Why I only Argue with Fundamentalist Christians

There is a group in existence. They are called “Fundamentalist Christians.” Often abbreviated to “Fundy” or “Fundie.” If an alien landed today and Googled these words they would find two things:

1) It is generally considered derogatory to be a “fundy”;
2) It is almost impossible to define what it means to be one.

As I discuss with various Christians, I am very often informed, “Oh, you are not talking about me. I do not believe that way. You are only talking to fundamentalists.” Rare, indeed, is the person that owns up to being the fundamentalist to whom I am apparently referring.

I get the mental image of a group of people, that are all very certain there are fundamentalists amongst us, yet are equally certain that it is not them—but some person to the right of them. (Fundamentalism is ALWAYS to the right.)

Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 1: Oh, no. I believe in Old Earth Creationism. Try the person to the right.

Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 2: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, I believe multiple Translations are acceptable. Try the person to the right.

Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 3: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, and I believe the King James Version is the only acceptable, I believe the Bible allows drinking alcohol. Try the person to the right.

Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 4: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, and I believe the King James Version is the only acceptable, and I believe the Bible condemns alcohol, I believe dancing is acceptable. Try the person to the right.

It is an elusive beast—this fundamentalist. We apparently universally agree it exists, and exists in large quantities, yet we seem to equally be convinced it is not us. Which is amusing, considering that skeptics are often accused of only taking on the “fundamentalist” brand of Christianity. If it was such a demarked division, why so slippery to find one? How is it that we are better at finding them than Christians?

I have heard the statement that the Protestant Movement got rid of one pope and created 1000’s instead. The idea that rather than having one uniform Church, Protestants have created 1000’s of separate churches, with separate leaders, and separate opinions of various theological positions.

With the growing sense of individualism over the past Century, and self-identifying, rather than group-identifying, I am seeing Billions of Popes! It has come to the point of rather than relying upon the Catholic Pope, or the Baptist preacher, each person is making their own determination as to what the Bible says.

Over and over, in on-line discussions I have seen:

“Well, I interpret that verse to mean…”
“I do not consider that inspired…”
“I think what Paul was trying to say…”
“Jesus should actually be viewed as…”
“The Americans have it wrong because…”
“The Europeans have it wrong because…”
“I use the Jewish perspective to say…”
“I use the New Testament Church perspective to say…”

And the Bible has become this sort-of general, nebulous beginning, from which we can twist and interpret, and translate and bend to say just about anything under the sun. It has all become a matter of personal taste and opinion, wrapped around individual desire.

While that may be fun and entertaining, the result is that there is no uniformity whatsoever. There is no black and white. It all becomes gray. So no matter what I say, it can be disregarded as simply being the wrong shade of gray to fit that person’s shade of gray. “Clearly he must be talking to some other person, because I interpret those verses differently.”

I agree that there are so many questions when it comes to the Bible. Was Paul talking about Jesus in a spiritual resurrection or a physical resurrection? Are the Gospels historical or legendary? Are the events of the Tanakh historical or legendary? Is Psalms 22 a prophecy? Is Revelation a prophecy or drug-induced blabber?

And because of these questions, and the multiple (maybe infinite?) way in which they can be answered, we end up with so many varieties, if I was to write a positional paper on any given subject, I would need to write millions of different responses in order to adequately cover yours.

I do understand that when I write “Christians say…” that it is impossible to follow that with any combination of words which would universally apply. Which means, at best, I can only cover the ground of a large group. (Probably not even a majority.) If a person would like to respond with, “I don’t believe that way, I believe this way” I am happy to engage in a conversation along their terms.

But I hope that people can understand that we don’t mean to only argue against “fundamentalism.” We are trying to discuss with YOU as to your position. We just have a difficult time figuring out who is a fundamentalist and who is not. If your position is not of fundamentalist stripe, then have a little charity and realize that those who you may accuse of fundamentalism say the same about themselves.

Never fear—I am sure I am not discussing your particular brand of Christianity. We can write it off that I must only be referring to the other person. You know—the fundamentalist. *wink*