# Help the Chinese(Orientals): How shall the US "religious right" be defined?



## Ken S. (Mar 22, 2006)

The "religious right", the "fundamentalist", the "evangelicals".....from time to time we, the Orientals, hear more and more often about the US "religious right" camp. Under the cloud of anti-America-prejudice of secular press, even many of the Chinese Christians, from both Hong Kong and US, have developed an anti-American religious right ideology. Yet to some of them, apparently, the US religious right camp is not all wrong.

Since a year ago, I have realized that it's very important for us, the Orientals, especially the Chinese, to understand the whole thing/issue about the group of US Christians whom are labeled "the US religious right", regardless of the accuracy and objectiveness of the labeling.

To cut the story short, the Chinese Christians need to understand what exactly is the US religious right. Such knowledge is important for the Chinese church.

- Why is the religious right camp hated/ criticized by both the secular and some of the evangelical power so much?

- What exactly has the religious right camp done and said that have caused so many attacks and accusations against them?

- If religious right camp has really done something annoying and biblically wrong, then what are they? In your personal opinion, what has the religious right done wrong biblically? War in Iraq?

- And what are the contributions of religious right camp?

- Which groups/churches are under the category of US religious right camp?

- Other questions:
Did the religious right involve cooperation between the Protestants and Catholics?

- Any suggested papers, books, articles, web site....etc for my reference?


----------



## SRoper (Mar 22, 2006)

These are my observations.

"Why is the religious right camp hated/ criticized by both the secular and some of the evangelical power so much?"

I think a big part of it is differences on what kind of speech is acceptable from government employees. The religious right wants the Ten Commandments in courthouses and prayer and creationism in public schools. The secularists want to teach sex education and evolution in the schools.

"Did the religious right involve cooperation between the Protestants and Catholics?"

Yes, especially on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. However, Roman Catholics are usually not categorized as religous right because they tend to support government welfare programs while Protestants are more often opposed to such programs.

"If religious right camp has really done something annoying and biblically wrong, then what are they? In your personal opinion, what has the religious right done wrong biblically? War in Iraq?"

What the religious right has done wrong is they have largely adopted the platform of the Republican Party. It seems that if you are critical of Republicans you are suspected of being liberal in your theology. Areas I think this can be seen is in the religious right's anti-conservationism, anti-immigration, and their viewing of the "war on terrorism" as a sort of crusade.

"And what are the contributions of religious right camp?"

They have contributed greatly to the fight against abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem-cell research.

[Edited on 22-Mar-2006 by SRoper]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 22, 2006)

the religious right wants to compromise with secularism at the very points where battle should be raised. They want to "tame" secularist institutions. I want to take them over. They want a place at the table and get the left-overs. I want to make the table mine. Etc.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 22, 2006)

Perhaps the simpliest way to understand the "religious right" is to understand their opponents the "anti-religious left." The religious right is just the poster boy for those clinging to moral absolutes and accountability against the atheism and moral relativism of the left. Sometimes what they fight for is right, other times it is questionable (i.e. blind support for Republicans etc.). The religious right used to be driven by more evangelicals but now appears be me melding with other "conservative" religions as well like Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, etc. who at least argue for some shared moral absolutes, even though their value systems are anti-christian at core. So perhaps that can help your Chinese freinds better understand the religious right in context. I know much of what I said is a generalization but this cultural divide appears to be the poles to which our debates are driven.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 22, 2006)

The "Religious Right" is one of those terms that is used by the mainstream media and others, including some who consider themselves to be part of the Religious Right, to describe a broad group of persons, churches and organizations, which espouse a cultural, moral and political agenda which is considered "conservative" and religiously-based. There is a conversative right-wing movement that is not religiously based, and there is a religously-based left-wing movement as well, so therein lies a general distinction.

Terms like "right," "left," "liberal," and "conservative," in my opinion, have little to no value in describing the content of the message or agenda, except they are part of the common parlance. Conservative originally meant 'in favor of the status quo' but somewhere along the way that changed. 

