Fundamentalists vs Evangelicals

[atheist_walks_in]

In the New York Times today, David French makes an interesting distinction between the various threads of what we call "evangelical" Christianity. (Personally, I just call it extremism.)

He divides Christian evangelicals in the US into three categories:

• Fundamentalists, which he quotes someone else calling a "psychology" rather than a "theology," adding, "that psychology is defined by an extreme sense of certainty, along with extreme ferocity. Bob Jones represents this strain, he says. 
  
• Evangelicals, which he describes as  "more accepting of theological differences" and "more interested in pluralism and persuasion." He cites Billy Graham as the most prominent example.
  
• Pentacostals, which he basically describes as unhinged, while noting the Pentacostal church is "more working class than the rest of the evangelical world" and "more diverse — far more diverse — than older American denominations." Enough said.
  

This is both a useful analysis of Christianity and a good illustration of  how a Christian bigot thinks. (David French is a raging homophobe.) He concludes his analysis by saying these three strains are starting to blur into the Christian nationalism (he doesn't call it that) fueling what used to be the Republican party. So perhaps his distinctions don't matter at all, in the end. 

Non-paywall link: The Line Between Good and Evil Cuts Through Evangelical America

[no one]

christiboi bigots think?

[brewerb]

Christian Nationalist Party revival?

[SYZ]

I've never heard of this bloke, and his distorted views on American
lifestyles.  Nor do I care—considering his bigoted attitude.

"In August 2017, French was one of several co-authors of
the Nashville Statement, which affirmed that it is sinful to
approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and
that such approval constitutes an essential departure from
Christian faithfulness and witness".

It's not worth debating his silly "distinctions" between what
he describes as three different categories of evangelicalism.
All practising, zealous evangelicals are mentally bankrupt.

   End of story.    

[Rhythmcs]

The evangelicals fucked up and they know it. Now they have to make daylight between themselves in the hopes that some may survive the political fallout to try, try again.

[atheist_walks_in]

I've never heard of this bloke, and his distorted views on American
lifestyles.  Nor do I care—considering his bigoted attitude.

Yes. He's a bigot and a hatemonger. He is one of the (many) reasons I laugh out loud when people call The New York Times a "liberal" paper. 

But that doesn't mean he isn't worth reading, especially when he is describing his own extremist cult. Considering these people will probably be running the country soon, we might want to know more about them.

[Rhythmcs]

The trouble is that he's not describing his own extremist cult, the point of the article was to rehabilitate it and himself.

Personally, I think it's foolish to wait for (or ever assume) that any of these fucks will ever have a come to jesus moment, politically or religiously...and truth be told, we probably wouldn't want them to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and schism starts anew ...

It seems to me that theists have problems not eating at each other.

[mordant]

In the New York Times today, David French makes an interesting distinction between the various threads of what we call "evangelical" Christianity. (Personally, I just call it extremism.)

He divides Christian evangelicals in the US into three categories:

• Fundamentalists, which he quotes someone else calling a "psychology" rather than a "theology," adding, "that psychology is defined by an extreme sense of certainty, along with extreme ferocity. Bob Jones represents this strain, he says. 
  
• Evangelicals, which he describes as  "more accepting of theological differences" and "more interested in pluralism and persuasion." He cites Billy Graham as the most prominent example.
  
• Pentacostals, which he basically describes as unhinged, while noting the Pentacostal church is "more working class than the rest of the evangelical world" and "more diverse — far more diverse — than older American denominations." Enough said.
  

This is both a useful analysis of Christianity and a good illustration of  how a Christian bigot thinks. (David French is a raging homophobe.) He concludes his analysis by saying these three strains are starting to blur into the Christian nationalism (he doesn't call it that) fueling what used to be the Republican party. So perhaps his distinctions don't matter at all, in the end. 

