Is It Possible to Gauge Spiritual Results?

After 40+ years of practicing Christianity I have the same problems with one issue as I have had from the start. My struggles with this became more acute when I was in formal church leadership roles, such as elder and then minister. Either I have an inherent confusion concerning this, or the church body does, or both of us. After all this time I’m still uncertain. The conflict I’m referring to is results (or success).

Without question the success that the church seeks is spiritual success. I can’t imagine anyone in the conservative, fundamentalist mindset denying that. The problem is this: how is it measured, how do we know (or can we know) if it’s been reached or if we’re even on the path towards it?

Why is the measurement so difficult? Spiritual growth and activity are invisible. All we can see and feel and perceive is the material world; we cannot perceive the spiritual world. So, the church leadership looks at certain physical behavior and attempts to quantify it.

Attendance has been the primary touchstone of success, both for the individual and the church as a body. If people attend, then that is good and is a measure of success. The more attendance, then the more success. Involvement is a second measure of success. This is voluntary activity in the church that is beyond attendance: teaching, music, general helping out, whatever. When a person volunteers to serve, this is considered good and is also considered as personal growth for that person.

Giving money is another measurement, though not as much anymore. I think there’s a reason for that. In the churches I’ve been involved with, the individual Christian’s giving was not known; so, the per capita amount was used as the measurement. The average income per family for the area was usually known; and a reasonable estimate could be calculated how much the giving was above the norm. For years the average charitable giving in the US has been 3% for believers and unbelievers. Again, in the churches I attended and had inside information, the estimated giving for believers was also 3%. Essentially, after years of preaching on giving and urging people to give back to the Lord’s work, there has been no significant difference in the average of what believers give versus unbelievers. The pattern now is meeting general budget, that is, the true operating budget. If salaries, utilities, mortgage payments, etc. are met, little is said about giving. If a default begins to occur, then a sermon or rally is called to meet the shortfall. Giving (particularly tithing) is not looked at in the same way as a measurement of success as it was 30 years ago.

Why have I had and still have such a struggle with success or the measurements of success: attendance and involvement? Neither of those (or any other physical measurement) is proof of spiritual growth. Maybe growth is occurring, maybe it isn’t. In John 3 the attendance and crowd with John the Baptist was declining, and it was God’s will. I cannot imagine any church with a declining attendance stating it was God’s will, particularly with a preacher with the power of Elijah in it! That thought would never be considered. To use Christian analysis, “There has to be sin in the camp.”

I’m well aware that size attracts more people. The more cars at a restaurant at dinnertime, then the greater the indicator that it is a good place to eat. Is that really true? There is a situation in which I know a large church located about two blocks from a much smaller church. The larger church will have hundreds of cars whereas the smaller one will have 20-30 (on a good day). Is the larger church more successful, being blessed more by God than the smaller one? Is the larger church “obviously” preaching God’s word more faithfully and its members are more dedicated to the cause of Christ than those attending the smaller church? If the larger church has more professions of faiths and baptisms than the smaller church, is the larger one more successful?

Willow Creek Church (WCC) in the Chicago area has been used as a prototype of success for a number of years. Several years ago WCC hired some professional firm to do a scientific survey of the church. The findings astounded the church leadership. The end result was this: involvement and activity was no indicator (that is, there was no statistical correlation of data) of personal spiritual well being and sense of fulfillment with God or sense of doing God’s will. What was found that a sense of purpose with God and closeness with the Lord was due to two personal activities: 1) personal prayer and 2) personal reading and meditation on Scripture. The leadership learned that the large, large majority of the thousands of people attending their church enjoyed and had fun in what they were doing … but were no closer to God.

When I read portions of the WCC result my reaction was nonchalant, even semi-critical, “I wonder how many thousands they spend on something that is so obvious.” Again, it was only “obvious” to me because of this inward struggle that has never gone away. It seems to me that large churches with all kinds of activity are no more successful than smaller churches with few activities. I have no way to prove what I am about to say, but I have believed for many years that the percentage of people who are serving the Lord, who seek to fulfill His will, who believe God is working in their lives are fairly close to the percentages of any church in which the Word of God is preached.

I do not think that activities and the encouragement to participate in them should be lessened. That is not being advocated at all. I simply do not believe that the level of participation is any measurement of spiritual success. Spiritual success has been and will always be measured by one criterion … faith. Is an individual trusting the Lord, seeking to please the Lord in all that he does? So much of that faith occurs outside of church activities that there is no way to know.