In actuality, the Religous Right generally latches on to certain hot-button issues on the American political or social scene and defines their orthodoxy by which side of the position one is on. For example, opposition to abortion, support of prayer in public schools and the pledge of allegience, supporting the posting of the 10 commandments in public or government settings, supporting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, opposing euthanasia, supporting term limits and a balanced budget, supporting the appointment of conservative (re Catholic) judges to the Suprement Court, opposing rock music, drugs, alcohol and tobbaco use, etc., are often part of the agenda. 

I speak in generalities because the Religious Right is a general term that encompasses, as I said, many different individuals and groups. Usually they are broadly evangelical, fundamentalist or Roman Catholic. However, there are many Bible-believing Christians who would support some or all of the concerns mentioned (there are many other such issues) and yet would not consider themselves to be part of the Religous Right. 

As has been noted, most of the Religious Right would identify strongly with the platform of the Republican Party. However, generally speaking, some of those who adhere to other parties like the Constitution Party, or Independents, or those who do not vote in principle, might also warrant or acquiesce to the label 'Religious Right.' And some would not. 

Some outspoken leaders of the Religious Right include Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They have a tendency to make statements from time to time that make others -- religious and secular, liberal and conservative -- want to distance themselves from them. But conversative politicians don't want to alienate such men and their followers either. Others include Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Alan Keyes, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, for example. 

The Religious Right as a political demographic is fairly powerful in the United States. Jerry Falwell's group was once called the 'Moral Majority'; Nixon used to refer to the 'Silent Majority.' Now we speak of 'blue states' and 'red states.'

The Religious Right includes a wide spectrum of Protestants and Catholics, mostly united on Judeo-Christian principles of morality and ethics, but focused on the issue-of-the-day and opposition to _Roe v. Wade_. It seeks to engage culture and politics as opposed to seek escapism, and typically views the US Constitution as a Christian document, and the United States as a Christian nation in peril.

Again, some of this is legitimate and some is not. Some of the so-called Religious Right would agree with this characterization and some would not. From a liberal perspective, anyone is who religious and conversative might qualify for membership in the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' while some who hold to Puritan values, for examples, might not care to identify with the Religious Right in general.

I hope this helps a little. Here is some additional info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 22, 2006)

Ken,
Here's my attempt to address these questions, but I run the risk of crossing this thread over into a "political" answer because the question is vastly more "political" than "religious", even if you didn't realize it when you posed it. I'll begin with an explanation.


> _Originally posted by Ken S._
> The "religious right", the "fundamentalist", the "evangelicals".....from time to time we, the Orientals, hear more and more often about the US "religious right" camp. Under the cloud of anti-America-prejudice of secular press, even many of the Chinese Christians, from both Hong Kong and US, have developed an anti-American religious right ideology. Yet to some of them, apparently, the US religious right camp is not all wrong.
> 
> Since a year ago, I have realized that it's very important for us, the Orientals, especially the Chinese, to understand the whole thing/issue about the group of US Christians whom are labeled "the US religious right", regardless of the accuracy and objectiveness of the labeling.
> ...


What is the "religious right"? The terminology is instructive, for it is a key to understanding the issue. Originating in western politics, specifically in the Frech Revoution, the terms "right" and "left" are shorthand for an attempt to define the _political_ spectrum. Thus, even before we get very far in this analysis, one may see immediately that the term "religious right" is above all things a political designation.

The "Right" identity is associated with "conservative" politics, or the ideology of the old(er) order. The "Left" identity is associated with "radical" politics, or the ideology of the existential (immediate) order. The term "religious right" arose out of the late 20th century American phenomenon of politically mobilized "religious conservatives". The background is far too complex to distill into a short frame, but for at least 50 years prior there had been no explicitly religious mass political movement. There was little "Christian" interest in politics.

This changed in the 1970s with the creation of the "Moral Majority", a Political Action Committee (PAC), basically a Washington lobbying group, led by Rev. Jerry Falwell, an independent fundamentalist Baptist minister with a burgeoning TV audience, headquartered in Lynchburg, Virginia. The catalytical issue was the Supreme Court's 1972 ruling in favor of the legal availability of abortion-on-demand.

The situation was perceived as follows: due to "Christian inaction" an immoral minority had seized the reins of power at the highest levels, for which cause abortion was now allowable, prayer was disallowed in public schools, and other "evils" were being "forced" on an unwilling majority.

