# What Is The Meaning Of The Word 'Fundamentalist'



## KMK (Jun 16, 2009)

I have reason to believe there are some people in my community who refer to me and, therefore, my church as 'fundamentalists'. I also have reason to believe the word is being used as a pejorative. I really don't care, but it seems to bother some of the congregants. I don't know what to tell them. After all, I drink wine, am not a member of the moral majority, and hold to the LBC! 

When I hear the word I think about Baptist churches who emphasize certain 'fundamental' doctrines. Or I think of Jerry Falwell and the moral majority. But I don't think that is how these people are using the word.

What does the word 'fundamentalist' mean?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 16, 2009)

If you're a liberal mainliner (or secularist), the term fundamentalist can and often does mean anyone who "actually believes the Bible is the Word of God" - this is a rough quote from an ELCA colleague, who often uses the term fundamentalist in that sense.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 16, 2009)

I would say that a fundamentalist believes that faith overides reason, or alternatively that reason is opposed to faith. In this regard the classic Reformed position is not fundamentalist as we believe that our faith can be established by reason (albeit involving presupositionalism). 

Likewise fundamentalist moralism can often be explained by a refusal to follow theology through to its logical outcome, which also explains why they can have some really incoherent and contradictory theology.

J Greasham Machen is a fine example of someone who stood firmly against the dark side of fundamentalism while emracing its finer qualities.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 16, 2009)

For whatever reason (I think it is largely due to Bob Jones University and those who are closely connected with it), fundamentalism in many circles means "legalistically adhering to the teachings of Scripture" is is also associated with interpreting the Scriptures literally without compromise. I realize this may or may not be an accurate definition, but in my circles, that is what it means.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 16, 2009)

George Marsden in his book, _Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism _, says that a fundamentalist is someone who is militantly opposed to modernism.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 16, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> For whatever reason (I think it is largely due to Bob Jones University and those who are closely connected with it), fundamentalism in many circles means "legalistically adhering to the teachings of Scripture" is is also associated with interpreting the Scriptures literally without compromise. I realize this may or may not be an accurate definition, but in my circles, that is what it means.




Indeed. Those who legalistically hold to alcohol abstinence (for example) would be considered "fundy" in my circle. Same with those who legalistically hold to abstaining from non-addictive tobacco use. It is seeing evil in something when Scripture doesn't necessarily warrant it.


----------



## Theoretical (Jun 16, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> If you're a liberal mainliner (or secularist), the term fundamentalist can and often does mean anyone who "actually believes the Bible is the Word of God" - this is a rough quote from an ELCA colleague, who often uses the term fundamentalist in that sense.




One of my former professors uses the term to describe pretty much anyone who is orthodox Christian. I've heard others use it in the same way as shorthand.


----------



## Jen (Jun 16, 2009)

I've found it helpful to consider the term historically, and there've been five phases of fundamentalism (these are from my Baptist history class, but the general outline fits beyond Baptist circles). [-]Unfortunately, my notes are on my Hermione, and she's been sent in for repairs, so I can't look up some of the years...[/-] Yay, she came back not ten minutes ago!

1) 1920-'29: An intra-denominational, purifying movement. Similar to the development of Puritanism. It was intellectual, urban, and largely northern. Baptist fundamentalists tended to come from large, downtown churches.

2) 1929-'42: After Machen's expulsion, it began to move outwards as fundamentalists began to leave their denominations. GARBC founded after conservatives left the ABC (1932). Still pretty intellectual and urban.

3) 1942-'57: Secondary separations begin (one stops associating with someone because they haven't left a liberal-ising denomination). Starts moving more south. Anti-intellectualism begins.

4) 1957-'85: Billy Graham crusade is in this period -- cooperation with liberal denominations, which the fundamentalists object to. Definite movement out of the North and into the South. Becomes louder, more vocal. Tertiary(!) separations begin -- fundamentalists stop associating with people who associate with conservatives in a liberal denomination (in other words, they wouldn't associate with any PB members because we have members who are in the PC(USA)).

