Talk:Christian fundamentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Theology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Fundamentalist Christianity[edit]

The name of this ought to be Fundamentalist Protestantism because it excludes examples of fundamentalism in non-Protestant groups such as Roman Catholicism or Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy.

Uggh. This article is all wrong for including Roman Catholicism. You can have another article about movements with the Catholic faith that are reactionary, traditionalist, etc. But the term 'fundamentalism' is a clearly Protestant movement that focuses on the fundamentals of the faith. This article needs to be redone. Too bad... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.69.226 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

--96.227.235.245 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any specific examples of "fundamentalist" groups within Roman-Catholicism or other Orthodoxy? Jwesley78 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Opus Dei perhaps? And I'm not simply talking about the anti-Christian/Catholic depictions as in certain recent novels. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
My impression has been that within Christianity, at least in the USA, the word "fundamentalism" generally refers to extremist, Biblical-literalist Protestantism. While there are certainly extremist attitudes and movements in, for example, Roman Catholicism, they tend to focus on absolutist acceptance of the teachings of the Roman Church rather than the text of the Bible, and in my experience they are usually not described as "fundamentalist." (I'd never heard of "fundamentalist Catholicism" until I read this article.)
"Fundamentalist Islam," on the other hand, is a commonly used term referring to extremist, militant Islam, although I don't know if there is a more specific definition, whether it is specific to Sunni or Shia Islam or whether either one can be "fundamentalist," etc. My impression has been that following the 2001 terrorist attacks, when "Islamic fundamentalism" started to be discussed a lot more in the US mainstream media (often in association with terrorist groups), it started becoming politically incorrect to use this word to describe Christians. Around this time I noticed that Christians who had formerly been happy to describe themselves as fundamentalist suddenly seemed to start calling themselves "evangelical" instead (during the 16th century, "evangelical" was synonymous with "Protestant" or "Lutheran," although it's mutated quite a bit since then), and it seemed like the mainstream media stopped calling militant Protestants "fundamentalist," too, likewise substituting the term "evangelical." Mia229 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fundamentalist = Extremist?[edit]

Without proper citation, I feel the following sentence should be removed form the opening section: "Some left-leaning and centrist Christians since the turn of the twentieth century have taken to the use of the word 'extremist' instead, feeling that use of 'fundamentalism' provides the views of such groups with an authority they do not deserve."

The fundamentalists beliefs are held by many mainstream protestant denominations (e.g., Southern Baptists, most Pentecostals, most Methodists, most Presbyterians), and many of these are even shared with the Catholic church. To say that other (even "centrist") Christians refer to fundamentalists as "extremists" seems unlikely. Furthermore, I see no reason for the term "fundamentalist" to imply that they have more "authority", but merely that they have a stricter set of beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 (talkcontribs) 03:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the sentence from the article. If you disagree, please add your thoughts here. Jwesley78 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the opening paragraph of this article uses the word 'militant' too freely. It almost implies that there will be a large section of "people destroyed this and killed this in the name of...", however there is no such section. I personally group the words militant and extremist together, so if references to extremism were removed, what do you think about removing references to 'militant'? It implies a sort of violence associated with Fundamental Christianity, which this article does not portray. MattFromOntario (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

militant = violent??? not in ordinary English usage. It means intense devotion to a cause, and an eagerness to pick intellectual fights (not fist fights) [see the long Marsden quote at the end of this page] Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I do stand corrected, and I am happy that someone has since rearranged this article and included the quote. MattFromOntario (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The words evangelical should not be associated with Fundamentalism at all, Evangelical movement belongs in a differant category in and of itself!it should also be noted that there are multiple organizations that have been formed to represent Fundamentalist most of these are associated with the Baptist. as a Fundamentalist I know of no other groups in this era that call themselves Fundamentalist! in the early development of fundamentalism there were many groups that made an impact on the Fundamental movement such as R.A.Torrey,H.A.Ironsides,Johnathan Edwards,John Rice, and there were also the puritan authors who had some influence. In europe there was Charles Spurgeon and I almost forgot Charles Finney! One of the Biggest contentions with the fundamentalist were with the Roman Catholics and they shouldn't be included at all when discussing the beginings of fundamentalist! the Roman catholics teamed up with the evangelicals in the early seveties but have no place in Fundamentalism at all! (Oddtodd40) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddtodd40 (talkcontribs) 02:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above about other uses the term "evangelical" has had (historically) and may have acquired (recently — the latter is just my opinion, mind you, but FWIW, I'm not the only one to have observed this trend). The Evangelical movement that Oddtodd40 describes does sort of have some things in common with fundamentalism but is less extreme. (The word "evangelical" derives from a Latinised form of the Greek word for "gospel" (Greek _eu_ "good" + _angelion_ "message; news" = Old English _gōdspel_ (_gōd_ "good" + _spel_ "news; story") > Modern English "gospel"), and was intended as a reference to the emphasis on Scriptural authority in proto-Protestantism early Protestantism (the teachings of Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, et al.) and in the more recent Evangelical movement.) The way that some fundamentalists seem to have shifted to calling themselves "evangelical" (presumably in an effort to make themselves appear more moderate and perhaps disassociate themselves from fundamentalist Islam, which I would say is strongly associated with terrorism in the minds of many Americans) may be causing some confusion about this.
I take issue with the claim that many, let alone most, mainline Protestants have fundamentalist beliefs. (Read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me.) It's true that *some* mainline Protestants (a term that refers to certain "classic" Protestant churches in the US and Canada — Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, American (Northern) Baptist, Congregationalist, and Disciples of Christ. Most of these were strongly influenced by the Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist (Reformed/Presbyterian), and Wesleyan (Methodist) movements (the Disciples of Christ arose from an early 19th-century movement that was characterised mainly by an effort to renounce specific denominational beliefs and practises and become "pure" Christians). (I'm not positive about the Moravian Church, which originated with the Czech Hussite church, although Hus's teachings were similar to, and perhaps largely based upon, those of Wycliffe, another Mediaeval theologian considered one of the fathers of the Protestant Reformation. I would guess that it is, since the Moravian Church in the USA is in full communion with the Episcopal Church.) Some members of these denominations share some beliefs with fundamentalists, and some churches within mainline denominations could be considered evangelical, but mainline denominations are not accurately described as "fundamentalist." Whether Southern Baptists count as "mainline" is rather dubious (the sources cited in the above-linked Wikipedia article don't seem to think so). The Methodist and Presbyterian denominations are both more moderate, although they both include some Evangelical (*not* fundamentalist) churches; Pentecostalism is not considered "mainline;" and Mormonism is not even Protestant ("mainline" churches are by definition Protestant).
Regarding the idea that "fundamentalist" equates to "authoritative" — I'm not sure, but I think that may have been the original idea behind the coining of the term "fundamentalist:" fundamentalists wanted to paint themselves as basing their beliefs solely on Scripture, which for them is the highest authority. (Of course, most of them don't know a word of Greek, let alone Hebrew, so they're basing their "literal interpretation" of the Bible on translations, often not even the most authoritative of translations! Ironically, the "King James only" movement was started by fundamentalists and is still fundamentalist-dominated, even though the early-17th century KJV — which is widely considered by Biblical scholars familiar with the ancient languages of the original texts of Scripture to be more poetic than accurate in its translation — was commissioned by the head of the decidedly non-fundamentalist Church of England, King James I of England and VI of Scotland. The translators — all Anglican clergy — were directed by the King to ensure that the new translation be consistent with Anglican theology.) Mia229 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ecumenical analysis of the fundamentals[edit]

