You need to define “fundamentalist” for us, then. Originally, it meant a liberal interpretation of Christianity that would admit anyone who subscribed to a short list of (then nearly-universally-held) fundamental doctrines.
It never meant a liberal interpretation of Christianity. It was defined by adherence to a shortish list of allegedly fundamental alleged truths, but the whole reason for its existence was that liberal Christians were starting to doubt or deny them.
(But “fundamentalist” these days is a term whose connotation matters more than its denotation, and I agree that anyone using it for any serious purpose needs to say what they mean by it.)
You need to define “fundamentalist” for us, then. Originally, it meant a liberal interpretation of Christianity that would admit anyone who subscribed to a short list of (then nearly-universally-held) fundamental doctrines.
It never meant a liberal interpretation of Christianity. It was defined by adherence to a shortish list of allegedly fundamental alleged truths, but the whole reason for its existence was that liberal Christians were starting to doubt or deny them.
(But “fundamentalist” these days is a term whose connotation matters more than its denotation, and I agree that anyone using it for any serious purpose needs to say what they mean by it.)