A Fundamental(ist) Problem
Buzzwords can obscure the real issue.
May, 2018
It's common for self-labelled "de-converts" from Christianity to speak of their former religion as "fundamentalist." Terms such as "fundamentalism" are often use—almost always negatively—in discussion. That leads to important questions. Is there something wrong with fundamentalist Christianity? Does a fundamentalist approach lead people to abandon the faith, or choose to reject it? Finally, how do the answers to the first two questions affect our use of other terms related to faith?
We need to be careful to define terms like "fundamental," "fundamentalist," and "fundamentalism." Just because an atheist or de-convert applies that term doesn't mean their definition is the same as that of Christians who identify with that term. It's critical to understand what people actually believe, rather than take terminology at face value. That being said, there are ways in which traits associated with modern "fundamentalism" complicate the perception of faith, both for believers and non-believers.
(Our parent website has a good summary of where the term "fundamentalism" comes from, and what it actually means. That's a helpful place to start.)
On one hand, "fundamentalism" is routinely abused as a catch-all term. It's the go-to label for any religion taking itself too seriously for someone's tastes. For the shallow critics, any person who dares think their beliefs are true, and acts accordingly, is a fundamentalist. That's a concept known as a "scare word," where an unpopular term is used simply to make some idea look bad. This is why political discourse loves terms like "bigotry," "hatred," "intolerance," and so forth. They're influential, whether or not they're true. When particularly unfair and biased voices are using these terms, we should be cautious about what they actually mean.
On the other hand, a certain version of "fundamentalism" can present problems. This is the flavor of religion where people are taught to believe certain ideas "just because," and to never question or explore them. This is not only anti-intellectual, it`s anti-biblical (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). When those steeped in such an environment are exposed to challenges and questions, they find their perceptions can't stand up to pressure. This risky approach also includes an attitude which implies "either we are right, or nobody is right." This is regrettably common in some Christian circles. These kinds of believers defend doctrines using fear instead of Scripture, by claiming that disproving their interpretation also--necessarily--disproves the entire Bible.
In that sense, it would be fair to say that "fundamentalism," in the sense of a blind-faith or anti-intellectual approach, or a my-way-or-nothing, is a setup for false conversions or future de-conversions.
Of course, the elephant in the room during any discussion about faith is not labels. It's personal spirituality. It's extremely important to note that truth is truth, and people are commanded by God to seek it (Matthew 7:7–8). A person raised in an anti-intellectual faith tradition, who abandons all forms of Christianity when challenged, is not seeking truth. They may be rejecting one false thing in favor of another false thing; they are not really looking for an ultimate answer. Likewise, just because a person's faith is fairly described as "fundamental" does not mean it's false. Skeptics and critics who walk away from religion because they don't like the world's opinion of it are also not truth seekers; they're crowd-pleasers.
It's fair to say that any person given a false view of religion is at risk of rejecting that falsehood, and by extension rejecting the truth of Christianity as well. One is more likely to reject a warped view of God, or Christianity, since that view is, in fact, false. Too often, however, people don't realize the flaw is in themselves and their perception. As a result, they reject God entirely instead of correcting their own error. This is often the case with de-converts—when you ask them to describe Christian doctrines or teachings, you almost always find their views to be shockingly shallow, biased, or incomplete. It would be fair to say they're dismissing "the wrong God." Their angst is aimed at a cartoon version of the faith, not the actual truth.
Like it or not, that's their own fault, first and foremost. When a sincere truth-seeker concludes that some particular facet of their beliefs is wrong, it leads them to find out what is true. When the same happens to those who are irrational or looking for an escape, those people throw the whole faith out and make excuses later.
At the same time, like it or not, it's reasonable to say that Christians have a responsibility for how they present the gospel, and the church, to the unbelieving world (Romans 2:24). Congregations, parents, ministers or individuals who deal in immature faith are actually poisoning others against the truth. That's the fault of that particular "fundamentalist," so to speak, not "fundamentalism," itself, but it's still a problem.
Last, but not least, we need to see how these issues work their way into other words and ideas. The USA, in particular, is experiencing a shift in reactions to terms such as "evangelical." Whether this is due to deliberate politics, poor representation, or simply misinformation is beside the point. Believers have a responsibility to live out the reality of our faith, first, and then to defend it with humility and sincerity. Labels shouldn't be attacked, or defended, according to any standard other than truth.
-- Editor
