I haven’t really been writing about or responding to a lot of things in awhile. But, maybe I’m back in the mood to do so again. Here’s my first attempt…
In a blog on the Freethoughtblogs network, Chris Hallquist recently posted the following:
Today, “Christian fundamentalist” is still most often used to refer to people who accept Biblical inerrancy, and have fairly conservative notions about what the Bible says. Parallel beliefs can be found in other religions, particularly in Muslim beliefs about the Quran. Because of that, I think that in a modern context the word “fundamentalism” is most helpfully defined as the belief in the inerrancy of a holy book, along with fairly conservative notions about what that holy book says.
From my perspective, though, the only people who refer to everyone who believes in “inerrancy” as fundamentalists are a certain kind of atheist. I just don’t think this definition is accurate of the past or present. Maybe the word fundamentalism was initially used as a positive term by the people themselves, but more recently it has definitely come to mean an attitude. It is a way of approaching ideas, a lack of nuance. An allergy to uncertainty, ambiguity. A refusal to question, doubt, reconsider. Even further, a lack of empathy toward those with whom one disagrees. A kind of dogmatism about ones beliefs, with no possibility that one might be wrong.
Biblical inerrancy has been advocated by the most influential theologians in the history of Christianity.
I also think this a stretch. Many of the supporters of inerrancy try to make this same argument, but many other Christians have countered this argument with a lot of examples of just how different the views of Christian thinkers throughout history have understood the Bible. I typically favor any historical approach to a topic that allows room for a diversity of explanations, rather than an oversimplification. I think the same could be said for the history of how Christians have understood the Bible.
All these men had ideas about what the Bible says that were closer to those of modern fundamentalists than to those of modern religious liberals.
This may be true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that most Christian thinkers throughout history would sign on to the most recent statements describing inerrancy. It’s not one or the other.
Some Christian fundamentalists are in the habit of responding to criticism of the doctrines I just mentioned by saying something like, “I’m sorry if other Christians have hurt you.” This misunderstands the problem. The problem is not that Christians have offended me by telling me I’m going to Hell. The problem is that the idea that I and countless other non-Christians (a category which includes a great many friends of mine) deserve to go to Hell for eternity is the height of moral insanity.
I personally don’t agree with many of the “traditional” understandings of “hell,” but as I get older I’m really not seeing every single person who does believe in those ideas as morally insane. I think there are many different explanations for why people think this, some of them perfectly justified from the Bible, some of them not. Many of those ideas are not found in the Bible at all, but have been imported into our understanding of the Bible. But, I think a blanket statement about anyone believing in those ideas being morally insane is unfair and untrue. If this is an accurate statement, then I would guess that the majority of people who have lived in a Christian-influenced culture for 2000 years have been morally insane. Seriously?
This is why talk of “atheist fundamentalism” is ridiculous. Atheists do not have any holy book we consider infallible. We have no traditional dogmas to defend.
Maybe the term isn’t helpful, but in my understanding it is not used for all atheists, only certain kinds. Those who fit into the same description from above. I’ve learned to spot this attitude best from working in churches (up until a few years ago). It’s arrogance, pride, egotism, self-centeredness – people who are just plain mean. That’s what I mean by fundamentalist (whatever someone’s beliefs happen to be). And I think a lot of people share this usage of the word.
But, I might be wrong…
Fundamentalism should probably defined as belief in whatever the particular fundamentalist says are the fundamentals. For Christians, you can find lists of that all over the place, or they’ll tell you. As far as I can tell, the lists are just longer for Muslims.
What I’d really like to here more about is why you think that “inerrancy has been advocated by the most influential theologians”, is a stretch. It is easier to distinguish fundamentalists today because there is plenty of non-fundamentalism, theologians have to state their stance.
Historically, it seems to me, theologians just assumed that Paul’s word was true and Christ was really born of a virgin, and they didn’t argue it much. To be convinced otherwise, I would need to see dissertations discussing the truth of these “fundamentals”. I think Origen touched on them and Augustine might have mentioned them, but even for those guys, it was few and far between.
And eliminate all of the fundamentals you want, if you don’t believe in the miracle of the resurrection, you aren’t a Christian.
I guess we disagree about how the word fundamentalism is and/or should be used.
There are different ways to think about truth. We tend to assume that people in the first century up through the modern period had the same understandings of truth. But, obviously, they didn’t. Many Jewish and Christian scholars throughout history have focused on the truthfulness of the Bible but have denied the necessity of its “inerrant” accuracy. A story can be true in some sense while not being factual.
No, I don’t “believe” in the resurrection in a scientific sense (i.e. “it really happened in space and time”). But, yes, I still claim to be a Christian.