What's in a name? (Evangelical, Fundamentalist, etc.)

[RomansFiveEight]

A discussion topic brought up by a friend of mine. They felt like the word "Evangelical" had been highjacked by the media and used to apply exclusively to the political Christian right. This particular individual is fairly conservative but doesn't like being associated with the branch of Christianity that, in the United States, has married itself to one of our political parties (the GOP). In his perspective, "Evangelical" has nothing to do with secular politics. And I think I agree. In fact, my tagline in my name used to be "Recovering Evangelical" but as I thought about it; I really think I am and Evangelical; even though I'm certainly not a part of the "Christian Right" (i.e., Franklin Graham, Ted Cruz, etc.)

Now the way most will classify Methodism is under the headline "Mainline Protestant" in contrast to "Evangelical Protestant". But the definition of Evangelical really boils down to a belief in salvation through Jesus Christ through atonement. Now, some will distill it further and say it's about being "born again" and associate it with sinners prayer theology but I'm not sure I agree. I think one can believe in salvation through atonement in and with Christ Jesus, without ascribing to faulty sinners-prayer theology and can be liberal OR conservative and still believe in that fundamental belief all the same. So why can't I be an Evangelical, even if I'm not a member of the Christian Right? In fact, I think I am!

I also "googled" the definition of Fundamentalist and while most tend to stick with the historic context of far-right churches, the most agreed upon definition was, not surprisingly, a trans-denominational belief system that there are certain irreducible and irrefutable beliefs. Now, okay, I'll grant that I don't like such strong language because I think we're always learning but indeed I have fundamental beliefs that I don't see ever changing, and that I consider essential to my own Christian faith. For example, the above mentioned "Evangelical" belief that my salvation comes through atonement with Christ Jesus. So, I'm not a fundamentalist; but in a way, couldn't I be?

I know one mans opinion won't change the world but it seems like words like "literalist" and "conservative" better describe what we're calling fundies and evangelicals. I don't think either, and especially Evangelical, should automatically assume a political ideology. Progressives can be Evangelicals and in the same way, Conservative Evangelicals are just as much Evangelicals. One thing that bothers me the most is beliefs that are local, regional, or entirely social. Beliefs like taxation, the regulation or deregulation of the markets, militaries, guns, democracy. Things that are important and in fact can even be rooted in scripture (or refuted by scripture); but maybe ought not be beliefs that define the most basic parts of our belief. Should we really be putting a belief in trickle down economics or a belief in social justice through welfare programs in the exact same vein as our belief in salvation and/or atonement?

Anyway, just a bit of Monday afternoon rambling. And I was curious for this groups perspective. Do you think we're maybe tying down too much to words like Fundamentalist and, especially, Evangelical?

 

[Dave-W]

Fundamentalism has a few extra things attached to it. There was a series of documents written in the early 1900s called "The Fundamentals" on the points of fundamentalism and they include such things as "biblical separation" and "christian militancy."

There are some other doctrines associated with fundamentalism not included in that document like "cessation" and "King James Only." Those were not in question as its publication predated those issues.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Fundamentalism has a few extra things attached to it. There was a series of documents written in the early 1900s called "The Fundamentals" on the points of fundamentalism and they include such things as "biblical separation" and "christian militancy."

There are some other doctrines associated with fundamentalism not included in that document like "cessation" and "King James Only." Those were not in question as its publication predated those issues.

So the discussion really is about whether those terms are the best terms to describe those systems of beliefs. RE: Fundamentalism, it seems odd that a certain group gets to claim the "fundamentals" of Christianity. I know KJV onlyism and literalism are associated with Fundamentalism and where it comes from; but I wonder if there isn't a better term, in this fantasy world where we get to change words, for what it is. Maybe Fundie is the best, I dunno. It's just always rubbed me a bit wrong because it implies their beliefs are fundamental to Christianity when, in fact, they aren't.

Admittedly, for me, the larger curiosity surrounds "Evangelical" which, I must admit, I'm not sure has to mean "Conservative Christian". Or that it absolutely has to do with anything political or even relating to social justice. It seems like we're ascribing far too much meaning to a word which ought to be really simple. Thoughts on "evangelical"?

 

[Qyöt27]

The important part of the term 'fundamentalist' isn't actually the 'fundamental' part - it's the 'ism'. Or the wordier version: they've made an -ism out of what they personally believe are 'fundamentals'. Even at that, though, one's personal beliefs about what things are fundamental is subjective: for fundamentalists, it was opposing what they felt was Modernism in the Church, as that was what The Fundamentals sought to repudiate and was where the term sprang forth from in the first place. It was not what most of the rest of Christendom considered fundamental (and they have better words for it anyway: 'traditional' or 'orthodox'). I mean, if you really want to know what most of Christianity considers fundamental, that's what the ecumenical councils and the historic creeds they produced were for. The Nicene and Apostle's creeds in particular if we want to get at the very basic things shared by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike.

