Disputed Definitions

One of those discussions that seems to come up over and over again is the meaning of fundamentalist. Joe Cathey, Rob Bradshaw, and Jim West are talking about it now. I was commenting on it over at GetReligion before the 2004 elections.

The problem with the term Fundamentalist is essentially twofold:

1. People like to use "fundamentalist" similar to "neo-con". It is a buzzword that says "you don't have to like this person." This is what Jim West's definition draws upon.
   
   Within the Christian faith, Fundamentalists are characterized by rigid and uncompromising adherence to the Fundamentals. The Fundamentals are six theological principles: biblical inerrancy, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, his atoning death, resurrection, and a future second coming.
   
   Nowhere in there will you find economic policy, US foreign policy, or recent historical theory. The construction of the Fundamentals is such that they exclude Catholic and Orthodox Christians.


2. Many people seek to connect the fundamentalist movements together across religious lines. All fundamentalist religions are based at least in part to a reaction against Modernist religious criticism. This reaction to a common philosophical foe leads to some commonalities like a reliance on a definitive revelation and a concentration on core religious principles. However the fundamental tenets of each religion are completely different from each other.
   
   Which is why attempts to tar Christians with the same brush as Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are so loathsome. Violence in Christian Fundamentalism has never been on the same scale as Islamic fundamentalism because of the difference in fundamental tenets between the two religions. Christianity has no theological construct similar to Jihad and an emphasis on civil government.

I doubt this will clear anything up, but I thought I would write it anyway.