Instead of asking whether fundamentalists are necessarily anti-Catholic, a good idea would be to analyze whether the fundamentalist doctrines are in any way shared by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Many of their beliefs are similar or comparable, while others are not. ADM (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Virgin birth : yes. The council of Ephesus authoritatively handed down this Gospel teaching. Catholics also believe in the Immaculate-Conception, which is a step further than the fundamentals.
  • Inerrancy of Scripture : yes. It is affirmed at the Second Vatican Council's declaration Dei Verbum.
  • Deity of Jesus : yes. This is a normative teaching of the ecumenical council of Nicea.
  • Subsitutionary atonment : yes. It was originally a Catholic doctrine that was borrowed by Calvinists during the Reformation.
  • Authenticity of miracles : yes. This is also affirmed by the document Dei Verbum.
  • Bodily resurrection of Jesus : yes. This was notably affirmed by Catholic bishop Ignatius of Antioch against proponents of docetism.
  • Pre-millenial Second Coming : no. The Church teaches amillenialism, a doctrine opposed to early beliefs on chiliasm, and so its beliefs about the Second Coming are not the same as most fundamentalists.
  • Sola scriptura : no. This view is not shared, since Catholic teaching holds that the Word of God and the Body of Christ are closely related.

___________________

First of all, could you sign your post? It would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Now, on to the actual topic...it's true that many of the beliefs of fundamentalists (sensu stricto) are also contained in Roman Catholic teaching (I'm not as familiar with Orthodox Christianity, e.g., so I'm going to stick to RC vs. fundamentalist). However, until relatively recently, anti-Catholic sentiments were very common among American Protestants, including fundamentalists. (General attitudes — even if held by clergy as well as laity — are distinct from *teachings*, of course, but this is a significant element that has separated the fundamentalist movement from strict RCism despite many similarities in their teachings.) When JFK was running for President, he managed to answer to the satisfaction of the American Protestant majority the question that kept coming up about whether, if faced with a conflict between the laws or best interests of the United States and a demand by the Vatican (a foreign government). A lot of American Protestants had viewed Roman Catholics as being unable to perform the duties of the President of the USA (and possibly other political or judicial offices) due to a perceived conflict of interest.
You noted the contrast concerning _sola scriptura_ ("Scripture alone" — i.e., all relevant teachings supposedly contained within the Bible), but you didn't note the various other "solas" which are common elements in the teachings of most Protestant denominations (if sometimes not interpreted in exactly the same way), presumably including fundamentalist ones.
  • _sola fide_, "faith alone" — justification (I've never been clear on precisely what this means in Christian jargon) by faith alone, in contrast to good works (charitable deeds & stuff like that)
  • _sola Christus_, "Christ alone" — Christ as sole mediator between God and his people (this refers to a few things, notably that neither the clergy nor the Saints can act as mediators)
  • _sola gratia_, "grace alone" — salvation is a gift from God, not dependent on the individual's merits but only on God's free grace
  • _soli Deo gloria_, "glory to God alone" ̄ — only God himself is worthy of glory (not human beings, such as the church hierarchy (including the Popes) or the Saints)
(The Wikipedia article on Protestantism goes into these in more depth, IIRC.)
Also, anyone know whether fundamentalists (sensu stricto) have a single consistent view on transubstantiation?

Mia229 (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Higher Criticism[edit]

To expand the Higher Criticism topic. American Bible Students were reacting to the aggressive and often poorly researched revisionist statements and claims being made by Higher Critics. Modern American Skeptics often raise well thought out objections to what they see as fabrication or fantasy in religion. The Higher critics of the 19th century were presenting a case as ridiculous as the Scopes Monkey Trial Case. The challenge to modern Fundamentalism is to address the New School of Skeptics who are far more challenging than the limp 19th centuary revisionist 'scholars'.Johnwrd (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Got a source we can use? Bowler suggests it was more to do with Modernists accepting progressive ideas, which the fundamentalists found problematic in relation to original sin. . dave souza, talk 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

it should be noted that while catholics believe some of the same things they use a differant Bible version. in modern fundamentalism the king james is the only excepted Bible, It should be further noted that in the earlier years of this movement there were only two Bibles considered useful the King James and the revised standard which was abandoned when they discovered the many errors in the revised standard (Oddtodd40) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddtodd40 (talkcontribs) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What Is the Heritage Movement?[edit]

Under the Section "Breakup", the following reference is made: "Many groupings, large and small, were produced by this schism. Neo-evangelicalism, Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalism, the Heritage movement, and Paleo-Orthodoxy have all developed distinct identities"

Just what is the Heritage Movement?

