Roger Olsen, a writer on
Patheos has an entry up with the title:
"Who’s Really a “Fundamentalist?” Again—the American Media Gets Religion Wrong".He questions, rightly so, how the term "fundamentalist" is tossed around by the press and others when labelling religious groups. He goes on to explain how the word is used to label religious extremists of any religion and conservatives. It is true that the label does not apply because true fundamentalists are defined as thus:
Anyone who knows anything about fundamentalism knows that it arose in America (with simultaneous corresponding movements in Great Britain and Canada) as a militant (not violent) re-assertion of Protestant Christian doctrines in the face of the rise of liberal Protestantism.
What makes his posting interesting is that he uses the United Church of God as an example. He apparently has relatives in UCG.
Most recently a prime time American television “crime documentary program” called the United Church of God—which follows the teachings of the late Herbert W. Armstrong—a “fundamentalist church.” True fundamentalists would consider any of the denominations that follow Armstrong’s teachings a cult (in the theological sense of the word). (The United Church of God was formed by former members of the Worldwide Church of God (now named Grace Community) when that denomination changed its theology be orthodox and evangelical—after the death of founder Armstrong. (Nothing I say here about the United Church of God is meant in any way to insult or demean it or its members. I have cousins who are members of the UCG. I only mean to point out that its doctrines are not consistent with true, historical fundamentalism.) Earlier in the two hour episode the presenter of the mystery referred to the church as “strict.” I assume, although I remain open to correction, that the writers of the program consider any “strict church” fundamentalist.
There are many problems with this use of “fundamentalist” but the main one I want to point out here is that this is simply dumb. I mean, it is part of the overall and general “dumbing down” of American culture about religion. There are too few labels and categories used and the ones they use become too “thin” to be very descriptive. To call the United Church of God “fundamentalist” is to loosen the label and category “fundamentalist” from history and theology entirely. It becomes nothing more than a label for any religious group that really takes its beliefs and life standards seriously. In that sense, then, one could label some liberal Protestant churches and people “fundamentalist!”
What spurred this on was the 48 Hours recent piece on the murder Amy Allwine by her husband, a UCG elder.
Most know very little, almost nothing, about any church or denomination other than their own (if they have one). Those who are “nones” are woefully ignorant of religion. And part of the blame for that falls on the media who do not even seriously attempt to “get it right” when talking about or portraying religious groups and individuals.
P.S. The particular “crime documentary” program in question here has my e-mail address; the producer knows me and could easily have suggested that the writer(s) e-mail me about The United Church of God so that they don’t misrepresent it. The fact that the married couple at the center of the story belonged to the United Church of God was played up as important to the particular segment of the two hour episode. So what would I have told them to say about it? “Strict” is okay, but I would have suggested they say it is a church that follows the teachings of the late Herbert W. Armstrong who was a famous televangelist considered unorthodox in his teachings by most Christians. That would have been informative. Calling it “fundamentalist” was misleading.
Of all the hundreds and hundreds of splinter groups of the old Worldwide Church of God, UCG is the more "liberal" of them all. even though they stick to the fundamental" roots of Herbert Armstrong. UCG members tend to believe and practice their belief in many different ways and many times not in alignment with the "official" stance of the church. This is what infuriates the Pharisaical legalists like James Malm and Bob Thiel. They look at UCG as "Laodicean", lukewarm in their message and actions.
UCG certainly is not fundamentalist, extremist or even conservative in their beliefs. What exactly would you call them?
