 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
|
Book Excerpt
Fundamentalism By Fisher Humphreys and Philip Wise Foreword Fisher Humphreys and Philip Wise have rendered a great service. Writing primarily for non-fundamentalist Christians in the United States, they have developed a much-needed resource for a considerably wider audience. Many people--journalists, political leaders, people of faith from other traditions, and people who don’t identify with any religious tradition--will benefit greatly from the clear, accessible, and fair-minded approach in this short volume. Without rancor or polemics, Humphreys and Wise offer insight and understanding where presuppositions and passions frequently produce far more heat than light. Fundamentalism is now a prominent part of the religious and political landscape. The term is used widely and loosely to characterize a range of people, groups, and movements all over the world. While there are common features among diverse, contemporary movements in many religious traditions, the casual use of this term can easily be misleading. Humphreys and Wise clarify the differences and relationships among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians even as they provide an interpretative framework for global phenomena. In the process, they include helpful resources for more in-depth study. The importance of clear thinking about fundamentalism at this pivotal time in world history cannot be overstated. The stakes are high. The dangers posed by religiously motivated extremists are evident on the front pages of daily newspapers. Fundamentalism demands a rigid certainty that can easily lead to a dangerous kind of zealotry. Absolute truth claims too often embolden religious extremists to see themselves as instruments of God’s will amid perceived injustice. When the defenders of God’s truth include justification for violent and destructive behavior, you have a recipe for disaster. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the dangers associated with religious zealotry are crystal clear. We now know with certainty that there are many weapons of mass destruction in our world--chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as well as many "weapons" (like commercial airliners turned into bombs) we hadn’t considered previously. We now know with certainty that it doesn’t take many people to wreak havoc on a global scale. The invitation to understand fundamentalism and fundamentalists more accurately is also an invitation to self-critical awareness. Fundamentalists say, for example, that they interpret the Bible literally. Despite claims to the contrary, Christian fundamentalists read and interpret sacred texts selectively. How do you take the Song of Songs literally? This erotic poem celebrating love between and man and a woman does not even mention God. It is generally understood as a metaphor for God's love for Israel or the Church. A metaphor is not a literal interpretation, however. The legal codes of Leviticus are not taken literally by Christians or Jews today. Many biblical passages--from prophetic books to parables of Jesus--are interpreted in different ways, depending on the lens or frame of reference employed by the adherent. In fact, people in all religious traditions appropriate sacred texts selectively, though not always self-consciously. Humphreys and Wise call their readers to think clearly and self-critically about these and other important issues where different understandings can lead to significantly different outcomes. The authors remind us that no one has everything locked down. As human beings, we do not possess the mind of God. In the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians, "We see through a glass dimly, not yet face to face." At best, we have a "treasure in earthen vessels." We are all on a journey, a lifelong process of growing, learning, unlearning, and changing. Through the lens of this study, Humphreys and Wise underscore that one can be a person of faith with depth, commitment, and sincerity while at the same time recognizing that there is much more to learn. This book will not only benefit many individuals; it is also ideal for serious adult study programs in churches. It is my hope that it will be used widely in this way. Not only will it facilitate much-needed conversation about Fundamentalism, but congregational study of this book will encourage thoughtful, self-critical reflection and constructive action on a range of issues that challenge all of us in an increasingly interdependent and interconnected world community. The book concludes with a particular concern for progressive Baptists. Humphreys and Wise gently explain how "the Fundamentalist impulse and movement have tended to miss the fundamentals of the Christian faith and to work against the unity and harmony of the church." They encourage a broader, more ecumenical approach, one that embraces diversity among Christians while affirming central teachings. In a word, they model an approach to faith that humbly seeks to love God and love one’s neighbor. — Foreword by Charles Kimball, Chapter 1 Generic Fundamentalism For at least a quarter of a century, perhaps longer, many religious commentators have referred to certain people in the different religions of the world as fundamentalists. For example, some news reporters described the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, as "Islamic fundamentalists." The association of the word fundamentalist with violence and terrorism is becoming so close that Bob Jones III, the president of Bob Jones University, has announced that he will no longer refer to himself