Religious fundamentalism: Origin, Nature and Growth of Fundamentalism
H. Joseph Lalfakmawia
The term fundamentalism has a wide range of meaning. Therefore, it is difficult to give a short and clear definition. Although its origin seems to have apologetic in its characteristics, but in due course, its true nature revealed that it has many limitations and disturbances in every aspect of life. Meanwhile, this does not mean that fundamentalism and all its ideologies are completely wrong. Rather, its interpretations and practices cause disturbances. As it becomes the global issue today, it is a must to know its origin, nature and growth at least in general. This paper tries to extract its American Protestant origin, its nature in general and growth as brief as possible.
I. Origin of Fundamentalism:
The word fundamentalists was a later term, coined by the editor of the Watchman Examiner to designate the ones “who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals.”[1] So, the term fundamentalist is used to describe an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches as well as outside the church.[2]
It is also used to describe a ‘radical and militant religious movement.’[3] It is usually related with conservative religious movements which are fanatics and intolerance to the other religious groups. Fundamentalism even related to terrorism because there are some groups who attack the other people in the name of a certain religious beliefs. Originally the term fundamentalism was used to describe a religious movement who wanted to return to the fundamentals or the basic of a religious faith.[4] It emerges as an attack on modernist theology which compromised with scientific theories of evolution (epitomized by the John Scopes’ “Monkey Trial”), urbanization and liberalism.[5]
Though the origin of the term fundamentalism is the word fundamental, which imply the foundational authority of the Bible, it is said that the term fundamentalism originated in the Protestant theological controversies at the beginning of the 20th century in the United States,[6] initiated primarily by the pietistic immigrants from Germany.[7] The movement known as fundamentalism took birth in the first half of the twentieth century in American Protestantism.[8] Its birth can be traced back[9] to the publication of a series of twelve booklets (volumes) entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Truth (1910-15), which was compiled, published and freely distributed by two oil barons of Los Angeles, Lyman and Milton Stewart. The authors were from various countries.[10] These books defend the fundamentals of faith such as:[11]
1) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ,
2) The divinity of Jesus Christ,
3) The resurrection of Jesus Christ
4) The Second Coming
5) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus,
6) The verbal inspiration and accuracy of the whole Bible.
Other doctrines which supplemented these fundamentals were:[12]
1) The deity of Jesus Christ,
2) The depravity or sinful nature of human beings,
3) Salvation and justification by faith through the grace of God and
4) Promise of the physical or bodily resurrection of believing or regenerate Christians.
The major issue, which marked the victory of fundamentalism in the United States, is that it made the political leaders to bring about an anti-evolution legislation on some states of America. In the summer of 1925, John Scopes, a local school teacher who taught the theory of evolution in his classroom was found guilty in the so-called “Monkey Trial” at Dayton, Tennessee. In this case, the fundamentalist section of American Protestant churches reacted violently and exhibited their narrow-mindedness and cased an adverse effect on the general public.[13]
As it has been discussed, the original concern of religious fundamentalism was to emphasize the fundamentals or the essence of religious faith. However, in due course it has become fanatic and disruptive by absolutizing particular forms of religious life, rituals etc. basing on one-sided interpretation of truth. According to Chellaian Lawrence, in its keenness for preserving the purity of faith, it over emphasizes certain fundamentals out of context at the expense of others.[14]
In other words, they took the scripture literally and interpreted it according to their own understanding to suit the doctrines they preached. At the arrival of modernism when the society contradicted their ideology, they could not tolerate it and started movement to reclaim authority of the sacred tradition.[15]
Such fundamentalism is found in every religion.[16] Almost similar to Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism is a kind of revival of an original practice of Islam. The basic principle of Islamic revival is to renew the Islamic community by reforming it according to the teaching of the Quran, and the oral tradition of the Prophet, and the lived experience of the earliest generations of Muslim.[17] Unlike Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism is not about the inerrancy of the Scripture because Islam regards the Quran as the inerrant word of God, verbally revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The concern of Islamic fundamentalism is how the teaching of the Quran and the original spirit of Islam to be actualized in the Islamic community.[18]
II. Nature of Fundamentalism:
The term fundamentalism cannot be defined in a clear and simple way. Therefore, the best possible way is to give an extended description.[19] Jeffrey and Shuppe give their simplest definition that says, “A proclamation of reclaimed authority over a sacred tradition which is to be reinstated as an antidote for a society that has strayed from its cultural moorings.”[20] In a simpler way, Gnana Robinson uses the word fundamentalism to mean “the adherence to Fundamentals” or in Christian context, it is “the maintenance of traditional orthodox beliefs.”[21] According to James Barr, the most pronounced characteristics of fundamentalism are:[22]
1) A very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from it of any sort of error;
2) A strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
3) An assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really ‘true Christians’ at all.
