Observation.

I have to admit it, I'm kind of a CNN junkie. Over the past few weeks of so, there's been this CNN exploration of a "fundamentalist Mormon" sect in Colorado City, Utah that practices polygamy. Their leader, Warren Jeffs, is wanted by the authorities and has now gone into hiding.

Okay, so that's not the observation. But it led to one.

The use of the term "fundamentalist" is fascinating. What is it that we are trying to communicate by using this word? More importantly, why is it that when the term "fundamentalist" is applied in some places [like "Islamic fundamentalist"], it is equated as being a person who is over the top in an almost fanatical extremism, completely out of touch with who things really are.

And then when the term is applied to Christianity, all of us sudden it becomes something "good"?

How is it that one form of fundamentalism is labeled as extremism, while the other is embraced?

Puzzling.

Comments

[Clint Walker]

Haven't the Fundamentalist Mormons labeled themselves so...

[Jon]

interesting

[Austin]

Well, it's just like the word "tolerance." Tolerance used to mean - and still does according to Webster's - "to put up with." But now in many circles, "tolerance" means to accept everyone's ideology. This too is puzzling.

I find it interesting that many persons today think that it's okay to change the historical definitions of words to better fit their cause...

Also, I'm not so sure that the word "fundamentalist" when used in reference to Christianity is a positive designation. It seems like it is generally used as a pejorative term.

[Mike DeVries]

Austin,

Good thoughts. I totally see your point. I think it would be intersting to see how the historical usage of the term "fundamentalism" came about. Was it a self-definition, or an external pejorative one? From my limited observations, I've seen it be a self-definition, yet I also have seen it be a negative, external label as well. I'm wondering what came first. Yet even if it the external definition came first, why even embrace that as a self-definition?

Anyway, where my original wondering has come from is seeing Christian fundamentalists using the term negatively, applying it to other religions, yet somehow embracing a more positive usage in light of themselves.

Perhaps they are more like the people they label than they want to realize.

[Doug]

There is some interesting information about fundamentalism on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist). It gives a bit of history as to the use of the term, but it isn't clear from the article whether it was an external or internal definition.

There is a lot of cultural baggage that comes with the word fundmentalism. Like Austin, I think that I have most often seen the word used in a perjorative sense. However, I think that it depends upon your definition of the word. I suspect that most self-described fundamentalists don't define the word as "Scripture-thumping loony that is opposed to anything remotely resembling fun and/or progress". Likewise, I suspect that most people using fundamentalist as a perjorative don't mean "A person who seeks to align their religion to its original intent (as described by its scriptures)" I don't have any problem being described as a fundamentalist in the second definition, but I certainly don't consider myself to be in the first.

I think the first definition is the one that I hear most. I suspect that is is more of a problem of translation than anything else -- people tend to speak their own languages, and fundmaentaleese can be pretty obtuse :)

As to the statement, "Perhaps they are more like the people they label than they want to realize", I think that you're right -- mostly. Some self-described fundamentalists (using my second definition) that I know do recognize this similarity. I can say that my approach to understanding scripture has much more in common that of a Wahabbi Cleric than it does with the fellows from the Jesus Seminar. But my end practices from my understanding of the Bible are different than those of a person who has studied the Koran in a similar manner.

Hmmm... This is apparently a long post, and it's not clear that I've advanced the discussion in any way, but hopefully I've done something more useful than waste someones internet bandwidth.

--doug

[doug]

Having said all the above, I still would rather not be labeled a fundamentalist ;-)

--doug

[jeremy]

I have always thought of "fundamentalist" Christianity the same way I do fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Mormonism.

Regardless of the etymology it certianly has cultural baggage and it's definitely not a label I would want for myself.

[SamB]

I read what is below earlier today on another blog. I have no idea how to put a link to it, so I included it using the only way I know. The author of the blog is Cynthia Nielsen.

"Plantinga writes this hilarious bit on what it really means to be called a “fundamentalist,”

"But isn't this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism, that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like 'son of a bitch', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch.' When the term is used in this way, no definition, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you fell obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of 'fundamentalist' (in this widely current use); it isn't simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch' simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like 'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine'" (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245)."

[Clint Walker]

Fundamentalism as a term... and I have studied this... began in the debate with people who were classic theological liberals. Fundamentalists got together and outlined 5 fundamentals of the Christian faith that they felt were non-negotiable.

They were (I am doing this from memory so feel free to double check)

1. The immanent return of Christ
2. The bodily death and resurrection of Jesus
3. The verbal, plenary innerrancy of Scripture
4. The virgin birth
5. That faith in Jesus is the only way to eternal life

In the midst of this foundation and debate... Dallas Seminary was formed as the flagship of these beliefs - since dispensationalism was also an important part of the fundamental movement.

But the idea was that there were certain fundamental non negotiables that must be defended no matter what... sometimes no matter what the cost.

Then conservative Christians believed the general thrust of this thinking, but wanted a little bit more freedom to deal with the Scripture. And these conservatives were a little more middle class than working class. We call these people evangelicals.

[:mic]

I would never see 'fundamentalist' as a positive term as it generally is used by (and for) groups that are overly narrow in their understanding of faith and reason. And that is typically nobody's fault but their own, claiming to be such but making the term such an abysmal descriptor.

[Derek Frenzel]

I've almost always heard the term "fundamentalist" in a negative light. I've even heard certain Catholics use it as a negative term against Protestants. I think pop culture has turned this word into meaning anyone that's "religious" who A) cannot see outside their own perspective and B) refuses to acknowledge that their might be certain truths found outside their own paradigm. I don't know any Christians that term themselves fundamentalist, but I would guess the ones that do are trying to co-opt a negative term in a "Jesus Freak" kind of way. I can't wait to see the "I'm a fundie" bumper stickers...

And Mike, CNN? It's all about Fox News dude!