|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Definition of Christian "Fundamentalism"
|
liberte
Apprentice
# 17538
|
Posted
Just wonder what do you all think is the definition of "Fundamentalist" Christianity (within Protestant/Evangelicals)?
I'm thinking Fundamentalism as this:
- Biblical Inerrancy. Infallibility of Bible is not enough. Inerrancy to the jot and tittle is the mark of Christian orthodoxy.
- Evolution is 100% false and God made the world in six, literal days, and the world is 6,000-10,000 years old.
- Anti-Ecumenism. Non-Evangelicals (that includes mainliners, RCs, EOs) are usually lost and need to be treated as pagans and evangelized (because they believe "salvation is by works" and have many members "who live like the Devil on weekdays"). Any evangelical church that considers them as "believers" is compromised.
- Much things of the "world" are sin (drinking, smoking, dancing, blablabla) and the Christian must abstain from them.
- If you date or marry a "non-believer" (this includes those from "false churches" as stated above) you have sinned too.
Anyone grew up (or worship in) this type of environment?
[ 07. February 2013, 03:09: Message edited by: liberte ]
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The word fundamentalism is used very widely and vaguely as a mere indication of disapproval, so that there are, inter alia, fundamentalist Catholics, Muslims and atheists.
You appear, however, to be referring to the conservative Protestant version which emerged during the early twentieth century, and from which the term originated.
John Stott, an evangelical, claimed that fundamentalism differs from evangelicalism in eight areas:
1.It is anti-intellectual
2. Believes in a dictation theory of inspiration
3. Trusts only the AV / KJV
4. Interprets the Bible literally [not true, incidentally; NO-ONE interprets the Bible
entirely literally]
5. Separation from heretical churches and ecumenism
6. Overinfluenced by ambient culture [can be said of every single Christian tradition!]
7. Tends to be politically conservative [again, not universal; I have known fundamentalist
pacifists and proponents of an enthusiastic working-class ideology]
8. Eschatologically, tend to be dispensational premillenial
George Marsden, the historian who wrote Fundamentalism And American Culture: The Shaping Of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925, agrees with Stott’s dichotomy.
James Barr, who is not an evangelical, does not recognize Stott and Marsden’s distinction, and wrote a book called Fundamentalism in which he greatly extended the definition to include evangelical academics of the IVF tradition.
Barr conflates evangelicalism and fundamentalism, which he calls a “pathological condition”.
In other words, the issue of evangelicalism/ fundamentalism is unresolved, and tends to be interpreted on the basis of pre-existing personal theological loyalties.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Have you heard of The Fundamentals ?
A twelve volume set no less which seems rather a lot for fundamentals. From the titles it contains and the little I have skimmed it seems to be a reaction to the liberal 'heresy'. An idea for a creed, but much too long to be one.
Some Christians are proud to be fundamentalists, and they probably would not accept the description applied to extreme fundamentalism. "Fundamentalism" suffers the same problem as any label with multiple connotations.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The Fundamentals did not push dispensationalism; conceded that a Christian could be a socialist; and contained contributors who were theistic evolutionists.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Fundamentalist = anyone who treats the Bible more literally than you do.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Fundamentalists = people who believe that their way is the only way.
Re KJV, I have known Messianic fundies who use the Complete Jewish Bible and were Torah-observant so really did take the Bible literally. I think KJV-only people make up a large amount of fundamentalism but not the whole, lots within the Dominionist movement (eg Vision Forum) encourage use of the Geneva Bible for instance.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
This thread is concerned with the definition of a particular theological stream within Christianity and seems not to be directly related to worship or liturgy. I am therefore moving it to Purgatory. Please note that both biblical inerrancy and creation/evolution are Dead Horses and debate of those issues as such should be done on the appropriate thread in that forum.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
Start with an evangelical and take away any joyfulness or approachability, adding a healthy dose of judgmentalness, bigotry and ignorance.
