Talk:Fundamentalist–modernist controversy

Untitled
How is this article longer than the entire article on Presbyterianism?

> I didn't write the article on Presbyterianism. I did write this article. Maybe I got carried away. Sorry about that.

When I read the article now, I guess it does include some stuff that's not of general interest...but, on the other hand, so far as I know the facts are all correct, so, why don't we err on the side of over-inclusion?


 * Is this debate exclusive to Presbyterianism? This article is linked from Southern Baptist Convention, among others and the section Legacy of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy implies that the debate was "played out" in other denominations. --Tim4christ17 talk 03:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind your permission to add a paragraph on the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy within the Methodist Episcopal Church, North and South. 207.238.52.162 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Denominational Clarification
No one has actually yet challenged me about my denominational classifications, but I'd like to pre-empt that by clarifying the relationship between the PCUSA in the article and the current PCUSA:

Coming out of the 19th century, American Presbyterians were split between Northern Presbyterians - known as the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) - and the Southern Presbyterians - known as the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). There were also other smaller Presbyterian denominations which had separated from the two big Presbyterian denominations for various reasons.

In 1936, conservatives left the PCUSA to form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

In 1958, the PCUSA merged with the smaller United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA) to form the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA)

In 1973, conservatives left the PCUS to found the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

The UPCUSA merged with the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) in 1983, and the new denomination took the old name aof Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).

Adam_sk 02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Further Clarification
It has recently been pointed out to me (with supporting evidence here) that the pre-1958 denomination was called the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, abbreviated PCUSA, whereas the present denomination is called the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), abbreviated PC(USA). A bit of a technicality, but I'll edit the page to reflect that.

Adam_sk 10:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"might-makes-right philosophy which flew naturally out of Darwinian suppositions."
Sorry to undo your edit, but I think you'll see that if you reread my original sentence you'll see that I wasn't saying that "German nationalism and militarism were driven by a might-makes-right philosophy which flew naturally out of Darwinian suppositions" as a matter of fact; rather I was saying that the reports that Bryan was reading said that "German nationalism and militarism were driven by a might-makes-right philosophy which flew naturally out of Darwinian suppositions." Feel free to edit the page to make that more clear, but the sentence is meant to explain where Bryan got the idea from, and I think that your edit makes that less clear. Do you think that we should just include the longer explanation that I provided in the William Jennings Bryan article?

Adam_sk 03:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean this section William Jennings Bryan? I believe it serves my point. The way the statement currently reads,"He was particularly worried by reports that German nationalism and militarism were driven by a might-makes-right philosophy which flew naturally out of Darwinian suppositions."allows the reader to infer the editor is making a declarative statement; at the very least, it is ambiguous enough to allow this reader to read it as such.


 * I argue that Bryan selectively picked several books that, though historical inaccurate (most WWI German military leaders were neither Christian skeptics nor committed "Darwinists"), served his philosophical goal of damning (literally) Darwinism. His use of the enemy (WWI Germans) was guilt-by-association. Nietzsche was more directly influenced by Spencer and Galton -- the filters through which he "understood" Darwinism -- than Darwin.


 * Therefore, how can the sentence stand without a balancing statement of a contrary viewpoint? You make him sound more sincere than NPOV would, in my opinion, allow. The record shouldn't show that these beliefs of his had another side?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Might-makes-right philosophy" does not flow from Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest" is neither a scientific statement nor part of Darwinsim. That has to be clarified. I look forward to your ideas.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  04:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My current statement reads: "He was particularly worried by reports that German nationalism and militarism were driven by a might-makes-right philosophy which flew naturally out of Darwinian suppositions." By this, I meant:  (1) Bryan read reports which said that German nationalism and militarism were driven by a might-makes-right philosophy which flew naturally out of Darwinian suppositions; and (2) that Bryan was worried by these reports.  I don't think that my sentence indicates either that (a) the reports were correct in their assessment; or (b) that Bryan was correct to be worried.  The point of the sentence is to convey (i) what Bryan believed; and (ii) why he believed it; in a NPOV way.  As I said before, I don't consider the current sentence ambiguous, but if you do, I would appreciate your efforts to make the sentence non-ambiguous.


