A Critique of Christian Fundamentalism

Many Christians are very happy within the Christian Fundamentalistsystem.

Of course they do not call themselves Christian Fundamentalistsbecause this is now seen as a pejorative term with negative connotations- even though the term originated within their own ranks as a sort of'back to basics' movement within the broader and more liberal protest-ant church.

Terms come and go, but phrases such as 'Bible believingChristian' or 'Born again Christian' mean roughly the same thing. However, if doubts begin to creep in to the believer's mind such that thistheology begins to be openly, but sincerely questioned, then the believermay well find themselves subtly (or even not so subtly) threatened, ex-cluded, isolated, ostracised, unfairly criticised, disapproved of and so on. There is the idea within Christian Fundamentalism that the 'truth' thatthey believe in is particular, exclusive and absolute.

To question it is toquestion (and therefore doubt) God, to inquire into other religions is to'go after other gods' or even to follow 'the devil and deceitful spirits'. There is only 'one way' (which happens to be their way) to God.

In thisway, Christian Fundamentalism in ultra-orthodox. The author takes the position that we cannot create a fixed or an ad-equate conception of God.

The Divine is far too Transcendent to bebound by finite conceptualisations and theologies.

In his view, belief sys-tems, theologies, conceptions of the Divine and so on serve to both revealand mask the Transcendent - they can only point to That which cannotbe known.

Belief systems serve to give us finite creatures of form a relat-ive perspective of the Infinite.

But as we draw near to the Formless, theseforms fall away, rendered useless by the Vastness of the Absolute.

Sowhy pick on Christian Fundamentalism? It is one of a number of ap-proaches to the Godhead, so why critique this approach?