Re: the ring of truth (was This Week's Recommended Reading)

[Kelvin Bailey <prestokelvo at yahoo_com>]

--- John Davis <biglight at pacbell_net> wrote:

> because I grew up being taught that fundamentalists,
> and their 
> more-politely-named theological bedmates,
> evangelicals, 

I disagree.  Strongly.  I grew up in fundamentalists
churches and now consider myself evangelical.  There
is a HUGE difference.  There are a lot of
fundamentalist Christians that would throw
evangelicals and liberals in the same lump.  I think a
lot of liberals might do the same with evangelicals
and fundamentalists.

 Learning
> that fundamentalism 
> and evangelicalism (in its current form) are 20th
> century reactionary 
> ideologies was valuable for me.

And just what are we reacting against?  It seems to me
- from what I've heard/see/read of Bawer's books (I'll
admit I haven't read it) - one could easily say he is
reactionary.

I don't have a problem at all with tagging
fundamentalist Christianity (at least as it played out
in the 20th century) as reactionary.  I think that's
pretty darned accurate.  In my memory, growing up
fundy looked a lot like Steve Camp - always AGAINST
something.  I just wonder why you equate fundys and
evangelicals.

Kelvinism is the only true religion!

Kelvin

=====
Time is precious
Talk is cheap
So make it mean something.
         -- Rob Jungklas

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/

---

References:

• Re: the ring of truth (was This Week's Recommended Reading)
• From: John Davis <biglight at pacbell_net>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: the ring of truth
• Next by Date: OT - VOL Minnepolis Summershine Listening Party
• Prev by thread: Re: the ring of truth (was This Week's Recommended Reading)
• Next by thread: RE: the ring of truth
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread