Postmodernism and the Decline of Fundamentalism

The Fundamentalism of bygone eras has often been characterized by what some might call interpretive dogmatism but which Fundamentalists understood as confessional integrity and a strong belief in the perspicuity of the Scripture. Militancy is at an all-time-low in Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalists are looking for someone to blame. While there are undoubtedly dozens of factors contributing to the decline of American Fundamentalism (charges of legalism, uncertainty about the relationship between Church and culture, in-fighting, a difficulty explaining those doctrines which warrant separation, Adam Thomas), I am wondering the decline can be explained by the decline of certainty in Fundamental circles in light of the Postmodern turn.

Postmodernism is, in many ways, a skeptical awakening to the "objective interpreter's" power-plays on a text. Fairness to the "other" has driven the Postmodern ethos to discover and unveil interpretive biases. In many cases it has also meant a complete deconstruction of meaning [how can we prevent a group from hijacking a text and destroying the "other" by interpretational consensus ? -- we can divest it of any meaning at all, thereby preventing interpretation and thus hermeneutical consensus].

The Postmodern ethical obligation toward the "other" has arisen as a reaction of the autonomous, disinterested "knower" of the Enlightenment and Modernist movements. Today, one might as well claim to be a unicorn as an objective interpreter. "Knowledge is power," and to postmodern mind, noone is more "power hungry" than those who claim to have access to an "objective interpretation." Disinterest objective interpreter? -- hardly! -- try power-hungry, intolerant, Imperialistic interpreter!

So is the decline in Fundamentalism really due to legalism, in-fighting, an inability to articulate the fundamentals, and Nate Mihelis' blog? I am thinking that these might be ancillary causes -- especially among students. But though all of these problems are issues which are crippling the regeneration of Fundamentalism, I believe that it is Postmodernism that is dealing the death blow.

Perhaps one explanation for continental slide of gen-X into greater evangelicalism is due to the desimation of the ideal of an "objective interpreter" within Fundamentalism. What we are witnessing in this divide is not simply a generation gap -- we are witnessing the effects of the first generation of Fundamentalsts born and raised in a Postmodern world butting heads with their (still) Modernist movement. In other words, this is not simply a generation gap -- it is symptomatic of a Christian Cultural revolution.

Fundamentalist has articulated three core beliefs as a movement: 1) the interpretation of key texts regarding the obligation of the Church to separate from doctrinal apostasy, 2) the notion that denominations, once compromised by apostasy, have never [and cannot] been reclaimed [I wonder if the Southern Baptist resurgence has also cast doubt here], and 3) the perspicuity of the Scriptures in regard to those essential doctrines which cannot be compromised. But the first Postmodern generation of Fundamentalists is increasingly calling the Fundamentalistic rationale for separation into question, perhaps because of the Postmodern attack on interpretive certainty.

The Postmodern Fundamentalist (PF, pardon the paradox) thinks something to be amiss in the "old" doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scripture -- it smells of Modernism. And it very well may be. It may be that the new generation of Fundamentalism believes it has pulled back the curtain on the "old" use of the perspicuity of the Scriptures, and in so doing has discovered it for what it really is -- the perspicuity of the interpreter. Perhaps it is not for a failure of fundamentalist articulation that gen-X is making an exodus out of Fundamentalism. Perhaps it is a failure of Modernism.

The "old" use of perspicuity entailed that the meaning of the Scriptures were clear, and therefore those who deviate from them are clearly disobedient. Yet there is an implicit proposition -- or rather assuption -- in this mode of thinking; namely, that the interpreter is equally capable to mine meaning from the text without destorting it. It is this notion which is lost on the PF. The ability of the interpreter to examine a text as an objective, disinterested "knower" is a myth for them, and so the notion that the perspicuity of the Scriptures creates a platform for separation from doctrinal deviance is not wrong -- it simply fails to address the problem: whose doctrine? which deviance? If every interpreter approaches the text from some point on the hermeneutical circle, and so produces a different textual conclusion, by what means can we point to another within the circle and say, "Your interpretation is deviant." So it is not for a lack of perspicuity on the part of Scripture that the eXodus is taking place, it is for lack of perspicuity on the part of the interpreter -- Postmodern Fundamentalists are just plain skeptical about a reading which separates them from the majority of those who possess the Spirit.

To the PF, the dogmatism and militancy which hung about the Fundamentalist kerygma is not befitting a humble interpreter of the Scripture. Humility is a quality of fairness to the "other" -- and humility is absent whereever an absolutist or objective interpretation is finally set down over a text, especially regarding texts where there is much debate to be had. A truly humble Christian interpreter is one who recognizes that he reads the text from inside the world (rather than above it as an objective observer) and consequently that his interpretation, far from being objective, is simply one legitimate accounting of the sense of the text. In other words, for the PF, the line between "what the text says" and "what the text is said to mean" is darkening.

If this is true, I think that there are a number of reasons both to be encouraged and dismayed. I am interested to see your thoughts on my theory.