On Monday 2004-02-16 15:05, iaamoac wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > I'm going to be doing some analysis using numbers, but I want to be > > sure > > > that there isn't an arguement on what a Christian fundamentalist > > is. I'd > > > say that a Christian fundamentalist is one who, when asked: > > > > Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings > > about > > > the Bible? The Bible is the actual Word of God. The Bible is the > > Word of > > > God but not everything in it should be taken literally. OR, The > > Bible is a > > > book written by men and is not the Word of God." > > > > > > would give the first answer. Does that sound reasonable? > > I would generally only consider a Christian fundamentalist to be a > Biblical Literalist. > > Most Catholics would choose the first statement. > > JDG > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dan, The study of fundamentalist religious movements is an inter-disciplinary academic specialty in its own right and the study of Christian fundamentalists is a vast field. First, you will want to make a distinction between Evangelical Christians, Christian inerrantists, Christian Fundamentalists, and Christian fundamentalists. JDG is correct. In the strictist sense, a Catholic (or even a Lutheran) *cannot* be a Christian Fundamentalist. Christian Fundamentalism (in the strict sense) is a movement in the Evangelical wing of the Protestant churches that dates to c. 1900 and was originally specific to the United States and Canada. The badge of a Christian Fundamentalist is that they believe that the Protestant, King James version of the Bible is the Word of God and must be understood with a maximally literal hermeneutic. The movement was purficatory in its intent and applied the term Fundamentalist to itself, because it was an attempt to return to "Chistian fundamentals". In practice, there are many socio-cultural correlates for Christian Fundamentalism beyond literalism. Closely related, and more common, are Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant. Inerrancy has simmilar roots to Fundamentalism, and is partly a reaction to it. Interestingly, until about the 1920's inerant and Fundamentalist Evangelicals were closely associated with the Progressive Movement. They easily endorsed temperance, labor laws, and anti-trust legislation. Splits only became evident with the Scopes Monkey Trial and cultural changes such as Cinema. Southern Evangelicals also seperated from progressivism over Jim Crow. At present, the distinction between _per se_ Fundamentalists and inerancists is not meaningful to outsiders. They tend to gloss both postions as "Fundamentalist". Our current use of "fundamentalism" expands on the original culturally and historically situated narrower use of "Evangelical Fundamentalism". This use is simply *not* well defined and academically problematic. For example, many (but not all, or even most) scholars studying Islam avoid the phrase "fundamentalist". Nevertheless, a broader understanding of 'fundamentalist' is not an empty category and it has it uses. Fundamentalist in the general sense is a category for a movement or ideological stance within a broader ideological framework, usually overtly religious. Fundamentalists espouse a rigid, arch-traditionalism in religion, morals, and culture. They often, but not always, insist on maximally comonsense and perferablly literal readings of critical or sacred texts. They tend to oppose higher literary and historical criticism of text and traditon. Fundamentalists of all stripes usually see themselves as activists trying to return religion, and therefore society, to its fundamental, pure, primordial, eternal truths and practices. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
