I don't particularly like the way '
Fundamentalism' is perceived in modern day culture. I find it quite offensive that a person who follows the '
fundamentals' - the basics - of the religion I believe in is considered as
hateful,
intolerant, and
morally equivalent to a suicide bomber. If the fundamentals of the
Christian faith do advocate or even permit suicide bombing or hating others, then
this perception would be justified, even though I find it offensive. I
don't think that's the case though.
Do these people called '
Fundamentalists' actually exist, or is it no more than an epithet used by anyone bitter (rightly or wrongly) towards conservative religious believers? Does this thing called 'Fundamentalism' actually exist? Or is it just a straw man built by people fed up with terrorists,
pedophile priests, pushy evangelists, hateful
homophobics, anti-
intellectuals, or other such nasties? I'm very aware that these things are real problems, and 'fundamentalists' are responsible for these things! But I say these people in those categories have no right to call themselves 'fundamentalists'. Here's why:
I find it tragic that if there's one thing everyone agrees on about 'fundamentalism' is that it's
BAD. And I find that tragic because as a
Christian I believe there's
no greater force for good in this world than the 'fundamentals' of the Christian faith. To be a 'fundamentalist', you support the 'fundamental', or crucial, or definitive elements of a belief system. And by
that definition I'm
proud to call myself a Christian fundamentalist!
The first people to actually call themselves 'fundamentalists' were a group of American protestant Christians in the early 20th century... now the movement's pretty much died out, but retains its influence in
evangelical Christianity (see
Christian fundamentalism). They do a fairly good job, I would argue, of summing up what it really means to believe in the fundamentals of Christianity.
But really, the
Golden rule is the supreme
ethical point of real Christian fundamentalism. That's the rule where:
- That in all we do we should '
do unto others as we would have them do to us'
- That this
love ethic is a fundamental basis that all of God's law is derived from - anything else is religion that should be rejected (
Galatians 5:14)
By this definition, most evangelicals,
Catholics, and
Protestants believe in the 'fundamentals' of Christianity.
I sometimes have a problem with people redefining words to suit themselves and their own agendas. But in this case 'fundamentalist' has lost any precise meaning it once had; it's not much more than an epithet used by the non-religious and those pandering to appeal to them. And I think this redefinition is justified, to rescue the Christian faith from the people known as fundamentalists. Most importantly, it's justified to show that the fundamentals, or basics, of the Christian faith, are not hate but
fundamentally sacrificial love.