Christian fundamentalism - What is it and is the term helpful?

[Dawnofhope]

I’ve been reflecting on Christian fundamentalism, what it is and what it isn’t. Is the term helpful or is it more pejorative and used to create divisions? I live in New Zealand where we have a lot less Christians and religious fundamentalists than some other countries such as the USA. Every now and then I come across attitudes and behaviours from some Christian fundamentalists that appear harmful and disturbing.

As I was reflecting on a recent encounter on this forum with an American Christian whom I view as a fundamentalist, I thought it might be helpful to better understand what Christian fundamentalism is and isn’t. What is positive about Christian fundamentalism and what isn’t so good. What are the origins of this movement both in the USA and my country. Its a huge topic I know but an important one.

I’ll start off with what Wikipedia:

Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Fundamentalists are almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible. A few scholars label Catholics who reject modern theology in favor of more traditional doctrines fundamentalists.Scholars debate how much the terms "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are synonymous. In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the role of Jesus in the Bible, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists usually believe in a core of Christian beliefs which include the historical accuracy of the Bible and all of the events which are recorded in it as well as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Interpretations of Christian fundamentalism have changed over time. Fundamentalism as a movement manifested in various denominations with various theologies, rather than a single denomination or systematic theology. It became active in the 1910s after the release of The Fundamentals, a twelve-volume set of essays, apologetic and polemic, written by conservative Protestant theologians to defend what they saw as Protestant orthodoxy. The movement became more organized within U.S. Protestant churches in the 1920s, especially with Baptists and Presbyterians.

Many churches which embraced fundamentalism adopted a militant attitude with regard to their core beliefs and combined Princeton theology with Dispensationalism.Since 1930, many fundamentalist churches have been represented by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America(renamed IFCA International in 1996), which holds to biblical inerrancy.

Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

So are we any wiser or knowledgeable with this description?

What is Christian fundamentalism?

Is the term ‘Christian fundamentalist’ useful?

What does Christian fundamentalism contribute both positively and negatively towards culture in the West?

 

[Sunstone]

According to one scholar, whose name I forget at the moment, fundamentalism in Christianity and in all other religions in which it's a thing, has in common several traits. The trait that I myself find so revealing about its core nature is that it is everywhere reactionary. And it's biggest reaction is to oppose modernity.

 

[Sunstone]

I sometimes use the term Evangelicals and Fundamentalists interchangeably. I shouldn't do that, but I do. Not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists, although an exceedingly high percentage of them are.

 

[Dawnofhope]

According to one scholar, whose name I forget at the moment, fundamentalism in Christianity and in all other religions in which it's a thing, has in common several traits. The trait that I myself find so revealing about its core nature is that it is everywhere reactionary. And its reaction is to oppose modernity.

Well, the movement appears to have arisen as a reaction to modernity and liberalism within theology. So instead of considering parts of the Bible from an historical and contextual perspective in the light of developing knowledge as it should (IMHO) a much more literal approach was taken and biblical inerrancy emphasised. This appears to be a huge step backwards. Now over 100 years on, fundamentalism and accompanying fanaticism appear as strong as ever.

 

[Sunstone]

Colorado Springs, where I live, is important to Evangelicals. They call it "The Jerusalem of the Rockies". An effort has been made to turn it into an utopia for Evangelicals. An effort that includes contacting churches around the nation, asking them to send their best families here.

At any rate, that migration began in 1992, the year before I myself got here. Back in the day, people would routinely say they were "fundamentalists". You heard folks describe themselves with that term at lest five times more often than with the name Evangelicals.

Then came the attacks of September 11 and everything seemed to change within two or three days. From that attacks on, the Evangelicals seldom if ever referred to themselves as fundamentalists.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Colorado Springs, where I live, is important to Evangelicals. They call it "The Jerusalem of the Rockies". An effort has been made to turn it into an utopia for Evangelicals. An effort that includes contacting churches around the nation, asking them to send their best families here.

At any rate, that migration began in 1992, the year before I myself got here. Back in the day, people would routinely say they were "fundamentalists". You heard folks describe themselves with that term at lest five times more often than with the name Evangelicals.

Then came the attacks of September 11 and everything seemed to change within two or three days. From that attacks on, the Evangelicals seldom if every refer to themselves as fundamentalists.

