'Fundamentalism' by any other name

Fundamentalism is a term many in today’s society fear, as it is often associated with radical Muslims who blow up planes and obnoxious, far-right people of the Christian faith.

According to Patheos.com, which claims to be a premier resource for balanced and thorough information about religions and which has a fairly reputable site, Christian fundamentalism is “a conservative movement within American Protestantism that aims to uphold traditional Christian beliefs in the face of many modernist challenges.”

The Badaracco text pulls together several loose definitions of fundamentalism to describe general fundamentalism as a very conservative, broad movement that seeks to return to the basics of the faith -- to the original text. Christian fundamentalists hold to the inerrancy of the Bible, the authenticity of God’s role in creation, the fallen nature of mankind, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s resurrection and impending return, among other things.

Given those definitions, I certainly classify myself as a fundamentalist. Just because a particular group has been dealt a poor reputation -- even if some of that reputation is warranted -- doesn’t mean anything was necessarily wrong with the original idea itself. Some people say the measuring stick of Christianity cannot be Christians. If that argument works, then the measuring stick of Christian fundamentalism cannot be Christian fundamentalists.

I am certain that secular media would consider me a Christian fundamentalist because I fit the basic criteria. And if the media called me one, I wouldn’t disagree. I would only clarify what is meant by the term fundamentalism. If by fundamentalism one means sticking to the hard-and-fast inerrancy of the Word of God and what it proclaims (like Billy Graham), then I wholeheartedly, unreservedly and unabashedly agree.

Unfortunately, in trying to counterbalance some of the negative fallout of fundamentalism, Christians are willing to compromise faith in order to appear more inclusive to the world. We do this when we should be sticking to truth. Anyone who thinks Jesus’ concern was making his message acceptable to everyone needs to revisit his dusty Bible.

But, there is a difference between media-deemed Christian fundamentalists and self-proclaimed Christian fundamentalists. There are far more people whom the secular media would classify as Christian fundamentalists than there are Christians who would classify themselves as Christian fundamentalists. Secular media outlets often cast Christian fundamentalists in an abominable light. Some of it is very much deserved.

Two articles by men who grew up in the fundamentalist tradition shed light on the matter. A fascinating article series appeared just last month in the Huffington Post by Steve McSwain, a former self-professed Christian fundamentalist who has turned from his original beliefs. Although McSwain would still consider himself a person of faith, postmodern concepts of relativism now pervade his writing. The majority of professing Christians would probably not consider McSwain a Christian.

In his three-part series, McSwain embellishes on fundamentalism, a system he calls far too narrow to encompass the wealth of spiritual knowledge available to man.

McSwain, in fact, has sided so much with the camp of relativism that he immediately backs away from the term “belief.” He writes, “I no longer call the things I believe ‘beliefs’ because the word connotes too much rigidity and inflexibility to me. ‘Perspectives’ feels a little softer, more pliable, as if there might actually be openness in me to a new way of understanding something.”

With that all-embracing, self-contradicting approach, McSwain goes on to depict fundamentalism, which he abandoned upon having a “spiritual awakening.”

McSwain listed the following as fundamentalist beliefs with which he now seriously disagrees: that Jesus is the only possible way to God; that God’s Word is found only in the Bible; that the Bible is infallible; that the family is defined as one man and one woman. In his list, McSwain makes each belief sound at least slightly absurd and unbelievable.

McSwain sites extra-biblical material more than the Bible itself. After citing a phrase regarding spirituality in Zen Buddhism, McSwain writes, “As for me, it is my desire to reach the moon of my spiritual potential.” In his additional references, one could assert that McSwain seems to be mocking Christianity’s rigidity.

From the traditional Christian perspective, however, fundamentalism is portrayed in quite a different light. In a decade-old Christianity today article called, “Fundamentalism Revised,” author Richard J. Mouw’s tagline for the seven-page story says it all -- “Evangelicals would do well to remember fundamentalism as family history.”

