Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism refers to any sect or movement within a religion that emphasizes literal interpretation of scripture, a rigid adherence to what it conceives of as fundamental principles, opposition to secularism and religion's adaptation to secular culture and ideas, and often intolerance of other views. Fundamentalism first appeared in the early 1900s among American Protestant Christianity which strove to return to the "fundamentals" of Biblical faith, and which stressed the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching.

Typically, fundamentalism is characterized by a cluster of common attributes including: a suspicion of outsiders, a sense of alienation from the secular culture, a distrust of liberal elites, and belief in the historical accuracy and inerrancy of their religious scriptures. Additionally, religious fundamentalists are often politically active and they may feel that the state must be subservient to God.

Today there are organized and politically active fundamentalist movements within Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. However, many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because it has become a derogatory label, and because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups that they find objectionable.

The rise of religious fundamentalism in the 20th century is indicative of the perceived challenge that both secularism and liberal values pose to traditional religious authorities, values, and theological truth claims. Fundamentalism appeals to religious believers who feel threatened by the encroachment of liberal values into traditionally religious spheres and feel besieged by secular culture which they regard as immoral and godless.

The rise of fundamentalism has often been called one of gravest problems facing humanity today. Fundamentalism can beget self-righteous arrogance and even violence, which are contrary to the universal religious teachings of humility and compassion. The narrow exclusivism of fundamentalism is contrary to the spirit of tolerance and brotherly love found within all the scriptures of all religions. Nevertheless, the ongoing efforts within the world's religions to overcome fundamentalism have been largely ineffective. For one thing, religious moderates may simply reject fundamentalists rather than seek to make positive relationships with them; this only reinforces their sense of alienation and validates their extreme views. Furthermore, since fundamentalism is a reaction to secularism, these movements are unlikely to subside unless moderate religious leaders find the means to overcome the corrosive effects of secular culture.

Historical Origins

The concept of "fundamentalism" arose in 1909 from the title of a four-volume set of books called The Fundamentals. These books were published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A. now Biola University), between 1909 and 1920. They were called The Fundamentals because they appealed to Christians to affirm specific fundamental doctrines such as The Virgin Birth and bodily Resurrection of Jesus. This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy" which appeared late in the nineteenth century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s.

Over time the term came to be associated with a particular segment of evangelical Protestantism, who distinguished themselves by their separatist approach toward modernity, and toward other Christians who did not agree with their views. Originally members of the various Protestant denominations who subscribed to the "fundamentals" were called "fundamentalists" and they did not form an independent denomination. However, they have since broken up into various movements. Early "fundamentalists" included J. Gresham Machen and B.B. Warfield, men who would not be considered "fundamentalists" today.

Rationale of Religious Fundamentalism

Most forms of religious fundamentalism have similar traits. Religious fundamentalists typically see sacred scripture as the authentic and literal word of God. Since scripture is considered to be inerrant, fundamentalists believe that no person has the right to change it or disagree with it. They believe that God articulated His will precisely to His followers, and that they have a reliable and perfect record of that revelation. As a result, people are "obliged" to obey the word of God.

Fundamentalists also commonly believe that their way of life and treasured truths are under attack by the forces of secularism and liberalism. They think that they are rescuing religious identity from absorption into post-modernism and secularism. According to Peter Huff, "...fundamentalists in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite their doctrinal and practical differences, are united by a common worldview which anchors all of life in the authority of the sacred and a shared ethos that expresses itself through outrage at the pace and extent of modern secularization." [1]

Fundamentalists believe their cause to have grave and even cosmic importance. They see themselves as protecting not only a distinctive doctrine, but also a vital principle, and a way of life and salvation. Community, comprehensively centered upon a clearly defined religious way of life in all of its aspects, is the promise of fundamentalist movements; it therefore appeals to those adherents of religion who find little that is distinctive, or authentically vital in their previous religious identity.

