Among the many false charges raised against fundamentalism by the neo-experts is the notion that fundamentalism is undefined. Some argue that it is hard or impossible to define [how post-modern is that?]. Others say, ‘Which fundamentalism?’ as if there is more than one. Some say that the definitions have never been really offered, or, if offered, they have been inadequate.
I am undertaking a little project to examine the resolutions of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International over the last 30 years. I have simply copied all of the resolutions from the FBFI website into a database for ease of reference and sorting. My plan is to write articles based on these statements highlighting the view of a significant fundamentalist body. Perhaps there are fundamentalist groups who might quibble over some of the FBFI resolutions at points. That isn’t really relevant. This project is intended to show that the charges laid against fundamentalism by its most recent and most vocal critics are really baseless.
We start with the definition of fundamentalism. I find in my survey of thirty years of resolutions that statements intended to define fundamentalism have been offered at least ((If you consult the FBFI website, you will note that resolutions for some years are not posted. I don’t know the reason for this, or if they are available elsewhere.)) ten times in the last thirty years.
Comments