For many years now, Christian Fundamentalists have had a bad rap. Much in the past few decades, particularly with the rise of "fringe" groups such as the Manson Family or David Koresh's Branch Davidians, the word fundamentalism has become a dirty word.

Indeed, it seems that the word has been used to describe even moderately conservative Christians, as the term fundamentalist appears to some to describe those who are particularly rigid in their views of the Bible.

However, as stated in the title, I want to discuss the good and the bad of fundamentalism, and not just focus on the negative. This is because I want to address this subject in a fair manner. In order to do this, I must look at the real definition of fundamentalism, and address the sources which have led to the negative connotations. As well, I will address what Christian Fundamentalists and other religious and non-religious groups can learn from these.

Definition: what is "Fundamentalism"?

There are basically two definitions of fundamentalism: as a social/political movement; and as a religious one.

For the purpose of this article, we will focus more on the religious definition. For a social/political definition, please see this article.

Of course, when it comes to a religious definition, there are different beliefs of what it means. While I cannot present all of the differing definitions of what Christian Fundamentalism truly is, I will give you three examples.

  1. The academic definition is that "Fundamentalism is a reaction to the modern world". This is put forward by Anthony D. Broadfield, an associate professor of religion at Colby College.^{1}
  2. The evangelical definition of Christian Fundamentalism is that "Fundamentalism is a genuine form of Protestantism."^{2}
  3. The non-fundamentalist definition is that "Fundamentalism is a distortion of authentic Christianity."^{3}

Clearly, the first two definitions are contradictory, while the third definition disagrees with both of the first two. The first definition is probably the most accurate, however. Christian Fundamentalism can be generally considered as a movement of Christians who "reject modernistic theories of the world, particularly those related to theology and biblical interpretation" as well as "adherence to a modernist belief system as a means of preserving and communicating their faith."^{4}

The evangelical definition may or may not be correct, however. Fundamentalism, as taught by some Christians who call themselves fundamentalists, may or may not be a genuine form of Protestantism. I would say that it is not necessarily because there are no truly Orthodox churches which teach the fundamentals of the Christian faith, so this may not be the definition as first presented. However, I will consider more in the positive "lesson" of fundamentalism as a Christian denomination.

Is Fundamentalism actually a "Religion"?

It seems to me that a religion is defined as a system of religious beliefs and practices. A common definition is that "a religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies."^{5}

The first three words of this definition are very significant: "a set of beliefs". We have already seen from the definition of fundamentalism that fundamentalism is a type of religious beliefs; that is, a set of religious beliefs. Therefore, it is true that fundamentalism is a religion.

I would add here, however, that by definition, fundamentalism is a sect or a denomination within Christianity. According to the Harvard Dictionary of Religion, "a sect is a religious group that shares a particular religious tradition, but usually separates itself from another group with which it was once affiliated, because of a dispute over religious doctrine or practice. The term sect has come to have a negative connotation in modern usage, although the term itself is neutral."^{6}

Note the word "negative" in this definition. However, as stated before, we will address the bad side of fundamentalism later in this article.

Now, let's look at what Christian Fundamentalism has done to help us.

The Bad of Fundamentalism

As a religion, there are certainly some bad aspects of fundamentalism.

By definition, it should be noted that fundamentalism is a movement in reaction to the modern world. One could certainly argue that this is a bad thing. I mean, we cannot, and should not, go back to the previous days of ignorance, but we can preserve what it is that our God created man to be.

Many people who have studied fundamentalism have come up with various "bad" things about it. Here are some of the bad things that they have found.

  1. Racial bias, due to an exclusive reliance on Old Testament (and certain New Testament) teachings as a way to support racism.
  2. A leaning towards liberalism, as the left in politics and government, and not the conservative right, has promoted the secularization of American society.
  3. One of the major benefits of liberalism is its criticism of religion, which has led to a negative view of any religion. This has also led to an over-emphasis on the concept of "tolerance" as a basic human right.^{7}
  4. A cynicism or suspicion of anyone outside the fundamentalist camp.
  5. A drive to preserve culture and identity through a variety of activities, including music and mission work.

It has been argued that many of these characteristics have also been associated with other religious, and cultural, groups - Muslims, Roman Catholics, and Christian Democrats (for the "culture" aspect).^{8}

Anthony D. Broadfield argues for the view that modernism is antagonistic to fundamentalism. In his article, he quotes one fundamentalist author, George W. Truett, who said: "when men begin to reason and reason away Christian faith, they begin to evade, and to evade is to betray, and to betray is to break the heart of religion...Let us follow the Lord into the wilderness and the garden."

To support his argument, Broadfield states:

"Modernism and Christian fundamentalism are often represented as being diametrically opposed to each other in a mutual antagonistic relationship. They see each other as fundamentally different from themselves -- and not in a complementary sense.

Modernists see fundamentalists as opposing the natural development of human history by emphasizing instead a set of narrow traditionalist dogmas...from the perspective of the fundamentalists, modernism has sought to replace the natural religious instincts of man with the natural instincts of man."^{9}

Since this point has been made, I think it would be good to discuss the main points of the argument that Christian fundamentalism and modernism are really "two sides of the same coin", so to speak, even though this is definitely one of the bad things about Christian fundamentalism.

Broadfield writes:

"Thus, in modernist literature of the day, the conflict between Christian fundamentalism and modernism is presented as one of truth versus ignorance, evil versus good, barbarism versus progress, and bigotry versus enlightenment.

Most books published on the topic between the 1910's and the 1960's try to explain a complex social and cultural phenomenon [fundamentalism] as a moral issue...an essentially negative phenomenon...or else they are mere propaganda pieces [in defense of Christian fundamentalism].

Even most historical accounts of fundamentalism, including what might otherwise be considered scholarly works, do not understand fundamentalism as anything more than a response to the modern worldview, an antithesis of modernism."^{10}

Throughout his article, Broadfield argues that fundamentalism needs to be understood in a more positive light, particularly in its social and political meaning. He uses the works of two historians, Grant Wacker and George Marsden. In Marsden's works, he refers to fundamentalism as "not simply a simple response to the world, as modernists often argued...but a reaction to an uncertain social and cultural situation." Broadfield continues:

"To understand fundamentalism, one must understand its relationship with both modernism and secularism. Likewise, to understand fundamentalism, one must understand the dual roles played by the fundamentalists themselves, as both victims and social forces, both opponents and participants in both modernism and secularism."^{11}

Wacker, in his book Heavenly Footman, sees fundamentalism as "the creative negations of modernism".

As such, "modernism was perhaps the most important political, social, intellectual, and cultural force to emerge in America since the Civil War". And "one of fundamentalism's most important contributions was that it held modernism accountable for failing to live up to its own professed ideals."^{12}

So, you see, there is some argument on whether Christian Fundamentalism is a valid form of Christianity at all. Thus,