Fundamentalist Christian (Repost from Cache)

Roger J Carlson said:

I offer this topic with some trepidation in light of the last few days. Nevertheless, I think it might be a good bridge builder.

I have heard the term "Fundamentalist Christian" used here and on other AW forums recently, but it seems to me that the term has very different meanings to different people. To some, it has a very negative connotation. Yet others proudly take the label as their own.

Keeping in mind that you are defining a term and not describing people, what do you think of when you hear the term Fundamentalist Christian?

I'll start:

When I think of a Fundamentalist Christian, I think of someone who:

1. Believes the truth of God's word that:
   1. Everyone is a sinner.
   2. God loves everyone.
   3. God sent Jesus to restore communication with humanity.
   4. God gives everyone a choice whether to accept Him.
2. Follows the commandments of Jesus to:
   1. Love God with all your heart.
   2. Love others as (better than) yourself.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Please note: This forum is not Take It Outside. It is not a place to debate the correctness of another's belief. It's a place to explain what YOU understand the term to mean.

Rules of the Road: I will delete any post that is disrespectful of individuals. I will not delete a post if it has a negative view of the term. I will also delete any post that is disrespectful of what others believe the term means.

Examples:
I WILL NOT delete:

• "I think Fundamentalist Christians are self-righteous bigots because..."
• "Fundamentalist Christians walk on water because..."

I WILL delete:

• "Roger, you are a self-righteous bigot."
• "If that's what you think, then you are an idiot."
• "I am a Fundamentalist Christian, therefore I am better than you."
• "I am NOT a Fundamentalist Christian, therefore I am better than you."

Let's see if we can build some mutual understanding.

Click to expand...

Medievalist said:

Just as a matter of curiousity, it may interest people to know that the "Oxford" or "Tractarian" movement leaders described themselves as "fundamentalists" in the eighteen hundreds. These were Anglican clergy, theologians, and devout Christians who sought a middle way between overt allegiance to Rome, the Pope, and the Catholic church, and a more formalized Anglican Protestantism that included an altar and auricular confession, among other reforms.

Click to expand...

Gravity said:

Roger: IMHO, you've nailed the definition quite neatly; it's how I describe myself. I'm also spiritfilled (much to the chagrin of my denominational brethren), but I tend to downplay that on writers' boards, as it always seems to cause problems.

But I thought, hey, you brought it up .

Click to expand...

pb10220 said:

Roger, I'd agree with your post, as far as it goes; I think #1 also implies something that fundamentalist Christians believe, that the Bible as originally written is the inspired Word of God.

Although I think labels tend to be divisive, I'd say my beliefs are pretty much aligned with fundamental evangelical Christianity, though they are not limited to that. (I also tend toward the sacramental theology of the Anglicans.)

Click to expand...

allynegirl said:

Quote:
When I think of a Fundamentalist Christian, I think of someone who:

1. Believes the truth of God's word that:
   1. Everyone is a sinner.
   2. God loves everyone.
   3. God sent Jesus to restore communication with humanity.
   4. God gives everyone a choice whether to accept Him.
2. Follows the commandments of Jesus to:
   1. Love God with all your heart.
   2. Love others as (better than) yourself.

This is also how I think of a Fundamentalist Christian. Unfortunately, many people hear the word "fundamentalist" and think of:

1. Hell-fire and brimstone, "You are going to Hell", shove my religion down your thoat zealots;

2. Intolerant, hate-filled, gay-bashing, book-burning idiots; and

3. Holier-than-thou, look down the nose at the sinners people.

Click to expand...

JennaGlatzer said:

There's a disconnect between what the word means objectively and what it has come to be associated with in my mind.

Kind of similar to the word "jock." All it really should mean is "someone who plays sports." But it became the term that represents a lot of bad things. When I think of school bullies, I think of jocks. Of course not every athlete is a jerk, but at least in my school, there was a reason for the stereotype.