Interesting. So its evangelism instead of fundamentalism but the same underlying mentality with similarities to fundamentalism within other religions.

 

[Sunstone]

...liberalism within theology.

The "liberalism within theology" that the Wiki article is referring to was in itself a response to rise during the 1800s of German philology. The philologists began in the early 1800s to apply the same scholarly tools that they had honed studying Homer, Hesiod, Plato, Aristotle, and the other Greeks to studying the Bible. Consequently, they produced volumes of new information about the texts. That led to the rise of liberal theologies.

So here is the progression.

German philology ------------> liberal theology ----------------> fundamentalism

Note that fundamentalism from its very start is reactionary, and opposed to "too much learning".

 

[Sunstone]

Interesting. So its evangelism instead of fundamentalism but the same underlying mentality with similarities to fundamentalism within other religions.

Exactly, except for one detail. It's not "similarities" with other religions. The more precise term would be "commonalities".

In Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, fundamentalism always reacts negatively to modernity (and about 12 or so other things that I can't recall with certainty at the moment). By that, I mean it usually accepts modern technology, along with modern medicine and a few other modern things, but overall it rejects modernity in most of the forms that modernity takes.

For instance, you will everywhere find precisely the same opposition to modern notions that a woman should be equal to her partner in marriage.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Exactly, except for one detail. It's not "similarities" with other religions. The more precise term would be "commonalities".

In Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, fundamentalism always reacts negatively to modernity (and about 12 or so other things that I can't recall with certainty at the moment). By that, I mean it usually accepts modern technology, along with modern medicine and a few other modern things, but overall it rejects modernity in most of the forms that modernity takes.

For instance, you will everywhere find precisely the same opposition to modern notions that a woman should be equal to her partner in marriage.

Christian fundamentalism accepts science and human rights except when it appears to contradict a particular inerrant and literal Biblical view. That is why creationism and rejection of natural sciences is so rife but medicine is usually acceptable. It would account for derogatory views of peoples who don’t fit the conservative Christian mould. It accounts for struggles with gender equality as you note. It pervades some tribal political ideologies. All these qualities are of course negative. I would see the potential in any faith community to promote positive attributes such as altruism, love and truthfulness. Of course you don’t need religion for any of these. But the emphasis on virtues and values in religion would account some of positive qualities seen in some fundamentalists. Its important not to overly stereotype Christian fundamentalists and evangelists as this group represents a broad spectrum of people. However there are some attributes amongst this group that are problematic, in some instances highly problematic.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I’ve been reflecting on Christian fundamentalism, what it is and what it isn’t. Is the term helpful or is it more pejorative and used to create divisions? I live in New Zealand where we have a lot less Christians and religious fundamentalists than some other countries such as the USA. Every now and then I come across attitudes and behaviours from some Christian fundamentalists that appear harmful and disturbing.

As I was reflecting on a recent encounter on this forum with an American Christian whom I view as a fundamentalist, I thought it might be helpful to better understand what Christian fundamentalism is and isn’t. What is positive about Christian fundamentalism and what isn’t so good. What are the origins of this movement both in the USA and my country. Its a huge topic I know but an important one.

I’ll start off with what Wikipedia:

Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Fundamentalists are almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible. A few scholars label Catholics who reject modern theology in favor of more traditional doctrines fundamentalists.Scholars debate how much the terms "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are synonymous. In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the role of Jesus in the Bible, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists usually believe in a core of Christian beliefs which include the historical accuracy of the Bible and all of the events which are recorded in it as well as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Interpretations of Christian fundamentalism have changed over time. Fundamentalism as a movement manifested in various denominations with various theologies, rather than a single denomination or systematic theology. It became active in the 1910s after the release of The Fundamentals, a twelve-volume set of essays, apologetic and polemic, written by conservative Protestant theologians to defend what they saw as Protestant orthodoxy. The movement became more organized within U.S. Protestant churches in the 1920s, especially with Baptists and Presbyterians.

Many churches which embraced fundamentalism adopted a militant attitude with regard to their core beliefs and combined Princeton theology with Dispensationalism.Since 1930, many fundamentalist churches have been represented by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America(renamed IFCA International in 1996), which holds to biblical inerrancy.

Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

So are we any wiser or knowledgeable with this description?

