{"id":430,"date":"2009-10-21T10:15:41","date_gmt":"2009-10-21T10:15:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/tonyjones\/2009\/10\/ending-christian-euphemisms-fu.html"},"modified":"2009-10-21T10:15:41","modified_gmt":"2009-10-21T10:15:41","slug":"ending-christian-euphemisms-fu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/tonyjones\/2009\/10\/ending-christian-euphemisms-fu.html","title":{"rendered":"Ending Christian Euphemisms: “Fundamentalist”"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve taken some heat in the comment section for using yesterday’s post on “unbiblical” and a “higher view of scripture” as a thin foil for my own disregard of biblical standards. To the contrary, I was pointing to the use<\/i> of the word unbiblical as a stand-in for a particularly thin hermeneutic. There are, of course, things that are unbiblical: child pornography and shampoo, for instance. Both are technically unbiblical since they are never mentioned; further, the first is morally at odds with the biblical narrative, while the second is not.<\/p>\n

So, to repeat, “unbiblical” is not a euphemism on its face; it is a euphemism when used as a stand in for a hermeneutical argument.<\/p>\n

Today, I thought we’d poke at the liberals a bit, since the conservatives around here seem to be on the defensive. The euphemism of today is,<\/p>\n

fundamentalist<\/b>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, I’m not implying that fundamentalists do not exist. They do. But liberals and progressives often use “fundamentalist” as a cheap and easy stand-in for someone who has a more conservative biblical hermeneutic.<\/p>\n


\nFundamentalism as a concept may have started centuries ago, but it was only named as such at the end of the 19th century, at the seminary<\/a> of my PhD studies. By 1910, five “fundamentals<\/a>” had been named:<\/p>\n

\n