So, similarly, I know that "fundamentalist" should only mean "believes in the fundamental tenets of Christianity," but if I was going to play word association, the first word that would come to mind when I think of "fundamentalist" is "judgmental." Looking for reasons to believe they're favored and everyone else is going to hell. Picking and choosing Bible passages that seem to go against the overall teachings of the Bible (i.e., harping on scripture that classifies sins rather than focusing on the main message-- which, to me, is "love God, and love your neighbor").

That specifically does not apply to most of the people I've met here, but it is what I associate with the term.

Click to expand...

james1611 said:

I think a fundamental christian must believe the bible...

...so in a discussion that involves God and the bible why do people become offended when you quote what it says. Even if it says something you don't agree with, it still says what it says, and a fundamental christian will agree with the bible at the end of the day.

James

Click to expand...

Peggy said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pb10220
Roger, I'd agree with your post, as far as it goes; I think #1 also implies something that fundamentalist Christians believe, that the Bible as originally written is the inspired Word of God.

In my mind, that is something that I definitely associate with the term "fundamentalist". In addition that:

- the Bible is literally true

- all "real" Christians interpret the Bible in the same way

- if anything in the sciences appears to contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible, either the science is wrong, or a tortured interpretation of both the scientific data and Bible passages is right. This is coupled with the attitude that anyone who accepts modern science (biology, geology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, etc.) is necessarily an atheist, or, at the least, not Christian. (Yeah, one of my pet peeves).

Also, I associate "fundamentalist" with a certain closed-minded attitude, in which there can really be no discussion of the interpretation of the Bible or the "whys" of their beliefs. Sort of a "I believe it because it's true and if you argue with me you are attacking God/Christianity" attitude.

My attitude has changed a bit recently, largely due to AW members who both consider themselves "fundamentalist" AND are willing to engage in discussion. It's unfortunate that often the loudest voices are the most intolerant and unreasonable.

Click to expand...

I like to think I have a happy medium between liberal and fundamentalist. I call it Grace Without Legalism or Apathy. I try to focus on God and obey his commandments, but I don't beat myself to death over my mistakes. I try to learn from them and keep moving on in my Christian walk.

God made each of us different, so it's stands to reason that each of us may have different views on issues other than Salvation. As long as a person believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, I don't think we should worry about who's a fundamentalist and who's not. I think that the reason there are so many arguments about 'what's right' is because a lot of times, in the little issues, God might say something is right for one person and wrong for another. Take drinking, for instance. A lot Christians don't drink, usually (hopefully!) because they feel like God doesn't want them to. On the other hand, some Christians feel no conviction against drinking. The same applies to a lot of things.

Some issues, obviously, are the same for everyone-- Salvation being one of them. But a lot of times I think these so-called 'discussions' tear us apart more than edify us.

Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

Why we think the way we think...


I think that the whole religion issue is so hot button, because of one basic truth that no one can really deny...

...and that is that we must all feel comfortable with our faith, whether it be Atheist, Christian, Judaism, Muslim, Wiccan, or any other. We all feel the need to be set and comfortable with that choice for our lives, because no matter what, death is coming for us all and the mystery will end and we will face our life's decision regarding what our faith rests in at that point.

And with no turning from that decision at that point, all people hope they have been right...but only some will.

I believe this is why religion is a blow up discussion, as has been seen, because everyone hopes...(Am I right?)


Rev. James

Click to expand...

Why?...some would ask why do those claiming to be fundamental christians seem to rant and rave about the bible and hell and so forth?

Since that may be the perception some people have...may i offer a parable of sorts that might help one to understand the mindset...


If a person saw a villian planting a bomb in the home of a family that slept...the matter might be open to interpretation, (was it really a villian or a relative, bomb or gift for the kiddies etc...), but if you believed it a bomb and the family in unrealized peril...then the compassionate person would cry out to them to wake up and escape the danger.