The above statements concern mainly on the Christian fundamentalism. Generally speaking, religious fundamentalism is the combination of at least three elements: [23]
1) The growth of self-consciousness on the part of a community about its ethno-cultural, ethno-religious identity and the consequent striving to preserve its autonomous existence;
2) The homogenizing tendency in the majority community, rightly or wrongly, which is seen as absorbent.
3) It comes out of the inability and its fall-back on its real or imagined religio-historical past, rather than a futuristic projection.
According to Nancy Ammerman, fundamentalists are a group with a distinct way of living and believing that sets them apart from both the modern secularized world and other Christians. They are distinct from other in terms of their insistence of being different. Separation from the world is a key principle of fundamentalism. They considered themselves the champions of certain religious truths and worked within the limit of those definable beliefs. The well known characteristic of fundamentalists is their belief in an unbroken tradition. Therefore, they take the task of fighting culturally, socially and ideologically against the opposing forces. Keeping the distance from any thing that opposes the perceived fundamental truth, they consider secular culture as ‘base, barbarous, crude and profane.’[24]
According to Padmini Solomon, evangelicals and Fundamentalists are not much different in their theology. They can easily be identified in their minor doctrinal differences such as whether Christ will rapture believers before (premillenials-fundamentalists) or after (postmillennials-evangelicals) the Great Tribulation. Evangelicals see Fundamentalists as too narrow and bigoted. Fundamentalists generally believe that the kingdom of God is not the concern of humans, that the second Coming of Christ alone can establish the Kingdom of Heaven. Evangelicals believe that the kingdom of God is here and now.[25]
Although moderate terms are there and could be used such as conservative, orthodox etc. yet fundamentalism is not the same thing as such moderate terms. They interpret their traditions in a different way which usually end up in problem with the orthodox and conservatives.[26] According to Scott Appleby, “Fundamentalism is neither a new religious movement nor traditional, conservative or orthodox expression of religious faith and practice. Rather, fundamentalism is a category by itself.”[27] Some of the fundamentalist movements claim to uphold orthodoxy (establish belief) or orthopaxy (correctness of practice), and to defend age-old religious traditions and ways of life from erosion. However, these movements violate the usual beliefs, practices and moral behavior of early generations. [28] In spite of their zeal to defend the faith, the fundamentalist movement ends up in creating a rift in the community.