I will shorten this introduction further by pointing out that all mass movements tend to minimize differences, and promote consensus on as few points as possible in order to maximize agreement. *This propensity tends to mask ulterior motives (deliberately or innocuously concelaed) that drive the leadership.* Seldom is one person as committed as another so narrowly to exactly the same set of principles. And even more seldom is a person motivated with a single purpose. (If only "glorifying God" were everyone's all-consuming interest!)

It is human nature to diversify one's committments, and even to subordinate or camouflage one's true primary interest for the purpose of cooperation and advancement. Beginning with Ronald Reagan's election to the office of President in 1980, various members of the "religious right" now found themselves increasingly close to the centers of power, wielding ever greater influence. The "voting block" of religious conservatives, has for 25 years now been a consitent supporter of the Republican Party. If one assumes that the current crop of Supreme Court appointees represents a culmination of Jerry Falwell's vision nearly 30 years ago, and if one assumes that restrictions on abortion will soon go into effect, then the main goal of the "Moral Majority" has been (or soon will be) achieved.

"But at what cost?" ask some.

And the ones asking the question are not merely "left wing whiners". Also asking the question are some "right wing winners". These are persons who may 1) be among those who enthusiastically jumped on board the movement at the beginning, but in the process of involvement became disillusioned for a variety of reasons (e.g. columnist Cal Thomas, co-author of _Blinded by Might_); or may 2) be against abortion, but share little of the rest of the "right wing" sentiments; or may 3) be those who largely shared in the moral sentiments of the "religious right" across the board, but who steadfastly opposed the overt political means used to make these gains.

It is this last group who are the most marginalized, for they least of all desired to be labeled with the identity "religious right", and now are inconveniently lumped into that category by the political left, and tossed into the "enemy camp" of the left by the "religious right".


> - Why is the religious right camp hated/ criticized by both the secular and some of the evangelical power so much?


Secularists are power-hungry wolves. They took control some decades ago in the Democratic Party using the mass-movement and camouflage tactics described above. They had the political clout and lost it to the Republican Party, and for this they blame the "religious right voting block".

What they see (that so many peons on the Right do not) is that unscrupulous, secular, power-hungry wolves have insinuated themselves into the power-structure of the Republican Party as well, and manipulate "their voters" just as well as they do their's. The Republican Party has managed to "capture the center," the mushy-middle, and hold it now for a while. And they have done it by convincing the average voter that they believe in his values, typical American (USA).

The Democratic Party once had this lock. That is why they controlled the national (and so many state) legislature(s). As the Republican Party once sought to persuade Americans that the Democratic Party was really the party of radicals, so now the Democratic Party (along with Hollywood, Establishment News organizations, and Liberal Religion) seeks to persuade Americans that the Republican Party is really the party of reactionaries.

The truth is that both parties, run by elites, see the non-elite American as a useful idot or an inconvenient sap--depending on his momentary voting preference. "Bread and Circuses" is the prefered means of control for managing the population. Rudimentary and sub-quality education/ indoctrination is standard fare from the State, which does not see any self-advantage to swelling the ranks of critical thinkers.

Where the "religious right" is criticised by "evangelical power" is usually for some variation of the three reasons listed in the introduction. But it should be observed that "evangelical" in this country is such a broad term, that it has ceased to mean anything distinctly Protestant. There is no consensus within "evangelicalism" or often even within generally conservative denominations as to what the defintion of "the gospel" is. So any criticism of the "religious right" by an "evangelical leader" must be analyzed for its content. One cannot assume beforehand that he has any idea whether the criticism is coming from a gospel orientation, a religious orientation, or a political orientation.


> - What exactly has the religious right camp done and said that have caused so many attacks and accusations against them?


I think this question has been addressed. The secularists despise them when they cannot control or manipulate them, and especially when their opponents can and do. They conveniently claim that the "religious fanatics" want to take over the country, and impose Taliban-style religious controls on American life.

