Understanding Fundamentalism

Any discussion of fundamentalism runs head long into the problem of definition. For example, if we were to define fundamentalists as “those who are willing to use force to establish the sovereignty of their religion, then there are virtually no Christian fundamentalists today, though there are millions of Muslim fundamentalists who might fit that description. For example, President George W. Bush, misguidedly wanted to establish Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he most certainly was not out to establish Christianity as the supreme religion.

Failure to define terms allows Hollywood elites like Rosie O’Donnell, for example, to make ridiculous statements equating Christian and Muslim “radicals,” i.e. fundamentalists. As far as I know, she didn’t define what she meant, but my guess is that if she and many others who share her view, were pressed for a definition they might define Christian fundamentalists as any Christian who doesn’t go along with the politically correct ideology of most mainline churches, e.g. acceptance of abortion, support for homosexuality and gay marriage, tolerance and even acceptance of all other religions, etc.

While this may or may not describe Christian fundamentalists, it is not a historically accurate definition. In its broad sense, the essence of religious fundamentalism is absolute devotion to one’s religious founder and the desire to interpret one’s sacred books as they were originally intended to be understood.

Fundamentalism, as discussed in this chapter, deals only with this broad sense of the term. There is also a more narrow sense in which Christian fundamentalism, in particular, began to be characterized by narrow sectarianism and doctrinal disputes over such issues as the meaning of end-time prophecies and personal application issues such as drinking, card playing and attending movies. In this narrow sense, Christian fundamentalists had an unfortunate tendency to be intolerant, petty, and self-righteous as they focused on more and more hairsplitting doctrinal differences.

This chapter is not concerned with this narrow sectarianism but deals only with the broad historical sense of the term “fundamentalist” which would include most of the Christians who call themselves “Evangelicals” as well as fundamentalist Muslims regardless of whether they are Sunni, Shiite, etc.

Christian fundamentalism

The origin of the word “fundamentalist,” dates to the publication of a set of essays in 1909 entitled, The Fundamentals. These essays defended what the fundamentalists, as they came to be known, believed to be core, non-negotiable elements of the Christian faith. The “fundamentalists” were responding to those known at the time as “modernists” (i.e. progressives) who denied these doctrines and tended to deny the fundamentalists’ “literal” interpretation of the Bible.

These modernists (like many progressive biblical scholars today) were almost all white, male, Eurocentric, academic elites who found many of the stories in the Bible contrary to their “modern” (19^th and 20^th century) politically correct sensibilities. As a result, they tended to re-interpret such stories as allegories or metaphors.

By contrast, “fundamentalists” argued for a “literal interpretation” of the Bible. The phrase “literal interpretation” was rather unfortunate, however, because it left the impression that fundamentalists denied all symbolism or figures of speech in the Bible. That perception is factually in error. Christian fundamentalists fully acknowledge the presence of figures of speech, symbols and parables in the Bible. The phrase “literal interpretation” was only used in contrast to the more wildly allegorical interpretation used by the Modernists.

By “literal” interpretation, the “Fundamentalists” believed that the Bible should be interpreted by attempting to determine what the original authors of the biblical writings were trying to communicate to their original readers. This is done by interpreting these biblical writings just like any other ancient documents, i.e. by taking such matters into consideration as genre, grammar, figures of speech and historical background.

An example of literal interpretation from the Old Testament could be regarding the commands to drive out the Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, etc. from the Promised Land.

“When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites,and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out” (Exodus 23:23).

And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you. (Exodus 23:28).

“Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. (Exodus 34:11).

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, (Deuteronomy 7:1).

“but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, (Deuteronomy 20:17).

As repugnant as these commands may be to modern Western sensibilities, Christian fundamentalists would refuse to interpret such stories as if they were allegories or symbolic narratives. Fundamentalists would insist, rather, that these commands, understood literally, were directed to specific people (Hebrews) at a specific time, under specific circumstances and were never intended as universal commands to kill all the infidels wherever you find them. Christian fundamentalists who follow in the intellectual tradition of 1909 Fundamentals, therefore, have never promoted violence in an attempt to coerce people into submission to Christianity.

On the contrary, based on the commands of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, fundamentalist Christians believe they have a mandate to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” that is, to tell people that all have sinned against God and stand condemned before him, but that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ to die an atoning sacrifice for the sin of all who turn to him in repentance and faith.

