what is a "fundamentalist"?
"Fundamentalism" has its roots in a Protestant Christian movement in the early 20th century which upheld certain "fundamentals," doctrines which were believed to be essential to historically orthodox Christianity and which were seen to be under attack by theological liberals or "modernists" of the day. These key "fundamentals" were variously described, but included the inspiration of Scripture, the triune nature of God, the deity of Christ, Christ's death as substitutionary atonement, and Christ's bodily resurrection.
Current definitions or descriptions of Christian fundamentalism typically continue to focus around doctrinal characteristics. This has some merit, as one can discern a coherent multi-denominational movement of conservative Protestant Christians who see themselves as upholding the original "fundamentals" noted above, along with other doctrines viewed as equally necessary of vigorous defense, such as the absolute inerrancy of Scripture, young earth creationism, and pretribulational premillennialism. However, there are some problems with a solely doctrinal definition of "fundamentalism."
This early Fundamentalism included a fairly diverse group of people on the conservative half of the theological spectrum, and this diversity has since split off into a variety of separate movements. There are those who still use the language of "fundamentalist" to describe themselves, the more "conservative conservatives," if you will. But there are also those more toward the "moderate conservative" part of the theological spectrum, who do not describe themselves as "fundamentalists" but prefer a label such as "evangelical" or perhaps simply "conservative." Furthermore, the term now no longer exclusively describes Christians. "Islamic fundamentalism" is a phrase one frequently hears these days, and one can speak of other religious "fundamentalisms" quite easily. Indeed, the term even gets thrown around in political, social, and other spheres as well. Thus, while a doctrinal approach to defining "fundamentalism" can be helpful, by itself it cannot adequately distinguish among the various forms of conservative Christianity, nor can it work beyond Christianity.
Rather, I would primarily describe "fundamentalism" in epistemological terms. A fundamentalist is one who professes and portrays absolute certainty regarding a particular body of knowledge which he or she sees as primary related to other areas of knowledge or even logically foundational to all other secondary knowledge. This means a fundamentalist is necessarily conservative in the sense that he or she will not deviate significantly from this body of foundational knowledge which has been received from his or her epistemological forebears. This also means a fundamentalist is a priori closed to considering any competing knowledge claims which are viewed as being in direct contrast with his or her own primary or immediately secondary knowledge claims, and those knowledge claims which are seen to threaten his or her own are vigorously (and, in extreme cases, violently) opposed. It also means that a fundamentalist tends to view all knowledge through the lens of the primary body of knowledge, often even viewing much secondary knowledge as logically, necessarily, and immediately connected to this primary knowledge.
This sort of description has value in several ways, not least because it allows for a range of applications across religion, politics, science, and more, and it can illuminate the issues to which it is applied. For example, one might be seen as liberal in some sense (theologically, politically, socially, etc.) and still be legitimately described as a "fundamentalist," because that person conservatively holds to his or her received liberal views with an absolute certainty that forecloses any genuine dialogue with those holding competing views. The term "fundamentalist" describes their epistemic stance, not their particular views.
So how might this generic epistemological description of "fundamentalism" apply to Christian fundamentalism in particular, merging my epistemological description with more historical or doctrinal descriptions? A Christian fundamentalist is one who professes and portrays absolute certainty regarding his or her theological knowledge (i.e. knowledge about God, his revelation particularly in Scripture, the relationship of God to humanity and all creation) which he or she sees as primary related to other areas of knowledge (e.g. scientific, ethical, etc.) or even logically foundational to all other secondary knowledge. This means a Christian fundamentalist is necessarily conservative in the sense that he or she will not deviate significantly from this body of foundational knowledge which has been received from his or her epistemological forebears (i.e. the "fundamentals" noted above understood quite conservatively, the fundamentalist "identity markers" of absolute inerrancy of Scripture, full divinity of Christ, etc.). This also means a fundamentalist is a priori closed to considering any competing knowledge claims which are viewed as being in direct contrast with his or her own primary or immediately secondary knowledge claims, and those knowledge claims which are seen to threaten his or her own are vigorously opposed (e.g. evolutionary theory, higher criticism, etc.). It also means that a fundamentalist tends to view all knowledge through the lens of the primary body of knowledge (e.g. absolute inerrancy necessitating a "literal" reading of Genesis 1, and thus necessitating a denial of scientific theories on the origins of the universe), often even viewing much secondary knowledge as logically, necessarily, and immediately connected to this primary knowledge (e.g. young earth, literal 6-day creationism as essential to the correct understanding of the saving message of the gospel).
See also my related post: what is an "evangelical"?
Current definitions or descriptions of Christian fundamentalism typically continue to focus around doctrinal characteristics. This has some merit, as one can discern a coherent multi-denominational movement of conservative Protestant Christians who see themselves as upholding the original "fundamentals" noted above, along with other doctrines viewed as equally necessary of vigorous defense, such as the absolute inerrancy of Scripture, young earth creationism, and pretribulational premillennialism. However, there are some problems with a solely doctrinal definition of "fundamentalism."
