We often read in our newspapers, or see reports on our televisions, of religious “fundamentalists” doing some or another awful thing. What does “fundamentalist” mean in today’s common usage?
“One of the most controversial religious terms in
Fundamentalists believe that “...the words of the holy book of their religion are the exact truth and are not open to different interpretations.” They are quite strict about just what must be believed. For example, according to the 12 pamphlets issued as the “Fundamentals of the Faith” between 1915 and 1920, all Christians must believe in (1) the infallibility of the Bible; (2) the sinfulness of humanity; (3) the virgin birth of Jesus; and (4) salvation through Jesus’ death.[3]
According to the same source, [4] the term “fundamentalism” was invented in 1920 by Curtis Lee Lewis, an American preacher. He was describing the “anti-modern” movement of the American Protestants during the late 1800s. Christian fundamentalism, an American phenomenon, may have begun with the so-called First Great Awakening (1730 to 1780, approximately), which stressed how humans could not achieve salvation without God’s intervention. The Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s centered on the “born again” option of achieving salvation through the acceptance of Jesus as a personal savior. The “millennium” movement (mid-1800’s) focused on the second coming of Christ, which would be followed by 1,000 years of peace.
As Karen Armstrong asserts, these movements may have been reactions to perceived threats to the church.
During the 1950’s, Christian fundamentalism strengthened in reaction to “Godless communism.” About the same time, evangelical Christians, led by Billy Graham, began to oppose some of the social consciousness movements of the 1960’s: the anti-war movement, the women’s movement; gender equity; and liberalizing views of homosexuality. Evangelicals worked with non-protestant conservatives under the rubric of “family values.” As it evolved, this larger group of evangelicals and conservatives spoke out in favor of lower taxes, more defense spending and less support for welfare. By the late 1970’s, Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” was encouraging conservatives of all kinds to join together. They helped elect a conservative government in 1980, but they were soon replaced by the Christian Coalition, whose leader, Pat Robertson, lost a bid for the Presidency.
Christians aren’t the only ones. Next time, we’ll explore a bit about Judaism’s and Islam’s fundamentalists.
[1]This is one of a series of occasional columns in which the author, raised in the Christian tradition, searches for common ground and common history among the teachings, beliefs and practices of adherents of the Abrahamic faiths -- Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
[2] http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter9.htm, retrieved 4 December 2007
[3] Woolf, Alex, FUNDAMENTALISM.
[4],Ibid., p.4
1 comment:
Ric,
Thanks for sharing this. Here are some reactions (I would be glad to post these if you prefer that venue).
Taking on the topic of "Fundamentalism" in any sort of fair and balanced way is a treacherous task. One is likely to be laughed out of the blogesphere for daring to take such a topic seriously on the one side and one is likely to be attacked for misrepresentation on the other.
So the first thing to say is that this article is for the most part an accurate, balanced and fair description of how "Fundamentalism" is seen in our culture. It is clearly a view from the outside and while that has some benefits, it also suffers from the limitations of that perspective.
First lets consider some points of agreement on how "Fundamentalism" is used relative to "Christian Fundamentalist" whom I have known, since that is the only group about whom I can fairly speak.
The most important point you make is that "Fundamentalist" is often used as a "snarl" word. One is very rarely described in any meaningful way as a "Fundamentalist"-- one is accused of that. It is a bit like being called a "racist". One cannot be taken seriously if one is labeled that way, but anything one does to refute it merely confirms peoples suspicions. The battle is won by merely making the accusation. Any attempt at defense confirms one's guilt.
Of near equal importance (and in stark contrast) is your definition of "Fundamentalist" by listing the 4 doctrinal statements (Usually 5 are cited). This is as close to an insiders definition as you get. For Christian Fundamentalists these beliefs (they would call them truths) are important--important enough to die for, but since dying would have no effect on people freely believing them, there is no threat of violence here. There is strongly motivated action to preserve one's right to believe these things and persuade others of their truth. Beyond protecting those freedoms, there is relatively little political interest.
On a related note, I agree with the statement: "They are quite strict about just what must be believed."