If a person attends faithfully, tithes, and participates in whatever, is he growing spiritually if he is unkind to his wife, complains constantly on his job, bemoans the bad breaks in his life, fails to live a life that can be seen by his co-workers and neighbors as honoring the Lord? Of course, the answer to that is no, and that is the point. How do we know what is happening “off church campus”? Anyone can be polite in social settings. Again and again I return to the issue that there is no way to know.

So, I’m back to where I started. How can I know if a church is successful? I just cannot see the answer in activity and involvement. I’ve struggled with this for years. All I can determine (and that is very shaky) is my spiritual growth, not anyone else’s. Perhaps I should say, all I can try to determine and measure is my spiritual growth. Even if I say, “I feel so close to the Lord,” how can I be sure that isn’t simply because everything is going my way? If the Lord allowed Satan to “touch” me as Satan did Job, would I still be trusting the Lord or cursing Him as Job’s wife did?

This article’s framework was how to measure success in the church. I now realize that the real issue is how do we measure success anywhere. Am I spiritually successful in business because I make a profit or do not make a profit? From a non-spiritual perspective, profit proves success, but I’m not interested in that. What good is it if I make a fortune in profits, and then I hear in the background, “Fool, your soul will be required of you tonight.” Profit has no value in determining spiritual success.

Am I successful because I did well in school? What if I did well because I ignored prayer, ignored helping others who were brought across my path, or by ignoring family when I was needed? In all those situations I could have used “It is God's will that I do well in school” as a justification for ignoring the other things. Was I truly pursuing God’s will in studying to the neglect of some other needs? How do I know? Is there any way of knowing?

Am I successful or even pleasing God if I choose to work overtime? Needs take very little money to meet. At what point have I confused wants with needs? How will I know? Certainly the Bible only promises needs, but there are many illustrations of the Lord pouring out wants. So, when are my wants out of balance with my truly serving the Lord?

There is no way out of it. My only recourse is to trust the Lord that I’m pleasing Him. Any sense of assurance I have may be deception of my own doing. I cannot know as I would like to know. I have to trust Him in all things, even my uncertainties. Perhaps my “good works” are loaded with impure motives, which I have not been able to see in my life. There are things I do now or beliefs I have now that are contrary to what I had several years ago. So, was I successful then, and have now fallen? Or was I unsuccessful then (though I thought I was okay), and, in actuality and truth, I am successful now? What happens when new behavior and new beliefs occur five years from now? Am I really unsuccessful now?

These questions are unanswerable. All I can do is dedicate what I’m doing and thinking unto the Lord. If my offerings are sullied, then I trust Him to reveal that to me. If He does not, it could be my offerings are good; or ... am I simply unable to bear the answer right now? I am always at the mercy and grace of my Heavenly Father … always, always, always. When I falter in my trust, then I can only cry like the father with the demon-oppressed son, “I believe, Lord. Help my unbelief.”

We are always maturing children before the Lord. As a loving parent, He knows my motives will be mixed, my goals confused, my self-judgments tainted … yet, He loves me and will work with me. As I think on this, I am more humbled by the greatness of the Lord’s grace and love.

In conclusion: in all my judgments, in all my works, in all my self-evaluations, in all my haunting doubts …I will never be more than the Drummer Boy bringing a poor present to the King, who in His grace and mercy, sees my intent to please Him and considers it as great as a gift as from any angel.

Is there a Difference Between Faith and Belief?

Faith and belief

I've heard the question before, "I believe, but I don't have faith." It's also been reversed, "I have faith, but I don't really believe." Of course we can have our own definition for words; but in matters of Christianity let's focus on the Biblical usages of the nouns, faith and belief, or the verbs, have faith and believe.

A key problem that occurs when reading and understanding the Bible is the change that occurs in the meaning of words. What a word meant at one time can gradually change by usage into a different meaning. Another problem that occurs is that the same word in a foreign language can be interpreted into a second language by two or three different words.

The koine Greek

To some degree in English we think of "belief" as different from "faith." Many will think of one of the words as more important than the other, or one is a religious word and the other is not. Though that may be true with English, it is not quite the same with the Greek. (The New Testament was originally written in koine Greek.)