 * On the other hand, when you state that '"Might-makes-right philosophy" does not flow from Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest" is neither a scientific statement nor part of Darwinsim' - in my opinion, that is your analysis and not a neutral reporting of facts. As it currently stands, the article says that Bryan read reports that "Might-makes-right philosophy" flows from Darwinism and that Bryan believed these reports.  I think that that it is a fact: (1) the reports made those claims; and (2) Bryan believed those reports' claims.  IMO, it would be a NPOV violation for Wikipedia to say '"Might-makes-right philosophy" does not flow from Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest" is neither a scientific statement nor part of Darwinsim' because that is an opinion, not a statement of fact.


 * I have no objection to editing the article if you think it's misleading on NPOV grounds, but I do object if you want the article to make a conclusion about what is or is not a valid philosophical conclusion that flows from Darwinian premises - I think that that's a highly contested area and not one that we can make a judgment call on without violating Wikipedian neutrality.

Adam_sk 04:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutrality demands a balance of opinions. (FWIW, Darwin, as I know you know, never used the statement "survivor of the fittest" and argued against it). I agree that it should be stated that his views on evolution were hardened by these reports that German militarism was a product of German philosophy, in particular, "might-makes-right" and Nietzche, and that these ideas were products of Darwinism and, thereby, damns, what he called "a hypothesis", but, as you have done throughout your article, that requires some context for understanding. I have changed the verbiage to reflect the facts balanced with this context.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pearl S. Buck
You write:"Buck confirmed that she rejected the doctrine of original sin, the finality of Christianity and the need for missionaries to found churches. Furthermore, she seemed to deny the divinity of Christ and even the importance of his historical reality."Isn't this Machen's characterizations of her speech? Shouldn't this section be framed to make that clear and provide some balanced explication on the meaning and intent of her positions instead of framing them only in terms of the conservative viewpoint?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One distinction that is missing is did Buck "[seem] to deny the divinity of Christ" or did Buck not believe that that the belief in said divinity essential?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of Pearl S. Buck's Astor Hotel speech
You write:"Then, in a January 1933 speech before a large audience at the Astor Hotel, later published in Harper's,"According to Peter Conn's Pearl S. Buck: A Cultural Biography the date of the speech was November 2, 1932 (p. 148). I think you have this date confused with the Harper's publication which was the January 1933 edition. If you don't have a source that says otherwise, I'm going to correct this.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kellogg and Nietzche
The "Background: Darwinism and the Church" section suggested that Bryan drew on Vernon Kellogg's Headquarters Nights to argue that Nietzche's (and Darwin's) idea of  survival of the fittest provided the impetus for German nationalism and militarism. Kellogg's contribution is dealt with a bit more fully at History of creationism, and while his reports of Darwinian influence are mentioned here and here (both possible sources for this article), I've not seen any mention of Nietzche's influence being argued there. Nietzche is plausible as a philosophical backing to German militarism, see Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche. The Will to Power is likely to have influenced German militarism in both wars, but owes nothing to Darwinism as far as I can see. I've therefore mentioned the Will to Power with a Fact tag. .... dave souza, talk 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The original text of this section: Relying largely on the entomologist Vernon Kellogg's Headquarters Nights that Nietzche's and Darwin's ideas were the impetus for German nationalism and militarism, Germany, or so Bryan's argument ran, had replaced Christ's teachings with Nietzsche's concept of survival of the fittest (a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer after reading Darwin's On the Origin of the Species). The implication was that America would suffer the same fate if unchecked. was derived from four passages. First, from The Scientific Case against Scientific Creationism:"...[Bryan] was influenced by his belief that the Darwinian principle of 'survival of the fittest' encouraged global war and the decline he thought he observed in the morality of the American population. During the Scopes trial, Bryan linked Darwinism to Nietzsche, war and atheism (De Camp, 1968:330): ... [H]is supermen were merely the logical outgrowth of the survival of the fittest with will and power; the only natural, logical outgrowth of evolution. And Nietzsche himself became an atheist following that doctrine, and became insane, and his father and mother and uncle were among the people who he tried to kill." The second from The Scopes Trial:A Brief History with Documents:"Bryan searched for the causes of Europe's great conflagration, and he gradually became convinced that Germany's militarism and 'barbarism' had grown directly from the German belief that a Darwinian 'struggle for survival' applied not only to individuals but also to the nations of the world.[footnote 33 -- see below] Darwin and his German acolyte, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, supposedly had spurred the German high command into action." Footnote 33 reads:"Levine, Defender of the Faith, 261-62. Bryan derived his conclusions largely from Vernon Kellogg, Headquarters Nights: A Record of Conversations and Experiences at the Headquarters of the German Army in France and Belgium (Boston: Atlantic Montly Press, 1917), and Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1918)" Thirdly, from the Critical Issues in American Religious History:"Oddly enough, Vernon Kellogg, a well-known scientist, provided support for such an interpretation in his little volume Headquarters Nights, which recorded his conversations with high-ranking German officials. Kellogg concluded that Neo-Darwinism explained Germany's adherence to the 'creed of the Allmacht of natural selection based on violent and fatal competitive struggle.' Germany ... had replaced the standards of Christ with those of the evolutionist-oriented philosophy of Nietzche." The last from Onward Christian Soldiers:"...Bryan was fighting social Darwinism, and, more important, the teachings of the German philosopher Nietzche...." Would the text stand if "and Benjamin Kidd's The Science of Power" was added to the original text? &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have to look at this again tomorrow, but it seems that it's a complex mix of information and misunderstandings. Bryant clearly thought that Darwinian survival of the fittest had influenced Nietzsche and produced this creed of violent competitive struggle, taking ideas from these two sources. What we have to do is show this while making it clear that these interpretations were his, and may be ill-founded. Will try to come back to this, .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are undoubtedly correct that Kellogg didn't discuss Nietzsche. But I believe Kidd did and that is the source, not Kellogg, of the purported Nietzcshe-Darwin link. Quoting Bryan from Bryan And Darrow At Dayton: The Record And Documents Of The Bible-Evolution Trial, editor Leslie H. Allen, pp. 193-194:"To show that this is a world-wide matter, I quote from a book ... 'The Science of Power,' and its author, Benjamin Kidd, being an Englishman, could not have any national prejudice against Darwin. ... On pages 46 and 47 ... Kidd goes so far as to charge that 'Nietzsche's teaching represented the interpretation of the popular Darwinism' ... [and] says that Nietzsche gave Germany the doctrine of Darwin's efficient animal in the voice of his superman." I don't have access to Kidd's book, so I can't confirm Bryan's paraphrasing.


 * From one of his Sprunt lectures published in In His Image, p. 126:"[Kidd] points out how Darwinism furnished Neitzsche [sic] with a scientific basis for his godless system of philosophy and its demoralizing industry."


 * So, I'm going to restore the original text with the addition of the Kidd attribution. If you disagree, feel free to modify. I believe that the paragraph makes clear these are Bryan's beliefs, as in "or so Bryan's argument ran". &#8756; Therefore | talk 23:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And I added "an argument, Stephen Jay Gould called 'appallingly wrong'" to counter Kidd's Darwin-Nietzsche-Germany link. &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, Kellogg, Neitzsche
Thanks to everybody who has been editing the page on the topic of Bryan's influences.

That said, it seems to me that we're still faced with a bit of an NPOV problem:

There are 2 ways to describe the causation of Bryan's coming to an anti-Darwinian position: (1) Bryan initially hated nationalism and militarism, and only came to hate Darwinism after he became convinced that it was a root cause of nationalism and militarism; or (2) Bryan's underlying agenda was anti-Darwinian, and he used anti-German sentiment (i.e. German support of Darwinism), as a means to convince people of his anti-Darwinian agenda.

I'll admit that my personal opinion inclines to (1), and that I wrote the initial article from that perspective. As the article now sits, I think it inclines to (2). I'd appreciate suggestions as to how we can modify the article in an NPOV way so as to be neutral between (1) and (2).

Adam_sk 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article indicates (as I have read elsewhere) that Bryan was antagonistic towards Darwinism as early as 1905. I don't have a personal perspective on Bryan's motives, or, to be more precise, my personal perspective hopefully is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The paragraph was constructed from a set of reliable sources. If I had found information that contradicted these characterizations, I would have included them. As I'm sure you know, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Articles depend on third-party published sources (not primary sources nor original resarch). Of course you are free to modify what has been written with an eye, as always, to attributing the characterizations you add -- not to characterize your take but to add a third party's opinion to avoid original research. When you find a significantly different view that has been published by a reliable source, then the addition to this article will only improve it.