This is also why the term 'fundamentalism', which originally only referred to a particular strain of Christianity, eventually became a generic descriptor of any religious movement that shared the same impulse to reject what they saw as Modernity and attempt to restore some purer, earlier form of the religion that embodies just the 'fundamentals' as said person views them. To some degree, this same thought process is what created the Restorationism movement some 60-70 years prior to the Modernist controversy that erupted in the Presbyterian Church and spawned the Fundamentalists, but many parts of the Restorationist movement got weird (either by resurrecting Classical Heresies like Arianism or by simply making stuff up out of whole cloth with 'additional revelations'), and several of them are very often considered to not even be Christian despite having a lineage through 19th century Protestantism. Fundamentalism differed mainly in that its focus was on upholding the appearance of being traditional, but without the academic study and willingness for self-examination that the historical Church has typically allowed for in the long run. This is one of the most important things about Fundamentalism: it actively fosters an anti-intellectual mindset in order to try and stop people from looking behind the curtain or being exposed to what in many cases are the historical views of mainstream Christianity or anything else that criticizes it. At some point it becomes a chicken-and-egg problem: did the anti-intellectualism of certain lay members and clergy create fundamentalism because they couldn't withstand academic criticism of their beliefs, or did fundamentalism start promoting anti-intellectualism in order to keep its members in line and not become educated about the academic criticisms of fundamentalism? Is there even a point to trying to untangle that loop at all? This is why fundamentalists try to undermine the public education system through varying means, and can even be as strange as opposing even slightly more advanced mathematics because they tie concepts like irrational numbers to rejection or chipping away of their religious worldview.

Politics has the same phenomenon, but it's known under a different term: 'reactionary'. And it's almost always [extremely] right-wing in orientation. You can drill down even further for more jargon that describes the political, religious, or philosophical outlooks of reactionaries in greater detail, but that's beyond the scope of this thread's topic. In essence it's a pining for the 'good old days', which objectively never existed to start with, but going further in trying to actually recreate those 'good old days' because the modern era has supposedly become so corrupt. That still raises the question of 'the good old days for whom?' And the answer to that part of the question is generally why 'reactionary' means 'extreme right-winger'.


'Evangelical' often suffers from the same problem as 'Catholic/catholic', in that it's a legitimate and historical term referring to evangelism, or in more modern contexts, to a religious movement that shares basically the same theological points as Fundamentalists, but who opposed fundamentalism's strident forms of isolation (which makes sense; to be effective at evangelizing would mean not to isolate oneself; how well they actually achieve this lack of isolation can be somewhat debatable, though, seeing as how they pretty much created the 'bubble subculture'). This is why, like Catholic/catholic, capitalization is sometimes used to try to identify which usage you mean, but even that's not a guarantee.

 

[Qyöt27]

Also, I've said this in other threads before too, but this is why the Emerging/Emergent Church phenomenon seems to be demonized so much by Fundamentalist churches, but Mainline groups look at them and don't see anything all that controversial: because it's Evangelicals that are undergoing Mainline-ization, but they don't have the historical grounding to be as internally consistent with their theology as the Mainline denoms are.

I'd argue that the Evangelical groups which might be conventionally nigh-Fundamentalist in theology but can't morally support the Religious Right and instead support Progressivism are the boundary group here, and probably also do harbor more permissive and gracious theological positions that would make them anathema to their home churches if those positions were made known. And when or if they start to express those leanings, they'd start being classified closer to the Emerging or Mainline part of the spectrum.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Also, I've said this in other threads before too, but this is why the Emerging/Emergent Church phenomenon seems to be demonized so much by Fundamentalist churches, but Mainline groups look at them and don't see anything all that controversial: because it's Evangelicals that are undergoing Mainline-ization, but they don't have the historical grounding to be as internally consistent with their theology as the Mainline denoms are.

I'd argue that the Evangelical groups which might be conventionally nigh-Fundamentalist in theology but can't morally support the Religious Right and instead support Progressivism are the boundary group here, and probably also do harbor more permissive and gracious theological positions that would make them anathema to their home churches if those positions were made known. And when or if they start to express those leanings, they'd start being classified closer to the Emerging or Mainline part of the spectrum.

Great perspective.

It's definitely nuanced. I don't think an Evangelical needs to be Conservative or Progressive. In fact, many conservative evangelicals are rejecting the religious right; as it teeters more and more to the right and becomes more and more of a social/political conservative wing than a religious conservative wing. We're seeing this with some of the current politicians, for example, really pushing the boundaries of conservatives and really encroaching towards extreme right totalitarianism and authoritarian fascism which is making many conservative Evangelicals, who are still conservative Evangelicals and in no danger of being called "progressive", rejecting the religious right. The religious right has been hijacked for political gain and I think folks are beginning to realize that.

Which all the more makes for an interesting discussion when we hear newscasters say "Evangelical Christians" because I just don't think we can pin down WHO an Evangelical is anymore.

 

[Albion]

A discussion topic brought up by a friend of mine. They felt like the word "Evangelical" had been highjacked by the media and used to apply exclusively to the political Christian right.

I'd say it's more that they've hijacked the word and applied it to Pentecostal Christianity and churches close to it in worship style.

