quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
And wait just a minute.... I attacked Middle of the Road Anglicanism, which is an issue, rather than Middle of the Road Anglicans who are an idewntifiable group anyway.

---

You know honey, you are right, and I and wrong. A thousand apologies.

I could claim dyslexia as an excuse, but wouldn't change that fact that you were quite within the 10 Commandments, and I made a false call. Profuse apologies.

Re use of word 'traditional' - there is a difference between being a traditionalist in the worship sense and a traditionalist theologically; the first likes old-fashioned services eg. 1662 and King James Bible. the second believes in conservative, fundamentalist viewpoints.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
As someone who is liberal theologically, but wants expermintal, non-liturgical worship, I don't quite know where I fit in the spectrum.

---

Alas I fear there is no such thing as non-liturgical worship, it just depends on how written down you like your liturgy.

I like (written) liturgy and use it in alternative worship. Liturgy is Alternative to me, as I grew up in a "Non-Liturgical" church.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
Why is it that frequently, those who are traditional in a worship sense are able to be liberal theologically, whereas those who are more experimental in worship often tend to be more conservative theologically?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Re use of word 'traditional' - there is a difference between being a traditionalist in the worship sense and a traditionalist theologically; the first likes old-fashioned services eg. 1662 and King James Bible. the second believes in conservative, fundamentalist viewpoints.

---

Sorry, double post, but I only just picked up on this. I think you have your viewpoints rather muddled here.

'Fundamentalism' only dates back to the close of the last century, and was a response to liberalism. Therefore, it ain't that traditional. And it's Fundamentalists that most often make an issue of preferring the KJV over more recent, more accurate translations.

Evangelicalism dates at least back to Wesley - so, while it's still not in the grand scheme of things that old, it has at least a century on fundamentalism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
Why is it that frequently, those who are traditional in a worship sense are able to be liberal theologically, whereas those who are more experimental in worship often tend to be more conservative theologically?

As someone who is liberal theologically, but wants expermintal, non-liturgical worship, I don't quite know where I fit in the spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
In my tradition, non-liturgical is a shorthand for not having a fixed written liturgy; but one that changes week by week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
An interesting analysis, Wood, I think the fundamentalists I know (KJV haters) and the fundamentalists (KJV lovers) you know are obviously two different types. Yet more categories! Who is brave enough to categorise fundamentalists??

---

Ah, well, you see - the people you're calling 'Fundamentalists' aren't technically Fundamantalists, inasmuch as they don't apply the term to themselves. Technically, I imagine they're actually conservative neo-evangelicals.

If I were to split hairs, I'd say that the only correct use of the term 'Fundamentalist' (with a big 'F') refers to Christian groups which prefer the KJV (even over the use of Greek and Hebrew), and tend to be highly reactionary in their use of scripture and their attitude to worship. Church services tend to be staid and highly structured, and politics are often extreme.

The best example of historical Fundamentalism in the US is Bob Jones University; in the UK, it's the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

On the other hand, Charismatic-influenced Neo-evangelicalism (which dates back to the 60s and 70s) is gradually becoming the evangelical mainstream, and it's probably what you meant. There are tons of groups which share this ethos, but a fairly typical one in the UK would be Pioneer. While evangelical myself, this is not my brand of evangelicalism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Whereas that is one of the many things that I don't like about that sort of churchmanship. Whenever I have experienced it I have always felt excluded, because it seems that you have to be a member of the club to understand what's going on and there's no book to help you to understand.

---

I quite accept that this tradition isn't everyone's cup of tea, just as having a book in my hand and making said responses isn't mine. This is a matter of personality, background and taste, the only problem comes when someone tries to tell the other that their way is better per se, rather than a personal matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Ah, well, you see - the people you're calling 'Fundamentalists' aren't technically Fundamantalists, inasmuch as they don't apply the term to themselves. Technically, I imagine they're actually conservative neo-evangelicals.

---

I'm with Chorister. I would call McLean Bible Church Fundamentalist, in that they describe themselves thus:

quote:

---

We are convinced that God’s Word, the Bible, is not only divine truth but also conveys God’s warm love for us. We believe that the Bible is infallible and contains answers to problems and burdens which we face each day.

---

Once you start talking about the Bible as divine truth, and infallible, I think you're a fundamentalist, whatever you call yourself.