Bake in the fires of Hell and voila! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
This is a thread for snootily ganging up on people you think are stupider or worse educated than you by redefining the name they call themselvs by? I suppose that's "unrestful" but its sure as hell not very Christian. Maybe we sould have a thread defining a"Catholic" as a bugger in a drass?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Guys, I looked this up a while ago - the word "fundamentalist" did originate in christianity. I think, once it became a perjorative term, it could then be used to deride any religion or faith outside christianity.
Wiki article on Fundamentalism
I wasn't bought up in this kind of church, but for a couple of years in my 20s I got caught up with the Free Presbyterians/Strict Baptists who took a pride in calling themselves "fundamentalists".
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Start with an evangelical and take away any joyfulness or approachability, adding a healthy dose of judgmentalness, bigotry and ignorance.
Bake in the fires of Hell and voila!
Did you forget to add hyper-calvinism Mockingale?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Sorry, I almost forgot - it is mandatory for women to wear hats.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Harold Ockenga, first president of evangelical Fuller Seminary (and, acc. to Marsden, first to attempt to carve out a distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical) defined fundamentalist more as a personality type, and orientation, than any particular set of beliefs. A fundamentalist, to Ockenga, is one who values rules over people, law over grace, and most of all, is prone to demonizing the "other"-- so that anything said by the opponent must be wrong, evil, slimy and bad (think of Fox News & Obama).
His example was: a fundamentalist and a secular humanist are walking in the garden. The secular humanist points to a beautiful flower and says "that's a rose". What the fundamentalist hears him saying is, "that is a Not-Made-By-The-Triune-God rose".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This is a thread for snootily ganging up on people you think are stupider or worse educated than you by redefining the name they call themselvs by? I suppose that's "unrestful" but its sure as hell not very Christian. Maybe we sould have a thread defining a"Catholic" as a bugger in a drass?
For a start, many Catholics are fundamentalists. And for me at least, it's certainly not ganging up on people I think are stupid or not as educated as me - many fundamentalists are highly intelligent and well-educated. That does not stop many branches of fundamentalism from being dangerous and cult-like, and ultimately damaging to Christian witness.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Traditionally, fundamentalists would put Scripture ahead of church interpretation or church teaching. This definition would exclude Catholics and Orthodox no matter how conservative and dogmatic they might be. Catholics and Orthodox would argue that the church wrote the Bible and that the church is the primary authority. Fundamentalists would argue that the [their interpretation of the] Bible has primacy and would govern the doctrines and teachings of the church.
I would argue that there exists a certain form of dogmatism within certain circles of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but would argue that this is different than fundamentalism.
[ 07. February 2013, 15:15: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Fundamentalists can surely come in different varieties? I know Messianic fundamentalists who obey the oral Torah as well as the written Torah, but they're still fundamentalists. I would say that fundamentalism is wider than Protestantism.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There are RCs and Orthodox who are certainly so dogmatic as to be all-but-indistinguishable from Protestant fundamentalists - some of them WERE Protestant fundamentalists who have swapped a Biblical fundamentalism for a Church Fundamentalism ... but it ain't always as neat as that.
As Kaplan says, there is a difference between evangelicals - in the broader sense - and fundamentalists in the narrower sense - although there are overlaps.
As for what ken said - well, yes, taking the rise out of people one might consider less intelligent/nuanced etc than oneself might not be very Christian but it's an awful lot of fun!
I'm up for it ...
But I wouldn't lump any of the evangelicals here into the 'fundamentalist' category in the way it is more narrowly defined.
I've got a lot of time for evangelicalism - even though I'm a bit past and post it ...
But that doesn't stop me taking the piss out of fundamentalists. It is indeed meet and right, it is our duty and our joy, in all times and in all places ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Traditionally, fundamentalists would put Scripture ahead of church interpretation or church teaching. This definition would exclude Catholics and Orthodox no matter how conservative and dogmatic they might be. Catholics and Orthodox would argue that the church wrote the Bible and that the church is the primary authority. Fundamentalists would argue that the [their interpretation of the] Bible has primacy and would govern the doctrines and teachings of the church.