According to David Zeidan, fundamentalism affirms on the divinely revealed and infallible Scripture as a complete, sole and ultimate authority and guidance for the believing community, and their radical commitment to apply scriptural principles to all areas of the modern world, including society and politics.[29] Matheus Purwatma summarized the nature of fundamentalism saying that
Fundamentalism affirms on the scripture as a keystone of Christian faith. As the word of God, the scripture must be read and interpreted in a very literal way. Based on the reading of the scripture, fundamentalism affirms the assurance of the salvation by Jesus Christ. As a sign of faith, fundamentalism demands an explicit confession of faith in Jesus, Son of God, the only way of salvation. And after confessing faith, it is a duty for believer to proclaim his/her faith to the other people, in order that the other people also arrive at the same salvation by faith. Without any explicit faith there is no salvation. And it is a duty of the saved people to invite the other people to an explicit faith, as well as to defend the Christian doctrine from any confusion. Catholic fundamentalism is more concern with church authority, Marian vision and restoration of the tradition of the past, which has its expression in the liturgy, devotions, as well as in the clerical clothes. Catholic fundamentalism expresses its ides in a slogan, “Semei verum, semper verum” (what was once true is always true), and accordingly opposes the radical change which happened in the Catholic Church. In this manner, fundamentalism is more militant than any evangelical movement. Fundamentalism divided the world in two areas, light and dark, good and evil, saved and lost, and there can be no compromise between the two. Those who have in Jesus Christ must fight against all things that endanger the faith on Jesus Christ. With such a conviction fundamentalism become militant and intolerance.[30]
So, fundamentalism is a bad word. The people to whom it is applied to do not like to be so called also. It is often felt to be a hostile and offensive term, suggesting narrowness, prejudice, obscurantism and sectarianism. Meanwhile, it is also suggested that the people called fundamentalists today could not be called because their position is much broader, more sophisticated and more learned, less crude and combative than that of the writers of The Fundamentals and their immediate successors.[31]
Fundamentalism covers not only one’s personal faith but also to the everyday life such as drinking, gambling, smoking etc. In other words, fundamentalism expresses its commitment to the message of God in their moral life. Although fundamentalism rejects social gospel, it demands reformation of society according to the law of God.
Rosario Narchison claimed that even the emphasis on the Bible by the fundamentalist is but a camouflage or disguise. He said that the plain fact is that when the fundamentalists claim to be guided by the Bible, in reality they are using the Bible to promote certain of their traditions. In its nature, the aggressive militancy was there in Christian fundamentalism.[32]
James Barr suggests that the real conflict of fundamentalism is not with biblical scholarship but with theology because fundamentalism in a certain sense a theology-less movement. He said that because of the inerrancy of the Scripture, fundamentalism goes against theology. Although it is undoubted that fundamentalism has theological view, yet Barr ascribed three qualifications for its theological views such as fossilized,[33] fragmented[34] and inactive[35] theology.[36]
A. P. Nirmal’s understanding of religious fundamentalism whether it is Hindu or Muslim, Christian or Buddhist is also a denial of the dynamics of religion. Religion is a living thing, it grows, it lives. This is denied in a fundamentalist stance and religion is made static. So, fundamentalists’ explanation as an unchanging reality is unacceptable.[37] Further this, A. P. Nirmal’s accusation of the fundamentalist, be it Christian or Islamic or Hindu- as anti-secular[38]is one of their true natures.
III. Growth of Fundamentalism:
Liberal theologians challenged many of those assumptions found in the fundamentals of faith of the Niagara Bible Conference. They were influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Thus a schism/division took place within the American church, splitting it into three camps: the liberal camp, the evangelical camp and the fundamentalists’ camp. The influence of this schism was not only felt in Europe but also in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Asian church supports the evangelical camp, affirming social action as part of the mission of the church. Africa has also been under the control of fundamentalism, both Christian and Islamic. Judaism, Islam and Christianity tend to believe that their faith alone is the revealed one, and hence they claim uniqueness and have become aggressive in their missionary enterprise. As a result, they also include politics. Political power according to these religions should be subject to their religious faith, and in fact political power is there only to promote religious faith. Such view was strongly carried out by the Jews after World War II as the nation of Israel. They actually came from all four corners of the world to occupy, establish, expand and defend the nation on Israel. The only thing that binds them together is a religion and a common hope. The same is true in Islam. They see non-Muslims as people who are yet to be converted. Fundamentalist Muslims rose from time to time, to fight any influences of secularization, and to prevent from any modernization.[39] The label fundamentalism was almost exclusively reserved to Christian groups till 1979 when in the wake of the Iranian revolution the Western mass media began calling the followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Islamic fundamentalists. But Khomeini’s followers were not happy with this label.[40] Its impact was felt in all the Muslim countries, particularly in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.[41]
We can follow some of Rosario Narchison’s classification regarding the different phase of the growth of fundamentalism. Narchison’s classification is as follows:[42]
a) Early Fundamentalism: The period from 1900 to the end of World War I can be roughly called early fundamentalism. It is represented by those twelve booklets called The Fundamentals. The name fundamentalism had not yet been coined in that period. During this stage, there is a rare spirit of openness on the relationship between science and Sacred Scripture. But biblical criticism as a help towards the understanding of the Word of God was welcomed.
