WhatIsaFundamentalist

Are you a fundamentalist? Is it always a bad word or could you be proud of it?

There are lots of things people mean by this, that's the problem. Some definitions would make some of us fundamentalists. Some definitions would make many of us against fundamentalism. Here's a list we can add to of things people might mean:

• Someone who doesn't use common sense to live out their faith but just does what they or someone else thinks is right without thinking?

• Someone who believes the Bible to be true, and given by God. I (DavidB) would be a fundamentalist in this sense (and only this sense!) - I believe that all the Bible is trustworthy and true, when we've taken into account eg the use of poetry, rhetoric and the fact that it is occasionally saying something specific to a particular culture.

• Someone who believes the Bible to be 'literally' true, without taking into account the use of poetry, symbolism etc. eg someone who believes the world was made in 7, 24-hour days.

• Someone who uses violence to promote their beliefs.

• Someone who's 'too keen' in their religion. (OK, I probably count as a fundamentalist on this one too! -DavidB)

• Someone who believes in the Bible completely literally, and interprets it traditionally (for example, believing in the inferiority of women). A fundamentalist refuses to accept the possibility of alternative interpretations and holds rigidly to their beliefs even in the face of evidence pointing the other way.

(footnote here - many fundamentalists might believe they are fundamentalist in this sense, ie believing the Bible "completely literally". However, it is easy to point to examples where the things they firmly hold to are culturally conditioned, not a truly "literal" interpretation of the whole Bible. A favourite example quoted before on Guilty Expression would be about men having long hair - we can easily imagine people who would quote this as support for their views that men's hair should be a certain length (the kind of people who were shocked when the Beatles' hair touched their collars). BUT how do those people deal with the fact that uncut hair was a sign of devotion to God in the Old Testament (Samson). OK this probably isn't a very good example, can anyone think of a better one?)

• Thanks, this is a good example of where a more careful, thorough reading of the Bible helps us to interpret a passage in the Bible. An unthinking 'fundamentalism' is often less faithful to the text, not more.

Because of this mish-mash of meanings the word has for people, if someone asked me, 'Are you a fundamentalist?' I'd say, 'No. I'm very earnest in my faith, and I believe that the Bible is given by God, but I don't like how fundamentalists irreverently treat it like a science textbook, or how some use violence.' (DavidB)

How would others reply to 'Are you a fundamentalist?'

I would reply:

NO

- andy

(That sounds a bit too certain - Midge)

Bit of history for anyone who's interested ;)

This attitude (of being evangelical, Bible-believing but not calling oneself a fundamentalist) has a long pedigree, by the way. In his important book "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, J. I. Packer (one of my great evangelical heroes) argues strongly for having faith in the Bible, while having lots of qualms about the word 'fundamentalism', which had already (1958) gathered to itself many negative connotations. DavidB

Incidentally, do you know where the word 'fundamentalist' comes from? It originates from a set of volumes called 'The Fundamentals' written by a group of mainly American evangelicals in the early 20th century. This work is often brilliant, and is very far from unthinking fundamentalism as we now understand it. Amongst the authors were legends like Torrey, Moule, Ryle, Campbell Morgan, C. T. Studd, James Orr and Benjamin Warfield - hardly mad 'fundamentalists'! In some ways it's sad that the word has come to mean something so different to what these people wanted - they were battling against an unbelieving attitude to the Bible, not a thinking one. DavidB

Paul says somewhere in the Bible (help please!) it is good to be zealous. So are we wrong to dislike fundamentalists?

It's not necessarily zeal that I dislike - it's zeal about the wrong things.

Paul's attitude to zeal is very balanced, I think. He is sad that his fellow Jews' zeal isn't based on knowledge (Ro 10.2). On the other hand he's pleased with a brother (possibly Luke) for being zealous (2 Cor 8.22). In Gal 4.17-18 he points out that people can be zealous for a wrong message, or for a good one - he only thinks it's good to be zealous for a good purpose.

I'd say that some 'fundamentalists' have zeal without knowledge - they're enthusiastically trying to sell things such as creationism which are actually harming God's gospel.

On the other hand, perhaps we're often not enthusiastic enough about the true gospel - there are some 'fundamentalists' who we can learn a lot from about this.

See also InDefenceOfHypocritesBigotsAndUnthinkingPersons

The literal meaning of Fundamentalism

Leaving aside the connotations it has gathered, surely the term actually means one who believes the fundamentals of the Christian faith; something along the lines of a literal acceptance of the Nicene creed. At that level I would quite happily describe myself as a Fundamentalist; when I say the Nicene creed I don't (unlike some vicars & bishops!) have to make lots of mental caveats. But I'm certainly not a fundamentalist in the common usage of the word; I'm quite convinced, for instance, that Matthew and Luke have unreconcilable versions of the Nativity. When Paul specifically states that what he is saying is not God speaking but his own opinion, I'm inclined (ironically!) to accept that what he says is true.

