on that interesting Touchstone article

This article has already been cited elsewhere [see Greg Linscott and PaleoBen]. I have gotten through about half the article [something called family and Christmas keeps getting in the way of reading]. The article is interesting enough in itself. I may blog a bit on some of its highlights later, but I think it would be interesting if we reframed the questions Touchstone asked from an evangelical to a fundamentalist focus.

How would fundamentalists answer these questions?

1. How do you define “Fundamentalist” in a way that distinguishes Fundamentalists from other believing Christians? And has this definition changed over the last several years?
2. Has Fundamentalism matured since the 1950s, and if so in what ways?
3. Has Fundamentalism lost anything in the process of maturing (if it did)?
4. Are there any fundamental differences within the Fundamentalist movement today, and do you think they will deepen into permanent divisions, or even have already? How might they be healed?
5. What does your movement, speaking generally, fail to see that it ought to see?
6. What would you say to a Fundamentalist tempted to become Catholic or Orthodox?
7. What has Fundamentalist to offer the wider world that it will find nowhere else?
8. What else would you like to say?

Don’t you think that is an interesting set of questions? I am going to do a little thinking on this, then post some answers from my perspective. If I could, I would tag Doran and Bauder to get their responses as well. Failing that, I think I’ll tag Greg and Ben since they both have already been mentioned and let’s throw in Chris and Frank as well.

How about it guys? A post on your own site with a linkback would be fine, or  you could answer here. Even better would be if you tagged a few others to get there answers.