Are We Fundamentalist or Evangelical?

[Flipper]

I was reading the Baptist forum and found this interesting thread on Fundamentalsts. I hope Lux Perpetua does not mind that I quote her here.

Having been raised a Southern Baptist, I'd say that most Baptists I knew were Fundamentalists in that they believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible (real Noah, real Flood, real miracles, etc.) and they believed in moral absolutes (homosexuality is absolutely immoral, etc.). Most non-fundamentalists believe that evil is relative (what is right for you may not be right for me) and they tend to take a rationalist or pick-and-choose approach to Scripture (disbelief in miracles, Adam and Eve were archetypes and not real people, Jesus may not have been virginally conceived, etc.). Probably by this definition most Catholics, Orthodox, Southern Baptists, and Lutherans (especially WELS and LCMS) would be considered Fundamentalists.
Personally, I aways considered myself an Evangelical, rather than a Fundamentalist. However, I always saw Fundamentalists as saying "this is what you should believe in" and Evangelicals as saying "this is why I believe this." I'm wondering if I'm oversimplifying, or I have the definitions wrong. I'm curious to know your thoughts, as Lutherans. Do you consider yourself Evangelical or Fundamentalist, neither or both?

[Lotar]

Here's an answer off the LCMS website:

The term "fundamentalist" is used in a variety of ways and has a number of possible definitions, so whether or not it may be applied in some sense to LCMS Lutherans depends largely on how it is defined. Generally speaking, however, LCMS Lutherans have disassociated themselves from this term as it has been historically used in Protestantism because Lutherans approach the issue of the authority of Scripture quite differently than most "fundamentalist" Protestant groups and churches.
For example, for most "fundamentalists," acceptance of Scripture's authority comes first, and faith in Christ is based on faith in the Bible's inerrancy. For Lutherans, the reverse is true: faith in Christ comes first as a miraculous work of God's Spirit through the means of grace. Our view of the Bible then results from our faith in the Gospel.

It follows from this that for Lutherans, acceptance of Scripture's authority is a matter of faith, not of "proof" at the level of sheer intellect. Accordingly, Lutherans (unlike many fundamentalist groups) do not attempt to "demonstrate" the inerrancy of Scripture on the basis of historical or rational evidence or arguments. Instead, Lutherans focus on proclaiming the Gospel and trust that faith in the Bible will follow from faith in Christ. For Lutherans the Gospel is always of primary concern and is viewed as the central message of the Scriptures, while fundamentalists tend to view the Gospel simply as one of several "fundamental" truths (of equal value) contained in the Bible.

For a helpful summary of how Lutherans view Scripture, its authority, and its relationship to the Gospel, see the report of the Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations on "Gospel and Scripture (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/gospel_scripture.pdf)."

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2524

[LuxPerpetua]

I think it would totally depend on how Fundamentalism is defined. I'm not completely sure about the definition (it tends to vary) but from common usage it seems that most people that I know of consider themselves Fundamentalists if they view the accounts in Scripture as both authoritative and true. Fundamentalists, as portrayed in the media, tend to be radical Fundamentalists, and I think that has given it a bad name. I'm pretty sure that Fundamentalism arose in response to the early 20th-century movement toward evolution as opposed to creation. From what I can tell in the Fundamentalist forum, the things that seem to unify everyone under that banner are: The Bible is inerrant and God-inspired, and therefore all of the miraculous events portrayed actually happened and what the Bible calls sin is still sin today as it was in the early Christianity (homosexuality, divorce, abortion, especially). Fundamentalism is such a broad term that it is difficult to actually define who fits under that heading. Knowing what I know about Baptists and LCMS Lutherans, I'd say they hold the exact same views in regard to the inerrancy of the Bible and their adherence to a literal interpretation of Christ's miracles, creation, the second coming, etc. Baptists and Lutherans (as per the LCMS site I've been reading) differ mostly in regard to how faith is generated and the implementation of liturgy and sacraments. As to their approach toward Scripture, it is, as far as I have seen, identical. I would consider Baptists to be highly evangelical and moderately Fundamentalist (theistic evolution is not a dirty word, usually), and LCMS to be moderately evangelical and highly Fundamentalist (regardless of the LCMS website disclaimer). I think the only reason LCMS shies away from that title is due to the bad connotation that "Fundamentalists" have gotten from a handful of outspoken radicals.

[Phoebe]

I'm a "fungelical."

[Rechtgläubig]

I'm a "fungelical."Haha! Yeah you do sound like you are lots of "fun". :D

[Lotar]

Lux,

As it said, it depends on the definition of fundamentalist. What the article was addressing is the actual, original definition of fundamentalist, which is based off the book "The Fundamentals." Though in some ways our morals are the same, and we both reject the historical critical method of interpretation of Scripture, the similarities tend to end there.

