How Religious Fundamentalism offers a System of Meaning. Lorelei Franke-Woods

How Religious Fundamentalism offers a System of Meaning

Religious fundamentalism is not itself a religion but is a religious movement that has grown enormously during the past thirty years and has become increasingly powerful, popular and influential (Hood, 2005). The strongest fundamentalist denominations that support both moral and theological absolutes have shown the most growth (Kelley, 1972; cited Hood, 2005). Fundamentalism first emerged among protestants in America in the early years of the 20th century (Armstrong, 2000), and has now re-emerged as a contemporary, post-modern phenomenon, which embraces rational reforms and modern technology, yet also seeks to maintain past values (Bauman, 1998). It is a modern expression of anti-modern views (Hood, 2005), which sees itself as always seeking original solutions to any new problems (Ruthven, 2004). It is a conservative religious movement that seeks to transform society into a life-style that is considered to be God-filled (Barr, 2000). Fundamentalism is found in several of the world’s religions, including in the three monotheistic faiths; Christianity, Judaism and Islam. This paper will focus mostly on Protestant Christian fundamentalism and to a lesser degree, Islamic fundamentalism as it investigates, analyses and attempts to clarify how fundamentalism has become a meaning system. Its attempt to turn mythos, which gives a timeless and constant meaning to human existence, into logos, which gives a rational and pragmatic meaning to human life, needs also to be considered (Armstrong, 2000). The meaning of religious fundamentalism why it is considered a dwelling spirituality, religious identity and how it is stereo-typed will be considered as the search for meaning within these faith expressions is negotiated.

Fundamentalism makes the assumption that there is a need for divine empirical foundation and firm rationality on which to construct a doctrine of a belief system and a faith (Harris; cited Partridge, 2001). For Christian fundamentalists, the Bible is that foundation, while Islam has the Quran (Harris; cited Partridge, 2001). These two texts are considered sacred by their respective religions, the words coming directly from God, the Divine Being (Hood, 2005). The certainty of a sacred text is central to Fundamentalists (Hood, 2005) and this conviction is absolutely necessary before theology can be built from it (Harris; cited Partridge, 2001). Hood (2005) refers to this centrality of the sacred scriptures and absolute truths that must be lived out and guarded and all costs, as intratextuality. The principle of intratextuality, in which the written texts and their intended meanings are vital, can alone determine which texts are sacred and then only these can determine the absolute truths (Hood, 2005). Fundamentalists see their acceptance of texts as sacred, giving it status as an “overarching symbol” that serves to protect and sanction their shared worldwide view (Hood, 2005).

Christian fundamentalists claim four features are vital about the bible (Harris; cited Partridge, 2001). Firstly, it must be unmediated by humans as the words were given by God. Secondly, it must remain accessible and with minimum interpretation for everyone. Thirdly, it is without error and finally it must be self-justifying. According to Bauman (1998, p. 74), one of fundamentalism’s attractions is that it relieves believers of the pains of having to make choices – it is the authority to end all other authorities. Shepherd (cited Barr, 2000) argues that it is understandable that certainty in matters of faith is sought, as desiring certainty is natural, making the search for fundamentals within a belief system commendable. However, Shepherd (cited Barr, 2000) further argues that if unreasonable and inappropriate authority is given to these fundamentals, then a result of irrational and fanatical misperception of a divine revelation can occur.

Democracy, pluralism, religious tolerance, peace keeping, free speech and the separation of church and state are all opposed by fundamentalists (Armstrong, 2000). Islamic fundamentalists are very opposed to the separation of church and state and this matter is the cause of extreme unrest in many countries of the world. Equally, Christian fundamentalists reject discoveries in biology and physics that disagree with their beliefs about the origins of life, claiming instead that the first book of the bible, the Book of Genesis is scientifically accurate (Armstrong, 2000). All fundamentalists are arguing or fighting against human secularism’s beliefs and policies and they regard this as a cosmic war between the forces of good and evil (Armstrong, 2000).

