Fundamentalists and Evangelicals

[TWells]

Ive grown up and lived in the south and have mostly attended Baptist or Fundamentalist type Churches. Ive always had the impression that to be a conservative Christian is to be a fundamentalist, but in the last year as Christ has become more important in my life and my studies have increased and ive broke with some of the more traditional (in this area) beliefs and realized how fundamentalism seems to be a cultural thing. So my question is do most of you who consider yourself conservative also consider yourselves to be fundamentalist? What are differences you see? What are the problems with it? What are Evangelicals and their relationship to fundamentalists?

Thanks for any answers or thoughts you have.

[Solly]

I am a Calvinistic conservative Baptist. (British). I don't consider myself "fundermentalist" in the Amrican mold, since that seems to have become more of a cultural thing than an expression of Biblical Christianity now.

From across the pond, Fundamentalism seems to be a combination of American right wing politics, cultural isolationism, and anti-intellectualism (which is a shame considering its originators).

[Socrates]

Before we can even discuss this, we must define the terms. Alas, "fundamentalism" nowadays has a negative connotation, but this was not always so. Theologian Paul Enns states (Moody Handbook of Theology, p. 613, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989):

Historically, fundamentalism has been used to identify one holding to the five fundamentals of the faith adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the USA in 1910. The five fundamentals were the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the inspiration of Scripture.

So under this definition, it's absurd to talk about "Islamic fundamentalists". It's certainly dishonest to lump Christian fundamentalists in the original definition with the Islamic fundamentalists in the modern connotation as the secular media love to do. But then, why expect honesty from secularists, since they have no objective basis for this if we are really rearranted pond scum?

[Solly]

Today @ 09:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100980#post100980)
Socrates:
So under this definition, it's absurd to talk about "Islamic fundamentalists". It's certainly dishonest to lump Christian fundamentalists in the original definition with the Islamic fundamentalists in the modern connotation as the secular media love to do. But then, why expect honesty from secularists, since they have no objective basis for this if we are really rearranted pond scum?

But that is the point isn't it Soc, that Christian "fundamentalists" in the original definition became modern fundamentalists, purveyors of right wing "extremism" in social-political policy, and then the term became used for any hard line non-cooperative group who digs their heels in because of their divine revelation. The link being "We have this book here which tells us what to do". And is there that much a difference when I recently saw an article advocating the return of stoning for rebellious children? Shades of The Handmaid's Tale.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 07:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100988#post100988)
Solly:

But that is the point isn't it Soc, that Christian "fundamentalists" in the original definition became modern fundamentalists, purveyors of right wing "extremism" in social-political policy,

And your proof is, what??? In fact, Williams Jennings Bryan, so badly slandered by that dishonest movie Inherit the Wind, was the leading anti-evolutionist of his day largely because extreme capitalists invoked Darwinian survival of the fittest theory to justify their exploitation. Bryan was also instrumental in introducing women's suffrage to the USA.

... and then the term became used for any hard line non-cooperative group who digs their heels in because of their divine revelation.

More likely, the liberals in the church and the media found it convenient to permeate such mendacity.

The link being "We have this book here which tells us what to do". And is there that much a difference when I recently saw an article advocating the return of stoning for rebellious children? Shades of The Handmaid's Tale.

And indeed, this book DOES tell us what to do. But it must be interpreted by the grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Yesterday @ 01:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100514#post100514)
TWells:

Ive grown up and lived in the south and have mostly attended Baptist or Fundamentalist type Churches. Ive always had the impression that to be a conservative Christian is to be a fundamentalist, but in the last year as Christ has become more important in my life and my studies have increased and ive broke with some of the more traditional (in this area) beliefs and realized how fundamentalism seems to be a cultural thing. So my question is do most of you who consider yourself conservative also consider yourselves to be fundamentalist? What are differences you see? What are the problems with it? What are Evangelicals and their relationship to fundamentalists?

Thanks for any answers or thoughts you have.

Wow, a couple of foreigners telling a Southerner about fundamentalis (Just kidding Solly and Socrates, you both make excellent points :thumb:)

However as a Southerner my self, I can identify with your situation. I do consider myself "fundamental" as it is used in the original sense that Solly used. However, in the US South (or at least the part I live in) fundamentalism has been equated to a paticular belief system that IMHO is very legalistic among other things. So in the contemporary sense, I do not consider myself a fundamentalist.

[Socrates]

Faramir:However as a Southerner my self, I can identify with your situation. I do consider myself "fundamental" as it is used in the original sense that Solly used. That's the main thing :thumb:However, in the US South (or at least the part I live in) fundamentalism has been equated to a paticular belief system that IMHO is very legalistic among other things. So in the contemporary sense, I do not consider myself a fundamentalist.And indeed, I probably would not be one by the standards of what passes for fundamentalism these days, e.g. KJVO, hyperliteralism that ignores the grammatical and cultural context, teetotalism (gluttony is OK though ;), no card games apart from Rook, no movies ...

[TWells]

Thanks for the responses, what about evangelicalism or evangelicals what are the difference between them and fundamentalists? Where did that term originate?

[Solly]

"Evangelicalism" as a term originated in the late 18th early 9th century in England to denote a group within the Anglican church who held to...you guessed it, evangelical vews, as opposed to the High church/AngloCatholic or Latitudinarian/Broad Church views of the other main groups. Charles Simeon and JC Ryle were two of the more well known Evangelicals of the time. They held to Reformed doctrine as expressed in the 39 Articles and Book of Common Prayer (with some tweaks, such as not accepting the statments on baptismal regeneration).
The NonConformists of the day were sliding from arminianism into liberalism, or retreating to High Calvinism, so the AEs saw themselves as the last bastion of Biblical truth and practice. However, with the advent of the various Missionary societies, the Keswick movement, and writers like H Moule, it spread into other denominations and linked up with men like Spurgeon. The Sovereign Grace Union helped to unite different groups as well, as did the Gospel Magazine. Writers like John Stott and Jim Packer are Anglican Evangelicals.
Like most terms, it has broadened in its usage, and is now almost debased, since it does not specify one single group, but rather a stance which, in this country at least, includes people from Anglicanism across to Open Brethren, but with no consensus on what it means doctrinally.
Within my own circles, we tend to use Reformed if we need to, since Evangelical in the Free Churches means NIV/NKJV rather than KJV, non head covering, probably choruses, women speaking in mixed prayer, jumpers rather than ties, chairs rather than pews, platforms rather than pulpits, etc.