I would argue that there exists a certain form of dogmatism within certain circles of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but would argue that this is different than fundamentalism.
I think you're taking an artifact of Protestant fundamentalism and ascribing it to fundamentalism simpliciter, rather than to the Protestant branch thereof. I think if we look at fundamentalism as an immovable, prejudiced adherence to a set of fundamentals, then you can say there are fundamentalists in any group, or could be.
For the Protestants the fundamentals are a set of historic interpretations of Scripture that are referred to as "literal" and mistaken for an adherence to the Scriptures themselves.
For the Orthodox, at least, the fundamentalists have an adherence to a selected subset of the Church's "traditions" as interpreted and given value by the fundamentalists and mistaken for "real" or "historic" Orthodoxy.
Catholics will have to define their own; I have no experience "from the inside" in their world.
What they all share, I believe, is a bleary-eyed reverence of some past time when things were all hunky dory, before those darned modernists screwed it all up by not taking things literally, or by throwing away scripture passages (for Protestants) or edicts of the Church (for Orthodox) that they find inconvenient or difficult.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
"Fundamentalism" had a specific meaning when The Fundamentals was issued. It was quite clearly of protestant origin though was far more inclusive of different views than some of these comments above would lead you to think.
But that was then. What seems to have happened is that the word turned out to be so useful - both to people outside and inside protestant christianity - that it now also serves both as a badge of affiliation, and as a generic bugaboo word, as Ken says. That's not unusual of course - you often get generic usages of words that originally had a more specific meaning.
But it seems to me that if may be helpful if some stable understanding of meaning could be developed. If it gets overused as an unfocused way of slagging someone else off for believing something you don't, it's just a way of being rude. That will reflect more about the ruderer than the rudee.
And honestly - no, of course all fundamentalists are not sour, anti-everything killjoys. Some of them are fine people who have other's interests at heart. Why lump them all together? Do you not have enough swivel-eyed loonies of your own to be getting on with? Maybe others may regard you as one yourself? Just a thought.
(ETA - posted after mousethief's post but not aimed at him - the comments are general)
[ 07. February 2013, 17:04: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Fundamentalism is opposed to freedom of conscience, something I feel strongly about. Fundamentalists would have that we all follow their particular path, that's what makes them fundamentalists. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (for example) but would not make others believe that are not fundamentalists.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
...And honestly - no, of course all fundamentalists are not sour, anti-everything killjoys. Some of them are fine people who have other's interests at heart. Why lump them all together? Do you not have enough swivel-eyed loonies of your own to be getting on with? Maybe others may regard you as one yourself? Just a thought.
[[LIKED]] by Mark Betts.
You are right, in recent times we have attached a stereotype image to fundamentalism (even likening such christians to extremist religious terrorists) which is not representative of such people at all. And, as someone has already mentioned, the word can be used to attack someone else whose religious views you don't share.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Fundamentalism is opposed to freedom of conscience, something I feel strongly about. Fundamentalists would have that we all follow their particular path, that's what makes them fundamentalists. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (for example) but would not make others believe that are not fundamentalists.
This is true. Historically (U.S.) Baptists had a doctrine called "soul freedom" whereby it was believed that everyone was empowered by the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture for themselves. They were also anti-creedal.
When the fundamentalists took over the Southern Baptist Convention they initiated purges of pastors and seminary professors who were not fundamentalists and issued "statements" which are creeds in all but name. Those who did not agree with those creeds (like former President Jimmy Carter) found that there was no place for them in the SBC and left.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
...And honestly - no, of course all fundamentalists are not sour, anti-everything killjoys. Some of them are fine people who have other's interests at heart. Why lump them all together? Do you not have enough swivel-eyed loonies of your own to be getting on with? Maybe others may regard you as one yourself? Just a thought.
[[LIKED]] by Mark Betts.
