The definition of fundamentalism

Well Richard, maybe you need to rethink your use of the term? If it causes hostility and the term is incorrect in that the original definition of the term is in reference to attitudes then why do you continue to support the change in the definition? Being that it is prejorative IS your problem because it does nothing to promote

Wow, what a double standard and hostile use of the term fundamentalism. When one uses the term in reference to the attitudes as opposed to the belief then one IS acurately using the term and CAN use it in those instances without a problem. When one labels people fundamentalist more than is actually the case then it does nothing to promote the kind of “Christian attitude and heart” we need to have for all believers.

Thanks for the straight talking, Richard. As a supplement . . .

Historically, Fundamentalism (with a capital “F”) began in the US in the late 19th century as a Protestant reaction to liberal theology and Darwinism. In 1895 a statement was issued at a conference of conservative Christians in Niagara, NY, which included the famous “five points of fundamentalism”:

1. The verbal inerrancy of the Bible.
2. The divinity of Christ.
3. The virgin birth (literally understood).
4. The (penal) substitutionary theory of atonement.
5. The bodily return of Christ.

So you got two out of five - though I’ll give you the third because Fundies think of historical-critical scholarship as an invention of the devil (literally understood, of course).

You are also right (in my own experience too) that fundamentalists tend to think of themselves as the “real” Christians, and those who don’t sign up to the High Five (i.e. who are not “sound”) as apostates bound for hell (literally understood, of course).

I should add, however, that, as James Barr demonstrated in his classic Fundamentalism (second edition, 1981), inerrancy rather than literalism as such describes fundy hermeneutics (or non-hermeneutics!): not all fundies believe in a literal six (twenty-four hour) days creation, for example. But here’s the rub. In his later Escaping from Fundamentalism (1984), Barr writes: “If we are right in starting from scripture and taking it as authoritative, then the fundamentalist use and understanding of it contradicts scripture itself.” And that’s because the “real authority in fundamentalism is exercised not by the Bible but by the conservative component in the Protestant and evangelical tradition.” And, indeed, by the specific authoritative interpreter of the particular fundy community. So many inerrant dudes around - with different interpretations!

You are also right, Richard, that it is unhelpful, without qualification, to speak, e.g., of Muslim fundamentalists (though it is interesting that, unlike liberal Christians, Muslims believe in the literal Virgin Birth of Jesus; work that one out!). But it can be helpful, perhaps, to think of a fundamentalist mindset or psychological profile: they tend to have what’s been called an “absolutist attitude” and an “authoritarian personality”; they’re prone to “time warps” (”O for a revival like whenever!”); they are unlikely to improvise the faith - they are fearful of ambiguity and undecidability; they have a Manichaean world view and a consequent inbuilt intolerance for non-fundies.

It should not need saying - but I’ll say it just in case - that to be an evangelical and to be a fundamentalist are not identical. Even to be a conservative evangelical and to be a fundamentalist are not identical - and the same goes for charismatic Christians. However Martyn Percy, in Clergy: The Origin of Species (2006), points out that most charismatics (and, I think he’d agree, conservative evangelicals - certainly the ones Richard and I come across in the campus CU) are what he calls “fundamentalistic”: “That is to say, they will use the Bible in a literalistic, pre-critical fashion, hold their beliefs in a similar way to classic fundamentalists (i.e intolerant of plurality and liberalism, prone to schism, monologue, etc.) …”

I hope that’s helpful.

Kim, thanks for pointing out that fundamentalism refers to the attitude and midset. While you add to that the specific beliefs, I still believe that is an incorrect addition to the definition of the term “fundamentalism”. I totally appreciate your last paragraph and believe this is what really promotes dialogue. However, I believe one needs to refrain from the terms fundamentalist, fundamentalism, fundamentalistic, etc. until one correctly identifies the attitude as opposed to the specific beliefs.

On a humorous note from all of the many months of discussing with you and Richard:
Can we say (assuming Kim’s use of the term fundamentalistic which I don’t approve but for discussion mention here) that under the 5 points that you and Richard are fundamentalistic because you believe in points 2, 3 and 5? From our discussions it appreas you guys believe in 2, 3 and 5 and it seems to me that sense that the majority of the points that that would fundamentalistic.

Just being funny. I hope you all recognize how much I value you two. I hope you understand that I only mention this as an “iron sharpens iron” statement. I only want to help you two to be more accurate and not have the unintended consequence of “pushing away” people who open to dialogue but can’t by being labeled incorrectly “fundamentalist”. Does that make sense? God bless you both. Your friend, DH

Yeah, me too, DH. I really value our e-relationship.
Cheers!

Well Richard, I still believe that we can both go to earlier and earlier definition. However, for over 40 years up to the late 1980’s the definition of the term was with regard to attitude. I guess my question why the change in definition over the past 15 years? I know people who for years were not called fundamentalist who all of a sudden were accused of being fundamentalist who were deeply hurt by being accused of being the term. Could we at least acknowledge that and maybe use a different term for the sake of dialogue? I don’t see the point in labeling people unecessarily “fundamentalist” if in fact they are not. I don’t understand changing to a definition that is not part of ones lifetime in such a way that people are hurt by it. I understand that is not your intent but it doesn’t change the nature of the reaction. There are many times I have used terms and when confronted by a reaction to a term used an alternative term.