The fundamentalist "wall of virtue," which protects their identity, is erected against not only alien religions, but also against the modernized, compromised, nominal version of their own religion. Examples of things that modern fundamentalists often avoid are modern translations of the Bible, alcoholic drinks or recreational drugs, tobacco, modern popular music, dancing, "mixed bathing" (men and women swimming together), and gender-neutral or trans-gender clothing and hair-styles. Such things might seem innocuous to the outsider, but to some fundamentalists they represent the leading edge of a threat to the virtuous way of life and the purer form of belief that they seek to protect. Many fundamentalists accept only the King James Version translation of the Bible and study tools based on it, such as the Scofield Reference Bible.

Perhaps the greatest appeal of fundamentalism is its simplicity: people must do what God tells them to do. They must obey the scriptures and the proper religious authorities (whomever they are deemed to be). The world is seen in black and white opposites. The Fundamentalists are right while everyone else is mistaken. This attitude can be very seductive especially when one thinks that they are on the side of righteousness.

Religious Fundamentalism around the World

Most religions contain fundamentalist elements that often have more in common with each other than with liberal followers of their own religion. In Christianity, fundamentalists are "Born again" and "Bible-believing" Protestants, as opposed to "Mainline," “modernist" Protestants, who, from a fundamentalist perspective, represent "Churchianity"; in Islam they are jama'at (Arabic: “religious enclaves” with connotations of close fellowship) self-consciously engaged in jihad (struggle) against Western culture that suppresses authentic Islam (submission) and the “God-given” (Shari'ah) way of life; in Judaism they are Haredi "Torah-true" Jews; and they have their equivalents in Hinduism, Sikhism and other world religions. These groups insist on a sharp boundary between themselves and others, and finally between a "sacred" view of life and the "secular" world. Fundamentalists direct their critiques toward (and draw most of their converts from) the larger community of their religion, by attempting to convince them that they are not experiencing the authentic version of their professed religion. Despite their similarities, fundamentalists from specific religions also have their own unique characteristics and views, as seen below:

Christian Fundamentalism

The term fundamentalist is difficult to apply unambiguously in Christianity. Many self-described fundamentalists would include Jerry Falwell in their company, but would not embrace Pat Robertson as a fundamentalist because of his espousal of charismatic teachings. Fundamentalist institutions include Pensacola Christian College and Bob Jones University, but classically fundamentalist schools such as Fuller Theological Seminary and Biola University no longer describe themselves as fundamentalist.

Self-described Christian fundamentalists see the Holy Bible as both infallible and historically accurate. However, it is important to distinguish between the "literalist" and fundamentalist groups within the Christian community. Literalists, as the name indicates, hold that the Bible should be taken literally in every part (though English language Bibles are themselves translations and therefore not a literal, word-for-word rending of the original texts). Many Christian fundamentalists, on the other hand, are for the most part content to hold that the Bible should be taken literally only where there is no indication to the contrary. As William Jennings Bryan put it, in response to Clarence Darrow's questioning during the Scopes Trial (1925):

I believe that everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people.

Nevertheless, the tendency of modern Christian fundamentalism is toward a literal reading of the Bible.

Because of the prevalence of dispensational eschatology, some fundamentalists vehemently support the modern nation of Israel, believing the Jews to have significance in God's purposes parallel to the Christian churches, and a special role to play at the end of the world.

Jewish Fundamentalism

Jewish fundamentalism is a phenomenon particularly in Israel, where orthodox Jews find themselves in a struggle with secular Jews to define the culture. Haredi Judaism is a movement within the orthodox camp to establish an exclusively orthodox Jewish culture characterized by strict adherence to the Jewish law (halacha) in every aspect of life, the wearing of distinctive dress, and political efforts to enforce halachic ordinances on the general population—to make Israel a truly "Jewish" state. Some Jewish fundamentalists support the movement to establish Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank, which they call "Judea and Samaria," with the goal of absorbing it into Israel because of its Jewish occupation in biblical times.

Many orthodox Jews are not fundamentalists. The so-called "modern orthodox" believe it is possible to be both modern and observant at the same time. They do not as a rule wear distinctive dress. They make some accommodation with secular life, while strictly observing the Jewish law in the home and private settings, and in particular on the Sabbath.