This concerned person might explain the danger and even if the family were groggy and tired and unwilling to listen, the caring person might continue to plead with them for their own lives, calling them to action rather than returning annoyed to their previous sleep.

If finally the family slammed the door in this person's face and told them they had no right to disturb their slumber, and that the appropriat authorities had been called to remove them from the premises, then that person may well be taken away, but all the while trying to affirm what they saw and all for the sake of that poor family.


of course no one may realize the actual danger until it is too late to act, but the person crying out the warning, had done what they had, not to seem all knowing, not to disturb someone for the fun of it, and not because they had nothing better to do...but out of compassion.

I would offer that this is the mindset of one who dogmatically believes the bible and is seen as a fundamentalist bible thumper etc...

What some call, thumping on the door obnoxiously, that person doing the thumping simply sees it as warning someone to action for their own sake.

This could just be the mindset of those called fundamentalist christians, but thats my view of it.

Rev. James

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy
In my mind, that is something that I definitely associate with the term "fundamentalist". In addition that:

- the Bible is literally true

- all "real" Christians interpret the Bible in the same way

- if anything in the sciences appears to contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible, either the science is wrong, or a tortured interpretation of both the scientific data and Bible passages is right. This is coupled with the attitude that anyone who accepts modern science (biology, geology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, etc.) is necessarily an atheist, or, at the least, not Christian. (Yeah, one of my pet peeves).

Also, I associate "fundamentalist" with a certain closed-minded attitude, in which there can really be no discussion of the interpretation of the Bible or the "whys" of their beliefs. Sort of a "I believe it because it's true and if you argue with me you are attacking God/Christianity" attitude.

My attitude has changed a bit recently, largely due to AW members who both consider themselves "fundamentalist" AND are willing to engage in discussion. It's unfortunate that often the loudest voices are the most intolerant and unreasonable.


Interesting perception, Peggy, and I think it's one that's shared by many. However, among my 'fundamentalist Christian' friends, there seems to be an almost unanimous opinion that the Bible is not to be taken "literally" throughout. Parts are prophetic and possibly symbolic; parts are metaphorical (such as Song of Solomon), and there is a wide variance as to their stance on the days of Creation (literal or symbolic of greater time periods).

Click to expand...

For me, what it used to mean and what it means today aren't the same.

The definition itself hasn't changed but there are so many individuals laying claim to the title 'Fundamentalist' that just don't act Christ-like that public perception of the meaning has changed.

So like it or not, my own perception of the word has changed.

Click to expand...

This is an outsider's set of associations with the term "fundamentalist."

Fundamentalists are always Protestant, never Catholic. They belong to certain denominations (not Anglican, for instance). They're much more common in the U.S. than elsewhere, and particularly in southern states. They take the Bible literally. For example, they think Adam and Eve were real people, not symbols or anything like that.

Religion pervades a fundamentalist's daily life more than for other Christians. Fundamentalists interpret ordinary events in religious terms. If they get sick or get well, if they find a job or lose a job, it was because God made it happen. If they have a personal problem or a difficult decision to make, they "pray about it." (I never heard of "praying about it" until I got on the Web, but it seems routine in parts of the country.) They're very devout. They emphasize a personal relationship with God and Jesus more than the average Christian of other denominations.

By contrast, I'd define the larger category of "Christian" as anyone who belongs to a Christian church and/or checks the box labeled Christian on a form that asks for one's religious affiliation. A nonfundamentalist Christian would probably divide his or her concerns and activities into religious and secular ones. For a fundamentalist, nothing is secular.

Fundamentalists are politically conservative on some issues, such as abortion and school prayer, but they don't necessarily align with the Republican Party's whole platform in support of wealth and big business. Many of them don't agree that government should stay clear of religion.

They are authoritarian, at least on religious issues, where they subscribe to submission within a hierarchy, and possibly on other issues as well, such as wives' obedience to husbands.