Mouw’s wording of the article gives clear indication that fundamentalism has indeed earned a nasty reputation -- even and perhaps especially in the church. And, despite Mouw’s own clear aversion to fundamentalism’s negative contributions to society, he casts the movement in a very forgiving, even appreciative light.

Unlike McSwain, Mouw does not discredit the basic philosophy of fundamentalism. The core values of fundamentalism -- like biblical innerancy and the deity of Christ -- are unquestionable for Mouw. If the two men were situated side-by-side to debate those topics, Mouw would not waver. And yet, like McSwain, Mouw has been turned off by some hard-line fundamentalists.

But, rather than discrediting or abandoning the movement as McSwain has done, Mouw said he would adhere to a sort of “neo-fundamentalism” if he at all could. Finding a suitable “neo-fundamentalism,” or repackaged fundamentalism, is, in fact, a fantasy of his, Mouw says. Like McSwain, Mouw grew up in the fundamentalist tradition.

But, unlike McSwain, Mouw chooses not to scoff that tradition. He writes, “At the heart of this fantasy is the growing recognition that in all of my efforts to prove I have long ago abandoned fundamentalist traits and convictions, I have failed to acknowledge my indebtedness to — and my continuities with — the fundamentalism that nurtured me in my early years.” Mouw grants fundamentalism much more intelligence and grace than does McSwain, although it would be inaccurate to say that McSwain portrays the movement with utter disgust.

Through media, Christian fundamentalists are now striving not to correct their image so much as get their message across. Radio, TV, websites, promotional videos and blogs are just some of the ways Christian fundamentalists seek to reach their audiences. One, however, will find only a smattering of Christian fundamentalists who openly identify themselves as such aloud.

‘Fundamentalism’ by any other name

Fundamentalism is a term many in today’s society fear, as it is often associated with radical Muslims who blow up planes and obnoxious, far-right people of the Christian faith.

According to Patheos.com, which claims to be a premier resource for balanced and thorough information about religions and which has a fairly reputable site, Christian fundamentalism is “a conservative movement within American Protestantism that aims to uphold traditional Christian beliefs in the face of many modernist challenges.”

The Badaracco text pulls together several loose definitions of fundamentalism to describe general fundamentalism as a very conservative, broad movement that seeks to return to the basics of the faith -- to the original text. Christian fundamentalists hold to the inerrancy of the Bible, the authenticity of God’s role in creation, the fallen nature of mankind, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s resurrection and impending return, among other things.

Given those definitions, I certainly classify myself as a fundamentalist. Just because a particular group has been dealt a poor reputation -- even if some of that reputation is warranted -- doesn’t mean anything was necessarily wrong with the original idea itself. Some people say the measuring stick of Christianity cannot be Christians. If that argument works, then the measuring stick of Christian fundamentalism cannot be Christian fundamentalists.

I am certain that secular media would consider me a Christian fundamentalist because I fit the basic criteria. And if the media called me one, I wouldn’t disagree. I would only clarify what is meant by the term fundamentalism. If by fundamentalism one means sticking to the hard-and-fast inerrancy of the Word of God and what it proclaims (like Billy Graham), then I wholeheartedly, unreservedly and unabashedly agree.

Unfortunately, in trying to counterbalance some of the negative fallout of fundamentalism, Christians are willing to compromise faith in order to appear more inclusive to the world. We do this when we should be sticking to truth. Anyone who thinks Jesus’ concern was making his message acceptable to everyone needs to revisit his dusty Bible.

But, there is a difference between media-deemed Christian fundamentalists and self-proclaimed Christian fundamentalists. There are far more people whom the secular media would classify as Christian fundamentalists than there are Christians who would classify themselves as Christian fundamentalists. Secular media outlets often cast Christian fundamentalists in an abominable light. Some of it is very much deserved.

Two articles by men who grew up in the fundamentalist tradition shed light on the matter. A fascinating article series appeared just last month in the Huffington Post by Steve McSwain, a former self-professed Christian fundamentalist who has turned from his original beliefs. Although McSwain would still consider himself a person of faith, postmodern concepts of relativism now pervade his writing. The majority of professing Christians would probably not consider McSwain a Christian.

