What is the difference between the classic Fundamentalist and the Modern day

Just because people twist the word fundamental to mean what the want it to mean does not mean that we shold run from it. A Fundamentalist is a Biblicist. I do agree with the above statement that Fundamentalism, along with its stand for the Word of God, also includes an attitude of defending/contending for the faith. If that means we sometimes fight for it, then so be it. What I am ashamed of is the way we Fundamentalists fight each other over minor issues. We are the only army that shoots our own soldiers (in the back).

 

I'm with you Mike. I haven't abandoned the term Fundamentalist yet. As long as I can still explain it satisfactorialy and receive some measure of understanding I'll stick with it. And yes, it is a shame how Fundamentalists like to shoot at each other.

Fortunately, in the Japanese language we have separate terms for what the liberal (here, too!) media calls "Fundamentalist" (Genshishugi) and what Christians call Fundamentalist (Konponshugi).

 

Which was part of the previous discussion. Tell me ... would you accept and be known by the term "genshishugi" and all it represents in your culture?

 

Ed's short history of the term 'Fundamentalism'

I have a 1982 dictionary that says:

Fundamentalist -n- 1. One who adheers to a movement in
American Protestantism that arose in the early part of
the 20th Century and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible
in all matters of faith and doctrine, accepting it as a literal
historical record

Fundamentalist -n- 2. One who adheers to the beliefs of
this movement

Prior to about 1984 (the second election of Regan)
'Fundamentalism mean as above. But anti-Regan and anti-rightwing
elements in the libral press came up with a new defintion
of 'fundamentalist'. In this definition, constructs were
used in the press like: 'fundamentalist Muslim terrorist'.
(Apparently we were to judge (according to the liberal press)
ech 'fundamentalist', including protestant Christians, as though
they were a 'fundamentalist Muslim terrorist'.

fundamentalist -n- 3. Any of the book religionists (Jewish,
Christian, Mulsim) who interpets his religious book literaly

Then come the early 90s about the time of the first Gulf War
and the liberal press responding to "George's (Bush I) War"
added the final meaning of 'fundamentalism':

fundamentalist -n- 4. A bigot of whatever stripe.
----------------------------------------------------------

So, are we Fundamentalists going to discuss the liberal press'es
defintion of 'fundamentalists' or our own defintions?
If our own, i recommend some definitions real quick.

/though our missionary in Japan has done a
fair job/

 

You got me right, Squire. "Domo. Domo arigato." ("Thank you. Thank you very much.")

I would not want to be known as "genshishugi." The term when used by the Japanese media means approximately what the U. S. press means when they use "Fundamentalist." So the Japanese use it for Islamic radicals, as well as for ANY American evangelical (including George W. Bush!). And the typical Japanese reporter or citizen understands Bible-believing Christianity not at all--zero--zilch!

 

JofJ ~ You are making the exact point that I raised in the previous discussion. The label "fundamentalist" in American culture carries certain baggage. Agree or disagree with the baggage associated with the title, the reality still exists.

 

unfortunately the English language does not have the preciseness in it which would allow us to call ourselves "konponshugi".

So we have to keep defining our own term for everyone. The same happens when we decide to call ourselves something else, like Biblicist, or Historic Baptist. It is unfamiliar and so people ask what it means....hopefully.

We have to try to define the person or church by what they do, rather than solely by a term they use to describe themselves.

Do you agree?

 

Yeah, I figured this was where you were going with this.

As bapmom pointed out, there is more precision in this matter in the Japanese language than there is in the English language. However, it is much easier to explain to a lost American what a true Fundamentalist is than it is to explain to a Japanese. So I will continue to use the English term Fundamentalist, since I can adequately explain it to an American. I will continue to use "konponshugi" in Japanese because it is easier to explain than "genshishugi."

As I pointed out in my above post, the average Japanese has no understanding--none--of Bible-believing Christianity. Frankly, no matter what term I use here I am subject to discrimination as an ignorant, backward person. I am content with that. The Bible tells me that I WILL suffer persecution if I live godly in Christ Jesus.

In America I will suffer persecution whether I call myself a Bible-believer, Biblicist, Historical Fundamentalist, or anything that indicates I actually believe the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant Word. In fact, there are people on the BB who will persecute me for that. I am content with that, too.

Unfortunately, the problem in America is not that non-believers persecute you for calling yourself a Fundamentalist. I have a WASB (white Anglo-Saxon Buddhist) sister-in-law from Seattle, hotbed of liberalism, who is very understanding of my beliefs. We have a great time discussing religion! The problem in America is that Evangelicals will persecute me for calling myself a Fundamentalist.

I'm going to keep my eyes on Jesus, try to pastor my little flock, and not worry about it!

 

This logic is amusing to me -- it is easier to explain to an unbeliever why I am not everything they perceive a fundamentalist to be (which is usually fairly accurate at some level). Therefore I am going to keep the title?

Let me ask you this: if there were an English term that better defined your position, would you use that title?

You have actually already answered this question by adapting the more defined Japanese word for fundy.

I disagree with this statement. We minister in a very unchurched culture (similar to Seattle) and I can tell you wearing the title "fundamentalist" would be a HUGE obstacle for the average unbeliever in our culture.

This sounds spiritual, but in reality, you had better be very concerned about the image you portray to the culture God has called you to engage with the gospel. Contextualization is a missional calling for all churches.

 

Lets not return to that discussion please. The topic of this thread is classic vs modern fundamentalism, not the "baggage" associated with being a fundamentalist.

 

The baggage is part of the discussion.

 

Sorry AAG, we are not going to have another 20 pages discussing the "baggage."

We are going to keep this thread on topic. As I am not involved in this debate I will act in a moderating capacity if needed in order to ensure staying on topic.