In the 1940s the religious translational groups came into being. These religious groups have managed to accumulate and firmly establish a vast reservoir of financial and material resources throughout the world. They are instant, capital-intensive, export-oriented, mass-produced, loudly advertised, and ruthlessly efficient chain-store religion from North America. They have a large empire of sophisticated communications equipment and media network strategically located all over the world, spearheaded by their charismatic evangelists.[44]
By the late 1960s, the fundamentalists were deeply entrenched around the globe. Their special focus is the Third World countries where the American government has economic, political, and military interests to protect. After the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) it was discovered that the use of religion as an instrument to preserve American interests and maintain US hegemony spread from Latin America to Asia, particularly to the Philippines. The American missionaries who entered the country brought with them the western ideologies and theologies among them their pietistic conservatism and their patriotic zeal for mother America. They preached directly or indirectly that the Americans are the “God’s chosen people” who would save the Philippines from its wretchedness and barbarism.[45]
Evolutionary theory became abhorrent and anti-scriptural in the eyes of fundamentalists. When certain theologians began to accept evolution as an historical understanding, fundamentalists reacted and fought back. In USA, some fundamental Christians joined together and formed an organization called ‘Creation Research’ with the intention of countering the theory of evolution. They called themselves ‘Creationists’ and they disregarded the legitimacy of evolutionary outlook of other Christians. They claimed that the acceptance of the theory of evolution as a willful denial of the evidences God left in nature and of the testimonies given in the book of Genesis.[46]
Out of several prominent people who appear in the history of fundamentalism, George Marsden said that D. L. Moody is a progenitor of fundamentalism.[47] Billy Graham is also enlisted as another important factor for the growth of fundamentalism in the US.[48]
Religious fundamentalism, in its various forms and facets, has become a global phenomenon today. Meanwhile, its origins, orientations, mediums and courses are different from place to place. In fact, the nature of a fundamentalist trend differs according to the cause of its emergences and the context of its occurrence.[49]
Fundamentalism as a weapon to establish hegemony could not arise in the Hindu society since the tradition was totally against it. In the meantime, dogmatism, fanaticism and religious excesses must have been present in Hindu society and come out openly from time to time. Through the British rule and their introduction of English education (1757-1858), the liberal ideals of enlightenment of Europe entered into the intellectual firmament of India and brought about a radical transformation away from the ritualistic, dogmatic and fundamentalist ideas.[50]
Chellaian Lawrence thinks that religious fundamentalism and communalism are bedmates and they go hand in hand, perpetuating each other. Chellaian assessed that communalism not only negates communal harmony but also enflames intolerance and violence by sowing the seeds of social disharmony and mutual suspicion. So, religion becomes a victim. It has been and continues to be hijacked by politics. As a result, communal-religious parties such as Bharatya Janata Party (Hindu), the Muslim League (Muslim), the Akali Dal (Sikh) etc. have been recognized by the election commission of India. Similarly, Jathika Hela Urumaya, a communal-religious party has come up as a political party in Sri Lanka. In this way, religions become the instrumental factor because politicians use them with a hidden political agenda.[51]
After 1970s, the fundamentalist movement came up through electronic media which Gnana Robinson called “electronic church.’ They strengthen and integrate the world-wide network of fundamentalism. For the mobilization and politicization of fundamentalism, a crisis-technic was also used in the USA, trying to work on the crisis-consciousness of people. [52] The most outstanding person for this technique was Jerry Falwell.[53] He again proclaimed that America’s tragedy on 9/11 was God’s judgment on America.[54] He claimed that during 1980s there were 110,000 fundamentalist local churches in the US-including independent and Baptist Bible churches as well as non-Baptist fundamentalists.[55]
