In the comments section for my post on Mandisa's Downfall, a reader asks me about my judgmental attitude toward Christians.
The question struck me as strange, as I don't think of myself as having any issues with Christians at all. But as our exchange continued, it became increasingly clear to me that, at least in the mind of that one reader, the term I used -- "fundamentalist" -- equals "Christian." To her, to speak of one is to speak of the other.
In the interest of clarity, let me affirm that I do, indeed, make a distinction between Christians and fundamentalists.
Christians, as a group, are increasingly difficult to define. The Christian faith is fragmented into hundreds of different denominations, or "flavors," of Christianity. Even within each denomination, a bewildering range of contradictory beliefs co-exist. Within the Churches of Christ, for example, there are congregations (and individuals within those congregations) that rail against wearing shorts and drinking wine ... and there are congregations (and individuals within those congregations) that wink at both.
Typically, Christians pretend to far more unity than they possess. In America, we hear lots of talk about "Christian values" and our heritage as a "Christian nation". Smart people quickly realize, though, that, given the fact no two Christians embrace precisely the same beliefs, such terms are meaningless. Given the broad spectrum of beliefs that we clump under the Christian umbrella, it is virtually impossible to define what Christians, as a group, profess.
That said, when I use the word Christian, I'm referring, loosely, to any number of people who:
a) attach some special significance to the Biblical character of Jesus, also identified as "the Christ"
and who
b) make some effort to see the life and principles of Jesus reflected in their daily lives.
In short: I have no issues with Christians.
Fundamentalists, however, are a different kettle of fish. Fundamentalists:
a) have identified a set of beliefs or practices as "fundamental." Fundamentalists draw a box around a set of core beliefs, defining these as essential. (If you point out the absurdity of this conclusion by asking questions such as, "But isn't everything God said essential?", you will not be allowed in the fundamentalist clubhouse.)
b) make their fundamentals a "test of fellowship." If you embrace a fundamentalist's fundamental beliefs, you're "in." If you reject anything on the list of fundamental beliefs, or add to that list of fundamental beliefs, or question the validity of having a list of fundamental beliefs, or question the authority of those who defined the fundamental beliefs, then you're "out."
c) see the world in black and white. The fundamentalist viewpoint is a perspective of extremes. Issues are black or white. Actions are right or wrong. Information is true or false. You're saved or damned. You're with us, or you're with the terrorists. This approach provides fundamentalists with quick and easy formulas they can apply to religious arguments, but it also limits their ability to deal with the complexity of the real world.
d) mistake their own conclusions for "absolute truth." While passing along their personal convictions, beliefs, and verdicts (usually without having been invited to do so), fundamentalists will often say, "This isn't what I think; it's what God plainly says." It would be more accurate to say, "These are my own conclusions as to what God has to say about the matter," but saying so would call too much attention to the fact that any "Truth" a fundamentalist preaches is, in reality, nothing more than his or her own opinion about what that Truth might be.
e) acknowledge human imperfection, but reject the idea that their own conclusions are subject to or limited by that imperfection. Fundamentalists pay lip service to the idea that "no one is perfect, but God," but, ironically, they are supremely confident that their own conclusions are not subject to such imperfections. Fundamentalists prefer to ignore the reality that every human's level of (or lack of ) education, humanity, and intelligence necessarily influences his or her ability to understand God's will, because embracing this fact would force them to admit that all conclusions -- including their own -- are imperfect to some degree.
e) position themselves as completely objective mouthpieces of God's point of view. Fundamentalists love to quote Scripture, because doing so fuels the fantasy that, "I'm not speaking; this is just the Word of God!" In doing so, they rather conveniently ignore the part they play in selecting, interpreting, and applying a passage of Scripture to the situation at hand.
f) claim God's authority for themselves. The delusion goes like this: "Since I have a perfect (or, at least, adequate) understanding of God's will, and since, when I quote Scripture, God is talking, then what I say and what I do is what God would say or do; therefore, when I speak or take action, I do so with Divine authority." This is a pretty convenient delusion, especially in arguments, allowing fundamentalists to claim that anyone opposing them or their conclusions is, in fact, opposing God.
g) have a passion for external expressions of faith. These externals simplify the task of distinguishing the sheep from the goats. The sheep will conform to standards of behavior specified by the fundamentalist leadership: attending a certain number of services, engaging in certain public displays of faith, adopting certain political agendas, obeying rigorous dress codes, performing elaborate rituals. Goats won't.
h) promote ignorance in order to perpetuate their beliefs. As a world view, fundamentalism can't bear much scrutiny. As a result, fundamentalists actively oppose education and discourage critical thought. As one Dean of Education at one Bible College once told me, "Christian education is not a matter of teaching students how to think ... we're here to teach them what to think." This approach has an added benefit for the leaders of fundamentalist groups: the more ignorant a population is, the easier it is to frighten and intimidate, and the less likely its members are to question authority.
Fundamentalism, frankly, is spiritually, psychologically, and mentally poisonous.
Because they are always one step away from the transgression that will nudge them across the line that divides saints from sinners, fundamentalists live a life of constant fear and self-doubt. Because their fantasies of righteousness set inhuman standards of perfection, fundamentalists tend to conceal or suppress their flaws, creating a culture of mistrust, shame, and secrecy. Because they are immersed in a culture that freely distorts or disregards information that calls the status quo into question, they lose the ability to engage in logical, rational dialogue.
Because fundamentalism holds that any opposing point of view must be held by someone deluded, dishonest, depraved, or evil ("Otherwise, they'd agree with God and me!"), fundamentalists do not hesitate to suppress critical thought, trample personal freedoms, or turn their religious conclusions into legislation designed to force non-believers into compliance.
Not all fundamentalists are Christians. There are fundamentalists in Islam and Judiasm. There are fundamentalists in the New Age movement and in Paganism (America's fastest-growing religion, by some accounts).
Not all Christians are fundamentalists. There are, in fact, many Christians who, because they are aware that their perspectives are necessarily limited, readily embrace others with radically different points of view. Many Christians are willing to live by their own moral standards, respect the standards of others, and allow God to sort us all out as God pleases.
So, for the record: as employed here on MadeByMark.com, the terms fundamentalist and Christian refer to very different critters.
I'm opposed to fundamentalism with every fiber of my being. Christianity, though? Not a problem.
