Fundamentalism—A Challenge to the Church

Fundamentalism—A Challenge to the Church

By James Barr

FUNDAMENTALISM IS NOT a new thing. In its most familiar form it has been with us for a century or so, and before that it had a long prehistory out of which its modern form emerged. So, we might say, most of us have plenty of experience of it and how it works. And it is not surprising that it has survived and continued to gain new adherents. What is new about fundamentalism, however, is the fact that it may be coming to be the main problem for religion, the most serious and difficult challenge to the churches in our time and in the coming hundred years or so. It is not just a marginal difficulty affecting only a limited few, but a worldwide problem, affecting not only Christianity but many different religions.

Though the word "fundamentalism" was coined to designate a particular form of narrow and sectarian Protestantism, the phenomenon can now be clearly seen to be a large-scale one, supported by literally millions of people. At the same time it is a small-scale problem, for it affects individuals in their inner spiritual struggles, it tears families apart, it is the center of violent emotional reactions.

And yet it cannot be said that the churches have yet taken stock of the situation in this regard. People are aware of the problem but do not know how to grasp it, and our modern theologies have failed to give a lead in the matter. Many of our [31] scholars seem to think that the opinions of fundamentalists lie beneath their own intellectual level, and the populist dialogical style of fundamentalist rhetoric is one with which they cannot cope. But this lofty stance cannot continue much longer. As a world problem, fundamentalism is becoming just too large to be ignored; and, quite apart from what church leaders and theologians may think, a flood of books and articles by historians, sociologists, and literary critics, as well as by biblical scholars and theologians, is beginning to throw light on the subject. Let me refer to one particular piece of work, the Fundamentalist Project centered in the University of Chicago, which is engaged in a five-year study and will produce five volumes on the subject from every angle, with specialists from every continent and concerned with every religion and every culture.

The Power of Fundamentalism

FOR US IN THE CHURCHES, fundamentalism presents problems on two different fronts. One is internal and the other is external. The internal one lies within the churches. Why is fundamentalism so powerful nowadays? Why is it apparently growing in influence and success? Why do people take their image of Christianity, as they think it ought to be, so largely from the fundamentalist style of living and talking? What can the churches say or do that might balance the attraction of the fundamentalist approach? The external problem is this: fundamentalism within Protestant Christianity is to most of us a familiar enough phenomenon. We know roughly what it is like, we know how fundamentalists talk and we have some experience of their impact on church life. But what relation do these Protestant fundamentalists have to the powerful currents so visible in other religions? Is there something similar in certain trends of the Roman Catholic church? What about fundamentalism in Jewish life, or the almost universal fundamentalism of Islam, most aptly exemplified in the sweeping power of the Shiite form of that religion? Perhaps there is [32] something comparable in the religions of India and the Far East. Is fundamentalism of some kind a universal phenomenon of human nature? Is the familiar Christian Protestant fundamentalism of the southeastern United States only a local variant of something going on all over the world? And, whether here or in other lands, what impact is this "natural fundamentalism," possibly innate in a great variety of peoples and cultures, likely to have on matters of public policy: on questions of health and medicine, on the chances for the development of democracy, on the position of women in society, and on the evaluation of life and death, the likelihood of peace and war? Fundamentalism, then, today is not only a challenge to the church, it is a challenge to society also; and the church has to look at it in both aspects.

Fundamentalism Described

THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME characteristic features of fundamentalism, seen on the widest scale. Firstly we may name the attachment to a central symbol, and in the most familiar forms of fundamentalism that symbol is a book: the Bible, the Qur'an, also (if you count political fundamentalism) the Red Book, the Thoughts of Chairman Mao. The book is central and infallible, all truth flows from it, everything depends on it. In all forms of Christianity the Bible is regarded as holy, as a communication from God, as the fundamental resource for teaching and doctrine. But in fundamentalism this fact, which is general in our religion, is elevated and made into the absolutely dominant factor: belief in the authority of scripture is the ultimate controlling agency, and unless you have it and have it clearly all the other realities become vain.

Now essential to fundamentalism is that the truth is nonnegotiable. It is not a matter of discussion under the rules of justice or free speech. The essence of religion is not something that has to be worked out through consultation with others. The fundamentalist knows the truth. He or she may be a quite ignorant person in other regards, but in the ultimate religious [33] questions he or she knows where the answer lies, and knows what the answer is. Fundamentalists have an answer to everything: nothing is more familiar in our experience of Christianity than this fact. And the fact that one book contains all the ultimate truth makes it easier to have an answer to everything. Because truth is nonnegotiable, fundamentalists cannot seriously cooperate with others of the same religion. Relations with others, even within the same religion, are normally polemical.

Another feature that goes along with this is militancy. While some fundamentalism is quietist, content to follow its own principles, not mixing with others, most fundamentalism is militant: it wants to convert, to change others to its own opinions. Evangelism is the core activity of fundamentalism and the great individual evangelist is its hero. Speaking at least of Christian fundamentalism, its real militancy is directed against other kinds of Christians, or people who are only vaguely Christian. Thus most of the converts to fundamentalist Christianity come from within the vaguely Christian culture.