I also "googled" the definition of Fundamentalist and while most tend to stick with the historic context of far-right churches

That's not the historic definition.

the most agreed upon definition was, not surprisingly, a trans-denominational belief system that there are certain irreducible and irrefutable beliefs. Now, okay, I'll grant that I don't like such strong language because I think we're always learning but indeed I have fundamental beliefs that I don't see ever changing, and that I consider essential to my own Christian faith. For example, the above mentioned "Evangelical" belief that my salvation comes through atonement with Christ Jesus. So, I'm not a fundamentalist; but in a way, couldn't I be?

Of course. It depends mainly on whether or not you agree that the particular doctrines identified by the Fundamentalist movement are ones you'd agree with.

 

[Dave-W]

'Evangelical' often suffers from the same problem as 'Catholic/catholic', in that it's a legitimate and historical term referring to evangelism, or in more modern contexts, to a religious movement that shares basically the same theological points as Fundamentalists, but who opposed fundamentalism's strident forms of isolation (which makes sense; to be effective at evangelizing would mean not to isolate oneself; how well they actually achieve this lack of isolation can be somewhat debatable, though, seeing as how they pretty much created the 'bubble subculture').

Indeed. I find the rant against "evangelicals" from the Fundy camp to be sadly amusing.

They define evangelicalism as a light version of fundamentalism, but then condemn it for that - and specifically evangelicalism's inclusiveness. That violates the fundy principle of "separation;" which means not fellowshipping with "so-called believers who are in sin."

So anyone who is not as radical as they are get defined as "in sin." One article described Jerry Falwell as a "Bapti-Catholic." (and it was a given that "Catholic" means the great W**** of Babylon)

 

[Kersh]

The difficulty I see with the word, "evangelical" is that it has come to mean different things to different people. In political speak, it seems to be a synonym for "conservative Christian". In some church circles it seems to refer to a worship style or attitude toward conversion (e.g., seeker-sensitive or "born again"). I tend to see it as referring to an emphasis, more than on a core belief. For example, I think of evangelicalism as that branch of Christianity that emphasizes a person conversion experience. Other Christians might focus on sanctification or Christian perfection (i.e., the holiness movement), and others might focus on maintaining a certain formality to worship (e.g., most "mainline" denominations, RCC, and their adherence to liturgy). While others might focus on maintaining accessibility to worship (e.g., "contemporary worship", seeker sensitive, emerging, etc.)

I think that the important thing to remember is that we each have something to contribute to the body of Christ, so long as we are not sacrificing truth or love in order to accommodate our preferred style of church. The more I grow, the more I find myself drawn to certain aspects of evangelical, holiness, mainline, and even charismatic traditions, as I believe each of these have something meaningful to teach the body as a whole.

 

[Albion]

The difficulty I see with the word, "evangelical" is that it has come to mean different things to different people. In political speak, it seems to be a synonym for "conservative Christian". .

FWIW, I don't think that's quite it. It's more that Republicans relate to Evangelicals and court them. Evangelicals could, and in many cases, do vote Democrat, in which case the media takes note of it; but the party isn't especially interested in making a play for those votes and can't very well do so anyhow, since it's firmly committed to same-sex marriage, abortion rights, etc.

 

[circuitrider]

Some of the confusion also is that "fundamentalist" has come to be taken as a negative term so some folks who previously might have used fundamentalist as a badge of courage now prefer "evangelical" to avoid the negative stereotype. Some more liberal Christians prefer "progressive" rather than being called liberal.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Some of the confusion also is that "fundamentalist" has come to be taken as a negative term so some folks who previously might have used fundamentalist as a badge of courage now prefer "evangelical" to avoid the negative stereotype. Some more liberal Christians prefer "progressive" rather than being called liberal.

That's probably reasonable. Though I do have a couple progressive friends who like to be called Evangelicals and think the term is misused. i.e., they don't see "evangelical" as having a connotation to being liberal or conservative but, a belief in salvation through Jesus Christ and the need to spread that gospel. They see it as a way to distinguish themselves from other liberals who are universalists (not to be confused with inclusionism) or who ever have a faith approach that suggests NOT evangelizing. A colleague once told me she didn't think it was morally right to evangelize because people should make their own faith choices. She was certainly 'universalist'. So I can see that, since that probably fits me a bit. I share the Gospel, I preach it, and I believe Jesus Christ offers us atonement for sin. What I often say (on the inclusion front) is that I don't know what God has in store for people of different faiths; and I'm quite sure God's Grace is extended to them in every moment because God's Grace is prevenient. But I AM confident in salvation through Jesus Christ; so that's what I'll share. So I guess I could understand how I, personally, could be a "Progressive Evangelical".

It's all labels though; and it can get silly!

 

[circuitrider]

Well the UMC isn't allowed to be a part of the National Association of Evangelicals because you can't be a member of the National Council of Church or the World Council of Churches and be a member of the NAE. So apparently for some there are ecumenical constraints to being evangelical beyond what I think RomansFiveEight means.

That's part of why I say it has become for many a synonym for fundamentalist.