Talk:Christian fundamentalism/Archive 2

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian fundamentalism/Archive 2 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Amish and Mennonites

There should be some mention of the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites and Anabaptists in general in this article since they are fundamentalists in the strict sense that they adhere to the core Fundamentalists beliefs with the exception that most Amish, except for the Beachy Amish, are not evangelical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.176.110 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to Catholics?

Aren't many Catholics fundamentalists as well, as least by the definition in theis article. The link to "Catholic Fundamentalism" is just an article on theological traditionalist Catholics? What I mean by that are the type that consider themselves the opposite of "Cafeteria Catholics"? All the articles on Christian conservatism and fundamentalism seem to deal with Protestants.

Most Catholics (like myself) have a unique outlook. Science meets conservatism, I guess you could say. Modern yet traditionalist. Essentially, extremely credible and logical scientific theories such as evolution and the like are widely accepted, if not the norm. The Catholic faith isn't literal in Bible translation, the defining characteristic of fundamentalism. Pretty much only ignorant Catholics wouod take Genesis literally.

Perhaps it depends on where you live. Here in Austria, which is mainly Catholic, I know quite a few Catholic fundamentalists; typically, they almost always have close relationships to Protestant or Evangelical communities. My theory (which I of course can't back by evidence) is that this phenomenon of fundamentalists opposing the Catholic church can't be held up for cultures that are traditionally Catholic by nature. --85.127.217.164 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is also because Austria is a more secular society, where Christian activists would therefore tend to group together and define themselves according to their religion rather than their denomination.

Something like that's been happening in America, where fundamentalists have historically been virulently anti-Catholic. Many of them still are, but they've begun to cooperate with the Catholic Church on issues where they both agree, like abortion. Relationships between Catholics and Protestants in general have also gotten way better than they used to be, and close ties between the two communities are common if not exactly the norm. 147.9.201.243 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this external link be here?

Text below taken from the "history" section of the article.

The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ [http://[blacklisted URL deleted]/article.cfm/non_fundamentalist_christianity/52921]

Should the above link be here?? I think it should be removed and or placed below in the external links... Any comment.

The link listed here actually contains another link as a source. I have replaced the original with the precedent source, which is from an article about a famous preacher of the time, Harry Emerson Fosdick. This new link makes clear that two of the "five fundamentals" had alternative expressions, which I have included in the article. --Blainster 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

high view / low view

In the section headed "A Label" the last paragraph is confusing to me. Particularly the use of the terms-of-art "high view" and "low view".

Can someone knowledgeable in this area rewrite with more generic verbage? Is it necessary to use these particular (and undefined, unlinked) terms?

Also, the phrase "much higher than the popular stereotypes can account for" adds no meaning, just mystery.

Ian Paisley?????

Is Ian Paisley theologically fundamentalist? I don't think that Northern Ireland Presbyertians considered themselves or are considered fundamentalists.

I think we're up against the difference in usage again. In common parlance I can easily imagine Paisley being described as 'fundamentalist' where the term is used pretty synonymously with 'radical'. DJ Clayworth 16:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ian Paisley is very much considered a fundamentalist here in Northern Ireland. He also has had a long running association with Bob Jones University. He is not and never has been a Northern Ireland Presbyterian [sic]. He is the moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. He holds to the inerrancy of scripture and has opposed the pope face-to-face in the European Parliament.

Public Schools

Let's not forget the movement to have school prayer constitutionalized. I think it deserves a mention, at least. Nikki 18:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see no need. Prayer isn't just for fundamentalists, even if they were the driving force behind it.

Witnessing

What about witnessing?

Witnessing is also known as evangelizing. It gave the name to Evangelicals, that is, people who tell other people about the Gospel (because it is only through faith in the work of Jesus Christ--the Gospel--that the human soul saved). Fundamentalists are a type of Evangelical.

Much could be written about evangelism, even just that within the confines of fundamentalism. Pooua 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sociological analysis and F't perspectives on Sects/Cults

There has been a lot of study on seperatist, authoritarian groups in sociology. Most fundamentalist groups would be of the sect type, and at the extremes the cult type. Two errors are possible from a fundamentalist perspective, one accommodating to the world, the other going on a frolic of one's own. Where do extremists such as David Koresh, the Children of God and Jim Jones fit in. No mention is made of this. Paul foord 11:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

additional notes
- Jones started with AoG, went to the Disciples of Christ maybe not in Fundamentalist camp?
- David Koresh/Branch Dravidians were Seventh-day Adventist origin
Are snake handlers fundamentalist?

Just goes to show popular (mis)conceptions. So some clarification req in the article Paul foord 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to the question of snake handlers: I know of no snake handling within the movement. I have come to understand that snake handling belongs to the edges of either the Charismatic (often Assemblies of God) or Pentecostal; I believe the former is more accurate.

Disciples of Christ are related to the Church of Christ. These groups are related to the Baptist movement in general, they are by no means part of the Fundamentalist Movement. They have a totally different identity, and have no communion with Fundamentalists.

Disappointing Article

I am disappointed with the article as a whole. While there is good information here and there, it is a patchwork that borders on incoherence. It tries to do too much by overlapping and essentially equating Christian Fundamentalism with every conservative extreme in the American church today. I agree with the "NPOV dispute label" and considered adding an "accuracy dispute" in several paragraphs if not appended to the entire article.

IMHO this article should be scrapped and completely redone -- perhaps under the more descriptive and somewhat more limiting title: Christian Fundamentalism in the U.S.

Jim Ellis 15:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jim, this article is disappointing, it does not show why exactly they are fundamentalists. There are so many different Christian faiths, why do they call this one Christian Fundamentalism?

Catholicism

Roman Catholicism also has those members who could be considered fundamentalists, but they most often are called Traditional Catholics or Catholic traditionalists. Well known traditional Catholics include the actor Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson. This group of members rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. In some cases they have broken away from the mainstream church and reject those Popes who they see as heretics - which usually they consider to be every Pope from John XXIII on.

This needs clarification. The article defines "fundamentalism" as divisions of Christianity that adhere to the five fundamentals, but even the most traditional or conservative of Catholics do not believe in two of the five fundamentals, namely inerrancy of the Bible and salvation through faith alone. -- Temtem 22:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Temtem. This article was obviously intended to define the Fundamentalist movement within U.S. Protestantism. It is really beyond the logical scope to include "fundamentalism" in the Catholic church and "Christian fundamentalism" abroad. In the absence of a complete re-write (which I would be willing to tackle) we are stuck trying to patch up a poor article. I would suggest making clarification statements and particularly removing the entire section entitled "Christian fundamentalism within Christianity" -- it has an inappropriate title and contains erroneous claims. Jim Ellis 22:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Small point of correction. I am a person who would qualify as a Catholic fundamentalist in a country like, say, France. The official position of the Church regarding the Bible is the doctrine of norma scriptura. This means that no Catholic belief or practice can contrdict the Bible. What we reject is the doctrine of sola scriptura, the idea that the Bible is the ONLY source of the Faith.

It is nevertheless true that the term "Christian fundamentalism" is used almost exclusively to describe a movement that is largely Protestant and North American in character. Strictly speaking, "Protestant fundamentalism" might be a more accurate term, but it seems that "Christian fundamentalism" has stuck.--TheMcManusBro 04:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24.69.255.205's edits

Welcome aboard 24.69.255.205 (I wish you'd sign in at take a user name!). You are tackling one of the more difficult pages. There's some good stuff here, but a lot is disjointed, some inaccurate, and some biased. Some of your edits have added perspective as one who seems to understand Christian fundamentalism. But you have also deleted a lot. If something is wrong or biased, you should correct as much as possible, rather than delete. If it's not wrong or biased, you are disrespecting other past editor's work in deleting. I restored some information you deleted, and you deleted it again. At that point you should be on the talk page explaining why the deletion, and seeking consensus first. Pollinator 01:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

yeah it

was disappointing i did not find out what i needed to know for my RE homework but i did for conservative Christians,at least that gave me what i wanted to know

by ktb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.35.153 (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional minor changes

I think the article is getting better through subsequent changes and modifications. However, I feel the opening (introductory) section still falls short. E.g. (1) The reference to Islamic Fundamentalism seems inappropriate here. (2) The statements on infallibility would be better placed under General Beliefs.

The intro should hit the main historical fact -- that this was a movement at the turn of the century which came about in reaction to the rising Liberalism in mainline denominations.

Jim Ellis 03:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

It seems extremely important to me, because of the instant negative connotation in the modern secular mind. We should make it clear that we are talking about the classic meaning, which has few elements in common with the modern idea. Pollinator 03:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

why 19th cent? why 2ooo yrs ago?

this is odd and quite suspect. why does the article, the argument, the entire thesis of this subject begin in the 19th century? should it not begin with christians butchering pagan romans after the first christian leaders of the roman empire? i cant see a reason why the history is limited to the modern age. christian fundamentalism - terrorism began quite literally since its inception. i couldnt find this being discussed in the talk page, or on the actual page .. i could begin with detailed history, wars raged in the name of christianity and the sort, i have a feeling that would be frowned upon.

