"Basically, we've decided that we can't use that term ... The term has been hijacked and it takes you 30 minutes to explain it. So you need something else"

As a Political Science graduate from BJU, the de-politicization of the schools mission is very welcome.

I saw and talked to Carl Abrams yesterday, he’s a wise historian of fundamentalism who should be listened to when it comes to labels.

Years ago Dr. Bob III suggested the term “preservationist”. It was rejected then on account of the possible confusion with the KJV Only position. Clearly, the term “Fundamentalist” has been completely taken over by the secular media. Also, in fundamental circles we have many churches with serious doctrinal errors who claim the title “Fundamentalist.” Dave Doran has suggested a title “orthodox, separatist” which I think has merit. “Fundamentalist” is still a good intramural term that we can use among those who understand the history of Christian fundamentalism. However, in regard to the general public the term is entirely confused today between Islam, Cultists, Charismatics, and any form of religious extremism.

Where I live “Fundamentalist” means “religious extremist, perhaps violent.” in all the media. I can understand well why an institution like Bob Jones University, with such visibility would drop the descriptive title.

The only thing that’s more surprising is that it has taken so long. Or maybe not so surprising considering the sometimes snail pace of institutional change. As for orthodox, separatist. Really? Keep that intramural as well. You really want to identify yourself publicly as a separatist??

…since the issue at hand is that the media already misapplies the current name, calling everyone from charismatics to cultists “fundamentalists.”

Do we really think they are going to pick up on the nuances of a name like “separatist”? I doubt it.

I appreciate the changes BJU is implementing and, likewise, would never call myself a fundamentalist before a secular audience, but this discussion is largely window dressing. The media has also basically demonized the name “evangelical.” I think we need to take the Rush Limbaugh approach and give up on the idea of the media liking any name we pick. Probably the one that communicates the best for our purposes — giving the most bang for the buck — is the simple term “conservative.” Anything beyond that is an academic discussion.

A bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? I suppose the polite word for it is hyperbole.

We live in one of the most secular areas on the continent. It doesn’t take 30 minutes to explain what a fundamentalist is.

Maybe bro. Abrams talks slow.

I am not so naive, idealistic, or ignorant of church history as to think that labels other than “Christian” cannot (or should not) ever be used. They are most helpful, I think, when studying church history.

But the problem, as I see it, with espousing a label or inventing a new one to espouse is that, as more people with whom I disagree “get in,” or as more people misrepresent what my label means, or as people of other faiths adopt my coined word, then I find myself wanting a new label to espouse (like the current issue with the word “fundamentalist”), so that I can rid myself of the baggage hindering our evangelism, outreach, and influence.

“Baggage” seems forever unavoidable—a perpetual reailty of tares among the wheat, false gospels, and antichrists. Therefore, since I’ll never be comfortable with everybody who wears my label, I think I prefer the original label, “Christian.” Yes, it is also heavy laden with the baggage of Catholicism and cults, and never seems to be “enough” for people want to know “what” I am (which is a good time to add “Bible-believing” to the mix).

But perhaps it is the least naive and most safe position to go with The Original and let the chips fall where they may.

I am a Christian. And I pray that I bring that title honor.

If I may gently correct something that was said earlier, I have been pretty clear over the past few years that I don’t believe there is a movement to identify with and, therefore, have not tried to set forth an alternative label for fundamentalist. I do believe that historic fundamentalism was marked by those two commitments—orthodoxy and separatism—and that they do form the boundaries of our church’s fellowship. I’ve also written about the fact that all such descriptors are in-house labels where they can serve some teaching purpose and are not profitable for public consumption.
At some point we need to wrestle with how in-grown we all have become. Our preoccupation with labels is really not very helpful at this stage of church history and it is the vestige of an era when the labels served effectively as the mean by which separation decisions could be made. I don’t see how an honest appraisal of our times can lead to that same conclusion. The two commitments still matter, but there are people claiming the name that don’t hold the commitments and, to a lesser degree, there are people who don’t claim the name who do.

[Don Johnson] A bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? I suppose the polite word for it is hyperbole.

We live in one of the most secular areas on the continent. It doesn’t take 30 minutes to explain what a fundamentalist is.

Maybe bro. Abrams talks slow.

I would argue that if your objective is to explain in a way that truly communicates, it takes, in many cases, longer than 30 minutes.

