When I was a kiddo I heard my Mom talk about being a 1fundamentalist. This was clearly a good thing. Doesn’t everyone want to get the fundamentals right? As I grew, I also grew uneasy. I could see the other big people around me were using “fundamentalist” negatively, pejoratively. I didn’t know why. And when I became an adult, I realized “fundamentalism” was a nearly 100%-bad thing. How did something which was clearly a good thing become nearly 100% bad?
It seems to me this is a language problem. Language evolves. Or, really, our thinking evolves and language sometimes does not keep up.
Anyway, both uses of the term are legit. However, it wasn’t until I heard Skye Jethani say the following that things really clicked: “fundamentalism” (in the way he uses the term) is believing that your highest goal is to maintain the purity of core truths.
So “fundamentalism” can mean several things. It surely starts out as meaning “1” below and sometimes becomes meaning “2”:
- I am committed to core truths.
- The most important thing I can do is maintain the purity of core truths.
Definition one is positive. Who would argue with being committed to core truths? Everyone should do this in every setting.
Definition two contains the hint of a problem. And it is surely an offshoot of definition one! So it begins well. But it does not usually end well. I take definition two and expand it below. (This is all just my opinion. But I hope you find it enjoyable and helpful. It has certainly helped me to process all of this.)
Diving Into Definition Two
“The most important thing I can do” is the key part of this phrase. Surely people agree that maintaining core truths is important. But, is it always the most important thing a person can do? The only way for this to always be the most important thing is if the people who made the list of core truths never made mistakes. That seems unlikely. The reason there’s a “backspace” button on my keyboard is that people make mistakes all the time. (I literally just backspaced.) It seems to me that the major problem with definition two is that it does not make room for human fallibility. To be a bit mean about it, it lacks humility.
Second, and possibly the most important, “maintain” puts the adherent in the position of defense which is a combat position. This requires that this person’s focus becomes all that is bad, wrong, and untrue. If a person is to keep something pure, that person must be on the lookout for all that is impure! And fight it! Thus this position likely creates a dark, negative, even fearful mindset. This contributes to the “us vs them” mindset of fundamentalists which is their most salient characteristic and, in my mind, the most damaging result of the paradigm.
Third, “purity” is an expression of perfection and the way we usually think of “perfection” is as something static. This results in an unchangeable set of core truths for all time. And while that may be perfectly reasonable for “core truths” the problem is that what is “core” and what is not “core” is not always clear, can be different from person to person, and can change over time. The real problem occurs when “core truths” are expanded to include all sorts of peripheral truths and so now practically everything is unchangeable, producing a rigid, fragile, and urgent culture. Two other thoughts that I think are relevant are 1) “perfect” and “human” don’t usually go together and 2) you should not make the perfect the enemy of the good, i.e. the pursuit of perfection often results in the destruction of not just the desired perfect result but also all good possible results; you are left only with disaster.
And fourth, fundamentalism inadvertently encourages reductionist, overly-simplistic thinking because how can you defend great complexity? The cosmos must be reduced and made formulaic so we can defend it and maintain its purity.
Application of Definition Two
Within the context of American Protestant conservative Christianity, I use “fundamentalist” in the “definition two” sense for the rest of this essay. In fundamentalism’s attempt to maintain the purity of its set of core truths, this often means it teaches most of the following:
- Truth can be statically contained in words and even systematized.
- The Bible is in all ways 100% reliable, and the Bible should be interpreted literally as much as possible.
- There is only one correct way to interpret the first few chapters of Genesis.
- Women can not lead over men in church.
- The United States of America has a special place in “God’s plan”.
- The contemporary state of Israel is God’s chosen people whom we should treat with deference.
- The world is out to get you so keep yourself as pure and unstained from them as possible and, if you really want to help the world, fight culture wars (also, fight all the non-fundamentalists).
Comparison/Responses to the Seven Positions Listed Above
- Philosophy of Theology and Knowledge
- Inerrancy of the Bible
- Origins of the Universe
- Women in Church Leadership
- Christian Nationalism
- Christian Zionism
- View of Culture: Us vs Them
The resources I link to are not necessarily the best (although they’re very good) but instead are simply ones I’ve found and appreciated in my journey. (I will likely amend these resources over time. If you’ve got one, send it my way!)
Explanation of Order of Items
The order of the above list is mostly conceptual. A particular position on number one – a static view of theology – leads directly to number two. And number two leads to numbers three and four.
The rest do not necessarily flow from number one. But the rigidity that number one creates reinforces the rigidity and militancy with which many hold numbers five, six, and seven.
Primacy of Number Seven
While conceptually number one is the most important – i.e. most things flow from it – most of us are not even aware of these ideas let alone the domino effect from one idea to the next. So, for those operating more at a cultural level and less at the level of intellectual investigation, number seven is the most important. Many conservative Protestants hold to many ideas within numbers one through six, but they do not hold to seven. Item seven most strongly marks an individual or group as fundamentalist. It is combat mentality, which is often paired with doomsday thinking.
Conclusion
I really love the “definition one” sense of “fundamentalism”, which is positive and all people would agree with. I mean, it’s so simple it’s practically a tautology. But language is not under my control and the vast majority of people use “fundamentalism” in a pejorative way, so I must use it that way too. Since I’ve never heard anyone be as precise as Skye Jethani in defining a pejorative use of this term, I’m going with his use, i.e. I’m going with “definition two” above.
Using “definition two”, I imagine it’s obvious that I choose to keep human fallibility ever before my eyes, don’t ever want to occupy a combat position towards my fellow human beings – I choose to pursue peace, and I don’t want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Last, due to the fact that I’m a blasted intellectual, I usually do not fall into the ditch of over-simplifying; instead, my likely mistake is over-complicating matters or forgetting to take breaks as I try to process something very complicated. So, on this one count, I make for a pretty bad fundamentalist, and I feel good about that.
Regarding the seven topics which I chose to highlight as fundamentalist, I truly support all those (and myself!) who, in good faith, pursue persuasions which are opposite from our own in order to test our own persuasions and increase the chance of getting closer to the truth and closer to health.
Footnotes
- This is within the realm of American Protestant Christianity and culture. Obviously you could be a fundamentalist about knitting or being a political conservative/liberal or anything else. Maybe I should do a knitting post after this… But it’s worth noting that “fundamentalism” is most frequently used within religion and that, according to what I read online, its most well-known expression (perhaps even the place it originates from) is, well, this one: American Protestant Christianity. ↩︎
Musings 