Father Deacon, I have read enough of your online writings to guess that you yourself did not believe this, at least in the popular sense of the words "myth" and "legend". And I am quite aware that there are classical usages of these terms that could encompass a meaning that still remains within the bounds of Orthodoxy.
Here's an irony that is not lost on me: "fundamentalism" has a precise meaning, as do both "myth" and "legend". In all three cases, it's because these words have all been "made fuzzy" by common use that confusion has entered.
The point is that those who speak "with authority" should use great care. Fuzzy language invites the Evil One in to create division.
Granted, I seem to recall that the sermon quoted was originally in Greek; it's possible that a careless translation caused the confusion.
Thomas, you are new to this forum and I haven't read all of your posts, so I did exercise great care in answering your question in post #30, so as to avoid confusion. Yet it seems that some things about language still need to be explained.
The word fundamentalism does not have just one precise definition: It has several. It has three in an old dictionary I have at home, and three in a new dictionary I have at work, and two in an online dictionary I just checked. All of these precise definitions differ to some degree, and according to at least one of those definitions, I am a religious fundamentalist.
What is more, all of these precise definitions were crafted after the word came to be commonly used to mean what the definitions say it means. That's how language usually works. Philosophers will sometimes define their terms first and then proceed to use them accordingly, but most of the time, usage itself conveys a basic sense that is only later defined precisely.
It is therefore unreasonable to argue that the word fundamentalism may only be used in one way. It is also unreasonable to say that it may only be used according to an already existing definition.
It is not unreasonable to argue that using the word is problematic because the word is likely to be misunderstood, but it is unreasonable to argue that the word may never be used because not everyone will understand it as one wishes.
The fact is that the word is often useful because most people do understand it: They understand it to mean unreasonably extreme religious conservatism. Does such a thing exist? Yes. Does such a thing exist among the Orthodox? Yes. Some Orthodox are unreasonably conservative. We can argue about who is and who isn't, but arguing that no Orthodox is unreasonably conservative is itself proof of Orthodox fundamentalism.
Edited by Brian Patrick Mitchell, 13 February 2015 - 06:58 PM.