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.
I really liked Cox’s point about the view of other religions as “interesting”. Maybe that kind of outlook is something we can take within Christianity. While I don’t necessarily agree with the beliefs of some Christians, its interesting to me that those beliefs are .. believable, even by some. And I don’t mean for that to be condescending, I honestly try really hard to take other Christian beliefs that I don’t hold for myself into account and weigh them against my own. I agree that one of the problems with fundamentalism is not it as a set of beliefs in itself, but more as a way of believing things. I love that steps are being taken in this community towards a mutual understanding. Because I relate in that the people I have the biggest problem having a faith conversation with are (in my mind) fundamentalists.
Question. Would you say that … fundamentalism, considering it to be not a type of person or a set of beliefs, but instead of WAY of believing, is something that we should, in the long run, hope to be rid of? I’m not asking that to attack fundamentalists, but more in a way that … I’m getting that the theory here is that fundamentalism is something that stops conversation from happening. So should I be aware of my fundamentalism so I can embrace it, or should I be aware of it so that I can do my best to overcome it?
Oh that’s a great start. I’m going to throw that into my teaching resources. I’ll buy you a beer each time I use it!
thanks frank. i need to do a better quality of it… like photoshop or something.
I really like this outlay, David. I especially like “we may be very gracious in areas that aren’t as vital to our core views; this allows us to assimilate with society.” yup! well said. I wrote a post today on my photoblog about the issue of beliefs and assumptions and our blindness. http://carlaroyal.com/2010/02/i-see-soul/
thanks carla. beautiful post too!
Tarek Fatah says that:
“Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told;
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right.”
louise: i like that.
Louise la francofun!
February 25, 2010 at 7:17 pm .Tarek Fatah says that:
“Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told;
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right.”
——–Who decides what is moral?
fishon
What’s the other option? Apathy?
Quester: I hope not. I think not. Can we “know” something and live in peace with others?
Oh yea, your [NP's] created chart is a real civil conversation starter between us. I just get warm and fuzzy with your words:Extremism, force, miltancy, intolerance, segreation, marginalization, polaization, and I particularly like “demonization.” Atta-boy, feed the choir.—Next thing I know I am “damning souls.” Oh wait, I have been told that already.
fishon
NP: Yes, but under what circumstances?
If I know something to be true, and you know the same, we can live in agreement. It might not be peaceful, depending on the truth, but there can be some peace between us in the agreement.
If I know something to be true, and you know it to be false, but neither of us have any reason to care about it, we can live in peace with our disagreement.
If I know something to be true, and you know it to be false, and it is something only important to those who know the truth, but neither of us care for each other, we can live in peace with the other’s error.
If I know something to be true, and you know it to be false, and it is something that is very important, but not immediately, we can live in peace with the knowledge we have time to sort it out.
But if I know that someone is standing on the other side of the thin wall you are shooting at, then I will not peacefully submit to your continued shooting, no matter how much you reaffirm your knowledge that no one stands back there.
I posted something much earlier on in this thread, but as is the case with most first comments it probably went unnoticed.
I’ll repeat the main point though … in that, Fundamentalism is not a set of beliefs, but a way of believing them. I could be a fundamental atheist as easily as I could be a fundamental Christian. The point remains the same … being a fundamentalist, stops the conversation from happening.
The question is this: do I make myself aware of my own fundamentalism to embrace it, or to overcome it?
There are fundamentalists of all sorts…not just religious, but they have a lot in common. They seem to feel that if you don’t conform to their particular belief whether it be dietary, political, spiritual or their particular taste in music, literature or whatever that they have the right…no, rather the duty…to bluntly tell us the error of our ways and consign us to whatever horror they believe is the result of our actions, be it hell, cancer, or a bad economy. The food police think nothing of walking up to someone in the market and telling them if they consume the contents of their basket that they will certainly get cancer. Look at US politics…if you support the…fill in the blank…its your fault if the country fails. It goes with the same mindset that says anyone who listens to…choose a genre…country, opera, rock…is bad, an idiot, stupid. Its not the difference of opinion that makes the conversation impossible, but the judgement, the superior attitude,and the ultimate curse on your life that makes it so. Either believe like them or perish, with no respect for your thought process or beliefs.
You would hold this analysis to be true, you would have an investment in its truth, and you would have others agree with this analysis. Unless you would call this analysis of fundamentalism itself ‘fundamentalist’, me thinks that this would be a poor choice of terms.