I personally appreciate you moving your expressed concern to this discussion page rather than the body of the article itself. I have added a couple of phrases (in the article) to indicate the limited scope and context for this article's use of the term "fundamentalist". I believe your concern is more accurately associated with "violence in the name of religion," which is not the intent of this article at all. You are taking (what I see as) a fairly modern term and applying it to ancient history. Feel free to consider initiating an article addressing your concern, although I'm not sure the term "fundamentalist" is crucial to it. See also, "Religious Violence" and "Fundamentalism" (as a general term) in Wiki-articles which touch on your issue and may be places where you could more appropriately add info on your concern. Regards, Jim Ellis 14:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the very differences stressed earlier between Catholic beliefs and Fundamentalist beliefs should not be excluded here. Many of the early Christians killed by Catholics are commonly considered Fundamentalists or so similar to those called such today as to have very little distinction. When you talk of the Roman empire, you're speaking of the Catholic Church, which I consider un-Christian, or at least Bible believing fundamentalists would say so. The Waldenses, Paulicians, Anabaptists, Movatians, and many others are among the groups who were slaughtered by the Catholic church for some 1200 years for "heresies" like practicing baptism by immersion, pacifism, and rejecting unBiblical traditions like transubstantiation, confession to priests, Mary-ology, and observance of holidays (which often have pagan roots in all circumstances, and can even be referenced as pagan within Jeremiah and elsewhere). I am not trying to start an argument here with Catholics, but those attacking Fundamentalism often make this mistake of confusing it with Catholocism, which forces me to point out what I believe obvious mistakes. --Jzyehoshua 07:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a point of contention that the Christian Fundamentalism is necessarily tied to violence. First of all, the Roman Christianity you mantion did not arise untill about 300 AD ^[1]. Hence, it is not present at the "inception" of Christianity. Second, early Christianity was not scanctioned the Roman state and was often persecuted by the pagan state^[2]. Third, early Christians were converts, not conquestees. But most inportantly, most of Non-political Christianity has been non-violent. The Marriage (or Adultery, depending on your view) of Politics and Religion do often result in violence, but that may be due to the corrupting influence of temporal power, not the underlying philosophy of the religion married to the state. Fourth, many of the modern Christian Cults/Sectes that are violent are considered doctrilally aberrent by the majority of Christian thought, including Fundamentalist Christians.Pollard Thinks Its Odd (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinism

While there certainly are fundamentalist Wesleyans, Lutherans, Catholics, etc., it seems to me that the bulk of contemporary fundamentalism is Calvinist in orientation; shouldn't we make mention of that somewhere on the page, or at least the important Calvinist influence on the development of fundamentalism (Machen, et al)? Just a suggestion. KHM03 14:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most fundamentalists are not Calvinistic in their doctrine. As a Baptist Fundamentalist, I can tell that we shun the doctrine of TULIP strongly. We want nothing to do with it. Now, those Fundamentalists who have some Calvinist viewpoints are welcomed, but Fundamentalism considers hyper-Calvinist as dangerous as modernism. I will delete suggestions that Fundamentalism is a Calvinist viewpoint, because it is not. saxonjf 15:09, 23 July 2005

I concur with what saxon is saying here. The Fundamentalist movement as a whole is not even friendly toward Calvinism. The Calvinist counterpart, in hyper-calvinism and national covenanting movements (who alone are "real" Presbyterians or Reformed), etc., are parallel movements, but not the same.

In vernacular, those Calvinists (and many other Calvinists) are certainly fundamentalists in rejecting modern ideas of the Bible. Sometimes they are very severe or exclusive if that's a criterion you use. But if you call those peculiar Calvinists Fundamentalist Christians, it will be at the cost of denying this label to the definable, historical, and identifiable specific movement of Christians that uses it (uniquely) to describe themselves.

We need a section full of pointers to other types of Fundamentalist movements in Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of persons

There is confusion here about who should be listed as a fundamentalist. I don't think that any of those listed really belong! On the other hand, if they do belong then the article is incorrect in making a distinction between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (a distinction that both groups try to maintain). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FF Bruce was no fundamentalist. KHM03 22:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are Francis Schaffer and A. W. Tozer to be considered Fundamentalist authors. I think both lists are highly suspect. My knee-jerk reaction is to delete both sections. There are no "Fundamentalist" scholars. Haha! Seriously, looking back over the article, even though Machen and Warfield are associated with the early movement against Liberalism, they would not be classified as "Fundamentalist" scholars. Most of the one's listed are simply evangelical or conservative evangelical. For instance, belief in the inerrancy of the Bible autographs does not make one a Fundamentalist. All Fundamentalists "may" believe in inerrancy, but not all inerrantists are Fundamentalists. Jim Ellis 22:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you; delete the names until real fundamentalist writers can be found. Some dispensationalists might qualify. Some hyper-Calvinists, too. KHM03 23:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Jack Chick's suggested authors. [1] I'd think at least some of them must be real fundamentalists. -- Temtem 23:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Welll. The definition of "fundamentalist" is awfully slippery, isn't it? "They're the group that makes you mad", somebody said (or something like that). When you list people like, John R. Rice, Peter Ruckman, Bob Jones Jr, Ian Paisley (not a dispensationalist, though), Steven Sheeley, Jack Chick, Chris Anderson, you can see that there is still a spectrum of incompatible beliefs. And, assuming that even this short list belongs together, it is hard to arrange a list that does not introduce unwelcome associations. That's why I don't like "Lists of " people who don't list themselves together. That's what is convenient about Jack Chick's list - but as a rabid Calvin hater, he's not going to be listing any hyper-calvinists - much to Keith's chagrin ;-)

After all, it's an historical fact that it's because of unwelcome associations that so many "paleo-orthodox" evangelicals shunned the "fundamentalist" label. If it were only a matter of standing for Christianity as historically held, over against modenism, then I would be eager to call myself a "fundamentalist". Don't repeat that. I don't want the bad company kept by that word <- my point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, isn't it interesting that Jack Chick lists a book by the anti-trinitarian, Alexander Hislop ? There is much more to fundamentalism than merely the defense of "fundamentals". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get some evidence that Hislop was an anti-trinitarian? I've never seen it, and its not in the Hislop article. --The Saxon 00:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One person at a time

===Fundamentalist Bible scholars===	 
*Norman Geisler	 
*Gary Habermas	 
*FF Bruce	 
*Gleason Archer	 
===Fundamentalist authors===	 
*Francis Schaeffer	 
*A.W. Tozer	 
===Fundamentalist archeologist===
*Bryant G. Wood

Of these, the only one that really looks right to me, is creation science archaeologist, Bryant Wood - but if he is SDA, I think it's stretching things to list him. I don't know his religious affiliation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Is Tozer really fundamentalist according to this article? The social section probably doesn't match his thoughts at all. Not going to movies and not dancing? That's not A.W. Tozer. (Pbmaverick (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)). ----I suppose my problem with the article is more with the social section than with the list of authors. It's far too unsupported to say that "most" persons considered fundamental Christians do not attend movies or dance or listen to any secular music. Pbmaverick (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too narrow in scope?

I am concerned that this article defines "Christian fundamentalism" too narrowly. Strictly speaking, that phrase could apply to any fundamentalist movement within the spectrum of Christian thought. It might therefore include movements like Tridentine Catholicism or the Greek Old Calendarists. Those groups have little in common with each other or with "Christian fundamentalism" as defined in this article except in that they all in some way reject "modern" influence on Christian belief or practice.

Of course, I realize that when people use the term "Christian fundamentalism," they are most often referring to the movement as defined in this article. Again, however, strictly speaking, that movement would more accurately be described as "Protestant fundamentalism." So here are two suggestions.

One, we could move much of the content from this article into a page called Protestant fundamentalism and make Christian fundamentalism into a much shorter article dealing with the (admittedly few) common threads between the various Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant fundamentalist movements and linking to articles about those specific movements.

Two, we could simply edit the present page so that the opening paragraph talks about fundamentalist Christian movements in general, links to articles about the afforementioned Catholic and Orthodox movements and ends by saying something like, "This article will deal with the distinctly Protestant movement most often referred to as Christian fundamentalism." We could also redirect Protestant fundamentalism to Christian fundamentalism.

Any thoughts?--TheMcManusBro 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When people use the term to refer to the movement described, there is no controversy. The group defines itself this way, and the label fits when applied to them. However, the term "Fundamentalism" has now grown beyond all bounds of scientific description. When anyone stands for an "older", "purer", or "un-modern" view, and especially if they do so in the belief that they are standing alongside saints, apostles, and Jesus himself, then the word "fundamentalist" comes into the disagreement immediately. I do not think that the use of "fundamentalist Christian" is quite the same thing. This article describes the fountain from which all this name-calling has issued. It is the modern vernacular for "intolerant", "bigoted", "backward", "immovable", "obscurantist", "mean-spirited". For more on this ever-expanding use of the word, see the article, Fundamentalism.

