I created this chart today to help me get a better grasp on the essentials of fundamentalism. I don’t believe fundamentalism is reserved for the religious right or extremists. I believe it is a mindset that manifests itself in all kinds of positions. I am interested in how dialog and peace can occur between all parties, including fundamentalists. I hope this chart helps us to see that we are all fundamentalists when it comes to certain issues, and depending on the circumstances. I’m suggesting that we all can find ourselves somewhere on this chart. Please keep in mind that all these categories are not necessarily religious. Pardon the visual quality of the chart. It’s the best I can do for now.
The Anatomy of Fundamentalism
Leave a Reply
-
artist. cartoonist. teacher.
-
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
fishon: okay, either you didn’t read my previous response to you, or you chose to ignore it, or you just want to pick a fight. let me repeat: the chart is a description of all kinds of fundamentalism. it isn’t meant to describe one person. i see myself in the chart. you may too. you might not be militant, as some fundamentalists are. instead, you might feel genuine concern for those who don’t believe like you do because they are going to hell. do you understand now?
I’m thinkin I need to give everyone a break from me for a week. See ya in a week.
fishon
preacherlady,
You said some really good stuff. I agree with it all.
Speaking from my own experience talking with those who know they have the truth (in my “real” life), they don’t seem to take in what the other person is saying. They seem to see themselves as the teacher and the other person is the student. They will say “You are correct.” vs. “I agree.”
It’s not an equals type conversation. It’s not a thoughtful exchange of ideas between people who are respectful.
Lynn123…several years ago I took a three day workshop called Mastery in Ministry. It’s for anyone who lives life as ministry, so it draws everyone from housewives to bishops. In teaching about communication,they speak of the shape of someones listening and the fact that if you talk outside of that, the other person does not hear you. The shape of a fundamentalists listening is only that which contains what he/she knows without a shadow of a doubt is true. The premise being that they have THE TRUTH so that nothing else is worth listening to. There can’t be a give and take because they only hear those things they believe…thats why the “you’re right” response. Try to introduce something different and they’ll say “you’re wrong” or “no, thats a lie”. Dialogue requires respect and the willingness to allow someone to have whatever belief they have without condemning them.
preacherlady,
Good stuff. How then do we communicate with a fundamentalist? Just keep trying? Or just give up?
I see the fundamentalist as much more than their beliefs or their communication style. I’m sure you do too. I see them as fellow human beings. And I have a common background with them. I LIKE them a lot of the time. I just no longer believe what they believe.
lol.
seriously, people, who ARE these elusive, non-introspective ‘fundamentalists’?
all i’m seeing here is psychoanalysis.
Ok, look, *this* is fundamentalism, properly and historically defined:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist-Modernist_Controversy
I know it’s tempting to define fundamentalism by attire, a predeliction towards foundationalism, an opposition to post-modernity (oh gosh, no, anything but, please!
), or a vocabulary of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but *this* is what fundamentalism actually looks like.
(And, this: http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/
Fundamentalism is defined by a complex hermeneutical debate between the role of social-scientific and socio-historical criticism, its role in early 20th Century Christianity, its impact on German academic theological consensus, and the ecclesiological consequences. Its contemporary descendants may possess some of the traits you have all identified, but those traits are not then defined as ‘fundamentalists’.)
What is the easiest way to avoid becoming a fundamentalist in the sense that you are militant, hateful, rude, and holier-than-thou? It’s simple:
Humility and a teachable spirit!
If we are constantly submitted to God, if we OPEN our ears and our hearts to him, he will guide us, and prevent us from becoming pig-headed and harsh. A true love of God will keep our hearts in check, and we will be obedient to Him.
“Big T” Truth, however, is also something God will and does show us. We can’t negate the possibility that real truth exists.
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
We can know the truth – it is Christ. Jesus also said “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 8:32. It is possible to know the truth, which is one of the attribute of God.
We need to remain open to correction, that is what a teachable spirit is. But to be firmly grounded in the knowledge of God, that is something truly, to strive for.
Teach me your way, O LORD;
lead me in a straight path
because of my oppressors. Psalm 27:11
Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Proverbs 9:8
Stern discipline awaits him who leaves the path;
he who hates correction will die. Proverbs 15:10
Holy smokes! is that the Lauren I think it is?! Awesome!
Man get ready for this because I actually agree with you for once! I love that!
Humility and a teachable spirit is definitely the way to avoid fundamentalism, which is funny that you would say that, because I know that we think that pretty strongly of each other. Maybe we should both be practicing what we preach, huh? I know I should.
Which represents a value point that’s been made a couple times over the course of this AMAZING thread: Fundamentalism is not a set of beliefs, its a way of believing them.
As for the “Big T” Truth thing, I was just wondering … what exactly is the “truth” that Jesus is talking about when he says that he is the “truth”? what “truth” do you think he is referring to?