5) 1985-present: Marked by Jerry Falwell, et al (depending on whom you ask -- there are people further right than Falwell). After the conservative retaking of the SBC, fundamentalism basically lost its way. It basically has nothing to complain about except, apparently, for Calvinism (w/in the SBC, that is).

For all their anti-intellectualism, fundamentalists tend to be conservative rationalists (me, myself, and my Bible); they're anti-confessionalism, and don't get along well with Reformed Christians (as we can see in Machen's clashes with the fundamentalists).

Or, as Todd noted above, liberals use it to describe pretty much everyone to the right of them with absolutely no nuance whatsoever.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 16, 2009)

If a Reformed person uses the term pejoratively, it probably connotes something like the denial of the whole category of _adiaphora_.


----------



## KSon (Jun 16, 2009)

Having just escaped a vein of that world, fundamentalism (I guess I am just speaking here of the majority of IFB) has seemingly morphed from the professed belief in the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith (inspiration/infallibility of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ, etc., and a rigid policy of seperation from error regarding those things) into a "movement". That movement seems willing to declare other qualifiers in determining a true fundamentalist. Where I just fled from, those qualifiers took the form of King James Onlyism, no pants on women, hymns-only in service, and Dispensational premillenialism. Any variance on these issues gets you blackballed out of the camp. 

I know that this is not the only vein of today's fundamentalism, but it is the one I know and fled from.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jun 16, 2009)

A fundamentalist is someone who doesn't know how to have "fun", has too much "damn", and not enough "mental"


----------



## KMK (Jun 16, 2009)

This is what I have gleaned from your posts:

A fundamentalist could be any of the following:

•	Anyone who actually believes the Bible is the Word of God.
•	Anyone who believes that faith overrides reason.
•	Anyone who interprets the scriptures literally without compromise.
•	Anyone who is militantly opposed to modernism (whatever that is).
•	Anyone who is an orthodox Christian.
•	Anyone who is more conservative than you are.

From what I understand of the situation I think it is being used for "Anyone who interprets the scriptures literally without compromise." However, is that even possible? Is there anyone who actually believes that Jesus is actually a door, and a vine, an a shepherd etc etc? I don't even know how to answer that one. It must refer to someone who interprets scripture more literally than you. (6 creation; 3 days in the belly of the fish; virgin birth etc.)

Thanks for all your input. It has been very helpful to my shepherding.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 16, 2009)

Fundies, to me, are Bob Jones U, Word of Life types who are exclusively Dispensational. They also tack on a lot of NO's to grace (no smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, card playing) and are 1611AKJV ONLY, hostile to any other Bible.


----------



## Theognome (Jun 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> What does the word 'fundamentalist' mean?



A fundamentalist is a person that gives money to crazy people.

Theognome


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 16, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> Fundies, to me, are Bob Jones U, Word of Life types who are exclusively Dispensational. They also tack on a lot of NO's to grace (no smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, card playing) and are 1611AKJV ONLY, hostile to any other Bible.



Except that neither BJU nor Word of Life are KJVO. Also, BJU isn't exclusively Dispensational (don't know about Word of Life). Be careful who you implicate in your stereotypes.


----------



## Rangerus (Jun 16, 2009)

great thread. I've never put fundamentalists in the dispensational camp, but I can see that. I agree, however, the term is mis-used quite often.


----------



## Theoretical (Jun 16, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > Fundies, to me, are Bob Jones U, Word of Life types who are exclusively Dispensational. They also tack on a lot of NO's to grace (no smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, card playing) and are 1611AKJV ONLY, hostile to any other Bible.
> ...


BJU is not all Dispensational? I guess I got a bit of a one-sided view from their textbooks in HS. Also isn't it at least near-KVJO if not outright so?

For this, I'm only referring to faculty and staff. I'm sure there's some greater diversity on the part of the student body on these issues.


----------



## pm (Jun 16, 2009)

*Fundamental Evangelistic Assoication*

Fundamental Evangelistic Association Homepage


----------



## Kiffin (Jun 16, 2009)

Theoretical said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > Rich Koster said:
> ...



