In article <May.14.02.10.09.1993.25137@athos.rutgers.edu> David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes: >From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) >Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents >Date: 14 May 93 06:10:10 GMT >In article 28120@athos.rutgers.edu, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes: > >>	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist >>	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was >> >>Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with >>"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would >>be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and > > >Although I'm neither Fundamentalist nor Evangelical, I have often noticed >this trend in the media.  In short, it is permissable to bash Fundamentalists. >No need to substitue a nationality such as "Mexican..." try simply to  >substitute a different religion "...raised by Muslim parents," or "...raised >by Jewish parents..."  The paper simply would not do this.  I have noticed that newspapers don't even know what a fundamentalist is; at the least, they confuse new evangelicals and fundamentalists.  In this news group, the liberals don't even know what a fundamentalist is (crying out "legalist" at anyone who believes and obeys God's Word). A fundamentalist would train their children in the way God proscribes, not in the way that man proscribes.  This would not include life threatening beatings but would include corporal punishment.   To the liberals, I cry out infidel at anyone who does not believe God's Word.  Signature follows: "Your statutes are wonderful: therefore I obey them."  Psalm 119:129 ========================================================================= David L. Hanson Any opinions expressed are my own!  [As most people here know, I believe fundamentalist is sufficiently ill-defined that I advise using some more specific term.  I think many people use it to cover people who believe in inerrancy and a number of related concepts (e.g. denial of evolution).  While the original fundamentals movement was somewhat more specific, I would think most people who accept inerrancy would actually support the whole original agenda.  (It included a list of key traditional doctrines, e.g.  the virgin birth.)  The term is now being used by the press to describe aggressive conservative religions in general, most typically those who are attempting to legislate religion.  Legalism is yet another ill-defined term.  However there is some reason for its use in this context.  In fact the common theological definition is the believe that salvation is through the Law.  I hope no one here believes that our conservative contributors hold this view.  However there is a basic difference in approach over what we expect to get out of the Bible.  The conservative approach expects to find specific behavioral rules.  Generally the posters advocating this approach talk about the relevant passages from Paul's letter as God's Law.  The liberal approach expects to find general principles, but it regards specific behavioral rules subject to change depending upon the culture and other things.  It's easy to see why a liberal would regard the conservative approach as legalism.  It's hard to know quite what other term to use.  The issue in this case is not inerrancy, because no one is saying that Paul made a factual error.  Rather, the question is whether his statements are to be taken as Law.  Calling the positive answer legalism seems obvious enough terminology.  I haven't seen any good alternative.