matter what is said.
Let me know when you’ve reached that status 😉
For now, it belongs to Piper!
It was entertaining, and a good synopsis, though I would take issue, for example, with the idea that to be YEC is necessarily to be fundamentalist. Ironically, that almost seems a dogmatic assertion.
I haven’t read the Piper quote in context–well, I guess with Twitter, there isn’t any context–but the way I read it, he was saying that you don’t want your army to be made up of those who are just dreadfully afraid of sounding, God forbid, like they’re equipped with a book full of revealed truth from God or something. To fight the battles the church is engaged in these days, often you have to be willing to say, “This is what God has said in the Bible, and it is very clear,”–which, of course, it is in most parts–even though more than a few people ridicule doing that sort of thing as the mark of a hopelessly redneck fundie.
Or so I take him to mean.
I like the “missional” label. It’s about time people start incorporating that label along with the others! That’s where I’m definitely at.
Luke,
Fine!
(But my dad CAN beat up your dad. Just saying…)
Man, I think that this is what he was saying as well. I just don’t know if it was the best word to use considering the history of Fundamentalism in Christianity and Piper’s knowledge of this undeniable association.
What I would have said:
“An easy way to gather a wimpy army is to summon all the soldiers who are boldly determined not to speak in such a way that will offend.”
I agree with Man of the West. Michael, I don’t think Piper was saying “if you don’t want to be a Fundamentalist, you are weak.” I think he was saying that you have a problem if your goal is to NOT be something. Your army will be wimpy if everyone’s trying NOT to be a fundamentalist instead of trying TO be an evangelical, or Reformed, or whatever. He wasn’t saying everyone should be fundamentalists.
I can agree with your assessment of Fundamentalism post-1940s being defined by legalism. I would argue that there are those who were striving to not be legalists while still calling themselves fundamentalist. Particularly today their is a growing sentiment in Fundamentalism that is actively rejecting much of what the movement has stood for in the past. Those holding to this sentiment (namely, me and others like me) are happy to take on the label of fundamentalism as far is it means separation from those who compromise the essential elements of the gospel while not being willing to adopt the uncharitable application of that separation and the separation over secondary and tertiary issues. I think of myself as a fundamentalist but don’t really like others identifying me with the movement. Many fundamentalists of my persuasion would find more in common with the Pipers and Devers of the world than some of the fundamentalists of the past.
If you would be interested there is a 4-part analysis of the fundamentalist movement that has recently been posted by a fundamentalist seminary professor at http://www.sharperiron.org You may be interested to read a bit of self-analysis by a fundamentalist much smarter than I am. I would not agree with several things which he says but it would be enlightening for a non-fundamentalist to read, much as your post was very enlightening to me.
And so it begins. . .
The neo-reformed also claim they know the intent behind the icon’s words even when the icon did not clarify, b/c they cannot handle disagreeing with said icon
Jeremy,
You sound much more like an evangelical than a fundamentalist. It may be wise just to drop the “fundamentalist” label because of the connotations it has acquired within the past several decades.
Something to think about. . .
Thanks for taking this statement of Piper’s on. I think much of the Reformed community’s constituency is incipiently fundamentalist. I certainly found this out when I was at Westminster Seminary. I was expecting a bit more identification with broad evangelicalism. What I found was a “Bob Jones U” like atmosphere that I had left behind as a collegian. I love Piper, enjoy his books, am edified by his preaching. But there is no doubt in my mind that so many who rally to the banner he lifts are fundamentalists under another garb
Were Chafer and Walvoord Fundamentalists?
The actual quote:
“An easy way to gather a wimpy army is to summon all the soldiers who are boldly determined not to sound like Fundamentalists.”
Does not mean:
“if you don’t want to be a Fundamentalist, you are weak.”
The original statement is about the intentions you have in what you say and do. Our bold determination is to preach Christ crucified, not to avoid derogatory labels. Your essay is a good overview of the differences between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, but as an argument, it seems to be misdirected.
Jeremy,
What is a “non-legalistic Fundamentalist”?
Answer: An Evangelical.
