One would conclude from the name that these people are some sort of ol' time liberal Christians. But what I find fascinating is how similar they really are to the fundies.
When I speak about "ol' time liberal Christians" I'm thinking of the Christians who don't think that the bible is authoratative and are generally very un-orthodox. Some living "ol' time liberal Christians" would be Spong, Crossan and Borg (and your local ELCA priest! )
When you look at the first two points, the unfundamentalists seem to be very close to the fundies in many issues:
When one reads the rest of the points, I think it's possible to say that this is American fundamentalism with some tweaks: 1. acceptance of "modern morality" (divorce and homosexuality is OK), 2. acceptance of modern science (evolution is OK) and 3. rejection of "the wrath of god" (they deny the doctrine of hell). They just say that this is what the bible teaches when properly interpreted. So they seem to agree with the fundie view of the bible, but just have to arrive at a slighty different conclusion (the three tweaks).1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
2. Following the word of God means taking into account the entirety of God’s words. The Bible itself tells us that it consists of songs, visions, histories, dreams, parables, commandments. It instructs Christians that New Testament moral directives supersede Old Testament moral directives. It asserts that moral principles supersede moral “rules.” The relevant context of any Bible passage is as integral to its meaning as the passage itself. It may be appropriate to give equal weight to each clause within a business contract or a game rulebook. But the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is not a uniform document, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific, and all passages having equal value. The Bible is not a rulebook for being Christian. Isolating a Bible passage from its context, and then claiming a sort of moral helplessness about that passage because “it’s in the Bible,” is failing to take the Bible either literally or seriously.
So why do they call themselves "unfundamentalists" when they're really close to them? Are "liberal fundies" like this group common in the USA?