I find nothing describing it in terms of religion in general or fundamentalism in particular. From what I find it refers to the movement in England to preserve old buildings. The other terms all have researchable definitions, not so for Heritage Movement LAWinans (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Is this article meaningless?[edit]

In Feb 2008, Soxwon wrote "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."

That is still true. The problem is that with the best will in the world, it is probably not possible to write a decent article on the subject, because the word "fundamentalist" is virtually meaningless. Or, to be precise, it has several different definitions, and these vary according to time (the word is no longer used in the same way that it was used in the early 20th century), with place (the American usage is not quite the same as the British usage), and according to the circles one moves in (different groups of people use the word in different ways.) Hence I believe that to have an article which describes something called "Fundamentalist Christianity" and tries to chart its history and development is simply not possible. It may, however, be possible to have an article on the different ways in which the word is defined and understood. Wildernessman (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

the solution perhaps is to closely follow the major scholarly studies -- the reliable sources such as books by Marsden, Sandeen, and Balmer. I have tried to do this add have also added information based on the scholarly journals. They all agree that fundamentalism is especially characterized by aggressive attacks on liberal modernism. Rjensen (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen. The study of fundamentalist Christianity is a perfectly legitimate academic enterprise. Though there may be both broad and narrow ways of understanding the phenomenon, there are Wikipedia articles to cover the spectrum: one on Religious Fundamentalism in general, and individual articles on, e.g., various religious bodies that are part of the American fundamentalist movement. Studies like Martin Marty's (1987-1995) Fundamentalism Project at the University of Chicago would be good examples of thinking about the broader religious phenomenon, and George Marsden's work is an excellent example of the historical examination of the movement's origins and development within the U.S.134.2.162.84 (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

removed non-sourced material[edit]

A whole section that has been challenged since 2007 and still was never sourced was deleted. There was plenty of forewarning. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentalism and evangelicals[edit]

The RS (eg Marsden, Baumer, Queen) agree that fundamentalism and evangelicalism are overlapping categories. for example the Southern Baptist denomination is both fundamentalist and evangelical. The distinction is one of style, with the more aggressive anti-liberal evangelicals called fundamentalists. Rjensen (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they are overlapping, per certain meanings of the terms, but even if we consider one a subset of the other, the langage I removed is misleading at best. The distinction is not just one of style. While I do not dispute that historians are RSs, the historian's meaning of "fundamentalism" is not the same as other meanings of "fundamentalism"-- and the historian's meaning of "fundamentalism" is a poor choice to treat as the main or only meaning in a Wikipedia article.
If you think such other ideas are able to be sorced, then sorce them. For example, the"Southern Baptist denomination" is not even unified under one theology or catagory. Each local church sets its own theology and practises. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Per "keep quote from Marsden"-- if any of the text is a quoted from from Marsden then it needs quotations marks around it. Without quotations marks it is (i) plagerism, (ii) needlessly difficult for other editors to further edit, and (iii) should be removed anyway as plagerism. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
good point about using quotation marks and I will add them. Marsden actually says about fundamentalism, :
Briefly it was militantly anti-modernists Protestant evangelicalism. Fundamentalists were evangelical Christians, close to the traditions of the dominant American revivalist establishment of the 19th century, who in the 20th-century militantly oppose both modernism in theology and the cultural cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off the fundamentalism from a number of closely related traditions, such as evangelicalism, revivalism, Pietism, the Holiness movement, millenarianism, Reformed confessionalism, The Baptist traditionalism, and other denomination orthodoxies. Fundamentalism was a "movement" in the sense of a tendency or development in Christian thought that gradually took on its own identity as a patchwork coalition of representatives of other movements. Although it developed a distinct life, identity, and eventually a subculture of its own, it never existed wholly independently of the older movements from which it grew. Fundamentalism was a loose, diverse, and changing federation of cool belligerents united by their fierce opposition of modernist attempts to bring Christianity into line with modern thought. [George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture 1980 p 4 Rjensen (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fundamentals and Genesis[edit]

That the early Fundamenatlists were not literalists in their interpretation of Genesis 1 is clear from James Orr's article on this subject. Please correct the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.70.141 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orr writes in 1917: "In conclusion, it is clear that the narratives of Creation, the Fall, the Flood, are not myths, but narratives enshrining the knowledge or memory of real transactions. The creation of the world was certainly not a myth, but a fact, and the representation of the stages of creation dealt likewise with facts. The language used was not that of modern science, but, under divine guidance, the sacred writer gives a broad, general picture which conveys a true idea of the order of the divine working in creation." that's literalism. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is too narrowly-based[edit]