In the Greek the same word is used for belief and faith. Yes, the context can alter the meaning of the one Greek word to give us the nuances that we have in our English usage of belief and faith; yet, it is one word. The root meaning is maintained throughout.

Consider a well-know passage, James 2:19--"You believe there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!" A common reaction is "Okay, the demons believe, but they don't have faith." Actually the verse can just as easily be translated, "You have faith there is one God. You do well. Even the demons have faith--and tremble!" No violence is being done to the meaning.

For some Christians, this will rock them. "What! the demons have faith!" Yes, the same (in fact, the one and only) Greek word is used for both English words.

The preposition "in" changes everything

There are two issues at play here: believe and trust, which are also at play in the English words belief and faith. It is possible to believe something and have no trust; however, it is NOT possible to trust and not believe. For instance, I watch a demo of a kevlar vest stopping a .357 Magnum being fired at it. I go online and read about it. The vest has been tested and tested. I believe the vest will stop the bullet. I have faith the vest will stop the bullet. There is no difference in either sentence. Now, the company offers to give me a vest if I will wear it in a demo. If I actually put the vest on and let a live round of a .357 be fired at me, now I believe in the vest and I have faith in the vest. If I believe the video but refuse to wear the vest, then I believe but do not trust. If I wear the vest, then I have to believe the video as well as believe in the vest. So again, I can believe without trusting, but I cannot trust without believing.

Let's take a Bible verse that is very well known and is often seen at ballgames: "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." There is something slightly different here. Did you notice the little word "in"? Both English and Greek, by using the word "in," create a totally different meaning. We intuitively recognize that to believe something about someone and to believe IN someone are not the same.

With the English version of the Bible I used I found 47 instances of "believes in ... believes on ... believe in ... believe on." This distinction of believing something about Jesus is far different than believing in Jesus. The former is belief, and the latter is trust. Remember the vest. Watching the video and believing it will stop a bullet only takes the mind; wearing the vest and letting someone shoot at me takes the whole person.

Conclusion

Whether a person is religious or not, we can believe all kinds of things. But when you think on it, there are far fewer things you believe in, that you trust, that you commit yourself to. That little word "in" changes everything.

Yes, the demons believe God exists, and they tremble because they do not believe in Him for anything. (There is the possibility that a fallen angel cannot believe in the Lord. The reason for such a statement is that angels are spirits and not material like we are. They comprehend God directly without the hindrances that the flesh gives us. In a figurative sense, the angels had spiritual eyes to see God as He truly is and had no excuse for rebelling. Our physical eyes cannot see the spiritual world, and we can be easily misled.)

So, can I believe without having faith? Sure, it depends on how you use the words. I don't need the Greek for the dramatic change that "in" brings about. We use it the same way in English. If you believe, then you also have faith. But our walk with Jesus isn't because we simply believe this or that about Him. It is because we COMMIT ourselves to Him, we TRUST Him, ... we BELIEVE IN Him ... we HAVE FAITH IN Him.

Was Pilate Correct About Truth

Two questions

Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth" (John 18:38). The insinuation in Pilate's question is that there is no answer. Truth can not be known. The question I am discussing here is "Was Pilate correct?" Pilate's question is ambiguous. Is he asking, "How do I know if what you just said is true ... How can I determine if it is true," or is he asking, "What does truth mean ... What is the definition of the word truth?"

Those are two very different questions. Pilate appears to be asking the first one, particularly since he waited for no answer, giving the impression that there is no answer to give. Let's return to the two questions. Are both questions unanswerable? Both are answerable, but there is a problem with one of them.

What is the definition of the word "truth"?

Some years ago I was talking with a well-educated lawyer (that is, his education exceeded law school), and he remarked, "Philosophers have never agreed on what truth is." I disagreed strongly. Ironically, it is one area of philosophy in which remarkable unity exists.

In a sentence, truth is a statement that conforms or corresponds to reality.

First, truth is a statement. Whenever we use the words truth, true, falsity, false they are in regard to an IS statement. Of course, when I say IS, I include past or present tense and various forms that "to be" will take: is, was, are, were, am.

We do not use true or false with questions. "Where are my keys?" It is neither true nor false.

We do not use true of false with commands. "Find my keys." It is neither true nor false.

