From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Those Nasty Fundamentalists (was Re: People is not America)
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:00:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T

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.

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.

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.

- 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.  

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.  

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.

>                       --Stacey

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