Fundamentalism Defined
In modern society,
the
term “fundamentalism” has
varied meanings. Therefore, it is important to establish
what the author means by the term. The origin
of the term stems from early twentieth century Protestantism.
A group
of conservative Protestants was very concerned
about the apparent
lack of morals and values in
society and the
inability of people of faith to effectively speak to
this
problem. In response, they
published a series
of pamphlets meant to point Christians back to the
basics of the faith, expressing their conviction
that these basics provide the critical foundation for any who are truly religious. They called these pamphlets “The Fundamentals,” and in so doing tagged themselves with
the label “fundamentalists.”3
The
pamphlets consisted of
over ninety articles
written
by
respected pastors
and
theologians
and
published for free distribution “to
ministers
of the
gospel, missionaries,
Sunday School superintendents, and others engaged in aggressive Christian
work throughout the
English speaking world.”4 At least one quarter
of the articles,
such as “Fallacies of the
Higher
Criticism”5 and “The Holy Scriptures
and Modern Negations,”6 were
concerned with defending the origin and
authorship of Bible against modernbiblical scholarship
and
literary criticism. Along with this emphasis on Biblical criticism, The Fundamentals also contains an entire series of articles devoted to evangelism. The
place of evangelism in their movement is best expressed by the
words of Robert
Speer. “God in truth, is known only where men have been
in contact with the
message of the historic Christ. This
simple fact
involves a sufficient missionary responsibility.”7
These early fundamentalists
were certain the values
in society were in rapid decline, and science
and
many non-Christian philosophies and attitudes
were largely to blame. Heinz Streib,
in his
article “The Question
of Salvation and
Faith-based Radicalism,” sums up many of the core beliefs of the fundamentalist movement.
inerrancy or infallibility of the holy scripture as a whole; literal
understanding of, and authoritative belief in, a selection of basic propositions (which, in early Protestant fundamentalism, included virgin
birth,
bodily resurrection and the
return of Jesus); rejection of the results of
modern science wherever
they contradict fundamentalist teachings; and the claim that only people
subscribing to these fundamentals are truly
religious.8
A classic example
of the fundamentalist mindset
was the “Butler Bill” passed in Tennessee in
1925 prohibiting the teaching of "any theory that denies
the story of the
Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."10 This legislation led to the infamous Scopes Trial
in Dayton, Tennessee,
in which
a prominent politician, William Jennings Bryan,
faced off against defense
attorney Clarence
Darrow. Darrow was
defending a high
school biology teacher accused
of teaching evolution in his
classroom. For the fundamentalist
believer the
matter of the theory of evolution versus
the biblical
creation story was an either/or situation. You
could not believe
in one without totally rejecting the other.
Ammerman explains that the mission to save human souls
was a critical strategy used by fundamentalists in the
early years, with the “call to evangelism” as an overarching theme
of the
period after 1925.11 While the numbers
and visibility of this
group experienced
periods
of ebb and flow over
the next fifty years,
this
evangelistic fervor
carried through into the late twentieth century as fundamentalists affected a
resurgence. They built on
the
original networks created in
the
early part of the century,
building churches popular for many because they provided “a haven where life makes sense. In chaotic times and places,
when
individuals and communities
are searching for
moorings, the certainty and clarity of fundamentalism often
seems appealing.”12
In the latter
part of the twentieth century,
as the Christian fundamentalist movement
was regaining strength and visibility, the term “fundamentalist” was gaining broader use, referring
to members
of any faith group who
struggle against the threat
the modern world poses to the basic beliefs of their faith. Richard Antoun, an anthropologist who
specializes in Islamic
and Middle Eastern studies, defines fundamentalism as
“a response to the questioning
of the great religious traditions—Islam, Christianity,
Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism—in the
changing world.”13 Despite the broader use
by some scholars today, in this paper the author‟s use of the term “fundamentalist” will be limited
to its original meaning, relating only to members of
the Protestant Christian faith, and not to members of other faith traditions.
“Evangelicalism” is a term sometimes
confused with “fundamentalism”. This term, which
is currently an acceptable
label for certain individuals
and even for entire Protestant Christian organizations,14 is
occasionally used interchangeably with fundamentalism. However, its
origin
and usage dates back centuries before
the advent of fundamentalism, and
it covers a more wide-reaching
and diverse set of
views.15 Noting that there may
be some argument about
the
degree to which the terms are
similar,
the author will attempt to consistently
use the term “fundamentalist”, unless
a source specifically uses
the term “evangelical”.