Although in recent years fundamentalism appears in militant groups with a solid organization, fundamentalism as a religious phenomenon remains a result of uncertainty. It is evident that Muslim fundamentalism groups arise more among the student of secular sciences than among the student of religious subject. Christian fundamentalism, Protestant and Catholic, increases in the more secular society and among the intellectual people.[56]
IV. Conclusion:
According to Nandy, fundamentalists can be generalized and in much of Asia and Africa, they are the illegitimate children of modernity pretending to be the legitimate children of tradition.[57] One can also say that religious fundamentalism is an innate tendency to distort history that too denies pluralism and secularism. It even reduces space in the search for and practice of truth.[58]
From the very beginning, fundamentalism has religious nature and characteristics. That movement was quite reasonable if we go back to their own context because ‘every theology has its own context.’ In fact, the fast growing biblical criticism, evolution theory, secularism, decline of religious orthodoxy among the mass of people and the decline of doctrinal conservatism became a severe threat for the conservative people. In that context, the emergence of the fundamental book that strongly supports the fundamentals about the main traditional teaching of the Bible and the inerrancy of the Bible is not strange.
In the meantime, the idea of superiority complex over the other groups or religion, which all religions or fundamentalist groups hold, creates disharmony in the world. This fundamentalist movement often shows itself as militant and sometimes has a terrorist character. Because of this, though there are some other moderate terms that can be used such as conservative, orthodox etc. yet the true nature of fundamentalism does not permit us to use them.
It is also undeniable that fighting against modernism and the growing aspects of life and its consequences is useless and also not theological. Rather, we need to sharpen our mindset and understanding according to our atmosphere and context. In this regard, I found James Barr’s decision about the theological view of the fundamentalists as fossilized, fragmented and inactive quite supportive.[59]
Since fundamentalism becomes a world wide movement, every one, especially religious thinkers, workers and theologians must be alert and ever ready to check every possible disturbances and disharmony that the fundamentalist movement and its ideology may cause in the society.
Bibliography
Books:
Nandy, Asish. “Fundamentalism.” Religious Fundamentalism: An Asian Perspective. Edited by John S. Augustine. Bangalore: South Asia Theological Research Institute, 1993.
Ninan, George. “Social and Political Reasons for the Growth of Fundamentalism in India,” Fundamentalism and Secularism: the Indian Predicament. Edited by Andreas Nehring. Madras: Gurukul Lutheran Theological College & Research Institute, 1994.
[1] Gabriel Herbert, Fundamentalism and the Church of God (London: SCM Press, 1957), 9, quoted in M. T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response (Bangalore: Centre for Contemporary Christianity, 2007), 26.
[2] Ibid.
[3] David Zeidan, “Typical Elements of Fundamentalist Islamic and Christian Theocentric Worldviews,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 13:2 (2002), 207, quoted in Matheus Purwatma, “Orthodoxy and Orthopaxy in Doing Local Theology: the Challenge of Fundamentalism in Doing Theology in Asian Context,” Religious Fundamentalism and Its Challenges to Doing Theology in Asia Regional Theological Consultation Organized Annually By the Programme for Theology & Cultures in Asia (PTCA), Tainan, Taiwan, 2004, 73.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Padmini Solomon, “Religious Fundamentalism: Whose? Where?” Religious Fundamentalism and Its Challenges to Doing Theology in Asia Regional Theological Consultation Organized Annually By the Programme for Theology & Cultures in Asia (PTCA), Tainan, Taiwan, 2004, 27, 41.
[6] Cherian, op. cit., 18.
[7] Gnana Robinson, “Why is Fundamentalism a Problem Today,” Fundamentalism and Secularism: The Indian Predicament, edited by Andreas Nehring (Madras: Gurukul Lutheran Theological College & Research Institute, 1994), 10.