On a humorous note: If you are going to label me a “fundamentalist” then it seems to me you and Kim are “fundamentalist for adhering to points 2, 3 and 5 of the 5 point fundamentalist test mentioned by Kim. Remember that is a majority of the 5 points.

I don’t have a clear time frame, but I think the modern use of fundamentalist came about 1980, when people started to use it on the Iranian Ayatollahs after the Shah was kicked out. Foreign policy writers took the pejorative of choice for hard-core Christians and applied it to a militantly devout brand of Islam they had encountered (”Jeez, they’re worse than those fundamentalists down south.”). Since then, it’s become applied to anyone who “takes their faith too seriously.”

As for the original definition there are generally three distinctives that mark fundamentalists from garden-variety evangelicals

1. Premillennial theology
2. Dispensationalist theology
3. Seperatism from apostate folks.

On that last one, fundamentalists don’t like Billy Graham, not because they disagree with his theology but that he works with mainliners and Catholics who are seen to be too far away from proper Christian doctrine. In the more virulent form of seperatism, you not only have to stop making common cause with the apostate folks, but stop associating with people who associate with them.

The five points that Kim mentioned are standard evangelical doctrine. The first three are nearly non-negotiable in most quarters, with occasional wiggle room on what inerrant might mean.

The last two are less universal. I may not quite express atonement as penal substitution, but a lay way of describing salvation is that Jesus “took the rap” for our sins.

On the final part; not all evangelicals buy into a Left Behind style eschatology, but most will accept the idea that Jesus is coming back personally; most will fall in the premillennial camp, but there is a solid postmillennial camp as well. There are a few amillennial or preterist evangelicals, but they’re in the minority.

I will gladly answer your points dh, but forgive me if I defer for a day or two. I’ve had a week of ten-hour working days so far and am tired enough to eat my own toes. So I’m not ignoring you even though I lack an immediate answer!

B

Could someone please clarify what The virgin birth (LITERALLY understood) is versus the virging birth (NOT literally understood)?

And what exactly is the BODILY return of Christ?

Thank you for the explanation so far, dh.

Instead of virging birth (NOT literally understood) of course I meant virgin birth (NOT literally understood) - the extra g was just a typo.

I don’t have an explanation for a non-literal virgin birth, either. Either Mary was a virgin or not. But Kim must have some distinction in mind. Kim? What’s your definition of these?

I haven’t thought much about the details how the second coming will take place. All the different endtime theories about what will happen how/when etc leaves my brain in knots and doesn’t seem important for my faith. So I mostly leave that topic alone. I know we’ll recognize Jesus and that’s all that counts.

Hi Swan. You might find this article by NT Wright helpful.

Some Christians understand the Virgin Birth to be a metaphor rather than a literal fact. That isn’t my view, I don’t think, but this isn’t a doctrine that impacts upon my faith at all.

Until fairly recently there was little understanding of how conception took place. For the most part, it was believed that a man ‘planted a seed’ in the woman’s womb. Her contribution was to provide a fertile place for the seed to grow. There was certainly no notion of conception arising from the combining of male and female gametes.

I really don\’t buy the arguments for NT Wright. Just because Jewish tradition didn\’t predict something doesn\’t mean the virgin birth literally didn\’t happen. If Scripture says that Jesus was born of a virgin then He was born of a virgin and sense there can be no metaphorical understanding of the virgin birth then Jesus was born of a lteral virgin. The whole story of the angel speaking to Joseph and the angel speaking to Mary should put aside any question that Jesus was born of a literal virgin. That is unless one is a total skeptic in miracles and for me if one can\’t believe the miracles of the Bible of the foundations of the Christian Faith then I question (notice I didn\’t say \”not\”) whether one is a Christian in the first place. Belief for Salvation requires some basic belief in miracles. NT Wright did mention that which I agree with. However, one needs to understand that it does affect ones Faith since the Bible is God\’s Word.

If I can jump into this conversation, I have a comment or two about the virgin birth. I recently read this story (The Lost Gospel of Mary-Fredrica Mathewes-Green) about Mary that apparently circulated among the early Christians and is part of Eastern Orthodox tradition to this day. The story goes that Mary’s parents couldn’t get pregnant so they prayed to God for a child and dedicated her to the service of the temple–much like Hannah and Samuel. Part of serving in the temple meant that Mary was to remain a virgin her entire life. When she became “of age” and couldn’t serve in the temple because of monthly uncleanliness, the priest gave her to Joseph, who was a widower. The arrangement was only that he would take care of her and not mess with her virginity. Ok, you know the story of the Annunciation, blah, blah, blah, Bethlehem, Jesus is born. This is where it gets really interesting. Since tradition holds to Mary’s perpetual virginity they say that Mary gave birth “mystically” so as not to change her physical virginity. In the story, one of the village midwives doesn’t believe a virgin has given birth so she goes to the stable and does a vag exam! (Orthodox theologians draw a parallel between this and Thomas needing to place his hand in Jesus’ wounds in order to believe.)

Anyway, in the EO tradition, not only is the virgin birth literally true, but Mary remains a virgin even AFTER the birth! Wild. So it’s not just a Fundamentalist thing.

As for Richard’s original question, I would generally agree with his definition. I think that Fundamentalism is very much characterized by a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” (”If it ain’t in the Bible, don’t talk to me!”) I also tend to say that Fundamentalists have a very insular worldview–not much room for dialogging seriously with other Christians (unless they can knock down a straw man, of course). These are also the folks that will homeschool their kids and mix nationalism and Christianity to a freakish degree.