I’m asking because if that truth will set us free, then I want in. Even Paul was still a slave to his own sin, so I’m curious as to what exactly the truth is … and if anyone but Christ himself has ever seen it. I’m not saying we will never be ABLE to see it, because I think we can. But is it one truth? is it a multitude? is it a bit of both? will we know it when we see it? is it something we will KNOW, or something we will have to simply believe in as everything else?
Just a couple of thoughts. Because I think the very sunday school answer would be … “The truth is that Jesus is Lord”. Or something like that. But I believe that. And I even believe that I AM free in a big way, but not … completely. Because I’m only human. I’m still a slave to plenty of things. As much as I try to “die to myself”, I’m still a slave to myself.
Does that even have anything to do with Fundamentalism anymore? I dunno I just got rambling.
OH and Lynn: I’m glad we’re friends!
Lynn…how do we communicate with a fundamentalist?…guess it depends on the person. If its someone who can converse about subjects other than the one they are hard headed about, just avoid the subject…but I think we’re all talking about the person who can’t/won’t talk about anything else and only in the context that and they alone (or their group)have THE TRUTH. Unfortunately, talking to these people is futile…it will always swing back to how wrong you are. In the religious world there are seminars that teach people how to turn any conversation into a witnessing opportunity…how to use conversations about sports, entertainment etc. as a tool to win someone’s confidence, and then turn the subject into whatever flavor of religion they are touting. If someones agenda is to convert you no matter what, they aren’t interested in you as a person…only as another soul that must be saved…and as another notch on their belt. The only thing that got me out of fundamentalism was education with classes taught by non fundamentalists.The appeal to my intellect was strong and I began to investigate on my own…usually to disprove someone elses beliefs and in that process discovered that things weren’t all that black and white and that the Bible,if taken literally, could lead us into a lot of hot water.And as I needed them, people appeared in my life who I could exchange ideas with…Catholic priests… a UMC Christologist…a couple of Jews…several pentacostals…and in the past 10 years, several New Thought people. Through the New Thought people I was able to learn about metaphysical and theological writers outside the mainstream. But it was a long way from fundamental pentacostalism to where I am now. I’ve learned to live in the question…I’m beginning to understand Grace…Scripture has a new and deeper meaning to me…my understanding of that which I call God is far deeper and much harder to articulate…but, I’ve digressed. No…I don’t think we can communicate with most fundamentalists because they have one agenda and that is to convert us to their way of thinking.
wall meet head.
BAD FAITH lyrics/music Louise Guay March 1, 2010 (c)
You tell me you got the truth
and nothing but the truth
Eye for eye and tooth for tooth
Oh you can be quite uncouth
You love telling me I’m wrong
Oh you prod me with a prong
Yeah you know where I belong
You think your religion is so strong
But you got bad faith baby
You don’t have an ounce of mercy
Oh you got bad faith baby
and you’re scaring the hell out of me
Now Cain thought he was able
To do better than his brother Abel
When G-d refused his offering
He decided to make a killing
Oh you sure talk the talk
But you ain’t got the walk
Your lack of grace, makes you red in the face
I think you may just lose the race
And you got bad faith baby
No, you don’t have an ounce of mercy
Oh you got bad faith baby
and you’re scaring the hell out of me
You want me to see the light
You want me to say you’re right
You love to fight a good fight
You think you and G-d are so tight
I see your desperation
Your desire for vindication
Your fear of ultimate rejection
But you’re in dire need of redemption
And you got bad faith baby
You don’t have an ounce of mercy
Oh you got bad faith baby
and you’re scaring the hell out of me
There’s a lot more « mental » than « fun » in fundamentalist!
It is easy to take this horribly fuzzy little graphic and beat up others–which the author does, even as he(apparently in an attempt at self-effacement, says that he embodies some of what it says. But, the problem is, it is inaccurate in the order: God says it, that settles it, and I believe it. Whatever else somebody wants to attach to one’s inability or ability to interpret what God says–this order is what God followers have always understood to be true–including the God-followers described in pages of Scripture. Failing to understand this is the essential flaw in the post, and likely why those who concur with the author do so.
I am late to this conversation as I have been too busy the last couple of weeks to read the blogs and converse. But as I have read through most of the comments now, I notice several different “strains” of answers, and several folks talking past each other. I don’t claim to be able to “fix” that, but I would like to suggest a different frame of reference.
Several years ago (probably close to 20) an Episcopal missionary to Africa named James Hopewell retired and was subsequetly called to teach to Emory University. Based on his years as a missionary, and work as an interim pastor in the Atlanta area, he came up with a “scale” regarding convictions and beliefs, and it is one which resonates with me. He suggested that people “naturally” gravitate toward one of four outlooks: empiric, canonic, charismatic, or gnostic (note he defines these sociologically, not theologically); people adopt one dominent view, and somewhat accept a secondary one which they feel or believe is not contracictory (even though others may). At the risk of oversimplifying the four “negotiations,” his empiric refers to those who have a view that if it is not rationally and experimentally verifiable, it is untrue; canonic are those who look for some written and revealed standard, whether that “standard” is the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or whatever; charismatic are those who envision the world as a romantic quest, full of both dangers and perils; and gnostic refers to one finding peace in inner knowledge. Furthermore, he proposed plotting these beliefs on a standard Cartesian axis, using diagnostic questions. While I find the details less than adequate, it does show how different people can come up with diameticly opposed understandings of the same things, or so I think. Think about which of these NP might gravitate towards, verses Fishon. Does this help anyone as a frame of reference between religious fundamentalism and other religious references?