[8] Cherian, op. cit., 18.
[9] The Niagara Bible Conference in 1895 drew up five points that became cardinal tenets of fundamentalism that are, the literal inerrancy of the Holy Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, Christ’s act or reconciliation on our behalf, and Christ’s bodily resurrection from dead and his second coming. These are used as base and were proclaimed in the series of booklet entitled “The Fundamental: A Testimony of Truth.”
[10] Rosario Narchison, “Understanding Christian Fundamentalism through American Evangelicalism,” Journal of Dharma 15(1990) 02: 107.
[11] H. Cox, Religion in the Secular City (New York: Simon & Schuste, 1984), quoted in Padmini Solomon, “Religious Fundamentalism: Whose? Where?”... op. cit., 41.
[12] Cherian, op. cit., 18f.
[13] Ibid., 20.
[14] Chellaian Lawrence, “Religious and Political Fundamentalism: A Christian Response,” Religious Fundamentalism and Its Challenges to Doing Theology in Asia Regional Theological Consultation Organized Annually By the Programme for Theology & Cultures in Asia (PTCA), Tainan, Taiwan, 2004, 80.
[15] Cherian, op. cit., 29.
[16] Chellaian Lawrence, “Religious and Political Fundamentalism… op. cit., 80.
[17] Archie deSouza, “Fundamentalism and its Effects of Religious Tolerance,” Al-Mushir 39:2 (1997), 58, quoted in Matheus Purwatma, 75.
[18] Wasnis A. Semaan, “The Double-Edges Challenge of Islamic Fundamentalism,” Mission Studies 11:2 (1994), 175, quoted in Matheus Purwatma, 75.
[19] James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1977), 1.
[20] Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shuppe, eds., Secularization and Fundamentalism Reconsidered, vol. III (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 111, quoted in Rosario Narchison, “Towards a Definition of ‘Fundamentalism’,” Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection,. 55 (1991) 05:257.
[21] Gnana Robinson, “Why is Fundamentalism a Problem Today?” op. cit., 9.
[22] Barr, op. cit., 1.
[23] Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, “A Perspective on Sikh Fundamentalism,” Religious Fundamentalism: An Asian Perspective edited by John S. Augustine (Bangalore: South Asia Theological Research Institute, 1993), 11f.
[24] Cherian, op. cit., 26f.
[25] Padmini Solomon, “Religious Fundamentalism: Whose? Where?” ... op. cit., 42.
[26] Cherian, op. cit., 27.
[27] Scott Appleby, Religious Fundamentalism and Global Conflict (New York: Foreign Policy Association inc., 10-11, quoted in cherian, op. cit., 28.
[28] Ibid.
[29] David zeidan, 207, quoted in Matheus Purwatma, 74.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Barr, op. cit., 2.
[32] Rosario Narchison, “Towards a Definition of ‘Fundamentalism’... op. cit., 260.
[33] Barr said it is a fossilized theology because the fundamentalist movement took the theology of the evangelical revivals, built up a theological position which was believed to have been that of the evangelical revivals, and in part also of nineteenth-century Calvinism and sought simply to conserve these theological views.
[34] It is also a fragmented theology. The older orthodoxies taught and required a system of doctrine, in which all interrelations were carefully stated in full and with great detail. Fundamentalism picked out from this older theology a few essential points, which had to be believed. The perception of the interrelations is markedly lacking in fundamentalist faith.
[35] It is also inactive theology because the active task of theological work is restricted in fundamentalism. Within the true fundamentalism there is no real task for theology other than the conservation and reiteration of a tradition believed to have existed in the past and in any case now taken as immovably fixed. So, Barr called it as an inactive theology.
[36] James Barr, op. cit., 160-162.
[37] A. P. Nirmal, “Fundamentalism and Dalit Concerns,” Religious Fundamentalism: An Asian Perspective edited by John S. Augustine (Bangalore: South Asia Theological Research Institute, 1993), 92.
[38] Ibid., 96.