In seeking a meaning system within fundamentalism, Hood (2005) argues that there are two important factors to consider. Firstly, the way in which the sacred texts are elevated to a position of supreme authority with all other knowledge considered less important, and secondly, it is not intended that any other psychological framework could dismiss claims of truth of any religious system. For fundamentalists, their religion is a total way of life, providing a unifying philosophy of life within which personal meaning and purpose are embedded (Hood, 2005, p. 15). Secular humanism which is strong, particularly in western society, is seen by American fundamentalists as a conspiracy of evil forces, which are to be considered anti-God, anti-moral, anti-self-respect and anti-American and as such is a recognized as idolatrous and a rebellion against God’s supremacy (Armstrong, 2000, p. 272).

A meaning system can be seen as a set of beliefs and/or theories, including world-theory and self-theory about reality, designed to assist individuals and groups of people with goals, behavior, plans and purposes of life and allowing for self-evaluation, although the personal side of hope, aspiration, obligation and responsibility must be included (Hood, 2005). Epstein’s cognitive, experimental self theory (CEST) suggests that there are four implicit belief systems developed to meet four basic requirements within a meaning system (1973, 1994; Hood, 2005, p.14). These are firstly the degree to which the world is perceived as benevolent or malevolent; secondly, the degree to which the world is perceived as meaningful or meaningless; thirdly, the degree to which people are comforting, trustworthy or dependable; and fourthly, the degree to which the self is worthy or unworthy. Hood (2005) argues that such a meaning system is important, especially when dealing with adversity. Baumeister (1991; cited Hood, 2005) suggests that there are four specific needs for personal meaning and they are purpose, value, efficacy and self-worth, and that the well developed system within fundamentalism meets these needs. Clarity of belief that is steeped in absolutes found in a fundamentalist religion can arguably provide the moral certainty and stability seen as missing in a chaotic world (Hood, 2005).

To further understand this perceived lack of moral stability and certainty, Wuthnow (1998; cited Hood, 2005) distinguishes between a seeking spirituality which offers much freedom in the search for faith, and a dwelling spirituality, in which security, a spiritual home and a faith community are assured, together with a polarization of the sacred and the profane. Fundamentalists are spiritual dwellers, and through this orientation, they find their sense of meaning as they rise to meet the moral standards of their religious belief system (Hood, 2005). Meaning may also be calculated in terms of one’s contribution to the collective welfare of the faith community as individuals find privilege and carry responsibility for the whole community (Hood, 2005). This social support is strongly understood within the Amish community of north-east United States of America, who cannot separate their personal sense of purpose from that of their Gemeinde or community (Hood, 2005).

Hood suggests that dwelling type religions are generally able to provide meaning through comprehensiveness, accessible philosophical orientation to the world, means of transcendence, often with the meaning of an afterlife (Wong, 1998: cited Hood, 2005), and a direct claim to have meaning and purpose, such as in the bible when Jesus claims I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (King James version). Religion may arise from the need to understand many of the deep existential issues of life (Geertz, 1973; cited Hood, 2005). It assists people with life’s questions and problems (Pargament, 1997; cited Hood, 2005) and has empirically established a meaning system to help people with health issues such as chronic pain (Kotarba, 1983; cited Hood, 2005).

In the past, the spiritual lives of people were different, as they evolved two separate ways of thought, language and learning, mythos and logos, which complemented each other (Armstrong, 2000). Myth was considered timeless and constant, looked back to the foundations of life and culture and was concerned with meaning, directing peoples’ minds towards the eternal (Armstrong, 2000). Myth was also associated with mysticism, without which the myths of religion made no sense (Armstrong, 2000). Armstrong (2000) suggests that historically, people were often more concerned with meaning of events rather than what actually occurred, so ancient stories such as the Israelites escape from Egypt through the Red Sea was deliberately written as a myth and reenacted each year in the Passover Seder. Logos, in contrast, was the rational, practical and scientific thought that allowed people to function in their world, but was without feelings and emotion (Armstrong, 2000). Armstrong (2000) argues that the religious experience of the modern world is different, with scientific rationalism becoming the sole truth and guide to meaning, so that logos has either been turned into mythos, or completely substituted for it. Fundamentalists in contrast, have turned the mythos of their religion into logos, either by insisting that their dogmas are scientifically sound, or by transforming their complex mythology into a stream-lined ideology (Armstrong, 2000).