Essentially, true and false are used with words, specifically statements with "to be" in them. "My last name is Vawter." "I was married May 2nd, 1971." My words are true in the statement "My last name is Vawter" if Vawter does correspond to my real last name. If the words "I was married May 2nd, 1971" correspond to the day I was actually married, then they are true. In the two example given, my last name is Vawter, but I was married on May 2nd, 1970. Statement one is true, but statement two is false.

The problem with future tense

We do not use true or false with future tense, that is, not about the statement per se. "I will pick you up at 10am." This is a potential true or false which can be determined at 10am at which time the words will or will not correspond to whether I actually show up. Though someone might say, "I know VL spoke the truth when he said he'd be here at 10am," what he really means is, "I believe VL's intent is true that he will be here at 10am." When a comment is made concerning the future, the statement is not true or false. There is nothing to conform to.

Consider another simple example: "Sunrise will be at 7:15am." This is a typical statement on a weather forecast; yet, it is not true or false. It is probable. It may or may not happen, although the calculations may be 99.99999% accurate. The calculations used to determine 7:15am are considered accurate (a synonym for true). But we cannot say the statement itself is true or false until 7:15am.

Objective and subjective

I make the statement "I will be there at 10am" in the public; anyone can hear it or read it and verify what I said. In sharp contrast the intent is private; it is only in my mind. You may hear my words, judge by some means if I'm being truthful, but only I truly know. Something that is public is called objective. It is an "object" that can be verified by others. Something that is private is called subjective. It only exists within the subject. For another example, I might say, "I have a headache." The description of my pain is public and objective. What my pain feels like or whether I have pain is private and is subjective.

Back to the promise (or future tense statement) of being there at 10am. My words are objective, and my intent is subjective. The objective nature of future tense is neither true or false. True or false occurs if the objective can be tested. The subjective nature of future tense is true or false in regard to my intent and cannot be tested. Only I know if it's true or false. You can only believe if my intent is true or false.

The problem with ought and should

These words are frequently used; yet, they do not express what is or was, but potential. "You ought to pick me up at 10am." The reasons that a person may have for saying that may be true or false. But the statement itself is neither true nor false. It has not occurred. There is no way to measure the statement against reality. The main argument against any sort of universal Ethics is that there is no way to objectively prove if ethical statements are true or false. Reasons can be given why "Do not steal" should be obeyed, but a thousand reasons cannot create a true or false. Only a correspondence to reality creates true or false statements. (There are other tests for truth, such as coherence. Yet, coherence is a specialized type of correspondence.) It is impossible to test a potential against reality until it occurs. Certainly probability exists for potential statements and gives a sense of certainty, e.g., "The sun will rise tomorrow"; yet, IS and PROBABLE are not the same, regardless how probable.

If truth can be defined, why did Pilate ask what it was

Pilate was not asking for the definition of truth. He was asking, "How can I know if this particular thing is true or false?" The difficulty that people have with truth is not its definition, but its application.

"Creationism is true ... No, no, no, the theory of evolution is true." It is quite easy to list hundreds of competing positions that people take, each claiming to be true and implying that the competing one is false. Their definition of truth is identical. A creationist will say that his statements about creation correspond to reality. An evolutionist will say that his statements about the varieties of lifeforms conform to reality.

Why do they believe they are true? Each side will give reasons that they offer as evidence that their statements do, indeed, conform to reality. Each side knows what truth is as a definition, but the application of experience, learning, and logic to data to form an argument that such-and-such is true is the issue that is argued over.

So, what is truth? Statements that conform to reality.

Is this or that true? Now we come to the tests of truth. I'll discuss that in an uncoming blog.

Is the Bible Literal?

The issues of evolution and the origin of the earth have fueled the motivation behind the question: is the Bible literal? Many times in personal conversation this question has been asked of me, often with a sense of incredulity, “You don’t really believe the Bible is literal, do you?”

Frankly the question is unanswerable because it is a nonsense question, that is, it makes no sense. It’s like asking “What is the color of a mile” or “How heavy is a rectangle?” Though the questions are framed correctly grammatically, they make no sense semantically; for neither a mile nor an rectangle have such characteristics.

The problem with asking if the Bible is literal is the equivocal use of “literal.” Literal is not a genre of literature. A genre is a type of category for literature: historical, mystery, poetry, fiction, non-fiction, etc. Let’s say I pick up a novel of John Grisham and hand it to you. You have read it and are familiar with it. If I asked, “Is this book literal,” what would you understand me to mean? Do I mean fiction versus non-fiction? Do I mean historical versus historical-dramatic? Do I mean real or unreal? The question is very ambiguous.