Mormon Fundamentalism

Within the cluster of groups who esteem the Book of Mormon as scripture, some conservative movements of Mormonism could be labeled as fundamentalist. Mormon fundamentalism represents a break from the brand of Mormonism practiced by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Church), and claims to be a return to the Mormon doctrines and practices which the LDS Church has allegedly wrongly abandoned, such as plural marriage, the Law of Consecration, the Adam-God theory, blood atonement, the Patriarchal Priesthood, elements of the Mormon Endowment ritual, and often the Blacks and Mormonism|exclusion of Blacks from the priesthood. Mormon fundamentalists have formed numerous sects, many of which have established small, cohesive, isolated communities in many areas of the Western United States.

Islamic Fundamentalism

Like other religions, Islam promotes a vision of society and provides guidelines for social life. The Holy Qur'an and the Hadith provide guidelines for Islamic government, including criminal law, family law, the prohibition of usury, and other economic regulations. However, a number of these topics are highly contentious in the Muslim world, and the controversy is rooted in differing answers to how Muslims should live, what sort of governments they should support, and the proper role of Islamic symbols, ideas, and tenets in the modern world.

Although Islamic states based on Sharia law have existed since the earliest days of Islam, Islamic fundamentalism can be traced back to the rise of modern movements (such as Wahhabism in Arabia, and the Deobandi of India) that developed in reaction to modernism, secularism, and western) influence. The Wahhabists, who emerged in the eighteenth century, believed that it was necessary to live according to the strict dictates of Islam, which they interpreted to mean living in the manner that the prophet Muhammad and his followers had lived in during the seventh century in Medina. Consequently they were opposed to many innovations developed since that time, including the minaret, marked graves, and later television and radios. The Wahhabis also considered those Muslims who violated their strict interpretation to be heretics, and condoned violence against them. Correspondingly, the Deobandi movement in India developed as a reaction to British rule, and was puritanical in nature, wanting to remove non-Muslim (i.e., Hindu or Christian) influence.

The loss of Muslim power due to the historical developments of World War I, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and the end of the caliphate, caused some Muslims to perceive that Islam was in retreat, and oppose Western ideas and power. Islamic fundamentalism therefore was partly a reaction to colonialism and fundamentalists saw the solution as a return to classical Islam, where religion played a dominant role in civil society and state affairs. Such groups tended to cite periods of history where Islam was the established social system, and they opposed local elites who supported adopting western liberal ideals. Writers like the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb and the Pakistani Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi saw western style individualism as counter to centuries of tradition, and also as inevitably leading to a debauched and licentious society.

Qutb advocated a return to Sharia because of what he perceived as the inability of Western values to secure harmony and prosperity for Muslims. He believed that only divine guidance could lead humans to peace, justice, and prosperity, and it followed that Muslims should eschew man-made systems of governance and live according to divinely-inspired Shariah ("The Qur'an is our constitution"). Some fundamentalists even advocated jihad against the European colonial powers, particularly the British and the French, and their allies, who ruled over much of the Muslim world during Qutb's lifetime.

Further impetus for Islamic fundamentalism arose from the Islamic revolution of Iran in 1979 with the rise of the Shi’a leader the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (c. 1900-1989) who founded the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini galvanized the Shi’a world to embrace his radicalized fundamentalism since he was seen as a great defender of the Islamic faith. However, his speeches promoted anti-Americanism, hatred against Israel, and anti-Western rhetoric, which have been a great source of debate among modernist forces in Iran.

In the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi influenced by Wahhabism and the writings of Sayed Qutb, joined forces with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad under Ayman al-Zawahiri to form what is now called al-Qaeda. This group targeted the west, especially the United States, for its support for Israel, U.S. presence on Saudi Arabian soil, and alleged aggression against Muslims in Iraq.

In recent years the term "Islamism" has largely displaced the term “Islamic fundamentalism.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines Islamism as, "An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.." Islamism describes a set of political ideologies calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law. Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Sharia. They believe that the rules and laws laid out in the Qur'an and Hadith mandate Islamic government. Western countries consider theocratic philosophies a threat to their status as secular nation-states and have taken proactive approaches to contain and/or counteract various Islamist movements. The more radical Islamists often advocate violent overthrow of secular states, or even Islamist terrorism.

