Ideological Fundamentalism: What is it?
Explaining why I use that term
((Hello everyone! On Monday’s I post old material that I think is either relevant or that relates to what I’m writing about that week. This was originally posted in January 2023)
Not too long ago there was an effort to define what appears to be a different kind of fundamentalism as “New Fundamentalism” or “Neo Fundamentalism”. That terminology didn’t take off, so I’ve been using my own term for a couple of years now “Ideological Fundamentalism”. What’s been interesting is I’ve very rarely had anyone ask me to define what I mean by that and even as I’ve gone over older posts I can’t find where I’ve really laid out what I mean by that term. I think it’s important for us to understand this phenomenon as it is distinct from what we could traditionally consider “fundamentalism” and I think we’re seeing an embrace of a kind of “Ideological Fundamentalism” outside traditionally religious circles (I’d argue MAGA as a movement has aspects of Ideological Fundamentalism as a key component). So, what do I mean when I refer to what is happening in American religion and politics as “Ideological Fundamentalism”?
Understanding “Classical” Fundamentalism
There are many ways many authors have tried to define fundamentalism especially in American Christianity. It’s difficult to pin down a working definition because while there historically has been some shared beliefs, more accurately American fundamentalism has been signified by traits or tendencies rather than specific doctrines or culture. From my experience in it and studying American Evangelical Fundamentalism I would identify four historical tendencies of what I would call “classical” fundamentalism:
1. American “Classical” Fundamentalism is Reactionary
More than almost any trait that I would consider essential to American Christian Fundamentalism its reactionary nature stands as preeminent in what defines fundamentalist culture. Even in what was considered the “Fundamentals”, a collection of 90 essays that would become the backbone of Evangelical and fundamentalist thought, are mostly a reaction to different Modernist and historical-critical critiques against Christianity at the time. Things like miracles historically occurring, the 6-day creation, and other challenges to certain Biblical understandings shaped what would come to be considered “fundamentalism”.
Now this brings me to a personal maxim that I’ve yet seen contradicted: Reactions are shaped by what they are reacting against. A critique or response to a critique cannot help but be shaped by the thing it critiques. Thus, for much of “classical” fundamentalism the assertions like how “inerrancy” is shaped as a hermeneutical philosophy were constructed in light of the things it was a response against. In this way “classical” fundamentalism was a “Modern” movement. The concerns with “objective truth” and the challenges between faith and scientific reason are a result of very Modern issues raised by the Enlightenment.
2. Classical Fundamentalism both Expands and Simultaneously Narrows What is Deemed “Essential” Doctrine or Practices
Historically, at least for most of the 20th century, fundamentalism was concerned with “essential” faith and practices that were not necessarily doctrinal. The issues were not so much cultural Christian beliefs like say in the Nicene or Apostle’s creed, but what “Christian” practices made one “Christian”. It wasn’t enough that one confessed to faith but they also in many cases had to not drink, smoke, chew, game or dance “with girls that do”. Much of 20th century Evangelical Fundamentalism revolved around whether some recent “thing” (like movies or television) was “Christian”.
At the same time there was a tendency towards this expansion of what was “essential” doctrinally and ideologically. The idea of “inerrancy” is a perfect example of this expansion-yet-narrowing phenomena. It wasn’t (and in many cases still isn’t) that one believes the Bible to be true, one must believe the Bible to be true in a specific way. Thus, a belief in creation Ex Nihlo, must also then affirm a literal six-day creation. Affirming the “truth” of scripture ultimately meant affirming certain truths about how scripture should be read in certain and particular ways that responded to cultural challenge.
3. Classical Fundamentalism was Almost Exclusively Concerned with External Cultural Expression
This is part and parcel to the reactivity to modern culture but most of the prohibitions Classical Fundamentalism was concerned with were outward responses to cultural and societal “temptations”. I like how Randy Greenwald puts it, "Fear led our fundamentalist forebears to forbid that which was permitted in order to guard against that which was forbidden.” Thus much of what Classical Fundamentalism was caught up in was culturally in many ways societally affirmed but legally prohibited (either within the church or otherwise) external practices. The irony of this is while they are reactive to some perceived cultural practices, they also must be affirmed by the culture because in many ways they are nonsensical.
Prohibitions against alcohol during the 19th and 20th centuries are a perfect example of this cultural and external dynamic. Prohibition was a reaction to a cultural dynamic that needed cultural and legal enforcement largely because the complete and total prohibition of alcohol was nonsensical to the majority populace. In fact, Prohibition was so ignored that the term “scofflaw” was voted the most popular word to describe the general attitude towards it. However, it endured in many cultural church contexts because of the endurance of local “dry laws”. Fundamentalism required a power enforced “norm” that made extremity seem natural and reasonable. If you grew up in a place where no one drinks or can sell alcohol, you don’t think it’s weird or a limitation of your liberty. Expand this to other issues like gambling, sex, gender and more and you realize that fundamentalism needs an outsized power dynamic (God or the government) to enforce an “essential” and narrow culture that is both unreasonable and irrational.
4. Classical Fundamentalism was Mainly Concerned with the Hypothetical not Actual
This goes back to Greenwald’s insight that fundamentalism prohibited on the permitted for fear of the prohibited. He stated, “If there is a dangerous pit on one’s property, judicious landowners build a fence around it. Fearful ones build the fence a mile away. Such fear led to the prohibitions evangelicals mock. Dancing could become erotic and the erotically roused may not be able to resist sleeping together. Better build the fence further out.” The problem was that most of that fear was hypothetical. Fundamentalism is almost exclusively built around the “slippery slope” fallacy- that doing X will inevitably and invariably lead to Y. It isn’t just a reactionary fear of the unknown, it is an irrational fear that takes an imagined outcome as certain. Along the way as well, the irrational assumptions fundamentalism made about people were never challenged.
Take assumptions about men, women, and sex. Women were told that to avoid pre-marital sex (and teenage pregnancy) they had to dress “modestly” to prevent arousing the men in their lives. This in fact, presents men as being unable to control themselves sexually and men pressuring women (particularly young underage women) into sex if not physically assaulting them as being normal. This of course doesn’t make sense (not the least because rape is often considered a lesser danger than having sex), but also these presumptions don’t match the lived experience of those outside of the community. I lived 30 minutes from a beach where the majority of women wore bathing suits and women were not in danger of constantly being assaulted. Both the fear (that immodest clothes cause teen pregnancy) and the reality (men can, in fact, not lust or assail women) were neither rational nor reasonable.
This tendency extended to ideological issues as well. The earliest major ideological issue American Fundamentalists tackled was the teaching of Evolution. Note what happened in the Scopes “Monkey Trial”- pass a law that it was, “a misdemeanor punishable by fine to ‘teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.’” The tactic was not to engage with whether evolution was true or not, or whether the Bible accurate or not, rather it was to make talking about evolution illegal. The fears that those who would take up the anti-evolution argument (like Ken Hamm for example) ranged from the loss of “respect for God and authority” to truly apocalyptic predictions that children taught evolution would abandon their faith and families. It was not the substance of the ideology, so much as a feared outcome should the ideology be given any credence or even allowed to exist at all.
The Rise of Ideological Fundamentalism
By the 1970s-80s the shift began from the “classical” fundamentalism to a more “Ideological” one. This was in part because of the collapse of broad Evangelical support for Segregation. Segregation as a mostly Southern Evangelical practice had no real rational, Biblical, and eventually cultural support, so as Segregation was questioned other similar external practices began to be challenged.
At the same time these challenges to mostly cultural inside cultural norms were being challenged an alternative culture was being formed as well. Para church “ministries” and outlets utilizing technology (radio mainly) and exclusive commerce outlets (Bible bookstores) blew up American Evangelical culture to a more “global” audience. No more did one’s local church and perhaps denomination define one’s identity (“We don’t do that we’re Baptists”) as much as the media and authors one consumed.
Part and parcel to this alternative culture was the selling of ideology that was inherently wedded to political action. With the rise of the “Religious Right” issues of gender, sexuality, reproduction, and even ideas about power and authority would be sold in light of a particular political reality. “Pro Life” ideologies were contrasted specifically against “Pro Choice” as if the latter was an expression of individualism run amok. In response to feminism and Equal Rights the idea of gender roles and “complementarianism” arose (see Jesus and John Wayne). Families built around rigid authority structures and instant obedience were sold in response to an individualistic liberalism and a fear of “rebellion”. All the while pro-Capitalist ideas were interspersed among these ideas as being essentially “Biblical” in contrast to “socialism”. What it meant to be “Christian” was wedded to a series of ideologies that themselves were constructed as political responses.
Ideological Fundamentalism
Now what we have is an Ideological Fundamentalism that mirrors “classical” fundamentalism with some very important distinctions or deviations.
1. Ideological Fundamentalism is Reactionary
This has become THE key trait of American Evangelicalism and Conservatism and that is it is simply reactionary. Every day and everything is opposite day. If “they” are for it “we” are against it, and it doesn’t matter what “it” is or even if we can define what “it” is. We’ve seen this with the rise of anti- “woke” legislation where the writers and defenders of the bills cannot legally define what “woke” is. If “those” people did it “we” are against it. If certain people are saying something, if they are not sufficiently “us”, then they are suspect and must be ignored.
It is very important to understand that the substance of what is being reacted against is wholly immaterial. Even if what “they” say might be somewhat true and even if it IS true, the fact that “they” are the one’s saying it means it must be rejected and opposed (even if a political rival passes a law that benefits “us” it must be opposed as somehow not doing so). What’s more “they” are demonic. It is no longer an “unbelieving” world that is sinful because they don’t know better, and we must protect ourselves from temptation. Rather, the “world” is demonically antagonistic and will dominate “us” if we don’t politically dominate “them”.
2. Ideological Fundamentalism Both Expands and Narrows Orthodoxy
One cannot simply want less abortions, one must believe in life at conception. One cannot promote “marriage” but must promote a specific expression of marriage as a nuclear patriarchal ideal. One cannot acknowledge LGBTQ persons exist and encourage them to some form of celibate Bible affirming faithfulness, they must “repent” and convert to heterosexual norms even get married or not be public with their identity. Systematic injustices simply don’t exist presently and have never existed. The idea of power structures affecting and influencing people doesn’t exist, therefore no one is ever purely a victim. The list goes on… Any attempt to expand definitions, or nuance, or even prove something factually wrong is dismissed out of hand as not simply being erroneous but antithetical to good faith and practice.
3. Ideological Fundamentalism Treats External Societal Expression as a Tangential Even Secondary Goal
“Classical“ fundamentalism would look at alcohol and say, “Here are the results of having a saloon, this is bad.“ Ideologic Fundamentalism looks at Target selling transgender merchandise and says the ideology that causes this to be sold is bad. Transgender “ideology” is bad regardless of whatever expression it has or whether or not Target selling t-shirts with a kind of flag on it has any correlation to kids questioning their gender. The problem isn’t that there is a Gay Pride parade that may have objectionable elements, it’s that there are Gay people in the first place. To use Prohibition as a ready metaphor, Ideologic Fundamentalists would say the desire to drink alcohol is so unnatural that those who choose to do so shouldn’t be allowed any public acknowledgement but should at worst sip alone but should at best acknowledge their desires as unnatural and renounce their tase for liquor. But the point for the Ideologic isn’t to stop or curtail the activity (initially), but to rather make the person who desires alcohol themselves anti-social and worthy of social censure.
This is where people could get confused that much of Ideologic Fundamentalism is concerned with the public display of what they find objectionable. That it is certain books in a library, or portrayals in media of that which they find offensive. Rather it is the existence of those that cause that secondary media to be that is offensive because their existence is offensive to their ideologic premises. To someone that believes in a gendered binary the mere existence of someone that contradicts that is an intolerable challenge. It is their existence, not their outward expression of that existence that offends their ideology. The argument is not “Gays are bad for society” so much as “Gay is bad”. This is why appeals to children or the corruption of children are used as an excuse. The use of child welfare is a mask that allows for vitriolic hatred of that which they cannot stand ideologically. A part of this is the fact of the existence of that which they disagree with ideologically threatens their ideology if not their identity (As I’ve written here with all the ideologic rants one still has to deal with the existence of that which they disagree with).