This article should stay where it is, and the title should be limited to this narrow description as its first reference, because of the historical attachment of the terms to this movement. However, it would be a very good idea to point to other articles. Please do not move this article. It describes a special case - The special case - of "Christian fundamentalism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. So would you agree, then, with my second suggestion, to 1. add an opening paragraph that talks about the "strict" definition as the terms used might encompass as well as pointing to other anti-modernist movements in Christianity, and 2. redirect the search term "Protestant fundamentalism" to this article? If anyone has any objections, please state them and I will gladly refrain from editing the page until the issue has been resolved through discussion.--TheMcManusBro 20:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I would prefer the usual disambiguation line leading the intro paragraph: This article concerns the self-labelled Fundamentalist Movement in Protestant Christianity. For other kinds of fundamentalism, please see the main article, Fundamentalism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be caredul in refering to the modern Fundamentalist as "Protestant," as many Fundamentalists do not identify their movement as emerging from Luther in 1517. Some fundamentalists view themselves as descendents of groups like the Montanists, the Hussites, and the Waldensians. This is not a concensus view, but it is prevelant in the Fundamentalist movement.--The Saxon 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fundamenetalist scholars

I listed some fundamentalist scholars and it was removed due to someone not being sure with the list.

Here was the list with comments next to each:

Fundamentalist Bible scholars

*Norman Geisler	Strongly supports Bible inerrancy 
and a lack of Bible errors. Debated Farrel till who argues
the Bible has errors in it (see: http://www.skeptictank.org/debate.htm ).

*Gary Habermas  Teaches at fallwell's Liberty University. (also see: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_habermas.htm ).

*FF Bruce -  I removed him as a fundamentalist

*Gleason Archer -  Has been called the Apostle of Bible inerrrancy.
 Wrote a encycyclopedia defending bible inerrancy.

*Francis Schaeffer	 I recall him affirming a inerrant Bible, but
I will withdraw his name for now.

*A.W. Tozer  - Arminian fundamentalist. See the website at 
 this location http://faith.propadeutic.com/authors/nonref.html 
 Also, see: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/lochurch/reverenc.htm )

*Bryant G. Wood  He is a fundatmentalist (see:  Not a member 
 of seventh day adventist
 to my knowledge.  No search results for Bryant wood and seventh day adventist.

ken 17:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

Added more fundamentalist scholars based on further research

darby - see http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/j/jo/john_nelson_darby.htm

scofield - see: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/c/cy/cyrus_i._scofield.htm

Walvoord - see: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/j/jo/john_walvoord.htm

BB warfield - see: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/be/benjamin_breckinridge_warfield.htm

John Gresham Machen - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/j/jo/john_gresham_machen.htm

ken 18:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

These are obsolete uses of the terms. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more individuals to fundamentalist scholars and authors

I found the following which I quote:

"The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.

taken from: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

ken 19:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

These are not part of the fundamentalist movement as it is found today. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ken, it will help you to sort out the reason that these people do not belong here, if you read through the article Neo-evangelicalism, and compare it to Evangelicalism. Your list belongs in Evangelicalism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TO: Mark

Not all evangelicals hold to bible inerrancy. However, if you hold to bible inerrancy you are fundamentalist. Now I have no problem having a "Fundamentalist Bible scholars" and "fundamentalist historical figures/authors" category.

Now I certainly hope you do not object to their being a Fundamentalist Bible scholar category. Geisler is a Bible inerrantist. So is Sproul and others. Please comment on this matter.

ken 20:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

It's a matter of taking history seriously, ken. That's the purpose of the Neo-evangelicalism article, to explain what happened in the "fundamentalist movement", so that some of them went on to stand apart, and others went on to stand together with other Evangelicals.

This latter group does not typically use the label to describe themselves, any more - although, some of them did at one time. J.I. Packer wrote a very important book on fundamentalism, for example. But the movement grew past them. It does not describe them, any more. J.I. Packer was an important signator of Catholics and Evangelicals Together - an ecumenical inititative that is condemned by the Fundamentalists in the strongest terms. Billy Graham is a Fundamentalist in the old sense, but not in the new sense. It's the same with almost all of those you list. They are either confessional Reformed Christians, they are conservative Evangelicals. Fify years ago they would be called "Fundamentalists". Today there are better labels to describe them. Nevertheless, I'll try to work with the material you insist on putting in, in hopes that we can avoid a needless edit war. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TO: mark

I do not wish to get into a edit war either. It seems to me as if you are a bible inerrantist that you are a fundamentalist. You don't necessarily have to rail at Spong daily or rail about women not wear dressesing daily or forbid dancing etc to be a fundamentalist. With that in mind, I would insist there are certainly fundamentalist scholars.

ken 22:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

There is a specific group, identified in the article, whose identity is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist movement. They are represented by schools such as Bob Jones University, and Pensacola Christian College, Independent associated churches and families of Fundamentalist churches. The Fundamentalist movement is who they are. It's not an add on, or an also so and so thing for them. The people you are listing are not part of that movement.

J. Gordan Wenham and J.I. Packer are traditional, evangelical Anglicans. That is a better description for them, than "Fundamentalist"; despite the fact that Packer wrote a book called "Fundamentalism and evangelism". It was written a long time ago, before the term became so narrow that it no longeer really fits. Machen, Warfield, Sproul, Gerstner and Schaeffer, Nicole, Reformed and Presbyterians. Albert Mohler, a "Heritage" Baptist. James Warwick Montgomery, a traditional Missouri Synod Lutheran. All of these might be called "confessional" christians. They believe that history mediates a kind of Christianity from which liberalism departs. You might put many more people here, who represent the historical wing of their denominations or traditions. But in this day, they do not describe themselves as Fundamentalists. They are "paleo-orthodox", "conservative evangelical", "traditional christian", if you must be general. But each of them gives their own terms by which to identify them, rather than "fundamentalist". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to Mark's comments that there is a small but notable number of practicing Christians who say they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible but insist on rereading or re-interpreting it to the point where most self-proclaimed fundamentalists would writhe in horror (example: the claim that homosexuality really isn't a sin, after all). Believing in Biblical inerrancy probably isn't enough to qualify one as a "fundamentalist."--TheMcManusBro 04:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to: mark

Three points:

1. Is Liberty Univesity run by Fallwell a fundamentalist college? Gary Habermas chose Liberty as a place he wants to be a professor at. Is Habermas a fundamentalist scholar? Also, Is Dallas theological seminary a fundamentalist school?

2. It seems to me that just because you wish to not to do cooperative efforts with liberal churches (such as crusades) that does not make anti-intellectual. I see now reason to not have fundamentalist scholars. Do you have an objection to the "fundamentalist scholars" category.

3. I read the neo-evanglicalism subject area. I realize some fundamentalist neglect good works or being salt in the society and spend all their time focusing on doctrine. However, there are plenty of charitable and salt like fundamentalist who are active in politics and do not just focus on abortion, homosexuality, etc. I think that overly broad brush strokes are being employed. I also think that not all fundamentalist are confrontational which the article seems to imply.

After all is said and done, I am merely asking for reasonable balance and not overly broad brush strokes. I am trying to be fair and reasonable here and realize that fundamtalist have had their shortcomings but neo-evangalicalism article seems to be pushing neo-evangelicalism.

ken 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

Yes and yes, I think. Is Biola fundamentalist? If you know the history - yes. If you know their self-description - no. Self-description is determinative for this particular article.
There are fundamentalist scholars. I do think though, that if we're going to list them here, it needs to be according to their self-description. The Fundamentalist article does not use that criterion; and the Evangelicalism and Neo-evangelicalism articles do not have the same problem. Was Jesus really born of a virgin? Did Jesus really die, and bodily rise from the dead? Do you think that such things are important to Christianity? If so, by the old definition, you are a fundamentalist. But what you might prefer to say is that, "I am a confessional Reformed Christian", "I am a paleo-orthodox Methodist", "I am an Anglican Calvinist adherent to the 39 articles".
Fundamentalism doesn't have any apologies to make for taking its stand, in my opinion. If the accounts were tallied, opponents would have a hard time believing how much time and money fundamentalists have put into purely charitable works - which they may then discount by noting that, it is done in the name of Christ. How confrontational they are is really a matter of perspective, I suppose, depending on which book you are reading. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible refers to slavery and subjugation of women, both morally wrong. Why do we confine ourselves to only believe guidelines of the first century with authors going to as recently as the fourth century. Who says that the Bible was "faxed from Heaven"? Certainly not I.Biblical follower 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to slavery doesn't mean it endorsed the Deep South's preposterous inhumanity, and believe it or don't, that verse about woman submitting to their husbands? If you actually read beyond that one verse and read, say, the whole paragraph, you might find the Bible isn't exactly advocating a raw deal there since there's more than just women there. Homestarmy 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ease of comprehension

I consider myself a intelligent person, with some knowledge of Fundamentalist Christianity to start with, but this article is really hard to read. They're all linked, but when the first couple of paragraphs force me to read the first parts of substitutionary atonement and dispensationalism to understand what's going on, it makes me wish the article itself was simplified. (I would consider the sentence "In particular, fundamentalists reject the documentary hypothesis—the theory held by higher biblical criticism that the Pentateuch was composed and shaped by many people over centuries." from the article a good example of one solution to this problem.)