This militancy can also take the form that we may call restorationist. That is to say, fundamentalism wants to restore the world to a state which it has been in, or a state which the fundamentalist believes it has been in, at some time in the past. Thus fundamentalism is characteristically anti-modern. It may use modern means, like television, it may find a place for modern ideas, such as psychology, but deeper down it wants to restore an older world. And this shows itself when, as is very much the case in our times, fundamentalism becomes politically active. It may seek, for instance, to restore a world in which everyone had to do, very simply, what God required of them, a world in which human schemes and ideas about improvement of the world, apart from fundamentalist evangelism, would not have a place.

Now the militancy of fundamentalist religion depends on certain forms of operation. One of these is agreement among the members. They have to think the same thing. The revival campaign depends on the assumption that all those taking part [34] are basically agreed; if there are disagreements, and there may be many, they can be put aside or hidden for practical purposes. It's noticeable among some of the fundamentalisms of modern times how all the people look alike, dress alike, make the same gestures: the Red Guards, the Shiites in Iran-the unity of style and mind seems to give strength.

And this is important, because fundamentalism, in the forms that are most conspicuous and important, is a mass movement. It is not an affair of a tiny group hidden away somewhere: today it is working in literally many millions. And for this purpose there needs to be a certain simplicity of ideas. All fundamentalisms have many ramifications, and are very complicated when you try to go into all the questions; but there tends to be some one central symbol that is the essence of the confession of the total movement. In Protestant fundamentalism it is the inspiration and total infallibility of the Bible. For this you don't have to have worked through all the problems, considered all the arguments, gone into the history of the matter; you don't need even to have read the Bible all through. No, all you need is to be sure that this simple truth, that of the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, is absolute and beyond doubt. And that's how it works.

If you ask the question, so often put to me, why it is that fundamentalism seems to work so well and succeed so well, I've given you part of the answer. It is a form of religion that has a powerful mass appeal and is able to get large numbers of people working personally, devotedly, and militantly, in its favor. It isn't a religion where a small professional class, the clergy or the priesthood, alone can do the work, where all questions have to be referred to the experts; rather, it is one where the large constituency can be mobilized to work, to give, to speak, to live, to exercise pressure on others, according to the requirements of fundamentalist society. That is one of the secrets of its success.

Psychologically, and more personally, the other side of the same coin is the certainty that fundamentalists feel they enjoy, and which they make very plain to other people. Religion [35] should not be shadowed by doubt or uncertainty. The truth is known, why should one hesitate about it? But, looked at more carefully, one may wonder if this certainty is not itself a consequence of doubt, a reaction to a feeling that faith is slipping away. It is not an accident that many forms of fundamentalism have their origin in the time when a religious tradition was splitting, was becoming disrupted. Thus the real enemy, for most fundamentalists, is not the heathen, the distant people, not even the atheists and irreligious: it is those who claim to belong to the same religion but differ from the fundamentalists. The Shia arose from a traumatic split in Islam, the trauma of the Reformation still lies at the back of much Protestant fundamentalism, and one major catalyst of modern fundamentalism was the feeling that biblical criticism was damaging the ultimate citadel of faith. Fundamentalism is thus not a different religion, it is a force that depends upon splits within existing religions and builds upon these splits.

Fundamentalism and the Church

Now, IF ALL THIS IS A CHALLENGE to the church, what are we to say that may offer some suggestions about what to do about it? It isn't easy to offer any clear and simple plan of what may be done to face the realities of fundamentalism. One or two indications have been given already. The first is to recognize that this is a major problem or challenge, which has to be faced and studied with all the intellectual and spiritual resources that the churches can deploy. One of the good signs of the present time lies in the rising pace of academic attention to the question.

The second major need is for clear command of the Bible. Fundamentalists persuade people through the use of the Bible and the endless quoting of it because people do not know the Bible very well. Very few of those who have been well trained in biblical studies and have studied theology become fundamentalists-probably none at all. Among students and other people trained in the subject the movement is all away from [36] fundamentalism. Often it was fundamentalism that brought them into the subject, but the subject itself soon moves them away from it. When modern study of the Bible began, the churches were too afraid to face the questions that arose. The minister agonized over them in his study, but he did not share them with his people. The result is that, a hundred years later, we have a widespread Christian laity that has less control of the Bible than was possessed a century ago, and young men and women enter courses for the ministry having no more readiness to face modern Bible study than their predecessors possessed a hundred years ago.

The churches need to show the fundamentalist public that they, and the scholarship with which they work, are truly deeply involved in the Bible, are confident in its authority, and are steeped in a rich tradition of its interpretation. That tradition is far more genuine than the unhistorical, often artificial, often contradictory and ultimately sectarian interpretation that fundamentalism depends upon to achieve its appearance of consistency. But in order to do this the ministry should lighten the very heavy burden which it has to bear by relying much more heavily upon the Bible for its preaching, by making use of the Bible so that everyone can see how much we use it. On the other side the churches should take their entire people into their confidence by sharing with them the fullness of knowledge about the Scriptures and their background.