I have added the 'globalize' template to the article, as it seems apparent that it presents a narrow U.S.-based perspective on its supposed subject. Can I suggest that either it be revised to discuss Christian fundamentalism in a broader context, or that the title be revised to more accurately reflect the topic as discussed: "Fundamentalist Christianity in the United States" - the short section on Canada looks like an afterthought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This article does not need to be "globalized". It happens to be about a specific historical religious movement that occurred in the US. I suggest that AndyTheGrump go "globalize" the article about "Cats" by adding more info about "Dogs" to it; that way it won't have a "narrow cat-based perspective on its supposed subject". --Kenatipo speak! 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion would be relevant if cats was called "Cats and dogs". It isn't, so it isn't. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Erik, are you following the discussions about the Oslo shooter? People keep trying to link "Christian fundamentalism" in those articles to this article about US Fundamentalism, and I'm objecting because it clearly does not apply. Andy is trying to make the link valid by claiming this article is too narrow. I say BS! --Kenatipo speak! 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the root of the problem here is that people like to use the word "fundamentalist" to mean "whacko/pathological". This article is not about "Christian terrorists". There may be a debate to be had here about wp:PRIMARYTOPIC, but care needs to be made to clear up the confusion caused by loosely using this term. RA says it well below. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions as to how you would "globalize" this article about Fundamentalism. --Kenatipo speak! 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Andy about a possible title change though. If people don't know the difference between Fundamentalism (an American phenomenon) and Christian fundamentalism (which apparently can happen in Norway), then there's a problem somewhere. (But the solution is not to "globalize" this US-related article). --Kenatipo speak! 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
"Fundamentalist Christianity in the United States" is too long, as I see it. How about "Fundamentalism in the United States" or "Fundamentalism (United States)"? A new article called "Christian fundamentalism" can detail all the global, pejorative and vague meanings in current usage by the lamestream media (i.e. Reliable Sources). It could feature quotations by the Oslo deputy police chief, since Wikipedia has made him an expert on the subject. --Kenatipo speak! 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, there are two scope issues here. 1) being the theological school based on the The Fundamentals or The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth and 2) then wider issue of religious fundamentalism in its Christian form. What we need to do here is separate the theological terminology i.e. school of christian thought on The Fundamentals and it current application to many schools of religious thought that protest Industrialization/Modernity/Globalization/Secularism. Bearing that history in mind how do we approach writing this topic in reference to scope? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy - you reverted my removal of the globalize tag. I think the opening few paragraphs make it pretty clear what the article is about. Can you suggest an improvement? I don't understand why you are reverting me here now that things have been explained here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have already said, either the article needs to be broader, or the title changed. As ResidentAnthropologist notes, the article is about a 'theological school', whereas someone coming to the article may well expect it to be about 'religious fundamentalism in its Christian form' - and treating it as a worldwide phenomenon, rather than the U.S.-centric viewpoint here. As it stands, the article seems to imply that 'religious fundamentalism in its Christian form' is only found amongst U.S. Protestants, whereas it is also evident amongst some Catholics, some Mormons (without going into the debate as to whether they are actually 'Christian' in the accepted sense), and no doubt elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The proper thing from my perspective would to have this orientated towards the school's theology (As it is currently written). The second thing to do would to be to rewrite the Religious Fundamentalism article an introduce spin-off articles out of that as appropriate. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Andy, feel free to open a move discussion; possibly suggest redirecting this to Fundamentalism with a hatnote there. This article, however, is about a specific topic, which is simply not the global idea that you want it to be. You have a case, certainly, that it should be moved. But your "globalize" effort is inappropriate, since the subject of the article is not global. Do you see the difference between a move discussion and what you are talking about? Do you agree that wp:RM is what you are really trying to do? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
As I have already said, renaming the article is an option. The other is to revise the article so as to include 'religious fundamentalism in its Christian form' more generally. I have no particular wish one way or the other - one could argue that the broader definition is best covered by the general Religious Fundamentalism article, and that this article, given a less ambiguous name, can perfectly well cover the narrow definition - so nothing else needs to be done (other than maybe a hatnote). This is probably the simplest solution. I should make it clear that I'm no expert on the subject, and only arrived at the article through questions raised regarding the Norway shootings (and again, I'm not stating that the term 'Christian fundamentalist' is particularly relevant there - only that it was uses as a descriptor). If the world at large is using terms like 'Christian fundamentalist', one might expect Wikipedia to either cover the topic in 'global' terms, or to at least guide the reader to the appropriate article. As it stands, we do neither. So yes, renaming seems the logical path to follow. Does anyone have a suggestion for a title which clarifies the situation?
I was going to suggest Christian Fundamentalism (Protestant movement), but that is probably suboptimal. I'm not even convinced it should be moved, though. I've added a hatnote to the article to address the confusion you note ("one might expect"). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
A redirect here to Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) with Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) and a link to Religious Fundamentalism would be ideal from my perspective. The spin-off from Religious Fundamentalism is just is not necessary at this point. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you think there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should probably live at Christian Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist Christianity—iow, without the "(disambiguation)". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally (disambiguation) solves the issue. There are two separate contexts for its use that are interrelated to a degree. The (disambiguation) option allows precision in finding the topic they are seeking. And yes those should redirect there as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we've made real progress here, guys. Thanks to everyone. --Kenatipo speak! 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Militant" - neutral point of view[edit]

I seriously disagree with how the article has been changed over the past year. In the lede, "fundamentalist" seems to be equated with "militantism". This is clearly pushing the point of view of George M. Marsden to the exclusion of other alternative (and less negative) views. Compare this to the lede from a year ago here, in which "fundamentalism" is described as referring to their "fundamental" beliefs, and "fundamentalists" identified themselves as such in opposition to "liberal theology". Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Marsden is the leading scholar and is cited in most of the RS. Justin W Smith needs to find RS that challenge Marsden on the "militant" theme-- does Justin W Smith suggest that Fundamentalists are quiet, passive non-militant folks when it comes to their religion?Rjensen (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be using a Fallacy of composition. Are some Fundamentalists militant? Yes. Are many "quiet, passive non-militant"? Yes. A common definition of militant is "involved in warfare". This simply does not apply. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've requested addition viewpoints on the discussion pages of the interested projects: here, here, and here. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does "militant" have to be in the first sentence of the lead section? It doesn't and to have that as the first descriptor of the article without context is irresponsible. Ltwin (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
One individual viewpoint should not compose the entire lead paragraph. It can go in Marsden's article, but not this. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Militantism is certainly one aspect of fundamentalism, but IMO the way it's being used here looks like POV-pushing. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph alone, the word or a variant of it is used 3 times:

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism, or Fundamentalism, is defined by historian George M. Marsden as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism." Marsden explains that fundamentalists were American evangelical Christians who in the 20th century "militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism."[1] The name is taken from the title of a series of essays published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University), The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.

