Darren R Middleton wrote:
>
> G'day Folks,
>
> I thought I might share some of my thoughts on theological tags
> in light of their usage on arc.
>
> Liberal: A Christian who subjugates revelation to reason.
>
> Evangelical: A Christian who holds the belief reason is fallen
> and only revelation (Scripture) is authoritative for Christians.
>
> Fundamentalist: A Exasperated Evangelical who objects to liberals
> hijacking the tag evangelical but is in fact a true (original)
> evangelical.

Disclaimer: I call myself an evangelical.

I see things a little differently.

All the evangelicals I know are strongly committed to reason, they just start their logic from a different point.

My view is that Liberals, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are all committed to reason and logic: the difference is the way they use that logic.

Liberals, in general, are committed to modern philosophical/social ideas. Their logic is largely based on that foundation. Where the bible conflicts with modern ideas, there is often a tendency to consider the bible flawed and accept the modern ideas.

Evangelicals, again in general, use the bible as a foundation for their logic - though they often interpret the bible in the context of history. (Mike Hore's "road map" allegory is apt here). Where the bible conflicts with modern ideas an evangelical is more likely to consider the modern ideas flawed and go with the bible.

Fundamentalists also use the bible as the foundation for their logic, but they are less likely to temper their interpretations with historical context. The assumption is that the bible is self-interpreting.

As an example, consider the creation stories in Genesis.

An extreme liberal will view Genesis as a flawed book and of little value.

Some evangelicals (extreme ones?) see Genesis as a parable, giving information about God's plan, but without specific detail.

An extreme fundamentalist will see it as a step by step description of how the world was created.

Now most of us aren't extreme, so there will be plenty of cross-over on any given passage, but the example still gives a feeling for how scripture may be interpreted.

Also bear in mind that some of are better at logic than others. There are fundamentalists who "logically" conclude that the bible tells them to don white hoods and burn people who aren't white, southern Americans. I'm sure we've all got some flaws in our logic, but some of us take it to an art-form.

Being logical doesn't necessarily equate to having all of the answers. You can quite logically say "I don't know, there's not enough information".

There are, of course, some groups who completely reject logic and rely on emotional conditioning. These include groups such as the moonies, the scientologists and some of the wackier charismatic groups. However most "mainstream" groups claim that their beliefs are perfectly logically consistent. They just differ on the fundamental basis of that logic.

Michael Smith