😉
Cadis, both Chafer and Walvoord lived under this time of transition from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism. They may have identified themselves as both.
However, just before Walvoord died, I was able to sit under him some. I would not have classified him as a Fundamentalist. Way to broad in his studies and too tolerant of those who differed.
A
couplefew things:1. You are talking about four groups in this post, not merely three. First, Liberals; second, Fundamentalists; third, fundamentalists, and, fourth, Evangelicals. It is possible for Evangelicals to be Fundamentalists, i.e., to adhere to the Five Fundamentals. But it is not possible for an Evangelical to be a fundamentalist: this is excluded by definition.
I think Piper is talking about Fundamentalists – those committed to absolute truth as revealed in the Bible – and you are primarily talking about fundamentalism, which you rightly eschew.
2. You wrote:
In addition to being wrong about Evangelicalism, it also makes no sense regarding fundamentalism, at least to me.
Evangelicalism has clearly defined boundaries, e.g., the bodily resurrection of Christ, the authority of the Scriptures. What it does not have is dogmatism about non-essentials.
And how does one create a center by creating multiple boundaries? You can create a center via narrow, rigid, immovable boundaries but not with multiple boundaries. In practice, I don’t what it would look like for fundamentalism to create a center by coming up with multiple boundaries. But perhaps it’s just my intellectual deficiency showing it’s stupid head again.
B.N. – As for the “I’m not a wimp” protestation, well, we’ll discuss emasculated irenicism another day.
I would love to see a breakdown of the categories in the poll and how they differ from one another. The book ends are clear but middle is a little fuzzy.
Just to make something clear here. . .
I love John Piper and I love how he is impacting the church in many ways. Just because I may not agree with everything he says and because I don’t think that his tweet was the best use of words, does not mean that he is not a hero of mine. He is.
This post is not about holding his feet to the fire about his word usage. I think that he meant this in a different way. It was simply a good opportunity to talk about being careful with the way you use words that can be misunderstood and, more importantly, the difference between Evangelicals and Fundamentalist.
Michael,
“However, just before Walvoord died, I was able to sit under him some. I would not have classified him as a Fundamentalist. Way to broad in his studies and too tolerant of those who differed.”
Walvoord from what I understand did not want to relinquish the title of Fundamentalist. I understand why he did not want to. True Fundamentalism is not about “petty” disagreeances and legalism. I’m tolerant of those I disagree with, they may disagree I’m tolerant but that’s their problem . I don’t know what to label myself if I can’t use Fundamentalist…you’ve taken conservative Evangelical and I’m a step beyond you. There have been only two things I have seriously been upset with you over 1) your post on inerrancy 2) your recent post in which you condone or allow for Theistic Evolution, not to be confused with OE vs. YE. Those two things (possibly more, since I assume your not done writing or upsetting me) highlight the difference between you as an Evangelical and me as an ???/watchamacallit ? Like it matters what you tail on as a descriptive after Calvinistic, dispensational I’m already dead in the water with those two descriptives.
I like what Jeremy had to say in his posts above. I scanned the articles at “Sharper Iron” which I did not know was a fundamentalist site or specifically dealing with fundamentalism. I’ll draw attention to it too plus..
** CHART ALERT**
http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/reference/fund_taxonomy_chart.pdf
[…] Michael Patton posts a useful article on the differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. He looks at the origins of […]
Yes, I suppose Piper’s definition of Fundamentalists and CMP’s definition are different. I don’t gather Piper is a ‘legalistic, overly dogmatic person’, as maybe CMP would define it.
We need fuller definitions.
I always understood that one of the keystones of fundamentalism was separation, which is not a descriptor of evangelicalism. We’ll never see “Fundamentalists and Catholics Together”. Consequently, I find CMP’s description inaccurate and, moreover, a caricature and stereotype. Fundamentalism is not just a mindset, nor is it even a mindset. Also, there is a substantial difference between the leaders of the fundamentalists and the person in the pew of fundamentalist churches. That being said, I do agree with C. Michael that the mindset he describes is pervasive throughout the fundamentalist churches, especially among the pew sitters but also among many of the preachers. So much so that it makes it easy to stereotype them. With respect to that point, C. Michael conflates cultural fundamentalism with theological or organizational (?, searching for the right term) fundamentalism. The organizational leaders of fundamentalism certainly do take a much different and more nuanced position with respect to fundamentalism.