[Jenna]

Well, since we are talking about "we", then I'll just say that I'm a fundamentalist and evangelical. :)

One thing that I noted in the post concerning the LCMS's view is that on a whole, they take an either or method. The whole feel is and 'us against them' kind of thing that just makes me uncomfortable. For example, I've never run into a single self proclaimed fundamentalist who believed the bible as God's inerrant Word, simply because many of the truths in the bible are slowly being uncovered in history. I have, however, heard of plenty of people whose faith has been bolstered even more by such supportive evidence.

For Lutherans the Gospel is always of primary concern and is viewed as the central message of the Scriptures, while fundamentalists tend to view the Gospel simply as one of several "fundamental" truths (of equal value) contained in the Bible.

Hmmm..... I don't know that I've ever witnessed this either. *scratches head* Am I just out of touch with folks? I mean, I've walked with some of the most tightly laced 'fundies' you could imagine, and never came away with the feeling that they viewed the Gospel as anything but the central message of the Bible. Now, I've noticed that they spend more time talking about how we are supposed to respond to the Gospel, including good works and obedience, but I've only ever run into fringe groups that take that too far. I dunno, I must just be missing something somewhere along the line....

[ufonium2]

I've given this a lot of thought, primarily to try and figure out how the youngest belief system in Christianity became known as "Fundamentalist." Here's what I think:

By a common sense definition of the term, which would go something like "one who adheres to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity" I think most Lutheran churches qualify as fundamentalist. However, common sense is not so common, especially in American Christianity. The "fundmentals" that one must believe to be a "fundamentalist" aren't limited to things that are strictly biblical, but extend to things like total abstinence from alcohol, women wearing long skirts and not cutting their hair, the rapture, etc. These aren't the fundamentals of Christianity, they are the fundamentals of fundamentalism. Around here, the UPC is big. They are considered "fundamentalists" even thought they deny the Trinity, so obviously we're not using the common sense definition. I think it's funny that the two oldest branches of Christianity, one of which hasn't added or modified doctrine in a thousand years, aren't considered "fundamentalist" while a group of churches that are less than a hundred years old and may deny crucial Christian dogma are.

[Flipper]

That's probably why when I hear "fundamentalism" I run as fast as I can. Obviously, I do not know what the term really means. You have all educated me on the subject. Thank you.

[Rechtgläubig]

That's probably when I hear "fundamentalism" I run as fast as I can. Obviously, I do not know what the term really means. You have all educated me on the subject. Thank you.Same here, I have a picture in my head of what I think a fundy is and it ain't any of us. :P

[Phoebe]

Same here, I have a picture in my head of what I think a fundy is and it ain't any of us. :P
I call 'em Bible thumpers.

[ByzantineDixie]

As I reflect a bit on this topic...I realize that I have actually become that which I once ridiculed as being fundamentalist. I think as the Holy Spirit enables you to experience Christ more and more at the center of your life you grow to become different from what is considered "normal" society. I am probably that bible thumper that I once looked on as a quack.

All in all, however, I do prefer the term fungelical...or maybe even fungelicostal! (Ya...that oughta wake up you sleepy eyed Lutherans this morning! :D )

Have a GREAT day in HIM!

Rose

[Rechtgläubig]

I call 'em Bible thumpers.LOL! :D


or maybe even fungelicostal! (Ya...that oughta wake up you sleepy eyed Lutherans this morning! :D )


:sleep: Huh...who the ... what... huh??? :eek:

:D

[Flipper]

Rose - you don't come across as a Bible Thumper at all.

Now that we have Fundamentalist figured out, what makes someone Evangelical. My understanding that it was a group of people willing to witness to others what Jesus means to them - AND it doesn't necessarily mean Evangelist.

[Rechtgläubig]

what makes someone EvangelicalGoing on TV, wearing a snazzy suit, pushing people down, and saying "Geeee-sus" alot?


:D

[ChiRho]

Were there any converts before the discovery and use of chloroform?

(For all C.S. Lewis fans...you know where I stole this from!)

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Rechtgläubig]

Were there any converts before the discovery and use of chloroform?

Haha! So that's why they all have those hankies! :D

[Pacigoth13]

Hmm... I am neither fundamentalist nor evangelical (in the conservative sense of the word) but I am a Lutheran.

[Flipper]

Glad to have you here. Where's your Lutheran thingy?

[ChiRho]

Hmm... I am neither fundamentalist nor evangelical (in the conservative sense of the word) but I am a Lutheran.