I’ve said it before on this blog, but ‘fundamentalism’ means something, it refers to something specific (especially in Christian theological history). It can’t be used of foundationalist epistemology, of systematic theology, of moral realism, of modernist structuralism, or of any epistemological certainty. That would be a complete anachronism.
Otherwise, (to pinch Plantinga) the problem of other minds would render every single human being on the planet a fundamentalist (I’m yet to meet a human being who does not believe in his own mind, who is not invested in this truth and is not desiring of others to believe in it) – which, if ‘fundamentalism’ means “convinced of a truth and convicted of the desire for others to be similarly convinced”, may be accurate. But that is NOT what fundamentalism has EVER meant, EVER, full stop.
I guess what I’m getting at is that you seem to have underestimated the catholicity of your analysis; to suggest that we all find ourselves somewhere on this chart is a gross understatement. I’m wondering how useful ‘fundamentalism’ is as a concept. I’m wondering who – precisely – is NOT a fundamentalist by this analysis…
NathanL: exactly. who isn’t, at some time or another? that is my point. i accept it for myself. how can two people of completely competing certitudes be at peace with one another? that is my question.
fishon…what exactly would you like it called when you state that someone or a group is going to hell? The dictionary says that its called damning. Shall we sugar coat it so you won’t have to see what it is? Judge not lest ye be judged…and according to Strong’s, Vine’s and I assume the rest…that means deciding who does or doesn’t go to hell. Its not our job. David was an adulterer and a murderer yet he was a man after God’s own heart. Someone doesn’t have to repent to your satisfaction but God’s. You don’t know what goes on between a person and God…none of us does…a person who has a life that looks squeaky clean according to our standards may have a mind that is vile. And a person we perceive as out of God’s will may be covered by grace. We can’t know with certainty the state of anyone’s heart.
Hi there, I like your table on fundamentalism, and I am wondering if I can share it on my blog with others? I will credit you, of course.
preacherlady,
I think you described it really well in your first post. I used to read a lot about nutrition and became totally convinced about a certain way of eating. I wouldn’t openly criticize people, but I would in my mind, and I was constantly telling my views to my family. It actually annoyed me greatly knowing that others did not agree with me.
How DARE they have a different conclusion?! Not sure why we have such a need sometimes for others to see things our way. Maybe their thinking differently makes it seem like we could be WRONG, and we don’t like being wrong.
Alex, I went back and read your initial response. I’m glad I did. Interesting thoughts.
“The question is this: do I make myself aware of my own fundamentalism to embrace it, or to overcome it?”
As a former fundamentalists myself, I think there is only one option in the mind of the “fundy” – embrace it! I think they place an enormous value on their dedication to their religious attitudes. They see nothing in their religious attitudes that need overcoming, except possibly a lack of fundamentalism. As you seem to be pointing out, beliefs are of secondary importance, taking a back seat to the intensity of those beliefs.
Terence: Thanks. Sure, feel free to use it on your blog. Just link to nakedpastor. Thanks!
Alex and Bob,
Good points re: do I embrace fundamentalism or overcome it? Fundamentalists can give you many verses in the Bible that reinforce their strong desire to embrace their beliefs.
I grew up in fundamentalism (Baptist, Independent)and stayed in it til my 30′s. I recently listened to two whole sermons from a church I was familiar with. I heard the same message in the same way as years ago. Nothing was different. I think part of it is taking pride in the old ways. Feeling righteous because you are sticking by the ole time religion. To me, it felt like getting stuck in a time warp.
Another big part, I think, is not letting any contradicting information or viewpoint in. Or if you do allow that, you are seeing it as from “the world.” I think they tend to see themselves as the real deal, and everybody else as “the world.” Being of the world is BAD. Lots of verses to support that too.
One of the sermons was very poorly done, but he said “I’m a Bible-believing Baptist, and I ain’t sittin’ down.” That sums up the attitude. It’s a WAR between them and the world. Oh, and other Christians who they don’t agree with. They have LOTS of enemies. That’s one reason I got out. I didn’t want to feel like it was ME against practically everybody else in the world. I didn’t WANT to disagree with everybody else in the world anymore.
Just my thoughts on MY experiences.
Yes Lynn, “separation” was a key doctrine in my Independent Baptist days. “Compromiser” was a label we put on anyone who didn’t embrace fundamentalism as much as we did.
But what a load the fundamentalist carries! Don’t they get tired of it? Are they a horrible person if they DO get tired of it? I don’t think so! I’m still the same person as always, but I’m no longer in a BOX.
I think one thing that helps, is when you say to yourself-”Am I really gonna get extra brownie points for following all these rules and being so conservative in my beliefs OR is all that really unnecessary? Is it just something I’VE put upon myself?