and his colleagues as Fundamentalists, even though they have proudly called themselves by that name for more than half a century. If this trend continues, there could come a time when few people are willing to describe themselves as fundamentalists. Scholars have a different problem with the generic use of the word fundamentalism. They are concerned about its vagueness. Martin Marty and Scott Appleby have considered this issue carefully. They reviewed other possible terms, but they retained fundamentalism because a word is needed, this one is already widely used, and no other word is better. They are right; a term is needed to describe the religious tendency or impulse that movements in the different religions have in common. As Marty and Appleby have said, there is a family resemblance between movements in the various religions, and seeing that family resemblance is an indispensable step in understanding the movements themselves. The family resemblance includes several factors; Marty and Appleby have described these, and we will now review some of their findings. Religious Origins One common factor is that each of the forms of fundamentalism originated in a religion. There are fundamentalist movements not only in Protestantism but also in Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, and other religions. In principle it might be possible to refer to a fundamentalist impulse and movement in a nonreligious ideology such as Marxism, but that usage is rare. Fundamentalism is a religious impulse that drives a religious movement, and any interpretation of fundamentalism that does not include an account of its religious character is to that extent incomplete and misleading. A Selective Use of Tradition A second factor is that fundamentalists are traditionalists who are selective about the aspects of their tradition that they retain. They do not retain everything. For example, the Hebrew Scriptures describe a world in which slavery, polygamy, and patriarchy were all practiced routinely; Jewish fundamentalists today retain patriarchy but not slavery or polygamy. Because fundamentalists are selective in what they retain from their religious tradition, they sometimes find themselves in situations where their opponents are more traditional than the fundamentalists are on a particular issue. We will illustrate this point later in the book. To understand fundamentalists well, one needs to recognize that their use of their religious tradition is selective rather than comprehensive. The Modern World A third family trait shared by all the varieties of fundamentalism is that they react against aspects of the modern world. Where there is no reaction against modernity, there is no fundamentalism. This means fundamentalism did not come into existence until the rise of modernity. There have been many religious traditionalists who were not fundamentalists because they lived before there was a modern world against which to react. Fundamentalists do not reject everything about the modern world. They are selective about what they reject and what they accept. For example, some Islamic fundamentalists use a modern means of communication, the World Wide Web, to campaign against a modern idea, namely, that women should participate in public life as fully as men do. Interpretations of fundamentalism should include accounts of the aspects of modernity against which fundamentalists are reacting and how they express that reaction. Under Siege A fourth factor in fundamentalism is that fundamentalists reject aspects of the modern world for a definite reason, namely, that they perceive the modern world as a threat to their personal and corporate identity. Fundamentalists believe their faith and their community are under siege from aspects of modernity. They understand themselves to be protecting their religious faith and way of life from what Walter Lippman called "the acids of modernity." One of the ways those of us who are not fundamentalists can develop sympathy for fundamentalists is to recognize that they are doing what they are doing because they feel threatened by aspects of the modern world. An interpretation of fundamentalism that fails to offer an account of the threat fundamentalists feel is to that extent incomplete. Militancy A fifth family trait of fundamentalism is that fundamentalists react to modernity by fighting against it. There are, of course, other ways for traditionalists in the various religions to relate to modernity. For example, they can ignore it, or they can withdraw from modern society as the Amish do. Fundamentalists neither ignore modernity nor withdraw from it; they think choosing these responses to modernity is betraying their religious faith. They fight modernity, and they believe they are fighting for their religious lives. Sometimes fundamentalists demonize their enemies. It is easy to assume that, when you believe an idea deeply and explain it clearly, anyone who does not agree with you is either ignorant or evil. However, many modern people have come to believe that it is a sign of maturity to accept the fact that intelligent, decent people sincerely disagree with your own carefully thought-out ideas. Many fundamentalists reject this understanding of maturity. They feel, quite simply, that their unbelieving enemies are evil. For some fundamentalists, this constitutes a justification of their acting with violence against their enemies. Fortunately, this usually does not happen, but if we are to understand it when it does happen, we need to recognize that many fundamentalists sincerely believe that those who are not on their side are in fact evil. |
|
|
|
|