You are right, in recent times we have attached a stereotype image to fundamentalism (even likening such christians to extremist religious terrorists) which is not representative of such people at all. And, as someone has already mentioned, the word can be used to attack someone else whose religious views you don't share.
Most Christian fundamentalists (true fundamentalists, not just conservatives and/or evangelicals) would be quite happy for my right to an abortion, a civil partnership, the use of contraception and access to higher education as a woman to be taken away. That is infringing on my ownership of my own body and therefore dangerous to me. And surely fundamentalists are by nature extremists? They're not mainline and they don't want to be.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
@OP
Need to add "American" to this bad religion list.
[ 07. February 2013, 18:52: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
When the fundamentalists took over the Southern Baptist Convention they initiated purges of pastors and seminary professors who were not fundamentalists and issued "statements" which are creeds in all but name. Those who did not agree with those creeds (like former President Jimmy Carter) found that there was no place for them in the SBC and left.
Fundamentalists (including Strict/Particular Baptists) in the UK tend to use the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647 ish) - that's where the hyper-Calvinism comes from.
This was actually drawn up for the Church of England - I'm not sure where the C of E stands with it now, but it's associated more with Reformed theology these days. You've probably guessed that myself and Wikipedia are way out of our depth now, so hopefully someone more learned can fill in the gaps!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Mark Betts
Westminster Confession, Hyper Calvinism
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
It is mild to moderate.
Seriously you better learn the correct user of the term.
No the fundamentalist are unlikely to be Hyper-Calvinists, the problem is conversionism. Hypercalvinists do not go in for tub thumping sermons to save the damned. There is no point, the damned will remain damned and if they are going to be saved and among the elect then they will be saved anyway.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I should point out that Westminster Confession(yes I have read it) is one of the historic texts acknowledged by CofS, PCUSA and the URC. Sort of like one of our equivalents to 39 articles. Yes I have read it and even the Savoy Declaration (you know the one that United Churches of Christ hold to).
HyperCalvinists are few and far between today, the evangelical revival I think put pay to most of them. There are some in the North of Scotland and I suspect some who are attracted by the arid logic of a position elsewhere.
Actaully the group Mark Betts talks about are really neo-Calvinists and have all the unattractive attributes of converts in trying to be better Calvinists than traditional Reformed churches. Their reading of Calvin however is through a very strong Evangelical lens and discards much that broader Reformed tradition would see as essential.
Jengie
[ 07. February 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Thanks Jengie Jon. I suppose "hyper-Calvinism" has suffered the same fate as "fundamentalism", in that it is used far more loosely nowadays, and often in a perjorative way.
Tell me, where does the "Westminster Confession of Faith" fit in with the Church of England now? As far as I can see, it was abolished with the Act of Uniformity (1662), and William of Orange only gave royal consent for it to be used in Scotland (1690.)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd go along with Jengie's assessment, although without her knowledge of the fine detail. It came as something of a shock to me a good while back now, as I began to fellowship more widely than within the evangelical constituency that there were Reformed Christians around - URCs and others - who weren't neo-Calvinists.
I'd known some of the Reformed Baptist types and they struck me as, by-and-large, cessationist equivalents of the kind of 'new church'/restorationist groups that I was familiar with. We used to admire them for their heavy-duty preaching but remained wary of their cessationism and largely anti-charismatic stance. I fluctuated between the two at one point - the story of my life ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I agreed with their distaste for altar-calls and hype, but found them rather too strait-laced and rigid. Their leadership structures also struck me as just as autocratic as anything found in the 'new churches'.
Back in those days we all thought the URC was hopelessly liberal and lost.
I've since come across URC ministers who have impressed me immensely.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As far as I'm aware, Mark Betts, and Jengie Jon will know better than I do, The Westminster Confession has tended to be seen within the CofE as something cooked up during the Interregnum and consequently somewhat narrow and sectarian in tone.
You'll find some Anglicans at the more Reform end of things who think it's the bees-knees, but by and large I've always associated it with Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones style conservative evangelicalism - with a Presbyterian flavour.
