Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cornell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!cornell!gtaylor
From: gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Fundamentalism, A Definition
Message-ID: <8096@cornell.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-May-84 20:15:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: cornell.8096
Posted: Thu May 10 20:15:56 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 11:19:56 EDT
References: <762@akgua.UUCP>, <8094@cornell.UUCP>
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept.
Lines: 34

Yow! I just read my own posting, and have decided to post a 
quick followup. My musings took off quite a bit from what
I'd intended to say. To be fair, let me try it again.
The definition of Christian Fundementalism given misses the
point in my view in that it does not address the notion that
its definition has changed considerably since the late 1900s.
Somewhere along the way, it has picked up a substantial bit 
of cultural baggage. Many American Religious historians see it
as a distinctly American movement, with strong roots in the
traditions of American as a Republic (hence the identification
of America as the new promised land, etc.).

I cannot say as I truly have any real disagreements with the
original outline posted as credo (though the Nicene creed says
it all in a much more compact and poetic manner)-but that that
definition does not take into account the patterns of cultural
practice that characterize Fundementalism.

It is those practices which are the brunt of much lampooning.
Somewhere over the last several years, they have changed from
a credo of affirmation to one of negation ( and I do not mean this
merely as a way of talking about their critics...other Christians
say as much upon occaision. Over and above those hardy souls who
are chuckling with glee at the opportunity at the chance to attack
"Fundies" as everything from Nazis for Neurotics at the ballot
box, I think there may be a few sincere types out there who
would like to try to separate the cardboard figure from the real
thing. I am not sure that a definition which seeks to ignore either
the perceptions of one's accusers (which may have a grain of truth)
or doesn't take into account the notion that things may have changed
since 1900 will be of much aid.

That's better.