The next paragraph includes the phrase "fighting style" but no explanation of what this is is offered. Some is giving undo weight here. Ltwin (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Same issue here is up for discussion in the above section #This article is too narrowly-based. People are coming to this article for different terms that share the same name. My suggestion for fixing this is above. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This issue may be simpler than the one you refer to above. I think a change to the lede such that it no longer directly quoted Marsden in the first sentence; and instead described fundamentalism as being "opposed to" certain cultural/theological changes (and not "militantly opposed to") would be sufficient. The article would then have a more neutral POV of the topic. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I'm not opposed to the word showing up at all in the article. I just think there is an appropriate context for it. The first sentence of the lead is not where this should be used. Quoting Marsden is not really necessary anyway. Ltwn comment, unsigned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltwin (talkcontribs)
An uninformed opinion: 1. I do not know this field. 2. I was surprised to see that Marsden (whoever he may be) seems to has a copyright on the term "Christian Fundamentalism" in the lede here. 3. I read the general newspapers, books etc. and never assumed that Marsden owns the term. I think the article is way, way too narrowly defined, as has been said above. If I was so surprised to see it as a Marsden-owned term, others will be too. That is not in any way a general view of the term and fundamentalism and pacifism can also happen together among many Christians. The definition needs to change to reflect that this is a special Marsden definition, not the general usage of the term in US English. That is just incorrect, and having looked through the article, it lumps so many beliefs together that the accuracy of the whole page is in question. History2007 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
[outdent] Wiki is based on informed analysis by experts. "militant" is not a POV term--it is a core characteristic say the scholars. Note for example the title of Philip H. Melling, Fundamentalism in America: millennialism, identity and militant religion (1999) (which is pro-Fundamentalist). As another scholar points out, "One of the major distinctives of fundamentalism is militancy." [Millennialism in the Korean Protestant Church by Pak (2005) p. 211] A Catholic scholar says: "Essentially, fundamentalists see themselves as defending authentic Christian religion ... The militant aspect helps to explain the desire of fundamentalists to become active in political change" [Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Witherup (2001) p 2]. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
So "non-militant fundamentalist christian" would be an oxymoron? So having "fundamentalist" beliefs requires one to also be "militant"? I find this to be naive, and clearly negative stereotyping. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 22:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Rjensen, the point I'm making is that I'm not opposing the use of "militant" or variation of that word be used as a descriptor at all. However, when you mention the word 3 times in one paragraph, people can rightly ask if someone is trying to push point of view. Ltwin (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Justin W Smith is talking about a denomination (like Baptists, Methodists) but the article is about a movement. Fundamentalism is not a denomination and a person does not "join" it like they join a denomination. The scholars emphasize militant and so should the article. Ltwin has not found any RS that denies he centrality of militancy and I have cited numerous RS besides Marsden. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ltwin is not questioning the reliability of sources. What he is questioning is the presentation of those sources in the article. There is no need to directly quote Marsden in the lead paragraph or redundantly hammer home to the reader that Fundamentalism is "militant". There are 4 sentences in the first paragraph, the word is used 3 times. Why not use it a fourth time so that every sentence mentions militancy :) Ltwin (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
two uses are from a Marsden quote defining the movement, and one is a summary of his position. Perhaps the problem is that some people here disagree with Marsden -- in that case they have to cite RS before their case is credible. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Militantism has implied POV in this context. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, a reliable source is not needed to remove redundancy or to copy edit the introduction of an article. There is nothing saying that Marsden has to be quoted in the first paragraph, and there is no reliable source saying the word has to be used 3 times. So please stop wikilawyering. Ltwin (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:ResidentAnthropologist is right. There's an equivocation here. The "fundamentalism" referred to by Marsden in his 1977 article is different. Marsden distinguishes fundamentalism from what most would consider "fundamentalism" today, e.g., Evangelicalism and pentecostalism. He says: "Fundamentalism shares traits with many other movements to which it has been related (such as pietism, evangelicalism, revivalism, conservatism, confessionalism, millenarianism, and the holiness and pentecostal movements), but it has been distinguished most clearly from these by its militancy in opposition to modernism. " Justin W Smith talk/stalk 23:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
But there is an often overlooked distinction between Evangelicals (including Pentecostals) and Fundamentalists in that they are radically more separatist in their dealings with non-Christian society if I'm not mistaken. And they are far more opposed to Pentecostals, where as Pentecostals are generally accepted among other Evangelicals, such as their membership in the NAE. So there is a distinction between Protestant Fundamentalist and Evangelicals. Evangelicals are softer in relation to culture and society while Fundamentalists strongly reject it. Isn't that right? Ltwin (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the relationship between the various nebulous groups, but I know that the "fundamentalism" referred to by Marsden is not the same as what most people think of as "fundamentalism". And I think its dishonest to use Marsden's quotes without providing sufficient context (i.e., that he specifically excludes Evangelicals from this group). Justin W Smith talk/stalk 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The 'Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics in its entry on Christian fundamentalism says this:

Christian fundamentalism A reaction by Protestants in Britain and the United States from the 1800s onwards to modernist readings of the Bible which challenged the literal truth of the supernatural and miraculous episodes of biblical history, and the status of Scripture as a direct and unchallengeable revelation of the word of God. In particular, fundamentalists resisted the teaching of Darwinian evolutionary science in American public schools (culminating in the famous Scopes ‘Monkey trial’ in Tennessee in 1925 , in which a teacher was convicted under a state law which forbade the teaching of Darwinism ).

The more overtly political incarnation of Christian fundamentalism stems from the alliance of religious and political conservatism in the American South. From the 1970s onwards, groups such as the ‘Moral Majority’ became powerful populist lobbies in state and national politics on issues ranging from family and welfare policy to defence and foreign affairs, particularly during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan .

If they can explain the theological and political focus of the movement without once mentioning "militancy" then we can at least lighten up on the language in the opening paragraph. Ltwin (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
OK I revised the lede to say that multiple scholars emphasize the primacy of militancy in defining this movement, not just Marsden. The term "militant" now appears only in quotes from scholars. I think the problem here is substance not style. Some editors disbelieve the notion that Fundamentalists are militant in defense of their faith, but they have no RS to support their personal views. Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I think some editors are having trouble distinguishing between the "fundamentalism" referred to by Marsden (which excluded Evangelicals and Pentecostals), and "fundamentalism" as is commonly referred to today. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the "fundamentalism" referred to by Marsden (which excluded Evangelicals and Pentecostals)? Are there editors against the use of the term "militant" at all in the article? I'm not, but I still think the entire lead can use some work. Ltwin (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This is the core question: When we talk about "Fundamentalism" are we referring to the same "Fundamentalism" that Marsden referred to? If so, let's make that clear. If not, then the quotes require context. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I got the source read and its clearly the right Fundamentalism. The issue here is whether "Militant" is the most applicable term to describe the political activism. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of "Christian fundamentalism" as a distinct conservative Protestant movement today, is that it represents that wing of the original fundamentalist movement that called for strong opposition and separation from those denominations joining the Federal Council of Churches during the 1940s. They were represented instead by the American Council of Christian Churches. Those fundamentalists that opted for a less radical alternative opted to form the National Association of Evangelicals and began to call themselves "new evangelicals" now simply evangelical. These new evangelicals were more tolerant of Pentecostals. Thus, evangelicalism is a softer form of fundamentalism, but they are not the same thing. Is the Marsden source online so I can look at it? Ltwin (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The definition of Militant here is the problem as it can mean "vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause" which is good description of Early Fundamentalism and later "Moral Majority." I have usually heard the word having a Militaristic element to the group's activities. Hamas or Hezbollah are often examples of Militant groups. 00:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Seriously, you are comparing the Moral Majority to Hamas? LOL .... Ltwin (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly no correlation. That however is why militant is problematic term here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I can see why "militant" is problematic. It conjures imagery of separatist militias. In reality, hardcore fundamentalists are usually just uneducated Bible thumpers. Ltwin (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
But a problem I'm seeing in some of these comments is confusion over how broad Fundamentalist Christianity is. Are we talking about a synonym for evangelicals or something more narrow referring to the more separatist conservative Protestants. In some sense, if this article is only about the narrow meaning of Fundamentalist, I can in some sense see the term "militant" as loosely descriptive. But if we're applying the term "Fundamentalist" to the broader evangelical movement then its not appropriate at all. Ltwin (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The Fundamentalists have always used the term "militant" to describe themselves. It is a standard English word and not connected to "militia" -- its dictionary (Webster 3rd) def is "aggressively active in a cause *militant suffragist* *militant trade unionism*" Rjensen (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Terminology shifts. If you are not seeing the issue here than maybe we need to go to WP:NPOVN on this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
If Fundamentalists describe themselves as that then that's great. It just needs to be clearly outlined in the lead of the article where Christian Fundamentalism begins and where it ends. Ltwin (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion seems to be going a bit astray. I see this as perhaps less a matter of non-neutrality than a lack of conformity to WP:LEDE: it's highly unusual to frame such a broad topic in the first paragraph with a single scholar's pronouncement, and then not find that scholar's name again in the body text. It's also a matter of undue weight: since "Christian fundamentalism" isn't a theoretical or scholarly construct, but a common label found in everyday conversation and journalism, why is Marsden the definitive voice? The article doesn't say. If I were just a reader coming here to see the definition of "Christian fundamentalism," the list of beliefs currently in the third paragraph might be more useful. The first paragraph emphasizes militancy, but militancy alone is not sufficiently defining, and the word "militant" appears only once more in the body text. So the problem is that the intro doesn't reflect "relative emphasis" in the article per WP:LEDE; neither Marsden nor militancy dominates the article in the way that the first paragraph leads one to expect. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside comments on "militants"[edit]

I saw a invitation to comment on this page from the Christianity WP. Two issues with the words "militant" that may be a current media buzzword but don't forget, many denominations proudly include "the church militant" in their self description as well they ought, and almost none call themself "fundamentalist" (another buzzword" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the comments I see appearing in the above section are hardly neutral or enlightened sounding and even bordering on bigoted or deliberately incendiary, on a topic of individual faith. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Historically fundamentalist wasn't an issue, even positive, these days it's linked with crazy wild eyed Muslims wielding AK47's and suicide vests. The incorporation of the term militant (Fighting or warring from Latin mīlitāre to be a soldier) reinforces this to the point I think it's practically perjorative. While I might be comfortable describing myself as fundamentalist in certain contexts I'd want to be careful, and I definitely wouldn't use militant! I'd recommend reviewing the phrasing as a minimum. 118.208.168.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC).
So, after almost everyone having doubts about the use of the word "militant" over months of debate, I'm hoping it's ok if I change it. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The Fundamentalists from the 1920s insisted on "militant" and historians emphasize that too. it was their word and it does not mean "violent". The Webster Unabridged Dictionary defines "militant" as aggressively active in a cause *militant suffragist* *militant trade unionism* The RS use it a lot. (1) "In the 1920s, militant conservatives (fundamentalists) united...." in Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith' - Page 148; (2) "The fundamentalist movement of the 1920s was an example of such militant resistance to modernity" in "The Christian Coalition (1999) p 14' (3) "as late as the 1920s militant fundamentalists were vying seriously for control of the Northern Baptist and Presbyterian denominations" in The right and the righteous (1996) p 17; (4) "the increasingly militant and separatistic fundamentalism of the 1920s and 1930s" in The Westminster handbook to evangelical theology (2004) p. 5. Rjensen (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. How about using "militant" in the intro paragraph, but only once? see Talk:Christian_Fundamentalism#Proposed_reshuffle_of_lede Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Church militant has a venerable usage that far predates fundamentalism and goes to the earliest days of Christianity in the Roman Empire when a Christian believer was called "miles" (soldier) and a non Christian was called a civilian ("paganus") on account of the stark difference in discipline between the two. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, here is the clearest explanation of paganus that I've seen, from Peter Brown. I don't really see how introducing the frequently misused and misunderstood term paganus will help clarify "Christian fundamentalism". Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to. But most of the discussion I'm seeing here about the pros and cons of the term militant doesn't seem terribly informed about how long churches have called themselves that , or how it came to be so, so I figured linking church militant might help explain that it is not a recently applied exonym for a few sects like 'fundamentalist', rather it includes just about all churches. As for the etymology of pagan, I think master etymologist Ernest Weekley probably put it best, in his etymological dictionary. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Organized movement or no?[edit]