 * Possibly your concerns can be addressed by modifying the verbiage to include a statement such as"According to the historian Robert R. Mathisen, Bryan leveraged anti-German sentiment, prevalent in post-World War I, by linking evolution to Germany." That is the typical solution to including statements that are deemed controversial. But here I'm guessing at what statements you feel are NPOV. Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we start the paragraph with this statement (which is a paraphrase from "The Scope Trial: A Brief History with Documents")"Bryan believed that Darwinism was the source of German militarism providing a justification for the strong to dominate the weak." which can be attributed to "The Scope Trial: A Brief History with Documents". And then lead into "According to historian...." Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article indicates (as I have read elsewhere) that Bryan was antagonistic towards Darwinism as early as 1905. I don't have a personal perspective on Bryan's motives, or, to be more precise, my personal perspective hopefully is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The paragraph was constructed from a set of reliable sources. If I had found information that contradicted these characterizations, I would have included them. As I'm sure you know, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Articles depend on third-party published sources (not primary sources nor original resarch). Of course you are free to modify what has been written with an eye, as always, to attributing the characterizations you add -- not to characterize your take but to add a third party's opinion to avoid original research. When you find a significantly different view that has been published by a reliable source, then the addition to this article will only improve it.


 * Possibly your concerns can be addressed by modifying the verbiage to include a statement such as"According to the historian Robert R. Mathisen, Bryan leveraged anti-German sentiment, prevalent in post-World War I, by linking evolution to Germany." That is the typical solution to including statements that are deemed controversial. But here I'm guessing at what statements you feel are NPOV. Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (I wrote the following concurrently with your last post.)


 * I don't think your edit really addressed the question. I think pretty much everyone would agree that "Bryan leveraged anti-German sentiment, prevalent in post World War I, by linking evolution to Germany", so, while it's good to have a reference, that's not really the point.


 * And I note that my original article did say that Bryan had been speaking out against Darwinism since 1905. My point was that he initially ended his Chautauqua lecture by saying that it wasn't an issue worth quarrelling over, but after World War I, he thought it was a major issue of incredible importance.  As I said, I think you can account for this shift by either saying that (1) World War I confirmed Bryan's opinions; or (2) gave him an opportunity to use WWI as an excuse.  I think that (1) is correct; I worry that the article supports (2); and that NPOV should probably mean that the article supports neither view.  I'll think about how to do this, but appreciate your thoughts.

Adam_sk 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we start the paragraph with this statement (which is a paraphrase from "The Scope Trial: A Brief History with Documents")"Bryan believed that Darwinism was the source of German militarism providing a justification for the strong to dominate the weak." which can be attributed to "The Scope Trial: A Brief History with Documents". And then lead into "According to historian...." Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure if the article is suggesting he used it as an excuse or more as an opportunity. Do you think the addition of the above statement makes that more clear?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you be specific which statements, then, lead you to believe that the article is pushing the view that Bryan was using WWI as an excuse? Except for the cited leveraging statement, something you agree with, the other statements appear to me to be matter-of-fact statements. They need to be written as Bryan's view (as in "or so Bryan's argument ran") to insure a neutral tone. Specificity will help me address your concerns directly. I've quoted most of the sources I used above in my discussions with Dave Souza. Thanks!   &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify things into historical sequence, drawing on the William Jennings Bryan article for details including wording of the 1905 speech and adding another source by Ron Numbers as well as using statements cited above from the relevant sources. The "leveraging" can be implied, but is not stated explicitly, and statements are about what he said rather than his beliefs and motives. I wasn't sure when he became a ruling elder, so squeezed that in after his resignation from government. Hope that helps.. dave souza, talk 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Erdman response
Could you please provide a citation for: "he hoped she might yet be won back to the missionary cause." I'm still researching but this seems an unusual thing to say about an active missionary. So far I have found these quotes from the Rev. Edrman. April 13:"The name of Mrs. Buck was the only one, among 1,500 missionaries under the direction of the board which Dr. Machen mentioned to support his charge that the board was not loyal in its adherence...."On April 17, Rev. Erdman "pointed out that Mrs. Buck, as a missionary, would be welcome to the meeting...." April 18, 1933:"Dr. Machen is trying to reform this foreign board, and there is no basis for his attack. He has an obsession as to orthodoxy and modernism. Whether Mrs. Buck is right or wrong we regret the use of her name as a point of attack against the board." Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fosdick Time.jpg
Image:Fosdick Time.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The General Assembly is primarily a legislative body
I am not an expert on the church of 1910, but the Presbyterian General Assembly has always been the church's legislative body. That is its primary function. It does also oversee the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest judicial body; it also oversees the executive offices. More information about GA structure is available in the Book of Order.