They feel very certain about the truth of their religious beliefs. They think those beliefs are the only right ones, and they want the rest of the world to believe as they do.

Click to expand...

In addition to what those above have said, the term has come to mean to me someone without much knowledge of the languages and history of the Bible and Biblical times. A stunningly high percentage of the self-proclaimed fundamentalists I've met actually believe the Bible was orignally written in English, and will vehemently argue against any suggestion that Jesus was Jewish.

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pb10220
Interesting perception, Peggy, and I think it's one that's shared by many. However, among my 'fundamentalist Christian' friends, there seems to be an almost unanimous opinion that the Bible is not to be taken "literally" throughout. Parts are prophetic and possibly symbolic; parts are metaphorical (such as Song of Solomon), and there is a wide variance as to their stance on the days of Creation (literal or symbolic of greater time periods).

Thanks for sharing that, Pat. I should say that I haven't heard of anyone who takes the Song of Solomon literally, but I was under the impression that all 'fundamentalists' take the other chapters of the OT (particularly Genesis) and NT (particularly Revelation) word-for-ward literally.

Would it be fair to say that there are some "fundamentalists" who are literalists?

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aconite
In addition to what those above have said, the term has come to mean to me someone without much knowledge of the languages and history of the Bible and Biblical times. A stunningly high percentage of the self-proclaimed fundamentalists I've met actually believe the Bible was orignally written in English, and will vehemently argue against any suggestion that Jesus was Jewish.

Another stereotype is that fundamentalists are relatively uneducated (often less than a HS diploma), read only their translated Bible if anything, and live in rural areas, interacting almost exclusively with people in the same religious community.

The education/reading stereotype clearly isn't generally the case (at least among AW members), but, still, my general impression is that "fundamentalism" is more prevalent in rural America than in urban areas.

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy
Thanks for sharing that, Pat. I should say that I haven't heard of anyone who takes the Song of Solomon literally, but I was under the impression that all 'fundamentalists' take the other chapters of the OT (particularly Genesis) and NT (particularly Revelation) word-for-ward literally.

Would it be fair to say that there are some "fundamentalists" who are literalists?

A great many believe in the literal truth of Genesis, but by no means all. Last month, my denominational magazine (Covenant Companion) ran two articles, one on Intelligent Design, and one straight up Christian Evolutionist article. Letters to the editor were split between praise and condemnation. Proves nothing since the editors were probably trying for balance. But I think it does show a growing belief that Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

Revelation is different. I don't think anyone takes it literally. A beast from the sea with ten horns and seven heads? Another beast with horns like a lamb? Pretty much everyone assumes these are symbolic. Interpretations abound. It used to be quite popular to study "end-times" prophesy, but I've seen that diminish of recent years. Nevertheless, I think most fundamental Christians believe that there WILL be a return of Jesus Christ at the end of the world, and at that time, all the symbols will make sense.

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy
I should say that I haven't heard of anyone who takes the Song of Solomon literally


The conventional Ecclesiatic interpretation goes back in Chrtistian terms to Augustine, but there are similar interpretations in Judaism, and Augustine was clearly aware of them.

That said, as a piece of poetry, it is firmly within the conventions of Summerian and Egyptian love poetry.

And it's one of the best pieces of poetry, ever, anywhere, in Hebrew.

Click to expand...

I actually thought "Oh, no," and felt a little queasy when I saw this thread. I was sure this was going to be an attack on conservative Christians. (Who, in my experience, come from all over the country and all ethnic backgrounds. In some areas, you just have to know where to look )

But it wasn't as bad as I feared.

When people make a lot of noise about an issue -- religious or secular -- we have to remember "Zeal without wisdom is folly."

In any disagreement over doctrine we have to ask ourselve if a question is really a salvation issue. For instance, we come from a Mennonite background but don't feel led to drive a horse and buggy and wear plain clothes. About 100 years ago our church branched off from the Mennonites in a disagreement over preachign in German because of tradition, or in English to spread the Gospel to people around us. In other churches, the tradition is not preaching in German, but using whatever Bible version or ritual or even what kind of music is OK.