In reality, most of the "religious right" came on board the movement in opposition to abortion--an inhuman practice plainly tolerated because of widespread godlessness (or idolatry). This fact ought to make some of the "religious right" question whether they are in fact a majority at all, and if they are, whether that is a majority committed to _biblical_ morality or a natural-law wax-nose morality.


> - If religious right camp has really done something annoying and biblically wrong, then what are they? In your personal opinion, what has the religious right done wrong biblically? War in Iraq?


I think the biggest problem with the "religious right" is that they have a naive view about the nature of America's problems. They seem to think that everything was fine and dandy in this country up until 1960, when all hell broke loose, and the "bad guys" took over in Washington. Their idea of "the good old days" is an American 1950s scene of post-war stability, or a turn-of-the century idyll that was already over 100 years old, going back to the founding of the nation in an "era of faith."

In reality, the infidelity that produced the radical 1960s and aftermath was far more complex, and far older than a bunch of rebellious baby-boomer college students. The "spiritual capital" of the nation was not spent in a decade or even several. It was squandered over generations. And the labors dedicated to recovering it over the past few decades has been largely in vain, because they have been secular labors, political efforts, treatments of symptoms not the spiritual mallaise itself.

And so the underlying causes have gone unaddressed, and the real problems have gone unfaced by the majority of Americans--which is most tragic in the case of those who have an evident desire to alieviate the symptoms. You can hear it every day on "talk-radio", on which a typical American is "preached at" for 15 or more hours a week. Everyone who calls the show is a "great American" (if you agree with the host). Americans are "filled with virtue." "They hate us because we are so good." All it takes to fix the problems now is to elect the right people to office, send more money to the fixers, take the country back from the other side.

This talk is nauseating to me. As is blind attachment of so many "religious right" individuals to the national exportation of "democracy" through the means of force--as if the "efficiency" of the means was a sufficient justification for either its use, or its end. You see, for many religious people in this country, "democracy" is a sacred ideal, as holy as the Trinity. _Vox Populi, Vox Dei_ is the true creed of many, many people, never mind the warning of 2 Tim. 4:3. And another line of that creed is "The Ends Justify the Means."

The founding fathers of this country, whom they claim to revere, knew better than their children the short-lived nature of mass-democracy, its volatile tendencies; and they wisely hated it, feared it, and tried to safeguard the land against it. But today we export it, and try to graft it upon alien cultures, in a fool's errand to conform them into our image and likeness.


> - And what are the contributions of religious right camp?


They may succeed in imposing some limits on abortion. All while consolidating power further in the hands of a few.


> - Which groups/churches are under the category of US religious right camp?


The movement is far to broad to categorize. It is primarily a political designation. One will find more of them ensconced in "conservative" churches than in "liberal" ones.


> - Other questions:
> Did the religious right involve cooperation between the Protestants and Catholics?


Yes. The typical late-American Protestant: non-creedal, non-catechized, anti-nomian (having an aversion to the moral law of Scripture led also to an aversion of secular legal practice), hoping for a "rapture"--this person had no tools to fight entrenched secularism, so they looked to Romanism for non-revelational intellectual ammunition (since they believed the Bible had nothing relevant to say about social relations outside the church).

And today, all four presumably "conservative" jurists on the Supreme Court are Republican Party appointed Roman Catholics. The notion is that they can be reliably counted on (more than evangelicals) to separate their "religious convictions" from their legal obligations. I doubt whether a deeply committed evangelical could even be appointed, much less approved to such a post today. Witness the protest against President G.W.Bush's first Attorney General, a fervent Pentacostal (who yet vowed the same thing as the Romanists). An evangelical will say the same thing, when he has no non-negotiable worldview. But how can an honest creedalist carve up his mental process that way? He becomes either an intentional or unintentional equivocator.


----------



## Cuirassier (Mar 22, 2006)

Very well said. 

My view of "left" "right" labels ....


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Ken,
> Here's my attempt to address these questions, but I run the risk of crossing this thread over into a "political" answer because the question is vastly more "political" than "religious", even if you didn't realize it when you posed it. I'll begin with an explanation.
> 
> ...




