Okay, that's a goofy title, but the problem with discussing fundamentalism is that one must distinguish which of basically two types of fundamentalism one means: the good one, or the not-so-good one. The good one has to do with adherence to fundamental principles. The not-so-good one is about "strict and literal" adherence, a legalistic type of adherence that is rigidly intolerant, or characterized by an attitude of superiority. (Please, don't attack my definition; it's not perfect, but the best I can do at the moment, and sufficient, I believe.)
I will again give nod to Molly Aley for things she says in a post on The Short History of Christian Fundamentalism.... For example:
questioning Christian fundamentalism in no way means one is questioning the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
(In other words, there is good fundamentalism and bad fundamentalism -- not a very scholarly way to put it, but close enough.) She goes on,
If anything, Christian fundamentalism's departure from what most of Church history has considered "fundamentals" should give one pause for concern--or at least a respectful nod given to those who would request the freedom to doubt.
Molly rightly points out that the problem with fundamentalist fundamentalism is idolatry. FF assumes that if you question it, then you are questioning Truth-with-a-capital-T, and doubting God Himself. It assumes that if you are questioning -- even questioning God -- you are sinning. But questioning and doubt need not signal either sin or a lack of faith -- indeed, you cannot truly question a God you have no faith in.
Don't get me wrong; every believer worth his salt (pun intended) should have a good bit of fundamentalism in him. He should be eager to uphold Truth (or truth) for the glory of God and the good of mankind. Yet he must also recognize that God is quite capable of defending Himself and has no need for any bogus defense which is really a cover for self-defense. Nor does right living require a defense; it is it's own defense.
Molly's concluding thought is perhaps the most fundamental of all: the ball must ultimately be put in the court of the other person when one is discussing fundamentals of faith. The good-fundamentalist tells someone, "Seek for yourself; search the Scriptures, pray, seek the face of God." The bad-fundamentalist says, "Do it this way: a, b, c, d, e." The good-fundamentalist realizes that his job is to encourage another's own relationship with God, not a relationship with his own relationship with God. He realizes that he himself, and his system, are not God to that person or anyone else. He allows that person responsibility for his own relationship to God.
In the comments, abmo points out another fundamental of FF:
I think the problem with some people is that there is some doubt present in their lives, but to quiet the doubt, they ensure that their [sic] is NO doubt visible anywhere. Now, let 's say you come along and start to ask questions. You point to something that might...um...well...be...wrong. WHAT!!! If I am wrong about one thing, then there might be other things as well!!! That leaves a lot of doubt and we all know that we cannot have any doubt.
It's strange to me that people believe they can be perfect in all they do and say. They have to be, otherwise there is room for doubt.
Perfectionism. Control -- not self-control, but other-control. Dependence upon one's own rightness rather than the rightness of God: this is FF -- the bad kind. There's a saying, a cliche -- "Let go, and let God." Not that every situation requires that we do this; sometimes, it's necessary to persist. But when it comes to relinquishing control to God, that is a fundamental we must adhere to.