Also, sentences like "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, for instance, was signed in 1978 by nearly 300 conservative scholars, including James Boice, Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry (founder of Christianity Today), Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham." need some explaination about what the Chicago Statement is, and the names trimmed down to a handful, preferrably with notes as to why they're notable (like "(founder of Christianity Today)"). As is, it's a pack of names, of which the average person (like me) will recognize none of them, and enough blue links to discourage clicking through them.

I think there's a very important question of audience here. While Wikipedia doesn't really define a target audience, I think it reasonable to hope that any article the average person might type in, like Fundamentalist Christianity, should be fairly easily understood by them, whereas articles like dispensationalism can expose the pedantic complexities for the more select audience. Alternately, this article could at least make the introduction and a brief history and summary easily understandable to a general audience. --Prosfilaes 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hear! hear!

Excellent observations. I've turned to this article for a clarification of the distinction between fundamentalism and evangelism (this seems a reasonable claim to make of an encyclapedia entry) and came away no wiser.

The article does contain useful information and is potentially valuable but editing is critically required.

Prosfilaes criticisms are representative: The article should begin with a succinct definition of the fundamentalism, perhaps supported by comparisons with other well known movements and/or reference to fundamentalism's historical origins (social conditions, antecedents, etc). Issues which a casual reader is unlikely to be familiar with, but which the Wiki community believes merit presentation (substitutionary atonement, dispensationalism and the like) can then follow in later paragraphs or, perhaps, subsections.

For any who wonder why I raise criticisms without acting myself to improve the text: I hasten to point out my limited knowledge of the fundamentalist phenomenon.

--Philopedia 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusively American

I am very irritated that someone says "Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian Fundamentalism, in the scope of this particular article, refers to the movement within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries ". This article was meant to be international originally. American style fundamentalism does exist in a few corners elsewhere in the world - particularly Northern Ireland. In the early 20th Century fundamentalism reached into parts of England, Wales and Canada too (See Marsden's and Bebbington's works). Therefore at some stage I will alter the offending "nationalism."

Question

Looking at the discussion I think that there is room for starting several subsections/articles on the different forms of Christian fundamentalism.

What I want to know is: many fundamentalists condemn homosexuality because it is condemned in the Bible. However - one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill" - how many of the fundamentalists condemn murder thrillers, and "Thou shalt not covert..." and Dallas-the-series etc?

212.85.6.26 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this question isn't worth trying to put into the article, so I'll answer it here. The simple answer to that question is that many Fundamentalists (probably most) don't go to movies, and strictly limit their television because they believe TV and movies promote violence and adultery. Many (including myself) do not even own televisions. Many do not go to movie theaters and limit the movies they do watch to those of high redeeming value. So, although no Fundamentalist can speak for all of them, many Fundamentalists have nothing to do with murder thrillers or sexy, coveteous television series. --Saxonjf 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes the talk page of a particular article is the best place to find out answers to questions. In the UK (and particularly England) there are few opportunities to meet Fundamentalists to ask such questions.

The subpages comment was referring to remarks earlier on the talk page, and suggesting that there be pages on Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and "other Christian (non-Chalcedon etc)" versions of fundamentalism.

One tends to hear more of the fundamentalist view of sexual mores than other areas.

Would 'puzzle story' thrillers be OK (curiousity)?

I don't know what a puzzle story is, so that is hard to say. It is not by our choice that sexual mores are that which is focused upon, though we will not deny that we adhere tho them. Here's a good a good standard by which Baptist Fundamentalists is in Philipians 4:8 - Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

We are not perfect, and no Fundamentalist will say that they are, but just because we adhere t a different standard than much of the rest of society doesn't make us stuck up prigs. We believe the Scripture, and believe that we must attempt to imitate the Lord by following it. We also believe that His death on the cross forgives us of our sins, but that His death does not give us liscence to sin.

We believe that by keeping our eyes fixed upon the Lord, we will grow to be more like Him, and will be better suited to meet Him when we shed our bodies. --Saxonjf 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thrillers and eg Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown stories. Myself, I think that such stories can be far more interesting than "blood and violence": also some which lead readers to work things out for themselves.

One of Wikipedia's "good points" - being able to ask such questions and having someone prepared to give an answer (and one should try and answer as many questions as one asks).

Anti-Catholicism and Protestant Fundamentalism

Why has the inherently anti-catholic roots of protestant fundamentalism been left out of this article? Most of this article seems to deal with specifically protestant fundamentalism, which is overwhelmingly anti-catholic because of its detest of organized institutions and some of the Church's liberal policies (opposing death penalty, wars, help poor, etc...) and because people believe it is a satanic cult. This needs to be included. --

I have no problem if the article states Fundamentalism's mistrust for RCC, but there are several other reasons. The Council of Trent, the Inquisition, John Huss, "Father" Coughlin, The Saint Bartholemew Massacre, etc. It's not as though the Baptists' dislike for RCC is in a vacuum. My own Swiss Baptist descendents were victims of Catholic Imperial Täuferjägr (Baptist Hunters), and escaped to Germany. Show me where the Council of Trent has ever been rescinded.

Also, we are "anti-Catholic" the same way we are "anti-Jew" and "anti-Muslim." It's not as though violent tendancies are rampant among us. We make up maybe a couple million people in the US, and we abhor violence. We don't accept members of the RCC to be Christian Brethren, because you don't trust solely on the finished work of Scripture. We, on the other hand, don't partake of your sacrements, and therefore can gain no absolution. The idea that there is a large, organized anti-Catholic movement among Fundamentalists is a myth; a laughable one at that.

What would this "anti-Catholic" statement going to say? The political issues are mediocre: we are in favor of the death penalty; we don't advocate wars, however. Some of us oppose the war in Iraq because we sense an overarching conspiracy. And yes, we are against helping the poor; that's why Fundamentalists send millions of dollars per year to our missionaries who are bringing Bibles, food, water, farming equipment, wells, and so on to the destitute throughout the world. Your money to help feed the poor is not opposed at all; if the RCC supports socialist governments redistributing hard-earned wealth, then that is wrong. But to say that we are against helping the poor is a joke, since many of us are of very modest means ourselves.

Like I said, I don't necessairly oppose some statement that Fundamentalists oppoese the RCC, but I won't let it become some sort of screed about violent tendancies against Catholics, because it just isn't there. --Saxonjf 06:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Historically, Anti-Catholicism in the US was a Protestant movement, not necessarily a Christian Fundamentalist movement. http://faculty.francis.edu/aremillard/Pilot.htm

That said, one of the divisive issues between liberal and conservative Protestantism was the acceptance of other Christian sects, including Catholicism. Modern " christian fundamentalists" could certainly be considered the logical heirs to anti-catholic sentiment, although many would protest this characterization

CalvinLawson 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no problem if the article states Fundamentalism's mistrust for RCC, but there are several other reasons. The Council of Trent, the Inquisition, John Huss, "Father" Coughlin, The Saint Bartholemew Massacre, etc. It's not as though the Baptists' dislike for RCC is in a vacuum."

I direct you to the fundamentalist belief in "faith, not acts". According to fundamentalist theology, the only thing that differentiates a good person from a bad one is whether or not they believe in Christ (as defined by obscure, nineteenth-century, build-your-own-church American theology) - anyone who does not, in the immortal words of Jerry Falwell, is "a failure as a human being". Of course Catholics, Jews and Muslims have some very nasty history in their past, as does every other religion on earth. But you don't object to Catholics because their Pope once ordered an Inquisition. You object to Catholics for the simple reason that they are Catholic - and the same for everyone else who isn't exactly like you.

"we don't advocate wars, however. Some of us oppose the war in Iraq because we sense an overarching conspiracy."

The "some of us" would have to be a number I could count on the fingers of one hand and still have four fingers left. Fundamentalists broke clearly for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and as for not advocating wars, every one of your leaders at the national level - Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, James Dobson - thought the war in Iraq was a dandy idea. The only problem fundamentalists have with Bush is that he's too soft for them - the September 17th speech in Washington's biggest mosque, his defense of the Amiris during the Dubai Ports World controversy, his embracing the notion that Islam is a peaceful religion "hijacked" by al-Qaeda, rather than inherently violent.

"Your money to help feed the poor is not opposed at all; if the RCC supports socialist governments redistributing hard-earned wealth, then that is wrong."

Unless you live on a desert island, taxes will always be with you. The only question is what your money'll be spent on. Your average fundamentalist will become morally outraged if anyone suggests that his money go to helping people out of poverty - and into, you know, once again being a productive member of society. But that same average fundamentalist has no problems with that same money being spent on military aid to Israel (lots of dead Palestinians, quite a few of them Christian), or foreign wars without a clear objective, a clear strategy and a clear justification. And you wonder why people associate Christian fundamentalism with violence? 147.9.226.163 (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hyles

Wikipedia has an entry for Jack Hyles. Much could be said about him, and many people have their suspicions or accusations, but what should an impartial, comprehensive encyclopedic article state about him? He was certainly significant in Christian fundamentalism; you cannot understand late 20th Century Christian fundamentalism without making reference to Jack Hyles.

