The new society built upon cash and finance, urbanisation
(and with it the destruction of the rural community), as well as different
roles for men and women in the industrial economy, created a social crisis
leading to the suffrage and temperance movements. In these trends were found
the seeds of both a reactionary and progressive sociology. Society became
schizophrenic and Fundamentalism was almost a cry of "Put on the brakes, I
want to get off!"
Relatively few Fundamentalists were content to abandon the
American narrative and their claims to it. While some indeed fled to the so-called
Christian ghetto, most modified their views and expectations, and in the wake
of World War II began to find common cause with Capitalism, anti-Communism and
other socially conservative movements that wanted to preserve the old status
quo. Though downplayed today, this was often in response to the growing chorus
for minority civil rights and its application by the judiciary.
Ultimately this approach to sociology devolved into political
factionalism. Politics in terms of society always contains elements of dynamism
that defies the monolithic constructs put forward by the academy. And though
there was an Anti-Modernist inclination to Fundamentalists and some
Evangelicals, their embrace of America and its post-war status also contained a
vibrant progressive impulse. This was also fed by their tendency to synthesise
Classical Liberalism, their particular 'Christian' read of the American
narrative and their understanding of Protestant theology.
By progressive we don't necessarily have to mean Social
Progressivism in the sense of improving conditions for the poor etc., but
instead an optimism with regard to the future, and the eager embrace of
technology as a means to improve domestic life and defend the nation. Many
socially Anti-Modernist Fundamentalists were more than happy to embrace the
culture of the automobile, domestic appliances, as well as the radio and
television, even though these inventions drastically changed the warp and woof
of daily life and also contained within their use a profound shift in ethics
and ultimately the form and function of the family.
And their commitment to Capitalism led to an almost blind
embrace of American consumer culture and the ever-escalating standard of
living. This was even while they (at times) decried the growing materialism
within the culture. Once again Classical Liberalism in its individualism and
pursuit of happiness, when synthesised with Christianity afforded a doctrinal
framework for the embrace of the post-War American experience.
To be sure there were and are some groups that reject certain
aspects of the great change that took place after World War II. There are still
some that conscientiously reject television and computers, the cinema and all
forms of popular music, but they are few, and their numbers continue to
decrease. Often arbitrary and inconsistent the arguments and taboos don't stand
the test of time. Rather than resting upon moral absolutes they often reek of a
particular social context and failed narratives.
As an aside, there is a small but growing movement within
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that has embraced Anti-Modernism with regard
to industry and agriculture. Once again though, the heart of this argument is
sociological and often wedded to a meta-narrative concerning American history
based on themes of agrarianism vs. industrialism as well as interpretations of
the Civil War and its meaning.
Whatever the nuance, the sociological basis for
Fundamentalism's Anti-Modernism has little chance of remaining static. Without
some kind of objective principle, it has little hope of compelling its members
to remain within the fold and maintain its legacy. Its Anti-Modernism is
exposed as an incoherent and subjective sociological epistemology. It is self-defeating
by its own standards. Fundamentalism actually devolves into a type of wistful
romanticism, a type of Idealism which (philosophically) is the very notion or
modality of thought that is most abhorrent to its epistemological and ethical
sensibilities.
If the sociological form can't hold it together, what about
its theological basis?
The argument has already been made that despite
Fundamentalism's claims to the contrary, it did embrace a type of modernistic theology. This needs additional consideration.
It could be argued that the groundwork for Fundamentalism's
epistemological approach was laid in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment
and that modern Liberal Theology was merely the outworking and implication of
the method. Liberals unshackled the method from its Textual foundations. And
yet Fundamentalism's epistemology, and thus hermeneutic are still on the same
trajectory which ultimately leads toward Liberalism. Once confidence in the
text is shaken, the descent is rapid because the methodology is already in
place and it has no hermeneutical apparatus to deal with seeming incoherence.
Coherence is the test of validity and this is wed to
correspondence with both logic and an appeal to the uniformity of nature and
the laws it reveals. These commitments lead to a constant barrage on the Fundamentalist
foundation... the authority of the text. Once there's a chink in its armour,
the damage spreads like a cancer.
