I see what you mean, which is why I'm careful about using labels that are commonly misunderstood. At my church, for instance, we believe in Scriptural inerrency (our pastor once said, "if you want to hear the audible voice of God, read the Bible out loud"), a literal virgin birth and resurrection, the exclusivity of salvation by faith in Christ, justification, substitutionary atonement, etc. However, we don't call ourselves fundamentalists because on a college campus, everyone is going to associate that word with things that aren't Biblical.
Having said that, it may help to redeem the word. It may also help to reformulate the fundamentals of the faith. As they were written in the twentieth century, they were meant to address modernist thought. In the twenty-first century we're dealing with post-modernism, which involves a rejection of the very notion of absolute truth. For example, these days no one denies the deity of Christ. Instead, people affirm the deity of all humans. Neither do people deny that Christ is the perfect substitute for our sins. Instead they say that we have no sin that needs to be atoned for. So perhaps it would do us well to reformulate the fundamentals of the faith in a way that responds to post-modern thought.
Personally I think that the doctrines of Calvinism are highly effective in this regard.