Religious Fundamentalism is a concept in the psychology of religion that has been defined in different ways but generally refers to a set of religious beliefs based on literal to near literal interpretations of sacred texts.
In the United States where most
religious people are Christian, the history of fundamentalism appeared as a
protest against the teachings of religious scholars who employed methods of
critical analysis of the Bible. This critical method known as higher criticism, occurred at a time when conservative
Christians were also concerned about the science of evolution and its apparent contradiction
of the Genesis creation text.
Behavioral
scientists began looking for ways to broaden the concept of fundamentalism
beyond lists of orthodox beliefs. Researchers focused on findings of militancy and
authoritarianism in their samples (e.g., Altemyer and Hunsberger). Others
focused on a literal interpretation of scriptures and some psychologists also
looked at intelligence and personality traits associated with people considered
fundamentalists.
The principle of intratextuality states that fundamentalists derive truth from God via their sacred text and they rely solely upon various parts of the text to interpret other parts of the text. For example, Christian fundamentalists who want to understand God’s plan for marriage will rely solely on the books of the Protestant Bible rather than external sources of knowledge such as psychology. To understand a passage about marriage in one book within the Bible, they will examine other portions of the Bible for teachings about marriage.
In contrast, nonfundamentalist Christians search for truth using an intertextual method. Nonfundamentalists will consider the
sacred text in light of science, history, archaeology, anthropology, and
scholarly research. Nonfundamentalists respect the sacred text and still
consider it privileged and even crucial to consult before reaching a conclusion
about a moral approach or stance toward some social policy. In Christianity,
the view people take toward the Bible distinguishes a Fundamentalist from an
Evangelical or a Progressive.
FIVE DIMENSIONS OF INTRATEXTUALITY
Initially,
Williamson and others (2010) considered six dimensions of intratextuality. They
developed a measurement scale, and based on cross-cultural research, they found
five items useful in identifying five dimensions – Five perspectives
on the sacred text. The principle of intratextuality is not just about
Christianity. The items were written in such a way as to apply to other world
religions. Here are the five dimensions.
- Divine: The sacred text
is a revelation from God (or of divine origin) to humans. Regardless of
the involvement of people in the writing of the text, God (or a deity) is
the author.
- Inerrant: The sacred text
does not contain errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions. The text is
objectively true.
- Privileged: The sacred text
of the fundamentalist group is not just another sacred writing. It is the
truth. Fundamentalists may show respect to people from other religions and
their sacred writings but they do not consider other texts to be on the
same level as their own text.
- Authoritative: The sacred
text is the final authority. If a conflict in belief arises, the sacred
text wins.
- Unchanging: The sacred text
is unchangeable and true for eternity. The truths are absolutes. The
truths can be depended on to understand the world and as a guide for life.
Related
Concepts
Selective Fundamentalism
Selective fundamentalism refers to a
type of Intratextual fundamentalism that insists on reading some texts as
literally true but not others.
Fact Fundamentalism
Fact fundamentalism is a concept
attributed by Marcus Borg to Huston Smith. Fact fundamentalists may be religious
fundamentalists who insist on reading the statements found in their texts as
historically accurate facts. Ironically, religious critics may also be fact
fundamentalists when they also take the view that unless something in a
religious text is a historical fact then it is not true. Borg’s point is that
truth should not be limited to historical facts but that truth can be found in
metaphors as well.
Measuring
Fundamentalism
Psychology of Religion researchers
have developed scales to measure religious fundamentalism and related concepts.
I have written about these elsewhere. Here I list the measures and provide
links to those measures.
Intratextual
Fundamentalism Scale (IFS)
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2005). Fundamentalism and authoritarianism. In R.F. Paloutzian, & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 378–393). Guilford Press.
Hood, R.W., Jr., Hill, P.C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (4th ed). Guilford. [ Link to the 5th Edition]
Hood, R.W., Jr., Hill, P.C., & Williamson, W.P. (2005). The psychology of religious fundamentalism. Guilford. [On Amazon - A key reference to the model]
Kelly, H.L., Sutton, G. W, Hicks, L., Godfrey, A. & Gillihan, C. (2018). Factors predicting the moral appraisal of sexual behavior in Christians. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 37, (2), 162-177. [Use of the IFS in research] Academia Link ResearchGate Link
Marty, M.E., & Appleby, R.S. (Eds.). (1991–1995). The fundamentalism project (Vols 1–5). University of Chicago Press.
Sutton, G. W., Arnzen, C., & Kelly, H. (2016). Christian counseling and psychotherapy: Components of clinician spirituality that predict type of Christian intervention. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 35, 204-214. [Use of the IFS in a counseling study.] Academia Link ResearchGate Link
Sutton, G. W., Kelly, H., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Griffin, B. J., & Dinwiddie, C. (2018) Satisfaction with Christian Psychotherapy and Well-being: Contributions of Hope, Personality, and Spirituality. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 5 (1), 8-24, doi: 10.1037/scp0000145 [Use of the IFS in research] Academia Link ResearchGate Link
Williamson, W.P., Hood, R. W. Jr., Ahmad, A., Sadiq, M., Y Hill, P.C. (2010). The intratextual fundamentalism scale: cross-cultural application, validity evidence, and relationship with religious orientation and the Big 5 factor markers. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13, 721-747.
No comments:
Post a Comment