What is Christian fundamentalism?

Is the term ‘Christian fundamentalist’ useful?

What does Christian fundamentalism contribute both positively and negatively towards culture in the West?

Fundamentalists from all religions are those who aim to make their religion go back to the fundamentals of the faith as they believe that modern practitioners have deviated too far from the true faith because of science and modern discovery etc. For instance they might see evolution as the devils way of trying to lead true believers away from the true faith by clever means because evolution disagrees with their interpretation of the bible. Fundamentalists don't actually use a literal understanding of their books though, because having come from a fundamentalist Christian group, it is more that they interpret interpret the religious book as literal and figurative dependent on their agenda. The main point is that they view their book as infallible.

For you specifically to easily understand the nature of fundamentalists, they believe that religion must stay as it is and not progress from its roots, which is the opposite of what the Baha'i believe.

 

[Sunstone]

Christian fundamentalism accepts science...except when it appears to contradict a particular inerrant and literal Biblical view.

I can agree with you in a way, but I think the fuller truth is in the details here. The statement, "Christian fundamentalism accepts science" is true, but you must first restrict the definition of "science" for that statement to be largely true. You must restrict the definition of science to meaning a body of knowledge.

What is science to you? To most people, science is a body of knowledge. To philosophers of science -- and even to backwater students of the philosophy of science (such as myself -- I'm very backwater) -- science is not only a body of knowledge, but much, much more importantly, science is a method of inquiry (or set of methods).

Christian fundamentalism explicitly rejects certain areas of science (knowledge) and as a consequence promotes confusion, ignorance, and misunderstanding about science (methods). That is, you cannot launch a major, decades long attack on the evolutionary sciences without sooner or later attacking their methods, and by extension, the methods of all of the sciences.

In promoting confusion, ignorance, and misunderstanding about the methods of science, Christian fundamentalism can be reasonably described as much more broadly opposed to science in general that it otherwise might be reasonably described.

To put it in almost poetic terms, how many Nobel Prize winning scientists are Christian fundamentalists? How many members of the various national academies of science are Christian fundamentalists? How many faculty members of the science departments of major universities? etc.

The hypothesis that the fundamentalist rejection of science is restricted to only certain sciences, and is in no significant nor meaningful way more broad based than that, does not seem to me entirely satisfactory. But your mileage might vary.

Am I making any sense, bro? I don't have a lot of time to write this. Maybe I'm not making enough sense.

 

[Skwim]

.

I've always considered the prime element of fundamentalism to be the literal interpretation of the Bible; everything else being of secondary importance or at least something shared with other theologies.

.

 

[Sunstone]

There is a scientific take on fundamentalism --- based on tMRI studies -- that has found fundamentalism can in some ways be quite beneficial to the fundamentalist. Apparently, so long as he or she does not take it too far. I have been meaning to read up on the studies for ages now, but I keep putting them off and off as other things crop up. Maybe I will be inspired now to get off my lazy butt. If so, I will report back.

 

[Sunstone]

The question of what Christian fundamental contributes positively to Western culture is an intriguing one. I would say it has the potential to contribute quite a bit. I do not believe it is currently living up to that potential, but it is my understanding that the reasons it does not is because of its leadership since the 1970s in America. In other words, it is not the religion itself, but the religion's leaders, who are at fault.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For instance, you will everywhere find precisely the same opposition to modern notions that a woman should be equal to her partner in marriage.

OMGosh remember the purity movement??? How severe it became, where teenage girls were being married off by their families transferring ownership by fathers to their husbands? It just got way out of control. The founder, btw, has left the movement and Christianity altogether, and has written a book disavowing everything he did.

 

[Sunstone]

OMGosh remember the purity movement???

Oh dear, do I remember! This town was such a hotbed for it, that the local newspaper and TV stations only ran glowing stories on it. Not a breath of criticism.

The founder, btw, has left the movement and Christianity altogether, and has written a book disavowing everything he did.

I was totally unprepared to hear that. Quite surprising.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Fundamentalists from all religions are those who aim to make their religion go back to the fundamentals of the faith as they believe that modern practitioners have deviated too far from the true faith because of science and modern discovery etc. For instance they might see evolution as the devils way of trying to lead true believers away from the true faith by clever means because evolution disagrees with their interpretation of the bible. Fundamentalists don't actually use a literal understanding of their books though, because having come from a fundamentalist Christian group, it is more that they interpret interpret the religious book as literal and figurative dependent on their agenda. The main point is that they view their book as infallible.

