CHAPTER ELEVEN

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM AS A REACTION TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT ILLUSTRATED BY THE CASE OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Marcel Sarot

1. Introduction

In this paper I intend to dispute two related claims that I have often come across, mostly in literature that deals with the relationship between science and religion: (1) Christian fundamentalists are Christians who hold on to tradi- tional orthodox Christian convictions, even though they are nowadays challenged by modern natural science, and who refuse to revise these convictions in reaction to these scientific developments. (2) One of the claims that is revised by some but not by the funda- mentalists is the claim that the Bible is inerrant, that is to say that in its original form it contains no mistake whatsoever. All its assertions are true, not only those that deal with religious themes, but also those that deal with science, history and everything else.1 Liberal Christians have abandoned traditional orthodox Christian belief when faced with scientific evidence,2 e.g., the theory of evolution, in order to be able to revise Christian doctrine so as to make it compatible with the latest science. Fundamentalists alone still hold their ground and remain true to the old doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, indeed, they have made it into one of their main tenets. Why do I consider it important to dispute these claims? My main reason is that I believe them to be untrue, and that I generally con- sider it a good thing to pursue truth. It would not be fair, however, if

1 Cf. the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, xi–xii. http://www.spurgeon .org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm. 2 Apart from scientific evidence, the evidence produced by contemporary Biblical scholarship also plays a role. My own point of entry into the discussion, however, is the debate on science and religion. 250 marcel sarot

I suggested that I am merely disinterestedly pursuing the truth. I do have an interest in the claims at stake by the fact that I am myself a believing Christian, and that I believe that these two claims undermine the intellectual credibility of Christianity . If Christian fundamentalism and its claim to Biblical inerrancy would be the norm for Christian orthodoxy, the orthodox position would in my opinion become intel- lectually untenable. Moreover, since mainstream Christianity is not fundamentalist, it would not be orthodox. In this paper, I try to substantiate the position that fundamentalism , like liberalism , is an adaptation to modernity.3 Theological liberalism and fundamentalism with its claim to Biblical inerrancy may in many respects be opposite positions; they are both inconceivable without the Enlightenment. This also means that fundamentalism cannot justify its claim to be the original, orthodox position; with respect to originality at least, it is in the same boat as liberalism . I will proceed in the following way. In section 2, I will argue that claims (1) and (2) are indeed defended in the literature. Thus, in ques- tioning them I will not be committing the straw men fallacy. I will also show how these claims would undermine the intellectual credibility of Christianity , if they were true. In section 3, I will outline a general pic- ture of the Enlightenment project as it emerges from recent research. In section 4, I will show in what ways the claim to Biblical inerrancy and the fundamentalist frame of mind of which it is a part are a reac- tion to the Enlightenment project. In section 5, finally, I will speculate on the future of inerrantism. My objective in this paper is merely to show that it is not true that Biblical inerrancy and the fundamentalist framework are the original and therefore orthodox position. I do not intend to identify what is the orthodox position, nor will I argue that there is only one orthodox position. I will also abstain from arguments in favor of theological liberalism or other alternatives for fundamentalism .

3 In this respect, the present contribution can function as a concrete illustration to Hellemans’s contribution. On the connection between fundamentalism and moder- nity, see also B.B. Lawrence, Defenders of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989).