Following Jesus’ teachings the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christian fundamentalists oppose vengeance and personal violence. In other words, while they support the lawful use of violence by police when necessary (Romans 13:4-5), and while many (though not all) may support the just use of military force (Hebrews 11:32-34), they do not believe in violently taking the law into their own hands, and those who consistently follow Jesus do not use force to retaliate for wrongs done against them (Matthew 5:39, cf. Romans 12:19; Hebrews10:30).

Opponents of Christian fundamentalism would point out the examples of Christian violence—like the crusades, the inquisition, the IRA, and those who commit violent acts against abortion workers and abortion clinics. Most Fundamentalists would say that those who commit such violent acts were certainly not following Jesus and, with the possible exception of some perpetrators of abortion clinic violence, they were not true Christians at all—at least not in the historical fundamentalist sense described above as found in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, i.e. those who have truly recognized and repented of their sin, turning to Jesus Christ in loving devotion (faith).

While some of those who perpetrate abortion clinic violence may be Christian fundamentalists, are universally condemned by the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christian fundamentalists and represent only a very tiny fraction of the whole.

To illustrate this point, it could be noted that most people would insist that Muslim fundamentalists comprise only a small fraction of the total number of Muslims. Yet this small fraction have killed literally millions of people since 1993. By contrast, the National Abortion Federation provides a list of all those murdered for their involvement in the abortion industry since 1993 along with the names of the murderers. There are exactly five murderers: James Koop, Eric Randolph, John Salvi, Paul Hill, and Michael Griffin. Together they killed exactly 8 people since 1993. Muslim fundamentalists kill millions.

The five murderers assumed to be Christian fundamentalists, kill exactly eight people. Yet Christian fundamentalists have been compared with Muslim fundamentalists! The only possible explanations for this is either remarkable ignorance or anti-Christian bigotry and hate.

Unfortunately, it is this tiny fraction of abortion killers that get all the press—after all, it is news when some hateful individual claiming to be Christian kills an abortion doctor or a gay person. It is not news that hundreds-of-thousands of fundamentalist Christians went to church that week to worship and to give generously of their time and money to serve others. Nor is it news that the vast majority of Christian fundamentalists see such violence as a direct violation of James 1:20, “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”

While Christian fundamentalists are often attacked for their political activism (i.e. exercising their Constitutional rights), for every fundamentalist who is politically active there must be a hundred, if not a thousand, who believe that their primary task is to bring glory to God or to preach the gospel.

Contrary to some impressions, the fact is that it is a real challenge to get most fundamentalists to do anything political beyond voting. Christian fundamentalists—in the broad sense of the term--are such a huge group that if even half of them became politically unified and serious about political action, the result would be political earthquake.

There is little chance of that happening, however. Several years ago when an artist used public funding to depict a crucified Jesus dipped in urine, most fundamentalists were mute. If the spending of tax dollars to portray a crucified Jesus in urine didn’t motivate fundamentalists, nothing will (it is not hard to imagine what would happen if an artist publicly displayed a picture of Muhammad Qur’an dipped in urine)!

The vast majority of Christian fundamentalists, however, believe they are following Jesus when they quietly pray, worship, engage in outreach programs and give lots and lots of money to their churches and various charitable causes.

Muslim fundamentalism

Just as Christian fundamentalists point to the Bible, Muslim fundamentalists point to the Qur’an:

“…But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith” (Sura 2:191).

“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression” (Sura 2:193).

“Soon shall We cast terror Into the hearts of the Unbelievers (Sura 3:151).

“I will instill terror Into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks And smite all their Finger-tips off them. This because they contended Against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God And His Apostle, God Is strict in punishment” (Sura

8:12-13).

“Against them [Unbelievers] make ready Your strength to the utmost of your power, including Steeds of war, to strike terror Into (the hearts of) the enemies Of God and your enemies…” (Sura 8:60).

“Apostle! [i.e. Muhammad] rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are Twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will Vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, They will vanquish a thousand Of the Unbelievers: for these Are a people without understanding” (Sura 8:65)

“But when the forbidden months Are past, then fight and slay The Pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, And lie in wait for them…” (Sura 9:5).

“Fight those who believe not In God nor the Last Day…” (Sura 9:29)

“O Prophet! [Muhammad] strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites And be firm against them. Their abode is Hell…” (Sura 9:73).

“O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about…” (Sura 9:123).

“And for those who reject Faith And deny Our signs, There will be a humiliating

Punishment” (Sura 22:57).

“Those who annoy God and His Apostle—God has cursed them In this world and In the Hereafter, And has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment” (Sura 33:57)

“Truly if the Hypocrites, And those in whose hearts Is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, Desist not…They shall have a curse On them: wherever they Are found, they shall be Seized and slain (without mercy)” (Sura 33:61).

“Therefore, when ye meet The Unbelievers (in fight), Smite at their necks…” (Sura 47:4).

While both moderates and fundamentalists in Islam take seriously Muhammad’s claim to be the last and greatest prophet, and believe that the Qur’an was revealed by God, Muslim moderates are not entirely comfortable with all the commands to violence in the Qur’an or ahadith. Muslim moderates, therefore, tend to emphasize the parts of the Qur’an about compassion, mercy and peace. They may argue that Muhammad was just fighting defensive battles and that everyone has the right to defend themselves…and indeed, some of the passages cited above do appear in defensive contexts.

Some moderates may dismiss the commands to violence as part of seventh century Arabic culture that is no longer relevant today. Or they may spiritualize Muhammad’s life and call to violent jihad as if he were only calling for an inward struggle against sin.

Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, point to the life of Muhammad as their example. They are likely to point out that many of Muhammad’s battles were offensive, not defensive. After Muhammad left Mecca for Medina, he was no longer persecuted but became a powerful warrior who went on the offensive. He ordered executions, fought battles, and fought the infidel wherever he found them, just as he believed Allah had commanded.

Muslim fundamentalists may even argue that Muhammad’s later commands to violent jihad and to kill the infidel abrogate or overturn his earlier, more peaceful sayings. Some believe the commands to be merciful and hospitable extend only to other Muslims and to not apply to relations with “infidels.”

Indeed, Muhammad’s last command to leave no two religions in Arabia was a command of conquest, not defense. Beginning right after Muhammad, Muslim warriors—believing they were following Muhammad—extended the control of Islam by the sword all the way from southern France to Indonesia.

Unlike the commands to violence in the Old Testament which were given to a particular people at a particular time and place, commands to violence in Islamic texts are often broad enough and sufficiently vague to be applied to infidels at any time, in any place.

The Qur’an commands to “fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression” (Sura 2:193). It is always easy for Muslim fundamentalists to imagine some kind of “tumult or oppression” to use in justifying violent Jihad or to argue that they are fighting a defensive war. After all, the Qur’an forbids Muslims from killing other Muslims and yet that has not kept Muslim fundamentalists from killing other Muslims. The Muslim fundamentalists simply declare that the Muslims they are killing are not really Muslim at all. In the same way, it is relatively easy for Muslim fundamentalists to say they are fighting a defensive war against Infidels based on all kinds of imagined offenses.

Muslim fundamentalists would say that Muhammad’s commands to fight infidels was universal and cannot just be relegated to the seventh century but is an obligation for all Muslims at all times and in all places. They would insist that the call to Jihad is not just a call to spiritual struggle but is primarily a call to violent military struggle. The entire world must be brought into submission to Allah, peacefully if possible (i.e. if the infidel will convert to Islam) but by absolutely any and all means necessary.

As the Ayatollah Khomeini once said,

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!

Conclusion

Muhammad was a military and political leader whose armies struck terror into the hearts of non-Muslims in Arabia as he battled, captured, enslaved and executed his opponents. Muslim fundamentalists interpret the life and words of Muhammad in historical, literary context and conclude that in order to be faithful to Muhammad their mission is to bring the world into submission to Allah, peacefully if possible, but by absolutely any and all means necessary.

As a result they follow the example of Muhammad waging violent Jihad in their attempt to force the world into submission to Allah. In modern times, these fundamentalist jihadists capture, enslave, decapitate and slaughter innocent people by the millions following the example of Muhammad.

Many Americans argue that Muslim fundamentalists are only a small percentage of the total Muslim community but even if only 1% of Muslims were fundamentalist, 1% of a billion Muslims is ten million people who think the world must be brought under submission to Allah by absolutely all means necessary (and some estimates range as high as 10% or more). These Muslim fundamentalists are often the worst oppressors of Muslims who do not share their interpretation of the Qur’an.