Piper’s tweet is pejorative, ignorant, divisive, and well, just plain stupid.
regards,
#John
Cadis,
What caused you to be upset with the inerrancy post? What disagreements did you have?
Luke,
Probably more than anything the wording of the post.
The overall idea I agreed with but when you brought it back to the example that CMP gave of reporters it started to stretch the allowance of inerrancy and it even had a taint of questioning inspiration. If I did not know anything of the author of that post, I would have thought it was someone heading or leaning towards not only a non-fundamentalist view but a non-Evangelical view of the scriptures. I could see the door starting to crack open..that is the Fundamentalist in me.
Speaking of legalism, and closed mindedness being the defining characteristics of Fundamentalism (which I totally disagree, they’re the noisy ones but not those who should define) Think about pre-Fundamentalism days. Think about the Puritans and closer still the Victorian age, how prudish that society was even the non-Christian Victorian society could be prudish. The Temperance Society..that was Evangelical! They went around hacking up bars and protesting like a bunch of Fundametalists..but they weren’t Fundamentalists because Fundamentalism is not about drinking and dancing.
I have trouble with the edit feature…in my last post pertaining to the Temperance Society(Ithink it was Society?) I should have said that was a society started by Evangelicals not that It was Evangelical.
CMP,
Maybe it would be helpful add “a none of the above” category to your poll, or better yet do a post on the differences/similarites of each category. It is difficult for me to vote simply because I don’t the know the nuances of the rest of those categories listed on your poll.
That’s why I don’t have a big problem with Piper’s remark, even though I’m not a huge fan of his, since the word fundamental itself can be used in several senses:
3 senses of fundamental
Sense 1:
cardinal, central, fundamental, key, primal
important (vs. unimportant), of import
Sense 2:
fundamental, rudimentary, underlying
basic (vs. incidental)
Sense 3:
fundamental, profound
significant (vs. insignificant), important
So, having little more than the term ‘Fundamentalist’ to go on, I agree that we need to have a more nuanced position with respect to fundamentalism, just as we do with evangelicalism.
I think maybe I’m a hybrid.
One more thing ..
“It can be said that Evangelicalism has a center, not boundaries. Fundamentalism attempts to create a center by the creation of boundaries.”
Fundamentalism agrees with and has the same center core as Evangelicalism but makes a stand and guards the house against those that would affront that core. It is not a different core that Fundamentalists are creating by drawing lines, they are drawing lines to protect that core.
Really, Michael? If someone comes to a YEC conclusion on the creationism issue, then they’re fundamentalist, not evangelical?
I would think that the “fundamentalist” label here would come from the importance people place on YEC, not from holding to YEC.
B. notes that one meaning of “fundamental” is “rudimentary” or “simple.” Fundamentalists in fact, have often been characterized by critics, as centering themselves around a too-simple, especially literal interpretation of the Bible. Even though the Bible itself often told us that it spoke metaphorically; by way of “allegory,” “parable,” “figure” of speech, or metaphor.
In that sense, Fundamentalists might seem to some people, to be missing a whole dimension of the Bible; to be far too “rudimentary” in their reading of the text. And worse, they are politically active; not “wimpy” at all. They often seem to want to insist that others believe in the same, very literal way that they do. While putting down intellectuals, educated persons, as “wimps.”
Jug,
I think you read that wrong. I said:
“Fundamentalists are young earth Creationists. Evangelicals have no definite stance on the origins issue other than the belief that, however creation happened, God did it.”
I could have worded it a little better, but what I meant was that Evangelicals have freedom to believe within a spectrum of beliefs, but they all agree that God did it. I believe that most Evangelicals are still YECs.
While I am not a fundamentalist as you are definine the term, How do you get around that fact that Billy Grahm comprimised the the Gospel by embracing a “wider mercy” missiology?
“Even though the Bible itself often told us that it spoke metaphorically; by way of “allegory,” “parable,” “figure” of speech, or metaphor.”
