Sometimes it seems everything I know has been made into a movie. Fundamentally, my understanding of definitions was formed by the greatest epistemological dissertation on the silver screen: “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.”
To understand something mentally (as opposed to existentially or experientially), at least 3 things are necessary:
To define what a thing: 1- IS 2- what it is NOT and 3- what is IRRELEVANT, yet often seems important.
Christian Fundamentalism is 2 words. I will not deal with the definition of “Christian” because to do so would violate the rules on CF. However, no rules constrain me from giving my opinion of “Fundamentalist.”
What Fundamentalism is (The Good), according to Merriam Webster online:
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal Function: adjective
1 a : serving as an original or generating source : PRIMARY <a discovery fundamental to modern computers> b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : BASIC
2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL <fundamental change>; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application <fundamental science> b : adhering to fundamentalism
3 : of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration
4 : of central importance : PRINCIPAL <fundamental purpose>
5 : belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : DEEP-ROOTED <her fundamental good humor>
synonym see ESSENTIAL
- fun·da·men·tal·ly / adverb
If one is concerned with “fundamental” math, one spends much time considering how to answer 1+1=
A physicist who is considering the “fundamentals” spends his time considering esoteric theoretical structures such as “supersymmetric strings, membranes and multidimensional branes.” This physicist is not primarily concerned with metallurgical theories as they might apply to developing unusual or improved materials, or how to utilize energy more efficiently.
Therefore, a “fundamentalist Christians” are primarily concerned with the basics of Christianity, which they understand to be the Scriptures.
2- What fundamentalism is NOT (the Bad) from synonym.com
3 senses of fundamental Sense 1: cardinal, central, fundamental, key, primalANTONYM: INDIRECT (VIA important) -> unimportant Sense 2: fundamental, rudimentary, underlyingANTONYM: INDIRECT (VIA basic) -> incidental, incident Sense 3 fundamental, profoundANTONYM: INDIRECT (VIA significant) -> insignificant, unimportant
In all 3 senses, the primary thing a fundamentalist is NOT interested in is what is INDIRECT, or what develops LATER from the initial bedrock. Thus, since voice recordings were NOT available at the time of Christ, only what is WRITTEN is of interest.
What develops later (ie Tradition) is viewed as unimportant, incidental, and insignificant. Thus while tradition is not automatically wrong, the fundamentalist gives it a VERY secondary role.
Thus if it is written that Christ said: “Do not call any man on earth your Father.” And it is clear from the context he is referring to religious leaders, then anyone promoting that a religious leader be referred to as “Father” is NOT a fundamentalist.
In the Gospel of John it makes it clear that Jesus Christ “existed” before the beginning of time, thus any JW or “Mormon” who posits a created Jesus is NOT a fundamentalist.
3- What is IRRELEVANT to the definition of fundamentalist (The Ugly) This is a long list of behavior and thoughts deemed “ugly” by our modern culture, but which are categorical errors. It is like calling an apple red. Yes, some apples are red, but so are some fire trucks, and some apples are NOT red. “Red” and “Apple” are simple different categories that on many occasions overlap.
- Alcohol drinking: many sincere fundys abstain from all alcohol, DESPITE the rather strong Scriptural evidence that total abstention is NOT called for except in certain circumstances (such as the Nazerene vow, or the inability to control the abuse of alcohol). Many, many fundys drink alcohol, such as myself.
- Dancing: again the “typical” Hollywood image of a fundy frowns on dancing (see the movie “Footloose”). It is true that some fundys consider public dancing a sin DESPITE the frequent Biblical dancing that is commended. Well, I’m not a good dancer, but short of highly suggestive public dancing such as the “lambada” or “Dirty Dancing,” I have no problem. In fact, at my Church they have occasionally had “liturgical dances” as part of the service.
- “Right wing” Republican in the USA. Well, I am that, but a friend of mine here (Arumna) who is also fundy is Democrat. Many fundies are averse to politics altogether, but it is true that those who are politically involved tend, in general, to be “right wing” these days. However, 100years ago, fundys tended to be called “liberals.” They were the leading anti-slavery, anti-capitalists, pro-union of their day (as in the movie “Amazing Grace” re William Wilberforce). We stand on the Scriptures. There was a time the culture was to the “right” of them, and so we in general were to the “left” of the culture. Now that the cultural pendulum in most Western societies have swung way to the left, we STILL standing on the same Scriptural spot, are to the “right” of the political middle. - Sexually frigid. Uh-huh… The river that is constrained by sharp banks runs deep, clear and strong. The river wo clear banks slows, becomes muddy, shallow and meanders all over the place. ‘nuff said there. - Protestant usually yes, but there are some, like my wife, who consider themselves Roman Catholic and yet believe that ONLY the Bible is infallible. It is possible for an RC to be a fundy, but to do so they must deny the infallibility of the RC “Magesterium” and many RCC doctrines. In an ironic twist, most RC fundys would fit in the “Liberal Catholic” forum here on CF. While I am not sure, it seems many “Olg Catholic” could be fundys. I don’t know about the EO, but their heavy emphasis on tradition makes me doubt it.
-Baptist: there are many denominations and individual fundys that baptize infants by sprinkling. Arguments ampongst us rage, but they are INTRAMURAL debates, based solely on the Scriptures.
- Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and against Science. Most fundys do not believe in Darwinian evolution. Many (most?) are “Young Earth Creationists,” and those who are not are often treated rather roughly by most fundys who believe they “compromise” their Scriptural beliefs. However, YEC is NOT a necessary position for a fundy. I am an OLD Earth Creationist (OEC). As to being against Science, many of us fundys, including myself, have some distrust of modern “Science.” More and more we see it has abandoned it’s strict fundamental principle: the scientific EXPERIMENTAL method, and substitute speculations without rigorous proof by prediction and testing. We see that previously clear definitions such as “species” have become political footballs in the hands of “eco-activists” for whom a re-definition of some obscure minor variant race is the key to stopping technological progress. In fact THE greatest anti-scientists today are among the ECOLOGISTS, the “neo-pagans”, “wiccans” and other very anti-Christian groups.
- Stupid and/or uneducated: just how many degrees do we post behind our names, how many long, carefully reasoned posts do we make, and how high an IQ do we need to show before this is seen for the ad hominem flame that it is?
- Mean, Nasty: there is some truth here. We fundys take Truth VERY seriously. We are not prone to dismiss an argument with the word “whatever” but generally persist in trying to get every point clarified, and every question answered. As a result we often seem mean and nasty, and in fact, sometimes we are. The Scriptures asks that we speak the Truth in Love. Often, contrary to what we OUGHT to do, we forget the “in Love” part and become strident about Truth.
For this, I ask your forgiveness, prayers and yes, your tolerance. It is not easy as a sinful person to “hit the bull’s-eye” of “Truth in Love.” I will continue to sharpen my aim, and try not to sin, which is, after all, to miss the mark.
Comments most welcome.
JR