Jesus Christ did not seem to have much patience for religion for religion's sake. In our interactions the question probably should not be what does the church say, but what would Jesus do. I know it's a cliche -- but a good one.

Ann

Click to expand...

I don't have much to add to the definition part, but I would like to say that I have belonged to two very large "fundamentalist" churches. Both evangelical, both Baptist, and each with well over 1000 members. They were churches in suburban Southern California. One of the churches' demographic was very movie industry heavy with another large percentage in the Christian music industry. The people I knew were intelligent, thoughtful and gracious. We were encouraged to learn Hebrew and Koine Greek and many of us did study those languages and like me, bought tons of reference books.

The church and its members were what I would consider fundamentalist Christians - one way to salvation - through faith in Jesus, the Bible is the inspired Word of God (although we were challenged to find out what the real meanings of the Scriptures were and not just accept the English words at face value), pre-Millenialist and heavily evangelical. We used music and drama extensively to evangelize. I was very active in both areas.

If I were still living down there, I think I'd still be an active member. I had to move to a smaller town with a more rural attitude and joined the sister church that was recommended to me. I couldn't stand how I was treated as a divorced, single mom - somehow it was my fault? I won't go into the whole story but after two years of trying to feel accepted and getting nowhere, I gave up.

Over the past 15 years since I last went to church, I've watched with increasing sadness as fundamental Christianity has gotten a tarnished reputation. The bigoted, ignorant folk in the spotlight only remind me of those folk who would shun a baptised, "born-again" person and her small children, simply because she was divorced.

If a congregation that knows how to walk as Jesus would have them walk finds me and shows me Jesus' love, I'll think about going back to church. Meanwhile, God and I just have to have an understanding.

Hope this wasn't too off topic Roger - if so, please feel free to delete or move.

Click to expand...

Jesus said to His disciples to teach, make disciples and baptize.

fundamentalists take the Great Commission serious. Each Christian is a disciple, each is to "make" disciples.

A man came to Moody's meeting in Chicago. He was an old drunk who was saved during a meeting. The next night he showed up with a man in tow who looked like he was hit by a truck. "What happened to him?" Moody asked. "Well last night you said we was to compel them to come in. It took a bit of compelling him to get him here."

Fire and brimsone? Yep - we believe every person stands in danger of God's judgement and those having lived without regard to God and rejecting His Son as the ONLY means of salvation will be sent to the place God PREPARED for the Devil and His angels.

The little story of the bomb is very appropriate. Fundamentalists believe they are under a DIVINE MANDATE (the Great Commission) to warn all of the danger. As a disciple they must be "in your face" if that is what it takes. The blood of those who die without Christ as Savior will be on the hands of those who failed to warn.

Somewhere, somehow the message of Jesus became so watered down it amounts to "all you gotta do is LOVE". Jesus said, "You will love God with all your heart and all your soul." It is so sad religious leaders have chosen to HEADLINE "love your neighbor as yourself". It is clear, if you read the Gospels without pre-concieved meanings, the real headline is LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND AND SOUL.

If you sum of what is a fundamentalist this is what you get - a person who loves God with their entire existence and seeks to serve Him with their entire being as led by the Holy Spirit of God.

There are no half-way Christians. Moderate or liberal, to the fundamentalist, is still lost. The fundamentalist quotes Jesus, "Why do you say unto me Lord, Lord and do not keep my commandments?" "The shepherd knows his sheep."

The funadamentalists identifies with the sinner in Jesus' parable of the two men in the temple. The pharisee - "I thank God I am not as that man." The sinner - "God be merciful to me a sinner."

The fundamentalist believes that when he stands before God in judgement that his mouth is "stopped". He can not justify himself or his actions before God for God knows all.

