Simon Barrow

Abstract

A description, analysis and overview (including guidelines for response) to Christian fundamentalism in particular and the ‘fundamentalist mindset’ more generally.

“Fundamentalism has suddenly become a matter of concern for everyone, whether or not they are personally religious. It affects education in science and history; it affects political elections in some countries, and through this it affects international relations; it may affect the question of whether [hu]mankind survives [far] into the twenty-first century. Therefore, if people want to understand the world in which they live, they may find it necessary to understand something about fundamentalism.” ~ James Barr

INTRODUCTION

….

In this paper we are addressing primarily the phenomenon of Christian fundamentalism in Anglo-American contexts, but with an awareness of global concerns and plural/secular pressures.

‘Fundamentalism’ is popularly used in two different, but overlapping, senses – (1) to denote a set of convictions which their adherents see as ‘fundamental’ and others as extreme or irrational dogmatism; and (2) to denote a procedure for arriving at convictions, often associated with ‘literalism’ in the reading of authoritative sacred texts.

…

1. OBSERVATIONS

The five ‘fundamentals’ annunciated by US Presbyterians in (and subsequently articulated in twelve volumes called The Fundamentals, 1910-1915) are: the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, the virginal conception/deity of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and the facticity of the miracles. The ‘personal return’ (second coming) of Christ is usually added.

It is worth noting that all of these feature in classic evangelical statements of faith (such as that used by UCCF) and that three of them are connected to foundational Christian doctrines – the nature of Christ, resurrection and parousia, making it impossible to regard the problem of fundamentalism as entirely extrinsic to the mainstream.

….

The key to historic Christian fundamentalism is often taken to be infallibility/inerrancy, terms which can denote either similar or distinguishable ‘doctrines of scripture’ (that is, human propositions about the Bible) – with conservative evangelicals (often wrongly termed ‘fundamentalists’) seeing the biblical message as unerringly truthful in all that it teaches, but not necessarily on all that it touches or describes (I. H. Marshall).

Biblical scholar James Barr – in Fundamentalism (1977), Escaping from Fundamentalism (1984) and Beyond Fundamentalism (1984) – has noted, with others, that Christian fundamentalism is mostly not, as its critics inaccurately claim, ‘literalistic’ in it scriptural references. Instead he shows that fundamentalism understood as a particular, authoritarian reading of the Bible is actually a surprisingly ‘modern’ phenomenon – a distorted version of rationalism which fits selected texts into a pre-determined ideology that it then reads back into them (eisegesis).

He demonstrates this by elaborating the ways in which fundamentalist interpretation resists the plain or surface meaning of the text for one which harmonises its irregularities in favour of a particular doctrinal outcome. He also shows that those who claim ‘only one possible meaning’ for the texts they use as knock-down authorisation for their opinions frequently come up with different or diametrically opposed accounts of what the ‘one truth’ is. Fundamentalism is notoriously sectarian.

The key word is ‘interpretation’. If fundamentalism is rendered coherent and is characterised by any one thing, it is its refusal to recognise that its reading of scripture is, like all textual reading, interpretative. Rather, it sees the authoritative text as being unmediated.

2. DEFINITIONS

…

Giles Fraser (‘Why legalism misrepresents the Bible’, Ekklesia, 27/01/07)

observes a further twist: “When someone put in those nasty verse numbers, the lawyers started to feel it was their book – a set of regulations. Chapter and verse started sounding like paragraph 1, subsection 3 of a legal contract. That was the point at which some Christians began to reject the idea that the Bible could be read in various ways, and, worse still, that it might contain contradictions or poetry. Such things would undermine its status as the ultimate legal document.”

It is the belief that revealed truth is to be apprehended directly and in an unmediated (often legalistic) form by a privileged group which distinguishes the ‘fundamentalist mindset’ – and which makes it possible, despite the difficulties noted above, to use the term more generally. But its pejorative and abusive connotations often disable such descriptive usefulness with emotivism.

3. PROBLEMS

Emotion aside, however, it must be recognised that convictions about being the recipient of un-mediated truth, when combined with the view that ‘error has no rights’, leads frequently, if not unassailably, to totalitarianism. This can be the case in some forms of modern Christian fundamentalism, where the ‘classical’ formula has been further revised in the direction of a violent, vindicatory apocalyptic that validates divinely mandated victory for the carriers of a particular viewpoint. And where the erosion of power and influence that flowed from Christendom has produced a victim mentality which equates loss of suasion or privilege with anti-Christian prejudice (something which may, it must be conceded, exist) and persecution (which, in the plural West, does not). In this sense, the fundamentalist mindset, reinforced by an all-encompassing, localised and inward-looking culture, can be profoundly damaging, corrosive and dangerous – not least to biblical faith, and to politics as a negotiation of power in the presence of difference.