Currently, more than half of the Jack Hyles article consists of accusations extracted from various newspaper articles, besides convictions of Hyles' associates. The word, "convicted," in the sense of a court of law, gets mentioned in terms of Hyles' associates, but never of Jack Hyles. Though one cannot completely ignore the scandals surrounding Jack Hyles' last decade or two, this should not be the focus of an article, at least until there is much more documentation from very thorough sources. In particular, discussion of such scandals should have more substantial basis than some copy-and-paste from some newspapers.

The bottom line is, the article on Jack Hyles is badly written, poorly researched and is little more than a gossip column. Would anyone here care to assist in editing it? Pooua 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you can understand 20th Century findamentalism with no reference to Hyles whatsoever - whether that is the case for the brand of fundamentalism seen in parts of the USA is another matter. An article on Hyles should indeed tell the story. Warts and all. One of his former friends, writing up the problems which dogged Hyles' later life, called it "the saddest story I've ever had to tell". There is obviously a need to expand the parts of the article which underpin the sadness felt by that writer. There is also a need to include the verifiable criticism of him, despite the best efforts of some of his more ardent fans. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by "parts of the USA" you mean, "the continental U.S.," then your statement is reasonable. Otherwise, you greatly underestimate Hyles' influence on Christian fundamentalism, particulary during the '70s and '80s.

Robert Sumner, the guy who wrote the article "The Saddest Story I've Ever Told," was an acquaintance of Jack Hyles. By Sumner's own statement in that particular article, they knew each other from having occasionally preached on the same platform at conferences. Nor are Sumner's motives in publishing that article entirely beyond question, as noted in an article by Curtis Hutson, "Sumner's Slander, Slant and Slop" (May 26, 1989).

You and Arbusto like to imply--though I haven't seen either of you directly state it--that I am a big fan of Jack Hyles. I don't believe there is anything that someone could say to such an opinion that would mean much. However, a more representative sample from people who are familiar with Christian fundamentalism might diffuse such criticism. I'm not claiming that Jack Hyles would win a popularity contest, nor should that even be a consideration to the article; but, people who are authorities on Christian fundamentalism should be able to offer important insight into an article on Jack Hyles. Pooua 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a "big fan of Hyles." In fact, you wrote [2] "I was quite willing to make the 100-mile bus ride from Great Lakes, Illinois to First Baptist Church every Saturday so that I could attend church services there on Sunday." Arbusto 06:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons that you are not a very good editor is that you try to derive too much meaning from too little data, and you do it to justify your ideas. This is an example of your weakness.

Yes, 22 years ago, when I was an 18 year-old sailor, I was thrilled that I had the chance to attend that legendary church, one of the seats of fundamentalism. I knew very little about Jack Hyles, though, other than the fact that he was the pastor of the church. I don't recall that I had ever heard even a single sermon by him prior to those 3 months that I visited the church. I knew that he had written a hugely popular (within fundamentalist circles) book, "Blue Denim and Lace." I did not know that he was originally from Texas. I don't believe that I knew at that time that he was the primary force behind the concept of the church bus route ministry. I was impressed that First Baptist Church of Hammond is the largest in the Western Hemisphere, and has the world's largest Sunday School, but I don't remember if I knew that prior to my visits.

When I was a 19 year-old sailor, I was thrilled that I could fly from Norfolk, Virginia, out to Greenville, South Carolina, to spend a 3-day vacation on the Bob Jones University campus. I did not know at the time that a Hyles "drone" probably would not do such a thing. In fact, I did not know there were "Hyles drones," undoubtedly because I did not have Internet access in 1985.

I don't believe that you and JzG have enough evidence to conclude that I am unable or unwilling to produce an unbiased biography of Jack Hyles, warts and all. I also believe I can conclude that all you want to talk about are warts, even alleged warts. Pooua 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with some of your comments to the affect that Hyles was a major figure in fundamentalism in the 1970s, I strongly take issue with your above attack on Arbusto, which breaks WP:NPA, might break WP:CIVIL, is condescending, and in any event false. Arbusto is a very experienced editor, and explaining your position (with evidence, like the quoted obituary you gave) is more productive than making disparaging remarks about his editorial capabilities. JoshuaZ 20:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you jump to Arbusto's defence so quickly, but you have nothing to say about what he has done to the Jack Hyles article. Is Wikipedia's purpose to serve as vanity press for her editors, or is it here to produce reliable, comprehensive, unbiased information? You agree that Jack Hyles was a major figure in fundamentalism? Then, why don't you say something about that on the Jack Hyles page? How can you excuse the fact that most of the Jack Hyles page is nothing more than (badly written) allegations culled from various newspaper articles? The article is a disservice to the general public. Pooua 21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, on what are you basing your statement that Arbusto is "a very experienced editor"? Do you mean just on Wikipedia? I ask, because even Jimmy Wales, the head of Wikipedia, admits that Wikipedia suffers serious quality problems. The Register: "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems" Mr. Wales even admits that the problem is too many bad editors on Wikipedia, and he is trying to recruit professionals to write at least some of the articles. Maybe you should think about that, and think very long and hard about how the Jack Hyles article is written, and the bullying that Arbusto has engaged in for that article even before I came aboard, before you jump to Arbusto's defense. Pooua 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbusto, Don't Censor My Topics!

Arbusto, part of Wikipedia is the free discussion of articles. You, apparently, are afraid of people making a fair presentation of Jack Hyles. You have no right to remove discussion of this subject in relevant forums. Pooua 17:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "afraid" of you removing criticism that is cited in major papers. I'm "afraid" of you mispresenting wikipedian policy to serve your own agenda. What does this have to do with the article on fundamentalist christianity? Shouldn't this topic be on the Jack Hyles talk? Arbusto 23:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are afraid of a competent editor writing out a reasonable biography about Jack Hyles.

Jack Hyles played a significant role in Christian fundamentalism. Anyone who believes he can write authoritatively on Christian fundamentalism certainly should have some familiarity with Jack Hyles. Pooua 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did Hyles contribute to fundamentalism? What ground breaking ideology did he add? Arbusto 06:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost would be his emphasis on soul-winning and visitation programs. All fundamentalists at least give lip service to visitation; that is what the term, "evangelical" means, and fundamentalism is a militant form of evangelicalism. Every church of which I have been a member has had a visitation program, though it is not unusual in a church of 2000 members to find only a half-dozen show up for organized, church-sponsored visitation. Jack Hyles was a driving force in encouraging churches to drive visitation and organize bus ministries.

"He probably did more for Sunday school in the late '60s and early '70s than any other man," said Elmer Towns, dean of the school of religion at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. "He will be remembered for the greatness of his bus ministry and having built one of the greatest superchurches in America." Christianity Today: "Megachurch Pastor Jack Hyles Dead at 74"

Pooua 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Soulwining" going door-to-door to recruit church members is hardly new. I ask again, what new ideas did he offer? Arbusto 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right, and Dr. Elmer Towns, dean of the School of Religion at Liberty University, is wrong. What does a dean of religion know, anyway? Pooua 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you cite the Towns claim instead of offering an obscure, unreferenced, unspecific blanket claim? Or better yet explain how Hyles' door to door mission differs from Timeline of Christian missions or Mission (Christian). I ask again, what new ideas did he offer? Arbusto 00:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are asking why I don't cite more biographical data from Towns? My quote from Towns is not obscure or unreferenced (I posted a link right to the "Christianity Today" article, just like the one in the Jack Hyles article, and my reference is certainly less obscure than your seeing-eye dog reference), but I agree that it is not as specific as one would like in an encyclopedia article. So, I have written to Dr. Elmer Towns, asking him for all the published documentation on Jack Hyles that he could give me for Wikipedia. Considering Dr. Towns' credentials, it would be even nicer if *he* wrote the article (Dr. Towns is the editor of two encyclopedias, besides publishing more than 50 books), but I don't want to impose on him, as he is a very busy man. Pooua 05:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want a source of your Towns claim-yet you cannot provide it, but have to personally write to him. So weren't referring to a published article, but rather you have to email someone for an opinion? I ask again, what new ideas did Hyles offer? Arbusto 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can either wait for my finished biography, or you can research the information, yourself. Inasmuch as you have shown no inclination towards biographical research, you should wait to see what I produce. Or, you may stomp around and whine like a spoiled child. Pooua 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so half a page later: name calling and no citation. Arbusto 00:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the citation when I quoted from the source. It was "Christianity Today." Why are do you persist in asking for the citation when you already have it? Pooua 05:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any source that goes into the nature of his teachings-- the link suppplied is an obituary. Arbusto 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny--that was good enough for use in the Jack Hyles article. It is exactly the same link used for footnote 2. Pooua 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that obituary of Jack Hyles was included in the Jack Hyles article. However, this talk page is for Fundamentalist Christianity as a whole. Any source discussing Hyles in relevance to this page of WHAT he offered that was new (ie the reason I removed your Hyles posting and you cried "censorship"). I ask again, what new ideas did he offer? Arbusto 05:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do your own homework. Your bullying tactics are disgraceful. Pooua 07:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More name calling. Look you made a claim. Back it up. Arbusto 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call you a name. What you are trying to do is brow-beat me--and anyone else who won't smear the name of Jack Hyles--into silence. That is bullying, pure and simple.

