Fundamentalism v. Liberalism…

May 19, 2005 | 1:03 PM

Andrew Jones (aka TallSkinnyKiwi) posted on the difference between fundamentalism and liberalism, and I think he makes a good point. Many of us, under the true definitions, are moderately placed somewhere, perhaps not in between, but at both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. Read this, then I’ll explain what I mean.

The words “liberal” and “fundamentalist” are used today not so much to identify oneself as to label the enemy. From one side comes the accusation that the mind of the fundamentalist is closed, shuttered against the possibility of doubt and therefore against the recognition of hitherto unrecognized truth. From the other side comes the charge that the liberals are so open to new ideas that they have no firm commitments at all. that every affirmation of faith must be held only tentatively, and that every dogma must as a matter of principle, be challenged. There are terms of moral opprobrium that each side employs to attack the other: the fundamentalist is arrogant, blinkered, and culturally illiterate; the liberal is flabby, timid, and carried along by every new fashion of thought. From the point of view of the liberal, the capacity for doubt is a measure if intellectual integrity and honesty.

In addition to ascribing these accusations, labels, and genuine differences over doubt to both sides in this quarrel, it is also right to ascribe moral virtues to them: Liberalism at its best is marked by an open mind which is humble and ready to learn. Fundamentalism at its best is marked by a moral courage which holds fast to the truth even when it is assailed by counter claims from without. In the prevailing atmosphere of relativism, where one does not speak of “what is true” but rather what is meaningful for me”, where one does not speak of right and wrong but of values; it is right and proper that there should be protest, and it is natural that this should lead to demands for absolute standards and certain truth. When everything in religion seems to be reduced to subjective experience, it is natural that there should be a demand for the affirmation of objective truth? How can we develop, in respect of religious belief, minds which are not only open to fresh insights but also equipped with the critical faculty that can distinguish sense from nonsense and reality from illusion? What kind of confidence is proper for those who witness to the truth of the gospel?

What do I mean? If fundamentalism is the willingness and courage to hold to core, principle beliefs, and liberalism is the willingness to have an open mind, is it completely impossible to hold to certain core truths and still be open minded toward other, less core, principles? The only question, then, is what is a core truth?

[Read TallSkinnyKiwi’s post by clicking here.]