 

Bruce, you're a great American!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 22, 2006)

I'm a great nothing, except a sinner. 
"... God has chosen the nothings of this world." (1 Cor. 1:28)

I'll just settle for being a humble, faithful pastor, and unworthy citizen of the Kingdom of heaven, thanks all the same.


----------



## Ken S. (Mar 23, 2006)

Thanks all of you so MUCH !! 
Your comments are just too wonderful because I've been really in need of comments/descriptions about Religious Right from the different perspectives other than the single voice of secular press who are mostly anti-America.

I have to say that you guys have just written something really important for me as an Oriental. Nearly all conservative Christian here in Hong Kong are considered equivalent to the US Religious Right, criticized, accused and hated as much as US Religious Right were by the local Liberal Christians from what I can observe from local web forums. Therefore your comments are very important to us, if you know what I mean.

I've just read a few paragraphs of the comments of all of you, and I'll study them one by one, line by line, word by word later as I truely find the issue important later.

Thank you again for all the comments, though there are just a few have said something.

If anyone here has got some ideas in the mind but haven't expressed, you are more than welcom to leave your comments for me. I need them. I find the issue very important and I have to keep following the issue. Not just to me but it's also important to the whole Chinese Church as mainland China have been even more open to the international platform and getting herself attached with the world. Thank you all for the great comments!  Sincerely, really thanks! I love Puritans Mind!

[Edited on 23-3-2006 by Ken S.]

[Edited on 23-3-2006 by Ken S.]

[Edited on 23-3-2006 by Ken S.]

[Edited on 23-3-2006 by Ken S.]


----------



## Ken S. (Mar 28, 2006)

hello everybody, it's me again.
There is another thing I want to ask, it's about the Fundamenatalism in US during early 20th century. You know, the "fundamentalists", that's how they and their enemies name them.

*- Could you tell me a brief history of the US fundamentalism movement?

- What's wrong and what's right about the US fundamentalists?
Among all the accusations posed against them, what are the true one, and what are the false accusations do you think?

- Comparing Fundamentalism and Evangelism/ Neo-evangelism, I think the former is more godly and biblical than the latter. What you do think?

- How is the fundamentalism movement in US now? 

- Any references that I could look for myself?*

China protestant church is considered to be fundamentalistic. A number of Chinese protestants who've moved to the US are being affected by many of those anti-fundamentalist theories and false accusations against the US Fundamentalists and _*tend*_ to believe that the same fundamentalism problem exsist inside China church. Now that tendence can be directly harming the China House-church camp as the House-church camp(underground christian churches which are not approved by the government) is always the most fundamentalistic than the other camp called Three-self church(the government approved christian churches). *If such tendence combine with the government's already-exsists willingness to neutralize China Christianity using Liberal Theology(Liberal Theology reigns in the government religious department and only the Liberal wing is pleased by the Communist Party as they are considered obedient and coherent to the Party), then that could be disastrouse. Such potential combination worrys people like me in the future*.

*"The US Fundamentalism is evil, 
our China church is very fundamentalistic, 
oh my God, it's dangerouse for our homeland church to be fundamental.
We have to reform and be less fundamental, more evangelical."*
This is the ideology that worrys me, though that's just an imaginery situation. And I would also think "what? Will it be Evangelical or Neo-evangelical?! Not again, I don't want Neo-evangelicals." 
So, I must start studying the US Fundamentalism. I already realized it a year ago.



[Edited on 28-3-2006 by Ken S.]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 28, 2006)

I'll be interested to hear this also...since I was raised in a fundamentalist church and still somewhat see myself as such. Yet, on this board it's been used as a derogatory term...I don't understand how holding to the fundamentals of the faith or certain standards is thrown around in such a derogatory manner, except by bleeding heart liberals that want their tolerance to stomp on our religious freedom and convictions.


Someone please explain!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 28, 2006)

This is a short answer. There is good material available. George Marsden has written (at least two?) scholarly books on fundamentalism history. he comes from within conservative Presbyterianism, and so writes sympathetically, if not from within it (and not with hostility).