I have deleted the sentence in the "Doctrinal Deliverance" section that says the GA is not a legislative body. Hreichgott (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)hreichgott

Actually, the General Assembly is a "court" of the church, per the Presbyterian Constitution. It is not called a "legislative body." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.110.34 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions has been a stub for some time now, and the information found there could be incorporated into this article. To facilitate development of both pages, and provide context for the source page, I recommend a merge. --JFHutson (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see how this would facilitate development of both pages. The IBPFM plays an important part in the Controversy, but there is much that can be written on the IBPFM in particular. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions should be discussed in this article, but it is very important in its own right. Why remove its listing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.110.34 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

New Side-Old Side
Well-written and conceived article, rare for these pages, but it is short on the history prior to the later 19th c with the result that it confuses the issue. The New Side represented the rise of free grace in Congregationalism, and is the true parent of liberalism, not of fundamentalism, tho indeed fundamentalism itself gets off on a tangent in response. The real question here is between truth and relativism, true conversion and a sort of behaviorism. This can also be seen in the New England Theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.32.105 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Liberty University
In the context of paragraph two, the use of this example in the second sentence is anachronistic as Liberty University was not founded during the period under discussion (viz., prior to the 1970s). The founding (1971) and development of Liberty University belong to a later phase of resistance to Modernism -- last sentence in this paragraph. A possible way to fix this issue is to move the reference so as to create a sentence along the lines of: "This would remain the state of affairs until the 1970s, when conservative Christianity reemerged, resulting in resurgence of traditional Christianity among the Baptist, Presbyterians and others, as well as in the founding of new institutions such as Liberty University." Regent University (founded 1977)could be another example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.115.38 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Concluding Sentence
This is a run-on sentence whose meaning has been overwhelmed by its complexity and grammatical issues: "By requiring the cultural and social concept of Christian fundamentalism and how powerful God in everlasting righteousness related to Christmas,[20][21] and among other things to celebrate in too extremist and very exaggerated in the rest of the world to predominate the Christianities impose the New Year[22] and strictly respect the tradition Christian-centered and based on the concept of Christian fundamentalism and by far and make believe Christian ideology especially in the original sin and do impose relativism on the human and material moving away so the other religions of the world and takes the concepts related to the Bible where and against Freemasonry in the concept of relativism and Christian fundamentalism it based on the concepts in an integral tradition of the Christian religion and also the criticism and scorn of Christian fundamentalism.[23]" Could someone able to understand it split it up so that its meaning can be clear to the general reader? Or perhaps just delete it (on the grounds that it may not be neutral)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.115.38 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510053140/http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jgmorigin.htm to http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jgmorigin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Interpretive text by unregistered 'editor' from 79.56.187.43
I think that we should remove the interpretive text by unregistered 'editor' from 79.56.187.43. MaynardClark (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001104617/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/gray-essay-what-is-darwinism to http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/gray-essay-what-is-darwinism

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Traditional Christianity": Says who? Is this a fact or an opinion?
Hey everybody.

I was reading through the page and noticed that the intro before the table of contents makes a distinction between fundamentalism and modernist/liberal Christianity up until the very end where suddenly there's mention of "traditional" Christianity.

Is "traditional Christainity" fundamentalist Christianity or is this a mention of a third group not already discussed in the intro? If this is about fundamentalism, who claims that? I expect this isn't a neutral point of view. I looked through the rest of the article for mentions of "traditional" and none of the mentions seemed to point to fundamentalism as "traditional Christianity". Could an editor already more familiar with the sources help me to understand so my tag can be removed? Is it a fact that "Christian fundamentalism" is traditional Christianity or is it an opinion (and whose opinion is it)? Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)