The one church I have attended (for a few months) that I would describe thus was very keen on the Now Indispensible Version (as they termed it) - shortly after it was first published.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
HT, like Chorister, you're confusing 'fundamentalist' (term used by you to describe what looks to me like a fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church) with 'Fundamentalist' (term used by a group with a very specific and strict theology to refer to itself).

---

Very well. I do not think that Chorister and I are confusing anything at all. If anything we are conflating.

However, let's just say that when I say "fundamentalist" I do in fact mean "fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church".

I tried to find some information about the special Fundamentalists to whom you refer, but to no avail. Apparently, a lot of "fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church" also describe themselves as "fundamental", because while a quick internet search on "Fundamental Christian" produced a lot of Baptist sites, and webrings devoted to "fundamental Biblical principles" and so forth. I also checked with the co-worker whose wedding I attended at the aforementioned McLean Bible, and he does indeed describe himself as "fundamental" but did not know what "neo-evangelical" meant.

So assuming that Chorister and I say "fundamental" when you would say "fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church", could you tell us what you mean by "Fundamental"?

Who are these peculiar "Fundamentalists" who do not overlap with "fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church"?

What is a fundamentalist Christian?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
yeah, thanks, HT - that's what I meant (also endorsed by Stephen and Nicole), and in no way suggesting that all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists.

On another thread, and a long time ago, I recommended a book called 'Liberal Evangelism' by John Saxbee (then Bish of Ludlow,now Bish of Lincoln); he argues that the boundaries between Liberals and Evangelicals can and should be blurred. *worth reading*

---

But, having read this book recently, I t seems to me that he gets "evangelicals" muddled with "those who are committed to evangelism", and the terms are not interchangable in that way!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
A fundamentalist to me is someone who takes the Bible literally eg believes the Earth was made in 6 days.But I may be doing them a dis-service
At any rate it is not the same as Evangelical although you can have Evangelical fundamentalists.
I suppose you can also have Catholic fundamentalists.

---

As I suggested above, I belive there is more to being a fundamentalist than the inerrancy of the bible, there is the conservative interpretation of it, belief in personal salvation, etc.

So in addition to biblical inerrancy there is the "Conservative Evangelical" approach to Christianity. But certainly not all Evangelicals (even Conservative Evangelicals)are fundamentalist.

Can you get a Catholic Fundamentalist? I don't know. Are there Conservative Evangelical Catholics who believe in the inerrancy of the bible?

But doesn't it contradict what you said about the church you mentioned above? After all, if 'fundamentalism' as defined in the paper you linked is indeed a 'legitimate form of extremism', I certainly wouldn't call the McLean Bible Church fundamentalist at all, not by that definition, and probably not by their own anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
So in addition to biblical inerrancy there is the "Conservative Evangelical" approach to Christianity. But certainly not all Evangelicals (even Conservative Evangelicals)are fundamentalist.

---

The attitude of Fundamentalists (big F) to other Christians can best be shown by an article which I found in an edition of the Metropolitan Tabernacle's magazine, Sword and Trowel (#2, 1996). The article is called Circles of Religion in the World Today, and it's by a John Whitcomb, aparently from a lecture course on 'Biblical Fundamentalism'.

I'll describe it in the most detailed terms possible. It's a good way to understand what Fundamentalists (big F) think of other Christians - and other religions. When I first read it, I was very, very offended, since I realised that I, despite my evangelicalism, was not counted among the 'proper' Christians.

The article is basically a diagram, showing a number of concentric circles.

Inside the first circle, right in the middle, is what the key gives as 'The circle of regenerated people' (ie those people who are going to Heaven) - namely 'Fundamentalism and Neo-Evangelicalism' (sic).

According to this diagram, everyone else is going to Hell, but the further out you get, the less likely salvation apparently is.

But wait, appended to the first category, there's a note which says:

quote:

---

Due to the continuing drift of neo-evangelicalism since this chart was created, many will question whether all of this persuasion should be placed in this category. Many now belong to category 2 - Ed.

---

Knowing something of Peter Masters' (he's the editor, of course. Masters is known in some conservative circles as 'der Fuhrer') particular views (barking? I think he is, but decide for yourself), he means both charismatics and people who don't think the Bible is inerrant (because charismatic inerrancy is very different to Fundamentalist - big F - inerrancy) here. Which means that the vast majority of Evangelical Christians in the UK alone aren't going to heaven either, apparently.

This includes me.

