Category talk:Christian fundamentalism

	Christianity portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
	This category is supported by theology work group.

Religion

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion

Conservatism

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism

Notes from Pollinator on category usage

The term fundamentalism has been redefined in recent years by the secular world to include ideas that are not favored by Christian fundamentalists, and the term is often used pejoratively. The Associated Press recognizes that and suggest in its stylebook (though this is not always observed) that the term should only be used with groups that apply the term to themselves.

Historically Christian fundamentalists believe in the defined fundamentals of faith (see link above for more detail). Christian fundamentalists are highly concerned with doctrinal and moral purity and tend to be separatists. In the United States, the secular world assumes that fundamentalists are policically active and powerful, but, except for a couple notable exceptions such as Jerry Falwell, most fundamentalists have not been polictically active, becaue it required coalition building with other conservative Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. Some have just recently been spurred by societal trends to join coalitions with other conservative Christians,

Though often confused by secularists with Christian Evangelicals and Pentecostal Christians with which they have some common heritage, the strength of the separatist ideal within a group can also be a gauge of how fundamentalist they are. For example, fundamentalists do not remain within mainline denominations, so the categorization of the Confessing Movement as fundamentalist is deeply erroneous.

For the purpose of accuracy and courtesy, it is suggested that Wikipedia editors follow the Associated Press guideline.

Membership in Christian fundamentalism

Articles that are members of Category:Christian fundamentalism should have "fundamental" or "fundamentalism" somewhere in the main text of the article.

Categories that are members of Category:Christian fundamentalism should have "fundamental" or "fundamentalism" somewhere in the category page or the text of the main article.

--Kevinkor2 23:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Word fundamentalism

Dear Kevin, I saw that you removed the catg: Christian fundamentalism from the articles such as Local churches, Watchman Nee, and several others, based on the assumption that a "fundamentalism doped" article should contain at least one mention of the word fundamental or its derived. Well, I don't know much about the other groups and people, but I do think that the above three article I mentioned falls under the criteria C. F (appropriately, if you read them).

The another thing I wanted to say is that, Say, if I add a paragraph in these articles and use the word "fundamentalism" in some sense then the article becomes suitable under the cat: Christian Fundamentalism. How silly is this, Kevin!! Let's give a thought on this and reply me with what your understandings are regarding the inclusion of articles on wikipedia under the category "C. F".

Ya, I just want to discuss this (minor but important), otherwise I have no other reason writing on your page or some duty to put these articles on the catg: C. F. Please give it thought! Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HopeChrist. It is good to write to you.

After reading the articles, I agree that Local churches or Watchman Nee are fundamentalist in the sense of "affirming the fundamentals of the Christian faith". However, in the United States, "fundamentalism" has become a perjorative term. It still has the meaning of "affirming the fundamentals of the Christian faith", but this is secondary to the meaning of "an aggressive ... religious movement which, in coalition with ... political forces, seeks to combat what is regarded as the ... takeover of the state, family and church...." (quote from Fundamentalist Christianity#New fundamentalist)

I agree with you that it would be silly if the sole criteria of whether an article should be a part of Category:Christian fundamentalism is whether it has "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" in the body of the article. However, because of their perjorative meanings, "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" have become terms that require explanation. An article on Watchman Nee would have to answer the questions, "Is Watchman Nee a fundamentalist?" and "What type of fundamentalist is Watchman Nee? A theological fundamentalist? A political fundamentalist?" If I see an article in Category:Christian fundamentalism without this explanation, I assume (sometimes incorrectly) it is used in the perjorative sense and remove it.

These are my understandings about catg: C. F. What are your thoughts?

P.S.: I have put a copy of this on my talk page and your talk page. Because this discussion helps catg: C. F. and Wikipedia as a whole, I have also added this to the category's talk page. I will try to keep the three synchronized.

-- Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First thought, fundamentalist Christianity somehow also includes fundamentals of Christian faith whether "it" (the group, movement, or a person/individual) may or may not be politically active. I fully agree to the point that in modern USA today, the word has deviated from its original meaning but then the Wikipedia is not just for the English (speakers) readers of USA but for all the English speakers of this world. For example, when I see the word fundamentalist or fundamentalism (in relation to christians or Christianity) I understand (perceives) its application in terms of "conservatism".

Second thought, the word fundamentalism became politically ignited in the last 20 or so years because of the degradation and deviation of the mainline Christianity from the word of God today. For example, the movement such as "King James only movement" railing against all or most of the modern Bible translation. Another example, most of the revival movements of the last century (including the 1980-90s in USA) -- the word "fundamental" became something symbolic for "coming back to the basics".

So, I believe, we need little more discussion on this for not to make this so called catg. "Christian fundamentalism" a narrower one.

Thanks to all, for sharing the thoughts. HopeChrist (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church

They are not christians, and should not be included on this list. Even according to the westboro wiki page, they have been labeled as a cult by most every christian group in the world. 209.142.189.26 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]