[39] George Ninan, “Social and Political Reasons for the Growth of Fundamentalism in India,” Fundamentalism and Secularism: the Indian Predicament (Madras: Gurukul Lutheran Theological College & Research Institute, 1994), 63f.
[40] Rosario Narchison, “Towards a Definition of ‘Fundamentalism’... op. cit., 257.
[41] George Ninan, op. cit., 64.
[42] J. Rosario Narchison, “Understanding Christian Fundamentalism,” Journal of Dharma... op. cit., 107-111.
[43] His main theological standpoints in his book are: 1) modern hostility to doctrine is to be condemned because doctrine was the very best of Paul’s life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine and logically the doctrine came first. 2) Jesus was a theist, and rational theism is at the basis of Christianity. 3) The greatest sin of the modern age is its loss of the sense of sin and its supreme confidence in human goodness. Ibid., 110.
[44] Luna L. Dingayan, “A Study on the New Religious Movements in the Cordillera Region (Philippines),” Religious Fundamentalism and Its Challenges to Doing Theology in Asia Regional Theological Consultation Organized Annually By the Programme for Theology & Cultures in Asia (PTCA), Tainan, Taiwan, 2004, 61.
[45] Ibid., 61f.
[46] Cherian, op. cit., 20, 21.
[47] George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 33.
[48] Cherian, op. cit., 21.
[49] Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, op. cit., 11.
[50] N. K. Ganguly, Faces of Fundamentalism in India (Calcutta: National Council of Education, Bengal, [1997], 1999), 8.
[51] Chellaian Lawrence, “Religious and Political Fundamentalism… op. cit., 82. One example can be taken from the issue of Sri Lanka in which religious fundamentalism, political fundamentalism and communalism work in partnership. Three anti-conversion Bills have been drafted since November 2003 for presentation in the Sri Lankan Parliament. The first Bill was drafted at the end of 2003 by the then ruling party, namely the United National Party. The second Bill was drafted as a private member Bill by a Member of Parliament, representing the Jathika Hela Urumaya. The third Bill was drafted by the present ruling party, namely the United Peoples Freedom Alliance. The competition evident in drafting these Bills and introducing them in the Parliament demonstrates how the political parties use religion for their politics.
[52] Gnana Robinson, op. cit., 11. He utilized a military crisis between the USA and Soviet Union. He called a war between USA and USSR as a war between good and evil, between Christian civilization and Atheistic civilization.
[53] Jerry Falwell is one of the earliest self-styled protestant fundamentalists the USA has produced in the post World War II. He was the pastor of the 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist Church. His ministry began in Lynchburg, Virginia which is still his base in 2003. He preached Baptist piety, conservative politics and morality. He was the founder of Moral Majority Inc. which was established in 1979 as a non religious, nondenominational organization. By 1984 it had 4 million members and 70,000 ministers. Padmini Solomon, “Religious Fundamentalism: Whose? Where?” op. cit., 43-45.
[54] On September 14, 2001 Falwell appeared on fellow televangelist and Pentecostal Pat Robertson’s show and said this, 3 days after 9/11: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen’” (CNN 2001). Falwell, viewed the attacks as God’s judgment on America for throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. Padmini Solomon, “Religious Fundamentalism: Whose? Where?” op. cit., 43.
[55] Ibid., 45.
[56] Matheus Purwatma, “Orthodoxy and Orthopaxy ... op. cit., 74.
[57] Asish Nandy, “Fundamentalism,” Religious Fundamentalism: An Asian Perspective edited by John S. Augustine (Bangalore: South Asia Theological Research Institute, 1993), 6.
[58] K. C. Abraham et al., “Religious Fundamentalism: An Asian Perspective-A Statement based on the deliberations of a Joint Consultation Held at Whitefield, Bangalore, September 1-4, 1992,” Religious Fundamentalism: An Asian Perspective edited by John S. Augustine (Bangalore: South Asia Theological Research Institute, 1993), 184f.
[59] See footnotes 33, 34, 35.
No comments:
Post a Comment