The fundamentalist believes that those who are moderate or liberal tries to justify their beliefs and actions rather than "live by faith alone". The literal interpretation of Scripture is more than saying "it is God's word without error." For, if there is error, the fundamentalist has a problem of faith - God is not trustworthy. Scripture has to be true, without the assurance of truth, salvation will be in doubt.

Life would be so much easier for all of us if God had said, Okay, live like you want, I still love you and I am not going to be angry with any of you no matter what you say or do. You can kill my son, kill each other, worship other gods, not believe in me - you are just children so I forgive you.

the fundamentalist believes this life, a gift from God with a purpose, is preparation for living with Him in Heaven for eternity. Yes, there will be mistakes - honest ones and forgiveness is sought and repentance is practiced. when the last breath is drawn, God welcomes home the weary traveler. "Well done thou good and faithful servant."

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy
Thanks for sharing that, Pat. I should say that I haven't heard of anyone who takes the Song of Solomon literally, but I was under the impression that all 'fundamentalists' take the other chapters of the OT (particularly Genesis) and NT (particularly Revelation) word-for-ward literally.

Would it be fair to say that there are some "fundamentalists" who are literalists?


Roger answered this so well, I'll just second what he said, especially concerning Revelation. Most fundamentalists take the story of Adam and Eve literally, but the "days" of Creation 'taken literally' could either mean days or eons, since the original word means 'a period of time.' I attended a well-known fundamental evangelical college and studied geology under a science professor who espoused the 'periods of time' belief, and had no difficulty reconciling science with Christianity.

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger J Carlson
When I think of a Fundamentalist Christian, I think of someone who:

1. Believes the truth of God's word that:
   1. Everyone is a sinner.
   2. God loves everyone.
   3. God sent Jesus to restore communication with humanity.
   4. God gives everyone a choice whether to accept Him.
2. Follows the commandments of Jesus to:
   1. Love God with all your heart.
   2. Love others as (better than) yourself.

-----------------------------------------------------------



I don't have my Dictionary of Theological Terms handy, but I believe the short definition of Fundamentalism is anyone who strictly adheres to basic set of principles. Those principles, of course, vary from faith group to faith group (as well as within faith groups).

It's usually a reactive measure - a returning "to" fundamentals of faith as opposed to a proactive measure.

Fundamentalism in Christianity began in the early 1900's as a reaction to modernism. (Interestingly enough, I'm working on a book that just precedes this period and deals with this subject tangentially. The daughter of Charles A. Briggs grew up in the house next door - and he was the founding Pastor of the church where I currently serve. Briggs became the target of tension within the Presbyterian church, and was eventually branded a heretic by the church. Of course, what was once heresy in his era has become doctrine in ours... but I digress!)

The key area, IMO, was the interpretation of scripture. Fundamentalists tend to view scripture as more than inspired and authoritative - but as inerrant as well. There are five areas in all - but in reality, they all hinge on the interpretation of scripture as inerrant.

Hope that helps!

Karen
"Clergy by day, Campfollower by night"

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pb10220
Roger answered this so well, I'll just second what he said, especially concerning Revelation. Most fundamentalists take the story of Adam and Eve literally, but the "days" of Creation 'taken literally' could either mean days or eons, since the original word means 'a period of time.' I attended a well-known fundamental evangelical college and studied geology under a science professor who espoused the 'periods of time' belief, and had no difficulty reconciling science with Christianity.

My own perceptions of "fundamentalist" were partially formed by on-line discussions about science, where often the only ones self-identifying as "fundamentalist" are of the "7 days of 24 hours each" belief. I didn't realize that one could understand Genesis as describing "eon days" and still be considered fundamentalist.

Roger, thanks for starting this thread. My own impressions of fundamentalists are based on the ones who make the most noise. I appreciate the opportunity to learn about what a broader cross-section of "fundamentalist" believers believes. (And thanks to Pat et al. for the explanations.)

Click to expand...