This early Fundamentalism included a fairly diverse group of people on the conservative half of the theological spectrum, and this diversity has since split off into a variety of separate movements. There are those who still use the language of "fundamentalist" to describe themselves, the more "conservative conservatives," if you will. But there are also those more toward the "moderate conservative" part of the theological spectrum, who do not describe themselves as "fundamentalists" but prefer a label such as "evangelical" or perhaps simply "conservative." Furthermore, the term now no longer exclusively describes Christians. "Islamic fundamentalism" is a phrase one frequently hears these days, and one can speak of other religious "fundamentalisms" quite easily. Indeed, the term even gets thrown around in political, social, and other spheres as well. Thus, while a doctrinal approach to defining "fundamentalism" can be helpful, by itself it cannot adequately distinguish among the various forms of conservative Christianity, nor can it work beyond Christianity.
Rather, I would primarily describe "fundamentalism" in epistemological terms. A fundamentalist is one who professes and portrays absolute certainty regarding a particular body of knowledge which he or she sees as primary related to other areas of knowledge or even logically foundational to all other secondary knowledge. This means a fundamentalist is necessarily conservative in the sense that he or she will not deviate significantly from this body of foundational knowledge which has been received from his or her epistemological forebears. This also means a fundamentalist is a priori closed to considering any competing knowledge claims which are viewed as being in direct contrast with his or her own primary or immediately secondary knowledge claims, and those knowledge claims which are seen to threaten his or her own are vigorously (and, in extreme cases, violently) opposed. It also means that a fundamentalist tends to view all knowledge through the lens of the primary body of knowledge, often even viewing much secondary knowledge as logically, necessarily, and immediately connected to this primary knowledge.
This sort of description has value in several ways, not least because it allows for a range of applications across religion, politics, science, and more, and it can illuminate the issues to which it is applied. For example, one might be seen as liberal in some sense (theologically, politically, socially, etc.) and still be legitimately described as a "fundamentalist," because that person conservatively holds to his or her received liberal views with an absolute certainty that forecloses any genuine dialogue with those holding competing views. The term "fundamentalist" describes their epistemic stance, not their particular views.
So how might this generic epistemological description of "fundamentalism" apply to Christian fundamentalism in particular, merging my epistemological description with more historical or doctrinal descriptions? A Christian fundamentalist is one who professes and portrays absolute certainty regarding his or her theological knowledge (i.e. knowledge about God, his revelation particularly in Scripture, the relationship of God to humanity and all creation) which he or she sees as primary related to other areas of knowledge (e.g. scientific, ethical, etc.) or even logically foundational to all other secondary knowledge. This means a Christian fundamentalist is necessarily conservative in the sense that he or she will not deviate significantly from this body of foundational knowledge which has been received from his or her epistemological forebears (i.e. the "fundamentals" noted above understood quite conservatively, the fundamentalist "identity markers" of absolute inerrancy of Scripture, full divinity of Christ, etc.). This also means a fundamentalist is a priori closed to considering any competing knowledge claims which are viewed as being in direct contrast with his or her own primary or immediately secondary knowledge claims, and those knowledge claims which are seen to threaten his or her own are vigorously opposed (e.g. evolutionary theory, higher criticism, etc.). It also means that a fundamentalist tends to view all knowledge through the lens of the primary body of knowledge (e.g. absolute inerrancy necessitating a "literal" reading of Genesis 1, and thus necessitating a denial of scientific theories on the origins of the universe), often even viewing much secondary knowledge as logically, necessarily, and immediately connected to this primary knowledge (e.g. young earth, literal 6-day creationism as essential to the correct understanding of the saving message of the gospel).
See also my related post: what is an "evangelical"?
Labels: theology
posted by Michael Pahl at
12/16/2007
7 Comments:
I really enjoyed your epistemological description of fundamentalism, especially when combined with the doctrinal tenets of these, as you put it, "conservative conservatives."
I would add a sociological aspect to the description as well. Today's fundamentalist are (in)famous for separating themselves from people with whom they disagree. And even more conservative fundamentalists exhibit what I like to call double separation -- an instance where a group of people refuse to interact or cooperate with people who interact or cooperate with people with whom they disagree.
Let me give an example: The Southern Baptist Convention, an ever-increasingly fundamentalist association by all accounts, ended its association with the Baptist World Alliance because of the BWA's association with churches in Africa that have a different view on women in the ministry. (It should be noted that this example is solely based upon my highly unsympathetic view of the SBC!)
By
J. Matthew Barnes, at 12:44 AM
Matthew, thanks for this addition. I had the concept of separationism in mind when I originally thought of this post, but then I forgot about it when I put the post together. I don't know if separationism characterizes all the various types of fundamentalisms, but it has certainly been characteristic of Christian fundamentalism. Thanks again for noting this.
