lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (03/05/91)
In article <Feb.26.04.19.37.1991.12552@athos.rutgers.edu> drw@paley.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes: >Not being too familiar with these versions of Christianity, I tend to >think of "fundamentalist", "evangelical" and "charismatic" >Christianity as pretty much the same. However, I've seen references >that they are decidedly different from each other. Can any readers >out there give some good definitions? Well, I'll volunteer some definitions for ya, but I can't really say that they're authoritative. (Actually, I should be a fairly good authority on fundamentalists, since I'm a Baptist...) Fundamentalist: The root word is 'fundamental'. I think the original idea behind the fundamentalist movement was to make sure that everyone had their fundamentals right. The problem with _some_ fundamentalists is that they have this tendancy to get confused and to not realize that some things are open for discussion or just plain not-that- important. Then, they go requiring that you believe exactly what they believe in detail. That can be a problem. The popular definition is 'one who tries to force their beliefs on you'. Evangelical: Well, evangelism could be defined as 'reaching the lost'. Evanglicals would therefore be people who have an emphasis on fishing for men. It might also be said that they will go beyond what is normally socially acceptable, like approaching complete strangers on the street. Charismatic: If I'm right, the definition of 'charismatic' apart from religion has to do with enthusiasm and energy. It (sorta) follows that charismatics are enthusiastic about their faith. These are the people that you usually think of lifting their hands when they sing praise songs. Also, (according to my roommate) 'charismatic' means one whose appearance, or way of speaking makes them good at convincing people of things. In this sense, many preachers fit the description. -- =----------------------------------------------------------------= | /\/ Logan Shaw "Come to Me, all who are weary and -+- \/\ lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." | =----------------------------------------------------------------= | [Sort of. The term fundamentalism seems to be based on a set of publications in 1910-1915 called "The Fundamentals", which were primarily a defense of what they considered orthodoxy against modernism such as higher criticism, evolution, etc. (also Mormons, Catholics, etc.) The term came to have somewhat negative connotations to many, as the movement had tended to degenerate into divisiveness, doctrinal rigidity, and anti-intellectualism. The term evangelical tends to be preferred today, though there are certainly people who give fundamental a positive sense. Evangelical of course is based on the Greek term for "good news". All Christians are thus evangelical in some sense. The term has been used for some time to characterize Protestants, with the implication that it was a faith based on Scripture. With this meaning it shows up in a number of church names. In the 20th cent. it has become associated specifically with "evangelism", and has come to be the most common term for the more conservative part of Protestant Christianity. I think of it as being slightly more inclusive than the term fundamentalist. Certainly the emphasis is on spreading the good news rather than on drawing up the wagons doctrinally. But in fact both terms are typically used by people who reject modern Biblical criticism, evolution, etc., and believe in inerrancy. Charismatics are people who believe in the visible work of the Holy Spirit. This often involves healing, speaking in tongues, etc. The term is fairly broad, including everyone from pentecostals to Catholic charismatics. --clh]