Fundamentalist Mindset

[johnnyjones]

It is not mandatory to believe in Genesis as a metaphor. There is a strong connection between the Genesis account and the rest of sacred scripture. I think often many Catholics asume that if you believe in a literal Genesis account you somehow accept all other beliefs of a Fundamentalist. That is not the case. I defend many Catholic doctrines based on scripture that a Fundamentalist would rail against but I find powerful reasons for accepting Genesis as a literal happening. Where do you stop the miracle believing?

 

[JustaServant]

Fundamentalism tends ot be “certain” of it’s beliefs to the point of “unbending” certainty. People do not like to “take the chance” that they might be wrong in relation to their “eternal destiny”…to tend to drift toward more authortarian religious communites. They “need” to be told what to beleive, as they think some “special” leadership would have answers they themselves would not be able to find…they want to be told how to act…who to vote for…what books to read…what religious services to attend and not attend. They live in “fear” of being deceived by the devil**…they doubt their own God-given “right” to “work out their own salvation”…they “want” someone to supply the answers…takes them “off the hook**”.

It’s a “comfortable” place to be…out here where I live in the “Vast Uncertainty” I live in…get’s difficult at times…I think fundamentalists forget about God’s mercy and grace and love and compassion and concentrate on His wrath and displeasure.

Excellent answer Publisher, thanks.
On the bolded, what you are describing is a “lazy” Christianity.

 

[Nicea325]

What in your opinion, is the psychological/emotional reasons people are attracted to fundamentalist Christianity?
I am asking this of both Catholics AND Protestants, since both are afflicted with this phenomenon.

Easy: Feel good,warm-fuzzy feelings,no suffering,lots of hoop-la and cheering and someday you’ll be the CEO of your current employer. Oh…and your saved!

 

[jericho777]

Is it really a phenomenon? What is the opposite of fundamentalist? Progressive i.e.liberal.

In today’s society it is something that is frowned upon as being backward and inflexible. Like Jesus being the same yesterday today and forever.

Here is an intellectual reason for the fundamentalist ideal. It’s probably the desire to see an accurate implementation of truth. There are unchangeable principals that transcend time and location. Things that exist outside the explicit revealed truths that would corrupt or make ineffective those truths are cast aside.

 

[JRKH]

Is it really a phenomenon? What is the opposite of fundamentalist? Progressive i.e.liberal.

Good Question…Yea - I agree that “Liberal” would likely be the opposite.

In today’s society it is something that is frowned upon as being backward and inflexible. Like Jesus being the same yesterday today and forever.

True - but in today’s society pretty much ANY Christian faith is seen as “backwards and inflexible” - and/or often times irrelevant…

Here is an intellectual reason for the fundamentalist ideal. It’s probably the desire to see an accurate implementation of truth. There are unchangeable principals that transcend time and location. Things that exist outside the explicit revealed truths that would corrupt or make ineffective those truths are cast aside.

Amen - This speaks to the “simple” aspect that I mentioned in my earlier posting.
Strip everything else away and get back to the core…
This is very attractive indeed…

Peace
James

 

[JustaServant]

Is it really a phenomenon? What is the opposite of fundamentalist? Progressive i.e.liberal.

Sorry, I don’t buy this.
How is “liberal” the opposite of “fundamentalist”?
What is liberal?
Many fundamentalists would consider “liberal” praising God with contemporary music, concern for the environment, joining in interdenominational fellowship, and welcoming mixed-race couples into the church, pants on women, long hair on men. We could go on for hours.
If you mean “theological liberal”, how is that defined?
Does that imply we MUST except everything in the Bible as written as though it was a CNN news report? Or are there stories in the Bible that are intended to go beyond our modern understanding of the purpose of storytelling. When I was a fundamentalist, to question a world-wide flood was considered “liberal”. That’s all or nothing thinking.
All-or-nothing thinking is a cognitive distortion that everything must be in black and white. Thinking purely in extremes. I.e. If Noah didn’t build an ark and the WHOLE world was not flooded, then its a lie and everything else in the Bible is a lie.
In building the wrong foundation (everything in the Bible ACTUALLY happened in the EXACT way it is depicted) the fundamentalist totally misses the point of the stories themselves.
To believe otherwise is not liberal, it is understanding the Bible as it was intended, not in our modern understanding of it.
As JRKH pointed out, simplicity and certainty go together and are powerful psychological reasons people are attracted to fundamentalism.