By
Michael Pahl, at 9:44 AM
In the world of experience we find that "fundamentalists" as you have defined them sometimes change their minds and do engage in dialogue.
Which raises an interesting question.
By
Aaron Armitage, at 5:33 PM
Fundamentalists as I have described them do engage in genuine dialogue with like-minded individuals regarding even secondary convictions (e.g. does the "inerrancy-required" idea that Jesus said the exact words we have in the Gospels mean that he taught in Greek, or that the inspired authors all uniformly translated his various teachings from the Aramaic?), and they can certainly engage in genuine dialogue with others at least regarding tertiary convictions, those not logically connected to the primary convictions (e.g. which is the better hockey team, the Calgary Flames or the Edmonton Oilers?). They can and do change their minds as a result of such dialogue regarding tertiary or even secondary convictions. But for a fundamentalist the real primary convictions are non-negotiable.
Still, it is true that on occasion fundamentalists as I have described them do change their primary convictions, resulting in a complete overhaul of their worldview. But a couple things are worth noting about this phenomenon. First, when a fundamentalist opens himself or herself up to the possibility of the truthfulness of alternative claims, and especially if he or she changes his or her mind regarding the truly primary convictions, he or she is no longer a fundamentalist - by any definition of the term, whether epistemological or theological or otherwise. A Christian fundamentalist who no longer believes in biblical inerrancy is no longer a fundamentalist. Second, such changes in one's primary convictions, while epistemic in nature, are rarely if ever merely cognitive in nature. That is to say that epistemology is not simply about cognition or rationality; rather, primary knowledge is acquired and core beliefs are formed through an engagement of the whole person, involving rationality, emotion, social factors, and more. In other words, it's not as if a fundamentalist consciously decides one day not to a priori close off alternative truth claims, and consequently succumbs to the logic of those alternative claims through a merely cognitive process. Rather, such a shift is likely to be a rather messy and prolonged epistemic mix of such factors as disillusionment with fundamentalist authority figures, dissonance created by meeting non-fundamentalists with a vibrant Christian faith, doubt regarding standard fundamentalist answers to core or even peripheral questions, and so on.
By
Michael Pahl, at 11:17 PM
You seem to be assuming that a genuine dialogue must involve somebody abandoning his beliefs in favor of somebody else's. But this is clearly unreasonable. Even expecting a willingness to do this is unreasonable, in that it writes off most of the encounters that actually comprise intellectual and religious history. E.g., there weas never chance that the early Christians would abandon Christianity in favor of the philosophy of Plotinus.
There is nothing incoherent about believing that there is a primary body of knowledge, and that one has been mistaken about its content. Many examples of people who thought just that can be brought, starting with the Apostle Paul. Whatever the process of changing their mind involved, they did not cease to be fundamentalists in your sense.
By
Aaron Armitage, at 1:53 AM
Aaron, you seem to be assuming that "genuine dialogue" is merely the exchange of information or ideas. Rather, I would describe genuine dialogue as a conversation with the goal of mutual understanding, even mutual learning. This necessitates that each dialogue partner recognize the finitude and fallibility of his or her own views so that there is the real potential for the shaping and re-shaping of one's views in the process of dialogue. I wouldn't think that this sort of ability for genuine dialogue would be part of most people's understandings of "fundamentalism" - by any definition.
It's interesting you bring up the Apostle Paul in this. While Paul certainly held to core beliefs with deep conviction, he was not a fundamentalist as I've defined the term. In the face of the resurrected crucified Christ, he clearly deviated significantly from "the body of foundational knowledge which he had received from his epistemological forebears." And it is Paul who wrote such epistemologically significant, "non-fundamentalist" statements as "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (1 Cor 8:1) and "now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face; now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Cor 13:12). You seem to have grabbed hold of one part of my description of fundamentalism to the exclusion of others. Many people, including myself, hold core beliefs with much conviction, but that in itself does not make them a "fundamentalist" as I've defined the term in my post.
But then again, maybe I'm wrong... :-)
By
Michael Pahl, at 4:57 PM
I fail to see any difference between your description of genuine dialogue and the one you ascribe to me. If there's information and ideas being exchanged, there's an increase in mutual learning and understanding, by definition. In fact, I would say that if ideas are exchanged which then spark new ideas in one or both partners, then more real intellectual progress has happened then if there had been mere "understanding". For you to insist that this is automatically made worthless once somebody labels it fundamentalism is just not good enough.
I'm disappointed to see you merely repeating that if Paul changed his mind he can't have been "fundamentalist" in your sense. Perhaps you're trying to prove a point by demonstrating what imperviousness to dialogue looks like; but I know it exists, I simply denied it necessarily correlates to "fundamentalism" in your sense.
By
Aaron Armitage, at 11:12 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home