In his three-part series, McSwain embellishes on fundamentalism, a system he calls far too narrow to encompass the wealth of spiritual knowledge available to man.

McSwain, in fact, has sided so much with the camp of relativism that he immediately backs away from the term “belief.” He writes, “I no longer call the things I believe ‘beliefs’ because the word connotes too much rigidity and inflexibility to me. ‘Perspectives’ feels a little softer, more pliable, as if there might actually be openness in me to a new way of understanding something.”

With that all-embracing, self-contradicting approach, McSwain goes on to depict fundamentalism, which he abandoned upon having a “spiritual awakening.”

McSwain listed the following as fundamentalist beliefs with which he now seriously disagrees: that Jesus is the only possible way to God; that God’s Word is found only in the Bible; that the Bible is infallible; that the family is defined as one man and one woman. In his list, McSwain makes each belief sound at least slightly absurd and unbelievable.

McSwain sites extra-biblical material more than the Bible itself. After citing a phrase regarding spirituality in Zen Buddhism, McSwain writes, “As for me, it is my desire to reach the moon of my spiritual potential.” In his additional references, one could assert that McSwain seems to be mocking Christianity’s rigidity.

From the traditional Christian perspective, however, fundamentalism is portrayed in quite a different light. In a decade-old Christianity today article called, “Fundamentalism Revised,” author Richard J. Mouw’s tagline for the seven-page story says it all -- “Evangelicals would do well to remember fundamentalism as family history.”

Mouw’s wording of the article gives clear indication that fundamentalism has indeed earned a nasty reputation -- even and perhaps especially in the church. And, despite Mouw’s own clear aversion to fundamentalism’s negative contributions to society, he casts the movement in a very forgiving, even appreciative light.

Unlike McSwain, Mouw does not discredit the basic philosophy of fundamentalism. The core values of fundamentalism -- like biblical innerancy and the deity of Christ -- are unquestionable for Mouw. If the two men were situated side-by-side to debate those topics, Mouw would not waver. And yet, like McSwain, Mouw has been turned off by some hard-line fundamentalists.

But, rather than discrediting or abandoning the movement as McSwain has done, Mouw said he would adhere to a sort of “neo-fundamentalism” if he at all could. Finding a suitable “neo-fundamentalism,” or repackaged fundamentalism, is, in fact, a fantasy of his, Mouw says. Like McSwain, Mouw grew up in the fundamentalist tradition.

But, unlike McSwain, Mouw chooses not to scoff that tradition. He writes, “At the heart of this fantasy is the growing recognition that in all of my efforts to prove I have long ago abandoned fundamentalist traits and convictions, I have failed to acknowledge my indebtedness to — and my continuities with — the fundamentalism that nurtured me in my early years.” Mouw grants fundamentalism much more intelligence and grace than does McSwain, although it would be inaccurate to say that McSwain portrays the movement with utter disgust.

Through media, Christian fundamentalists are now striving not to correct their image so much as get their message across. Radio, TV, websites, promotional videos and blogs are just some of the ways Christian fundamentalists seek to reach their audiences. One, however, will find only a smattering of Christian fundamentalists who openly identify themselves as such aloud.

Dionne, E.J.

