Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: eleazar!oracle@dartvax.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Am I a "fundie"? Message-ID: Date: 19 Jul 89 06:05:33 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 89 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In a past article, Lance Beckner asks the question of: "How and why are Christians categorized into fundamentalist vs. non-fundamentalist?" It happens because it's necessary. The standing definition of a fundamentalist is this: Fundamentalist (religious connotation): one who views the Bible as being the literal, REVEALED Word of God, rather than an allegorical work INSPIRED by God. Normally, this belief wouldn't cause too many problems. But a great number of fundamentalists get caught up in the fervor of their work, and start actively imposing their beliefs on others. The Jehovah's Witnesses are perfect examples... completely sincere in their beliefs (I think), and very decent citizens overall, but very pushy. Some people aren't bothered by this pushiness, but others get quite offended. Another problem that non-fundamentalists see with fundamentalism is the fact that Fundamentalists do NOT stress the notion of the loving, forgiving God as much as they stress the fire-and-brimstone, "repent, or burn!" idea. This bothers me especially. I cherish the idea of worshipping God because I LOVE him, not because I'm terrified of him. Coerced reverence just seems worthless to me. Somehow, the "Loving God" seems more in keeping with Jesus's teaching. Think of it from a parent's point of view: would you rather have your children obey you because they love and respect you, or obey because they fear you? Personally, if I found out that my children were terrified of me, I'd probably break down sobbing, feeling utterly worthless as a parent. {This notion of "obediance through fear" has also prompted a minority of the fundamentalists to take *VERY* loose views about corporal punishment... some of these cases even developing into child abuse. These cases are quite rare, but frequent enough to gain the attention of Fundamentalists Anonymous, the non-pprofit organization set up to help such problems.} In short, fundamentalists are labeled thus because they are collectively considered an annoyance, if not a threat, by non-fundamentalists... and labeling fundamentalists is an easier way to cope with them, if you happen to object to their philosophy. I hope this helps. Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu [Actually, fundamentalism was a movement of which inerrancy was only one part. The term tends to be used to characterize any number of different conservative tendencies. But it's mostly a derogatory word used without any very precise meaning. As such, we should probably avoid it. It leads to stereotypes that are often wrong. There are people active in Usenet who seem superficially to fit some aspects of the stereotype above. Whether they really are is harder to judge, and to assume it is probably unfair. Most people I know who believe in inerrancy also think of God as loving. Among people who believe in inerrancy, there are great differences in social activism (one of our readers is theologically conservative but apparently involved in the issue of homelessness), in theology (the recent debate about prestination has participants on both sides who believe in Biblical inerrancy), and in overall style of livings as Christians (varying from pentacostals who believe it is crucial to speak in tongues and have a rather emotional style of worship, to intellectual types). I'd rather look at where people fall on a variety of spectra of this type, than try to characterize them by one word "fundamentalist". By the way, I do not believe in inerrancy, but I certainly don't believe that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. There are a number of alternatives to inerrancy, but the major ones are probably - those who still consider the Bible to be a reasonably accurate report of historical events, but accuracy only in the way that normal historical reports are accurate. - those who believe that Jesus had a lot of good ideas, but that the talk of miracles, salvation, etc., is not to be taken seriously. In many ways the first group may not be very different theologically from those who believe in inerrancy, though their different approach to Scripture may affect a few things, such as ordination of women. --clh]