Serious question about the use of the word "fundie"

[Frogtutor]

I've noticed lately that the term "fundie" may be offending some of my fellow Christians. I am a Christian, but I'm also guilty of using this term a couple of times in the past.

I have used it to refer to one of my sisters-in-law who is an over-the-top, narrow-minded, judgmental, hypocritical, right-wing, fanatical zealot. That sounds really bad; I do love her very much, but she is quite messed up in the head.

Frankly, this is the exact type of person I thought the term "fundie" was supposed to refer to, so anyone who may have been offended, please forgive my ignorance.

I'm not a fan of labels, but they are sometimes a necessary evil in keeping communication manageable. I certainly do not want to offend anyone, so my question is this: What is an acceptable term to use when referring to these type of people?

[Cheswick2.0]

1. I prefer radical religious right

I know it is a bear to type out, but not all fundamentalists are right wing. In addition they do have a right to their religious beliefs. Radical religious right or perhaps dominionists would be a better lable.

[Maat]

2. I agree with Chelswick2.0.

I'm sticking with Religious Right, or Radical Religious Right, or RRE's (Religious Right Extremists). That's the way Americans United for Separation of Church and State veers.

Would someone enlighten me? Because of you guys, I, of course, know that there are liberal Christians. And, thinking of Jim Wallis of Sojo.net, I know that there are evangelicals who are not RRE-ers. What I am not understanding is how a FUNDAMENTALIST will not end up being a hard-righter. I could use some enlightenment there.

We could call them PARRs (Polical Action Religious Righters). Just brainstorming.

[Cheswick2.0]

5. think of a Venn diagram

with a LOT of interlocking circles. You can believe in the fundamentals (first meant getting back to basics) without being a literalist. Remember that Clinton, Gore, Carter and AL Sharpton all belong/belonged to denominations considered fundamentalist. Being liturgically conservative doesn't necessarily mean being politically conservative. For instance you might believe that "Thou shall not Kill" means no death penalty and no war. Al Gore says that his Baptist upbrining was heavy on being a good Steward of the earth God has given us. He credits those teachings for his environmental interests.

[Maat]

6. Thanks for that. I think I can conceptualize it better now.

Especially thinking of Al Gore - I think that he's cool - voted for him in 2000.

So, referring to the 'bad guys' as the Religious Right is O.K.? And by bad guys, I mean Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and Dobson. They are really evil politicos, who want to push for a really restrictive society, and they love keeping their base worked up about reproductive and GLBT rights as well as women's rights, so that they can keep the money flowing in .. to their alleged ministries.

I support my progressive/liberal Christian friends to the max. On the other side of the spectrum ... are these guys ... who are just exploitive and controlling.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I admit to using fundagelical. Also use conservative or RW Christian

[AngryOldDem]

4. I like conservative Christian as well

"Fundie" has become a rather perjorative term -- I believe one can have a Fundamentalist belief yet not be as far to the right as what the term implies.

[realisticphish]

7. i have no problem with "fundie"

they are, after all, extreme fundamentalists. and i refuse to call those people christian, in any way


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Frogtutor]

8. Yeah, I don't like calling some of them Christians either...

Not to be judgmental, but many of them don't ACT like what I think true Christians should; after all, their behavior is what gives Christianity a bad name in many people's views.

So, whatever term I decide to use will probably not include "Christian"...

Besides, it also happens to be my son's name :)

[Frogtutor]

9. Thanks everyone for your input;

I'm leaning toward Cheswick's "Radical Religious Right", but I might just make up my own name...that way I can define it however I want! No ideas come to me at the moment, though. I don't want to use the word "Christian", though (see my reply to realisticphish for my reasons). I guess for now I can use "RRR", or "Triple R".

Thanks again!

(Hmmm, "Radirightious"?)

[pelagius]

10. The precise definition of "fundamentalist" is...

...someone who believes the plenary inspiration of the Bible, its inerrancy in all matters of faith, history, and science in the original manuscripts, and in its literal interpretation. ("Plenary" inspiration means that God essentially whispered the text into the scribes ear and he wrote it down.)

The fundamentalist movement was an early 20th century reaction to new methods of Bible scholarship that applied form criticism and other analytic techiques to the Bible that took into account its human authorship. It is also a reaction to the ideas of Darwin and other scientists that seemed to remove the Divine Hand from accounts of the world's origin and development.

Fundamentalists are a sub-set of Protestants called "evangelicals" who believe in a direct personal relationship with God unmediated by any church or sacrament. They are particularly keen on sudden conversion, often noting the exact day, moment, and place they "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior" in any exchange of bona fides.

American evangelicals draw from the strong individualism of general American culture and place great emphasis on one's personal piety and personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. They believe God acts in their life directly on a daily basis and pray to him for guidance on very specific topics. For example, a mainline Christian might ask in a morning prayer that God guide him and give him the courage and compassion to pursue whatever opportunity for service might come his way, while the evangelical Christian might ask God what clothes he should wear today.