E.J. Dionne -- A Catholic fusing faith and politics Note: My book is on my Kindle, which does not offer page numbers. As any journalist with half a brain knows, the stories one selects are perhaps the greatest indication of bias, personality and background. This certainly rings true in the works of E.J. Dionne, op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. On April 6, 2007, he wrote a piece entitled, “Answers to the Atheists,” about the Easter holiday of that week. In the article, Dionne attempts to answer the question of whether or not Christians really are a threat to society, as new atheists like Richard Dawkins purport. Dionne, however, is not generally one to attempt to enhance any polarity, as John Schmalzbauer points out several times in his chapter. Dionne himself is a Catholic, as Schmalzbauer says. While he does not always champion his faith with a trumpet, he is ready to defend religion with reason. He forcefully answers critics who say Christians are too timid to enter into the arena of ideas or academics and take on the tough questions. On the contrary, he says, "What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions,” quoting Brian Novak’s assertion that questions have always embodied the heart and soul of journalism and Christianity alike. Moreoever, Dionne is not afraid to mention the name of Jesus, which is something noteworthy in modern journalism. The word “God” is controversial enough, but the name “Jesus” is cause for pure outrage. And yet, he seems to commend Jesus for his “passion.” Dionne makes it clear at the end of the article that his faith is somehow integrated into the Easter holiday when he says, “That's why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can't join the neo-atheists.” Schmalzbauer notes that Dionne’s political ideas stem from his Catholic roots. This is interesting to watch unfold when religion and politics collide. Schmalzbauer highlights repeatedly Dionne’s emphasis on seeking unity among Americans. This emphasis seems to be somehow connected to his faith. Dionne seems to center much of his work on reconciling liberal and conservative thought. Moreover, he seems to almost automatically link right-wing conservatives and Christians. While he himself often juxtaposes liberalism and conservatism, ironically enough, he also discusses a “false polarization” between conservatives and liberals, as Schmalzbauer notices. At times, to be honest, it is hard to tell whether he is highlighting polarization, smoothing it out, or causing it. A somewhat recent article that would support the claim that he is attempting to smooth over polarization is found in something he wrote for Thanksgiving day of 2010, entitled, “On Thanksgiving, remembering our common bonds.” His initial decision to write on Thanksgiving is noteworthy. In writing about both Easter and Thanksgiving, Dionne gives readers at least glimpse his awareness and appreciation of religious institutions. In the article, Dionne criticizes Tea party activists and other conservatives like Rush Limbaugh for over-politicizing Thanksgiving and for criticizing rather watered-down versions of the holiday. While Dionne says he, too, values having the holiday portrayed accurately, according to history, he concludes that other notions like community and others-centeredness are more important than any political themes stemming from the Pilgrims. He pleads, too, that we cannot just pull one particular message out of the day. “Yet putting aside the dangers of allowing ideology to distort the facts of our present and our past, we seem to have lost our sense of balance as a country," he writes. "This argument over Thanksgiving strikes me as a symptom of our failure to acknowledge that the American story is not all one thing or all another.” [Emphasis added.] As Schmalzbauer points out, Dionne thinks Americans have a mixture of both conservative and liberal strains in them. Polarization is something Dionne seems particularly against, and as such, something he seeks to highlight and criticize in American politics and culture. And, though he isn’t perhaps explicit in his religious tone, it’s clear that the values of Thanksgiving are ones he shares. Dionne further fuses his interest in politics and religion in his Oct. 7, 2005 article entitled, “Faith-Based Hypocrisy.” If Badaracco’s second chapter were online and needed a link, he could have linked directly to Dionne’s column to see examples of faith professed poorly in the public arena and politics. Again, Dionne’s story selection attests to his faith-rooted journalism. Though himself religious, Dionne is clearly unsupportive of individuals who take their faith into the public arena rashly or for personal gain. In the 2005 article, he criticizes members of Bush’s administration for using religion to get their way. He writes, “Now we know: President Bush's supporters are prepared to be thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to religion. They'll play religion up or down, whichever helps them most in a political fight.” Dionne highlights that the Bush administration consciously used then-Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’s religious identity as an “evangelical Christian” as a strategy. It was, indeed, their political platform. Dionne says such a strategy intermixing testimony and politics is inappropriate. Dionne’s faith, then, emerges as much through the political stories he selects as how he actually tells those stories.

E.J. Dionne -- A Catholic fusing faith and politics

As any journalist with half a brain knows, the stories one selects are perhaps the greatest indication of bias, personality and background. This certainly rings true in the works of E.J. Dionne, op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. On April 6, 2007, he wrote a piece entitled, “Answers to the Atheists,” about the Easter holiday of that week.

