In treating the subject of fundamentalism, the authors write as scholars with firsthand exposure to the movements, emphasizing the internal dynamics and processes by which the movements construct their own realities rather than “accounting” for the “sources” which has been the fatal tactic of many EC critics.

They see fundamentalism as a dynamic process, something more dynamic than static, a “movement that unfolds over time.”

They also view fundamentalism from the macro, considering it as part of a wider field of competing movements, “existing in dynamic tension with its various detractors and competitors.” Today we would probably use the terms “complexity” and “systems thinking” to describe their strategy.

Their conclusion is that fundamentalism arose in the beginning of the twentieth century because institutions were weaker, the grass-roots individuals were conditioned to attend church, a heterogenous society allowed for new social niches, economic prosperity was channelled into religious structures which gave them publishing houses, colleges and mission boards as well as trained clergy and scholars who could articulate the movement’s key emphases. The movement was not so much a rejection of modernity, although some elements of modernity were selectively rejected, but in fact the new and changing conditions of modernity created new opportunities for the movement to take hold and grow.

Fascinating stuff. At least I thought so. The old guy on the train didn’t ask me to elaborate on the book so maybe its not everyone’s cup of tea. But I do appreciate the work of Wuthnow and Lawson from their chapter “Sources of Christian Fundamentalism in the United States” and I hope that scholars examining the new church and mission movements today will take a page from their book.

Related on TSK: When I heard Karen Armstrong speak on fundamentalism

Read More