What's in category 2, then?

in 2. 'The circle of professing Christians who use Biblical terms but deny its infallibility' we have 'Neo-Liberal and Neo-Orthodox Protestantism' (that's Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, URCs and post-Evangelicals, y'all) and 'Seventh-Day Adventism'.

and so on:
3. 'The circle of fossilised religions that once were regenerate' (as in: they aren't any more) - Judaism, Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy.

4. 'The circle of apostate groups that deny the Trinity' - Unitarianism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses.

5. 'The circle of "Eastern" religions without Biblical backgrounds' - Christian Science (what??), Buddhism, Hinduism, Hare Krishna, Baha'i, Shinto (here, I've corrected Whitcomb's spelling mistakes. He may know tons about other faiths, but he sure can't spell their names properly. :rolleyes .

and outside the circles:

6. 'The outer realms of "non-religions" that demand a faith'. These are very telling (in a sort of 'WTF?' kind of way) indeed: Evolutionism, Communism, Materialism, Atheism, Scientism, Confucianism.

So there you have it.

Thanks for trying to put some difficult concepts into a post (not an easy task). I think there is a large degree of agreement between us (please let me know if you think otherwise).

The approach you have described above would seem to put proper “biblical inerrancy + Conservative Evangelicalism (if properly understood and as interpreted by Peter Masters or whoever the top dog in the group is)” types into the first circle. Other Conservative Evangelicals (sort of “Liberal Conservative Evangelicals” to coin a horrible phrase) into the second circle. Thus Conservative Evangelicals are not the same as F/fundamentalists and Catholics (or, on their definitions, Anglicans etc) who believe in scriptural inerrancy are not fundamentalist.

"Fundamentalism begins when people begin to say that the doctrinal and practical authority of scripture is necessarily tied to its infallibility and in particular its historical inerracny, when they maintain that its doctrinal and practical authority will stand up onlh it if in in general without error, and this means in particular only if it is without error in its apparently historical remarks."

I think this covers the traditional understanding of Fundamentalism, and is a tighter definition than Conservative Evangelicalism, which may or may not be Charismatic etc, etc,....

You could say about Barr that he defines it very tightly like this so that he can demolish it intellectually, but on that I would agree with him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The approach you have described above would seem to put proper “biblical inerrancy + Conservative Evangelicalism (if properly understood and as interpreted by Peter Masters or whoever the top dog in the group is)” types into the first circle. Other Conservative Evangelicals (sort of “Liberal Conservative Evangelicals” to coin a horrible phrase) into the second circle. Thus Conservative Evangelicals are not the same as F/fundamentalists and Catholics (or, on their definitions, Anglicans etc) who believe in scriptural inerrancy are not fundamentalist.

Which is what I was saying – I think!

---

Oh -- and you don't think that McLean Bible is EXTREME? Apparently one's view of this depends upon where one stands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
"Fundamentalism begins when people begin to say that the doctrinal and practical authority of scripture is necessarily tied to its infallibility and in particular its historical inerracny, when they maintain that its doctrinal and practical authority will stand up onlh it if in in general without error, and this means in particular only if it is without error in its apparently historical remarks."

---

I know some people whom this quote describes. I would also refer to them as Fundamentalists. They worship in a Presbyterian church in the US now, and used to worship at All Souls Langham Place.

And people say the High Church is hard to understand!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
When I was at university, many moons ago, those who wanted to hold office in the Christian Union had to sign the ICCF Constitution, which was a statement of faith, that as I remember it, pretty well summed up what I would call a Conservative Evangelical.

Does this still exist, and can anyone remember exactly what was/is in it?

---

I presume the ICCF was the UCCF by another name. Their site is

here with a link (which I can't get to work as a URL within a post) on it to their current doctrinal basis.

I was once described as a liberal because I suggested that it was possible to be a christian and attend a Benny Hinn type church (or any other church that you would see on TBN or God Channel).

Something to note is the change in use of the word "fundamentalist". Wood is 100% correct to say that, technically and historically, "Fundamentalist" with a capital F is someone who believes the matters set out in the series of pamphlets published in the US in the first quarter of the C20. These were the product of theologians associated with definitely "conservative" seminaries within the Reformed tradition. At some point "F" and "Evangelical" are interchangable, particularly in Britain - cp. JI Packer's book "Fundamentalism and the Word of God", which consciously takes up that label, and CS Lewis' comment in the preface to "M.C." which states he discussed his papers with an RC, an Anglican, a Methodist and "a Fundamentalist", by which he means what I would consider today to be a conservative Evangelical.

