ProMundis BlogPost
Fundamentalism is a militant Truth Claim
20. August 2010 von Schirrmacher · 1 Kommentar
My German paperback Fundamentalism was published in the ‘compact’ series (Publisher: SCM Hänssler). In that book I allow myself, as a sociologist of religion, to throw my definition of fundamentalism into the ring. In my opinion one should only refer to fundamentalism if violence is involved or when a true danger for domestic safety exists.
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks fundamentalism is mostly understood among the general public to be radical, violence prone, religiously motivated extremists or simply religious terrorists. What in the vernacular is meant by ‘fundamentalism’ is a militant claim to truth and precisely that is what I find to be the shortest definition.
In my opinion there are only two possibilities open to saving the term ‘fundamentalism’ for legitimate usage: either bring the term fundamentalism closer to how it is used in everyday language and relate it to truly near-violent movements. Alternatively, applying the term widely to all movements could be desirable, in which case the term is in desperate need of being de-emotionalized so that it achieves a neutral, non-pejorative meaning. For this to be achieved there has to be large scale action requiring experts who oppose the mass media, which at the moment is an illusion.
In my opinion those who warn the public about fundamentalist movements should limit themselves to those groups who are dangerous due to the principal justification they offer for the use of violence, or who demonstrate an inclination towards violence, or who even use violence, and lastly those from whom the danger at least emanates that they might want to achieve political power over dissenters by the use of undemocratic means. For that reason my definition in the book which is soon to be released is as follows:
Fundamentalism is a militant truth claim which derives its claim to power from non-disputable, higher revelation, people, values, or ideologies. It is aimed against religious freedom and peace offers and justifies, urges, or uses non-state or state-based non-democratic force in order to accomplish its goals. In the process it often invokes opposition to certain achievements of modernity in favor of historical grandeur and bygone eras, and at the same time uses these modern achievements mostly in order to extend and produce a modern variation of older religions and world views. Fundamentalism is a transformation of a religion or world view conditioned by modernity.
Prof. Dr. theol. Dr. phil. Thomas Schirrmacher, PhD, DD, (born 1960) is speaker for human rights and executive chair of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance, speaking for appr. 600 million Christians. He is also director of its International Institute for Religious Freedom (Bonn, Cape Town, Colombo) 
It might also be “sufficient” if in each country one major newspaper or TV station would actively take up this task. The problem is: in most countries, there are some major media who are strongly anti-evangelical, while the others are “slightly against evangelicals” or “well-willing passively neutral”; none of them are strongly pro-evangelical in their understanding of “Fundamentalism”.
If only one major newspaper would turn around, it could make all the difference. As long as all viewpoints can be heard, people are confronted with different viewpoints. Then they have to think, and the “most logical” or rationally best viewpoint should eventually win.
To expect that any major existing news media would “turn around” (change their perspective) is maybe asking too much. (There is a certain “dynamics” in news institutions: young or new journalists tend to write such that they “impress” the established journalists in any given newspaper.) But – it could happen.
Meanwhile, it would be better if christians started their own national newspaper. (In Netherlands, there are two christian daily newspapers, so it’s possible). It takes a lot of experienced, able and educated writers. And it takes some financially and business-wise experienced owners / directors.
But it’s certainly possible. (It should certainly be regarded as a top priority for christians).
Maybe the biggest “chance” for christians to bring in what we perceive as a correct interpretation of fundamentalism, though, is the internet. As even individuals can publish there, and as long as the EU does not forbid blogging, or “censor” it, this is the best bet for free speech.