…

In his book Faith and Politics After Christendom (2006), Jonathan Bartley has outlined some ways in which Christian fundamentalism, routinely thought of as aggressively assertive but not violent, can spill over into the use of violence – and in some cases already has. See also ‘The end of Christendom as a political threat’, Ekklesia, 09/01/07, Karen Armstrong’s study, The Battle for God (2001), and Leonardo Boff, Fundamentalism, Terrorism and the Future of Humanity (2005).

…

5. RESPONSES

….

. Since fundamentalism involves claims about unmediated truth, perhaps the best and surprising response (for Christians) is the Bible itself – which proves to be, in its variety, subtlety and engagement of the reader in its broad range of understandings and practices – nothing like the book (mis)described by fundamentalism. Deep engagement with scripture and with the interpretative, communal and life skills it requires of us is something the churches generally under-emphasise. Interestingly, a survey by Christian Research has indicated that ‘fundamentalist’ churches are often among those where the Bible is studied least, contrary to general assumptions.

. Similarly, fundamentalism tends to reduce Christ to an ideological tool, de-emphasising the person of Jesus, the Jesus-movement in Christian history and discipleship – and therefore the central Christian conviction that the Word has become, first and foremost, flesh.

….

. ‘Infallibility’ and ‘inerrancy’ are human constructs which stress the inviolability of something within human control. The Christian message, by contrast, is that God has chosen the ‘weak vessels’ of flesh, textuality, history, reason and tradition through which to address us. In this respect, as David E. Jenkins has observed, “fundamentalism is fatally flawed” from the perspective of a mainstream Christian orientation. The biblical language is of “inspiration”, divine wisdom working with, in and through the mind and the heart, rather than over and against these things.

. Fundamentalism as a mindset is a refusal of conversation. In must cases it cannot be out-argued or ‘reasoned with’, because its narrow premises are constructed in such a way as to eliminate critique and encourage self-affirmation. But this should not lead us to the dangerous conclusion that encounter with fundamentalists is unnecessary or unfruitful.

. On the contrary, many Christians pass through a ‘fundamentalist phase’, especially when they are young or new to the faith. Security and relationship are precisely what enable people to move beyond this stage, and to discover a rootedness which is about grace rather than self-assertion. Writing people off and labelling them reinforces the exclusive culture which nurtures the fundamentalist mindset. Encouraging Christians to mix and talk widely, both inside and outside the church, opens windows to closed minds if it is done in the right spirit.

. James Barr and others – including highly-regarded evangelical scholars such as James D. G. Dunn and I. Howard Marshall – are right to stress that ‘evangelical commitment’ and the mindset of fundamentalism are not the same thing – indeed they are opposites, since the former is a disposition of faith (reasonable trust) rather than certainty.

. There are very particular problems stemming from fundamentalism which churches and Christian organisations need to address much more directly than they are at the moment. One of these is ‘creationism’ and its cousin Intelligent Design, which posits a conflict between natural science and divine wisdom, and rejects the traditional Christian view that God creates ex nihilo (i.e. donates rather than manufactures) and upholds the whole world process rather than a part of it where ‘gaps’ can be identified. The problem of creationism stems in part from a blinkered reading of Genesis which ignores its varied and figurative expression and imposes instead the refutation of a modern theory of origins (evolution) – which it mistakenly thinks of as a threat.

…

. Current arguments around sexuality within the churches are also infected by ‘proof-texting’ and other procedures reflective of, if not necessarily rooted in, the fundamentalist mindset.

…

. In the USA and elsewhere there are identifiable (and self-identifying)

fundamentalist movements. In Britain most Christians eschew the term, but ‘the fundamentalist mindset’ can be seen in some non-denominational and ‘new’ churches, as well as within traditional denominations. Creationist ideas can be found within some Church of England settings, for example. It is not just a problem ‘out there’ for the historic churches, and it is clearly an ecumenical as well as an inter-faith challenge.

…

Simon Barrow January 2007

[This paper was originally prepared for a consultation in Elizabeth House, Westminster, London. Further research and response may follow.]

from http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/research/070201

Related Articles:

• THE NEW EVANGELICALS: HOW CHRISTIANS ARE RETHINKING ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE
• Theologians, like parents, are invited to be humble as well as (frequently) ignorant…
• The Jesus Driven Life
• INCARNATION
• Virgin Birth: ‘God degraded Mary?’

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.