Drawing on the common points from the previous paragraphs,
the
definition of a “fundamentalist” may be summarized
as
follows: a “fundamentalist” is
one who believes the Bible is the inerrant authority on faith
and life, salvation is
achieved only through faith
in Jesus the
Christ, and he
or she has a personal
responsibility to share
this belief with non-Christians. Only those who
believe these things are truly religious,
and these basic beliefs held
by fundamentalists are under attack today by modern science and
lifestyles.
Now that the
term
is defined, it is important to consider why the specific
beliefs
held by fundamentalists might
be a
concern for the chaplaincy.
At first glance, it would
seem that a gathering of Christians with
a very strong values
system and a sense that
society needs to get “back
to the basics” would
be a
good thing for the
Army. But the
problem lies in the fundamentalist‟s compulsion to conform the rest of society to meet
these basic standards. Nancy Ammerman describes the
“we-they” attitude prevalent within the
ranks of the fundamentalists. “Fundamentalists think they have the truth and think
that
others should
accept and live by that truth…There are
clear lines of social demarcation between believers and non-believers.”16
It is not unusual, and maybe
even
essential, that whatever belief system a
person espouses is something that one feels to be “the truth.” The big three faith
groups who have a common ancestor in Abraham (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity),
all operate under the assumption that
they are bearers of
the truth. While there are points of agreement
among members
of all three groups, there are also many points
of contention. These differences have been a
source of conflict over
the centuries. Some Christians,
Muslims, and
Jews have
chosen
to “agree
to disagree” in
order to co-exist
peacefully with
each
other. Others, however, are not comfortable with
just letting these differences
go unresolved.
A fundamentalist cannot rest
easy when confronted by opposing religious
values.
There
is a sense, among those who
hold strong fundamentalist beliefs, that anyone
who believes differently is, in effect, the enemy. In fact, Antoun suggests
that there is a dual sense of both
an
external and internal enemy.
The external enemy consists of
those who are not professing Christians at all. But
there also exists
an internal enemy, those
who “…claim to be followers
of Jesus but accept the norms laid down by the state
and other nonreligious institutions in
their daily lives
and cavort with members of secular
society (e.g., the National Council of Churches).”17
Evangelism,
which is defined as “preaching of,
or zealous effort to
spread,
the
gospel,”18 has been common practice
in the armed forces,
where members of all ranks have
reached out to their peers
in
hopes of bringing them into the Christian fold. Historically, some fundamentalist chaplains and
their endorsing organizations have seen
the search for
converts
as the key mission
of their military duty.
In the
1950s, the National
Association of Evangelicals (NAE) openly
professed (in
a printed article)
that half of those
who enter military service
have no church or
religious
connection, and even
those who claimed to be Protestant often did
so only because their parents went to
church. “They have no practical Christian experience. This
is a ripe harvest field in
which our chaplains are
working.”19 The
NAE was endorsing chaplains
with the distinct mission to
evangelize these service members. The NAE
was also concerned about the predominance of Catholic chaplains, and urged
evangelical
pastors to sign up for
service to help level
the playing field.
“Evangelicals must
not
fail the proportionately large number of
men in the armed forces who are anxious that
the
New Testament
Gospel be preached,
and a real evangelistic work be carried on by our
chaplains.”20
Loveland describes the
situation
in the mid-twentieth century through
the eyes of the evangelical chaplains, stating they “…found numerous opportunities
to engage in evangelization
and
exploited them to the fullest.
Some used personal conferences
and consultations to advantage.” One
chaplain
stated
that
the many opportunities
to counsel
with service members about personal problems
were “…all potential
opportunities to personally witness
to a man about
his need of Christ.”
This constituted, in the
words of one Christian and Missionary Alliance chaplain, “a „tailor-made‟ mission field for the
proclamation of the gospel.”21
There
exists
no
regulation or law specifically prohibiting
evangelistic outreach by
chaplains to the Soldiers
and Families
they
serve. The
chaplains who conducted such outreach in the past were not bending any rules and
were not singled out as troublemakers.
But
today their actions might be
seen in a different
light. The pluralistic nature of the military community, with its
very
broad base of faith and cultural
backgrounds, makes it a virtual
minefield for
the budding evangelist. It would
be tempting
to see today‟s diverse soldier population as a “ripe harvest field” even more
promising than in the 1950s. Yet the Army‟s focus on values, especially the value
of “respect”, means a chaplain should support another person‟s right to believe and
worship as he or she chooses.
Thus the dilemma exists for fundamentalist chaplains:
they are expected to evangelize those
who do not hold the “correct” beliefs, yet are
required to respect a
soldier‟s right to
choose
his or her religious beliefs. How can they quietly stand by and
let the enemy win
the
battle? This is the tightrope that every chaplain
must walk, but is especially challenging for the
fundamentalist.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment