“Cultural fundamentalism” has been around for awhile, but only recently has it been used, mainly as a pejorative, to color a certain brand of Christian fundamentalism.

1757 reads

There are 8 Comments

Jim's picture

It strikes me that the term is indeed typically used "mainly as a pejorative". I can't think of an instance where "cultural fundamentalism" is used by self-designation.

I tend to think (perhaps unfairly) that cultural fundamentalism emphases "the fundamentalist taboos" and personal standards as identified by "a list".

DavidO's picture

Lots of different tags may be unfairly applied. That doesn't render them useless or innappropriate.

There are groups in fundamentalism that are more about the list of standards and taboos (than, say, the power of the gospel) because they like the culture that adherence to such brings about, or perhaps because they believe adherence to such is a true indicator of what is going on inside their folks. Why not call them "cultural fundamentalists"?

Mike Durning's picture

I thought this article was a little strange. Sure, the term "Cultural Fundamentalist" has not been well defined, but I side with Bauder. Look at the 2nd to the last paragraph:

article wrote:
Male headship isn’t cultural. It is biblical. Heterosexuality isn’t cultural. It’s scriptural. Gender designed distinctions in appearance isn’t cultural. They are biblical. Modesty isn’t cultural. It’s in God’s Word. Complementarianism isn’t cultural. It’s in the Bible. Spiritual, sacred worship isn’t cultural. It is scriptural. Dress that is distinct from the world isn’t cultural. It’s biblical. Patriarchy isn’t cultural. It is Scripture. I’m to preach the whole counsel of God’s Word. I’m to teach the saints whatever God has said in His Word. I’m not going to have those teachings diminished for the convenience of those who prefer to fit into an unbiblical way of life. Take the world, but give me Jesus.

Who in the world says "I'm a Fundamentalist" and then tries to say men shouldn't be the spiritual leaders at home, or that God is in favor of homosexual behavior, or that we should dress in unisex styles, and so on?

I believe anybody who feels in any way loyal to the word "Fundamentalism" views these as important, Scriptural issues or at least cultural issues to which Scripture would speak. How we deal with them, however, is quite another matter. For instance, I'm sure that Jack Hammer, Brandenburg, et al would disagree with many here on what "dress that is distinct from the world" means.

I don't consider myself a "cultural Fundamentalist" because I don't believe the cultural norms of typical Fundamentalist churches and schools are the only Scriptural way to do things. But I believe Scripture speaks to and of culture, and we need to think through underlying cultural messages Scripturally.

Charlie's picture

Even if I was introduced only as "somebody named Charlie," I was just quoted alongside Ben Wright, Bob Bixby, Tim Jordan, and Kevin Bauder. You can't get much bigger than that. Wink

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Jim's picture

Quote:
Spiritual, sacred worship isn’t cultural. It is scriptural. Dress that is distinct from the world isn’t cultural. It’s biblical.

Not sure of the author's position on music but I'm pretty sure he is a no-pants on women advocate.

On pants: http://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/disputations-about-doubtful-d...

Quote:
A more recent development with Romans 14, that goes along with the toleration movement, is expanding greatly what is doubtful. More is questionable than ever, less is sure. Now there are too many doubtful disputations—doubtful where there is no doubt. “Doubtful disputations” have become a convenient way to do what you want without being challenged.

Drinking alcohol, modesty, dancing, mixed swimming, [color=red ]pants on women[/color ], preservation of Scripture, corrupt language, tattoos, rock music, male headship, have moved over into the doubtful column, into the liberty category. They weren’t before. Now they are. Most evangelicals and many fundamentalists would say that these issues shouldn’t divide believers or churches because of Romans 14.

Jim's picture

Charlie wrote:
Even if I was introduced only as "somebody named Charlie," I was just quoted alongside Ben Wright, Bob Bixby, Tim Jordan, and Kevin Bauder. You can't get much bigger than that. Wink

You're in the same league as Cher! :bigsmile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_one-word_stage_names

Like

  • Aristotle
  • Bono
  • Cher
  • [color=red ]Charlie [/color ]
  • Madonna
  • Shaq
  • Voltaire

I understand you even have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie%27s_Angels ]your own angels ! Hebrews 1:13-14

And even your own signature perfume!

DavidO's picture

Jim Peet wrote:
Not sure of the author's position on music...

He's quite conservative. Likes to sing psalms and doctrinal hymns. My kind of guy on that topic.

And the red letter emphasis is yours in that quote, yes?