So, the more Reformed (or neo-Calvinistic?) end of the Baptist and Congregationalist spectrum would be into it. We used to pick and choose bits of it in our somewhat eclectic fashion back in the restorationist house-churches - although few of us actually read the whole thing (I think I did, once). I still have a copy.
Overall, apart from those who are that way inclined, I don't think it'd be seen as any kind of big deal of be paid that much attention in CofE circles.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
And, as someone has already mentioned, the word can be used to attack someone else whose religious views you don't share.
A bit like the word scientismist, then.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
And, as someone has already mentioned, the word can be used to attack someone else whose religious views you don't share.
A bit like the word scientismist, then.
I disagree.
ETA: You may not like the word, but it doesn't have a dual meaning - it means what it's always meant.
[ 07. February 2013, 20:26: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Scientismist is a truly awful word.
However, it is worth noting that 'scientism' is not just something made up by rabid creationists or some such people. The late American philosopher, William Barrett, mentions it in his book Death of the Soul, published in 1986:
quote:
In short, no sooner has science entered the modern world than it becomes dogged by its shadow, scientism. What is this peculiar phenomenon we call scientism? It is not science, any more than the shadow is anywhere identical with the substance of a thing. Nor is science ever evidence of scientism. At most, science merely serves to heat up the imagination of certain minds—and they are not few—who are too prone to sweeping generalizations in the first place. Scientism is pseudo-science and misinterpreted science. Its conclusions are sweeping and large, and therefore sometimes pretend to be philosophical. But it is not a part of philosophy, if by philosophy we mean the effort to think soberly within the restrictions that human reflection must impose for itself. No; scientism is neither science nor philosophy, but that particularly modern invention and malady—an ideology. And as such, along with other ideologies that beset us, it has become a permanent part of our modern culture.
Personally I think that 'scientismist' should not be used, because it is one thing to criticise someone for allowing the conclusions of his scientific research to overstretch into areas beyond science's remit, but it's quite another to impose on him a simple label, through which all his ideas and pronouncements are then interpreted. That is lazy thinking.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... lots within the Dominionist movement (eg Vision Forum) encourage use of the Geneva Bible for instance.
Wow. I'm really intrigued. Why? Where do they get them from? Have any editions been printed since the Restoration?
Who are the Dominionists and Vision Forum? Do they realise that the Geneva Bible was complete, i.e. included the Apocrypha? Do they use the marginal notes that James I did not like?
Going back to fundamentalists, do they usually favour double predestination?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...Going back to fundamentalists, do they usually favour double predestination?
The ones I knew did - Free Presbyterian Church & Strict Baptists.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
ETA: You may not like the word, but it doesn't have a dual meaning - it means what it's always meant.
You're right that "scientismist" doesn't have a dual meaning - it doesn't have a single one, either. If you search in any of these dictionaries you won't find it. There is a single entry in the urban dictionary, mind, so that's something.
As EE says, "scientism" has a better pedigree. It's modern usage may have originated here in 1943. Nowadays, like "fundamentalist" it is a word almost totally used pejoratively and it's rare to find anyone advocating it. I think in your thread on it a while back, Quetz maged to find someone. It's on its way to becoming a snarl word like creatard, feminazi, denialist, warmist, darwinist, elitist, ideologue, fundy etc.
"Scientismist", if it ever enters common usage, will take its place on that sorry list.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
Didn't manage to edit my obligatory typo in time, but I'm happy to report that the urban dictionary defines what I did write, maged, as "An incredibly amazing kid who gets very depressed but loves to bone vigorously."
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... lots within the Dominionist movement (eg Vision Forum) encourage use of the Geneva Bible for instance.
Wow. I'm really intrigued. Why? Where do they get them from? Have any editions been printed since the Restoration?
Who are the Dominionists and Vision Forum? Do they realise that the Geneva Bible was complete, i.e. included the Apocrypha? Do they use the marginal notes that James I did not like?