(I'm being a bit unfair, since I'm one of those mainline or liberal Christians, but I do feel the evangelicals are quite hung up on ME ME ME and GOD ME ME ME ME and GOD.)

[Selwynn]

12. That is not the precise defintiion of fundamentalism

That is the precise definition of christian fundamentalism.

[pelagius]

13. Right! Good catch! n/t

[regnaD kciN]

31. Yes, but the word "fundamentalism" derived from the Christian variety...

Seriously, although most people equate "fundamentalism" with religious belief -- of any creed -- pushed to the level of zealotry, the term originally came from those evangelical Christians who subscribed to the tenets of a series of early-20th century pamphlets titled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth." (Yep, that's right, that "ol' time religion" has really only been around for less than a hundred years!) Although I don't have a copy of those pamphlets at hand, their statement of belief, as I recall it, included:

-- the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible,

-- the propitiatory atonement of Christ (i.e., Jesus as needing to suffer and die so that God the Father would stop hating humankind -- just like Mel Gibson has stated),

-- a literal "last judgement," and

-- an eternal state of bliss in heaven or torment in hell.

(Note that there were other points as well, but these are the most important ones.)

While "fundamentalism" as a popular concept has broadened beyond the pamphlet's definition, I have found that, if you look hard enough at the major "non-denominational denominations" ;-) and other such organizations of evangelical protestant Christianity, you will often find a "statement of belief" that either quotes large sections of the creed of "The Fundamentals," or adopts the whole thing.

[Cheswick2.0]

16. Where did you get this interpretation?

I don't think it is accurate. One can be an evangelical and be quite liberal. Al Sharpton belongs to a denomination which is very evangelical (the Pentacostals) and he is no conservative, nor a literalist either. One can be a fundamentalist and not a literalist.

[realisticphish]

19. all evangelical means

is spreading the Word. that's all, though some have interpreted it differently


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[pelagius]

21. Jim Wallis of Sojourners (www.sojo.net) is another example

...also fits in the "evangelical and liberal" category.

I think my post was confusing, because I used "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" interchangeably toward the end. That is not correct. However, I disagree very strongly that one can be a "fundamentalist" and not be a Biblical literalist. It's a key points of definition. I'll grant that there may be some wiggle room on what "Biblical literalism" means.

Pentecostals are often derided by fundamentalists (and others with strongly developed systems of theology) as being purely experiential and rather weak in their theology.

So, yes, one can be a fundamentalist, evangelical Pentecostal, but the three sets do not always intersect.

What I was trying to do was clearly define "fundamentalism" as -- by its very nature -- reactionary. Its basic premise is to be against something (modernism). Evangelicals vary.

I also should have been more gracious and just skipped my last little dig. But I do despair of that American form of Christianity that seems the self at the center of all things, even in relationship to the Divine.

[Selwynn]

11. "religious fundamentalist" has a very clear and specific meaning

I don't like using the slang term "fundie" because it does seem derogatory to me, and connotes a certain level of disdain and loathing that I don't desire to reflect.

However, the term "religious fundamentalist" has a real and clear meaning, and I don't feel it is inappropriate to use that term in the right context. Religious fundamentalism however has to do with adhering non-negotiably to dogmatic religious absolutes. In the Christian context, this means primarily things like Biblical literalism.

So I don't really have a problem referring to "religious fundamentalists" even in a political context, because they are the ones merging their spiritual dogmas with the political arena.

[Frogtutor]

14. Well, this raises other questions in my mind...

I do kind of want whatever word I use to describe someone like my sister-in-law (see my original post) to have a negative connotation, so that in conversation, people will know that I disagree strongly with this kind of extremist behavior/belief system. I don't know if that makes sense or not; I'm probably digging myself into a hole! Honestly, I don't go around calling people names; I just was curious about something to use when referring to that kind of person. The only place I can think of that I would use such a term would be here at DU, like when using my sister-in-law as an outrageous example of the "religious right" (which I've done more than once; she's such an easy target!).

While I certainly don't agree with Biblical literalism, is it always considered wrong from a liberal standpoint? It seems to me like it would be, but I could be wrong.

I guess I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate here (lol) I truly respect every individual's right to believe what they want, I only have a problem when, as you said, they start "merging their spiritual dogmas with the political arena", or shoving their values down my throat. So, what does one call this kind of person when gossiping about them to others? ;)

[Cheswick2.0]

18. well then just call her part of the religious right

if that helps. We all know what that means, it means she is one who thinks this is a Christian nation and the rest of us should be converted, hate abortion rights and love Bush. But fundamentalist really doesn't apply as some are definately NOT a part of the religious right. Besides I don't really think it is a very good idea to criticize people for the religious beliefs and decided that those beliefs make them conform to any one political group. What do I care if someone believes in the Rapture?