Renton, a literal interpretation of scripture does not bar any of these things you listed…A literal interpretation just means that those things will be obvious with a plain normal reading of the text. That God at sundry times and in various manners spoke in the past unto the fathers, yes, but we also know God’s word is eternal. There is no mysterious , hidden meaning to the bible.
Here are the original distinctives of Fundamentalism copied from wikipedia.
Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God’s grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
The authenticity of Christ’s miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[4]
Try and imagine what would make a group of pastors/leaders correlate this list, what and who would prompt this type of a list in the early 1900’s ?I say the list is still needed and still makes a stand against the same stuff. Hyper- preterism is on the move, evolution is still taught as “the” excepted truth in public schools. You can make the argument that the bible does not need to be protected, let it speak for itself, that is true, but I think the next generation needs to be protected so that if they come to believe the same that I do they have the freedom to do so without being classified as imbeciles and uneducated, red neck, hillbillies. Someone with integrity and brains(not me) stood up and said Yes! this is true.. Jonah was swallowed by a great fish prepared by God. I believe that. The Fundamentalist mindset is if you start to compromise on these things because of, in particular science, we will loose the inerrancy of scripture. I believe it is because of the Fundamentalist movement I have the nerve and confidence to say what I do today. I think if it weren’t for them evolution would have more quickly enveloped and put into question the inerrancy of scripture so that by now an inerrant view would probably be thought archaic if not Neanderthal.
Cadis:
I honestly think that the Bible is NOT that simple or literal. Look for example, at Paul’s discussion on the Resurrection, our “spiritual body” and so forth. To see how much more complicated Paul thought Resurrection might be, than just dead bodies getting up out of graves.
Paul thought it was a lot more complicated than than; and confessed in fact, that much of God was too complicated for even he himself. Paul himself telling us that even he could see only as if “through a mirror, darkly.”
So if even the Apostle that wrote more than half the books of the New Testament (14 of its 27 books), admitted that even he himself could see, understand, only “darkly,” then isn’t it a little arrogant and “prideful,” for we ordinary believers to claim that the Bible is perfectly simple and clear to US? Are we that much smarter than the apostles?
I think we all need 1) the humility, to simply say that the Bible is hard for us to understand. And 2) we need enough obedience to God, to take seriously God’s commands (in Proverbs) to learn what an “allegory” is, to be wise.
Most of all, again: we all especially need the humility (“epistemic humility”) to admit that none of us so smart, that the Bible and God, are so easy for us to completely understand.
Michael,
Oohhhh. I took it as, “An evangelical is a person who has no settled stance on origins.” You meant it as, “Evangelicals differ on origins, they don’t have a single stance—other than that God did it.”
I’m relieved. 🙂
First, Liberals; second, Fundamentalists; third, fundamentalists, and, fourth, Evangelical in the contemporary culture are all basically meaning less. It is wise for the writer or speaker to define his terms first then speak. Even this blog provides no useful definitions for the terms. Tweeter may provoke your thoughts but it provided no meaningful communication between the Tweeter and Tweetie and this blog leave me more determined to define what meaning I put in my words.
Eric,
Can you please define what you mean? 😉
Thanks.
Exactly =)
In reality Eric, I am curious about what you mean here:
“First, Liberals; second, Fundamentalists; third, fundamentalists, and, fourth, Evangelical in the contemporary culture are all basically meaning less.”
It would seem to be quite an overstatement since most of the people reading this blog can understand and identify with he distinctions.
What do you mean that “in the contemporary culture” these designations are “basically meaningless”?
Funny how you define “fundamentalist” in a way that suits you (they’re all nasty anti-intellectuals) and then proceed to explain how bad fundamentalism is. Your second post on this does nothing to change that. I know you know what a straw man is.