One might posit that Evangelicalism in breaking with
Fundamentalism in the 1950s, opened the door and abandoned its post. Seeking
social and academic respectability as well as highly desirous of attaining a
certain cultural and social influence, Evangelicalism began to adopt the
language of the academy and its assumptions began to creep into their
scholarship. The cancer had been introduced and today it would seem that we're
left with Evangelicals who try to maintain the 'text' by flirting with Barthian
constructs and on the reactionary side we find in the remnants of
Fundamentalism, the formulation of various King James Only positions which seek
to put an end to all inquiries
concerning the text and the complex questions surrounding inspiration and the
nature of the Bible's claims vis-à-vis sociology and science.
With this come a host of reactionary sociological positions,
usually rooted in legalist constructs regarding the Christian stance to
sociological development. This manifests in anti-modernist positions regarding
dress and grooming standards etc. And yet as just mentioned, these standards
are necessarily dynamic and subjective.
Fundamentalism is doomed to fail and it would seem we're
beginning to witness its death throes. While ostensibly conservative it
contains within itself, the seeds for its own destruction. While claiming to
take Scripture as axiomatic, on that foundation it builds a type of
Enlightenment superstructure... one that is something of a relic but still
clings tenaciously to the same Empirical model employed by its enemies.
We see this prominently in 'Creation Science' and in their
apologetics which usually tend toward Evidentialism.
As a Biblicist I cannot but appreciate the mindset which
would uphold Scripture as axiomatic self-evident truth. Yet, I would argue that
when thought of in this manner it is cast in a philosophical framework and is
immediately followed by a quest for 'system' determined by a series of criteria
related to logical coherence. And yet once this secondary rational apparatus is
embraced the Scripture's authority claims become subject to method and the
cognitive reflections and processes of creatures who cannot think beyond the
finite limitations of language, space and time. While seeking to develop and
enrich the experience and message of Scripture, the extensive labours of the
systematician's theological volumes instead prove to be exercises in
speculation and can even result in spiritual and intellectual limitation... and
thus impoverishment with regard to the meaning and depth of the text.
The authority of Scripture must be absolute and it must be understood
as revelational and spiritual. As flawed as Barth was he seemed to grasp the
potential danger in theological endeavour reducing Scripture's spiritual
content and essentially equating it with Natural Law, something accessible to
the spiritually unenlightened. In other words if theology is a 'science' rooted
in the mastering of philosophical method and consistent logic, then it is a
field that is potentially open to anyone trained in the method. One need not
necessarily be a Spirit-transformed believer to be a good theologian. How
clearly we have seen what happens when the methodology is employed by the
infidel! The Mainline academic uses the theologian's toolkit and weaponry to
wage war on the foundations of Scripture itself. The philosophical approach to
theology (which shares many presuppositions with Fundamentalist epistemology
and hermeneutics) consequently sows the seeds of its own destruction. The
Fundamentalists are not alone in this but are in all actuality merely an
amplified subset.
Barth took this concept in unfortunate directions but like
Karen Armstrong there are truths to be found in the observation. If the wisdom
of God is a mystery revealed (1 Cor 2.7) then it cannot be discovered or
elaborated by means of natural and thus fallen reason. The 1 Corinthians
passage elucidates (and tempers) the extent and nature of knowledge Paul deems
possible in Romans 1. The Romans passage establishes a basis for guilt while
the 1 Corinthians passage reveals the necessity of the Spirit and revelation as
not only the basis for knowledge, but
something of its very nature. Human categories and attempts at logically
constructing systems of reality based on either correspondence or coherence
fail. Neither can hope to penetrate, apprehend, let alone comprehend mystery.
The implications for the philosophical project and systematic theology are
nothing less than profound.
Rome and its theological allies might say otherwise as framed
by their philosophical synthesis and narrative concerning the Fall, but the
Scriptures themselves are clear on this point. Though Rome arrives at this
point on a different intellectual road than the Fundamentalist, the end result
and confidence in natural man's ability is not all that different.
Fundamentalism is sometimes identified as fideistic in its
perceived 'blind adherence' to the Scriptures. And yet as I continue to point
out their 'faith' in the Scriptures is somewhat misleading. They 'believe' the
Scriptures but faith is understood as merely intellectual, a type of Right
Reason, even good and proper or common sense. They're hardly alone on this
point but the tendency is enhanced in their system and by its context.