"Non-Abrahamic" religions

Some argue that the religious idea of fundamentalism is limited to the "Abrahamic religions,” and have connected the phenomenon specifically to the notion of revealed religion. However, in the landmark series on fundamentalism, Martin Marty (and others) have identified fundamentalism also in non-Abrahamic religions, including Hinduism.

Followers of Hinduism generally adhere to the Vedic statement, "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously," which would seem to make relativism practically a fundamental tenet. However, a few sects within Hinduism, such as the Arya Samaj for example, do have a tendency to dogmatically view the Vedas as divinely inspired, superior or even flawless. Regardless, some claim that no Hindu can be found who considers his/her name of God to be that of the "only true God" or their scriptures to be the "only scriptures truly inspired by God" or their prophet to be the "final one." In fact it is normal that Hinduism is itself divided into many different sects and groups with new philosophies continuously being added; consequently, the fundamentalist enclaves identified by The Fundamentalism Project, who claim to be purer than others, are regarded as aberrant within Hinduism.

The Khalistan movement of Sikhism, which flourished in the 1980s, has also been labeled as a type of religious fundamentalism. This movement expressed Sikh aspirations to establish an independent Sikh state in the Punjab, India (the traditional Holy Land of the Sikhs). It was also implicated in the assassination of India's Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi (1917-1984).

The Soka Gakkai sect of Nichiren Buddhism, who believes that other forms of Buddhism are heretical, is also sometimes labeled fundamentalist.

Non-religious fundamentalism

Some refer to any literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is called a religion. For example, when the communist state of Albania (under the leadership of Enver Hoxha) declared itself an "atheist state," it was deemed by some to be a form of "fundamentalist atheism" or more accurately "Stalinist fundamentalism." There are people who in their attempt to live according to the writings of Ayn Rand seem to transgress respect for other perspectives in propagating their views, so that they are deemed to be a kind of "objectivist fundamentalist." In France, the imposition of restrictions on public display of religion has been labeled by some as "secular fundamentalism." The idea of non-religious fundamentalism almost always expands the definition of "fundamentalism" along the lines of criticisms. It represents an idea of purity, and is self-applied as a rather counter-cultural fidelity to a simple principle, as in economic fundamentalism.

Arguments in favor of fundamentalist positions

Fundamentalists claim that they practice their religion as the first adherents did and that this is how religion ought to be practiced. For example, Christian fundamentalists often contend that modern Christians should still practice Christianity like Jesus did during his time on earth (ignoring the fact that Jesus was Jewish). Correspondingly, a Muslim ought to give the same consideration as in Muhammad's time. Analogous arguments can be made for most systems of religious belief. Further justification is adduced from the static or falling attendance of many liberal or reformed congregations, from the scandals that have struck, and from the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between religiously liberal and avowedly secularist views on such matters as homosexuality, abortion and women's rights.

Criticism of Fundamentalism

Many criticisms of the fundamentalism have been leveled by its opponents.

A general criticism is that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe and practice. For instance, the book of Exodus dictates that when a man's brother dies, he must marry his widowed sister-in-law. Yet fundamentalist Christians do not adhere to this doctrine, despite the fact that it is not contradicted in the New Testament. However, defenders of fundamentalism argue that according to New Testament theology, large parts, if not all of the Mosaic Law, are not normative for modern Christians. They may cite passages such Colossians 2:14 which describes Jesus Christ as "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us.” Other fundamentalists argue that only certain parts of the Mosaic Law, parts that rely on universal moral principles, are normative for today. Therefore, in their view, there is no contradiction between such passages in the Old Testament and their belief in Biblical infallibility.

