Understanding fundamentalisms

Lutheran, The, May 2002 by Marty, Martin E

With Islam and Christianity, look past similarities-to differences

Osama bin Laden and his mentor, Sayyid Qutb, are fundamentalists. So are Jerry Falwell and, in a slightly more complicated way (because he's also Pentecostalist), Pat Robertson.

Bin Laden & Co. are Muslims who would rather kill you than let you connect them in any way with Protestant fundamentalists. Jerry Falwell & Co. are Christians who would rather see God remove you from the scene than let you associate them with Islamic fundamentalists.

They have good reasons to be kept at a distance from each other. It's not hard to respect those reasons.

Because they are in many ways so far apart, why would it occur to anyone, anywhere, anytime to associate them and their camps? We can picture a variety of motives for the people of the West to do such linking. (We will let Arab Muslims take care of the interests of Al-Qaeda.)

First, some might say the two are "like" each other out of ignorance. They hear the word "fundamentalist" properly associated with both-and I think I can demonstrate why to use the word "properly" here. Therefore, they assume there must be some similarity between them.

Without prior knowledge of either or close familiarity with both, it's easy to make such associations stupidly. Thus: The People's Republic of China and the United States both describe themselves as "republics." But they have little in common.

Ideology is a second reason for associating the two. Since "bin Laden" is the most-to-be-despised name since "Hitler," anyone who does not like or who fears Falwell and American fundamentalists can dismiss the latter and, if it suits his or her purposes, can rouse others to despise the close-to-home fundamentalists. But it's unethical to slander, of course, and one can slander by falsely associating movements.

A third reason is more legitimate: It has to do with the effort by scholars, mass communicators, government personnel or clergy to inspire curiosity, to inquire, to find a way to help move the public from the known to the unknown-and to plan strategies for dealing with what is discovered.

To the point, now: If and insofar as there may be parallels and similarities among the fundamentalisms, it is as sensible to mention this as it would be foolish not to. It's unethical not to do so when there are dangers to warn against and to ward off.

After spending six years through 12 conferences with nearly 200 scholars around the globe, co-editing a five-volume work for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (University of Chicago Press), with focus on more than a score of fundamentalisms, including "Sikh," "Scientific," "Buddhist," I'm game to take a hand at pointing to the elements these fundamentalisms have in common.

* They have roots-unique and absolute and pure roots, they claim-in existing religions. But always in the conservative, traditionalist, orthodox flanks.

* They experience and can convey to others a language to describe a total threat to their individual and collective being: "The West," "The Infidel," "The Secular Humanist," "The Religious Liberal."

* They criticize moderates within their religious movement for not fighting back. So they fight back, coming to the side-and maybe even the rescue-of Allah or God, The Prophet or Jesus, the Umma or the church.

* They pick out their choice of most useful "fundamentals" from a perfect primal moment, community or, best of all, book-Quran-Shari'ah or Hebrew Scriptures-New Testament. These are useful in fighting back.

* They use the instruments of modernity, the mass media, against modernity.

* They both draw we-vs. -they lines, allowing for no middle ground. They know where history is going: to the, eventual triumph against God's enemies.

All the fundamentalisms we observed had those characteristics in common. It's not only fair to say so, it's not possible to understand them or the times without having said so.

Differences make a difference

Now, the first difference: From top to bottom they believe different things, adhere to polar-opposite stories and doctrines that are of supreme importance to them. That has to be understood and respected.

What brings up this issue, however, is not fundamentally doctrinal but rather strategic and tactical-and related to fear and hope. For Islamic fundamentalists, Jewish radicals in Gush Emunim on the West Bank and Hindu militants, the final logic of their movements licenses and impels adherents to making war, assassinating and engaging in terrorism. So, should we fear that the Christian fundamentalists might someday kill or engage in terrorism?

Some warning signals are out there. Extremist Christians, on the left and right, have through the years done plenty of killing and terrorist acts. They might again. Today some Northern Ireland Protestants kill in God's name. Some abortion-clinic bombers have been part of Christian movements. While most of the militia and white racist groups have not been related to Protestantism, they do borrow some symbols from it. Should nonfundamentalists work on spiritual missile defense shields, build psychic bomb-shelters?