By contrast, the Jesus of the Gospels was an itinerant prophet who traveled from village to village healing the sick and disabled, casting out demons, and even occasionally raising the dead. He rejected all efforts to make him king.

According to the Gospels, Jesus taught that he could personally forgive sin, that he had the authority to overturn Jewish dietary laws, that he was lord over the Sabbath, and that he would be the final end-time judge—things in a first century Jewish culture believed to be true only of God. Such things would certainly explain the fact that he was charged with blasphemy by his enemies. When his earliest followers became convinced that he had actually come back physically from the dead, they believed him.

Christian fundamentalists interpret the New Testament in historical, literary context and conclude that in order to be faithful to Jesus Christ their mission is to go into all the world and preach the gospel of repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ, showing love and compassion even to their enemies, as Jesus taught.

As a result, these Christian fundamentalists have spent millions and millions of dollars sending people into every area of the earth to proclaim and embody the gospel of Jesus Christ. These missionaries have often given up virtually everything, risking their lives to start and run clinics, orphanages, homeless shelters and schools all over the world.

Christian fundamentalists have rescued people from forced prostitution, sexual slavery, and domestic abuse. They’ve provided food, shelter, comfort, education, medical care, and other assistance, not just to Christians, but to people from nearly every tribe, race, nationality and religion on the face of the earth. In fact, many Christian fundamentalists have been murdered by the very groups of people they came to serve.

Undeterred, they still continue to go, while other Christian fundamentalists stay behind collectively giving millions to support these efforts and to work tirelessly in their communities through church and para-church ministries as well as community charities.

Fundamentalism, or absolute dedication and devotion, is not necessarily a bad thing—it all depends on to whom or to what cause one is dedicated.

Right wing extremists

For over 200 years of American history, most Americans have been opposed to abortion- on-demand and to homosexuality, but have not been opposed to prayer in public schools, plaques of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, or nativity scenes on public property. For over 200 years most Americans have supported the death penalty and a citizen’s right to own guns for hunting and protection. Regardless of where you stand on these issues, it should be carefully noted that recently the phrase “right wing extremist” has been regularly applied to people who still believe things that most Americans had historically believed. Whether most Americans were right or wrong on these issues is beside the point. The point is that when you hear the phrase “right wing extremists” you are on the receiving end of a political propaganda ploy designed to vilify and demonize people who hold opinions that the majority of Americans had believed for over 200 years!

Planned Parenthood and violence

The “Superhero for Choice” is a cartoon character who drowns an evil abstinence educator in a trash can, boils a conservative U.S. Senator and blows up Christian pro-life advocates (or just makes them disappear…its not entirely clear). We might dismiss this as a tasteless joke if it was a skit on Saturday Night Live, the Daily Show or on some radical web site, but this video is on the official Planned Parenthood Golden Gate website! Actually the video is not nearly as violent as it sounds and the only thing Planned Parenthood is probably guilty of is producing poor quality, cheezy, propoganda.

But in defense of their video, Planned Parenthood would probably cite the acts of violence committed against abortion clinics by “Christian” fundamentalists. In my lifetime I’m sure I’ve come in contact with thousands of Christian fundamentalists. To my knowledge, not a single one of the fundamentalist pastors, professors and Christian leaders I’ve known has ever supported violence against abortion clinics. In fact, of all these fundamentalists, the number who I know to have intellectually supported violence against abortion clinics could be counted on one hand (I say intellectually supported, because if I knew they were actually contemplating such violence I would have turned them in to the authorities a heart-beat)!

Although those who advocate violence against abortion clinics are a relatively tiny misguided fringe group, it is an important pro-abortion strategy to portray all pro-life Christians as radical, extremist, violent, gay-bashing, abortion clinic bombing nut-cases! Apparently, Planned Parenthood must think this gives them justification for producing a cartoon depicting violence against pro-life Christians. My guess is that if an organization like Focus on the Family had produced a cartoon even jokingly depicting violence against pro-choice advocates, they would be charged with hate speech and condemned by nearly every media outlet in the country.

Fundamentalism, the greatest evil?

In a recent response to one of my posts, someone made the statement that “The rise of Fundamentalism is the greatest danger facing our world today.” Perhaps a short history lesson is in order. The origin of the word “fundamentalist,” as applied to Christians, dates to the publication of a set of essays in 1909 entitled, “The Fundamentals.” These essays were the response of Christians who argued for a more “literal” interpretation of the Bible in opposition to “Modernists” who were attacking the historic doctrines of Christianity.

By “literal” interpretation, these “Fundamentalists” (as they came to be known) believed that the Bible should be interpreted by determining—as much as humanly possible—what the original authors of the biblical writings were trying to communicate to their readers. This is done by interpreting these biblical writings just like any other ancient documents, i.e. by taking such matters into consideration as genre, grammar, figures of speech and historical background. The phrase “literal interpretation” is rather unfortunate because many people came to wrongly assume that “literal interpretation” meant a denial of all symbolism or figures of speech when in reality, the word “literal” was simply used in contrast to more wildly allegorical or metaphorical interpretations.

The early Fundamentalists agreed with the Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc.) and with the Roman Catholic Church, that Jesus was the incarnation of God, that he died as an atoning sacrifice for sins, that he physically rose from the dead, and that the Bible was inspired by God, etc. Modernists tended to deny these historical and fundamental Christian doctrines (and, ironically, still wanted to be known as Christians--go figure!).

Although agreeing with the “fundamental” doctrines of the Christian faith, many Christians called themselves Evangelicals, to distance themselves from the narrow sectarianism that came to characterize Fundamentalism. Both Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, however, agreed not only on the “fundamentals,” they also emphasize the forgiveness of sin through repentance and a personal faith in Jesus Christ. They emphasize the importance of a loving devotion to Jesus Christ and of sharing this faith with others.

Politically, Fundamentalist / Evangelical Christians generally oppose such things as pornography, prostitution, child abuse, sex outside of marriage, abortion-on-demand, homosexual sex, drug abuse, etc. (it can be argued on purely secular grounds that all of these are fundamentally destructive to society). They also oppose the removal of Christian symbols from the public square, and the suppression of Christian voice in public schools.

While Evangelicals / Fundamentalists are often attacked for their political activism (i.e. for exercising their Constitutional rights) my guess is that for every Evangelical / Fundamentalist who is politically active, there are a hundred (if not a thousand) more who believe that our primary task is to preach the gospel and that we should stay out of politics. Although many people think Evangelicals are politically active, the fact is that it is a real challenge to get most Evangelicals to do anything political beyond voting. We are such a huge group that if even half of us became serious about political action, I suspect the result would make Jerry Falwall’s “Moral Majority” or Pat Robertson’s “Christian Coalition” pale in comparison.

There is little chance of that, however. Several years ago when an artist used public funding to depict a crucified Jesus dipped in urine, most Evangelicals barely raised a whimper (and I don’t recall the ACLU complaining about tax dollars being used for a religious display—apparently they are only concerned suppressing about positive religious messages).

Anyway, if the spending of tax dollars to portray a crucified Jesus in urine didn’t motivate most Evangelicals, nothing will (can you imagine what would happen if an artist, with the support of U.S. tax dollars, had publicly displayed a Qur’an dipped in urine? There would be blood in the streets worldwide! The vast majority of Evangelicals / Fundamentalists, however, just quietly pray, worship, engage in outreach programs and give lots and lots of money to various charitable causes (the victims of hurricane Katina and the Afghanistan earthquakes, being two recent examples).

The overwhelmingly vast majority of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists oppose vengeance and personal violence. In other words, while they may support the just use of police and military force, they do not believe in violently taking the law into their own hands and they do not use force to retaliate for wrongs done against them. Although the enemies of Christian Fundamentalists / Evangelicals endlessly refer to supposed Christian violence—like the IRA, crusades, abortion clinic bombers—these are examples of people who are/were for the most part either not Christians at all—at least not in the historical Fundamentalist / Evangelical sense described above—or who represent a tiny fraction of the whole.

Unfortunately, it is this relatively tiny fraction that gets all the press—after all, its news when some wacko claiming to be Christian tries to bomb an abortion clinic. It’s not news that hundreds-of-thousands of other Evangelicals / Fundamentalists went to church that week to worship and to generously give of their time and money to serve others.