Another common criticism of fundamentalism is that in order for modern people to perfectly understand the original scriptures, they need to comprehend the ancient language of the original text (if indeed the true text can be discerned from among variants). Critics charge that fundamentalists fail to recognize that fallible human beings are the ones who transmit a religious tradition. Elliot N. Dorff writes, "Even if one wanted to follow the literal word of God, the need for people first to understand that word necessitates human interpretation. Through that process human fallibility is inextricably mixed into the very meaning of the divine word. As a result, it is impossible to follow the indisputable word of God; one can only achieve a human understanding of God's will." (Dorff 1988). Most fundamentalists do not deal with this argument. Those that do reply to this critique hold their own religious leaders are guided by God, and thus partake of divine infallibility.

Thirdly, Christian fundamentalists are often criticized for accepting religious texts as infallible when they often contain contradictions. Christian fundamentalists, for example, seem to ignore the discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible, as well as prophesies that did not seem to have not been fulfilled in exactly the way that scripture predicted.

Finally, the fundamentalists' insistence on strict interpretation of religious scripture has often been criticized as the fallacy of "legalism." H. Richard Niebuhr described this as a form of henotheism where the believer claims to have ultimate faith in a living and transcendent God, but in practice limits God to a lesser object of worship—in this case scripture.

Objections to the use of the term

Christian fundamentalists, who generally consider the term to be positive when used to refer to themselves, often strongly object to being grouped with Muslim fundamentalists in a single category, and resent being labeled together with factions that often use violence to achieve their ends.

Many Muslims also protest the use of the term when referring to Islamist groups, because all Muslims believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Qur'an, and western writers only use the term to refer to extremist groups. Furthermore, Muslims often object to being placed in the same category as Christian fundamentalists, whom they see as being religiously incorrect. Unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, Muslim groups do not use the term fundamentalist to refer to themselves. However, in the Islamic world, Wahhabis are overwhelmingly considered to be fundamentalists; Shi’a groups which are considered fundamentalist in the western world are not considered such in the Islamic world.

The Associated Press Stylebook recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. This would generally mean that some Christian groups can be described as fundamentalist, but Islamist groups cannot be. News writers do not universally follow this recommendation, however.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Appleby, R. Scott, Gabriel Abraham Almond, and Emmanuel Sivan. 2003. Strong Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226014975
• Armstrong, Karen. 2001. The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0345391691
• Brasher, Brenda E. 2001. The Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415922445
• Dorff, Elliot N. and Arthur Rosett. 1988. A Living Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0887064604
• Gorenberg, Gershom. 2000. The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. New York: The Free Press. New edition, 2002. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195152050
• Marsden; George M. 1980. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 Oxford University Press, ([2])
• Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (eds.). The Fundamentalism Project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • (1991). Volume 1: Fundamentalisms Observed. ISBN 0226508781
  • (1993). Volume 2: Fundamentalisms and Society. ISBN 0226508803
  • (1993). Volume 3: Fundamentalisms and the State. ISBN 0226508838
  • (1994). Volume 4: Accounting for Fundamentalisms. ISBN 0226508854
  • (1995). Volume 5: Fundamentalisms Comprehended. ISBN 0226508870
• Ruthven, Malise. 2005. "Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning". Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192806068
• Torrey, R.A. (ed.). 1909. The Fundamentals. Los Angeles, CA: The Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A., now Biola University). ISBN 0801012643
• "Religious movements: fundamentalist." In Goldstein, Norm (ed.) (2003). The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2003 (38th ed.), p. 218. New York: The Associated Press. ISBN 0917360222.

External links

• Thoughts on "Religious Fundamentalism" Identity
• Psychological Issues of Former Members of Restrictive Religious Groups by Jim Moyers, MA, MFT; originally written for psychotherapists working with ex-fundamentalists
• Q & A on Islamic Fundamentalism
• Introduction to Fundamentalism
• www.blessedquietness.com a conservative Christian website, maintained by Steve van Natten
• Mid-Acts Dispensational Fundamentals
• Reality With Bite A site highlighting the danger of religious fundamentalism, especially how it affects women.
• Women Against Fundamentalism (UK)
• The Rise of Religious Violence

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Fundamentalism  ^history
• Islamism  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Fundamentalism"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.