You are not an evangelical? Do you share with people the good news of Christ Crucified? I never thought I would meet a Lutheran, who was professing non-evangelical.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ufonium2]

You are not an evangelical? Do you share with people the good news of Christ Crucified? I never thought I would meet a Lutheran, who was professing non-evangelical.

Again, I think we are dealing with common sense definition versus common usage definition. You are using the common sense definition, and by that definition all Christians are (or should be) evangelical. But, here in America anyway, the common usage definition is more along the lines of televangelists and tent-revival speakers. It's the difference between spreading the Gospel to your friends and neighbors, and screaming the Gospel at the top of your lungs on a crowded street corner.

[LordsRanger]

Here's an answer off the LCMS website:

The term "fundamentalist" is used in a variety of ways and has a number of possible definitions, so whether or not it may be applied in some sense to LCMS Lutherans depends largely on how it is defined. Generally speaking, however, LCMS Lutherans have disassociated themselves from this term as it has been historically used in Protestantism because Lutherans approach the issue of the authority of Scripture quite differently than most "fundamentalist" Protestant groups and churches.
For example, for most "fundamentalists," acceptance of Scripture's authority comes first, and faith in Christ is based on faith in the Bible's inerrancy. For Lutherans, the reverse is true: faith in Christ comes first as a miraculous work of God's Spirit through the means of grace. Our view of the Bible then results from our faith in the Gospel.

It follows from this that for Lutherans, acceptance of Scripture's authority is a matter of faith, not of "proof" at the level of sheer intellect. Accordingly, Lutherans (unlike many fundamentalist groups) do not attempt to "demonstrate" the inerrancy of Scripture on the basis of historical or rational evidence or arguments. Instead, Lutherans focus on proclaiming the Gospel and trust that faith in the Bible will follow from faith in Christ. For Lutherans the Gospel is always of primary concern and is viewed as the central message of the Scriptures, while fundamentalists tend to view the Gospel simply as one of several "fundamental" truths (of equal value) contained in the Bible.

For a helpful summary of how Lutherans view Scripture, its authority, and its relationship to the Gospel, see the report of the Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations on "Gospel and Scripture (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/gospel_scripture.pdf)."

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2524
:amen:

[ChiRho]

Again, I think we are dealing with common sense definition versus common usage definition. You are using the common sense definition, and by that definition all Christians are (or should be) evangelical. But, here in America anyway, the common usage definition is more along the lines of televangelists and tent-revival speakers. It's the difference between spreading the Gospel to your friends and neighbors, and screaming the Gospel at the top of your lungs on a crowded street corner.

I think we ruin a term if we concede to an ever-evolving definition. In actuality, the term Evangelical was originally equated with the term Lutheran. We were the original Evangelicals! Regardless of specific churches or people, I would describe anyone, whom God uses to proclaim the pure Gospel, an Evangelical. For those who interject Law into Gospel, the term Evangelical, is not reserved for them...for they are spreading the news of hopelessness and utter despair and essentially doing the work of Satan...A very different term should be expressed when making reference to those people. (I would name a half dozen very creative terms, but presently I have been warned to clean up my language...add to that, Flipper's recent desire to engage herself in a practice round of motherhood- from which my mind instantly draws upon my hatred for the taste of soap! :eek: - and it seems only wise to refrain for now and allow the reader's imagination to wander.) :idea:

Finally, I agree, that generally, those bullhorn shouting, "fear of Jesus," street- corner weirdos and the very strange and frightening "emotionally high for God" televison personalities, are not Evangelicals at all. But, in truth, we must test their words upon Scripture, to see if they should rightly be given the term Evangelical, or if they are ranking minions in the Satan's regime. To make a general sweep and declare only certain modes of communication properly fit for the Gospel, is really attempting to lesson the very power of the Word itself, and claim that man, has some control on the effect of the proclaimed Word. Without doubt, futile man possesses no control, as God is the sole Creator and complete Sustainer, of faith.


Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Flipper]

I think we ruin a term if we concede to an ever-evolving definition. In actuality, the term Evangelical was originally equated with the term Lutheran. We were the original Evangelicals! Regardless of specific churches or people, I would describe anyone, whom God uses to proclaim the pure Gospel, an Evangelical. For those who interject Law into Gospel, the term Evangelical, is not reserved for them...for they are spreading the news of hoplessness and utter despair and essentially doing the work of Satan...A very different term should be expressed when making reference to those people. (I would name a half dozen very creative terms, but presently I have been warned to clean up my language...add to that, Flipper's recent desire to engage herself in a practice round of motherhood- from which my mind instantly draws upon my hatred towards soap! :eek: - and it seems only wise to refrain for now and allow the reader's imagination to wander.) :idea:

Finally, I agree, that generally, those bullhorn shouting, "fear of Jesus," street- corner weirdos and the very strange and frightening "emotionally high for God" televison personalities, are not Evangelicals at all. But, in truth, we must test their words upon Scripture, to see if they should rightly be given the term Evangelical, or if they are ranking minions in the Satan's regime. To make a general sweep and declare only certain modes of communication properly fit for the Gospel, is really attempting to lesson the very power of the Word itself, and claim that man, has some control on the effect of the proclaimed Word. Without doubt, futile man possesses no control, as God is the sole Creator and complete Sustainer, of faith.


