Monday, March 15, 2004
The fundamentals of fundamentalism
We received the following communiqué from Allen Brill of The Right Christians (that is, as opposed to the "Christian" right) in response to our post (back here) proposing to replace the incoherent and deceptive "War on Terror" (WOT) meme with a "Campaign Against Fundamentalism" (CAF) meme, recognizing that to a large extent our winger SICs and theocons are mirror images of the Islamic fundamentalists they so vehemently oppose.
I'm very grateful to Allen, since I'm by no means an expert in fundamentalism or the evangelicals. Since it seems likely that both will play a large role in the 2004 election, well, we had better educate ourselves, eh?
Lambert,
Your instincts about the need to be precise are good ones. While I'm no expert on Christian fundamentalism either, here are some things I feel confident about saying:
1. Fundamentalism is a 20th century phenonmenon. To call a movement back during the Reformation "fundamentalist" [as I did—Lambert] is an anachronism, since fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity. It's probably more accurate to call the wars of the 16th and 17th centuries "sectarian" conflicts akin to the battles still raging in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
2. Until as late as the 70's, most fundamentalists were opposed to involvement in politics.
3. Nearly all fundamentalists are millennialists, i.e. they anticipate a 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ on earth. Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans are amillennialist and interpret Revelation 20 allegorically. Some fundamentalists are pre-millennialists who expect Christ to return and initiate the final events leading up to the millennium. These are the "rapture" folks of "Left Behind." [See also here—Lambert] Others are post-millennialists; these would include the Reconstructionists. They expect to usher in the millennium before Christ's return. I've written about these distinctions a number of times, including here and here.
4. One tenet defining fundamentalism is biblical inerrancy which is what most people mean by "literalists." While fundamentalists may interpret some biblical texts as allegorical, they hold that the Bible is without error not only in spiritual but also historical and scientific matters. You might check the thread generated by the post on the "creationist scientist" in which I try to pin down a couple of regular fundamentalist posters on some biblical points. One is apparently a layman well-versed in the Bible and self-taught in Greek. The other is a seminary student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which is headed by Albert Mohler, one of the new leaders of the Christian Right.
5. Fundamentalists are also exclusivists, i.e. they hold that only those who believe as they do will end up in heaven.
6. Fundamentalism is an American phenomenon that we are now exporting, sometimes with the aid of money from the Scaifes and Ahmansons, to other parts of the world, notably Africa and South America.
7. Fundamentalism is strongly patriarchal. Connected with this are their positions against abortion and gay equality.
The University of Virginia provides an excellent gateway into the study of fundamentalism and includes a discussion of Martin Marty's important Fundamentalism Project.
Re: the re-framing you're proposing, [from the WOT to the CAF]. It's an excellent idea. The neocons (I saw Perle use this line today) like to talk about the WOT being against "Islamic extremism" and "radical Islam." That plays well with the Christian fundamentalists who want to do battle against all Islam.
In fact, we're in a war of modernity against fundamentalists of all stripes. And they come in all stripes: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Current strongholds of fundamentalism that are also powerful politically in the United States are the Southern Baptist Convention and para-church organizations like Dobson's Focus on the Family.
In regard to your suggested slogan: "Don't say `terrorist'—say `fundamentalist'"—How about "fundamentalist extremists" or "radical fundamentalists"? Some additional modifier is necessary because it would be quite unfair to brand all fundamentalists as bent on violence or even political domination.
Finally, not all Evangelicals are fundamentalists. People like Al Mohler are becoming quite concerned at younger Evangelicals and some Evangelical teaching facilities like Fuller Seminary because they're not holding the fundamentalist line.
Thanks, Allen. Clarity is an edged weapon in the war of ideas.
Readers? Your thoughts?
I'm very grateful to Allen, since I'm by no means an expert in fundamentalism or the evangelicals. Since it seems likely that both will play a large role in the 2004 election, well, we had better educate ourselves, eh?
Lambert,
Your instincts about the need to be precise are good ones. While I'm no expert on Christian fundamentalism either, here are some things I feel confident about saying:
1. Fundamentalism is a 20th century phenonmenon. To call a movement back during the Reformation "fundamentalist" [as I did—Lambert] is an anachronism, since fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity. It's probably more accurate to call the wars of the 16th and 17th centuries "sectarian" conflicts akin to the battles still raging in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
2. Until as late as the 70's, most fundamentalists were opposed to involvement in politics.
3. Nearly all fundamentalists are millennialists, i.e. they anticipate a 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ on earth. Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans are amillennialist and interpret Revelation 20 allegorically. Some fundamentalists are pre-millennialists who expect Christ to return and initiate the final events leading up to the millennium. These are the "rapture" folks of "Left Behind." [See also here—Lambert] Others are post-millennialists; these would include the Reconstructionists. They expect to usher in the millennium before Christ's return. I've written about these distinctions a number of times, including here and here.
4. One tenet defining fundamentalism is biblical inerrancy which is what most people mean by "literalists." While fundamentalists may interpret some biblical texts as allegorical, they hold that the Bible is without error not only in spiritual but also historical and scientific matters. You might check the thread generated by the post on the "creationist scientist" in which I try to pin down a couple of regular fundamentalist posters on some biblical points. One is apparently a layman well-versed in the Bible and self-taught in Greek. The other is a seminary student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which is headed by Albert Mohler, one of the new leaders of the Christian Right.
5. Fundamentalists are also exclusivists, i.e. they hold that only those who believe as they do will end up in heaven.
6. Fundamentalism is an American phenomenon that we are now exporting, sometimes with the aid of money from the Scaifes and Ahmansons, to other parts of the world, notably Africa and South America.
7. Fundamentalism is strongly patriarchal. Connected with this are their positions against abortion and gay equality.
The University of Virginia provides an excellent gateway into the study of fundamentalism and includes a discussion of Martin Marty's important Fundamentalism Project.
Re: the re-framing you're proposing, [from the WOT to the CAF]. It's an excellent idea. The neocons (I saw Perle use this line today) like to talk about the WOT being against "Islamic extremism" and "radical Islam." That plays well with the Christian fundamentalists who want to do battle against all Islam.
In fact, we're in a war of modernity against fundamentalists of all stripes. And they come in all stripes: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Current strongholds of fundamentalism that are also powerful politically in the United States are the Southern Baptist Convention and para-church organizations like Dobson's Focus on the Family.
In regard to your suggested slogan: "Don't say `terrorist'—say `fundamentalist'"—How about "fundamentalist extremists" or "radical fundamentalists"? Some additional modifier is necessary because it would be quite unfair to brand all fundamentalists as bent on violence or even political domination.
Finally, not all Evangelicals are fundamentalists. People like Al Mohler are becoming quite concerned at younger Evangelicals and some Evangelical teaching facilities like Fuller Seminary because they're not holding the fundamentalist line.
Thanks, Allen. Clarity is an edged weapon in the war of ideas.
Readers? Your thoughts?