This is from BJU's website:

_Statement about Bible Translations​Although Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position, we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version (KJV) as the campus standard in the classroom and in the chapel pulpit. The position of the University on the translation issue has not changed since the founding of the school in 1927.

We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. However, from the founder to the present administration, we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language._

Considering that there is a number of Presbyterians represented at BJU, it would be hard to consider them "all Dispensational."

Anyways...

The term "fundamentalist" has a wide semantic range these days. For me, I am a "fundamentalist" in certain contexts and NOT in others. For example, those to the left of me say I am a fundamentalist because I go to TEDS and those to the right of me say I am NOT a fundamentalist because I go to TEDS .

It all just depends...


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> This is what I have gleaned from your posts:
> 
> A fundamentalist could be any of the following:
> 
> ...



You forgot the legalism and separatism which are marks of today's movements among the fundamental baptists.

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 08:12:19 EST-----



Theoretical said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > Rich Koster said:
> ...



Exactly, unless things have changed, dispensationalism is still taught as doctrine at BJU


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 16, 2009)

"Fundamentalist" can either serve as a scholarly descriptive of an historical movement with many facets (e.g., Marsden) OR a pejorative for anyone more conservative than you are.

To a member of a mainline congregation (particularly one who is seminary trained), anyone who believes the Bible to be the Word of God is a fundamentalist.

To a "progressive" evangelical (particularly of the Fulller seminary stripe), a fundamentalist is anyone who holds to inerrancy, 7/24 creation, doesn't smoke or drink, etc.

To a Reformed confessionalist, the term carries the overtones of anti-intellectualism, legalism, and the like.

So, depending on where you* sit*, I can predict where you will *stand *on the issue of fundamentalism. 

To the ABC, I'm a fundamentalist. To the separatist fundamentalists, I'm a flaming liberal. To many of my old colleagues in seminary, I would be a Calvinistic fundamentalist. But, to some of the TR on the PB, I'm neither Reformed, nor necessarily even a member of a valid church.

So, Ken, quit asking what a "fundamentalist" is. As President Clinton famously opined, "It all depends on what the meaning of is is."


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 16, 2009)

*Clarification*

To clarify a couple things about BJU:

1. Most importantly, they would define themselves as Fundamentalists because of their practice of secondary separation. That is how most self-professed Fundamentalists define themselves.

2. They are not remotely KJVO. Their faculty prefers reasoned eclecticism as a text-critical method. Most of the influential pastor-scholars there are using NASB, ESV, or NKJV. Their statements about using the KJV as a "standard" don't reflect reality; it is a marketing ploy designed to avoid alienating the more conservative Fundamentalists.

3. They are strongly weighted toward various types of Dispensationalism, but not exclusively so, as one poster suggested. Most of the current Bible/Seminary faculty are "progressive Dispensationalists" (some are undecided), and they have several faculty outside the Bible faculty who are covenant theologians. In the undergrad, they teach a vanilla dispensationalism that's compatible with the majority of sending churches.

(As you may have noticed, most of BJU's theology is geared toward placating their constituency. They don't want anybody going home and telling their pastor that BJU thinks they're wrong.)


----------



## KSon (Jun 16, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> To clarify a couple things about BJU:
> 
> 
> _2. They are not remotely KJVO. Their faculty prefers reasoned eclecticism as a text-critical method. Most of the influential pastor-scholars there are using NASB, ESV, or NKJV. Their statements about using the KJV as a "standard" don't reflect reality; it is a marketing ploy designed to avoid alienating the more conservative Fundamentalists._
> ...


----------



## KMK (Jun 16, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I have gleaned from your posts:
> ...



I am still trying to understand what 'legalism' means. Maybe I need a new thread.


----------



## ww (Jun 17, 2009)

Legalism is the adherence to a set of "extra biblical" "man made" rules and/or regulations which in essence earn God's favor. It is "works righteousness" and thus the similarities between Fundies and Roman Catholics are sometimes drawn up by some theologians when it comes to the working out of their systems. 

Secondary Separation is also key in that not only should we be separate from Liberals but also separate from anyone who associates with said Liberals although they themselves may be orthodox. 