Thanks for your contribution! Do you mind if I (DavidB) give an alternative view on a couple of things you mention? Feel free to disagree, of course. (a) The Nativity accounts: these seem compatible to me, except that they quote different genealogies, perhaps giving Joseph's and Mary's lineages. Other than that, Luke 2.39 is the only question mark for me, but could easily be talking generally about a return to Nazareth rather than directly denying an interim phase in Egypt? Are there other things you find irreconcilable? (b) Not sure that Paul is saying that he's not giving God's opinion - I think he more often uses the word 'God' when he's talking about God in general, and 'the Lord' when he's talking about Jesus. What he mentions when he says 'Not I but the Lord' is indeed a command that Jesus gave in the gospels - Paul is apparently carefully crediting this saying to the historical Jesus. But if this is his point, it's hard to say that he's claiming that his further command ('I, not the Lord'), isn't authoritative. In fact, the indications are that he'd see it as such - eg 1 Cor 4.6-16, 7.39, 14.36-38, 2 Cor 13.3; cf 2 Thes 3.6, 14. As I said before, please feel able to disagree - I like to have my beliefs challenged.

Best answered on the discussion boards as we're rapidly veering off topic here - I was really making a point about what the term fundamentalist does or doesn't mean.

Good point - thanks for keeping the discussion on track. Your 'literal' meaning for the word 'fundamentalism' does seem very much in line with the way it was used at first (see history above). It's a pity the term's been hijacked into referring to something we'd find it hard to associate with. Cheers, DavidB

All these are just labels...

I think labels like 'fundamentalist' and 'evangelical' are just too dangerous to use.

For a start, they mean different things to different people, and you're bound to be misunderstood. It's one thing when I hear people call Richard Dawkins an evangelical atheist - i.e. a fervent 'proselytiser', or when my mum thinks an evangelical church means people shout "Hallelujah!", put their hands in the air and speak in tongues (I'm not sure Ian Paisley would agree with that), but now that Islam and terrorism are popular topics in the media, the meanings are drifting even more:

A couple of years ago I read a crass article in the Guardian saying how the author always thought these new churches were full of harmless middle-class commuter belt people, but they're fundamentalists... like the Muslims who attacked the World Trade Centre.

Last week I read a review of a book about Islam, which described the rise of "evangelical fundamentalist Muslims" - and I think 'evangelical' implied destructive force rather than persuasion.

And yesterday in THES I came across a summary of a new book called "Fundamentalist world: the new dark age of dogma". According to the author, "fundamentalism was a term coined to describe extremist Christian evangelism in early 20th-century America." He says "Fundamentalism is a denial of free speech and dissent." And what's the solution? "If those ideals are to be defended anywhere in western society, it is surely in the university sector." (The author is Professor of critical theory in the University of Sutherland.)

Even among Christians these labels are risky cos they're relative. I've been told the same Bible College is fundamentalist and very liberal (by extremely different people).

Secondly, these words do tend to be used as labels on simplistic pigeon-holes which obliterate all the details. Like with personality tests, where I think it's much more revealing to discuss the individual questions than to say "Oh - I'm introvert / extrovert". Someone told me he'd been accused of being a hyper-calvinist, and I said I didn't think these labels meant much. His reply was "Ah - but it has big implications about how you do evangelism etc. etc." I thought (too late to point it out to him) "Exactly - now you're breaking it down into practical details."

And labels are not just simplistic, people like to use them to classify you as good or bad, us or them. You're either a friend who they can accept and be nice to, or an enemy to set oneself up against and be aggressive towards, whose views are all wrong and evil. I know one annoying person who divides Christians into two groups, left-wing and right-wing, which is supposed to cover both their politics and their theology. Even just with politics that doesn't work - hasn't he heard of the Political Compass (see BiblicalCompass)? One thing I really don't like is people assuming they know all about you and what you believe on the basis of simple stereotypes - and ironically, this said person goes rabid if you say "Christians believe X", though he's quite happy to say things like "Baptists are too right-wing". Anyway, enough about that.

Now by looking for Andy's post on movement.org.uk I've come across the description "open evangelical". That's something I'm definitely not going to call myself - it makes things ten times worse. What does "open" mean? Does it mean 'open-minded'? Does it imply that evangelicals are usually "closed"? Why don't we talk about "open liberals"? (OK, some people do.) Are they open to discussion with others, open to work or worship with others, open to believe more liberal ideas, open to believe that other people's beliefs are just as true as their own? People spend too much time discussing what labels mean, and which label people fit under, instead of the real details. Here endeth the lesson.

PS The same applies to lots of other labels as well of course, e.g. 'feminism'.

Flavour of the month: Now in this week's THES there's a review of a book called Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning which takes quite a different angle. It's more accurate about the origins of the word, and it 'points out the irony and the inconsistency of many of the stereotypes' of its use. 'For instance, Christian fundamentalists are often portrayed as biblical literalists. But inerrancy, not literalism, is their watchword, and to avoid admitting that the Bible contains errors or inconsistencies, they will happily resort to allegorical or symbolic interpretations. It is their liberal opponents' critical scholarship that seeks the plain meaning of the text.' Hmm.