 

[edward_george]

I don’t necessarily think “liberal” is the opposite of fundamentalist for the simple reason that the kind of system of thought which characterizes fundamentalism can also be applied to liberal ideology, or any ideology for that matter. It is entirely possible to be a Catholic fundamentalist. There are a variety of things that I would say make one philosophically a fundamentalist, a sort of progression of thought that leads to that system. This thread, though, is more about the psychological reasons why someone becomes a fundamentalist.

-ACEGC

 

[JustaServant]

I don’t necessarily think “liberal” is the opposite of fundamentalist for the simple reason that the kind of system of thought which characterizes fundamentalism can also be applied to liberal ideology, or any ideology for that matter. It is entirely possible to be a Catholic fundamentalist. There are a variety of things that I would say make one philosophically a fundamentalist, a sort of progression of thought that leads to that system. This thread, though, is more about the psychological reasons why someone becomes a fundamentalist.

-ACEGC

Good point. And one that I pointed out in the OP. I have met traditional Catholics who very much resemble Protestant fundamentalists in thier rigidity and certainty. An athiest can be a fundamentalist in thier world view.

 

[maltmom]

Good point. And one that I pointed out in the OP. I have met traditional Catholics who very much resemble Protestant fundamentalists in thier rigidity and certainty. An athiest can be a fundamentalist in thier world view.

So have I.

 

[kempo1]

No offense toward anyone posting here but you guys may be overthinking this. Say you are a wordly person who doesnt know God and a fundementalist inviites you to church, you go and see. First you will see the big building with a cool name like CRS church. Next you notice all the young hip people dressed in wordly attire. You go in and swing by the cofee shop inside and pick up a latte. You enter the main floor and pick your seats and notice nothing really christian around you like a cross or picture of a saint or an altar, well you get the point. Service begins with smoke and a rock band and everyone seems to be like the last rock concert you went to. When the pastor finally comes he is propelling on a rope out of the ceilling dressed like indiana jones quoting scriptures on the way down. And the stage is set with the big screen t.v. background. Man whats not to like. That is one example i have seen ona t.v. show i have seen 4 wheeler jumping pastors on stage also. They conform to the world and that is the attraction. There is even a book out by a well known passtor on how to build a mega church, take down the cross, take away the old name and replace with cool initial name,make it look like a bar room inside, and dont tell people they are sinning. Now you see the attraction for people who dont know God!

 

[JustaServant]

No offense toward anyone posting here but you guys may be overthinking this. Say you are a wordly person who doesnt know God and a fundementalist inviites you to church, you go and see. First you will see the big building with a cool name like CRS church. Next you notice all the young hip people dressed in wordly attire. You go in and swing by the cofee shop inside and pick up a latte. You enter the main floor and pick your seats and notice nothing really christian around you like a cross or picture of a saint or an altar, well you get the point. Service begins with smoke and a rock band and everyone seems to be like the last rock concert you went to. When the pastor finally comes he is propelling on a rope out of the ceilling dressed like indiana jones quoting scriptures on the way down. And the stage is set with the big screen t.v. background. Man whats not to like. That is one example i have seen ona t.v. show i have seen 4 wheeler jumping pastors on stage also. They conform to the world and that is the attraction. There is even a book out by a well known passtor on how to build a mega church, take down the cross, take away the old name and replace with cool initial name,make it look like a bar room inside, and dont tell people they are sinning. Now you see the attraction for people who dont know God!

What you are describing is not fundamentalism.

 

[Taestron]

Because this essentially makes God deceptive. It means that the reason God gave us is practically useless, because what looks like evidence could simply be God fooling us.

Believing in the possibility of miracles does not commit us to this kind of “deceptive evidence” position. On the contrary, when the Catholic Church declares something miraculous, it’s because the evidence points toward it being miraculous.

If I may ask, how much evidence is enough for something to be truly called miraculous and how much contrary evidence does it take for the evidence to be called “deceptive?” But I wouldn’t go as far as saying that if we hold to young earth then reason is useless. This is a perfectly reasonable statement: “If God did not intervene, then the evidence points to old earth.” Isn’t that qualification implicit in all our reason anyway?