For you specifically to easily understand the nature of fundamentalists, they believe that religion must stay as it is and not progress from its roots, which is the opposite of what the Baha'i believe.

I appreciate your input as you used to be part of a religious denomination (the JWs) that appears to me 'fundamentalist' in some aspects.

Being willing to deviate from established scientific facts in favour of religious belief is definitely problematic. Is it symptomatic of being 'fundamentalist?' Most likely. Using a dubious religious narrative about the devil deceiving people with science adds another level of concern.

I take you point about promoting a religious agenda as opposed to a literal interpretation. Depending on what that agenda is could be fundamentalist or even move into the territory of being cult like behavior.

The Baha'i Faith has been criticized by some on this forum as being a fundamentalist religion. I don't believe it is, certainly not in the way we understand Christian fundamentalism.

Thanks for your post.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I appreciate your input as you used to be part of a religious denomination (the JWs) that appears to me 'fundamentalist' in some aspects.

Being willing to deviate from established scientific facts in favour of religious belief is definitely problematic. Is it symptomatic of being 'fundamentalist?' Most likely. Using a dubious religious narrative about the devil deceiving people with science adds another level of concern.

I take you point about promoting a religious agenda as opposed to a literal interpretation. Depending on what that agenda is could be fundamentalist or even move into the territory of being cult like behavior.

The Baha'i Faith has been criticized by some on this forum as being a fundamentalist religion. I don't believe it is, certainly not in the way we understand Christian fundamentalism.

Thanks for your post.

I do not see how the Baha'i can be fundamentalist (from what I know about you guys) because you promote what I see as an evolution of religion. You don't agree that religion must go back to the fundamentals, in fact to me you guys seem strongly against that to the point of not being able to comprehend how a person can stick to old teachings. Anti-fundamentalism seems to be one of Baha'i's core teachings to me, since you believe that different manifestations appear at different times with information relevant to their local era.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I can agree with you in a way, but I think the fuller truth is in the details here. The statement, "Christian fundamentalism accepts science" is true, but you must first restrict the definition of "science" for that statement to be largely true. You must restrict the definition of science to meaning a body of knowledge.

What is science to you? To most people, science is a body of knowledge. To philosophers of science -- and even to backwater students of the philosophy of science (such as myself -- I'm very backwater) -- science is not only a body of knowledge, but much, much more importantly, science is a method of inquiry (or set of methods).

Christian fundamentalism explicitly rejects certain areas of science (knowledge) and as a consequence promotes confusion, ignorance, and misunderstanding about science (methods). That is, you cannot launch a major, decades long attack on the evolutionary sciences without sooner or later attacking their methods, and by extension, the methods of all of the sciences.

In promoting confusion, ignorance, and misunderstanding about the methods of science, Christian fundamentalism can be reasonably described as much more broadly opposed to science in general that it otherwise might be reasonably described.

To put it in almost poetic terms, how many Nobel Prize winning scientists are Christian fundamentalists? How many members of the various national academies of science are Christian fundamentalists? How many faculty members of the science departments of major universities? etc.

The hypothesis that the fundamentalist rejection of science is restricted to only certain sciences, and is in no significant nor meaningful way more broad based than that, does not seem to me entirely satisfactory. But your mileage might vary.

Am I making any sense, bro? I don't have a lot of time to write this. Maybe I'm not making enough sense.

Your point is an excellent one. Its not a case of following some science and omitting other science. When one omits a large section of science in favour of religion it is becoming blind to reality. It is disrespecting the truth and it becomes a slippery slope. Its like if we start allowing ourselves to lie in certain circumstances, then why not in other circumstances. Then how do we respond to the science that contradicts our worldview? I don't see that I could express this sentiment any better and you have touched on an essential problem with fundamentalism.

 

[Polymath257]

Karen Armstrong's book 'The Battle For God' is about the rise of fundamentalism in the three main Abrahamic religions. It points to these movements are being reactionary against modern sensibilities and tracks their development over time (going to the 17th century as I recall). It really is a fascinating book.