I want to put on the table some recent inversions of fundamentalism expressed under the guise of postmodern re-alignments. By fundamentalism I’m referring to the Christian fundamentalism created in the wake of the modernist debates in the US around the 1920 (a fun genealogy is here), not fundamentalism in ‘general’ if there is such of thing. I want to speak about three specific invesions of fundamentalism regarding inerrancy, biblical primitivism, and anti-intellectualism.
From inerrancy to pure errancy:
This has been around for awhile so I won’t spend too much time on it. From an ideological commitment to inerrant orginal documents which contain the word of God comes the inversion of the pure errancy of the Bible. By errancy I don’t mean full of errors (although that might be claimed also), but rather that scripture is mark as errant, as somewhat lost, or at least meandering, never quite landing anywhere, that there is no cohesive theme, plot, narrative, or character. Rather than a legal document we should think of the Bible as a communal library (McLaren’s new proposal). I think this inversion is the triumph of a certain hermeneutics deployed against modern literalism. And as such is merely an inversion of fundamentalism, rather than a break or overcoming.
From biblical primitivism to rabbinic primitivism:
Old time fundamentalists always want to get back to the beginning, to return to what the Bible said and just do it. Who wants to be an Acts 2 church? The inversion of this, I submit, is a return/recovery of rabbinic primitivism. As the story goes, because the church became so thoroughly Hellenized so quickly (just see the Gospel of John) the only way back into an authentic Jewish mindset reflecting that of Jesus is to look at early rabbinic Judaism, circa 120 C.E, after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Hebrew midrash, mystical uncertainty, the dissemination of the Torah without a final interpretation, even by God, all of these are taken as a better way of believing/knowing/living with Jesus on his way, rather than the orthodox of Greek thought forms.
On one level, I have nothing against any of these and I think indeed they might help us in a life of faith. But the only problem is that rabbinic Judaism was already itself a reactionary movement against an already Hellenized Judaism, and secondly, to use it as an interpretative devise for authentic Christianity is to join Enlightenment racism started over 200 years ago. Let me explain. The Apostle Paul was not such a strange mixture of Greek and Hebrew culture as so often portrayed. He was rather the more typical expression of Diaspora Judaism of the time. While Philo was a particularly spectacular attempt to harmonize the Torah with Plato, when you look at the intertestimental literature (of course the Septuagint, but also the Wisdom of Solomon, The Book of Enoch, Baruch, etc) your see various assimilations of Greek throught via wisdom and apocalyptic literature. Certainly I’m not saying it was monolithic in nature, but Hellenistic influences were already prevelant well before Jesus came on the stage, even if they weren’t as dominant in Palastine as they were outside it. But secondly, the attempt to find a primitive expression of Judaism through which to funnel Christian theology, which on the surface seems very open and welcoming to Judaism (which I would advocate), it inadvertently falls into a line of thought which began as anti-Semitic polemics (see
Dale B. Martin, “Paul and
the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question,” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism divide). As we all know, the Renassaince and Enlightenment idealized ancient Greece (its art, culture, politics). This created a mirror through which to view the problems/solutions of European cultural, and the foil for this became a backwards Judaic thought. Two intellectual poles were created for understanding thought, religions, politics, and society: the Greek and Hebrew. We have been oscillating back and for between the two poles ever since. Now I could go on about this, but suffice to say that I’m not convinced this is the best way forward (recovering a primitive rabbinic Judaism) because while definitely worthy as a way of life, I just don’t think it will help us better understand the origins of Christianity, just like getting back to Acts is no good. So, let’s avoid this primitivist inversion.
From conservative anti-intellectualism to liberal anti-intellectualism:
This one has me the most frustrated. I was drawn to the emerging church conversation because I saw vigorous questioning and thoughtful exploration. And I certainly don’t mind disagreements over quesitons and answers. And certainly there are several young, postmodern emerging/emergent theologians who are making rigorous arguments and thoughtful claims. But I’ve become more and more concerned at a creeping anti-intellectualism among some of the loudest voices who rest on rhetorical questions, anecdotal evidence, and communal experiences over philosophical and theological articulation and argument. This, I believe, follows from the previous inversions because your don’t have to really say anything or land anywhere because we are all merely in an endless conversation. Essentially, everything is a rhetorical display without any real substance. And really, you can only score so many rhetorical points before you are only preaching to the choir (which is a form a fundamentalism itself, is it not?). I have been a part of numerous conversations that only go so deep before an implied anti-intellectualism takes over. If one probes too deeply all of a sudden you are part of the establishment, you are on a heretic hunt, or you are defending an ideology which we are trying to overcome with our radical questioning. Well, that can only go so far. When a certain form of radical questioning takes the well worn paths of protestant liberalism, or mirror forms of Hegelianism, it does not good to just assert that “we” aren’t doing that old thing, you have to actually show how things are different, you have to defend and articulate what is going on. This is the role of an ‘organic theologian’, to both articulate within a community what is happening, and express to larger communities why it makes sense. To only do the former without the latter is to perpetuate a fundamentalism on the other side of the equation. Hence my claim of an inverted anti-intellectualism. Fundamentalist, Evangelicals, Hippies, the Seeker-Church, and now many Missional/Emergent types play this card as a way of calling into question the power of the establishment. Now I’m not saying there aren’t issues of power going on, but have faith in your ideas and practices, show the world, make your case, and make a difference. Don’t just claim that the powers are keeping you out without even actually making an argument so saying that others won’t understand.
So, I just wanted to get these out there, that what is thought to be after/beyond fundamentalism might just be its inversion.
Have any of you experienced this?
Do any disagree with my typology of what’s going on?
—
Geoff Holsclaw is a co-pastor at Life on the Vine, and blogs over at for the time being.