I have told you and your pals some of what Jack Hyles did that makes him significant, but you simply brush it off. The fact that he somehow built an ordinary church of a few hundred members into one of the largest church congregations on Earth, the fact that he has the world's largest Sunday School, the fact that he pioneered the church bus ministry, the fact that his efforts have been recognized by men like Dr. Towns--all mean nothing to you. By any objective measure, these facts should stir curiosity into his life, but curiosity appears dead in you. Instead, you demand that the Jack Hyles article focus on such earth-shattering news as the fact that 20 years ago, Jack Hyles told a blind man that his new seeing-eye dog was causing trouble in the building and was not welcome.

The fact that people like you have so much power over these pages makes Wikipedia a fraud. Pooua 04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "power" do I have that you don't? The "problem" you have is your being made to back up your claims and you are having trouble doing that. Arbusto 05:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weakness of Wikipedia is that it equally empowers people without regard to scholarship, credentials or content, as we see in your case.

Regarding my backing up my claims, you have confused the discussion page with the article page. What is more, I came to this particular discussion page to solicit contributions to the Jack Hyles article from people who are familiar with fundamentalism, not to posit arguments. It's called research; you should try to do some, sometime. Pooua 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you raise the red herring of citation (which generally isn't necessary in Talk, and is easy enough for someone with sincere interest to find, anyway), here are a few in support of my previous paragraph:

"The largest megachurch in the world is, of course, the Yoida Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea. In the United States, the largest megachurches on the Scott Thumma list are the Willow Creek Community Church of Chicago (14,650) and the independent First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana (12,000). States with most Megachurch Attenders

"Soon 230 blue-and-white First Baptist Church buses are plying routes across northern Indiana and South Side Chicago, and before the morning is over the drivers will have hauled as many as 10,000 persons to what foot-high signs on the sides of the buses hail as the WORLD'S LARGEST SUNDAY SCHOOL.

"The claim is rock solid for the U.S., if not the world. According to Christian Life magazine's annual survey, no church comes close to First Baptist in Sunday school attendance." Time Magazine: Superchurch Pooua 05:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles (from the Hyles article) show he had a lot supporters; I don't dispute that. I ask again, what new ideas did he offer to fundamentalism? Arbusto 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, a person does not have to offer any new ideas to be significant, so your badgering me on this subject is inane from the start.

In the second place, I would post such material as you request on the article page, not the discussion page, so your hounding me on this subject is mis-directed.

In the third place, you have taken it upon yourself to edit the Jack Hyles page, so you ought to do your own research to answer the questions you are posing to me. Had you done so, in this case, you would have found your answers, as I intend to demonstrate when I submit my edition of the Jack Hyles article. Pooua 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Time Magazine article is not referenced in the Jack Hyles article. That's a new source. Pooua 21:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalism / Dominionism

'This explains why they [the fundamentalists] oppose the "social gospel" today advocated by liberals, and doctrines such as Dominion Theory advocated by some conservatives.'

I strongly disagree with this statement. Dominionism is a brandmark of the fundamentalist movement, though not shared by all groups in the same manner. This paragraph needs to be redone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.20.110 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, its a vague term, and is probably useless to Fundamentalism. It depends entirely on the meaning of it. If the meaning depends on the Churches having a direct control over the government, I would disagree entirely. "Theocracy" is never truly a theocracy, but in a reality more of a Ecclesi-ocray (for a lack of a better way of putting it. No one wants the hands of the government in the hands of the religious leaders, because if they are corrupted, both the churches and the governments become corrupted simultaneously.

If the meaning is that Christians should do all they can to have policy enacted which preserves Christian beliefs, then it is very awkward, and doesn't seem to imply a "dominion" over politics.

The purpose of dominion was to take control of the earth, and harness it for the benefit of humanity. It has little or nothing to do with policy or polity.

Besides the very nature of Fundamentalism leads one to believe that true believers will always be in the minority, and in a democratic nation, that will imply impossibility of any domination of government control.--The Saxon 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelicalism

I have removed the reference to Evangelicalism in the first paragraph. In historical context, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are parallel movements. Fundamentalist christianity did not solely develop from evangelical christianity or vice versa. It was largely a reaction to modernism over the breadth of most of American Christianity.

I put the evangelical reference back. But the differences between Evangelicalism and modern neo-evangelicalism need to be clarified. There are many evangelical churches who were never fundamentalist churches and vice versa.

As a Fundamentalist, I would say that Fundamentalism is an evangelical movement (I left the word uncapitalized to state it as what the word actually means, as opposed to the movement of the last century or so). I would also say that Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals come from the same original Evangelical movement, dating back to the nineteenth century. I would be careful in defining evangelicalism, depending on what is meant.--The Saxon 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist Christianity

This article would be better titled "Fundamentalist Protestantism" because it is a movement within Protestant Christianity that has no bearing upon Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Within the broader context of the history of Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy is the truest form of fundamentalist Christianity because it rejects the theological, political and cultural developments of the second millenium. --64.93.1.67 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is problematic as well, since it was primarily derived from the United States, and other countries have protestant movements which didn't develop this way on a parallel timeline. The article would likely have to be compleatly re-written.Homestarmy 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article would be better called AMERICAN fundamentalist Protestantism. There is scant little in teh article about British fundamentalists of which there are many. Fundamentalist Christianity also includes Fundementalist Catholics of which this makes no mention at all.

My feeling is that "fundamental" Catholicism would be that which the Roman Church controls. That would be different from the Traditionalists or the Tridentines, to which I assume you refer when you say "fundamentalist Catholics." I consider identifying "fundamentalist" with "tridentine" an error of judgment. Beyond that, are the British fundamentalists of the same doctrine as the American fundamentalists? If not, I would leave the name as it is, and create a new article called "British Christian Fundamentalism."--The Saxon 04:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link

I'm not sure what the protocol is and I don't have time to find it, so I'll leave to someone else. Footnote three points to [3] but the link is broken. Should the link and/or footnote be removed? --Ephilei 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or put a note next to the citation reading "Link broken". Homestarmy 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism.

Correct me if I am wrong but does this Article violate the Wikipedia Policies if it doesn't have a "Criticism" part?

So shouldn't we add in criticism of Fundamental Christianity?

It doesn't violate NPOV unless the content here is pushing a particular point of view which isn't neutral. If it is lacking in criticism, that makes it lacking in broadness, assuming notable enough critics are missing. However, a criticism section on Fundamentalist Christianity as a whole would require a good, stable definition, what would be criticized, the idea of being a Fundamentalist Christian, notable Christian Fundamentalists, denominations often associated with Fundamentalist Christianity, the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity in modern times, or a combination? And would notable responses to criticism get any room? (I think they should.) And what would the barrier of inclusion be, just anyone of any notability who has made remarks opposing Fundamentalist Christianity? (Please no, none of that Rosie O' Donell nonsense, hardly appropriate for an encyclopedic and on-topic article on Fundamentalist Christianity :/) Homestarmy 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should have a criticism section. A majority of Christians are not fundamentalists, and disagree with their methods. The lack of a section for criticism lends the impression that fundamentalism is mainstream and widely supported.

Islamic Fundamentalism

I find it strange that this article is significantly more detailed than its Islamic counterpart.Anyone else agree?

It's probably due to Wikipedia's western bias, and probably because Islamic Fundamentalism doesn't have much of a beginning in recent times. There are more sources easily accessable on Fundamentalist Christianity here because the modern movement defined explicitly as Fundamentalist Christianity (and the movement which, if I remember correctly, was first to truly define the term "Fundamentalist") arose primarily out of the U.S. around the turn of the second-to-last century, so there are plenty of English and first hand sources. But, with Islamic Fundamentalism, there wasn't so much of a beginning as there has been a continuance of the same old thing, and alot of stuff is in Arabic or other eastern languages. Besides, they are two very different movements, they don't really influence each other too much as far as I can tell. Homestarmy 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or it's probably due to the fact that Christianity has been around longer than Islam, and therefore has a longer history of violence.

Err? This is Fundamentalist Christianity, not Christianity as a whole, and besides, violence isn't the only thing that makes history. Homestarmy 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps if they did an in-depth look at Muslim Fundies, the Wikipedia headquarters would be subject to an IED.

You are using Fundamentalism incorrectly in this context. This article is about the movement within Protestantism that stresses the basic theology of historic Christianity as a minimal definition of a Christian movement. YOu are thinking of radicalsim, which is not the same. Basejumper 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree. Fundamentalism is about how one understands and intreprets his/her holy book. Fundamentalism is firmly holding to the fundamentals as taught by one's scripture. Killing people is not necessarily caused by being a fundamentalist... unless that is what your holy book clearly and literally instructs you to do! Pollard Thinks Its Odd (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Link?

I'm a bit concerned about the addition of [4] to the external links section, but I only have a limited grasp of the spanish language. It appears to be some sort of school, but the front page is offering different degrees for what appear to be monetary units, and I think this seems very unusual. Is this like a Spanish diploma mill or something? Homestarmy 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening para

Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modern "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

The subordinate clause makes no sense. How is "set" being used as a noun or verb? What did Conservative Evangelical Christians react to? 81.174.151.35 08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "who adopted a set of "fundamental" Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, etc. etc...."? Dunno how the clause got out of order in the first place though, or how long its been like that, I don't look at this article much... Homestarmy 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a problem?