John
John Fariss your comment is right on. Thanks for sharing.
Now did you like my song?
Hi Louise,
First off, you should know that music people often ask to to STAY AWAY from music. I have a loud voice, a limited range, and a tin ear, so what I know from music is. . . .
Having said that, yeah, I like it. Not too subtle, but I like it. And remember: my opinion and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee in most places.
John
John,
I would think me canonic and charismatic according to Hopewell.
fishon
NathanL:
I took a quick look at the links you provided. I can understand your frustration at your point not being addressed, but to be completely honest, I don’t see that others are talking about something different than you are. I think the term “fundamentalist” brings to mind, for many of us, those in the Christian faith who are not only conservative, but have left churches with modernists and liberals in order to avoid certain disputes. (As the wiki page points out, it was about science then and is about gender equality and gay rights now, among other things.)
It’s not the viewpoint alone that would define the fundamentalist, but the escapism. It would refer to those who split off and keep to themselves in their conservative viewpoints, even when it isolates them from the broader Christian community.
Although NP I believe is using the term much more broadly, I think he is only doing so by extending this example to other viewpoints in Christianity and to other groups and subject matters.
Christine,
I agree with your describing fundamentalists as those who not only believe a certain way, but will separate themselves because of it.
As someone with a fundamentalist background, I can say that one factor (of many) for me leaving fundamentalism is that I no longer wanted it to be “me against the world AND most of Christianity.” If I and my little group is RIGHT and 90% of the world INCLUDING other Christians is WRONG—well, maybe I should start to re-evaluate my stance to decide if it’s really right or why I’m doing it or how I COULD possibly be wrong, etc.
I don’t know. I just didn’t want to be on a little desert island- me and God looking in judgement at the rest of the people. That’s what it felt like to me.
And the HURTFUL thing is fundamentalists (in my experience) WILL leave you or stop talking to you or encourage you to leave before they will give up their rigidity. Then it hurts because their rigid beliefs are more important to them than you are. They break contact with you. Most, not all.
Fundamentalists. The only people it’s okay to categorise, label, resent and even hate nowadays, whoever is doing the categorising. The most tolerant and progressive of conferences can generally find some unity in their shared dislike and resentment of “Fundamentalists”. Very hard to own up to being one in that environment, when I do that (in the sense that I believe the Bible) the level of discomfort, even fear, is palpable. I am not sure the term has a categorisable or definable ‘academic’ meaning because its main use seems to be as a term of collective denigration used by an ‘in-group’ to describe an ‘out-group’, like Redneck, Chav, Eytie, Jewboy, Gyppo or dare I say it N*****r. Yet everybody from Government outwards nowadays (I am fron UK) seems to feel comfortable telling “Fundamentalists” who they are and why they are, as a group, unaccepatble and must be excluded from debate for the protection of all. Personally i think it is because the term is mainly used to define a group of people considered in their very being to carry risk or danger to others. Much as the Nazis described the Jews. So this taxonomy of Fundamentalism devised and discussed by people who generally seem to dislike Fundamentalists (or at least do not agree with them) has about as much validity to me as the pseudo-science commonly produced in the early 20th century to justify the Eugenics movement. Don’t bother classifying Fundamentalists, that will just make the differences worse. Make friends with them (us), try to see things their (may)way. It’s the only way! but of course you don’t have to agree …
Kate:
interesting response. i hear what you are saying. however, i know people who not only call themselves fundamentalists, but are proud of it. that isn’t my concern. my concern is how can we communicate in healthy ways. i hoped this chart would indicate that all of us, to some extent or another, have fundamentalist tendencies. so this chart is about helping us understand that we are all fundamentalist to some extent. it is also helpful for communicating. that was my hope anyway. i’m with you… it’s not helpful to peg people. it isn’t helpful to denigrate anybody either.
anyway, thanks for your comments.
david
Kate,
I’m a former fundamentalist. I’ve since read about higher criticism. Have you read higher criticism of the Bible and decided that they were wrong?
If you’re a funamentalist who’se honestly considered other views of the Bible and rejected them-that I would respect. I’ve recently emailed with my best friend growing up. She’s still in an Independent Baptist church-is in fact a pastor’s wife. I told her of my journey. She said reading all those books was my problem-plus exposing myself to other denominations. Much as I love her, I think her approach is incorrect.
I guess my point is whatever opinion we have, it should be an informed one. What has your experience been along those lines?