ExFundie

These essays are written mainly to explain how Christian fundamentalists think. They apply first of all to the North American versions, since those fundamentalists are the ones we mainly deal with in Canada and the U.S.

Most of what follows, however, will also apply to the growing Christian fundamentalist movements in Africa, South Korea, and some other places. In fact, many of the beliefs I describe will be even more strongly held in those “newer” fundamentalist groups than in their parent North American groups. There is nothing quite like the zeal of the newly-converted, or a group that has newly “discovered” an idea they believe will solve all their problems. Much of the drive for “doctrinal purity” in many Christian sects is coming right now from Africa and to some degree from South America, though not exclusively so by any means.

Many of the descriptions in these essays do not apply just to fundamentalists who are Christian, however. Many beliefs and attitudes are common to all fundamentalist sects within their larger religion. So it should not be surprising to notice similarities with the attitudes, say, of the Taliban or certain hard-line Sikh or Hindu religious groups as well. Almost every religion seems to have a hard-core sub-group that is essentially fundamentalist in the context of that religion.

Most fundamentalist groups seem to want to impose their beliefs and their will on society, to re-shape it in their own image. This is not true of all of them, however. Some do form a society in their own image, but do it by withdrawing from the larger society. People in Pennsylvania, for instance, are familiar with Amish groups who live in separate communities, based on their interpretation of their religion. In Alberta, several Hutterite colonies are based on the same idea. The Bountiful, British Columbia Mormon community is another Canadian example, affiliated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, with other communities in Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT.

Others who might be considered at least partly “fundamentalist” mingle to some degree with modern society, but try to keep their own religious culture as a separate community at the same time. General society is still regarded as “outside,” and its members are regarded with suspicion.

Another difference among fundamentalists may involve proselytizing, or the attempt to convert people to their way of thinking. The groups who withdraw from society altogether, and the ones who mingle as little as possible, are coincidentally the ones who tend not to try to convert people. They just want to be left alone. Other groups don’t necessarily want to convert the entire world to their religion, but do want to control their own political sphere as much as possible. Jewish fundamentalists in Israel might be an example of such thinking.

However, most fundamentalists not only want to control their own political space, they want to control others’ space as well. Other people in their own country, other countries – as much political space as they can take hold of, they want their religion to control. These are the groups we are most concerned with.

But what is a “fundamentalist” in the first place? The underlying impulse/idea for all fundamentalists, whether or not they use that term for themselves, derives from the word “fundamental” itself. The idea was given explicit description by the first Christian fundamentalists in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. (This site, The Rise of Fundamentalism, offers excellent definitions both of “generic fundamentalism” with which we are concerned, and the original Christian Fundamentalism.) The core concept is that they are returning to the “fundamentals” of their religion – how they believe it was originally handed down by God before later modifications happened to it. Most later modifications are considered a bad thing. The “old time religion” was a static thing, handed down once-for-all, and since it was handed down by God, no human modifications are either required or acceptable.

What matters is that they believe they are returning to the original form of their religion, the one that will be most pleasing to God and divert his wrath.* One can argue from history that the fundamentalist Christianity of today is very different from the fundamentalist Christianity even of a century ago – and almost nothing like the religious life and practice of the very first Christians in the first century. The same inconsistency can also be demonstrated for other fundamentalist groups. But this is generally brushed aside. In fact, if presented with this evidence, they will usually provide a covering explanation. They may insist they are “really” closer to the original religion even than their predecessors. Or they are more likely, in this limited instance, to allow the idea of “modification” to enter the discussion: this is the “original religion” as it must be lived in the circumstances of this time period. This allows today’s fundamentalists, last century’s fundamentalists, and the first Christians, all to have been practising the “original religion,” in the circumstances of their time. This is a belief almost impossible to argue against. (*The desire to avoid the wrath of their deity is a driving force in fundamentalism; outsiders viewing their actions and listening to their fury have some justification for believing that fundamentalists are driven far more by fear of God’s wrath – or the eagerness to see it visited on someone else – than they are by embracing or demonstrating God’s love.)

In fact, most of their beliefs are very difficult to argue against, because in fact a fundamentalist system is very, very logical. If you grant a few specific premises at the beginning, everything else flows from these premises with such consistent internal logic that people feel like they’re banging their heads against a brick wall when trying to refute these beliefs.

The only way to make any headway in talking to a fundamentalist is, first, to understand the way they think, and how their ideas hold together. Only after we do that can we start looking for the small pieces of this tightly-held puzzle which can be pulled out, to make the entire edifice collapse.

Next: First Premises