If you’ve ever been called a fundamentalist as an insult the following quotation will probably resonate with you. Alvin Plantinga, who has born his share of derogatory labels, tells what is really going on when someone uses “fundamentalist” as an insult. Perhaps the cursing is meant to show how much he is unlike those who view the term “fundamentalist” as a compliment.
We 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 feel obliged 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. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accepts traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ’stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’ (Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, p. 245).
For a fascinating first-hand account of the life and career Alvin Plantinga see his “Spiritual Biography”, available online.
i think plantinga makes a good pt, but i find it interesting that he includes barth in the “fundamentalist” label. because i dont think that most modern theologians would call him fundamentalist.
peter
John,
What I like about this is that, unlike most Evangelicals, Plantinga doesn’t become incensed and rush to argue that he is not a Fundamentalist, but rather observe that the charge itself is generally without any meaning relevant to the argument at hand. Of course I also enjoy the very artful way in which he makes the point.
You didn’t include the part (earlier on the page) where he calls Fundamentalism “the dreaded ‘F’ word.” I think it is a great comparison, because taking such a use of this ‘F’ word seriously makes about as much sense as taking the other–more notorious–’F’ word seriously.
KWR