From: sco@aero.org (Stacey C. O'Brien)
Subject: Re: Those Nasty Fundamentalists (was Re: People is not America)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:29:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.130020.17658@cbnews.cb.att.com> ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.003927.21973@aero.org> sco@aero.org (Stacey C. O'Brien) writes:
>
>>So I think the "fundies" have been protrayed consistently by the media
>>as "frothing at the mouth". Fundementalism is simply a way of interpreting
>>scripture, taking it more literally than figuratively. It disturbs me
>>to see Christians using the word fundementalist derisively, blindly imitating
>>the liberal media's example. For instance, pro-life people are labelled as
>>"a fundamentalist fringe group". Oh really? Aren't we about 50% of the
>>population (folks who do not support abortion on demand)? 
>>
>>So if I am a fundementalist theologically, I should not have to hide my
>>head in shame because the media has tried to make the word a bad word.
>>A lot of people are theologically fundementalist and do not even know that
>>this word means them. I mean they believe the Bible to be literally the
>>Word of God and the fundementals of the Bible to be absolutely true.
>>
>>We have seen the affect of how words are used to describe the same thing
>>in different spins on the Amy Grant debacle. Sexy? Wholesome? Dresses like
>>a whore? sensual? appealing? all trying to describe the same person. The
>>only difference is the spin. 
>
>I agree with your basic points, Stacey.  But I also think that the word
>"fundamentalist" has changed meaning over the course of time.

Right. And I think that change in meaning has had a lot to do with the
media portrayals and some people like Jerry Falwell redefining it for us.
>
>Originally, a "fundamentalist" was a member of a group of Christians in
>the 1920's who left the mainline churches because he or she thought
>that the mainline churches and mainline seminaries were promoting
>a social gospel that had only a very tenous relationship with the
>good news presented in the Scriptures.  These fundamentalists, led
>by J. Gresham Machen and Carl F. H. Henry, emphasized the inerrancy
>of the Bible, literal interpretation of the Scriptures whenever 
>possible, and a life of holiness and obedience.

Right. And many people are fundementalist in their theology and NOT
evangelistic, thought they call themselves evangelistic. It has to
do with theology, not so much with style or lifestyle.
>
>In the original sense of the word I have no problems calling myself a 
>fundamentalist.  The original intent was to call people back to 
>biblical revelation and to separate those things that were 
>essential to the Christian life from more peripheral issues.  So
>far so good.
>
>Today the word "fundamentalist" has a much more narrow and restrictive
>meaning in my mind.  Here are some of the issues and viewpoints that
>characterize fundamentalism today:
>
>- An alliance with right-wing political ideology, which typically means
>that abortion and school prayer are viewed as the primary political
>issues to be addressed.

My view is that this is very much because the media says this ie.
"Extreme right wing fundementalists protested and abortion clinic today
in city X"  etc. etc. They may have been evangelicals, in fact, many
people who are into political protest, etc (social gospel perhaps?) are
evangelicals...

>
>- An emphasis on separation from the world, which leads to bizarre
>things like Christian theme parks and CCM (he said, half-kiddingly)
>
>- An emphasis on what Christians should *not* do.  Here's the biggie.
>Christianity becomes a series of prohibitions and rules.  This then
>leads into an emphasis on what other people, including non-Christians, 
>should *not* do, and results in things like Christians picketing
>movies, slapping warning labels on rock albums, etc.  

But the funny thing is that I've encountered a LOT less legalism (and
this is just my experience) since I joined a fundementalist, charismatic
church than I ever did in my evangelical upbringing. In that upbringing
it was always "How many hours did you read your bible and pray today?"..etc.
One church that I went to bodily threw out some visitors who raised their
hands in worship, not realizing that it was a "no no" on our evangelical
list. In the church I go to now, all styles of worship are accepted, if
they are in line with the Bible.

And this is my complaint - as originally stated - that fundementalists
are inaccurately represented. You seem to buy into that characterization.
I wonder how many Christians loathe fundementalists or are afraid of "them"
not realizing that their own interpretation of the Bible is fundementalist!
It's very strange and sad when Christians don't even understand this...
>
>You can agree or disagree with my characterization.  I'm just stating
>it the way I see it.  But I don't want to be a fundamentalist, at 
>least not in the sense that the word is used today.  I'd prefer to
>call myself an evangelical, which, in my mind, means the same thing
>that the original fundamentalists meant, but without all the 
>excess cultural baggage.  
 
Right. I prefer that too, but it would be dishonest. I will admit that I
was SHOCKED when I discovered that my denomination is theologically
fundementalist! I had to ask several pastors before I would believe it!
Why? I had been sold a lie about what a fundementalist is and does...
And even now I'm thinking, yeah, but I bet the people in the SOUTH who
call themselves fundementalists are a bunch of beat ya over the head
with a bible, yelling in tongues racist red-necked bigoted hypocrits,
so maybe fundementalism in California is a whole different thing than
it is in the south... Now where did I GET that idea? Probably the media... ;-)
>
>I don't mean this to be a personal attack, on you or anyone else on 
>this newsgroup.  Fundamentalists are my brothers and sisters, and 
>that takes primacy over whatever other internal squabbles we may
>have.  I'm just trying to provide an alternate viewpoint.  There
>*are* theologically conservative Christians out there who don't 
>want to be labelled as fundamentalists.  That's all.
 
No, I'm sure you didn't mean it as a personal attack, but now I am wondering
if it was "ok" to say that I'm a fundementalist theologically. Will I be
avoided, shunned from the group? Will you all think I'm some kinda dirtbag
or wierdo? Will my views be ignored? Are you afraid I'll come on board with
a list of don'ts? Well, let me say this : My favorite band is
Tourniquet and I dance. So there ;-) I even listen to secular music (*gasp)
and have "secular" friends (double gasp) and in other words, I'm not
the stereotype you're thinking of (really! it's true!) sigh. I'm feeling
insecure now about having said anything...

>
>>                       --Stacey
>
>Andy Whitman
>AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
>att!cblpn!ajw  or
>ajw@cblpn.att.com



           --Stacey

Newsgroups: rec.music.christian