Fundamentalism





In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to the anti-modernist
movements of various religions. In many ways religious fundamentalism is a
modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the
midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally
influenced by the adherents' religion. Fundamentalism also refers to a way
of approaching one's religious scripture; i.e. in fundamentalism one holds
that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate.
Fundamentalist groups tend to be hostile to secular humanism.

This term can refer to the approach of an individual or a group to religion.

Groups which are described as fundamentalist or which even describe
themselves as fundamentalist often strongly object to this classification
scheme because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups
which they may find objectionable.

The fundamentalist phenomenon

Although in popular usage, fundamentalism sometimes refers derogatorily to
any fringe religious group, or to extremist ethnic movements with only
nominally religious motivations, the term does have a more precisely
descriptive denotation. "Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to
what it considers the defining or founding principles of the religion.
Especially, it has come to refer to any religious enclave which
intentionally resists identification with the larger religious community in
which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon
which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have been displaced
by alternative principles hostile to its identity.

This formation of a separate identity is deemed necessary on account of a
perception that the religious community has surrendered its ability to
define itself in religious terms. The "fundamentals" of the religion have
been jettisoned by neglect, lost through compromise and inattention, so that
the general religious community's explanation of itself appears to the
separatist to be in terms that are completely alien and fundamentally
hostile to the religion itself. Therefore, fundamentalist movements are
founded upon the same religious principles as the larger group, but the
fundamentalists attempt to more self-consciously build an entire approach to
the modern world based on strict fidelity to those principles, to preserve a
distinctness both of doctrine and of life.

The term itself is borrowed from the "Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy"
which appeared early in the 20th century within the Protestant churches of
the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The
fundamentalists were a diffuse party of traditionalists, who raised a
protest within their various denominations against the ascendant "Liberal"
or "Modernist" parties, whom fundamentalists charged had radically departed
from the most basic presuppositions of Christianity, and in place of these
foundational assumptions had substituted an agnostic principle. The
fundamentalists argued that Liberalism had established a different religion
entirely, a skeptical religion, a secular religion, a humanist religion, a
new paganism hostile to authentic faith typified by an unhealthy
friendliness toward the world, especially as represented by the increasingly
pluralistic, post-Enlightenment culture of Europe.

The Protestant, fundamentalist critics of liberal Protestantism were very
vocal in denouncing the anti-supernaturalism of the Modernists, accusing
them of taking dictation from the unbelieving culture, deciding what
Protestantism must be by imitating arbitrary social trends, replacing the
things of God with the worldly and self-serving whims of ordinary men. The
churches were surrendering their right to define themselves and their own
beliefs, according to the fundamentalists, and thus the churches themselves
were discrediting their relevance and assisting in the further
marginalization of Christianity. It was to the great consternation of
fundamentalists, that "agnostic", "irreligious", "worldly" and "skeptical"
opinions were represented as coming from their own "religious leaders", in
the newspapers and by denominational publishing houses, as though these were
the consensus view of their denominations. The fundamentalists felt
increasingly exiled within their own churches, where none of the traditional
instruments of definition seemed to help: theirs were the heritage, the
Scriptures, the constitutional documentation of faith - but what the
liberals had was institutional control, the money, the presses, the
seminaries and colleges, and with the help of moderates, the standing
committees also were theirs against the militant fundamentalists. In
reaction, the fundamentalists formed seminaries and colleges of their own,
mission boards and publishing houses which championed the fundamentalist
cause, and finally in some cases, separate denominations which carried on
the fight to preserve continuity of identity with their forebears in the
faith of past generations.

The pattern of the Fundamentalist-Modernist debate in Protestant
Christianity has been repeated with remarkable parallels in other religious
communities, and it is for the purpose of describing these corresponding
aspects in otherwise diverse religious movements, that the term
"fundamentalist" has become more than only a term either of self-description
or of derogatory contempt. Fundamentalism, thus, is a movement through which
the adherents attempt to rescue religious identity against absorption into
modern, Western culture, where this absorption appears to the enclave to
have made irreversible progress in the wider religious community,
necessitating the assertion of a separate identity based upon the
fundamental or founding principles of the religion.

Fundamentalists believe their cause to have grave importance, and even
cosmic significance. They perceive themselves as protecting not only a
distinctive doctrine, but a vital principle, and a way of life and of
salvation. Community, comprehensively centered upon a clearly defined
religious way of life in all of its aspects, is the promise of
fundamentalist movements - and thus it appeals to those adherents of
religion who find little that is distinctive, or authentically vital in
their religious identity.

The fundamentalist "wall of virtue", which protects their identity, is
erected against not only alien religions, but also against the modernized,
compromised, nominal version of their own religion. They are "Born again"
and "Bible believing" Protestants (as opposed to "Mainline", "liberal",
"modernist" Protestants, who represent "Churchianity"). They are Islamic
jama'at (Arabic: (religious) enclaves with connotations of close fellowship)
self-consciously engaged in jihad (struggle) against Western culture which
suppresses authentic islam (submission) and the God appointed (shari'ah) way
of life. They are "haredim", "Torah-true" Jews, etc. - groups which insist
on a sharp boundary between themselves and the faithful adherents of other
religions, and finally between a "sacred" view of life against the "secular"
world of "nominal religion", which they characterize as the anesthesized,
darkest, lifeless extremity of life, doubly-dead, worse than ignorant, where
the truth is supposedly known but without consciousness of its meaning.
Fundamentalists direct their apologetic toward and draw most of their
converts from the larger community of their religion, by attempting to
convince them that they are not experiencing the authentic version of their
professed religion.