How do I know all this? Because I am an insider. Over the course of my fifty-one years on this planet, I have been part of Evangelical or Fundamentalist churches for over thirty of those years. I have been a member or regular attender of seventeen Evangelical or Fundamentalist churches in eleven states from coast to coast. These churches have ranged in size from a few dozen to several thousand members. I’ve worked with them as pastor, youth pastor, board member, and in many other ministries. In addition to churches, I’ve also attended / taught / worked for over a half-dozen Evangelical or Fundamentalist colleges and graduate schools. I’ve personally taught and interacted with hundreds, if not thousands, of Evangelical / Fundamentalist students and faculty members. These churches and schools include numerous denominations and range all the way from institutions that were proud to be called Fundamentalist to those that were on the far left wing of Evangelicalism. I've also read dozens (if not hundreds) of Evangelical books. I know Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism from the inside.

Linking Christian Fundamentalism with Islamic Fundamentalism happens regularly in the media. Some people link the two out of honest ignorance. After all, both groups are called “Fundamentalists” so they must be essentially the same, right? Wrong! Other people, however, appear to link the two in a deliberate attempt to link conservative Christians with terrorism. The second possibility is so dishonest and evil that it reminds me of stories about the Nazi demonization of Jews before World War II.

Religious extremism

One part of the movie, United 93, that stood out was the extraordinary dedication to Allah on the part of the terrorists who hijacked the plane. At several points in the movie--even as they are driving the plane into the ground--they are seen praying prayers of dedication and commitment to Allah. It would be easy to come away from the movie thinking that the root problem in our world is religious extremism. Indeed, this is exactly what many people believe. This view is remarkably shallow.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with extreme dedication—it all depends on the object of your dedication. For example, there were those who, in their extreme dedication to Adolf Hitler, imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered millions of Jews! On the other hand, there were Americans who, in there extreme dedication to others, were willing to die by the thousands to oppose Nazi slavery.

The terrorists on United 93—and millions of other extremists who operate under the banner of Islam—are dedicated to a view of god as one who seeks either to subjugate or to destroy the “infidels.” These extremists bomb, kidnap, rape, torture, murder and sometimes even behead innocent people.

By contrast—and contrary to popular opinion—Christian extremists are NOT the tiny percentage of idiots who have bombed abortion clinics—that is certainly an extreme response, but it is not a “Christian” response. True Christian “extremists” are those who have devoted their lives to serve others out of their extreme dedication to a God who came to seek and save the lost.

These Christian “extremists” have often given up virtually everything, risking their lives to start and run clinics, orphanages, homeless shelters and schools all over the world. They’ve rescued people from sexual slavery, forced prostitution, and domestic abuse. They’ve provided food, shelter, comfort, education and assistance, not just to Christians, but to people from nearly every tribe, race, nationality, and religion on the face of the earth. In fact, they have often been murdered by the very groups of people they came to serve.

But still they continue to go, while other Christian extremists stay behind collectively giving millions to support these efforts and to work tirelessly in their communities through church and para-church ministries as well as community charities. This is the true face of Christian extremism. Extreme dedication is not necessarily bad--it all depends on to whom or to what cause one is dedicated.

Religious fundamentalism

The essence of religious fundamentalism is the desire to interpret one’s sacred books as they were originally intended to be understood. Religious revisionists (theological liberals, moderates, progressives) seek to re-interpret their Scriptures more in line with the conventional wisdom of the modern world We could draw a line placing religious fundamentalists on one end and religious revisionists on the other end (with varying degrees on both sides).

Christian fundamentalists try to interpret the Bible in light of its historical and literary context. For example, as repugnant as some Old Testament commands are to modern sensibilities (e.g. the commands to kill or drive out the Canaanites from the Promised Land) Christian fundamentalists point out that many of these commands were directed to specific people (Hebrews) at a specific time, under specific circumstances and were never intended as universal commands “to kill the infidels.” Christian fundamentalists, therefore, do not use violence in an attempt to coerce people into submission to Christianity.

Based on the commands of the New Testament, fundamentalist Christians believe they have a mandate to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” that is, to tell people that all have sinned against God and stand condemned before Him, but that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ to die an atoning sacrifice for the sin of all who turn to Him in repentance and faith.

