fun·da·men·tal·ism
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK

August 2002

NOV 08, 2003 12:17 AM

From The Rise of Fundamentalism

The first task is to define the word "fundamentalism". The term is commonly used in newspapers, television newscasts, backyard arguments, and above all in churches, both in negative and positive ways. The word means different things to different persons. I suggest that it is best to distinguish small "f" from capital "F" usages: fundamentalism as a generic or worldwide phenomenon versus Fundamentalism as a religious movement specific to Protestant culture in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Generic fundamentalism refers to a global religious impulse, particularly evident in the twentieth century, that seeks to recover and publicly institutionalize aspects of the past that modern life has obscured. It typically sees the secular state as the primary enemy, for the latter is more interested in education, democratic reforms, and economic progress than in preserving the spiritual dimension of life. Generic fundamentalism takes its cues from a sacred text that stands above criticism. It sees time-honored social distinctions and cultural patterns as rooted in the very nature of things, in the order of creation itself. That means clear-cut and stratified roles for men and women, parents and children, clergy and laity. On the other hand, generic fundamentalism seeks to minimize the distinction between the state and the church. To hold that the state should operate according to one set of publicly shared principles, while individuals should operate according to multiple sets of privately shared principles, is morally pernicious and ends up harming everyone, believers and nonbelievers alike. Religious truths are no different from the truths of medical science or aeronautical engineering: if they hold for anyone they hold for everyone.

Historic Fundamentalism shared all of the assumptions of generic fundamentalism but also reflected several concerns particular to the religious setting of the United States at the turn of the century. Some of those concerns stemmed from broad changes in the culture such as growing awareness of world religions, the teaching of human evolution and, above all, the rise of biblical higher criticism. The last proved particularly troubling because it implied the absence of the supernatural and the purely human authorship of scripture.

Social changes of the early twentieth century also fed the flames of protest. Drawn primarily from ranks of "old stock whites," Fundamentalists felt displaced by the waves of non-Protestant immigrants from southern and eastern Europe flooding America's cities. They believed they had been betrayed by American statesmen who led the nation into an irresolved war with Germany, the cradle of destructive biblical criticism. They deplored the teaching of evolution in public schools, which they paid for with their taxes, and resented the elitism of professional educators who seemed often to scorn the values of traditional Christian families.

Fundamentalists fought these changes on several fronts. Intellectually they mounted a strenuous defense of the fundamentals (as they defined them) of historic Christian teachings. Thus they insisted upon the necessity of a conversion experience through faith in Jesus Christ alone, the accuracy of the Bible in matters of science and history as well as theology, and the imminent physical return of Christ to the earth where he would establish a millennial reign of peace and righteousness. Fundamentalists conveyed their convictions in numerous ways, but most prominently through the wide dissemination of twelve booklets called The Fundamentals (1910-1915).

Fundamentalists also pursued the battle through legislatures, courts, and denominational machinery. In the 1920s they tried to monitor public school curricula by presenting anti-evolution bills in the legislatures of eleven states (mostly in the South). Undoubtedly the best-known instance, the so-called "Monkey Trial," pitted the Fundamentalist politician William Jennings Bryan against the agnostic lawyer Clarence Darrow in a steamy courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee in the summer of 1925. Bryan won in the court but lost in the press. Partisans also fought their opponents, commonly known as Modernists, in the general conventions of several mainline denominations, including the Northern Baptists and Northern Presbyterians. Here too their record proved mixed at best.

Nonetheless, Fundamentalism continued to grow and eventually to flourish. In the 1930s it moved underground, so to speak, where it built a network of day schools, colleges, seminaries, and missionary agencies. More importantly the movement soon established a print and telecast industry of its own. It also created a system of parachurch organizations aimed to meet the spiritual needs of numerous socially discrete groups (youths, unmarrieds, veterans). Above all Fundamentalists found innovative ways to address the religious concerns of common people. Though it would be unfair to say that they were anti-intellectual, they made a point, as evangelist Billy Sunday once said, to keep the cookies on the bottom shelf. And they proved remarkably successful in passing their beliefs on to their children. Historic Fundamentalism, largely forged before World War I, helped to produce the massive evangelical, pentecostal, and charismatic revivals after World War II, as well as the Christian Right in the 1970s and 1980s.

Pip

Framingham, MA

OLD SKOOL

NOV 08, 2003 08:57 AM

Evil.

googused

Portland, OR

OLD SKOOL

NOV 08, 2003 10:57 AM

I dunno, but the people involved in it are definitely not any FUN, which means they suck.

A lot.

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 08, 2003 11:23 AM

Pip said:
Evil.

I like your answer best so far.

Cyrano1130

Taiwan

March 2003

NOV 08, 2003 12:25 PM

PBS "Frontline" had a fascinating piece on Muslim fundamentalism, the aftermath of 9/11, and the nature of "evil" about a year ago. The whole episode was great, but one thing stuck with me...

When interviewed, an annonymous Muslim fundamentalist leader in Yemen referred to westerners as "dust floating in the air, nothing more and nothing less." He didn't see living, breathing creatures, and the purpose of his jihad was to simply brush this "dust" aside with his hands. The hands of God.

Fundamentalism of any sort is frightening because it tends to dehumanize those who don't "believe".

Scary stuff.

stockula

Anchorage, AK

May 2003

NOV 08, 2003 01:14 PM

Yeah, but when fundamentalists turn out to oppose the United States, that really puts liberals in a pickle. Whose side do they take now? It was so easy for them when the fundamentalists were Christian.