Maybe you should read Piper’s post: “20 Reasons I don’t Take Potshots at Fundamentalists”
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1251_20_reasons_i_dont_take_potshots_at_fundamentalists/
Think about it this way, C Michael Patton; 86% of Americans claim to be Christian but few actually are and even fewer have read Gods word. Since we are talking about perspectives on His word, most people don’t have any foundation for even a slightly meaningful point of view, let alone understand the more prevalent historical views. Even among people who have read and may be reading God’s word, these words are not understood, hence the premise of this blog: 2nd paragraph “The term “fundamentalist,” I find, is very ambiguous. It is very difficult to know what people mean when they use it.” Popular culture, ie. the Web, TV, Radio and many other media use these terms ad nauseam and continously put their own spin or meaning to the
words. I’m sure John Piper defines his use of “fundamentalist” some where… Thanks,
Check out our blog that attempts to move away from the extremism of present day fundamentalism and get back to historic fundamentalism.
As time goes on we intend to write more about the definitive doctrines of historic fundamentalism.
We may not be able to reclaim the term in the eyes of the world, but it should be redeemed in the eyes of Christians so that it is no longer pejorative in nature. The term has been hijacked by extremists who have next to no appreciation for its true meaning.
Probably the most useful definition of “Fundamentalist,” would be one closest to the meaning of the term: a fundamentalist, is one who holds to what are regarded as “fundamentals” of his religion.
But this, the very core of Fundamentalism, is precisely the problem. The idea that our religion, or God, is simple, and that we CAN come up with a few very simple fundamentals, is basically, wrong.
The problem is that the Bible is not so simple. And God is not so simple. And therefore, all attempts to boil them down to a nice simple short list – “fundamentals” – inevitably, very, very seriously oversimplify and misrepresent God. (As Job for example noted).
Therefore, all forms of Fundamentalism, are bad. Whether you are a Muslim fundamentalist, or a Christian Fundamentalist.
The problem is, that it embraces an exagerrated simplicity, fundamentals. WHich always fails to do justice to an infinitely complex God.
Hey, Renton, did you get your information about Christian fundamentalism from CNN, or was that source a bit to high brow for you? Let me give you some info you can use for your next post, so that it is actually relevant to the conversation:
From Britannica.com (an easy source for lookup): “[Fundamentalism is a] movement in American Protestantism that arose in the late 19th century in reaction to theological modernism, which aimed to revise traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate new developments in the natural and social sciences, especially the advent of the theory of biological evolution. In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the mission of Jesus Christ, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists affirmed a core of Christian beliefs that included the historical accuracy of the Bible, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and Atonement.”
I could provide more, but I don’t want to remove all the fun for you of doing your own investigation into concepts you know nothing about and can’t be bothered to find out about or ask others on this blog about.
regards,
#John
For those that have troubling understanding my previous post, I will below translate it into “Rentonese”:
To be sure – a church without a defintion. The definiton of fundamentalism is most useful if defined. As regards, the term the thing that pops out of my imagination without any synapses firing is, equivalently, “Fundamentalist”. Of those who quack like a duck when praying.
And so, at the core of fundamentalism we have — revealed in a spiritus domini — the source of the ailments healed by disciples. But not those who, as apostles, reverberated. It was their limps. More precisely. and the way the walked — as if with a gait, as it were. Hence, if IT walks like a duck it must be a duck.
Yet, notice, this is precisely the problem. We IMPOSE the twentieth century existentialism upon the feet of the apostles. But more or less, since it is less than ideal. basically wrong. So that leads to a question. is it scientifically accurate, or is it less than we can say historically.
Dr. J
Michael, I am too much of a disciple of Swindoll not to take shots at Fundamentalists!
However, like I said, there is one time out of ten that I would call myself one. That is if you are simply defining it as those who hold to the fundamentals of their faith. In this sense, all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Evangelicalism is a revival of the true fundamentalist movement.
That is why I went to such lengths to help people understand the history of the movement. It is not too complicated. In fact, all movements have the danger of becoming legalistic and need progressive renewal. Evangelicalism is in need of one as well.
Liberals, in the legalistic since, have become fundamentalists with regard to their cause. There are atheistic fundamentalists, Orthodox fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists and the like. But defining fundamentalist is so difficult because it has these connotations which provide ample opportunity for mis-association. We just need to be careful, in a world that is ready to misunderstand, to correct possible misunderstandings by preemptive action.