The media portrays fundamentalists as wacky which is a common misconception. We are just normal conservatives.secular...

Is this an error, or is it supposed to be here? I haven't seen a sentence on Wikipedia that looked like this.--64.131.37.26 22:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it with ctrl+f, where in the article is it? Homestarmy 00:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christology

The opening of this article states that Fundamentalists and Catholics have "strongly divergent views of salvation and Christology." This is utterly inaccurate; the Fundamentalist and Catholic views of Christology are identical. Unless someone can offer a reason why not, I will change this sentence in a few days to "However, the relationships between Fundamentalist Christians and Catholics are still often strained due to historical/cultural perceptions and strongly divergent views on a number of theological issues."

(I'm leaving the salvation issues aside for the moment; they're complicated and often a source of misunderstanding.) 165.230.141.67 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Christology, if I remember correctly, concerns who exactly Christ was, I think you might be right, but the whole works righteousness issue really does drive Fundamentalists and the Catholic Church down separate paths concerning salvation. It took centuries just for one Protestant denomination, (Lutherans) to sign a statement finding any common ground at all, and that was only by agreeing to something that didn't exclude works righteousness. Fundamentalism is, of course, more conservative than Lutheranism as a whole simply by definition, so I can't imagine the relationship actually being better. Though I admit, "strongly divergent" does sound a bit much, Catholicism just adds things, its not like, say, Mormonism or the Watchtower, which totally replace who the figure of salvation is. Something like "due to differing views on salvation" should be good enough i'd think, the views certainly are differing, mostly with Catholicism adding things, though its really hard to tell sometimes. Homestarmy 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made that change, and I would like to explain why. When I describe differing Christology, I don't mean Catholics deny the deity of Christ: far from it. My main belief that their Christologies are different is based on how Jesus relates to humanity. Roman Catholicism believe that people can seek heavenly intercessors to gain the favor of Christ, as if Christ's love for humankind isn't enough when people seek his face. Either Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man or He isn't. The difference in Christologies isn't in Jesus' humanity or His divinity as Catholics and Fundamentalists would agree on the Hypostatic Union), but on His purpose in salvation. I conclude that as a difference in Christology, not just in soteriology.--The Saxon 03:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon, I understand what you are saying, but I have two concerns that make me think that the sentence should still be changed.

1. Your use of the term Christiology is a little broader than its most common usage. Most people reading this sentence would conclude that Catholics and Fundamentalists differ on the Trinity and/or Incarnation, which they do not.

2. Roman Catholicism teaches that Christ is the Sole Mediator between God and humanity. The intercession of a saint in heaven is akin to the intercession of a Christian on earth; it is not akin to the Mediatorship of Christ. In other words, just as a Christian on earth can pray for someone; so a Christian in heaven can pray for someone. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 65, 480, 667) A Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist may disagree with this for many reasons, but not on the basis of Christology even under your broad usage of the term. 165.230.141.67 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, its not worth getting into a huge argument. I think the differences in salvation (or soteriology, if you please), and although I see a difference in Christology (and there will be a strong difference if Mary is ever named a co-redemptrix), there is enough of a difference in ecclesiology that that can be the change. Fundamentalism is strictly Congregational, and Romanism is high Episcopal.

Fundamentalism

Given that the vernacular usage of the term "fundamentalism" now applies to many religious and non-religious contexts beyond Protestantism, shouldn't fundamentalism be a disambiguation page? Plus, doesn't the current fundamentalism page contain content redundant with this page? Groupthink 18:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalism should have its own article, not just a disambiguation page. That article should be about fundamentalism in the broadest sense and have sections about fundamentalist Christianity, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. Any treatment of fundamentalism in the fundamentalism article as a Christianity-only thing should be removed and merged into the fundamentalist Christianity article. That way there is an article about fundamentalism as a broader topic that links to articles about fundamentalist movements in specific religions. 154.20.253.36 00:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the better plan. Groupthink 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever met someone who calls themselves a fundamentalist who is not a Christian? The reason you have not is because there are none. If you say fundamentalist a listener well know that you are talking about a Christian. To use the word fundamentalist to describe any other belief it is necessary to use a qualifier e.g. Islamic Fundamentalist, atheist fundamentalist, etc…--Riferimento 04:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I've heard organizations like Hezbollah referred to as "fundamentalist" without any qualifiers. That's beside the point, however: while fundamentalism may have began as a Protestant movement, in modern usage it can refer to any anti-modernist sect or belief. Groupthink 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a reference where Hezbollah refer to themselves as Fundamentalist. What you find is other people referring to Hezbollah as fundamentalist (and even then the descriptor is rarely used, more common is the accurate phrase militant Islamic organization).What is being suggested here is a POV-split, a method for those who find Christian Fundamentalist distasteful and want to criticize, define, and discredit, fundamentalist beliefs without being subject to opposing views.--Riferimento 11:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly have no idea what you're talking about. Is it POV to use the term "Protestant Reformation" instead of just "Reformation"? I suspect what's really going on here is that I'm proposing an NPOV article structure while you're insisting on the POV that the term "fundamentalism" is somehow owned by Christianity and can never be applied in any other context. Groupthink 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press recommends that the term be used only for those who self-identify as Fundamentalist. While this is not always followed in the media, the guideline does recognize the agenda of those who use it otherwise. Riferimento is accurate here. Pollinator 12:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, David Irving could never be called a "holocaust denier", Charles Manson could never be called a "psychopath" and Osama bin Ladin could never be called a "terrorist". Since when does self-identification rule the day? Groupthink 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In comparative religion, fundamentalism is not treated like a Christianity-only thing, and in fact is used to describe a certain type of religious movement that can be found in many religions. Trust me, this isn't an attempt to equate Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalists, or any other kind of fundamentalist. 154.20.253.36 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All I'm asserting is that there's common elements to a number of fundamentalist movements, including anti-modernism and scriptural literalism -- but because there's also substantial differences among the various fundamentalist creeds, each manifestation of fundamentalism deserves its own article. Thus, "Fundamentalism" should be the main, umbrella article summarizing the most well-known fundamentalist creeds, their commonalities and their differences, and the sub-articles should be "Christian Fundamentalism", "Islamic Fundamentalism", "Church of the Sub-Genius Fundamentalism", and so forth. Groupthink 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference for some of these “various fundamentalist creeds”? I'd love to read some of them.--Riferimento 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America, Sunstein, Cass R., Basic Books, 2005, ISBN 0465083269. Talks about fundamentalism as a legal and not a religious philosophy.
Columbia Encyclopedia definition of "fundamentalism". See definition 2 for how the term is applied to non-Protestant religions without qualifiers.
Women, War and Fundamentalism in the Middle East, Moghissi, Haideh, Social Science Research Council. Notice that Moghissi talks about "fundamentalism in the Middle East", not "Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East".
Fundamentalisms Observed, Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby, eds., University of Chicago Press, Spring 1994, ISBN 0226508781. Notice the title: "fundamentalisms", plural. Book discusses fundamentalist movements world-wide including Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Zionist Fundamentalism, Activist Shi'ism, Confucianist Revivalism, and Theravada Buddhist Fundamentalism.

That was from about ten minutes of Googling. Shall I continue, or would you care to concede the point? Groupthink 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groupthink the request was rhetorical(but I do believe I asked for creedal statements), since Christian fundamentalist are the only ones who self identify as fundamentalist. If you could provide me non-Christian creedal statements of groups who describe themselves as fundamentalist I would though be forced to admit that I am incorrect (and you would not be the first Wikipedia to provide evidence that proved some of my assertions incorrect).
Second, please note that I agree that some scholars now use the word Fundamentalist in a very broad way. Also note that second definition of Fundamentalism is included in the Fundamentalism article.
Third, I am not against creating as many Fundamentalism articles as you feel are necessary.
What I am trying to do as absurd as it sounds is prevent the creating of a Fundamentalism article that does not clearly state in the introduction the most common use (and I suspect only use) of the word by self-described Fundamentalist. If the Christian understanding of the word is not allowed in the article I fear only the pejorative definition will result in only anti-fundamentlist reviewing the article and produce groupthink.--Riferimento 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's easy enough to do: Just put in the intro, "Fundamentalism is a philosophy that advocates the unwavering adherence to a set of credos. The followers of fundamentalist belief systems believe that their fundamental principles are inerrant and unchangeable. Although the term 'fundamentalist' originated with a 19th century Protestant movement, it has since become an umbrella term for a number of conservative anti-modernist creeds." Groupthink 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with what you have written it is an accurate statement and not judgmental statement. I suggest you give it a try in the Fundamentalism article so we can see how it holds up.--Riferimento 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Fundamentalism should be a disambiguazation page. (And no, I'm not even trying to spell right.) This page describes a theological movement within Protestant Christianity, as opposed to the vernacular use of Fundemtanlist to mean unbending or violent. Fundementalism should point in multiple directs, and Christian Fundementalsim should discuss that theology and its developement. Basejumper 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having Fundamentalism as a general page discussing all various types, which seems to be where it's currently moving. Certainly there is material which discusses it all together, which it would also want to cover. Also, while it may be that Christians are more likely to self-identify as fundamentalists, that doesn't change that the term is currently used generally as a descriptor. The page certainly shouldn't cover it as a unified self-identified religious movement, but that still leaves plenty of material to cover. Mackan79 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical material from Fundamentalism

In the spirit of WP:Bold, I thought I would try redoing the lead to Fundamentalism to focus less just on Christianity, since we have that article here. I figured I would insert the material directly into this article, but since I'm not entirely sure where best to put it, I'll just paste it here. It seems we may already have a good discussion of the history here, so maybe only some of it would be needed, or maybe the section is good as it is. Material pasted below:

The term "fundamentalism" gained currency in the early 1920s and derives from two main sources:

(1) The Fundamentals, a series of pamphlets defending traditional Christianity against modernism published between 1910 and 1915 (and in a collected version in 1917), edited by Congregationalist evangelist Reuben Archer Torrey and funded by Lyman Stewart, who was a devout Presbyterian in addition to being the founder of Union Oil.

