Why Fundamentalism Will Fail?

Harvey Cox, Hollis Research Professor of Divinity at Harvard University, is author of “The Future of Faith (HarperOne). He wrote a recent article which appeared in the Boston Globe on November 8 which was titled “Why Fundamentalism Will Fail.” . Here are some excerpts. My comments in bold type:

………the truth is that for all its apparent strength, the fundamentalist sun is setting on all horizons. Throughout the Muslim world growing numbers of people are becoming impatient with violent groups that, in the name of Allah, seem capable of killing but incapable of producing jobs, food, or health care. Observers on the ground report that popular support for the jihadist wing of the Taliban is falling off as it fails to address the real life problems that afflict people in Afghanistan. (The other parts of the Taliban are inspired less by fundamentalism than by tribal loyalties and a traditional aversion to foreigners.) Al Qaeda faces a similar dismal prospect. Dr. Audrey Kurth Cronin, a professor at the National War College in Washington and author of a new book, “How Terrorism Ends,” says, “I think Al Qaeda is in the process of imploding. That is not necessarily the end. But the trends are in a good direction.” In Iran, the fact that the clerics have resorted to beating and imprisoning their critics reveals the shakiness of their hold.

I will add here that at no point does he give any real reason for this observation, except implying that it is imploding. Credit, however, has to be given to the country who took the lead in exposing their actions on a world wide scale and yes, I mean the USA, under President George W Bush just after 911. Those who live in denial give that reality no consideration. But, the article goes on…….

In America, the religious right, which started as a crusade, is becoming a niche. Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue, which stages demonstrations at abortion clinics, has just announced that it is nearly bankrupt. The shrillest TV evangelists are losing audiences to more moderate “evangelical-lite” preachers. Fundamentalist congregations are ceding ground to Pentecostals and mega-churches, which embrace a wider social agenda and teach the spiritual authority – not the literal inerrancy – of the Bible…………………………..The fading of fundamentalism marks a decisive change in global society. It has already freed Christians, Muslims, and Jews to explore what all three have in common as they now begin to cooperate in confronting nuclear weapons, poverty, and climate change. Thus, when a hundred Muslim scholars invited Christians two years ago to join in a quest for what they called a “Common Word’ on issues of justice, Christians from a wide spectrum of denominations responded favorably. Four important “Common Word” conferences have been held so far, involving hundreds of scholars and religious leaders. The king of Morocco has hosted a series of gatherings for mullahs, rabbis, and Christian clerics.

Of course, quick to make a connection between Muslims and what is termed fundamentalist Christian the writer seems to believe that because the front man organizations like “Moral Majority” and “Operation Rescue” are failing, that the Christian voice is coming to an end. Theses organizations, however, and the “Religious Right” as an organizations were doomed for failure. Not that God could not have been honored by individual sacrifices of time and effort, but the whole political wing of the church attempted to make God a conservative Republican, which He is not nor will ever be. But, make no mistake, the true and the called are still there.

……but he continues to theorize:

But fundamentalist movements share another quality. They are inherently fractious, and this is one reason for their broad decline………….Since the Bible told them not to be “unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” the question of with whom one could properly associate became deeply vexed. The most ardent partisans seceded from their denominations, and soon began to quarrel about whether they should even fraternize with their fellow fundamentalists who wanted to remain in their previous churches to fight the “liberals.” The fundamentalists organized new seminaries to protest the older ones they thought had become “modernist,” but soon these new institutions split over fine points of doctrine.

And such is the nature of religion. It ends and rebuilds. When The First Baptist Church splits, it is suddenly two congregations and two different churches. And this will probably continue. However, again, what this writer fails to see is that the true church and army of real Christians is not dependent upon a brick and mortar address. They, rather, are in spite of it and not because of it. And the draw to such a people of faith is the security of consistency as opposed to the urged need to change just for the sake of change.

ANOTHER REASON WHY fundamentalists are faltering today has to do with the world outside. The fundamentalist world view is unbending and monochrome, but today’s world is variable and multi-hued, and the plurality is more and more visible. Thanks to the increase of immigrants from Asia and the Middle East, mosques and pagodas now share streets with churches and synagogues in Europe and America. People of the previous generation could retreat into a culturally isolated community and pull down the shades, but their children live every day with a heightened, web-enhanced awareness of a diverse world.

Yet his observation exemplifies the constant war cry of “Change!!” The cry which campaigns and political parties even build themselves around but cannot really explain what it means. It is just an motivating war cry intended to suggest that wherever we are now is not good and we just want something different. That, in spite of what this writer implies, is the nature of fractiousness.

Fundamentalism is defined by its one-way-only exclusivism.

The liberal mind, of course, believes that anything that does not allow them to rule or dictate is quite clearly “exclusive.” A tired argument but oft times the best weapon they have to debate any particular issue related to a God they are quite sure does not exist.

The very nature of human religiousness is changing in a way inimical to fundamentalist thought. The most rapidly growing spiritual groups today focus not on someone else’s authority, but on a direct encounter with the divine. Whatever else it may mean that so many people call themselves “spiritual but not religious,” it suggests they still yearn for contact with the sacred, but are suspicious of the scaffolding, the doctrines, and hierarchies through which it has often been conveyed.

And I give the writer credit for pushing his argument as far as his natural mind can perceive. I have to discredit him for still positioning his observations on nothing of the supernatural realm, of which such a place God not only is, but also exists in. The real problem, though, with his argument is that it has never worked on anyone born of the faith. It makes religious minds think and doubt. Those who know God cannot doubt a real God.