Fundamentalism

Historical Background

The term fundamentalism did not appear in dictionaries or encyclopedias before the 20th century. Scholars trace it to usage by partisans in denominational conflicts in the United States, debates that divided especially the Baptist and Presbyterian groups. Thus, among the Northern Baptists, an [Page 935]editor complained that great numbers in the church body claimed to be and wanted to be called “conservative,” but their conservatism was passive. As such, it was not useful in the decisive struggles of the period. He and those who sided with him described a situation in which there were theological and moral threats to the religious identity and integrity of the adherents.

In the case of the American Protestants, the threats came from some “modern” or “modernist” claims and innovations. These threats, which included the challenge posed by Darwinism to the inherited biblical understandings of the creation of the universe and of humans, were seen to be an assault on human dignity; to undercut faith in the authority of the scriptures, which were described as inerrant in all detail; and to erode the psychological and theological boundaries of the members of the group. The leaders who rallied those who would, in the terms of the day, “do battle for the Lord” named their cause “fundamentalism.” When the term, which they bannered in the beginning, invited stigmatization by their churchly foes and in the public media and consciousness, some of them chose other terms to signal that they were less aggressive. In Protestantism, the term evangelical was sometimes used.

From the beginning, it was clear that “fundamentalism” was not the same as “conservatism,” though both may have started from the same base. Fundamentalism was a specific response to modern challenges; the word reaction best serves to describe the impulse and strategy of fundamentalists. The modern assaults on this reaction were corrosive and erosive of boundaries around the group and took the form of increased openness to and tolerance of other beliefs on the part of adherents.

It could be said that all through history religious groups have felt threats to their beliefs, practices, and identities, so one must ask why the early-20th-century challenges met the particular forms of response that they did. While it is never possible to substantiate exact claims regarding cause-and-effect relations, some elements stand out. One of the most notable is the sophistication of mass media of communication, notably the radio. Such media made it possible to reach beyond immediate locales to recruit, minister to, and draw on the discontents and aspirations of the like-minded who lived far away. Such employment of media suggests one of the paradoxes of fundamentalisms: their use of the most modern instruments to propagate messages that they advertise as and may believe to be what some Americans called “the old-time religion.”

...