The self conflicting lead says "as an organized movement it began with protestant churches" then the next sentence says it is no organized movement. What is correct? I suspect the second sentence is more accurate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's like the Tea Party in the contemporary United States, few organizations have tried to organized but it's too diverse to really organize into a cohesive movement. 1912-1925 it had alot of big names on the national level attached to it but remained grass roots on the local regional level. 1925-early 1960s it tended to be isolationists subculture in the Middle and Southern United States. 1970's through 1980s it was mobilized through the "Moral Majority." Moral Majority like its early 20th century heyday was again grass roots that affiliated with "Moral Majority." Overall I think the second description is more accurate for reasons I have outlined. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, so shouldn't one or the other of those sentences be fixed for consistency? Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate title - the article was moved from Fundamentalist Christianity to Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement)[edit]

The bracketed 'religious movement' is unnecessary. Paul foord (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

  • also fundamentalism should be lower case. Paul foord (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please read the discussion above (This article is too narrowly-based), where the name change is discussed. This is not about religious fundamentalism in Christianity, but about a specific type of Christian religious fundamentalism which developed among American Protestants in opposition to modernism and evolution. Ltwin (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
On that basis the article title is not appropriate. Change it to something like Christian fundamentalism in the United States. Paul foord (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The current state of naming is unsatisfactory: when one types in "Christian fundamentalism" (lower case f), one is taken to the dab page Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation), where one can choose between Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) and Religious Fundamentalism, the latter of which redirects to Fundamentalism. When I go to Fundamentalism#Protestant Christian views, I'm referred to Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) as the "Main article." But when I come here and read this discussion, I find that this article isn't supposed to be about "Christian fundamentalism," lower case f. So where is the article on Christian fundamentalism, which currently redirects to a dab targeted for deletion? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Right. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) is one step in resolving this. It would follow that this article can be restored to its base name if the DAB page is deleted as it appears likely. Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement)Christian fundamentalismRelisted since the link to the discussion was bad. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC). Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Paul foord (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Seems an obvious move. Did someone foresee a need to disambiguated this article from Christian Fundamentalism (Broadway musical)? Kauffner (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support quite obvious to me too– Lionel (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I actually think I understand the issue being raised above, but if a broader article exists (or needs to exist), have a proper discussion about moving it to ...in the United States rather than whatever this is supposed to be. John Slocum (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Need section on historiography of Fundamentalism[edit]

There's much talk on what exactly Fundamentalism means. Why not add a section on the historiography of Fundamentalism? This encompasses how historians have struggled to understand the meaning of the phrase and origins of the movement, and addresses the concerns of so many on the talk page. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reshuffle of lede[edit]

Proposing to move around parts of the lede so it is more NPOV for first paragraph, so it looks like this:

<<Christian Fundamentalism, also known as Fundamentalist Christianity, or Fundamentalism,[1] arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians.[6] The founders reacted against liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

The name is taken from the title of a series of essays published between 1910 and 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University), The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. The term "Fundamentalism" entered the English language in 1922 and is often capitalized when referring to the religious movement.[1] As an organized movement it began within Protestant churches—especially Baptist and Presbyterian—in the United States in the early 20th century. Many such churches adopted a "fighting style" and certain theological elements, such as Dispensationalism,[5] but since 1930 Fundamentalism has not been an organized movement and has no national body or official statement.

The term fundamentalist is controversial into the 21st century; it is often used to attack or ridicule an adherent (labelled "fundy" or "fundie"), although it was coined by movement leaders. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism", seeing it as too pejorative[7] while to others it has become a banner of pride. Such Christians prefer to use the term fundamental as opposed to fundamentalist (e.g., Independent Fundamental Baptist and Independent Fundamental Churches of America).[8] This term is sometimes confused with Christian legalism.[9][10]>>

The rest of the lede (with all the "militant" business) would be moved to a new section on "Historiography of Fundamentalism", a much-needed section anyway. Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

<<Fundamentalism is defined by historian George M. Marsden as "militant anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism." Marsden explains that Christian fundamentalists were American evangelical Christians who in the 20th century opposed "both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism."[2] Other historians agree that militancy is a core characteristic of the movement.[3] The broader term "evangelical" includes the Fundamentalists as well as people with similar or identical religious beliefs who do not engage the outside challenge to the Bible as actively.[4]>>

the first paragraph won't work. It assumes falsely that the "Fundamentals" book defined the movement. It did not--it only provided the name. (Better read Marsden more closely) The movement began in the 1920s and leaving out all the key leaders is a serious blunder. In addition the confused passage about the terminology does not belong in the lede (it mixes up evangelical and fundamentalist approaches. Rjensen (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
First, the book is mentioned the second paragraph, not the first. Second, it is not implied that the movement came from the book, but only that the movement got its name from the book. Third, I'm not adding any of this information to the lede; it's already there and I'm just shifting around the material. If there is an issue with the material, it's no skin off my back. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This article has drastically improved[edit]

IMHO, this article is looking amazing right now compared to where it was just a short while ago, with lede and POV issues largely dealt with. Thoughts? Disagreements? Shalom, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Another suggested move[edit]

Apparently "Christian Fundamentalism" isn't actually the proper name of anything, but merely incorporates a descriptor applied to certain movements... So shouldn't this article reside instead at "Christian fundamentalism" with a small f? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I also see above that the recent "Requested Move" was in fact to "Christian fundamentalism"... As nobody has responded here, I will move it to the agreed-upon title, and if anyone has reason for the capital F, let them propose a proper page move request for that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a little late, but ftr (for the record), I wholeheartedly agree with the move, and generally prefer non-capitalized terms to capitalized. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Pic at top of article inappropriate?[edit]

