Liberal christians (a terminology I could apply to myself in some respects and not others) can find themselves perplexed by the whole idea of fundamentalism.
Some commentators observe that the term "fundamentalist" was applied at first to those who adhered to the fundamentals of the faith. In particular the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I am in this sense a fundamentalist.
But we know too well that for most of the 20th century the term "fundamentalist" has referred to a narrow type of literalism applied to the Bible which seems to suggest that every single word of the text has a literal and fixed meaning. This view (of any text) is simply unsustainable.
A cartoon I found yesterday has a tub thumping literalist saying "The Bible is the sole authority on all matters" and an argumentitive bystander saying "Then shut up Mr Fundamentalist because you ain't no authority on anything"
The point is well made; the problem with objective literalism is that it requires someone to tell us about it and as soon as that happens it is no longer 'objective'!
It is evident that fundamentalist literalists pick and choose what they focus on; they go into paroxysms about homosexuality and creationism whilst often ignoring the preponderance of Biblical teaching about justice for the poor.
There is also the seeming failure to realise that the Bible is a translated text and that words do not have exact counterparts in one language and then another. So why do so many individuals seem to think the English (and often King James) text is the definitive source for this curious literalism.
I just don't get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment