 |
Fundamentalism A review of Fundamentalism and American Culture
by George M. Marsden
(©2006, Oxford University Press |
|
After the attacks on 9/11, the world wanted to know, “What kind of people would do such heinous acts?” They turned their attention to “Islamic fundamentalists.” Soon Americans wondered whether they had their own home-grown form of jihadists known as “Christian fundamentalists.” While on the surface this may look accurate, it is an unfair comparison. Instead of resembling reactionary Eastern extremists, Christian fundamentalists resemble a movement closer to home—Western Enlightenment’s modernists. If Christian fundamentalism is unlike Islamic fundamentalism, just what is the nature of Christian fundamentalism? Thankfully, we don’t have to search far to find out. George Marsden who has written several books on the topic, was asked by his editor to update Fundamentalism and American Culture (first published in 1980), just a few days after the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Instead of making changes to the original text—still historically accurate—Marsden added his current thoughts on the development of fundamentalism, and Oxford Press published the update in 2006. Fundamentalism and American Culture tours through time to connect the dots between prominent figures, events and philosophical ideas within the fundamentalist, evangelical movement. This sweeping tome mentions the pre-fundamentalist, activist Beecher family (including Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and her progressive brother, Rev. Henry Ward Beecher) from the mid 1800s; explores the conservative shift in the early 1900s; clarifies the advancement of the New Evangelicals such as Billy Graham; and tracks the development of organizations like Focus on the Family. Marsden’s behind-the-scenes look at the ideology, reactions, and counter-reactions provides a fascinating read for anyone interested in the Christian fundamentalist movement. Marsden confirms what some have suspected, and others have been blind to: fundamentalism is based on modernity more than it is a correction of modernism. “In a nation born during the Enlightenment, the reverence for science as the way to understand all aspects of reality was nearly unbounded. Evangelical Christian and liberal Enlightenment figures alike assumed that the universe was governed by a rational system of laws guaranteed by an all-wise and benevolent creator.” (p. 15) Immediately prior to the rise of fundamentalism in the early 1900s, the Common Sense philosophy provided a foundation which would soon sustain Christian fundamentalism. Though eventually the outward expressions of this modernistic approach to reality would raise points of contention, the religious and secular appeals to truth became counterparts of the same Common Sense philosophical principles. Even after nearly a century defining Christian fundamentalism is no easy task. This is understandable. Marsden states: Fundamentalism was a mosaic of divergent and sometimes contradictory traditions and tendencies that could never be totally integrated. Sometimes its advocates were backward looking and reactionary, at other times they were imaginative innovators. On some occasions they appeared militant and divisive; on others they were warm and irenic. At times they seemed ready to forsake the whole world over a point of doctrine; at other times they appeared heedless of tradition in their zeal to win converts. Sometimes they were optimistic patriots; sometimes they were prophets shaking from their feet the dust of a doomed civilization.” (43)
To highlight these differences, Marsden provides the distinctive answers concerning doctrinal error given by D.L. Moody and his close associate R. A. Torrey. The former spoke of Christ’s approach to love and influence those in error, resulting in a magnanimous approach; the latter referred to Christ and his disciples attacking and exposing error, adopting a rigorous intellectual approach. Torrey, like many Christian fundamentalists today, considered his approach to be like a lawyer arguing a case before a jury. (p.47) This gives us some insight into the nature of the polemics and debates within the fundamentalist movement. Marsden traces fundamentalism’s moral and spiritual development in American through the influences of pietism, intellectualism, and imperialism. In 1887, Arthur Piereson wrote that if people approach Scripture “in a truly impartial and scientific spirit” this would alleviate all honest doubt. (p.57) Yet, the problem many of us face today is that when we see the outside influences on the early fundamentalists, we realize that they were not impartial, and that even the “scientific spirit” to which they appealed was, to some measure, flawed. It is not that they were ignorant or stupid, as they are often portrayed in the secular media. While some were anti-intellectual, this was not necessarily the case for many. The problem is that they, like many of us, strove to understand truth by adopting a foundation (other than Christ) from which to determine truth. Whether they were fully aware of it or not, this fact influences our current uneasiness in the fundamentalist approach. To whatever degree dispensationalists [which described most fundamentalists at the time] consciously considered themselves Baconians (it is rare to find reflections on philosophical first principles), this closely describes the assumptions of virtually all of them. They were absolutely convinced that all they were doing was taking the hard facts of Scripture, carefully arranging and classifying them, and thus discovering the clear patterns which Scripture revealed. (p.56) As Marsden points out, even Common Sense Realism, while a foundation for empiricism, is itself founded on pre-rational intuitions. (p.56) It is not that science and common sense and imperialism are “wrong” or do not contribute to our understanding of truth. Rather, it is the lack of recognizing them as part of a bigger picture. It is the haunting feeling we get trying to be honest with our own assumptions as we address fundamentalism’s influence in our lives. Fundamentalists focus on defending their conclusions while it is their assumptions which disturb those looking on. The fact that various persons and groups within the movement often came to different conclusions—even to the point of fracturing Christendom in their attempts to unite Christians with mutual “fundamentals”*—calls for a reality check. Besides this, while the movement postures itself as being ancient, it is actually rather young. For instance, dispensational premillennialism as the only acceptable “fundamental” eschatological view is a recent innovation. It is just over a century old and as recently as the 1950’s is seen as only one of many acceptable eschatological views. Knowing this, it is difficult for many children of fundamentalism to maintain a high level of certainty—which fundamentalists insist they have—not only in our forefathers, but also, by default, in Christianity. That is one of the reasons why many have left the faith as described in books like Growing up Fundamentalist by Stefan Ulstein and Leaving the Fold by Edward Babinsky. This book, along with Marsden’s other works about Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, provide for us a chance to evaluate our own assumptions and beliefs. Part II of this review will examine more specifically Marsden’s thoughts concerning Fundamentalism and culture. By Rachel Ramer *1. inerrancy of Scripture, 2. the Virgin Birth of Christ, 3. Christ’s substitutionary atonement, 4. Christ’s bodily resurrection, 5. authenticity of miracles. |
© Copyright ill-legalism 2008. All rights reserved.