The topic is discussing the differences between classic and modern fundamentalism.

Thanking all in advance for compliance.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

I'll have to disagree with you here, OleSchoolBaptist. Fundamentalism is not a theology but a position. Fundamentalist theology, as treated in The Fundamentals, was and is nothing more than Bible-believing Christianity.

It appears that you are giving the typical portrayal of Fundamentalists as ignorant. If this is true, I resent it. Some of my mentors in the faith have been highly educated Fundamentalists, who knew their theology well: John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, Fred Moritz, etc.

I just finished an M. A. at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, a very strong Fundamentalist institution. It is accredited and has a high standard of scholarship. Our textbooks were the same as you would find at any conservative Baptist school: Erickson for the systematic theology, McBeth for the Baptist history, etc.

What happened in the 1950's with the rise of New Evangelcalism is that Evangelical theology changed while Fundamentalist theology stayed true to the portrait of Bible-believing Christianity given in The Fundamentals.

How did Evangelical theology change you say? I'm glad you asked! It changed in two major ways.

(1) Evangelicals elevated social action to an equal level with the original fundamentals. This can be seen in the writings of the 1950's founders of New Evangelicalism, in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, etc.

(2) Evangelicals ditched traditional separation, replacing it with a doctrine of accomodation to the surrounding culture. In the ecclesiastical world this meant rapproachment with liberal and neo-orthodox theologians.

New Evangelicals changed. Fundamentalists did not. We are "old school," as the young people like to say nowadays. </font>[/QUOTE]I hear this revisionist history from you "modern" fundamentalists all the time.

Historic fundamentalism didn't really hold to separation. They originally tried to regain control of their denominations without separating! It was only after some of the fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations that they "elevated" separation to the level of a "fundamental."

New evangelicals (and many who were/are not) reacted to this extreme and bitter separation by not wanting to identify with this new expression of fundamentalism.

Conservative evangelicals who are fundamental in doctrine but who fellowship across denominational lines are the true adherents of historic fundamentalism.

MBBC may be softening a little, but they hardly represent the true nature of fundamentalism if they continue to divide over eschatology, etc.

 

While i believe in the fundamental truths of Scripture. We should not soften our stance but we should not get bogged down on issues but we need to get lifted up with scripture. I speak for only myself but I want to be out shedding light of scripture to the lost alot more than i already do and not worrying about little stuff.

 

We need to be aware of what we consider fundamental. We need to be Christians before we are fundemantalist, not after. There are tons of Christian fundamentalists out there, but not a lot of fundamental Christians.

To be a classic fundamental Christian, one must adhere to the scriptural fundemantals. Where scripture speaks, we should speak. Where scripture is silent, we should be silent. Getting the first part is easy, but the second part is hard.

One of the biggest damaging movements to the church is neofundamentalism. You know, the ones who require KJVOism, pretrib rapture, etc, as scriptural doctrine.

 

You missed my original definition. Thus you are misrepresenting my position. You have set up a straw man.

I did not include separation in my definition. I said that the original Fundamentalists first of all believed the Fundamentals, and then took a stand against liberalism. What then happened in most cases was that the liberals separated from the Fundamentalists, not vice versa. J. Frank Norris and John R. Rice were blackballed by the Texas Baptist Convention, J. Gresham Machen and others were defrocked by the Presbyterians, and so it went.

Separation then became a logical outgrowth of the original position. If you take a stand against liberalism, you will be hated by both the liberals and the accomodationists. However, no Fundamentalist ever, EVER elevated separation to the level of a Fundamental. You cannot prove this statement because the proof doesn't exist. This is unlike New Evangelicalism, which elevated social action to the level of a fundamental in the Laussanne Covenant.

New Evangelicalism was a distinct theology, beginning in the early 1950's, of dialogue and cooperation with liberals. Therefore it was not Fundamentalism. It did not want to be Fundamentalism. It explicitly rejected the title of Fundamentalism.

 

Someone made allusion that we are throwing darts at men of straw. I agree. The question does not define a reality. i.e. there are many assemblies which would be considered "Fundamental", yet they are not classic, whatever that means, nor are are they modern, whatever that means. Their fundamentals go back to the shores of Galilee, circa A.D. 30, "Come follow me, I will make you to be fishers of men". These fundamentalists did not come from Rome nor Wittenburg.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Modern day fundamentalists claim that if you don't separate from everyone that they have separated from you are not a fundamentalist but a new evangelical.

That's simply not true. The hyper separation of modern day fundamentalism (NBBC, MBBC, BJU) is not the fundamentalism of the 1920s.

Social action is not a negative! We are required by the gospel to be concerned about the whole person when we witness.

Now, if Ockenga's definition of neo-evangelical is correct, "dialogue with liberals" he went too far. But the modern day fundamentalist has no right to call historic fundamentalists "new evangelicals."

Yes, there are new evangelicals who are now compromising the fundamentals. And yes, there are hyper modern day fundamentalists who are compromising the fundamentals. And then there is a large middle identified as historic fundamentalists and/or conservative evangelicals who are holding to the fundamentals AND the historical fellowship of those who do across denominational lines!

 

So, Paul33, how do you define the original Fundamentalists? Do you agree with my definition or not? If we are actually to debate on this particular thread we need to have definitions produced from the historical data.

So far, forgive my opinion, but you are being simplistic. Your statement, "Modern day fundamentalists claim that if you don't separate from everyone that they have separated from you are not a fundamentalist but a new evangelical," is quite simplistic. ("Everyone that they have separated from???!!!") Modern day Fundamentalism is far more varied and complicated than this. But we can't get to whether or not it or some faction of it is close to the original Fundamentalism or not, until we define the original Fundamentalism.