In the last resort there are two irresistible arguments against the way fundamentalists handle Scripture: firstly, there is no authority of the Bible unless there is freedom in the interpretation of the Bible. By denying the freedom of scholarly interpretation, fundamentalism is insisting on its own interpretation and making that interpretation, rather than the Bible itself, into the final authority. By doing so it undermines the very authority of Scripture which it seeks to uphold. Secondly the reliance of fundamentalism on the infallibility of the Bible is an illusion. For, even if the Bible is infallible, it still does not provide unique support for the fundamentalist kind of religion. An infallible Bible can still point in a Catholic direc-[37]tion, it can point in a moderate, liberal direction, it can point in a socially liberationist direction, it can point in a unitarian, universalist direction. Thus, even if seen from the viewpoint of fundamentalism itself, reliance on biblical infallibility is an illusion. But the churches have to make more express their reliance on the Bible: not on some particular theory of Scripture, but on the reality of Scripture itself.

Experience in the variety of religious viewpoints within Christianity has made one thing clear to me: that the Bible is curiously weak as a force to convince people and form their beliefs. What people really believe in, generally, is a fairly simple set of dogmatic principles that they have been taught or that they have inherited from someone at some time. What they know about the Bible, they fit into the framework of these beliefs. Only with the greatest difficulty can people come to accept that the Bible does not, after all, teach what they themselves have always believed.

Where then does this lead us? It means that, even where the Bible is the final authority, the actual force that constrains people's understanding is normally doctrinal--in fundamentalism as in other forms of Christianity. The church needs therefore to be doctrinally conscious, so that its own framework of belief is constantly re-clarified, related to the present-day needs and understandings of people, and related to the Bible itself with reference to the way in which scholarship handles the Bible. The problems of fundamentalism can never be fully dealt with by arguing on the basis of the Bible itself; for one has to show not only that the Bible means something different from what fundamentalists believe, but also that from it there can grow a doctrinal clarity and luminosity which greatly surpasses in quality all that fundamentalism can offer.

But this also calls for yet a further amplification. I have noted how fundamentalism seeks to establish a foundation in the past, in the way things used to be, and sometimes also seeks to restore things as they were in that far-off time. It looks, therefore, as if it was a historical question, a question of knowing how things used to be. But fundamentalists are seldom historically [38] conscious; the world when things were better is a world they imagine. Apart from the very occasional and exceptionally historically-conscious fundamentalist, they don't know anything about it. Their world-view is anachronistic-the situations and ideas that they read back into the past are based on their own times. Their own principle, that the Bible alone is the source of truth, takes its revenge in that they don't read about past history of the church or the way in which doctrine has developed. On the whole the Protestant churches have neglected this; but the time may now have come when, faced with the power of fundamentalism, an increased attention to the history of the church and its doctrines will be required.

Lastly, the central problem will always be, as it has been since fundamentalism began, one of communication. As I said, fundamentalists consider truth to be nonnegotiable. Central to their way of life is the setting up of barriers which will prevent the hearing of opinions, the reading of books, the meeting of persons, that will present a different point of view. These barriers are there in the social organization of fundamentalist life, its societies, its groups, its press; and they are there psychologically, in the difficulty the individual has in opening his or her mind to any alternative version of Christianity or any alternative understanding of the Bible. I write books about fundamentalism, but I know that very few fundamentalists will read them. If I go to a campus to talk in a situation where fundamentalism is a problem, it is likely that no fundamentalists-or one or two isolated persons-will come to the meeting, and that is how it usually turns out.

On the whole fundamentalism follows a strategy that is both aggressive and cowardly. They don't want to discuss unless they can win. With people whose faith is weak and whose knowledge of the Bible is slight, they use the Bible as a weapon to overcome; but if you really know the Bible, and have a solid viewpoint to put forward, then they don't want to meet you. That is why it is very much a task and a challenge for the church: it isn't something that the scholars and theologians can perform, even if they wanted to do it. But everyone in the church can do [39] something. And Methodism, with its great tradition of lay exposition and of popular involvement, can do an outstanding service to all the churches of the world.

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J. The Inspiration of Scripture. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.

Barr, James. Fundamentalism. Philadelphia: Westminister, 1978.

____ Beyond Fundamentalism. Philadelphia: Westminister, 1984.

____ The Bible in the Modern World, (reissue) Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).

Barton, John. People of the Book? The Authority of the Bible in Christianity. London: SPCK, 1988.

Boone, Kathleen C. The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1988.

Caplan, Lionel. Studies in Religious Fundamentalism. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1987.

Cohen, Norman J., ed. The Fundamentalist Phenomenon. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Johnston, R.K. The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. New York: Oxford, 1980.

McKim, D.K. The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Weber, Timothy P. Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism 1875-1925. New York: Oxford, 1979.

James Barr is Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, The Divinity School, Nashville, TN 37240; and Regius Professor of Hebrew, Emeritus, at Oxford University, England.

Source: Quarterly Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, Summer 1991, 30-39.