Basic beliefs of religious fundamentalists

For religious fundamentalists, their sacred scriptures are the words of God.
Fundamentalist beliefs depends on the twin doctrines that God articulated
His will precisely to prophets, and that we also have a reliable and perfect
record of that revelation , which has been passed down to our day in an
unbroken chain of tradition. Since Scripture is the word of God, no one has
the right to change it or disagree with it. People are thus obligated to
obey the word of God. The appeal of this point of view is its elegant
simplicity: people must do what God tells them to do. Fundamentalists'
insistence on strict observation of religious laws may lead to their being
dubbed 'legalistic'.

Christian fundamentalists see their scripture (a combination of the Hebrew
Bible and the New Testament) as both infallible and historically accurate.
On the basis of this confidence in Scripture, they accept the account of
scripture as being literally true, that Jesus Christ was raised from the
dead and rules the church from heaven. They believe that the church has been
granted the gift of the Holy Spirit, who leads the church into fulfillment
of God's will according to the Scriptures. Most Christian fundamentalists do
not believe that it is possible to infallibly interpret the Bible on any
point, but even those who believe this are unable to see any contradiction
of their main premise concerning the necessity of infallible scriptures.
This is because they believe that God Himself interprets His own intent and
fulfills His own will for those who trust Him, and through them, and despite
their faulty understanding; and, nevertheless, it is the church's obligation
to understand the Scriptures and to believe what they say, and act
accordingly. However, there are types of Christian belief that attach
infallible authority to the interpretations of some single, living
individual or ruling body.

Jews believe that the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) can not be
understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction
with additional material known as the oral law; this material is contained
in the Mishnah and the Talmud. Orthodox Judaism, especially Ultra-Orthodox
Judaism, is a fundamentalist Jewish denomination, as opposed to Reform
Judaism and Conservative Judaism which are theologically opposed to
fundamentalism. All Jews, even the Orthodox, do not read the Tanach in a
literal fashion, but most Orthodox Jews read the Mishnah and Talmud in what
may be termed a fundamentalist way. All Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and many Modern
Orthodox Jews, hold that these texts are divine and infallible. Hasidic Jews
usually ascribe infallibility to their rebbe's interpretation of the
traditional sources of truth.

Argument in favor of fundamentalist positions

Fundamentalists claim that they practice their religion as the first
adherents did, and they further argue that this is how religion should be
practised. In other words, a Christian ought to believe and practise as
those who knew and followed Jesus during His time on earth. A Muslim ought
to give the same consideration to the followers of Muhammed. Analogous
arguments can be made for most systems of religious belief. Fundamentalists
justify this belief on the idea that the founders of the world's religions
said and did things that were not written down - in other words, their
original disciples knew things that we don't. For Christians, this claim is
verified by the Gospel of John, which ends with the statement "there are
also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by
one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that
would be written." (John 21:25, NKJV)

Criticism of the fundamentalist position

Many criticisms of the fundamentalist position have been offered. The most
common is that all theological claims made by fundamentalist groups are
unprovable. Another criticism is that the rhetoric of these groups offers an
appearance of uniformity and simplicity, yet within each faith community,
one actually finds different texts of religious law that are accepted; each
text has varying interpretations. Consequently, each fundamentalist faith is
observed to splinter into many mutually antagonistic groups. They are often
as hostile to each other as they are to other religions.

In order to carry out the fundamentalist program in practice, one would
first need to perfectly understand the ancient language of the original
text, if indeed the true text can be discerned from among variants.
Furthermore, fundamentalists fail to recognize that fallible human beings
are the ones who transmit this tradition. Elliot N. Dorff writes "Even if
one wanted to follow the literal word of God, the need for people first to
understand that word necessitates human interpretation. Through that process
human fallibility is inextricably mixed into the very meaning of the divine
word. As a result, it as impossible to follow the indisputable word of God;
one can only achieve a human understanding of God's will. [Source: "A Living
Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law', Eliot N. Dorff and Arthur Rosett,
SUNY Press, 1988].

Some critics take the view that a fundamentalist approach then introduces
the danger of a partisanship that becomes attached to an individual leader
or leading body, when the followers believe that entity to be a living voice
of authority to infallibly direct them in the interpretation of the sources
of truth.

Although most of the claims made by fundamentalists are practically
unprovable, skeptics of a less religious bent may further criticize
fundamentalists by questioning the historical accuracy of the texts in
question when compared to other historical sources; as well as questioning
how documents containing so many contradictions could be considered
infallible.

Fundamentalism and politics

"Fundamentalism" is a politically-charged term, often used (depending on who
is using it) as a term of opprobrium, particularly in combination with other
epithets (as in the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" and "right-wing
fundamentalists").

Very often religious fundamentalists, in all religions, are politically
active. They often seek to change laws of a nation or state to conform
strictly to the boundaries set out in their own particular religious
scripture. The governments of many Muslim countries, such as Iran and Saudi
Arabia, are led by Islamic fundamentalists. Less legalistic politicians are
often to be found working in opposition movements in these countries.