In the article, Dionne attempts to answer the question of whether or not Christians really are a threat to society, as new atheists like Richard Dawkins purport. Dionne, however, is not one to attempt to enhance any polarity, as John Schmalzbauer points out several times in his chapter. Dionne himself is a Catholic, as Schmalzbauer says. While he does not always champion his faith with a trumpet, he is willing to defend religion with reason. He forcefully answers critics who say Christianity is too timid to enter into the arena of ideas or academics and take on the tough questions. On the contrary, he says, What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions,” quoting Brian Novak’s assertion that questions have always been the heart and soul of both journalism and Christianity.

Moreoever, Dionne is not afraid to mention the name of Jesus, which is something noteworthy in modern journalism. The word “God” is controversial enough, but the name “Jesus” is cause for pure outrage. And yet, he seems to commend Jesus for his “passion.” Dionne makes it clear at the end of the article that his faith is somehow integrated into the Easter holiday when he says, “That's why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can't join the neo-atheists.”

Schmalzbauer notes that Dionne’s political ideas stem from his Catholic roots. This is interesting to watch unfold when religion and politics collide. Schmalzbauer emphasizes repeatedly Dionne’s emphasis on seeking unity among Americans. This emphasis seems to be somehow connected to his faith. Dionne seems to center much of his work on reconciling liberal and conservative thought. Moreover, he seems to almost automatically link right-wing conservatives and Christians. While he himself often juxtaposes liberalism and conservatism, ironically enough, he also discusses a “false polarization” between conservatives and liberals, as Schmalzbauer notices. At times, to be honest, it is hard to tell whether he is highlighting polarization, soothing it, or causing it.

A somewhat recent article that would support the claim that he is attempting to smooth over polarization is found in something he wrote for Thanksgiving day of 2010, entitled, “On Thanksgiving, remembering our common bonds.” His initial decision to write on Thanksgiving is noteworthy. In writing about both Easter and Thanksgiving, Dionne gives readers at least glimpse his awareness and appreciation of the religious ceremony.

In the article, Dionne criticizes Tea party activists and other conservatives like Rush Limbaugh for over-politicizing Thanksgiving and for criticizing rather watered-down versions of the holiday. While Dionne says he, too, values having the holiday portrayed accurately, according to history, he concludes that other notions like community and others-centeredness are more important than any political themes stemming from the Pilgrims. He pleads, too, that we cannot just pull one particular message out of the day.

“Yet putting aside the dangers of allowing ideology to distort the facts of our present and our past, we seem to have lost our sense of balance as a country," he writes. "This argument over Thanksgiving strikes me as a symptom of our failure to acknowledge that the American story is not all one thing or all another.”

Polarization is something Dionne seems particularly against, and as such, something he seeks to highlight and criticize in American politics and culture. And, though he isn’t perhaps explicit in his religious tone, it’s clear that the values of Thanksgiving are ones he shares.

Dionne further fuses his interest in politics and religion in his Oct. 7, 2005 article entitled, “Faith-Based Hypocrisy.” If Badaracco’s second chapter were online and needed a link, he could have linked directly to Dionne’s article to see examples of faith professed poorly in the public arena and politics. Again, Dionne’s story selection attests to his faith-rooted journalism.

Though himself religious, Dionne is clearly unsupportive of individuals who take their faith into the public arena rashly or for personal gain. In the 2005 article, he criticizes members of Bush’s administration for using religion to get their way. He writes, “Now we know: President Bush's supporters are prepared to be thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to religion. They'll play religion up or down, whichever helps them most in a political fight.”

Dionne highlights that the Bush administration consciously used then-Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’s religious identity as an “evangelical Christian” as a strategy. It was, indeed, their political platform. Dionne seems to be saying that such a strategy intermixing testimony and politics is inappropriate.

Dionne’s faith, then, emerges as much through the stories he selects which fuse religion and politics as how he actually tells those stories.