4. Ideological Fundamentalism is Driven by Social Media, Influencers, and Conservative Media
The trajectory of American fundamentalism has moved from church and denomination, to parachurch “influencers” (I would argue James Dobson, John Piper, Tim Keller, R.C. Sproul among others were parachurch influencers), to now merely influencers on social media. Scott Coley, author of Ministers of Propaganda, did an “experiment” on X (Twitter). He posted a quote about abortion out of context from W.A. Criswell (SBC president, 1968-70, pastor of First Baptist Dallas for five decades, founder and namesake of Criswell College) about abortion. The result of the “experiment” was that there were numerous people who a. took the quote as something Scott said, and b. didn’t just repeat the same “talking points” in decrying Scott’s “wokeness”, in many cases they copy and pasted the exact same words. Scott’s aim was to show that the “response” to him wasn’t offering a substantive “argument” against what he posted, but was simply an exercise in how Evangelical social media works. One or two “influencers” take a position or respond, and the response of the masses is to simply mimic and endlessly affirm the set ideological position.
What is “wagging the dog” for Ideological Fundamentalism is media and social media ideologues. While there are those employed by Think Tanks to come up with policy and proposed legislation and many of them are setting the background underpinnings, make no mistake, what drives Ideological Fundamentalism is a media eco system that is incentivized to run on outrage. This fuels a culture of constant and immediate affirmation for promoting and promulgating the latest reactionary dogma.
The problem with this new “leadership” is in the first place those “leading” may not be Christians at all. What’s more is this media eco system (and Trump specifically) have capitalized on the hyperbolic and irrational tendencies of Evangelical Fundamentalists. Now not only is there a ready audience for “slippery slope” fearmongering, but this audience has been prepared by their religious leaders to take propaganda and untruth as truth because as J.D. Vance essentially admitted in the 2024 election the ideology (that “illegals” were harming the country) was more “true” than what was factually correct (the Hattians were not illegal or “eating the dogs”). This is one reason the “target” moves as the culture does and why “woke” has become a one word catchphrase for the Religious Right; both what they are reacting to and their hyperbole in reaction is constantly changing given what is currently politically pragmatic.
5. Ideological belief is now essential to “Christian” Identity. Faith and Practice are Bonuses at Best but not Required
What does it mean to be a “Christian” in American Christianity today? If you said “believing in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins” I fear that is not what most culturally defines what it means to be Christian for a majority of White Evangelicals. Being “pro life”, anti LGBTQ, pro “gender roles”, anti “government”, anti “socialist”, pro gun, and the list goes on. Again remember that it isn’t that one simply holds “a” position on these issues but they must hold the “correct” position. What is the “correct” position? Whatever the consensus of “not woke” on that subject happens to be currently. What’s more the censure or “cancelling” of those who don’t hold to the “approved” belief is swift and becoming normative. A part of this is because of a false sense of ideological “correctness” (for more on that here). However, most of the harshness towards those who would be considered “us” but hold to a non “approved” conviction are betraying the cohesion of the in-group.
This I believe is one of the most serious problems with the rise of Ideological Fundamentalism and that is it really isn’t about particular beliefs or even adherence to a series of ideas or premises, it’s about ultimately not being “them”. So whoever says anything but X position is “woke” the matter is more about a form of tribal solidarity rather than a thought out ideological position. What is frightening is the march towards radicalization and what is lost in the form of real Christian orthodoxy.
Being “not x” means there will be those who always are “not” more than others. This pushes people, churches and movements into radicalization. When this happens the church ceases to be a church, a denomination a denomination, it becomes a dying organism where uniformity is mistaken for unity. What the church becomes is a hollowed husk dedicated to a religion of self-righteousness. In this shell Jesus simply doesn’t matter. He’s given lip service or he “blesses” your desires, but no one needs salvation. No one needs to be transformed. No one needs a new heart. Rather what you need is conformity and assent. You need to mimic what we say and get mad at what everyone else is mad at.
Ideological Fundamentalism like every form of fundamentalism isn’t “good news” its just a different form of cultural affinity. It’s become a way for people to say they “love Jesus” while being ignorant of him. It ultimately excuses people from having to love others because their problem is that they are wrong and not like us. Sadly it’s a substitute religion and it’s disheartening how many are sliding into it.
(Thanks for reading! I’m always grateful for those who lend me their time. If you want to get my latest please subscribe and consider supporting me in making this content. If you’d like to gift a one-time gift of coffee or dinner, that would also be appreciated https://venmo.com/u/Jason-Mallow-1)