Define fundamentalist

Yep, this is certainly the way to get us fundamentalists to debate you about what fundamentalism is: viciously attack us in the very first post.

 

I believe you are on to something and you are right in your assessment. Fundamentalists are often those who have quit listening to anyone other than them self, and that does make them a pope ... [note little p]. To me they appear unwilling to admit they do not have all the answers ... thus, there is no way for God to teach them new things, new ways, deeper truths than they already understand.

I do not, like John, see the OP as an attack, but a statement of how one person sees a group. In fact, Luke's response lends credence to the OP and to my statement of those who have quit listening. By not listening it also mean not continuing critical thinking. By critical thinking I do not mean criticizing, but examining and contemplating seeking new, deeper truths of God. And, no this is not an attack either.

In our society we have gone far too far in adopting the stance that anyone who I do not agree with is an enemy. Actually we can all learn from each other. But we have to be open to discussion and respectful to each other. This is a change that has taken place during my lifetime. I believe, and am thinking this over, it is a by-product of the "me generation" that was brought into our world by the baby boomers.

 

I'm a self-confessed fundamentalist. This is an attack on my movement, therefore an attack on my mentors and my many friends in the movement, therefore an attack on me. If it is not an attack, then you need to redefine your "definition of fundamentalism." Your definition fits no fundamentalist I know, including the radicals, and I am a missionary with a fundamental board, supported by 48 churches, have preached in 100s of churches, and correspond daily with many fundamentalists of all stripes.

 

Here are what the fundamentalists I was mentored by are like:

Charles Himes, my father, preached the Word for 60 years and died saying "I want to go home." His "sugar stick" sermon was "It Pays to Serve Jesus," and his personal view of his greatest accomplishment was his set of lessons on the Life of Christ.

John R. Rice, my grandfather, was known for weeping when he preached about Jesus and the need for people to get saved. He wrote over 200 books and pamphlets, but his best sellers were his book on prayer (400,000 copies), and his little book about Heaven, 500,000 copies or more.

Jim Norton, who God used to get me to Japan, was a missionary for about 46 years. He is known to this day for his fierce compassion for the souls of the lost. Walking down the street with him was always a challenge. Chances are he'd be off witnessing for Christ to someone in the middle of your sentence.

Monroe Parker, the director of my mission board when I joined, was an evangelist with the best balance of zeal and knowledge I've ever known. He once saw revival break out in a city in Kentucky so wicked that its nickname was "Hell," but when I rode with him one day I took a look at his Greek NT, which was worn to a frazzle.

 

I'm not a Southern Baptist, I'm an independent. And if I define fundamentalist for you, chances are you will continue to viciously attack us as you did in the OP. I don't find you to be reasonable. You may remember calling my doctrine of Christ "degraded," or something similar. So why should I debate you?

 

You attack fundamentalism, I defend. Why is that hard to understand?

And what's wrong with getting a little emotional when someone attacks like you did?

If you didn't mean to evoke emotions, then why did you use language in your OP such as: pope, disdain, etc.?

 

I would like for John to give us his definition of fundamentalism. I expect it is the classic one. But, IMHO, that is not the aim of this thread. Rather, I see it as an examination of how the movement has evolved more into an attitude than the following of a set of beliefs.

Let me give you a rather extreme example, a true example never-the-less.

One Sunday morning a man, his wife and children entered our church. I happened to be at the door greeting people. His first statement was not a 'good morning', or 'God bless you', or 'how are you today'. Rather it was a loud and hostile sounding, "This isn't one of those liberal churches is it? In my Bible women are not to be in authority and wives are to submit to their husbands." I thought this a strange first statement from someone visiting the church.

This an extreme example of a bad fundamentalists attitude, at least IMHO. But, it is this type of attitude that the majority of the American public see in many who claim they are fundamentalists. It is not a set of beliefs that is proclaimed, but an anti-attitude. And that is bad for the world of Christ.

 

This is another vicious attack. I believe with all my heart in the lordship of Christ, as I said on that thread over and over. Anyone who read your post here would think I opposed Christ's lordship. I most emphatically do not.

 

For you I'll define. Fundamentalism is a movement that not only believes in the fundamentals of the faith, but believes the Bible commands to stand for the fundamentals and "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

I've known similar fundamentalists. But anecdotes prove nothing about a movement. In order to prove fundamentalism to be wrong, you must prove that its basic position of contending for the faith leads logically to such actions. I don't believe it does.

Where some fundamentalists go astray is broadening their list of what a fundamental doctrine is, and adding minor doctrines or standards to their list. I'll admit there are a few who do so. But the belief that we should contend for the faith, as Jude put it, does not lead to such positions.

 

Sorry, can't answer this. No SBC'ers live near me, there are no SBC missionaries anywhere near me, I haven't preached in an SBC church for years. So I really don't know much about what is going on in the SBC.

I will say that the local Japanese Baptusuto Renmei church (the Japanese group started by the SBC) has a pastor that doesn't believe the miracles of the Bible are literal, among other liberal beliefs. And I take a stand against that church's liberalism as a fundamentalist.