I used to be a very rigid, tending-towards-extremes person.
Some of the comments seem to come from the assumption that what “the fundamentalist” believes is self-imposed or self-created. That is a defensible intellectual position, but not one that does the fundamentalist’s self-understanding any justice.
If a person believes in big T “Truth,” then they do not see any virtue in holding various positions. There is no virtue in having a multiplicity of answers about the proper solution to a math problem.
If you believe the Bible to contain propositional truths on par with your math book, then the only option for others is to be wrong or misled or malicious.
It is easy from the outside of such a worldview to critique it or suggest all would be better if such folks just got with it or freed themselves of “the box.” But that is not really a productive way to engage across boundaries, which is what I think the original post was trying to do.
John, I think you are absolutely correct, but I suspect that there is nothing the non-fundamentalist can do or say to “engage across boundaries”, as I have attempted to no avail, this engagement.
As a former fundy, I believe the only way for dialog to progress is if/when the fundamentalist concludes that they don’t really know what they thought they knew.
How can a truth-seeker converse with a Truth-barer?
John, I visited your blog briefly. My Uncle John passed away last year. He was a retired UMC minister. A wonderful man whom I miss dearly.
http://www.pbase.com/rsweatt/image/111348216
I really love this community. Thank you all for having a conversation as opposed to a confrontation. I love asking questions here, I don’t have to be afraid of the responses haha. I’m blessed to have a number of communities where this is true.
To David …
Yeah I totally relate to that, and I totally agree. I 100% agree that we are all fundamentalists in some way or another, which it makes it way easier to relate to everyone that I would have previously looked at as fundamentalist with a capital “F U”. I also agree that thing I struggle with most is living at peace with people who’s certitudes completely contradict my own (I’ve written more than a couple blogs on it, some probably more confrontational than others unfortunately, if I had to be honest).
The only way I’ve found to live at peace with people with conflicting certitudes, is not simply agreeing, because there’s no way I can agree with everyone. Its finding a genuine respect for the other person and where they are on their … journey? path? I don’t know what the best word to use for that is without it sounding incredibly “sunday school”. And I don’t mean respect for where they are on their route in a demeaning sense. I don’t mean looking at people you disagree with as BEHIND you in their growth, just in a different place in their lives.
Its kind of like … wherever you go, whichever Christian community you end up in, you see them believing most strongly what they NEED to believe. In african american baptist churches, you’ll mostly hear about liberation theology. At inner city community churches, like mine, you’ll mostly hear about forgiveness of sins and unconditional love. I think the key word here is “Respect”. Respect for people’s histories and reasoning and such. That’s just where I am on it though. What do you think?
To address NP’s question: “how can two people of completely competing certitudes be at peace with one another?”
And to use a language that is shared (not just for the fundies but for believers and cultural gleaners)
Deuteronomy 10:12-16
“Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.”
Stop being stubborn, get educated in all things, maybe even especially in things you may not agree with, and be the one willing to bear the yoke.
Meh? Just an attempt…
John,
I think I see what you’re saying. If you know that 2 + 2=4, why would you need to dialog with people who think it equals 5? Other than to convince them they are incorect. They telling you that it does NOT equal 4 would seem ridiculous to you.
So to repeat someone’s question above-how does a truth-seeker dialog with a truth-bearer, other than agreeing with the truth-bearer?
Lynn123
February 26, 2010 at 7:21 am .
How DARE they have a different conclusion?! Not sure why we have such a need sometimes for others to see things our way.
——-I could tell you, but then the accusations would fly; maybe even from you. Your “not sure,” I am. Bad me!
fishon
Lynn123
February 26, 2010 at 11:26 am .John,
I think I see what you’re saying. If you know that 2 + 2=4, why would you need to dialog with people who think it equals 5? Other than to convince them they are incorect. They telling you that it does NOT equal 4 would seem ridiculous to you.
———Aha, to the crux of the issue. Person A and person B get into a conversation. Person A says, “I don’t know what 2+2 equals. I am trying to find the answer, but so far, it has eluded me.” Person B says, “Wow, I use to wonder what 2+2 equalled, and after searching, I have found the answer. The answer is 4.” Person A counters, “I don’t like that answer.” Person B says, “Sorry, but that is the truth, it is 4.” Person A says, “Well, I don’t know the answer, and I don’t like your answer, SO YOU CAN’T KNOW IT EITHER. You are just a fundy who thinks you know it all.”
