Sunday 13 December 2009

What is fundamentalism?

Defining Christian fundamentalism is a notoriously difficult task, and one that even scholars are still debating. Part of the problem is that it is generally a negative term, and therefore a label from which most fundamentalists want to distance themselves.

I freely admit I've not always gotten it right, and I invite others to comment on how I have defined fundamentalism in my writings. I think I was much too vague when I defined fundamentalism in the 2007 book Leaving Fundamentalism.

On my website LeavingFundamentalism.org, I offered the following definition:
[By fundamentalism we refer to] certain conservative Christian churches and religious groups, usually evangelical, charismatic or Pentecostal, who have the following features in common:
  • An insistence that their brand of religion uniquely represents "true Christianity";
  • Intolerance of and hostility towards views outside the accepted teachings of their church or group;
  • Exclusion, whether actively or verbally, of people whose 'lifestyles' are deemed immoral or sinful, e.g. gays and lesbians, cohabiting couples or divorcees;
  • A zeal for evangelism and conversion using methods and techniques that frequently border on psychological, emotional and spiritual manipulation and abuse;
  • A radical distrust of the secular world, often manifest in anti-intellectualism, and exalting the 'spiritual' and the 'Word of God' over reason or logic.

Because these fundamentalist groups are largely conservative, Protestant and evangelical, their distinct theological beliefs often centre around the following:

  • The Bible is the Word of God, without error, and is the only authoritative guide to morality and belief;
  • Their interpretation of the Bible is the 'clear meaning';
  • Only by being 'born again' (converted) can one be truly saved and be guaranteed heaven;
  • Those not born again will face punishment, e.g. hell.

In sum, fundamentalist Christianity encourages a very black-and-white view of the world, where everyone is 'in' or 'out', 'saved' or 'unsaved', and where belief and behaviour is cut-and-dry -- 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!'

On revisiting this definition, I think it is actually quite fair. Notice that the theological beliefs alone do not make someone a fundamentalist (I know lots of people who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, for example, but whom I would hesitate to call fundamentalists). Those beliefs may be seen as indicators, but the essence of fundamentalism lies in the other characteristics I first described.

But to this definition, I would like to add a couple of thoughts.

First, I now perceive fundamentalism as a centre, out from which various Christians form ever increasing circles. Rather than seeing Christians as being strictly in or out of fundamentalism, they are at varying distances from the centre. (I borrow this analogy from my friend John Halton, who once defined evangelicalism similarly).

Second, my recent experience of Christians from Bible college and church days has shown me what lies at the root of fundamentalism, or the difference between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. The key lies in
the ability to make room for other people's stories. Fundamentalists shut out voices that represent other stories, other agendas. To the extent that a person is not generous enough to make room for others without insisting on conformity to their story and their agenda, that person is a fundamentalist.

I am pleased to say that many of my Christian friends have utterly failed to live up to my definition of fundamentalism - and I am grateful.

4 comments:

  1. Interesting post which leaves me happy because I now feel free from this lifestyle but sad & embarrassed at the way I adopted and once lived it out. God I only hope I never hurt or damaged anyone in the process. thanks David.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent post. And I also think the key lies in the ability to make room for other people's stories. Fundamentalists shut out voices that represent other stories, other agendas applies not just to Christian fundamentalism, but to other forms too; various political beliefs, certain forms of Radical Feminism, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Dave. Good post. Your definition of fundamentalism is excellent: gets away from the working definition many people unconsciously have, in which a fundamentalist is someone who believes more than them (like an alcoholic being someone who drinks more than their doctor!). It's beliefs of a particular type plus behavioural/personality aspects.

    I agree with your point about fundamentalism being a "centred set", though I'm a little uneasy at implicitly defining Christians in terms of their relationship towards fundamentalism. I'd say that fundamentalism is an attempt to define a new centre to the Christian faith (a literal interpretation of Scripture, rather than Christ). So part of rejecting fundamentalism is to reject its claim to define non-fundamentalist beliefs, to set the terms on which Christianity is interpreted.

    The key lies in the ability to make room for other people's stories. Fundamentalists shut out voices that represent other stories, other agendas. To the extent that a person is not generous enough to make room for others without insisting on conformity to their story and their agenda, that person is a fundamentalist.

    Hammer, nail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dennis, I think all of us who've been in fundamentalist circles share a certain embarrassment about how we've participated in it in the past. The important thing is that we've moved on.

    Ruth, for sure. It's very easy for people to leave fundamentalism and jump straight into another -ism that's just as narrow-minded.

    John, I agree, and think I just didn't express myself very well. I don't really want to define all Christians in terms of their relationship to fundamentalism. I suppose my concern is how to judge these things when it's appropriate or when the question arises.

    By viewing fundamentalism as a centre, rather than a defined, fenced-off area, I think it offers a more realistic way of assessing fundamentalism. So rather than asking the simplistic question Is she/are you/am I a fundamentalist? we ask the question To what extent does she/do you/do I reflect or assimilate those core fundamentalist characteristics?

    I think I'd use "fundamentalist" in the same way as I use the word "cult." I think it's much more helpful to a discussion to treat "cult" as an abstract and then assess to what extent a group reflects that concept, than to have a single definition that explicitly includes and excludes groups in clean-cut fashion. So I'm much more likely to say "this group is cultish" than "this group is a cult."

    The reason that way of defining things is more helpful is that it eschews simplistic categories, and also helps to avoid an us-versus-them mentality. When categories are so simplistic, it's very easy to absolve yourself of responsibility for assessing your own beliefs and the groups you belong to, ie I'm very obviously NOT one of them, so everything's fine and dandy.

    Hope this all makes sense. I'm usually a very good communicator (even if I say so myself), but it can get a bit convoluted when I'm trying to express things that are quite new to my thinking!

    ReplyDelete