Fundamentalism shares many tenets with older conservative, Protestant orthodoxy. The main difference, as men like J.G. Machen recognized, was that true Christianity was not "reducible" to 5, 10, or 20 "fundamentals", something that could be summed up in a sentence. This is especially true 2000 years after Christ. The "Apostle's Creed" was short and sweet in the 3rd century (or whenever it attained a "final form"), but as it was confessed as a "baptismal formula" it had been preceded by a lengthy period of Catechesis. And our faith is even more "well-defined" today. The NT church is 2000 years old now. Yet fundamentalists wanted a "simpler" creed, a basic "litmus test" to tell the "good guys" from the "bad".

It was a "fundamentalist error" in old American Presbyterianism to reduce the "key doctrines" on which ministers and churches must agree to "5 fundamentals". The liberals were wrong to deny them, but the fundamentalists were wrong to abandon prosecuting heretics (through heresy trials) according to the Westminster Standards, that is: according to the whole integrated system of biblical truth that hangs together.

Why the confusion today? Today it is considered "fundamentalistic" to adhere to the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. Never mind that this is the teaching of Christian orthodoxy; the dominant liberalism/ postmodernism tars all its opposition with the same "anti-progressive" and "anti-intellectual" brush. Neo-orthodoxy and neo-evangelicalism are cousins. They are the "broad middle" of half-committed types who prefer peace and consensus to integrity. The sad truth is that they almost always end up sleeping with liberals, and cutting away the "orthodox". Reflect for a while on why that must be so...

In the end, the "fundamentalists" also end up cutting the orthodox "tail end" of the spectrum away as well. WHY?!? For the same reason as the liberals, and the mushy-middlers: because orthodoxy is after one thing--total conversion without compromise. Confessional orthodoxy is not satisfied to be defined over against the far liberal-end of the spectrum. It must be defined against all the degrees of compromise in between as well.

The fundamentalists do not like being seen as compromisers, but in the end they are--because they are satisfied with something less than a totally integrated biblical system. This is perhaps the principal reason why dispensationalism has such a vice-like grip on fundamentalism. Fundamentalism usually embraces dispensationalism as one of their "fundamentals", but it is more than a tenet. The "dispensational principle" is itself vital to fundamentalistic reductionism. It eliminates law entirely. It puts religion in a box. It paves the way for even further declension by attacking history (and confessional orthodoxy) with even more fervor than it does liberalism.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I'm a great nothing, except a sinner.
> "... God has chosen the nothings of this world." (1 Cor. 1:28)
> 
> I'll just settle for being a humble, faithful pastor, and unworthy citizen of the Kingdom of heaven, thanks all the same.



Of course (I hope) you know I was joking and poking fun at a certain talk show by saying you were a "Great American".


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 28, 2006)

Bruce has hit the nail on the head again. 

I would also add that fundamentalism (which emphasized the cardinal doctrines of Christianity in opposition to modernist principles which rejected them) may have initially included someone like J. Greshem Machen, who helped to found the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the 1930's. But in that denomination a division arose between Machen's camp and that of Carl McIntire. Their divisions are described thus:



> Disputes about dispensationalism revealed two distinct camps within the leadership of the OPC"”one side Old School Presbyterian in outlook, the other fundamentalist. The Old School party, led by Machen, consisted of the majority of Westminster's faculty, many of whom came from non-American Reformed traditions such as Scottish Presbyterianism (John Murray), and Dutch Calvinism (Cornelius Van Til, Ned B. Stonehouse, and R. B. Kuiper). This group was characterized by a high regard for the Westminster Confession, Presbyterian polity, and Reformed piety (e.g., liberty in various matters such as beverage alcohol and tobacco, where Scripture is silent). The fundamentalist party was led by Carl McIntire, J. Oliver Buswell, and Allan MacRae, professor of Old Testament at Westminster. Though Buswell and MacRae disavowed the dispensationalist label, this group was premillennialist and defended the liberty of OP congregations to use the Scofield Reference Bible. They also were less rigorous in their application of Presbyterian polity and promoted a form of piety that featured abstinence from liquor, tobacco, movies, dancing, and cards.