Sacred texts, apart from being timeless truths, are also prime symbols of religious identity (Caplan, 1987). Fundamentalism offers solutions to modern day problems by rebuilding the lost identities suffered during these times of great social change, much social and geographic mobility and many other stress-filled factors of life (Ruthven, 2004). However, while the promotion of the exclusive doctrines of fundamentalism unites the followers against the enormous numbers of non-believers, it is also self-limiting (Caplan, 1987). Bishop Spong (1991, p.5) argues strongly against fundamentalism, believing its major function is to bolster deeply insecure and fearful people who are not happy when facts challenge their biblical understanding (p.3). Armstrong (2000) argues that fundamentalism absorbs the pragmatic rationalism of modernity and at the same time it creates an ideology that can provide an action plan, motivated by people’s common fears, wants and anxieties.

In terms of fundamentalist ideologies and cultures, theorist Foucault would suggest that fundamentalism includes a defining of all knowledge and a paradigm of thinking for its members, to which Juergensmeyer adds the concept of a connection of socially fixed ideas or social reality about society, referred to as habitas, a socially constituted system of cognitive and motivating structures, by theorist Bourdieu (2000, p. 13). Fundamentalists tend to proclaim a strong sense of certainty and a feeling of sure reality (Barr, 1977; cited Caplan, 1987). Social structures never have a separated reality but are always negotiated by individuals for the maintenance of their personal identity, while a symbolic capital is added through a community (Bourdieu; cited Juergensmeyer, 2000).

Considering the fundamentalist Islamic identity, Irshad Manji (2003), a self declared Muslim who is calling for reform in her faith, argues that most Muslims are born Muslims, “it is who we are”. Further, Manji (2003) argues, attending the mosque was for her an extension of the madressa, the Islamic religious school, as “it obliged me to sacrifice that other, equally sacred part of my identity: thinker”. Whenever Manji confronted herself with possibly leaving her birth religion, she decided to stay with Islam “out of fairness – to myself”, as she felt there would be no gain in leaving. For Manji, her religion has “compelled me to bow to no one but the God dwelling restlessly in my conscience, a precious skill to develop in an era of boundless spin Better, religion has taught me not to confuse authoritarianism with authority” (2003). To find spiritual meaning, she is practicing her religion outside its fundamentalist boundaries.

Fundamentalism has often been stereo-typed as closed-minded, but Hood (2005) argues against this, as they look for answers within their sacred texts rather than assuming to already know all. Hood (2005) suggests that arguable major stereo-types about fundamentalism are that it is a religion, it is literalist, it is militant, it is not modern, it is an American Protestant religious phenomenon, and it is dogmatic. Further arguable stereo-types of fundamentalists include being poorly educated, simplistic, and narrow-minded, having a low socio-economic standing and having literalist beliefs on evolution and abortion, which will vary from congregation to congregation (Hood, 2005).

For fundamentalists within Protestant Christianity and Islam, their religion provides both moral and theological absolutes (Kelley, 1972; cited Hood, 2005), a unifying purpose and philosophy of life that provides personal meaning and purpose in life (Hood, 2005) and seeks to transform society into a life-style that is considered to be God-filled (Barr, 2000). Fundamentalists have tried to turn the mythos of their faith into logos by insisting that their dogmas are scientifically true and mythology is stream-lined into their ideology (Armstrong, 2000). Fundamentalists have been shown to be spiritual dwellers finding a sense of meaning within their secure, spiritual home and faith community and their total separation of the sacred and the profane (Hood, 2005). In spite of being often stereo-typed incorrectly, their religious identity is based on their absolute belief and certainty in the sacredness and centrality of the Bible for Christianity and the Quran for Islam, through which a strong meaning system is established.



References

Armstrong, K. (2000). The Battle for God. London: Harper Collins.

Barr, J. (2000). . The St. George’s Cathedral Lecture. The Dynamics of Fundamentalism.
Perth: Pub. St George’s Cathedral (2001).

Bauman, Z. (1998). Postmodern Religion? In Heelas P Ed., Religion, modernity and
Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. 55-78. Via RL.

Caplan, L. (Ed). (1987). Studies in Religious Fundamentalism. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Hood, R.W. Jr. (2005). Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism. New York: Guilford Press.
p. 11-46, 187-200.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2000). Terror in the Mind of God. California: University of California Press.

Manji, I. (2003). The Trouble with Islam. Sydney, NSW: Random House Australia Pty. Ltd.

Partridge, C.H. (2001). Fundamentalisms. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press.

Ruthven, M. (2004). The Search for Meaning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Spong, J.S. (1991). Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. New York: Harper Collins.