Christian Neo-Fundamentalism | Theology

By Thomas Scarborough

The Christian fundamentalist has been defined negatively as “a militantly anti-modernist evangelical” (Ferguson & Wright 2005:266), and positively as one who has “a firm commitment to certain ‘fundamentals’ of the Christian faith” (Grenz, Guretzki & Nordling 1999:54). Usually Christian fundamentalism is understood as referring to the type of fundamentalism which saw its major ascendancy in the 1920s, and which survives in various forms to this day.

I would propose that it may refer equally to any Christian movement which suppresses critical openness. With this in mind, I would suggest the term “neo-fundamentalism”.

Neo-fundamentalism is far-reaching, it is powerful, and, unlike the old fundamentalism, it is sophisticated. Once understood, it should be easy to identify where it occurs. In my limited experience, it is often encountered in those streams of theology which adopt a coherence theory of truth (more broadly, non-foundationalism).

I shall merely select a few “proof texts” which might serve to highlight the phenomenon:

Nancey Murphy and Brad J. Kallenburg, of Fuller Theological Seminary and the University of Dayton, subscribe to what they term a Theology of Communal Practice. They write: “What has to be accepted, the given, is — so one could say — FORMS OF LIFE. . . . the viability of a historical community depends on the ongoing felicity of its communications. Thus, for the society to be viable, most of this communication has to be ‘true’ most of the time; . . .” (Murphy & Kallenberg 2003:38). Without entering into the theological implications of the quote, let us simply note the strong turns of phrase: “has to be accepted . . . the given . . . has to be ‘true’ . . .”, and so on.

This may be better understood when placed in the context of what is termed “religious language”. R.L. Sturch states, in the New Dictionary of Theology: “. . . in terms derived from Wittgenstein, religion may be seen as a ‘form of life’ or ‘language-game’. Debate WITHIN the ‘form of life’ is legitimate, but about the form itself there can be none; either it is adopted or it is not.” (Ferguson & Wright 2005:580). Notice again some strong turns of phrase: a form of life “is adopted, or it is not”, debate is “legitimate” only within a given life form, and so on.

George Hunsinger, of Princeton Theological Seminary, subscribes to the more familiar Postliberal Theology. Postliberal theologians, he writes, may be recognized “especially [by] their ecumenical interests and their desire to move beyond modernity’s liberal/evangelical impasse. As made newly possible in our culture by the rise of nonfoundationalism, they have begun to rethink old questions . . .” (Hunsinger 2003:57). An “impasse”, of course, is defined as “a place from which there is no outlet”. How, then, would Hunsinger consider that one should move beyond it? The answer lies in “nonfoundationalism”. Presumably, therefore, one should exclude or expurgate foundational issues.

The website http://www.opensourcetheology.net holds much in common with these theologies. Its stated purpose is “to assist the development of a transparent, community-driven theology for the ’emerging church’.” (OpenSourceTheology 2006:1). “Open source” is defined as “source code available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design”. This implies a process of critical openness.

However, under the heading “Rules of Engagement”, the website includes the following lines: “Although we wish to be open . . . there should be a consistent endeavor to position ourselves . . . We are not interested, therefore, in promoting further theological in-fighting and polemic. The approach . . . must be focused primarily on issues relevant to the general goals of the project . . . [not] dogmatic allegiances . . . Our method here must be to apply a basic missiological hermeneutic . . .” Again we notice some strong turns of phrase: “should be . . . must be . . . we are not interested”, and so on. Further, under what conditions should theology be interpreted as “in-fighting” or “polemic”? How should one define “dogmatic allegiances”? In whose mind should this be decided, and according to which criteria?

A final quote by Richard Osmer, of Princeton Theological Seminary, whose writing shares many of the features of the above theologies: “Catechesis in the emerging multicultural world should be particularly sensitive to the content it hands on. Education is necessarily selective, and Christian education is no different.” (Osmer 2000:66). Again we notice the imperatives: “should be . . . is necessarily selective, . . .” and so on.

The few “proof texts” I have selected here might well be subject to more generous interpretations. However, there would seem to be a weight of evidence in favor of a distinct tendency — a tendency far wider, in fact, than these few quotes.

Kevin Hart, of the University of Notre Dame, comments: “OTHER people are fundamentalist, in much the same way as OTHER people have ideologies. . . . In a different formation, it can be found in an equally virulent form among the most highly educated people in society.” (Hart 2004:110). Perversely, it would often seem to be those who reject the old-style fundamentalism who with quiet aggression and sophistication espouse “neo-fundamentalism”.

One might ask how such views as those quoted would find their outworking in everyday academia, or in everyday Church life. How would one guarantee “felicity of . . . communications”? How would one preserve “legitimate” debate? How would one defend “nonfoundationalism”? How would one rule out “dogmatic allegiances”? How would one be “necessarily selective”? What would distinguish the outgrowth of such attitudes from that of the fundamentalism which saw its ascendancy in the 1920s?

Fundamentalism, states Hart, “violently asserts itself”. This need not be through confrontation, however — in fact it may more often than not be through the violence of silence — the silence that serves to remove other views from “discourse” (Hart 2004:108). The ultimate “in-fighting”, perhaps, is that which wields indomitable power at the outset. It greets illegitimate debate (one might read: illegitimate personal concerns) with silence — or it channels it, re-routes it, or deflects it. It stacks reading lists, it sustains and manages felicitous communications, it promotes methodological (as opposed to theological) exercises.

Rich Erickson, of Fuller Theological Seminary, regularly holds seminars on the subject of critical openness. “Critical openness,” he writes, “. . . means that we are free to explore, free to be confused, free to be wrong, free to learn. And we are likewise free to let others explore, to be confused or wrong, and to learn.” (Erickson 2005:5). One should be granted the freedom, as I understand it — in fact, more importantly, the choice and the power — to think through issues, and to explore. Huston Smith, a well known writer on religion, states: “Our humanness flourishes to the extent that we steep ourselves in these [ultimate] questions — ponder them, circle them, obsess over them, and in the end allow the obsession to consume us.” (Smith 2001:274).

There is surely little freedom in excluding or marginalizing theological issues — in speaking the language of “the given . . . has to be . . . there can be none [debate] . . . we are not interested . . .” and so on — whether in academia or in the Church. Particularly in academia. While one should indeed confidently espouse and argue (in the good sense) one’s own views, one needs the marketplace of ideas — together with the freedom, transparency, bravery, and skill that this requires.

CITATION OF REFERENCES

Erickson, Rich. “Critical Openness: A Secret to Success in Seminary”, ST511, class handout. Pasadena, California: Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Theology, 2005.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. & Wright, David F. (Eds.). New Dictionary of Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005.

Grenz, Stanley J., Guretzki, David, & Nordling, Cherith Fee. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1999.

Hart, Kevin. Postmodernism: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2004.

Hunsinger, George. “Postliberal Theology”. In The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Pp. 42-57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Murphy, Nancey & Kallenberg, Brad J. “Anglo-American Postmodernity”. In The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Pp. 26-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

OpenSourceTheology. “Welcome to Open Source Theology: Rules of Engagement.” http://www.opensourcetheology.net 1(1): no pp. Online. Internet. Accessed May 31, 2006.

Osmer, Richard. “The Teaching Ministry in a Multicultural World”. In The Local Church in a Global Era: Reflection for a New Century, eds. Stackhouse, Max L., Dearborn, Tim & Paeth, Scott. Pp. 63-74. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Smith, Huston. Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001.

Rev. Thomas Scarborough is the pastor of an urban Congregational Church in Cape Town. He is registered as a postgraduate student at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena.