Growing up Fundamentalist: Journeys in Legalism & Grace

Stefan Ulstein

Fundamentalism is a term that has had many definitions. Ulstein presents a working definition for the purpose of the book, then proceeds to present case studies of about 20 individuals out of over 100 interviewed. He states that the 20 chosen for inclusion represent common themes found in all the interviewees. Each case study involves a person who grew up in a fundamentalist church and subsequently left. Some have returned; most have not.

According to Ulstein, fundamentalism is "the theologically conservative form of North American Christianity that exists within evangelical, Pentecostal and some mainline churches. The core fundamentalist doctrines include the inerrancy of Scripture, the imminent physical return of Christ, the rapture of the saints, the seven-year tribulation followed by a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, the virgin birth, the historicity of biblical miracles and the absolute necessity of a personal commitment to Christ as a prerequisite to salvation." (page 11)

Ulstein's characterizations of fundamentalist worship, preaching style and policies are almost humorous in their accuracy. I had no idea that enough churches end their service with Just As I Am and an altar call that one could say that this practice almost single-handedly identifies the fundamentalist experience.

Taken in total, the interviews would give the impression that no one stays a fundamentalist for their whole life. However, reading them carefully reveals a mix of people who clearly never had any kind of Christian salvation experience during their time in a fundamentalist church to others who were likely truly saved but were turned off by the people and practices of their church.

The history of fundamentalism goes back only to the beginning of the twentieth century. The movement was a response to the "liberal" interpretation of scripture being put forth by German "higher criticism". It sought to take a hard line on biblical inerrancy and doctrinal purity. While dispensationalism was a small faction of the original movement, it has grown to dominate it. Fundamentalism has further expanded to emphasize not only doctrinal purity but personal and ecclesiastical separation from "worldly" practices. Fundamentalist churches define these worldly practices and expect members not to participate in them. These can include watching movies, playing cards, gambling, dancing, having long hair (men), wearing pants (women), smoking (unless you live in a tobacco-producing state) and listening to popular music. In addition, there are strong admonitions against divorce, adultery, abortion, premarital sex, and birth control.

It was interesting to see in one place critiques of many of the practices that are so much a part of fundamentalism that they are never questioned. One ex-fundamentalist points out that outreach to the world seems to be limited only to evangelism. His desire to go to a foreign field and work to restore right relationships between warring factions was not supported by his church, since it didn't have evangelism as its primary purpose. (Interestingly, I've been criticized for this web site because it is a forum for the things I find interesting and doesn't have enough emphasis on winning the lost. The one individual who really took me to task on this quickly lost interest in arguing when I countered, which brings up another characteristic of fundamentalists: They are not used to having to defend their positions -- they accept the Bible and their pastor as authority and don't have to understand it themselves.)

One of the most fascinating observations I took away from this book is how we (for simplicity I'll include myself among "fundamentalists" though I'm not sure they'd have me) treat those whose sins are "worse" than ours. Several people in the book talked about sin as "something that everyone else does." Sure, we might get angry, or tell a little fib, or hold a grudge, but those outside are whoremongers, adulterers, effeminate, murderers, haters of their parents and enemies of God. We fail to see that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We fail to realize that when we blast homosexuality, we may very likely be talking to people in the congregation for whom homosexual desires are their sin. We sanctimoniously condemn the adulterer to hell but forget that he may be the guy sitting next to us in the pew. It is very difficult for people struggling with sin to feel welcome in this kind of environment where they're made to believe that everyone else is very good and they are very evil, when the truth of the matter is that every single person in the room is a sinner and worthy of God's wrath.

The result is that we put on a "church face" and never really talk about anything of real personal significance with our church friends. We'd never want them to know that we sin, because as far as we can tell, nobody else in the church sins -- at least not as bad as we do. This artificiality is seen by our children and they reject our beliefs because they see the hypocrisy. And even if we are honest and open within the family, the kids see the hypocrisy among the people at church and ultimately reject it.

Another thread throughout the interviews were the endless (and sometimes mindless) rules that are part and parcel of fundamentalist existence. It is clear to me that most of these rules come not from the Bible but from our cultural, political and personal biases. For example, for the longest time I knew that "rock music" was not to be a part of the Christian life. I've always assumed that it is because of the lyrics, or because of the lifestyles of the performers. It bothered me a little that an entire genre of music was cast aside because of the characteristics of a few of the songs, or because of something the singer did in the privacy of his home that wasn't obvious in his music. But I figured my elders knew best.

But then I began to ask questions and to listen to the rationale behind these beliefs. It turns out it wasn't just the words they objected to, but certain characteristics of the music. The music, it was said, had inherent moral value. That is, the combination of chords, notes, instrumentation, etc. created sound that was evil. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is truly bizarre. At what point does music become evil? Can one note be evil? Two notes? Three? Which three? And where is all this in the Bible?

Jazz music was said to be bad because it comes from pagan African rhythms. Statements like this are generally made with overt or implied racist overtones. Rock and roll is bad because it "doesn't take any skill to perform" whereas classical music takes skill. (Anyone who has sought to improvise a solo would differ with this opinion, especially if they've also played classical music from a written score that anyone with a dozen or so years with an instrument could play.)

The point is that we've taken something that's clearly a matter of personal taste and opinions, wrapped it in biblical "separation from the world" language, and turned it into a rule for "holy living." And this is just one example. Multiply this by rules for what to wear, what to watch, where to go, what to read, etc. and you have a formula for dysfunction that is impeccable.

This book is a fascinating read if you are or have been involved with fundamentalism. Interviews with gays and lesbians put a human face on a group of people most fundamentalists glibly consign to hell. Stories of children abused by authoritarian parents aided and abetted by authoritarian church leaders are a shocking reminder that despite our "church faces," all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.