[Cheswick2.0]

17. akkkkkkkkkk... selwyn, not true

Not all fundamentalists are literalists, though many tend to be. Carter, Clinton and Gore are all baptists, which is a part of the fundamentalist movement and non of them are literalists, nor conservatives. Watch out for the boxes.

[pelagius]

22. I disagree that "fundamentalists" are not literalists...

Please see my above post for details. But I'll admit that I'm using the sort of definition that might be taught in a seminary class, rather than the common usage of the term.

[regnaD kciN]

32. Baptists are NOT "part of the fundamentalist movement"...

...although the leadership of the SBC has been pretty much taken over by conservatives over the past three decades.

In fact, as I pointed out earlier, "fundamentalism" is less than a hundred years old, and based on a "creed" expounded in pamphlets titled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth." American Baptists of all divisions derive from the Anabaptist movement of several centuries earlier, and eschew any formal creed, even that found in "The Fundamentals."

Those who subscribe to "The Fundamentals" (fundamentalists) by definition have to be Biblical literalists, since that is the first plank in the fundamentalist creed.

[realisticphish]

20. on the other hand

we call republicans "repukes" and "rethugs", etc, but there are certainly nice people i know who are republicans, who are just a little misguided. in that situation, we call them by derogatory names because we are in a casual environment, and have a common "enemy." just something to think about :shrug:


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Frogtutor]

24. Exactly what I was trying to say, but you did it so much better!

I guess that's why I used the word "fundie" a couple of times; I felt comfortable saying it here, thinking they are a common enemy. However, I saw a few people objecting to the word in various posts, so that's what prompted my original post here. I think people are defining and using the term "fundamental" in several different ways, and that's why some people are offended. I was using it to refer to the radical religious right, but perhaps some non-Christians were using it to refer to ALL Christians, or who knows? But I figure if it offends any Christians who frequent DU, I won't use it anymore.

:)

[Maat]

29. I'm sticking with your term, 'the radical religious right'

that way I don't offend any progressive person of faith, or person of a progressive faith, or open-minded progressive, or atheist DUer.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Read Borg's "The Heart of Christianity" He has some thoughts on this.

---------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/liberalchristians.htm

[pelagius]

23. I've recommended that book...

...to at least four people in the last week alone. Well worth investigating.

It's interesting, Christianity gets studied as a cultural and political force, but -- in the West at least -- rarely as a religion. It's a tall order to strip Christianity from its history as the dominant force in Western society for at least 1500 years, but it can be interesting to look at it, as Borg does, from the perspective a typical Westerner might look at Buddhism or Hinduism.

[Frogtutor]

25. I'm definitely going to read this;

and then lend it to my sister-in-law if I think it might help her. I'm assuming it takes a liberal view of Christianity since I've seen it mentioned here on DU so often?

[pelagius]

26. Yes -- but I think of it as beyond "liberal" or "conservative" n/t

[Telly Savalas]

28. Borg uses the terms "earlier" and "emerging" Christianity...

[AlabamaYankee]

27. I like to use the term "Rigorist"

It's helpful to me as a descriptor for a person or group that is nominally Christian, but relies primarily on strict adherence to a set of beliefs for justification, rather than faith and grace. I adopted the term form Jonathan Kirsch's book, "God Against the Gods" which describes the triumph of Christian monotheism over polytheism (he's on the side of the polytheists".

It's this rigorist mindset that is so apparent in the politicized "Christian" right wing, i.e., Dobson, Wildmon, Robertson and that ilk.

There are probably millions of deeply pious and non-political fundamentalists of all faiths, who simply want to live their lives quietly and go to heaven. They don't deserve pejorative titles or scorn. Those should be reserved for the rabid rigorists who insist on imposing their particular controls on the rest of us.

I strongly recommend Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God" as an excellent history of the Fundamentalist movement in Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

[Sgent]

30. Keep in mind

That even though Gore, Clinton, Carter are Baptist, they may not represent the Baptist's.

To be a member congregation of the major Baptist organization in the US, one of the articles of faith is that the congregation believes in biblical literalism.

Obviously, every individual is different, but the Baptist denomination is fundamentalist in every since of the word. Certain individual members may not be, or may not agree with all aspects of their faith.

[regnaD kciN]

33. Also, keep in mind that there are many different Baptist denominations...

Although the Southern Baptists (founded during the Civil War) are the largest, there are other Baptist denominations like the American Baptists who are evangelical protestant but not conservative at all. Up here in Seattle, the ABs were known from the 60s through the 80s for opposition to U.S. policies in Vietnam and Central America (one of them offered sanctuary to any refugee fleeing pro-U.S. countries like El Salvador and Guatamala). First Baptist in Seattle is an openly "tolerant and inclusive" congregation.