A Johnnie once asked me (actually, she might have been a prospective at the time) whether I was a fundamentalist. I told her I didn't know, but that she could ask me what I believed and I would tell her. Then she could decide what she wanted to call me. I found out that in her opinion I was one, though she still didn't give me a precise definition. (She only asked me one question: "Do you think God is a man?" I said that God isn't a man, but that there is a man who is God. I told her that God, the Father, is one who is imminently masculine beside anything else. I also distinguished between masculine and male (and feminine and female, in parallel).)

There's a fairly famous quote that goes "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" (Rupertus Meldenius). It means

In necessary things unity, in uncertain things liberty, in all things charity.

It seems like a pretty good idea. Obviously, it's almost meaningless when used as anything other than a guide for one's self (as an exterior policy, for example, it clearly plays the role of a response that begs a question). [note] "Begging the question" does not mean "prompts us to ask a question," by the way; it means "responds to the question in a way that assumes an answer to the question." [hide]

I've read up a bit on "Fundamentalism" since I was asked about it. I don't really care what it is for my own sake, but if I get asked again, maybe I'll be able to talk about it with the asker in a way that is more beneficial for him.

The long and short of it seems to be that "Fundamentalism" was originally a movement (sort of grass-roots, with no clear conception or birth, but with a rather brief "period of nascence") designed to articulate exactly which things are the necessary things. I guess it should be obvious that if there are things that are necessary for a person to believe in order to be a son of God, then those things are the fundamental things of the faith. [note] Really, in abstract, I am just restating the definition of "fundamental" to be "those things are fundamental to a system that are necessary for the system to be itself." Or, if you prefer a more Lucretian flavor (as I often do), "those things are fundamental to a system that, when removed or changed, change the essense of the system." You can read more about it in tens of thousands of articles all over the web, and in books galore. [hide]

To my knowledge, I've never heard the word used without acknowledgement of its derisive connotations (when opponents speak of it, they are deriding; when proponents speak of it, they are specifically embracing the derision). Maybe some people do, but I don't think I've ever heard it. [note] This is probably because of people using words in such silly ways that they have to say things like, "this is generally the case -- and I mean 'generally' in it's literal sense." (I've heard a number of people say things like that on the radio and in various conversations lately ...) [hide]

Inasmuch as I would like to be one who employs a motto such as the one above for myself -- on disputable matters, to let my brother stand or fall before his own master (and he will stand, for God is able to make him stand); on indisputable matters, to correct my brother (for his own sake and for the sakes of others) and to preach the good news to the dead -- I guess I am a fundamentalist. But I also haven't really met any Christians who aren't fundamentalists (as described above). Every Christian I've met has some beliefs about what is necessary to believe in order to be a Christian (though they may not phrase it that way); and whoever does not have such a belief is not a Christian (here, my "fundamentalism" shows through). That is, if someone were to tell me "there is no belief essential to Christianity, including this one" then I would ask him, "Is it necessary to believe that there is a God?" And if he replies "there is no belief essential to Christianity, including this one," then I would know that he is someone to whom I was sent to tell the good news of Jesus.

At that point, "fundamentalist" just means "someone who believes something," and then there are different kinds of fundamentalist, which then just becomes the same thing as the other division that already existed (Baptist, Catholic, Moravian, Orthodox, ... etc.) and "fundamentalist" stops meaning anything.

It seems that some people have said that "fundamentalist" means a particular set of beliefs (that is, the beliefs of the people in power in the groups calling themselves Fundamentalists (notice the capital F here instead of lowercase). But then it really is a denomination, and no longer has any connection to the word "fundamentalist" in its own sense [note] Just as the "Methodist" church isn't the only one methodical and isn't even particularly so anymore, and the Catholic church isn't quite catholic anymore (inasmuch as there are non-Catholic christians since Vatican II (do I have that right?).[hide]

Anyway, just some thoughts on Fundamentalism and fundamentalism since I've mulled it over from time to time over the past few years (and it came up).

P.S. I suppose I should disclaim that I intended no offense to Fundamentalists, fundamentalists, Augustine, that one Johnnie, Methodists, methodists, Catholics, catholics, the Orthodox, the orthodox, historians, Paul, people who use words weirdly, platonists, lucretians, Christians, non-Christians, Jesus, or that one group I apparently left out who's representative is a little miffed at having been left out of this list. I'll rely on your good grace to believe me =)