Let’s say I hand you a book of poems by Edgar Allan Poe. I then ask, “Are these poems literal?” How is that answered? A poem can refer to a historical event, The Charge of the Light Brigade, or it can be totally within the author’s mind, Richard Cory. The question simply doesn’t make sense. “Literal” as a genre of literature is just plain confusing.

However, what literature is comprised of—language—can be literal or non-literal. Before I continue, let me ask the reader, “What is the definition of literal language and non-literal language?” The term “figurative language” is used as frequently as non-literal language. Often the word “metaphorical language” is used. What is the difference between literal language and figurative language?

What is downright amusing with the above question is that depending on what dictionary is used, the definition of each is the negative of the other! In other words, the definition of literal is non-figurative whereas the definition of figurative is non-literal. Now, that is helpful, isn’t it??? This same sort of non-sense occurred in Hermeneutics (science of interpretation) in seminary. All those authors did was beef up the nonsense, e.g., a text is figurative when it is obviously not literal. There are no guidelines here, no practical tools to determine literal from non-literal.

From reading C. S. Lewis (esp., Bluspels and Flalansferes), I. A. Richards, Owen Barfield, and the field linguistic tools used by the Wycliffe Bible Translators I would like to suggest a practical tool to distinguish between literal and non-literal language. When I first stumbled across this concept in Lewis’ essay, my entire approach to language was turned upside down. As I continued to study and reflect on this issue, it became clearer and clearer to me how to practically identify figurative and non-figurative language.

Moving to the essence of the issue, literal language is that language which can be perceived by the senses (and instruments which magnify the senses), and non-literal language is that which is not perceived by the senses and is understood as a comparison (an analogy). Illustrations will make this clear.

If I use the phrase “rabbit ears,” our first reaction are the two long ears that rabbits have (perhaps you see Bugs Bunny in your mind as I do). The first meaning we think of (called the primary meaning) is the literal meaning if it is something that can be perceived by the senses: sight, touch, etc. When my son was four or five years old I made the remark one day, “I’m going to the store and buy some rabbit ears.” He must have laughed and giggled for two days over that. He thought I meant real rabbit ears. He had no idea what a rabbit-ears antenna for the TV was. I explained to him that the rabbit ears that I was buying were LIKE real rabbit ears. (It made no difference; he continued to giggle for a day.)

A literal definition of what I was buying was a unit, comprised of a plastic base with an extended wire, with two collapsible rods opposite each other on the base, forming a V-shape, which, when attached to a TV would bring in the signal better.. Obviously it is much easier to say a “rabbit ears antenna,” or “rabbit ears” for short.

Obviously I can use my senses to perceive actual rabbit ears or a rabbit ears antenna. The difference is that there is no rabbit to actually perceive with the antenna. When one begins to reflect on all the things that are referred to that are LIKE something else, our usage of non-literal language explodes. There are philologists who believe as much as 1/3 of our language is non-literal. Think of all the language we use in which a comparison is explicit as implicit: “The White House announced … The Yankees slaughtered the Angels … Give me a minute … She’s sweet as an angel … He’s a grumpy bear this morning … etc, etc.” Frankly, non-literal language appeals to the imagination and is more pleasing, stimulating, and exciting.

Here is the important issue about non-literal language which is ROUNTINELY misunderstood. Non-literal language has NOTHING to do with being real or unreal, historical or non-historical, true or false. So often when I have heard people ask if the Bible were literal or figurative, they are using figurative as synonymous with non-historical, as unreal. Consider the example: “The White House announced that …” Obviously the White House did not announce anything. Some person associated with the White House announced something. The language is figurative; yet, the incident is historical and real and true.

Literal and non-literal are verbal methods to make language more interesting and has NO INHERENT CONNECTION WHATSOEVER with real or unreal, historical or fiction, or true or false. If I lived on a remote island with no background in literature or history, I could believe that Sherlock Holmes was real and historical if a book of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s would wash ashore my island. In contrast, I might consider a short magazine article on the Jewish holocaust as unhistorical because I might do computations and come to the conclusion that so many people could not have been murdered by so few in such a short amount of time. In both cases, the language has zero weight in determining what is true or false. Also, in both cases I would be 100% incorrect.

