questions about terminology

Amy Z lupinesque at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 18 19:06:55 UTC 2003


Kathryn wrote:

> A fundamentalist basically follows the religious book of their
> religion without worrying too much about the two thousand (in the 
case of
> christianity) years of theological arguement that has happened 
since. This
> is not necessarily a bad thing. 

<snip>
 
> While there is absolutely nothing wrong with fuindamentalism it 
tends to be
> used to mean intolerant small minded bigot. While I have no idea 
what your
> friend's associate meant by the term that is pretty much what the 
mass media
> means by it.

Off the top of my head:

I think of fundamentalism as something in between these two, though 
where I got the definitions that float vaguely in my head, I couldn't 
say.  Fundamentalism bespeaks a certain rigidity about adhering to 
the received texts and "original forms" (this point is highly 
debatable, IMO) of the religion, and as Kathryn says, that isn't 
necessarily bad (though it is far from my cup of tea).  It is true 
that the term gets used unjustly.  

I think of "evangelical" as having more to do with worship 
style . . . what www.shipoffools.com calls "happy-clappy" (see 
Mystery Worshipper:  http://www.shipoffools.com/Mystery/).  OK, don't 
hit me--I *like* happy-clappy worship!  My dictionary tells me 
evangelicals also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and an 
emphasis on personal salvation.  Take that with a grain of salt--what 
do dictionaries know about the gazillion forms of religion?  And then 
there's that evangelism bit--when I use the term I tend to mean 
churches that put a high value on reaching out and converting people.

"Conservative" and "liberal" aren't political but theological labels, 
meaning more or less the attitude toward change and adaptation to 
culture.  Liberals tend to embrace change in liturgy and ritual, 
question the inerrancy of the Bible because of its embeddedness in a 
particular time (and because of sincere doubt about its origins), 
and/or believe that revelation continues to this day (and in many 
forms, and in many traditions . . . depends how liberal you are).  
Conservatives tend to value older forms of ritual and liturgy, be 
hesitant about changes in the church, and believe that revelation was 
closed with the creation of the Biblical canon.

So a member of a liberal church may be conservative politically and 
vice versa, though there's a lot of overlap between theological and 
political liberalism, or theological and political conservatism.  I 
do know that some politically-conservative members of my 
theologically-liberal tradition get a bit irritated with the way we 
describe ourselves as "religious liberals" all the time.  As a 
political liberal, I guess I'd feel a little exasperated having my 
church described as "religiously conservative" all the time, even if 
it were true.  But the words apply differently to theology and 
politics.  In the US, conservative (theologically) Christians have 
become a huge political force, with enormous organizations that are 
part religious body, part political action committee; they started 
out with issues that have obvious theological roots, such as 
homosexuality and abortion, but moved on to issues that are dear to 
politically-conservative hearts but don't necessarily come from the 
teachings of Jesus, such as low taxation and the abolishment of 
public education. 

The whole question of religious change is an odd one.  There are 
always "let's get back to the time of Jesus" movements, and they are 
not at all limited to what we would consider conservative traditions; 
e.g., there have been many Christian communistic experiments where 
the residents of a small communal farm would try to live as the 
Christians of Acts did, sharing all of their property, etc. (there 
was a bumper crop of these in the 19th century US).  
Most "conservative" Christian groups in fact harken back to a 
particular period that occurred long after Jesus--the golden age 
varies from sect to sect.  E.g., while I think Kathryn put it very 
nicely, it's clear that modern-day fundamentalist Protestants most 
certainly do follow some of the theological arguments generated by 
the church in the past 2000 years, since they are, well, Protestants, 
a mega-sect that wasn't invented until the 16th century.  If they 
want to be *really* conservative they ought to be Roman Catholic, or 
Orthodox, or whatever one calls the early Christians who were 
floating around Corinth and such before what turned into the Catholic 
Church was established.  And are they more conservative or more 
liberal than the Christian pacifist who bases his radicalism in the 
life and death of Jesus himself?

None of these terms has a fixed dictionary definition that each 
person who describes him/herself by it would agree wtih (heck, try to 
get 5 Christians to agree on a definition of "Christian").  I think 
the most important thing about them, actually, is that they have 
multiple meanings and are not at all easy to sum up.

Amy Z





More information about the HPFGU-OTChatter archive