Going back to fundamentalists, do they usually favour double predestination?
Dominionist theology
about Vision Forum
Vision Forum sells Geneva Bibles. It would appear that they do include marginal notes.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Didn't manage to edit my obligatory typo in time, but I'm happy to report that the urban dictionary defines what I did write, maged, as "An incredibly amazing kid who gets very depressed but loves to bone vigorously."
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Too much information!!!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Liberte are you American? I only ask because your inclusion of evolution and young earth theory in your list of what makes a fundamentalist doesn't work here in the UK where most who would define themselves as fundamentalist have no problem with these issues.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... lots within the Dominionist movement (eg Vision Forum) encourage use of the Geneva Bible for instance.
Wow. I'm really intrigued. Why? Where do they get them from? Have any editions been printed since the Restoration?
Who are the Dominionists and Vision Forum? Do they realise that the Geneva Bible was complete, i.e. included the Apocrypha? Do they use the marginal notes that James I did not like?
Going back to fundamentalists, do they usually favour double predestination?
Dominionist theology
about Vision Forum
Vision Forum sells Geneva Bibles. It would appear that they do include marginal notes.
That's amazing. It's like the mythical KJV only people but on speed. Thank you. It's the sort of tradition I've never heard of or encountered. Are there any in this country? Or anywhere apart from San Antonio, Texas?
I'm intrigued by the CD Collection
quote:
Providential Battles IV
Victorious Christian Armies commanded by Courageous Men of God
It's the sort of title Adrian Plass would invent.
A lot of the titles of the children's books are reminiscent of children's material from the 1830s.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Liberte are you American? I only ask because your inclusion of evolution and young earth theory in your list of what makes a fundamentalist doesn't work here in the UK where most who would define themselves as fundamentalist have no problem with these issues.
Well, I'm British too and every single fundie I've ever met here has always been anti-evolution. Although it is true that not every conservative evangelical is a Young Earther: far from it. Conservative evangelicalism is a broader umbrella than its critics give it credit for. But I've certainly seen some (not all) 'Reform' types argue against evolution.
As an 'open' evangelical, I lose no sleep over how the Creator shaped the universe ...
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Providential Battles IV
Victorious Christian Armies commanded by Courageous Men of God
It's the sort of title Adrian Plass would invent.
Without any trace of irony. Satire and self-reflection do not feature in Vision Forum's vision of the world. Hopefully this means they will never be able to extend their tentacles into the UK. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:
A lot of the titles of the children's books are reminiscent of children's material from the 1830s.
Yup. Vision Forum = a more malevolent version of Litttle House on the Prairie.
I discovered them several years ago online and was shocked by their beliefs and practices. They don't believe in girls going to college, or in women having the vote. They are fiercely anti-contraception. They also seem to believe in a worrying kind of emotional incest ... girls are encouraged to stay at home under their father's authority, and what's more, 'give their hearts to their fathers'. ( ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ) There's nothing remotely biblical about such a belief: indeed, the father-daughter obsession strikes me as being seriously creepy. (Where does the wife feature in all of this?) The VF folk also have a weird obsession with the Titanic, because to them this is one of the last examples of men putting women and children first (conveniently ignoring the historical reality that third-class women and children died in their hundreds. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ). Historical revisionism features large in Vision Forum writings. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
They present a very glossy and downright surreal version of Calvinist Christianity which, when examined closely, is cultic. And deeply misogynist, despite all their flowery guff about 'protecting' women. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
And no, I'm not lumping other Calvinists in with them. Indeed, they get a lot of criticism from more mainline Reformed Christians, who are worried about their incursions into the US homeschooling communities.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Welcome liberte
Others have made the point that definition is highly problematic, and not just (as George Spigot points out accurately) because of pond differences. That's equally true of distinctions between evangelicals and fundamentalists.
After many years pondering this question, my own personal take is that the attempts to define fundamentalism, particularly from outside, are often based on a general concern. That it is bad for people to be trapped in their minds (and maybe in a group culture too) by self-enclosing ideologies.