I never made a good fundamentalist because I hung onto an old saying: “Question everything, and when you find what you think looks like an answer, question that”. Fundamentalism insists nobody question ANYTHING. Proper education teaches me to THINK. Fundamentalism resists such a philosophy.
God made us creatures of reason, that reason can be guided by Him, or I can use my own reasoning to try to find what I desire to be the “truth”.
To me, certainty is the playground of the young, or the emotionally immature.

With all due respect, my teachers who were fundamentalists would disagree that they did not teach me to think (I’d like to think I think as well). Questioning is not so much discouraged as the answers to certain questions are seen as obvious. Your last statement reminded me of a quote my (non-fundamentalist) professor said. He said, “I don’t give a fig about certainty this side of complexity, but I would give everything for certainty on the other side of complexity.”

I agree with you here. I wrote my philosophy thesis in the seminary on the philosophical phenomenon of fundamentalism and modern atheism, and how they share a philosophical framework. Intellectual certainty of a kind which is not possible, and thus an utter lack of the mysterious, drive both atheism and fundamentalism.

It is interesting that so many people are claiming that intellectual certainty is a motivation for fundamentalism. As a Protestant, I would say the most frustrating thing about you Catholics is your certainty that your Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and how you are not open to even consider the possibility otherwise (BTW, not all of you). So I don’t know if I would say that intellectual certainty is a desire of fundamentalist any more than it is a desire for Catholics. I would much rather say this is a description of fundamentalists.

This is my answer to the original query. There is no real motivation to hold to fundamentalism; it is merely a descriptive term about a group of people that cannot fathom how their views on a particular subject are wrong. It is difficult for me to be too hard on them because I was once a fundamentalist myself and I am sure there are things on which I am just as unyieldingly sure that my view is correct.

 

[kempo1]

Yeah you are correct forgive me i am suferring a migraine that is evangelicals thanks for the correction. Continue on my friend!

 

[edward_george]

It is interesting that so many people are claiming that intellectual certainty is a motivation for fundamentalism. As a Protestant, I would say the most frustrating thing about you Catholics is your certainty that your Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and how you are not open to even consider the possibility otherwise (BTW, not all of you). So I don’t know if I would say that intellectual certainty is a desire of fundamentalist any more than it is a desire for Catholics. I would much rather say this is a description of fundamentalists.

This is my answer to the original query. There is no real motivation to hold to fundamentalism; it is merely a descriptive term about a group of people that cannot fathom how their views on a particular subject are wrong. It is difficult for me to be too hard on them because I was once a fundamentalist myself and I am sure there are things on which I am just as unyieldingly sure that my view is correct.

I didn’t say “intellectual certainty is a motivation for fundamentalism.” What I said was that there is a sort of intellectual certainty claimed by fundamentalists and those who hold to a similar worldview, and that kind of certainty either grossly exceeds or grossly underestimates the limits of human knowledge.

-ACEGC

 

[Taestron]

I didn’t say “intellectual certainty is a motivation for fundamentalism.” What I said was that there is a sort of intellectual certainty claimed by fundamentalists and those who hold to a similar worldview, and that kind of certainty either grossly exceeds or grossly underestimates the limits of human knowledge.

My apologies. I just grabbed your post in order to make my point.

 

[cath4alltime]

What in your opinion, is the psychological/emotional reasons people are attracted to fundamentalist Christianity?
I am asking this of both Catholics AND Protestants, since both are afflicted with this phenomenon.

If fundamentalism consists of believing Genesis is not a metaphor, then I would say I am attracted to it because I believe in a supernatural God that invalidates naturalism. All of our scientific knowledge assumes that only the laws of nature exists–that there is no unknown force not accounted for that can mess up naturalist reasoning. I believe in a God who can break the laws of nature and has by creating the universe from nothing, flooding the earth when people least expected it, sending plagues upon Egypt, and being raised from the dead. It invalidates naturalism, which assumes that the laws of nature are ultimate.

For instance if Adam was created instantly, the naturalist might assume he grew up as a child because all observation shows that man grows gradually. But if God can create out of nothing, why can’t he create an adult or a universe that looks old (from our natural reasoning about the universe)?

Good post. Many Catholics on the internet seem to have a vast dislike for creation. I am a Creationist and it is very much hated in Catholicism by many lay people even though it is allowed

 

[Church_Militant]

Like a place of refuge? Good answer.

Or a major comfort zone?

 

[JustaServant]

IWith all due respect, my teachers who were fundamentalists would disagree that they did not teach me to think (I’d like to think I think as well). Questioning is not so much discouraged as the answers to certain questions are seen as obvious.

Obvious to whom?
If someone, professor or otherwise, is giving you the answer to a question that he says is “obvious”. that’s called blind acceptence, not learning. Humans were given by God the ability to question, to ask how and why. Not to simply believe an apparent “authority” on a subject because he says it is “obvious”.
If fundamentalists encouraged reason and thinking, they would cease to be fundamentalists. Once that certainty is establishished, it resists any attempt to question it.

 

[JustaServant]

It is interesting that so many people are claiming that intellectual certainty is a motivation for fundamentalism. As a Protestant, I would say the most frustrating thing about you Catholics is your certainty that your Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and how you are not open to even consider the possibility otherwise (BTW, not all of you). So I don’t know if I would say that intellectual certainty is a desire of fundamentalist any more than it is a desire for Catholics. I would much rather say this is a description of fundamentalists.

If you read the thread you would see that we acknowledge Catholics are just as prone to this mindset as Protestants. That’s why it is here on the NCR forum.
BrotherJr over on the Traditional Catholic forum of CAF gives a very good explaination of the difference between fundamentalist Catholics and mainstream. Radical Trad Catholics, like thier Protestant counterparts, know a lot about the LETTER of Catholic law. They claim to be devout Catholics yet thier actions and words belie what they claim. Thier “certainty” is not examplified in thier actions.
Certainty is not just intellectual. Certainty can only be evidenced by action.
If fundamentalism were truly the moral and doctrinal light of the world, then we would see fundamentalist hospitals, fundamentalist homeless shelters, fundamentalist mental health clinics, fundamentalist soup kitchens, ect.
Certainty is not something to be proclaimed, as much as it is to be worked out. The certainty is there, but worked out differently. That is healthy certainty.
When I was a Baptist pastor years ago I used to say “Show me your Christainity. Can I touch your christianity? What does your Christianity ‘look like’ when it is ‘happening’?”
Carrying a KJV Bible does not make you a Christain anymore than a uniform makes you a General.

 

[JRKH]

Good post. Many Catholics on the internet seem to have a vast dislike for creation. I am a Creationist and it is very much hated in Catholicism by many lay people even though it is allowed

I disagree that creationism is, “very much hated in Catholicism”…
Catholics ALL believe that God created the universe. It more a matter of disagreement on time frame and mechanisms used.

What I find troubling about the YE vs OE type arguments is how they distract from what is “fundamental” to the faith.
What possible difference does a YE or OE view make in living our lives this day as disciples of Christ?
Does one view add to Christ? Does the other detract from Christ? Isn’t allowing
Doesn’t such argument really deflect and distract us away from the fundamental truths of our faith and how we should be living today?

If the “fundamentalist mindset” wishes to be just that - fundamental - then it really should try to avoid such distractions and stick with what is fundamental to living the Christian life. But - it seems - the fundamentalist movement has created a conundrum for itself.
In it’s desire for simplicity clarity and certainty - a laudable goal - it has taken the position of saying that the Bible is to be taken literally true in all things (Am I correct in this?)
What could be simpler?? What could be more certain??
And yet - - -
The Fundamentalist now finds himself arguing vociferously in favor of literal interpretation over matters of little consequence in building up the kingdom while at the same time arguing AGAINST literal interpretation of passages that are highly inconvenient…Like Peter being “Rock” or Christ establishing a single, universal, visible and authoritative Church…

I applaud the idea of getting back to the fundamentals. I really do. It is something we all need to seek. A simple faith in God and in Christ. A simple living out of our faith to the best of our abilities. So that we might have certainty of our reward in heaven.
But unfortunately - “Fundamentalism” has “evolved” into something much more complex…

Fundamentalism is discovering the age old truth about man. His propensity to ask questions, need clarification - what I call the “Yea but what if…” syndrome. It started with the first disciples (you IS my neighbor…how MANY times must I forgive…etc), and has not stopped since then…

Peace
James