Pax Christi,

ChiRho
That is what I have always thought about the subject (except for the stuff in parans...Soap?...didn't think of that...).

You have so eloquently said what I've been thinking. Good job, son.

[ChiRho]

That is what I have always thought about the subject (except for the stuff in parans...Soap?...didn't think of that...).

You have so eloquently said what I've been thinking. Good job, son.

Sorry for the confusion about the soap thing! I do bathe regularly...I swear! I need a proofreader!

Thanks Mom! :P

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Rechtgläubig]

Thanks Mom! :P

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
::winces::

:D

[Protoevangel]

I do consider myself fundamentalist, evangelical, and a literalist. I am in constant discussion/debate with my Pastor, who is a committed liberal. lol


I exclusively use the "common sense" definitions as commented on by ufonium2. I agree with ChiRho that we should not concede to an ever-devolving definition. I do not bow to the slants that have been intentionally and duplicitously invented to discredit these words and the people who embrace them.


Fundamentalist: I adhere to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and believe the Bible on face value.

Evangelical: I spread the Good news.

Literalist: I do not exaggerate the meaning of the Bible where the meaning is clear within the context; I do not read metaphor into that which does not clearly call for us to do so; I do not embellish with fictitious details to change the message and make it more palatable.

[Rechtgläubig]

Dan's back! :clap:

[Protoevangel]

Rechtgläubig :hug:
Unfortunately, I'm only kind of back. Way too busy with work, family and home business.

[Rechtgläubig]

:hug: Doh! Ok Dan, take care and come back soon!

Peace and Joy!

[LuxPerpetua]

Glad you're back, Dan. Missed ya!

Can someone enlighten me: What the heck is a Bible thumper??? :confused:

[Phoebe]

Can someone enlighten me: What the heck is a Bible thumper??? :confused:A fire and brimstone preacher. One that usually likes to speak of hellfire and damnation. They focus on shock value. Have you seen movies where the preacher thumps their Bible on the pulpit or lecturn, yelling at the congregation?

[JVAC]

Do they end an 'uh' sound to things? ex: You will burn in Hella if you don't Repenta. :D I have heard people talk like that at an Amusment Park :D

-James

[Phoebe]

Do they end an 'uh' sound to things? ex: You will burn in Hella if you don't Repenta. :D I have heard people talk like that at an Amusment Park :D

-JamesThat too.
Some of them get their own t.v. program. (or they are Sam Kinneson. ;) )

[Flipper]

A fire and brimstone preacher. One that usually likes to speak of hellfire and damnation. They focus on shock value. Have you seen movies where the preacher thumps their Bible on the pulpit or lecturn, yelling at the congregation?
Some people think they won't get the message unless the preacher is yelling. I don't get that.

[Phoebe]

Some people think they won't get the message unless the preacher is yelling. I don't get that.
Maybe they don't know about electric amplification yet. ;)

[Lotar]

Some people think they won't get the message unless the preacher is yelling. I don't get that.
It's for the dramatic effect. Hey, it worked for Hitler... ;) :D

[SPALATIN]

Evangelicals are what the RCC called the Protestants when Luther was excommunicated and took his followers with him. Protestants was a word that was coined by taking the word Protesting and Estates and putting them together. Each estate had a Prince or Elector that could determine what the peasants of his area would worship. It was kind of like a minor representative government. Evangelische were those of the protesting estates who went around preaching the Gospel or "Evangel" to the common people.

[Phoebe]

Fungelical should be a real word. I'll see if I can contact Webster's today. :P

[Rechtgläubig]

Fungelical should be a real word. I'll see if I can contact Webster's today. :PLOL! A little Lamisil can clear that right up...

:D

[Phoebe]

:P
Don't look at my feet!

[SPALATIN]

Do they end an 'uh' sound to things? ex: You will burn in Hella if you don't Repenta. :D I have heard people talk like that at an Amusment Park :D

-James
Yeah, usually the guy trying to get you to put the ball in the basket to win a pretty stuffed toy for your Significant other. :D