The Right Reason approach to faith needs to be understood as
a qualification to any claims regarding Sola Scriptura. Its notions of
Scripture Alone are effectively subjugated to the coherence test. Further, that
coherence must also be integrated with human experience, so-called common sense
and even empirical evidence from nature. Belief in many of the supernatural doctrines
revealed in Scripture are still cast in terms of coherence and 'proof' and thus
it is without great surprise many of these doctrines suffer from reductionist
tendencies and must be reckoned as somewhat impoverished in light of both
Scriptural testimony and Historical Theology. At this point the very
nomenclature if not the concept of Fundamentalism comes to the fore in
indentifying this limiting principle. What was meant (perhaps) as a basis for a
type of doctrinal Foundationalism in fact reveals (if not exposes) a larger
tendency or principle at work within Modernist Christian thought. While
attempting to arrest the Modernist tendency, the Reductionist approach of
Fundamentalism is itself modern.
While it is often argued that the Reductionist tendency is at
odds with Coherentist (often Idealist) approaches to the question of truth,
they are not mutually exclusive. In fact Reductionism can serve the Coherentist
project by the process of simplification and the limitation of concepts. This
tendency is also fairly common. Such limitations are not always a bad thing as
long as the criterion is rooted in Scriptural authority as opposed to rational
coherence as is the case with Fundamentalism. Limiting concepts in the name of
Scriptural integrity, human finitude or even mystery are valid. Limiting
concepts as presented in the Text due to concerns of coherence is something
very different. Or to put it differently, are concepts limited because the
relied upon Authority (Scripture) fails to elaborate them or are they limited
due to the creation of an air-tight and polemically unassailable system?
Questioning these categories will only baffle its adherents.
To question 'Common Sense' is to flirt with mysticism if not madness. Yet, as
is clear from the philosophical tradition, the diversities in Biblical
interpretation, the wide array of religious derivations from nature etc., the
very notion of 'Common' Sense is itself an absurdity. In fact, I would go
further and attack the very epistemology they have retained. Direct or Naïve
Realism, the monistic view advocated by Thomas Reid and the Scottish Common
Sense school was revived in the early 20th century by the
Neo-Realists in the United States as well as figures like GE Moore. Bertrand
Russell also held the position for a time but later abandoned it and returned
to the epistemological dualism of Classical Empiricism.
The monistic view continues to resonate with American
cultural sensibilities with regard to Classical Liberalism, progress and man's
general ability.
While man plainly possesses innate ideas and has the ability
to grasp basic concepts they are clearly not demonstrable on the basis of
'Common' sense. That is to say that nothing concrete can be postulated. While
everyone knows there is a God and is thus accountable, apart from Divine
Revelation the result is that we're presented with millions of self-referential
gods and thus idols. Natural Revelation and Post-Edenic epistemology point to
certain realities but they cannot be resolved and brought into coherent forms,
let alone verified or relied upon as sources of further predication.
The truth of Christ and the Gospel are revealed mysteries
apprehensible only by the workings of the Spirit. They are brought forth not
for examination or dissection or even in the form of philosophical discourse.
Instead Scripture reveals them through the 'foolish' (i.e. the absurd,
incongruous and even incoherent) form of preaching or proclamation. While Paul
was not afraid to engage in discourse and point to 'Common Sense' evidences,
the heart of the message was the kerygma or
proclamation to submissively accept the
Revelation, Jesus Christ Himself. The response on the part of man is not to
resort to verification but to believe in
Him (through His Word) and to repent.
Fundamentalism in its spirit grasps something of this and
perhaps it could be said that in reality it acts upon this intuition, but on
paper (as it were) it is thoroughly modernist and rationalistic. Sadly this
plays out in its truncated formulation and presentation of the gospel, not to
mention its formulaic, reductionist and wholly inadequate understanding of
saving faith. Faith is reduced to intellectual apprehension based on a
common-sense response to a series of mostly objective 'facts'.
This is not the faith of the New Testament as presented in
the Gospels, Paul's teachings nor the famous passage in Hebrews. The struggles
of faith, sanctification and mortification, let alone the exhortations to
perseverance and the warnings that accompany them are all explained away,
relegated to the status of healthy hypotheticals... and not all that healthy to
seriously contemplate. Faith almost becomes an exercise in positive thinking,
facts (not necessarily truths) that are repeated. The apprehension of facts
does not necessarily lead to knowledge and wisdom which are essential
components to Saving Faith and spiritual in nature.
It must be concluded that the charges of fideism are false
and the Fundamentalist movement's intellectual impulses have been
misinterpreted.
Continue reading part 3
Continue reading part 3