Of much lessor importance, I think Christian Fundamentalists at times "fear that modernity will erode or even eradicate their faith and morality". I think this statement while true gives no indication of how often or how much energy these people put into this issue. It is a little like saying Civil Libertarians fear that conservatives will erode or even eradicate their rights". It is true but it does not give one any indication of whether the person is merely voting with the Democrats, contributing to the ACLU or attempting to move to Cuba.
I think that the statement, "Within Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other faiths, the media generally use the term to refer to the most conservative wing of the religion. For example, fundamentalist Christianity is often described as the most conservative wing of Evangelicalism." is true but it is a statement about the media, not about the accuracy of the use of the term. I am not at all sure what "conservative" means in this context. Is it a political word, a theological word, or another "snarl" word?
Points with which I would disagree at one level or another of seriousness.
I have only rarely hear the term F used with precision in academic circles. (minor point)
Armstrong's definition is from the outset a social judgement not a description. Calling something "an embattled form of __________" is starting out with a slam. This is frequently used of unpopular political candidates. (minor point)
[After reading a bit about her, she might be described as an "embattled author" but that would make be guilty of the same offense. :) ]
Spirituality while very important part of F is not how they would describe themselves. They would be much more likely to describe themselves as "believers in the truth" of the doctrines you describe. Spirituality focuses on experience, F focuses on the content of what one believes. This distinction is not incidental. It is the first of repeated instances of the outside author imposing their terms and categories. It is a form of academic imperialism. APA style has finally come to grips with this reality and requires that one refer to ethnic groups in that way that they would like to be named. Authors when describing groups have a responsibility to discriminate between the values and interpretations that they bring to their data and the observations themselves. This "definition" has stacked the deck before the discussion has begun. (This is more important)
Here is a point that I agree with and disagree with: Fundamentalists believe that "...the words of the holy book of their religion are the exact truth and are not open to different interpretations." F certainly are aware that people disagree with them. They know that there are differing interpretations of the Bible. They have many disagreements and differences (within the group of Fundamentalists) that they tolerate and about which they dialogue. (The classic example is mode of baptism). The point of the 5 fundamentals were that these were things about which they do not and should not disagree. In their view these things were so important that to fail to believe them was to place one's self outside of the Christian faith and there by risk eternal perdition. (This would be most important to them.)
In the paragraph beginning "During the 1950's" the statements are largely accurate in my view but they refer to Evangelicals not Fundamentalists. Jerry Falwell is an excellent example of a self described fundamentalist. Pat Robertson was/is a "Charismatic" which is another large discussion. (unimportant)
I am not sure exactly why you choose this topic. I suspect that you are concerned about the way labels are used to marginalize views before they are even considered. I would share this concern. You may also be concerned about the way entire groups can be come stigmatized by the militant views of a few. This bothers me as well.
I am also concerned that views from the outside often distort the relative importance of issues to a particular group. One might ask a group of homeless people what they think about farm subsidies. They may well have an opinion--most people do when asked. If the writer then headlined the article, Homeless Oppose Farm Subsidies" the writer has then created an issue when none exists. Farm Subsidies may be important to the journalist but completely off the radar for the homeless. When sociologists and historians study a topic like fundamentalism, they bring their categories like "lower taxes, more defense spending and less support for welfare" on which almost every one has an opinion but on which few people actually place much importance. It would be much more informative if the reason why a fundamentalist supported lower taxes were explored. They might point out that in their view people should voluntarily and generously give to help the poor and when one is heavily taxed one has less money to do this. Thus the real difference may not be in whether the poor should be helped but whether Group A should tell the rest of the country how to do this or each person should decide for themselves. Then it would be important to ask the Fundamentalist would they write letters to their congressional representative about this? My guess they would say, "Probably not". They do not like being told how to be charitable but the issue is relatively unimportant compared to say restricting their right to educate their children.
I hope my tone has come across as I intend--gentle and respectful. I am glad you are thinking about these things. Each of us needs to do our bit, to try to help people get along in this very tricky world.
Post a Comment