Machen is representative of what I would call the full-orbed Reformed faith (although I do not agree with him on all points). He believed that the Reformed faith could not be whittled down to a list of five "essentials," but rather that the Christian witness encompassed all of life (faith, worship and practice) according to Biblical principles, and was not reactionary but rather proclaimed the Lordship of Christ in all spheres. Machen once said:



> I never call myself a "Fundamentalist." There is indeed, no inherent objection to the term; and if the disjunction is between "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," then I am willing to call myself a Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. But after all, what I prefer to call myself is not a "Fundamentalist" but a "Calvinist""”that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church's life"”the current which flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, and which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the other representatives of the "Princeton School."



The word "fundamentalist" is often tossed around by the secular media and any Bible-believing Christian may be on the receiving end of that label. But it does have a historic meaning which is described in more detail below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/fundamen.htm

http://www.opc.org/books/fighting/pt1.html

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I'll be interested to hear this also...since I was raised in a fundamentalist church and still somewhat see myself as such. Yet, on this board it's been used as a derogatory term...I don't understand how holding to the fundamentals of the faith or certain standards is thrown around in such a derogatory manner, except by bleeding heart liberals that want their tolerance to stomp on our religious freedom and convictions.
> 
> 
> Someone please explain!



When Fundamentalism is used in a "derogatory" manner on this board and elsewhere by Reformed believers, it's used to describe those who attempt to defend the faith, but who unfortunately sometimes do so in an unintelligent way. Another tendency is generally, "legalism", i.e. the "we don't drink, smoke, chew or go with girls who do attitude." In other words, mandating that believers must follow a list of extra-biblical rules and sometimes at the same time ignoring Biblical injunctions. Since at least the 1920's if not before, fundamentalism has also practically gone hand in hand with dispensationalism. 

Fundamentalism also has a tendency toward a kind of reductionism where certain fundamental doctrines (usually the resurrection, virgin birth, etc.) at the expense of a full-orbed confessionalism and declaring the whole counsel of God.

[Edited on 3-29-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 29, 2006)

Thanks, that does help clear things up. You are correct that intellectualism is discouraged where theology and doctrine are concerned...and it is true that they won't "drink, smoke, or dance", but boy their list of other sins are a mile long and hidden behind closed doors (abuse, cursing, lying, etc).

The part of fundamentalism I was thinking of though was simply having standards and standing strong in what you believe. However, I understand now how others are using it.


----------



## Ken S. (Mar 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I'll be interested to hear this also...since I was raised in a fundamentalist church and still somewhat see myself as such. Yet, on this board it's been used as a derogatory term...I don't understand how holding to the fundamentals of the faith or certain standards is thrown around in such a derogatory manner, except by bleeding heart liberals that want their tolerance to stomp on our religious freedom and convictions.
> 
> 
> Someone please explain!



You see, I'm a Chinese, English is just my second language which I'm not professional at. Since my English is not good enough to understand the whole thread of yours, I could only say something regarding you saying that "Yet, on this board it's been used as a derogatory term." That's the only thing I'm sure I understand what you were talking.

LadyFlynt, my reply is simply that actually I appreciate the Fundamentalists very much. I had no intention of derogating the Fundamentalists. I appreciate them and thank them a lot. Yet they've been vigorousely criticized, usually by the Liberals, now by a few Neo-evangelicals as well, for many years with false accusations. And that's what I'm trying to find out......comparing facts and history with those accusations, to see how many of them make sense, how many of them are just satanic attacks against the godly people. And in order to have a full picture of fundamentalism, a professional understanding of Fundamentalism, I would also like to study what exactly are the fundamentalists' true mistakes. You see, even the saints make mistakes.

God bless.

[Edited on 29-3-2006 by Ken S.]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 29, 2006)

Ken, I never thought for a moment that you were being derogatory. I know that the liberals use the term derogatorily. Then I found that ppl on this board used it also derogatorily, which simply shocked me.


----------



## Ken S. (Mar 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Ken, I never thought for a moment that you were being derogatory. I know that the liberals use the term derogatorily. Then I found that ppl on this board used it also derogatorily, which simply shocked me.



Ok then.....
I'm sorry for it.

If you have any comment on Fundamentalism, please also feel free to speak. Yours is also very valuable since you are exactly from Fundamentalists. Don't hesitate to express ideas. 

Do also help me on this topic


----------