(2) The so-called "Five Fundamentals", five propositions which the 1910 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA declared to be "necessary and essential" to the Christian faith:

The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Would appreciate any input. Thanks, Mackan79 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christians?

American protestantism is a "diet" version of christianity blended with strong patriotism for white people. --62.245.207.18 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that {{{talkheader}}} needed to go at the top of this page. ;) Groupthink 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why call it "fundamentalism"

I, being an Evangelical Christian, prefer to be called as such, rather than by the derogatory term "fundie" or "fundamentalist". I take offense at being called as such, and would politely wish the bias to stop. Why is there so much hatred against Christianity? Please do not be offensive. I, for one, must announce that, this article violates the Neutral Point of View policy. Please, refrain from bias against Christians. 71.76.153.217 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelicals predate by more than a century the fundamentalists, who took their name from a series of (originally) twelve volumes entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth and subscribed to the "five fundamentals". It's a self identification, and if you don't identify with it, so be it. Why do you hate Christians who subscribe to that doctrine?.. dave souza, talk 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed Controversy

One editor on this page is very attached to his own prose, and has asked that I explain why I object to its addition to the article. The following statement has been repeatedly added to this page:

“Additionally, after the events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting War on Terrorism, there has been renewed controversy over the term "fundamentalism," due to further acts of aggression toward the West by some Fundamentalist Muslim groups (specifically Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others).”

My objections to this statement are “renewed controversy” is an opinion that should only be added to the article if it can be attributed to a notable authority. I personally doubt that any expert would make this statement, because no self-describe “Fundamentalist” who would call the “9-11 terrorist” fundamentalist. To document such a foolish assertion one would have to find evidence that the adjective “fundamentalist” was used to describe the “9-11 terrorist”, and that Christian Fundamentalist renewed their objection to the expanded use of the word, then after wasting their time in this fruitless pursuit they would need to write and publish their findings.

I have no interest in arguing the merits of the above statement; if it is a true statement I would like the editor who added it to provide a citation. The previous argument this editor has provided in support of his assertion is:

“first of all nothing in the section is sourced…”

I would like to point out that if he doubts the other assertions in this article he can removed them. I personally believe that the other assertion made in this section could be cited.--N0nr3s (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for bringing this to the talk page. Secondly, the section says that the feeling about the term changed on two fronts since the 1980s, the first of which was included in the section when I found it. The second of which I added. I'm not doubting that self-described Fundamentalist Christians would take offense to being grouped with other so-called fundamentalist groups, but to deny that people in this country haven't sought to lump the two together is absurd. I'll agree that there is no cite, but since you're the one that has a problem with my addition not having a cite, I think it should be you that either removes everything in the article without a cite or allow my addition to stand. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting argument---I don’t need to cite contested material I add if other non-contested material is not cited.--N0nr3s (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that if you're going to get upset about my inclusion, you should get equally upset about the whole section. Nothing in the section was particularly objectionable, and you singled out my addition as out of place. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

This thread is vandalized on a weekly basis, sometimes more. Is there a way to nominate the thread for semi-protection from non-registered users?--The Saxon (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist Denominations?

In my opinion this section should be removed. What is the basis for listing these denominations? Have they made some claim to be fundamentalist? Are they included based on some individual's opinion? I know the Southern Baptist Convention is not self-identified as fundamentalist, and since non-denominational churches are not a denomination it makes no sense at all to list them. What about the other denominations? What qualifies them to be included here? The section makes no sense and should be removed.

Columcille (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--vote to remove unless someone can provide a citation.--N0nr3s (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I think the problems can be solved and a list is very useful. Change the section title to groups or similar (rather than denominations), and split it into two sections to reflect the distinct movements. Most of the groups that relate to the original movement will self-identify as fundamentalist. Whilst the second movement is more diverse, there are many groups that are strongly associated with it and finding authoritative sources shouldn't be too difficult. See also my comment in the next section Sidefall (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New editor/NPOV question

I've done some editing on this to hopefully clarify what can be an difficult topic to define. An unregistered user just deleted some of what I did with the comment "removed biased wording". My concern is that he replaced my text with "...who believed what was taught in the Bible". IMO that is far more biased than my edit as Bible interpretation is a contentious subject. I've therefore reverted it in my latest edit, but have also attempted to improve the neutrality of my wording. I would appreciate comments and any further editing so that we can reach a consensus.

On the previous question, I think listing groups that would be regarded as fundamentalist is helpful and makes the article more useful.

I was also wondering if this article would be best moved to Christian Fundamentalism to give consistency with the other entries given in Fundamentalism (disambiguation) Sidefall (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of work on the list of groups to try to improve it.

Also, the consensus on talk:Fundamentalism#Merge was not to merge this, so I'm going to remove the merge tag Sidefall (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abolition?

Why is the legacy of Christian fundamentalism being traced back to the abolitionist movement - and other issues of "public morality" that followed in the pietistic/Progressive movement? The segregationists were just as fervent Christians, they also used religious rhetoric to justify their positions - and Biblical literalism, the holy grail of the fundamentalist movement, was much more reflected in them than in their opponents. Slavery and the consumption of alcohol are both explicitly okayed in the Bible; the abolitionists were more similar to modern, pro-gay churches like the UCC which neither have nor claim Biblical literalism as part of their theology.

Since the segregationist movement was both conservative and Biblically literal, it would be them, not the politically progressive and theologically liberal abolitionists/pietists/Progressives, that are the actual forefathers of the modern fundamentalists. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Word removed

Fundamentalists are NOT, I repeat NOT Extremists.

There are some who hold to extremists views, like on the King James Bible, for example. But to label the ENTIRE movement as extremist. Is wrong. I personally object to it and I removed it.

-Chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8cpa (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Churches of Christ as Fundamentalist?

The article currently lists Churches of Christ as a fundamentalist group. Do we have a source for that? They do tend to be theologically conservative, but there's a fair amount of diversity among churches of Christ these days, and given the congregational autonomy of that movement, there's no central organization that can stake out an official "fundamentalist" position.

I have similar concerns about categorizing non-denominational churches as "fundamentalist." If anything, there's even more diversity among this broader movement than among the churches of Christ alone. Again, while many may be theologically conservative, there doesn't seem any basis for concluding that the entire movement is fundamentalist. EastTN (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues

There are some glaring issues with this article that deserve some attention. Biblical inerrancy is upheld by the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations... if the bible's message is flawed, afterall, you haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to the person of Jesus or his miracles, teachings, etc. However, this article seems to suggest that anyone who believes in biblical inerrancy is therefore a "fundamentalist". Secondly, there is an erroneous and sometimes inconsistent equation of fundamentalists with evangelicals. Even the idea of shared historical roots is questionable. In the words of the main article on Evangelicalism:

Especially toward the end of the 20th century some have tended to confuse evangelicalism and fundamentalism, but they are not the same; the labels represent very distinct differences of approach which both groups are diligent to maintain. Both groups seek to maintain an identity as theological conservatives; however evangelicals seek to distance themselves from stereotypical perceptions of the "fundamentalist" posture, of antagonism toward the larger society, advocating involvement in the surrounding community rather than separation from it.

Thirdly, we should be using capital-F "Fundamentalism", not "fundamentalism", to distinguish between the denomination and the general characteristic, as the article is clearly referring to the former. Hopefully in this way we can clarify the confusion surrounding the usage of the term as a derogatory label for the kind of narrow-minded, antagonistic, god-burns-fags "christians" that everyone loves to hate. Jaybird88 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a mess

This article is in bad shape. There are no cites in the historical section, the definition of Fundamentalist Christianity can't seem to focus on anything meaningful, many schools of religion are given w/o elaboration as to their meaning or their role, lots of weasel words, a list of generalizations with almost no citations, and in general a lot of assertions that have no citations to back them up. I'll try to fix things up as best I can, but there is a lot to be done. Soxwon (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Christianity

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_the_Romans

[1]

[2]

Archive