The question “Is the Bible literal” is an impossible question to answer. Literal is not a genre of literature, but literal and non-literal are characteristics of the language used in literature. Yet, literal and non-literal do not tell me if the substance of what I am reading is real or unreal or historical or non-historical.

Certainly it is possible for the language of a book to be so dissimilar to reality that we know the book is not real and not historical, but that is not anything in the language. It is because what is described cannot nor could ever exist. If I read a novel about an alien altering a human so when he opened his mouth thousands of flies would come out, obviously the language is literal. IF I could visualize the event (use my senses), I would see flies coming out the mouth; however, it is not the language that tells me it is false. It is my experience. (Of course, there is the assumption that there are no aliens who could do such a thing, but underlying that assumption is another assumption that aliens do not exist, and, if they do, they wouldn’t have such power.)

The Bible is neither literal or non-literal. The Bible has language that is literal and non-literal. Whether the events described by the Biblical language in any particular passage is real or unreal or historical or non-historical has to be determined by something else. The language merely makes the event more interesting, more descriptive, appeals more to the mind, or appeals more to the imagination. But reality and historical and truth have to be determined by something outside the language.

So, is the Bible literal. No, it is not. The language of the Bible may be literal or non-literal. Regardless of the language used, the test whether what is being described by the Bible is real or unreal, historical or non-historical cannot be determined by the language. Other tests are brought to the language to determine if what is being described is real or unreal, true or false.

What Is a Fundamentalist

The immediate reaction by most people when they hear about that “So-and-so is a Christian fundamentalist” is images of a slight demented, slobbering madman, ranting and raving about nothing. They might as well have heard that an insane criminal had escaped from the state institution.

What is interesting about the criticisms that I have heard on TV or read in whatever publication concerning fundamentalists is that they are behavior related. A person is a fundamentalist because he acts a certain way. Bible-thumper, screamer, born-again, et al are other terms spoken with distaste and disgust.

Let me ask this: Is it possible to tell a Republican or a Democrat by the way they act? What behavior would uniquely identify either one? I recall Daddy Warbucks in “Little Orphan Annie" asking, “What do Democrats eat for breakfast?” It is a bit of a comical question, isn’t it? Actions as proofs can be deceiving and terribly misleading. Actions can be used to determine if a person’s behavior is in alignment with his beliefs, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to use actions to determine beliefs.

Let’s assume we see someone help a stranger in need. What does that person believe? What is his motive for his helping? Even if actions seem to be uniform, without words we cannot be sure. Behavior can demonstrate whether said action is consistent with his beliefs, but they cannot delineate or define his beliefs.

Beliefs are the key to what a person IS. I can act like a Republican, or I can be a Republican. In the former I don’t have to believe anything about Republican beliefs or principles; in the latter I believe the tenets of Republicanism. A person is a fundamentalist because of beliefs, and his actions, like anyone else’s, will be consistent or not consistent with those beliefs.

So what are the tenets, the beliefs of fundamentalism? The history is listed online for those who what to know how the term came about, and it is an interesting story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism). Typically, five tenets are listed; sometimes there are six.

1. The Bible is the infallible Word of God.
2. Jesus was virgin born, establishing the incarnation and maintaining His divinity.
3. Jesus performed miracles.
4. Jesus was crucified on the cross to die a substitutionary, vicarious death for the sins of the world.
5. Jesus rose from the dead bodily and physically.
6. Jesus will return physically at some future, unknowable date and bring judgment and set up rulership. (This is the sixth point that is optionally used.)

Ironically I’m not sure if 10% of those who call themselves fundamentalists would be able to list the above points; however, 100% would state firm belief, commitment, and allegiance to the above points.

As a side note, a committed Roman Catholic would believe the tenets of fundamentalism, but no one calls a Roman Catholic a fundamentalist. Why is that? It is principle one: the Bible is the Word of God. A fundamentalist believes #1 exclusively. A Roman Catholic believes that #1 AND the authority of Church tradition are co-equal. If anyone adds anything to #1, then he is no longer a fundamentalist. (Again, read the history in the above link or do other searches for Christian fundamentalism.)

To recap, a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist because he believes certain tenets. If those tenets are truly believed and internalized, then he IS a fundamentalist. His actions may vary. Any uniform behavior among fundamentalist is culturally based, is co-incidental, and is changeable.