There are different streams of Fundamentalism (brings me back to the Bob III's sermon in chapel) and BJU is just one of them. Hyles-Anderson is another with the Sword of the Lord following. Pensacola Christian College is its own brand with a strong KJVO stand. And there are more. 

However as already stated the Media, Liberal Theologians, etc would lump all Evangelical, Reformed folks in with the above mentioned "Fundamentalist" because of the Doctrinal Agreement on the Fundamentals of the Faith such as the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc.


----------



## TimV (Jun 17, 2009)

> I would say that a fundamentalist believes that faith overides reason, or alternatively that reason is opposed to faith. In this regard the classic Reformed position is not fundamentalist as we believe that our faith can be established by reason (albeit involving presupositionalism).
> 
> Likewise fundamentalist moralism can often be explained by a refusal to follow theology through to its logical outcome, which also explains why they can have some really incoherent and contradictory theology.



Exactly. And in American terms, if you are a Baptist and support the US government giving Israel free money and strong political support, then you are a fundie. That's the easiest litmus test of all.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 17, 2009)

I think it needs to be stated that fundamentalism also exists outside of Christendom. It seems that when the term fundamentalism is used on this board, and in most places among Christians, people bring to mind Independent Fundamental Baptists. But, the principle of fundamentalism runs across the entire breadth of religious expression. 

Also, the baseline definition of fundamentalism, according to the OED, is something that each of us would stand in line and gladly own. But, that is not how the word in normally used in today's world.

When I used the term in the other thread what I meant was this: Fundamentalism or fundamentalistic thinking is holding what may be a Scripturally supported belief, but is not _expressly_ stated, and making it a line of separation; a line of separation that sees others as being somewhere on a spectrum that begins with illegitimacy and ends with seeing them as unregenerate. In other words, making a clear line of distinction where the Bible does not. Among Christians this can exist in several areas: dress, music style, mode of baptism, translations, original language texts, and so on. 

Fundamentalism also exists in every other religious rubric on the planet. There are fundamentalist Catholics, Buddhists, Communists, Muslims and so on. And, as I have studied it has become apparent that the thinking behind each of these groups is similar.

This tendency toward fundamentalism / legalism is something that all Christians who take a serious view of Scripture must guard against. It is very easy to drift into this dangerous way of thinking.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jun 17, 2009)

It is a slur commonly used to describe anyone deemed to be to the religious right of you so you don't have to think about their beliefs anymore.


----------



## Theognome (Jun 17, 2009)

Pbltz. no one seems to have got the jist of my joke- fund a mental... money to crazy people...

Sigh.

Theognome


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 17, 2009)

Theognome said:


> Pbltz. no one seems to have got the jist of my joke- fund a mental... money to crazy people...
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Theognome



I got it. And, I appreciated it. 

-----Added 6/17/2009 at 08:59:03 EST-----



Abd_Yesua_alMasih said:


> It is a slur commonly used to describe anyone deemed to be to the religious right of you so you don't have to think about their beliefs anymore.



That is how some people use it. But, it is not always the case. It does have legitimate usage.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jun 17, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Abd_Yesua_alMasih said:
> 
> 
> > It is a slur commonly used to describe anyone deemed to be to the religious right of you so you don't have to think about their beliefs anymore.
> ...


Yeah and that I guess is the largest problem with it because you never really know how the person you are talking to will understand it as a word. It has a lot of emotion behind it for some people and is almost derogatory, while for others it is a very technical term.


----------



## KMK (Jun 17, 2009)

whitway said:


> Legalism is the adherence to a set of "extra biblical" "man made" rules and/or regulations which in essence earn God's favor. It is "works righteousness" and thus the similarities between Fundies and Roman Catholics are sometimes drawn up by some theologians when it comes to the working out of their systems.



The problem with this definition is that _all_ Christians believe that the rules they follow are biblical. Both John MacArthur and Al Mohler abstain from alcohol for biblical reasons yet I don't know of anyone who labels them 'legalists'. Perhaps a 'legalist' is anyone who follows rules that you don't.