Now, the "F" becomes a pejorative over the years. But it also becomes a descriptive of all groups that behave in the way that Fundamentalists are understood (rightly or wrongly) to behave - elements of certain, clear authority, a particular morality in family and social matters, even politics, hence "Islamic Fundamentalists" which, given the origin of the "F" word is quite funny when you think about it!

So "F" has at least three meanings:

1. Historically, that which is probably best described as "extremely conservative evangelical" nowadays - so it might apply to some that go to All Souls, Langham Place, but certainly not to all. There are many "Evangelicals" in the broader sense of that word who do not hold to the historically defined "Fundamentals" (thingy Wrigth, the Baptist from Altrincham, whose first name I can't remember, being a case in point);

2. Pejoratively - i.e. anyone who doesn't think and believe what I do;

3. Sociologically - i.e. descriptive of a way of ordering one's sub-culture, rathter than specific beliefs.

On this third point, many groups could be regarded as "fundamentalists". We have seen how this technically Christian word has been applied arbitrarily to Islam - this Reformed word could (by replacing "Bible" in Weslian's statement with "Pope", "Church" or "Reason") be equally accurate of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Liberalism. It's more, I think, to do with an attitude of heart rather than the contents of belief. Thus, one can be highly "fundamentalist" about ones ceremonial (in either direction), ones belief in the nature of priesthood or, in a non-religious context, ones construct of ones own national identity. But whilst we might use "F" as a word, it is technically wrong and rather inadequate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Dude:
Wood. The only sense I can make of this is to say that while I see Conservative Evang's, neo-evang (whatever that is) &tc and fundamentalists as all the same, you seem to be saying that <fill-in-the-blank> evangelicals are alright, really, but Fundamentalists, well, THEY'RE the weirdos.

---

You see, I am manifestly not a fundamentalist. But I am an evangelical. It's as big a mistake to call all evangelicals fundamentalists as it is to call all liberals followers of JS Spong.

quote:

---

Oh -- and you don't think that McLean Bible is EXTREME? Apparently one's view of this depends upon where one stands.

---

No, I don't. There's plenty more extreme than that (check out the Fruitcake Zone for some of the prize examples). You're right. It depends on where you stand.

It's further complicated by the fact that politics and religious views are nowhere near as cognate in the UK as they are in the UK (Australia I can't speak for). I'm a fairly conservative Evangelical, but my politics are centre-left/'liberal'. In the States, I am given to understand, this would be a contradiction in terms.

Anyway.

quote:

---

Posted by Astro-Boy: Hey I always though that Charismatic and Fundamentalist were mutually incompatable, saying a Charismatic church is Fundamentalist is like saying that All Souls Langham Place is Anglo-catholic.

---

Again, this is what I was trying to say. Hopefully, if you've clicked any of the Met Tab/Bob Jones Uni pages I've linked, you'll be aware that not only do Fundamentalists (big F) consider charismatics not to be Christians - they even consider them to be deceived by Satan.

quote:

---

Posted by the Man Dyfrig:Count yourself lucky, HT, that Wood's keeping it simple - I think someone somewhere identified no less than 16 different strands of "Evangelicalism", all highly nuanced and distinctive.

---

Imagine how dangerous I could be if I could argue my point lucidly.

(wow. 16 strands... Even I didn't know there were that many.)

quote:

---

Something to note is the change in use of the word "fundamentalist". Wood is 100% correct to say that, technically and historically, "Fundamentalist" with a capital F is someone who believes the matters set out in the series of pamphlets published in the US in the first quarter of the C20. These were the product of theologians associated with definitely "conservative" seminaries within the Reformed tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Hi Wood
What do you mean when you say there is a difference between Charismatic inerrancy and fundamentalist inerrancy?

---

This was basically a swipe.

Both groups claim to an inerrantist view of scripture. And yet, their interpretations and their respective emphases are - in places - miles apart.

Fundamentalists are usually Calvinist. Charismatics are normally Arminian.

Fundamentalists are almost always cessationist; Charismatics, by their very nature, believe in the continuation of spiritual gifts and in signs and wonders and stuff.

Fundamentalists tend to be rabid KJV readers; Charismatics often (but not always) avoid the KJV like the plague.

Fundamentalists often have a theology that suggests that modern worship music is 'worldly' and therefore evil; Charismatics embrace it.

