Yah boo sucks — you fundie, you
Humans are very fond of labels, especially as a tool for dismissing people. There’ve been a couple of recent blog examples of this. First there was the all-too-typical-of-a-certain-mindset discussion (I’m sure there ought to be a single German word for that) of whether Mike Bird was a Christian. Theo Geek Andrew picks up on that and adds some further examples, concluding:
But then, what would I know, since apparently I am by definition not a Christian. Oh well, at least I’m in good company, along with most Catholics, most people who thought they were ‘Christians’ prior to the 11th century, St Paul, and apparently the Calvinist scholar Michael Bird.
The implication of this kind of (typically) very conservative Protestant labelling of people as “non-Christian” is always: “They’re “them” not “us” and therefore we don’t need to listen to their arguments.”
But from the other end of the spectrum Jim West exhibits a somewhat similar behaviour by labelling people (on this case Darrell Bock and Dan Wallace) as fundamentalist. At least Jim offers some arguments on his way to dismissing their work, so it’s not quite mirror behaviour, but I can’t escape the feeling that Jim attaches this label as a way of dismissing their arguments.
Challenged to a definition of the term fundamentalist, Jim comes up with this:
A fundamentalist is a person who believes that the Bible is inerrant or infallible.
Now Jim and others will know that I think belief in inerrancy is simply wrong. But I don’t think this definition works. There are plenty of people who wish to maintain the language of inerrancy or infallibility, sometimes drawing a sharp distinction between them, while reinterpreting it quite drastically. Among them surely is Jim West’s personal devil friend Chris Tilling. For a whole variety of reasons, a number of broadly evangelical scholars want to maintain the language of infallibility while being committed to a generally accepted critical methodology. I happen to disagree with them, but they provide a good reason why Jim’s definition doesn’t work.
I’m not entirely sure that any definition does work. The fundamentalist label doesn’t, in my view, convey that much information: rather it usually establishes in-groups and out-groups, and so I’m inclined not to use it. The definition of the term depends on who’s using it. On the lips of Darrell Bock or Dan Wallace, it means one thing, whereas on Jim’s lips it means something else. It’s a useful insult, and an “out-group” classification, but it’s not a word that bears any useful information, or has a meaning that can be defined.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Doug,
Alvin Plantinga on the term “fundamentalist:”
“[W]e must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ’son of a bitch’, more exactly ’sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ’sumbitch.’ When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you fell obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use); it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ’stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ’sumbitch’ simpliciter.”
Context (annoying JavaScript alert - be prepared to click thrice.)
-JAK
December 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
That last comment should up your rating on Google!
December 15th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Actually, Chris Tilling doesn’t believe that the Bible is without error. Though he does try to retain the word inerrancy while defining it anew.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Augustine and Luther might marvel a bit at how a document like Dei verbum or an evangelical of Tilling’s stripe refer the language of infallibility and inerrancy to Scripture, but perhaps, as Moses is reported to have done upon hearing Akiva expound him, they might rejoice in the end-result.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:16 am
“At least Jim offers some arguments on his way to dismissing their work, so it’s not quite mirror behaviour, but I can’t escape the feeling that Jim attaches this label as a way of dismissing their arguments.”
Jim makes arguments? I must have missed that one.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Absolutely right, sorry about the misquote. I’ve corrected it here.