LawrenceU said:


> I think it needs to be stated that fundamentalism also exists outside of Christendom. It seems that when the term fundamentalism is used on this board, and in most places among Christians, people bring to mind Independent Fundamental Baptists. But, the principle of fundamentalism runs across the entire breadth of religious expression.



This was going to be my next question. What does the news media mean when they use the term 'Fundamentalist Mormons'? What are their presuppositions?

Also, until this thread, I did not know that 'Fundamentalism' was a Presbyterian event as well.


----------



## KMK (Jun 17, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I would say that a fundamentalist believes that faith overides reason, or alternatively that reason is opposed to faith. In this regard the classic Reformed position is not fundamentalist as we believe that our faith can be established by reason (albeit involving presupositionalism).
> >
> > Likewise fundamentalist moralism can often be explained by a refusal to follow theology through to its logical outcome, which also explains why they can have some really incoherent and contradictory theology.
> 
> ...



I doubt this is the case. We are the only church in the community that is NOT dispensational. 

Perhaps the word 'fundie' and 'fundamentalist' are two different terms with different meanings.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 17, 2009)

You're not going to find one set meaning. What it conveys depends on who's using it, and in what context. I tend to use it for a certain psychological/sociological mindset characterized by rigid superficiality. In that sense, most of us have at least one or two fundamentalist bones in our body. But my "speaker's meaning" doesn't apply in all situations. But if someone calls you a fundamentalist just whip out a handy laminated notecard and inquire whether it's meaning A, B, C, D, or E that they intend.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jun 17, 2009)

*fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ist* [fuhn-_duh_-*men*-tl-_ist_]

*adj. & n.*

*1.* _That word which liberals shout at religious persons who disagree with them on matters of faith and practice._


----------



## ke4cci (Jun 18, 2009)

I would define a legalist is anyone that adds a condition to the belief of grace alone to being saved, that we would have to do keep salvation versus out of love because we have salvation.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 18, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > Fundies, to me, are Bob Jones U, Word of Life types who are exclusively Dispensational. They also tack on a lot of NO's to grace (no smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, card playing) and are 1611AKJV ONLY, hostile to any other Bible.
> ...



My brushstroke was a couple hairs too wide. I should have said the vast majority of the BJU/WoL. There are exceptions, but my stereotype will be supported by most staff and graduates who wholeheartedly endorse these institutions without any disagreement to their policies/doctrine.

-----Added 6/18/2009 at 06:01:06 EST-----



pmkadow said:


> Fundamental Evangelistic Association Homepage



Yes. If you click on their *doctrine* section, it is what I consider to be a "Christian Fundamentalist".

-----Added 6/18/2009 at 06:05:19 EST-----



py3ak said:


> You're not going to find one set meaning. What it conveys depends on who's using it, and in what context. I tend to use it for a certain psychological/sociological mindset characterized by rigid superficiality. In that sense, most of us have at least one or two fundamentalist bones in our body. But my "speaker's meaning" doesn't apply in all situations. But if someone calls you a fundamentalist just whip out a handy laminated notecard and inquire whether it's meaning A, B, C, D, or E that they intend.




That is true with much of the English language


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 18, 2009)

The problem of defining "fundamentalist" is analogous to the opening message Fuller Prez Richard Mouw delivers to students at FTS: Every one of you is here over the objections of someone. To those on the far left, we are a bunch of fundamentalists; to those on the far right, we are all liberals. 

To anyone left of you, you are a "fundamentalist" for the same reason that you are a "liberal" to anyone on your right. Pretty elastic definition, eh?


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 18, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> The problem of defining "fundamentalist" is analogous to the opening message Fuller Prez Richard Mouw delivers to students at FTS: Every one of you is here over the objections of someone. To those on the far left, we are a bunch of fundamentalists; to those on the far right, we are all liberals.
> 
> To anyone left of you, you are a "fundamentalist" for the same reason that you are a "liberal" to anyone on your right. Pretty elastic definition, eh?



elastic fundamentalism.......... hmmmmm, as long as it is 4 inches below the knee.


----------