Charismatics often believe in 'word of faith' and 'prosperity' theology. Fundamentalist just as often oppose it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Thanks, Wood, must just look up Arminian again, I get the rest.

---

It's the oppposite of Calvinist.

quote:

---

So the Brethren are more fundamentalist than Charismatic Evangelicals, according to your criteria?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

Both groups claim to an inerrantist view of scripture. And yet, their interpretations and their respective emphases are - in places - miles apart.

---

Firstly I assume we are discussing Evangelical Charismatics rather than Liberal or Catholic Charismatics. Not all Evangelical Charismatics are inerrantists. Clarke Pinnock I think is on record suggesting that the Inerrantist position is not only incorrect but merely a political move by some in the US to keep others out of the big tent. Many evangelicals question scriptures factual inerrancy on historical matters for example, and some of them are of course Charismatic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

Fundamentalists are usually Calvinist. Charismatics are normally Arminian.

---

Again I am not sure this is true. The largest UK new church stream - New Frontiers is overwhelmingly Calvinist. Their favoured theological text would be Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. Grudem is practically paleo-reformed, and of course Charismatic.

Many non-Calivinist Charismatics are actually Neo-Arminian rather than Classical Arminian. There is also a lot of influence of early "revival theology", such as Charles Finney, which had its roots in Wesleyan thought. Classical Arminians i.e. many Pentecostal groupings believe God foresaw who would repent and predestined them. Neo-Arminians see Election as corporate, i.e The Church is Elect and Predestined as a unit rather than as individuals. Neo Arminians you may have heard of include Roger Forster and Clark Pinnock, both of whom are Charismatic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

Fundamentalists are almost always cessationist; Charismatics, by their very nature, believe in the continuation of spiritual gifts and in signs and wonders and stuff.

---

Although both Charismatics and Fundamentalist suffer from dispensationalism in some quarters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

Fundamentalists tend to be rabid KJV readers; Charismatics often (but not always) avoid the KJV like the plague.

---

True. Some American Charismatics use the KJV, but i think this is cultural rather than any belief it is "better".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

Fundamentalists often have a theology that suggests that modern worship music is 'worldly' and therefore evil; Charismatics embrace it.

---

True

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

Charismatics often believe in 'word of faith' and 'prosperity' theology. Fundamentalist just as often oppose it.

---

I think this a bit of a misrepresentation of Charismatics. I have met very few Charismatics who were into Word Of Faith teaching, unless the specifically went to a WoF church. Many Charismatics have opposed WoF, it was only the Toronto blessing which effected WoF and non-WoF charismatics equally that made many mainstream Charismatics I know accept that they weren't totally dodgy! My own feeling is that WoF theology is no more or less damaging than any other form of Charismatic or Evangelical theology

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

And yet they both claim to draw their theology from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Go figure.

---

In Faith teaching Gods will for the world is not only the salvation of sinners, but both Health and Prosperity for all people. Personal mountain moving Faith, built up through Hearing the Word of God is the key to appropriating these Gifts that God has already promised us.

My take on the Faith movement is that I agree with its Theism (that we are co-workers with God, and God is limited on what he can do by us), I agree that Poverty and Sickness are enemies of God. However I do not believe that having Faith is the key to overcoming all problems of the world, or that they can so be mystically overcome. My response to Poverty and Sickness is not to believe for a new Car and confess that I don't have a headache, but to Pray and Act for those in far greater need than myself.

Having said that the Faith movement does teach that "it is far better to give than receive" and "give and it shall be given back to you", however it usually seems to be aimed at leaders with a very mechanical expectation of reception. To combat the rather depressing "suffer now, reward in heaven" theology that some Christians have, they have a "don't suffer now get your rewards now" theology. This works for ministers, as everyone is giving to them, but works less well for individuals in the churches. Faith Churches tend to have a Strong Leader ecclesiology which doesn't help this problem. Faith churches are rather loosely structured above congregational level, they will often have relationships with other Faith churches and ministries, and may even have some one who regularly visits who has an "Apostolic" ministry. Even if they have a board of Elders they tend to be one man ministry style.

Ho hum, so just as we think it is all sewn up, along come yet more unintelligible terms....

Think I'll stick with: high, middle and low.

High - don't see the point of family services and wouldn't be seen dead in one.

Middle - think family services are useful places to take the kids until they are old enough to go to a 'proper' service. Then breathe a sigh of relief that you don't have to go to them anymore.

Low - think all services should be family services and can't understand why some people don't like them.