Well, of course this conversation could go on and on, and it could take many directions. And it addresses only a part of the issue—but that is what happens in this forum, often times. “I don’t so, so you can’t possibly know.”
I did not build a senario about two different answers to the value of 2+2, that is a different discussion.
just a few ramblings Lynn.
fishon
I think maybe even certitude of something has to be okay with the possibility of being wrong. For example, I’m pretty darn sure that scripture isn’t perfect, but I know a lot of people would fight me on that. I also realize that I could very well be wrong. It makes it way easier to get along with people when you realize you’re probably wrong about everything.
The fact that I believe what I believe is incredibly farfetched. But I really do believe it. So its easy for me to understand both that most people will think I’m completely crazy, and a lot of others will have beliefs even more farfetched than mine. The question becomes not “how do I relate to either of these people” but instead becomes “which one do I relate to more?!”. And its hard to not converse peacefully with someone you relate to so much.
Alex,
Something you said made me realize something: one thing all of us on here have in common is that we enjoy being on here and discussing. That gives us one thing in common. Which shows me that I have more in common, maybe, with all of you than with people who have NO interest in even discussing things. So, we are more alike than we think!
I like discussion, and I like others who like discussion.
Exactly! Man! All of us, fundamentalist or not, are talking about this. how great is that.
Just as long as it is in fact discussion that we like, and not being right. Because if its being right you like, then its not discussion. see?
But I’m glad you like discussion, because so do I. And I’m glad you like people who like discussion, because i like discussion, and that means you like me, and that makes me feel sort of fuzzy. I like you too, Lynn.
awesome. we’re making strides. haha.
Alex,
I think we’ve bonded! Seriously, I felt the happiness that you expressed!! It was a little “aha” moment to realize that we are all more alike than we think we are. We are discussers. I like discussers better than I like non-discussers.
I like you, too, Alex.
I, too, think we’re getting somewhere. np must be rejoicing!
lynn123: i am
Dear Fishon,
Yes… who decides what is moral? Good question!
David: You’re right, but my problem is that this would be a gross understatement. If you’re defining fundamentalism as “I believe it, i’m invested in it, I wish others would believe similarly”, then we’re ALL fundamentalists, ALL the time, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with fundamentalism, so defined.
(Point in case 1: you believe that your analysis of fundamentalism is true, you’re invested in it, you would like others to believe similarly. Point in case 2: we all believe that we exist, we’re invested in this truth, we would like others to believe similarly. Point in case 3: we all believe in the efficacy and perspicuity of language [or else you wouldn't write a blog, NP], we’re invested in this truth, we would hope others believe similarly. And so on and so forth, ad infinitum).
So either you go further and you say we’re all fundamentalists always and this is absolutely fine, or you concede that what you’ve set your targets on is not fundamentalism.
(P.S. I’m not being pedantic here for the sake of being pedantic, by the way. In my experience of your blog so far, commentators have used ‘fundamentalist’ like a ‘modernist’ [another word commonly misunderstood and misapplied] bogeyman, and defined it so loosely that it slips out of their sentence as soon as they’ve spoken it into existence. You’re using ‘fundamentalist’ to isolate a belief set that you believe to be not only wrong, but also a belief set that you believe can lead to all that nasty stuff the latter half of your picture talks about. If you’re going to critique something, you have to be charitable in your pursuit of accuracy. Christians – as truth lovers – should desire nothing less than precision of terms.)
fishon,
Re the Person A and Person B conversation above, when Person B says “I’ve found the truth, and it is 4″,Person A could say, “Prove it!”
Lynn123
February 26, 2010 at 4:37 pm .fishon,
Re the Person A and Person B conversation above, when Person B says “I’ve found the truth, and it is 4?,Person A could say, “Prove it!”
————-There you go, Lynn. Some folks will never accept the proof. And by the way, the answer is still “4″, even if no one accepts it.
fishon
fishon,
You said “Some folks will never accept the proof.”
Some of those people do not find the evidence for Christianity, etc. convincing.
Lynn123
February 26, 2010 at 6:38 pm .fishon,
You said “Some folks will never accept the proof.”
Some of those people do not find the evidence for Christianity, etc. convincing.
——–You think!
fishon
fishon: i think your argument is weak. what you are saying is that one can’t say they were hurt without naming names because it’ll make everybody paranoid.
Lynn123
February 26, 2010 at 6:38 pm .fishon,
You said “Some folks will never accept the proof.”
Some of those people do not find the evidence for Christianity, etc. convincing.
