Alternate History: No Christian Fundamentalism

[Anders]

Christian Fundamentalism was originally a Protestant movement that grew up as a reaction to Modernist Bible Interpretations. They refer to the fundamentals of Christian faith as:

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

It was popularized by William Jennings Bryan, a prominent Democrat. In recent decades it has grown into a political force to be reckoned with, especially in the Republican party (it's possible I'm missing something here since I write from Sweden and is limited in my access to news sources).

But what if it never got popular? What would change in the 20th century if Fundamentalism never became a large movement you had to be aware of as a public figure?

Note: As always, this forum is not the place to argue about the existence of God.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

What would change in the 20th century if Fundamentalism never became a large movement you had to be aware of as a public figure?

Less than you'd think, probably. Fundamentalists generally made a point of staying out of politics up until around Reagan, but even after that, I get the impression that their political engagement thereafter had a far greater impact on rhetoric than policy. I certainly know evangelicals who feel ill-used by the Republican party, counted on to provide votes but not seeing legislation they want passed.

[Flyndaran]

What politicians say has changed, but what they do hasn't so much. Individuals may have pet issues, but in general, money, and status quo is the name of the game.

[robkelk]

One would think that a world without Christian Fundamentalism would be like a world without Ultra-Orthodox Judaism or Islamism - substantially quieter without the extremists running around and giving their faiths a bad name.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by robkelk

One would think that a world without Christian Fundamentalism would be like a world without Ultra-Orthodox Judaism or Islamism - substantially quieter without the extremists running around and giving their faiths a bad name.

Lacking one particular form of extremism is somewhat possible, but lacking most would require rewriting the human genome. There will always be a section that takes an idea "too far".
Also, the type of fundamentalism the OP meant is not all forms of Christian extremism, only the recent American politically empowered one.

[Anders]

Yes, it's a specific brand of Protestant Christianity. Not just "we believe this Holy Book".

[Archangel Beth]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis.

You wouldn't probably have Creationism as a "thing." No Creationism "museums" with dioramas of Christ with dinosaurs, no Creationism vs. Darwinism in textbooks, etc. (I wonder if that would mean no Darwin Fish-With-Legs decals, too?) IIRC, a lot of European and/or historical Christians were all fine with something like, "yeah, these Creation stories? they're metaphors for things that we cannot truly comprehend, but God can."

I'm sure that school prayer arguments would still continue, though.

It is possible that the Gay Marriage issues would be... less contentious than they are now.

I suspect other fundamentalisms would take up the slack, though.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

But what if it never got popular? What would change in the 20th century if Fundamentalism never became a large movement you had to be aware of as a public figure?

That would depend on why it didn't become popular; the most likely reason involves something else that occupies the same space. For the most part fundamentalism is a reaction to and rejection of other 20th century trends, and something of the sort seems likely to arise in any case, it just might have a somewhat different form.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That would depend on why it didn't become popular; the most likely reason involves something else that occupies the same space. For the most part fundamentalism is a reaction to and rejection of other 20th century trends, and something of the sort seems likely to arise in any case, it just might have a somewhat different form.

Probably. As a political term in the US it encompasses a *lot* of different movements, many of which have quite unrelated late 18th or early 19th century roots.

It's not even particularly Protestant in political usage. Opus Dei is usually lumped in the same category in political contexts. And the LDS often promotes similar political objectives and supports the same candidates, despite the fact many people who'd self label as Fundamentalists in the Protestant religious sense would deny it's even part of Christianity.

[Flyndaran]

I've heard the biggest part of the movement is simply the use of the word Christian instead of the more accurate but divisive terms for each specific (sub)sect. It gives the illusion of a massive unified movement instead of a mish-mash of often conflicting goals and beliefs.
A sad outgrowth of our very limited two party system.