“Christian” revisionists, on the other hand are pretty much embarrassed by all this ancient theology. They are generally embarrassed, for example, by the idea that Jesus was an atoning sacrifice since the idea of atoning sacrifice is not a very politically correct concept in the modern world.

Further, they point out that modern people can’t really believe in miracles and resurrections any more (all evidence to the contrary). And in sharp contrast to the writers of the New Testament, “Christian” revisionists don’t talk about sin or repentance much either. After all, no one wants to be told that they are living in sinful rebellion against a God who doesn’t take it very well and will one day be their judge. Most people would rather think of sin as a “mistake” or a “poor judgment.”

[Or we can always blame it on our parents, our environment, our society, our genes, or our government—or, we can simply deny that our behavior is sinful at all. Throwing out such inconvenient teachings as the Sermon on the Mount or Ten Commandments (and removing them from public places so we don’t have to be reminded) revisionists simply re-define sin relative to the conventional wisdom of the day. So, for example, serial sexual relationships are no longer considered sin—sin, rather is re-defined, as the fact that government doesn’t pay for everyone’s health care, fix everyone’s houses after a hurricane, or crack down harder on polluters of the environment. Anything to avoid personally responsibility for the fact that we have individually, willfully and sinfully rebelled against our Creator]

So while Christian fundamentalism takes the New Testament seriously when it teaches that Jesus is the Son of God who died an atoning death and was physically resurrected, it doesn’t really matter to “Christian” revisionists what the New Testament actually says or what the authors intended to communicate. Since such ideas are not accepted in the modern world “Christian” revisionists either flatly deny that this ancient theology is true (which makes one wonder why they continue to consider themselves “Christian”), or they explain the texts away as some kind of symbolic narratives (e.g. Marcus Borg).

Muslim revisionists (i.e. moderates) largely do the same thing with their own sacred books. While both moderates and fundamentalists in Islam take seriously Muhammad’s claims to be the latest and greatest prophet, many Muslim moderates are not entirely comfortable with all the violence in the Qur’an, the Hadith, and Sura. Unlike the commands to violence in the Old Testament which were for a particular time and place, commands to the violence in Islamic texts are often universal, i.e. kill the infidels wherever you find them. Muslim moderates, therefore, tend to focus on, and emphasize, the parts of the Qur’an about compassion, and peace. They tend to ignore, downplay, or spiritualize (as only an inward struggle) Muhammad’s life and call to violent jihad (I’m glad they do. Far from being a “Muslim hater,” I’ve said before that I probably have more in common with Muslims who support American freedoms and renounce violence than I do with secular American hedonists).

On the other hand, Muslim fundamentalists, like Christian fundamentalists, attempt to interpret Islamic texts in light of their historical, literary context. Muslim fundamentalists would point out that after Muhammad left Mecca for Medina, he was no longer persecuted, but became a powerful warrior who fought battles, ordered executions and killed “the infidel” in his efforts to bring the world into submission to Allah. Muslim fundamentalists argue that Muhammad’s commands to violent jihad and to kill the infidel abrogate his earlier, more peaceful sayings.

Muslim fundamentalists interpret the words of Muhammad in historical, literary context and conclude that in order to be faithful to Muhammad their mission is to bring the world into submission to Allah, peacefully if possible, but violently if necessary.

Christian fundamentalist interpret the New Testament in historical, literary context and conclude that in order to be faithful to Jesus Christ their mission is to go into all the world and preach the gospel of repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ, showing love and compassion even to their enemies.

[Footnote: As with any summary, all of this, of course, is overly simplistic. In reality there is much more involved. For example, when I identify with Christian Fundamentalism, I probably identify most closely with the scholarly, fundamentalist side of the Fundamentalist / Modernist controversy of the 1920’s which eventually produced the four volume set, “The Fundamentals.” Although all Christian fundamentalists continue to believe in the five “fundamentals” (Inspiration of Scripture, Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His substitutionary atonement, and second coming), they eventually splintered into more and more separatist groups with more and more defined theology—often with vitriolic attacks against any group that doesn’t dot their “i” or cross their “t” in the same way. So although I identify myself with the fundamentalist side of the Fundamentalist / Modernist controversy, I am frankly embarrassed—not by the theology, but by the practice—of much of Christian fundamentalism today. Nevertheless, to equate Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism as many do today, is shear ignorance—and that was the point of this entire lengthy post]

Christian and Muslim fundamentalism

Some people, either ignorantly or maliciously, want to equate Christian fundamentalism with Muslim fundamentalism simply because the two phrases contain the word “fundamentalism.” Unfortunately, that’s a bit like trying to equate the “Hawaiian environment” with the “Death Valley environment” simply because both phrases contain the word “environment.”