That's a reasonable concern. It does not deny the value of strong convictions and principles. But it also recognises that personal and social relationships are threatened if folks cannot find ways of talking about their differences and learning to live with them.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Not all conservative evangelicals nor fundamentalists are Calvinists.
There are different shades.
Pentecostals are generally fundamentalist in tone and practice and many would favour 6-Day Creationism. They are certainly not Calvinists but are very Arminian/Wesleyan in ethos.
Here in the UK, FIEC types (Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches) tend to be Calvinistic but there are some independent Methodist congregrations who are loosely (?) connected with the FIEC (or are at least friendly with them) who combine an Arminian/Wesleyan approach with some 'fundamentalist' views such as scriptural inerrancy and often 6-Day Creationism.
When I lived in Yorkshire you could divide independent evangelicals quite neatly into charismatic and non-charismatic camps. The non-charismatic groups tended to collaborate quite closely on tent-crusades, mission and so on - irrespective of their views on Calvinism/Arminianism. The unifying factor seemed to be that they were all evangelical but without being charismatic.
The Reformed Baptists tended to keep themselves out of the loop both with charismatics and with the more Wesleyan end of the conservative evangelical spectrum and were highly suspicious of conversionist tactics - tent crusades, altar-calls and so on.
There were even more 'Reformed' groups such as the Particular Baptists who thought that the Reformed Baptists were too liberal. These were the real hyper-Calvinist types.
Looking back, the Reformed Baptists were pretty moderate in comparison. They allowed contemporary and even more lively choruses and although highly critical of much charismatic practice were willing to hob-nob with charismatics and collaborate with them on social-action and relief/development work.
Some visiting preachers from the US were often taken aback because they sang choruses charismatic style with guitars etc - although without the hand-raising and beatifific expressions (the 'spiritual gurning' as I call it).
You can find fundamentalists in conservative evangelical CofE parishes. Here where I am there are a small group of people in the parish who are certainly Young Earth Creationists by inclination and biblical inerrantists. Most of them have been members of independent congregations that have gone belly-up at some time or other or else have been Pentecostals at some time in the past.
There is some overlap between FIEC circles and the Reform end of the CofE - you'll get certain Anglican speakers at their conferences and so on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Well, I'm British too and every single fundie I've ever met here has always been anti-evolution. Although it is true that not every conservative evangelical is a Young Earther: far from it. Conservative evangelicalism is a broader umbrella than its critics give it credit for. But I've certainly seen some (not all) 'Reform' types argue against evolution.
Interesting. As Bertie Bassett would say it takes all sorts.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Liberte are you American? I only ask because your inclusion of evolution and young earth theory in your list of what makes a fundamentalist doesn't work here in the UK where most who would define themselves as fundamentalist have no problem with these issues.
Well, I'm British too and every single fundie I've ever met here has always been anti-evolution. Although it is true that not every conservative evangelical is a Young Earther: far from it. Conservative evangelicalism is a broader umbrella than its critics give it credit for. But I've certainly seen some (not all) 'Reform' types argue against evolution.
As an 'open' evangelical, I lose no sleep over how the Creator shaped the universe ...
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Providential Battles IV
Victorious Christian Armies commanded by Courageous Men of God
It's the sort of title Adrian Plass would invent.
Without any trace of irony. Satire and self-reflection do not feature in Vision Forum's vision of the world. Hopefully this means they will never be able to extend their tentacles into the UK.
quote:
A lot of the titles of the children's books are reminiscent of children's material from the 1830s.
Yup. Vision Forum = a more malevolent version of Litttle House on the Prairie.
I discovered them several years ago online and was shocked by their beliefs and practices. They don't believe in girls going to college, or in women having the vote. They are fiercely anti-contraception. They also seem to believe in a worrying kind of emotional incest ... girls are encouraged to stay at home under their father's authority, and what's more, 'give their hearts to their fathers'. ( ) There's nothing remotely biblical about such a belief: indeed, the father-daughter obsession strikes me as being seriously creepy. (Where does the wife feature in all of this?) The VF folk also have a weird obsession with the Titanic, because to them this is one of the last examples of men putting women and children first (conveniently ignoring the historical reality that third-class women and children died in their hundreds. ). Historical revisionism features large in Vision Forum writings.
They present a very glossy and downright surreal version of Calvinist Christianity which, when examined closely, is cultic. And deeply misogynist, despite all their flowery guff about 'protecting' women.
And no, I'm not lumping other Calvinists in with them. Indeed, they get a lot of criticism from more mainline Reformed Christians, who are worried about their incursions into the US homeschooling communities.
Wow, someone outside of Free Jinger who knows about Vision Forum! There's also ATI headed by Bill Gothard, which is what the Duggars are part of.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Fundamentalist has imho 3 meanings, of wich two are rather arcane, these being:
1. Those who followed the original Fundamentals movement which has been commented on. This is now only of historic interest.
2. Protestant, mainly USA conservative protestantism which is typically more hard line than the original fundamentalists, and usually is creationist and dispensationalist. E.g. the Back to the Bible radio show and authors like Theodore Epp.
3. The use mainly used in modern discussion and which can be used of any religion, and refers to conservative, traditional believers, and apart from that is a bit vague. This has a scholarly wing, and would include theistic evolutionists. Typically inerrancy is believed, but qualified, so that quite a lot of room is left for mainstrea criticism of the Scriptures. I think this is the best one to use, as it is well known.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... lots within the Dominionist movement (eg Vision Forum) encourage use of the Geneva Bible for instance.
Wow. I'm really intrigued. Why? Where do they get them from? Have any editions been printed since the Restoration?
Who are the Dominionists and Vision Forum? Do they realise that the Geneva Bible was complete, i.e. included the Apocrypha? Do they use the marginal notes that James I did not like?
Going back to fundamentalists, do they usually favour double predestination?
Dominionist theology
about Vision Forum
Vision Forum sells Geneva Bibles. It would appear that they do include marginal notes.
That's amazing. It's like the mythical KJV only people but on speed. Thank you. It's the sort of tradition I've never heard of or encountered. Are there any in this country? Or anywhere apart from San Antonio, Texas?
I'm intrigued by the CD Collection
quote:
Providential Battles IV
Victorious Christian Armies commanded by Courageous Men of God
It's the sort of title Adrian Plass would invent.
A lot of the titles of the children's books are reminiscent of children's material from the 1830s.
KJV only people are definitely not mythical! Vision Forum is a company rather than a denomination, but there are homeschooling Dominionist families who follow their programmes all over the US - it's a shame Free Jinger (a fundamentalist exposing website) is down because I could link you to more. I am not aware of any who follow Vision Forum within the UK.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...although without the hand-raising and beatifific expressions...
Is that a word? (with the greatest of respect of course ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Fundamentalist has imho 3 meanings, of wich two are rather arcane, these being:
1. Those who followed the original Fundamentals movement which has been commented on. This is now only of historic interest.
2. Protestant, mainly USA conservative protestantism which is typically more hard line than the original fundamentalists, and usually is creationist and dispensationalist. E.g. the Back to the Bible radio show and authors like Theodore Epp.
3. The use mainly used in modern discussion and which can be used of any religion, and refers to conservative, traditional believers, and apart from that is a bit vague. This has a scholarly wing, and would include theistic evolutionists. Typically inerrancy is believed, but qualified, so that quite a lot of room is left for mainstrea criticism of the Scriptures. I think this is the best one to use, as it is well known.
On reflection, I think your scheme of keeping the three separate is helpful - even if 1) is no longer in active use.
But I think category three is broader than you say. I have definitely heard the term used of people like the late Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, and that by other atheists who disagree with them, such as Jeremy Hardy. I can't think that they meant to criticize them on a religious basis.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
