Modern Fundamentalism, Part II

Here's some background that might make Part I more understandable. First Things posted a short review some years ago of a detailed, scholarly treatment entitled Fundamentalisms Observed, edited by Martin Marty and Scott Appleby (U of Chicago, 1991). Here's a paragraph from the review summarizing their definition of fundamentalism:

A fundamentalism is defined as a counterattack in the name of religious tradition against the forces of modernity, a reaction that selectively recovers portions of the tradition in question while at the same time utilizing modern techniques. It is acknowledged to have a true religious spirit, and to forge a firm identity amidst crisis and change. In its nature, say the editors, a fundamentalism seeks a comprehensive system for human life and so is hostile to isolating religion from social and political life.

That captures the sense in which I referred to modern Protestant fundamentalism and Evangelicals as "modern."

For the other side of the coin, go read another First Things article entitled Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for Decline. The authors of the article present data supporting the views advanced by Dean M. Kelly in his book Why Conservative Churches Are Growing (HarperCollins, 1972), summarized here:

Kelly argued that the mainline denominations have lost members because they have become weak as religious bodies. Strong religions provide clear-cut, compelling answers to questions concerning the meaning of life, mobilize their members' energies for shared purposes, require a distinctive code of conduct, and discipline their members for failure to live up to it. Weak religions allow a diversity of theological viewpoints, do not and can not command much of their members' time or effort, promote few if any distinctive rules of conduct, and discipline no one for violating them. In short, strong religions foster a level of commitment that binds members to the group; weak religions have low levels of commitment and are unable to resist influences that lower it even further.

So I was just pulling together in Part I, in my own compressed blog style, ideas about the rise of modern fundamentalist or conservative or Evangelical churches and the decline of mainline Protestant churches which have been circulating for 30 years.

Comments

[Greg]

Along these lines, The Churching of America, by sociologists Finke and Stark, provides a tremendous array of statistics regarding the phenomenon you're discussing, as well as a theoretical framework for thinking about the phenomenon. They see the competition for members as a market in which religious bodies that are in high tension with the world around them will also beat the churches that are more assimilated.

[Dave]

Thanks for the reference, Greg. I popped online to my local library system, submitted an online request for Stark's book, and will pick it up at my local branch next Tuesday. Technology is great! I've heard Stark mentioned a lot (mostly for his "there will be 265 million Mormons by 2080" comment) but have never read any of his stuff before now.

[Clark Goble]

Greg, that would also explain the slowing of church growth the last 5 - 6 years. While there are some very real benefits to promoting our common ground, it has correlated very close to 0 growth in America.

[Greg]

Let me know what you think, Dave. It was our main text for an "American Religion" class at the Y (Professor Roger Keller), and I must say its formed much of my thinking on this issue.