Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is a movement which began within Protestant Christianity in the late 19th century in opposition to the emergence of modernism within several denominations.

Birth of the Fundamentalist Movement

Fundamentalism developed as an extension of the doctrine of inerrancy in response to Protestant clergy concerns regarding professional authority at the start of the 20th century. The term itself was popularized by R.A. Torrey when he published his book The Fundamentals in 1917. Fundamentalism stresses several points:

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts of Christ's miracles, the Creation account in Genesis, and so on

Fundamentalism held to these points in opposition to such trends as higher criticism and the increasing acceptance of Darwinism, which were popular among modernists. Fundamentalist movements were found in most Protestant denominations by the early 20th century, with the debate between fundamentalists and modernists especially strong in Presbyterian and Baptist churches. The term fundamentalism would later come to be closely associated with dispensationalist beliefs, belief in the impending Second Coming of Christ, and with Evangelical Christianity in general.

The Term Fundamentalism in Modern Times

The term slowly came to mean all movements within religions that reject modernizing/liberalizing influences and attempt to stay true to the word of that religion's scriptures. The term has been applied to Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. Christian fundamentalism differs from Orthodoxy in its sole reliance on the Bible and disregard for previously established tradition. Similarly, within Islam, the "fundamentalist" movements (such as Wahhabism) seek to remove perceived impurities in Islam and return it to the believed roots. Unlike Christianity, however, these uncovered roots have spawned incredibly amounts of violence. "Fundamentalist" Hinduism is, in a way, a contradiction in terms. Hinduism has no one sacred holy book, and thus no original scriptures to return to, and so the term is instead used to describe those Hindus who are intolerant of the existence of other religions (and occasionally non-Indians) in their communities.

The term fundamentalist is also self-applied by a breakaway movement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, calling itself Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This group, who's leader was convicted on conspiracy charges relating to child rape, claims to continue the original revelations of Joseph Smith. It is held to be apostate by the mainstream church, and cannot truly be called fundamentalist, as it ignores the doctrine of continuous revelation to the leaders of the church.

There are no fundamentalist Jews, as all movements to return to the basic tenets of Judaism simply result in increased orthodoxy. Judaism may be unique in this regard. Though according to scholars such as Samuel C. Heilman, Menachem Friedman, and Werner Backeberg, there are "truly fundamentalist Jews" who are "a minority of a minority of a minority (that is, approximately 30 percent of Orthodox Jewry, which itself is only about 15 percent of the apporximately twelve million members of world Jewry)."

In recent times, the media has taken to describing any conservative non-denominational church or conservative evangelical church as fundamentalist. While these churches do strive to return to the basics of Christianity—its fundamentals—there is a clear attempt to link these groups with other so-called fundamentalist groups in Islam and Hinduism which have perpetuated heinous acts of violence (the 9/11 attacks by a Muslim group and the assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi by a Hindu for example). Recently, there has been something of a change, with the media starting to refer to Islamic extremists as "radical Muslims." Despite this, the attempt to associate the term fundamentalism with such unrelated concepts as Christian Identity has succeeded somewhat and it has turned into a pejorative term among atheists, liberals, and Darwinists.

Philosophical distinction between fundamentalism and fanaticism

The philosopher Jay Newman concedes that religious fundamentalists are not fanatics. He nevertheless maintains that some unidentified "we" (possibly meaning those who hold Professor values) are allowed to deplore the methods and objectives of fundamentalists. Moreover, Newman smuggles in an allowance for subjective and bigoted suspicions against religious fundamentalists as possible fanatics until they prove themselves otherwise. To see exactly how he does this, here is Newman's concession:

“

If some religious fundamentalists eloquently defend their decision to campaign aggressively for the removal of certain "adult" novels from the public school library—if they were to cite relevant facts and figures with some care and point to relevant observations by noted educational psychologists—then, while we may still deplore their methods and objectives, we will probably abandon our initial suspicion that they are fanatics.

”

Jews and Christian fundamentalism

Historically speaking, the vast and overwhelming majority of fundamentalists have been and remain zionists. Fundamentalist-evangelicals rejoiced when part of Jerusalem was annexed after the 1967 six day war, whereas the National Council of Churches (by then a mere puppet of the always highly questionable forces of Christian Liberalism) denounced Israel. Liberal Christianity called for the "internationalization" of Jerusalem throughout the 1960s, while Christian fundamentalists believed and expressed their hope for Biblical prophecy: God promised Jerusalem to Israel.

Differences between liberal and fundamentalist Christians

There are three main differences between liberal Christian theology and fundamentalism-evangelicalism that affect their respective attitudes toward Jewish people. These differences are:

1. Fundamentalism's literal interpretation of prophecy versus Liberalism's spiritual interpretation.
2. Fundamentalism's equal weighting of the Old and New Testaments versus Liberalism privileging the New, especially the liberal tendency to interpret critical remarks against Judaism without taking into full account the Old Testament and the fact that Jesus was genetically and culturally Jewish.
3. Fundamentalism's belief in unconverted Israel over against Liberalism's conversion requirement (i.e., so-called replacement theology).

See also

• John Gresham Machen
• Southern Baptist Convention
• Theory of Fundamentalist anti-Semitism

External links

• Online copy of The Fundamentals
• Christian Zionism