In considering the value of retaining any term that is used to describe our Christian belief and practice, I think at least the following distinctions need to be weighed:

1. The distinction between a term that miscommunicates to our hearers and one that is merely unfamiliar to our hearers - It is one thing to use a term that needs explanation because it is not a part of non-Christian vocabulary; it is quite another to use a term for which non-Christian society has already furnished a different and false definition, or worse yet (as is the case with fundamentalism), a caricature that creates a genuine barrier to our Christian testimony. Words mean things, and the meaning they convey (denotative and connotative) is the only thing about them that is really important. Consequently, the vocabulary we use is extremely important—especially the vocabulary that defines our Christian faith & commitments. It needs to be precise. To continually use a term that miscommunicates is, at best, extremely inefficient due to the explanation required. [Why would you want to use a term that requires you to explain not only what you mean by the term, but also why what you mean by the term is not the same as what others commonly think of when they hear the term.] At worst, it’s an untruthful way to communicate—and when the term involved relates to our Christian faith, that untruthfulness can constitute scandalizing our Christian faith and testimony. (If I use a term without explanation that has one definition for me and a very different definition for the hearer, I have, wittingly or unwittingly, told that person a lie.)
   
2. The distinction between a biblical term and an extra-biblical term - All other things being equal, we should fight much harder to preserve the original definition of theological terms that are part of the Bible’s own vocabulary. Even in the case of biblical terms, though, there may be times where a term’s meaning changes so much that it becomes necessary to replace that term (via updated Bible translations) in order to retain precision of meaning.
   Is the term “fundamentalist” still useful? I think the value of the term depends on the context. In most contexts in which I live and work, the use of the term “fundamentalist” to describe what I believe would miscommunicate, and in many (probably most) of those cases, the miscommunication would be so severe as to create an impediment to my Christian witness. Furthermore, “fundamentalist” is not a biblical term. Fair or not, and whether we like it or not, the term “fundamentalist” in our culture conjures up a caricature of bigotry, ignorance, racism, loud-mouthed brashness, holier-than-thou self-righteousness, etc. In describing my Christian faith to the unsaved, why in the world would I want to lead with an extra-biblical term that has that much baggage?
   
   Granted, the unsaved world will always find ways to villify and besmirch Christians. Because so much evil has been done in the name of Christianity, even name “Christian” carries wrong connotations in some contexts that miscommunicate. It does not follow, however, that because we retain the name “Christian” in the face of those misunderstandings, we should also retain the name “fundamentalist.” All designations for Christian belief are not equally important.
   
   My conclusions:
   
   • In contexts where we’re dealing with people who have little or no familiarity with orthdox Christian belief, the term is not only useless, it is downright harmful to productive communication & witness and should be avoided.
     
   • In contexts where we are discussing the historical development of the conservative Christianity during the late 19th and 20th centuries(especially in the US), the term is useful because designates a very real and definable movement that helped preserve the faith for the current generation and is, therefore, an important and wonderful part of our heritage. In fact, we should absolutely maintain the use of term “fundamentalist” (and it’s accurate definition) for those discussions in order to preserve historical accuracy and, along with it, the honor of those godly, courageous defenders of our faith in the past who have born that designation.
     

[PhilKnight]

In contexts where we are discussing the historical development of the conservative Christianity during the late 19th and 20th centuries(especially in the US), the term is useful because designates a very real and definable movement that helped preserve the faith for the current generation and is, therefore, an important and wonderful part of our heritage. In fact, we should absolutely maintain the use of term “fundamentalist” (and it’s accurate definition) for those discussions in order to preserve historical accuracy and, along with it, the honor of those godly, courageous defenders of our faith in the past who have born that designation.

In is book, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, wherein his thesis is, essentially, fundamentalists were useful idiots (of the past) but we’ve so moved on from that.

Since college courses have been devoted to defining and teaching fundamentalism, it is obvious that you can take more than thirty minutes to describe it.

My point is that it isn’t necessary to spend 30 minutes in defining the term so that it communicates something to a lost person who asks. I grant that the term is mostly irrelevant to a lost person, but when asked I don’t have a problem defining the term accurately so that the person understands what is meant by my accepting the label.

In other words, Abrams’ dismissal of the term isn’t legitimate.