Certainly there are similarities between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. For example, both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists 1) Love God more than we love to live, 2) Take the Bible or Qur’an seriously (as opposed to dismissing miraculous or politically incorrect texts as symbolic narratives) and 3) Take obedience to God as revealed in the Bible or Qur’an very seriously.

The differences between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, however, are huge. Examples of 21 differences are listed below beginning with the trivial:

21. Christian fundamentalists can wipe with either hand. Muslim fundamentalist specify which hand to use.

20. Christian fundamentalists can have pet dogs. Muslim fundamentalists think dogs are disgusting.

19. Christian fundamentalists can eat pork. Muslim fundamentalists cannot eat pork.

18. Christian fundamentalists can shake hands, hold hands, and even appropriately hug someone of the opposite sex. Muslim fundamentalists are not even supposed to shake hands with a non-family member of the opposite sex.

17. Christian fundamentalist women are expected to dress modestly, but may wear contemporary, fashionable clothing. Muslim fundamentalist women often wear a head covering (hijab) and a long, loosely fitting garment (Jilbab).

16. Christian fundamentalist men and women worship together side by side. Muslim fundamentalist men and women worship in separate spaces.

15. Lying is always considered sin for Christian fundamentalists. Lying is permitted in some circumstances for Muslim fundamentalists.

14. Christian fundamentalist missions provide food, clothing, education and medical care for the people of all nationalities and faiths. Muslim fundamentalist charities generally focus their attention on fellow Muslims.

13. Christian fundamentalists often take notes in their Bibles. In some countries, Muslim fundamentalists would execute someone for doing the same to the Qur’an.

12. Christian fundamentalist men can only have one wife. Fundamentalist Muslim men can have up to four wives at once.

11. Christian fundamentalists generally think divorce is sin. For Muslim fundamentalists, divorce is not necessarily a big deal.

10. For Christian fundamentalist men to beat their wives is considered sin. Muslim fundamentalist men are allowed to beat their wives.

9. Christian fundamentalists oppose state interference in the church. Muslim fundamentalists believe there should be no separation between Islamic religion and state.

8. While many Christian fundamentalists support Christians in political leadership, they would strongly oppose the idea of any church body governing the state. Muslim fundamentalists believe there should be no separation between Islamic religion and state.

7. Christian fundamentalists tend to be strong supporters of Israel, esteeming the Jews as God’s chosen people, and seeing modern Israel as a continuation of biblical Judea/Samaria/Galilee. Muslim fundamentalists tend to hate Jews and deny Israel’s right even to exist.

6. Christian fundamentalists are commanded to love unbelievers and even their enemies. Muslim fundamentalists have no such requirement and generally hate their enemies.

5. Christian fundamentalists in America support the Constitution of the United States. Many Muslim fundamentalists cannot support some freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

4. Christian fundamentalists are never in danger of being killed for changing religion. Muslim fundamentalists believe that departing from Islam should be punishable by death.

3. While many Christian fundamentalists believe they may use force or even kill in self-defense or in defense of someone else, the idea of honor killings, or killing over the desecration of a Bible, or the blaspheming of Jesus are foreign to fundamentalist Christianity. In some Islamic countries, Muslim fundamentalists engage in honor killings and even kill over alleged desecration of the Qur’an or blaspheming of Muhammad.

2. For Christian fundamentalists, martyrdom never means dying while killing for one’s faith. For Muslim fundamentalists martyrdom often involves killing for one’s faith.

1. Christian fundamentalists have no doctrine of violent jihad—Fighting in order to spread the faith is foreign to fundamentalist Christianity. Muslim fundamentalists are under obligation to bring the world into submission to Allah, peaceful if possible, violently if necessary.

Of course exceptions can be found for all generalizations, and some of the above depends on how we define Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, but any way you slice it, the differences in numbers 1, 2 and 3 alone still truly are enormous.