——–I take it you are talking about your latest post, not this one.———–And of course you would think it weak. I expected nothing less.
fishon
fishon
February 26, 2010 at 9:21 pm .Lynn123
February 26, 2010 at 6:38 pm .fishon,
You said “Some folks will never accept the proof.”
Some of those people do not find the evidence for Christianity, etc. convincing.
——–I take it you are talking about your latest post, not this one.———–And of course you would think it weak. I expected nothing less.
fishon
—-Oops, my mistake. was addressed to NP, and his comment, not Lynn.
fishon
How can true dialogue be possible when one person is convinced he/she is right…that they are duty bound to convince everyone they encounter that they are right…and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, bad, and in for some terrible consequence? It doesn’t matter what the subject…a fundamentalist believes that he/she has THE TRUTH. Ergo, anyone who engages them in conversation MUST be seeking THE TRUTH from them. There is no exchange of ideas…only THE TRUTH, which they back up with their interpretation of the bible…sometimes with the only translation that they deem is correct…or if its another subject, with some sort of study done or the latest book by Dr.FadQuack…or the political opinion of either a right wing radical or a left wing whatever. There can be conversation but not dialogue. Dialogue can only exist when there is mutual respect for each other’s belief and ideas. When it comes to a place where it is stated “you’re wrong and you’re going to hell” or “if you eat that steak you’ll drop dead of a heart attack if you don’t get cancer first” or “its because of people like you who voted for/against whatever that the country is in the shape its in” then all dialogue has ceased. An open mind is a necessity and once sarcasm, non sequiturs, and/or condemnation enter, the dialogue ceases and any further conversation is of a derogatory nature.
I like to think of myself as a bit of a thinker, but next to you all, what I thought were scintillating reasons for the faith seem a tad simplistic.
Dave, I appreciate it that you’re broadening my view of fundamentalism. When I think of fundamentalists, long hair and skirts and men in bad brown suits came to my mind; only fundamentalism as it relates to Christianity. I think of fundamentalism as bad, bad, bad. But given what you’ve charted here, I know many, many fundamentalists who don running shoes and chug through the countryside for hours every week, who will evangelize about runner’s euphoria until you just want to put your fingers in your ears and say la-la-la-la-la-la. (I can say this because I have been a runner and hopefully will be again sometime) It is somewhat comforting to know that many of us are fundamentalists about something, without ever having to go to church.
If I read through the chart, though, when it comes to “my Christianity”, many of the points hit disturbingly close to home. How many of the points need to fit before I am a Christian fundamentalist? While I pray to God I never get to the militancy/demonization/ghettoism (am I already there with this one? most of my best friends are somewhat like-minded believers) stage, there are several points that describe me perfectly.
This is where my faith becomes simplistic. I love Jesus, I was/am a sinner and knowing/feeling the forgiveness I’ve appropriated because of the cross (I love the scene in The Mission where DeNiro’s burden is cut away, and he weeps and laughs, a muddy, mucky, stinky mess, but freed from his burden, forgiven by the ones he’s crucified) has changed my life. Plain and simple. Because of His love, and how it makes me want to respond and live my life, and how He’s ultimately made my life better, sweeter, fuller…well, it makes me think “how could someone NOT choose Jesus?” The truths seem self evident. I am part of a group of people that love Him too, because we have something in common (love for Him, a desire to know Him better, the quest for living a life that honours His sacrifice for us)….
So if I care for someone, and they’re living the kind of screwed up life I used to live, and I think to myself “Self, this one would be less miserable if they had Jesus too.” You see where I’m going with this. “I’m happy (well, most days), and I want you to be happy too. Try Jesus.” So then I’m evangelizing. What’s next? Life on the commune?
Maybe I should just give up, throw my hands in the air, and admit it. I’m a fundamentalist. A Christian one. God help me.
( I want to whine here, “But I don’t wanna be a fundamentalist”, kind of like Jerry Seinfeld whining “But I don’t wannt be a pirate” in his puffy shirt.)
It is just a man made chart made by a bigot.
fishon
Fishon…it seems as if since David said he valued your input that you’ve been pushing the envelope. You’ve gone a little too far, this time. If you can’t respect David and his right to express what he feels 1)why do you even bother to come on here…it is HIS space 2)how can you expect anyone to respect you when you show no respect? 3)why not take the log in your own eye into consideration? David…a bigot? I don’t know whose blog you’ve been reading to get that impression…if anything he risks getting tarred and feathered for being too liberal. This is the perfect illustration as to why there is no dialogue with fundamentalists. They pronounce and decree what they believe to be absolute. They have spoken and all should heed their declarations.