A picture of a street preacher with an anti-homo message in his poster does not seem particularly representative of the movement as described in the article. While not a Fundamentalist myself, believe it is inappropriate to put in a picture that suggests all Fundamentalists are intolerant gay-bashers. Perhaps a picture of The Fundamentals, the book whose title inspired the movement's name, would be more appropriate. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I don't know how representative this is either. Do we even know if the person in the picture identifies with Fundamentalism? I think it might have a place in the "Militancy and evangelicals" or the "Christian right (United States)" sections, but to place it at the top of the article seems inappropriate. Ltwin (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Might be appropriate in a section on attitudes toward homosexuality, but not representative as lead image. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. I think this has to do with the "which fundamentalism?" problem, discussed in various other sections of this Talk page. There's Fundamentalism-the-movement™, and then there's possibly multiple different more colloquial uses...on the one hand, there's the more neutral use simply referring to doctrines like Biblical literalism (not sure just what "fundamentalist" means with regard to other religions, such as Islam), and on the other, there's the definitely negative sense associated with religious/political extremism and even terrorism. I'm not saying either of these latter uses is right or wrong, just that people interpret the word differently. (See my comment under the "Fundamentalist Christianity" section about how it seems as though it may have become at least somewhat "politically incorrect" in recent years to describe someone as "fundamentalist.") Mia229 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Church Militant[edit]

The term, militant, is linked to an article entitled, The Church Militant, which states "the Church Militant (Ecclesia Militans), comprising Christians on earth who are living; Christian militia, who struggle against sin, the devil and "..the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12)."

Yes, the term "Church Militant" applies to Fundamentalists. However, the term "militant" does not since it connotes an entirely different meaning and agenda. According to the "The Church Militant" article, the term "Church Militant" should be applied evenly across the denominational and theological spectrum except for perhaps the most liberal Christian groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevizard (talkcontribs) 13:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Church Militant should not be linked in the context of saying that Fundamentalists are "militant." The "Church Militant" is a theological term meaning the Church on earth. The "Church Triumphant" are those Christians that have already died and are no longer struggling against sin and death. Ltwin (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
"Church Militant" (capitalized) and "militant activists" are such different terms that few people will get them confused. Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes to lede paragraphs[edit]

I'm sure someone will take issue with my recent changes to the lede, so please comment here and explain why rather than just reverting. My changes were intended to simplify as much as possible, eliminate redundancies, move out info that doesn't belong in the lede, and correct the flatly incorrect statement. (The incorrect statement was: "Since 1930, fundamentalism has not been an organized movement, and has not had a national body or official statement of beliefs." Good grief, folks, the Independent Fundamental Churches of America are clearly the organizational standard-bearer of Christian fundamentalism, at least of the Protestant variety, and they're even mentioned in the article! Oy vey.) I'm open to correction, but again, please explain rather than just trollin'; this page gets enough trollin' as is. Thanks. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not taking issue, but I do want to thank you for correcting that glaring omission and inaccuracy! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel like you're overstating the organizational cohesion of the movement. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I added "many" to the last lede sentence, so it now reads: "many fundamentalist churches... have been represented by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America...." I obviously don't want to give the impression that any organization speaks for all fundamentalists, but IFCA International is certainly the most visible organizational expression of self-identified fundamentalist Christians today, much like the NAE nationally and WEA globally are for evangelicals. With that change, please let me know if and how you feel the present lede still overstates the movement's cohesion.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

major rearrangement[edit]

I rearranged the article significantly, and wanted to open the floor for comments and criticism about it. The changes are:

  • moved "Fundamentalism as militant evangelicalism" under the "Terminology" section;
  • shifted appropriate material to a newly created "Origins" section, with three main subdivisions;
  • shifted references to Catholic fundamentalism to a newly created "Catholic fundamentalism" section;
  • cut out material that had no apparent relevance to the article;
  • modified and added some text for clarity and sourcing.

--Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentalism as described by Martin E. Marty?[edit]

Martin E. Marty described Catholic fundamentalists as advocating mass in Latin and mandatory clerical celibacy while opposing ordination of women priests and dismissals of 'artificial' birth control, says the article. I found it a little bit confusing.

Mandatory celibacy, opposition of ordination of women & dismissal of artificial birth control: aren't they actually part of the official teaching of the Catholic Church on these topics? Advocating mass in Latin: isn't the official Missale Romanum in Latin as of today?

And while one can argue about the advocating of the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite (perhaps that's what Mr. E. Marty's talking about), one cannot say that the acception of the later three (mandatory celibacy; oppositon to women's ordination & dissmissal of artificial birth control) is the marker by which fundamentalism can be easily recognised. ;)

I wonder whether Wikipedia really want's to assert that acception of the official Church teachings is fundamentalism. That would be a rather biased, strongly liberal point of view, I think. Hm? Bennó (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, Bennó, and I'm personally not a fan of the category "Catholic fundamentalism," but it IS a scholarly category used by not just Marty, but four other historians in that section. It's a real academic term. You also seem to think (incorrectly) that Wikipedia is taking a stance by describing that academic phenomenon; it is not. Describing what scholars think is NOT saying it is right or wrong, it's just describing facts, and what Martin Marty says on that subject is VERY notable because EVERYONE in American religious history (including me; I'm a professional historian) knows he's the most prominent scholar in that field, one of the greatest of the 20th century. If you have any scholarly or other secondary sources opposing the term "Catholic fundamentalism," you are free to put them up, or message me and I will gladly do it. Unfortunately, it is against Wikipedia's policy to make the kind of changes you are asking simply because you or I find them stupid, wrong, etc.; it's our job to describe what others say, not to say what is right and what is wrong in a moral sense. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. No, my problem is not with Wikipedia seemingly taking stance (I am regular editor of WP since 2006 & sysop for the huWP since 2007 and pretty much sure what Wikipedia is about), but with the missing of mainstream opinion. Mr. E. Marty's opinion is one opinion and only one, however trustworthy, professional and acceptable it is. I think that it would be much better – following the guidelines of WP:NPOV – to have some quote from established reference books about the mainstream scholarly opinion on that matter.

And I find it very interesting – beside the point about it being mainstream view or not – that according to that statement, the official Catholic Church is fundamentalist (and you have not adressed this delicate matter in your answer). I have no problem with that, if it's really the mainstream scholarly view on that question, but I find not to be very convincing – to say it politely – to have one and only quote backing that opinion. ;) If it is really that widely accepted, you can find easily many more reliable sources supporting that view. Bennó (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)