Toto

In modern political discourse, "fundamentalist" tends to be a general insult, about as meaningful as "socialist" or "fascist." This is a problem with modern political rhetoric.

andrewcriddle

I think it is reasonably clearr that in North American usage fundamentalism is now strongly associated with committal to separation see for example thecanadianencyclopedia The European usage is different.

Andrew Criddle

Petergdi

Nope, and it shouldn't be. Lexicographers lag behind usage, and in this case have quite a history of lagging behind. The early movement was a "big tent" movement that was intended to cover pretty much all normal forms of orthodox protestantism and exclude only liberal and modernist theologians. It didn't commit anyone to a particular theory of the atonement, for or against the theory of evolution or any favourite bible translation.

As the movement progressed the people who took leadership gradually narrowed down who could be considered a fundamentalist. And the defining characteristic of the movement became its own narrowness.


Not really true. It is in the nature of things that the separatist and exclusivist groups make the most noise and when in charge do the most damage, but there is no shortage of uniting and big tent movements.

Not by your definition, but in actual normal discourse the big tent people are not called fundamentalists except as an insult.

Peter.

spin

It's a book. They are supposed to be useful.

While this is necessarily true because of the time necessary to print, the following is ridiculous:

I understand and I understand that you will remain unrepentant and rigid on the matter.

I'm sorry, but you're getting functionally repetitive. I got your basic position a few posts back.

Gosh, I knew you would shut your eyes on this. But you are not a historian. You are first a believer and belief will be your chains. The christian religion, for one has always excluded. Just think of the myriad of so-called heresies. Exclude, exclude, exclude. Massacres by one group of another based on exclusion. The emperor Julian was responsible for stopping much christian violence against christians. Think about the christian sacking of christian Constantinople. Try the inquisition. You are not part of us. Therefore, you should not be.

Flippant denial ("Not really true") saves dealing with it.

Who made the most noise between the Arians and the proto-orthodox? Did Marcion make more noise than the Roman "christians"? Was the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre the noise of the Huguenots or the more established religion? And so on, ad infinitum.

Calling them exclusionist, simply means they aren't in the spirit of ecumenicalism. But then, it would seem that most religionists have to work at being ecumenical.

My definition as you project it onto me comes from common dictionaries. Your projecting of it my way seems to be aimed at giving your no-buttons approach less idiosyncrasy.

Calling someone a "fundamentalist" may be an insult, but so is calling someone a "cheapskate", though the referent may indeed be a cheapskate. Your claimed new understanding of "fundamentalist" remains astandard and appeals to exclusivity are analogous to calling other religions' beliefs "myths".


spin

Petergdi

Dictionaries are very useful.

This doesn't change the fact that if you insist on a definition of fundamentalism that would include most liberal evangelicals then your definition is entirely at variance with how the word has normally been used for the past 60 years.

Peter.

DCHindley

Unfortunately, the POV of historical/critical scholars is at direct variance with that of evangelical Christianity.

The former wish to establish the relative value of historical reconstruction from surviving evidence when interpreted a naturalistic manner. The evidence determines the likelihood of any given explanation.

The latter are completely confident of what should have happened (based on a literal interpretation of scripture), meaning the value of historical/critical inquiry is in its ability to either confirm these truths or illuminate them for purposes of edification. Explanations must conform to the truth, so evidence is relative.

I have not honed this kind of contrast to a fine edge, but in a way their POVs are like oil and dihydrogen monoxide.

DCH

spin

That's a relief.

That would be a fact if it were true, but you have blithely ignored the definition in such a way as to replace it with something totally useless. Religious movements by nature tend to be fractious. You can point to any religious viewpoint and play the us-and-them game. If you don't accept baptism of adults rather than children you are not one of us. If you don't accept that the bishop of Rome is the supreme earthly representative of god you aren't one of us. If you don't accept the archbishop of Canterbury.... If you don't accept the literal word of god.... If you don't like our rituals.... Our icons.... Worship on the sabbath.... History is packed with religious lines drawn in the sand. It is meaningless in such a context to simply point to "Fundamentalism is about separatism, not belief itself." The first part is inconsequential as nearly all religious movements are "about separation" in practice and the second is simply wrong.

The issue about fundamentalism is still a faith based on a literalist approach to the bible. That hasn't changed. It is still apt. And it is the overt matter which separates the fundamentalist believer from the liberal christian.

To return to the start of our discourse, Wallace was deliberately misusing the term for purely polemical purposes, labeling people who in no way fit the definition of "fundamentalist" as a generic insult.


spin

Petergdi

Insult sure. Generic - no, he was aiming straight on target.

There are people who tell him that he can't be a proper Christian because he doesn't completely agree with them; and there are people who tell him that he can't be a proper scholar because he is an orthodox evangelical Christian. He is pointing out that his opponents have a lot in common. I think his meaning was pretty clear.

You are a linguist. I am surprised that you do not get this.

Peter.

spin

Wallace was just displaying his spleen -- and you know that. He didn't signify anything meaningful with his "fundamentalist" comment other than to register his displeasure. It was the soundbite that counted.

And are you really still pursuing your redefinition of "fundamentalist", when you've reduced it to meaninglessness? "[S]traight on target"? Your meaning, "[f]undamentalism is about separatism..." has nothing to do with Wallace's use of the term.

Yes, both make him feel attacked, hence the outburst of righteous indignation. It doesn't matter who the enemy is: treat them the same.

Yes, I agree. He was prepared to say anything for a dig, no matter how lacking in relevance.

As I said at the beginning --

Who needs to comment on the irony?

It is transparent: your boy went for the cheap shot. And your repackaging and redefining won't change that fact.


spin