Non-paywall link: The Line Between Good and Evil Cuts Through Evangelical America

There is a distinction between fundies and evangelicals (as well as overlap). Many evangelicals find being called a "fundamentalist" an insult. Many fundamentalists have pretensions to considering themselves evangelicals, as they tend to see themselves as way more open-minded than they actually are (I have engaged in recent days on another forum with a fundamentalist who claims US fundamentalism is quite diverse, which it manifestly is NOT). Predictably he uses "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" interchangeably, although I can't blame him ... I tended to myself until relatively recently, as I came out of fundamentalism originally and that group purposely blurs the distinction. But it's real.

I haven't given thought to whether Pentecostals should be given their own group. They are from a different branch of fundamentalism (the Holiness movement, which has rather divergent views on sanctification) but Charismatics are not, they are just believers in the charismata from existing denominations of all stripes (even high church). I think a carve-out for Pentecostals may be overthinking things. I regard the practice of the charismata as just a choice to emphasize experiences of religious ecstasy.

I don't know to what extent Pentecostals go for the Orange TurdFurher, either, but French is likely correct that Christo-Fascists, regardless of their origins, are being subsumed by the same moral degeneracy and the differences may become differences without a distinction in the end.

[Minimalist]

 So perhaps his distinctions don't matter at all, in the end. 

I imagine  they are all firmly in Fuckface's column so, yeah.  It doesn't matter.

[rocinantexyz]

So they are saying there are 3 types of evangelicals; and one of the three sub-types is called evangelical as well?

[atheist_walks_in]

So they are saying there are 3 types of evangelicals; and one of the three sub-types is called evangelical as well?

He's saying that the term is used loosely/inconsistently; that we are lumping together under that umbrella people who would not consider themselves "evangelicals."

He's probably right, but in the end, the problem is that we keep using terms like "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" because we're reluctant to call them what they really are: Christian extremists. We don't generally bother to distinguish between the various strains of Shia Islam when talking about those extremists, so why should we bother doing so with Christians? Most of the time we talk about "evangelicals" we are talking about their political and social influence, which nowadays is almost entirely focused on preaching hate and supporting terrorism. They do not deserve more legitimacy or deference than religious extremists of other denominations.

[Minimalist]

There are thousands of different sects of xtians - each one thinking they are right and the others are heretics.  I will not worry about their individual labels.  Any dumb shit who thinks a dead jew came back to life and flew up to heaven to atone for his/her sins is a christian is my book.  It is a dishonorable title and they are welcome to it.

[SYZ]

According to TIME magazine, 24 January 2024...

In March 2023, psychologist professor Joshua B. Grubbs
and professor Samuel L. Perry asked a national sample of
Americans who they planned on voting for in the next
Presidential election. Among white evangelical voters who
identified as Republican, 53% said they would vote for
Trump while 31% favoured DeSantis. Less than 1% said
they would vote for Joe Biden. In other words, over a year
before Republicans would need to decide their presidential
candidate, Trump already enjoyed majority support among
white evangelicals.

This is particularly disturbing, as it shows a widening schism
between a specific church membership* and politics, in a
subtle undermining of the democratic (small 'l') separation of
church and state.

* A 2019 Gallup survey asking respondents whether they
identified either as "born-again" or as "evangelical" found
that 37% of respondents answered in the affirmative.

[Inkubus]

...Among white evangelical voters who

identified as Republican, 53% said they would vote for
Trump while 31% favoured DeSantis. Less than 1% said
they would vote for Joe Biden...

That in itself is truly terrifying I don't see a road out of this. Were fucked.

[rocinantexyz]

That in itself is truly terrifying I don't see a road out of this. Were fucked.

When significantly more people voted for Trump in 2020, than in 2016; that is when my faith in humanity slipped another peg, which I didn't think was possible.

[pattylt]

Oh ye of little hope…

Yes, more numbers voted for Trump and even more voted for Biden. The 37% Trumpers will never vote for a Democrat and are just a lost cause. Just as a large percent of Biden voters will never vote for a Republican…especially this current one.

The deciding votes are the undecided and independents. They are why Biden is our current president and why Biden has a good chance to win again. Also, a few Republicans are fed up with Trump and will not vote for him again. They’ll either hold their nose and vote Biden or leave it blank.