What do you think?
Rate this book
Fidelity Without Fundamentalism
As religious believers feel themselves more threatened by the modern world, they increasingly often turn to fundamentalism. The fundamentalist argues that attempts to engage with contemporary culture will only end in the watering down of the Christian message to suit the passing whims of the age. In Fidelity without Fundamentalism Gerard J. Hughes shows that in fact being a truly faithful Christian involves avoiding fundamentalism; to be faithful just is to express our faith in a way that respects contemporary knowledge. Conventional presentations of Christianity often require thoughtful believers to sweep under the rug a whole host of issues which it is thought they should be protected from for fear they might undermine their faith. The longer term effect of this, consciously or unconsciously, is to corrode their Christian commitment. This brilliant, accessible and timely book shows the inquisitive Christian how to reconcile their everyday contemporary world view with what is truly essential to Christianity.
176 pages, Paperback
First published September 3, 2010
1 person is currently reading
9 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 16, 2025
A helpful book for practicing faith while confronting fundamentalism, something I think about a lot these days! Gerard Hughes was a Jesuit professor of philosophy at Oxford, so the book is a little on the dense, scholarly side (I like this but it's not a benefit to all readers) however it's short which makes it less intimidating. I like that Hughes' definition of fundamentalism can apply to any traditional structure, as I've found much content dealing with fundamentalism is focused on evangelical Protestant belief and is less helpful to my Catholic background.
Hughes' argument is that faithfulness to a tradition, that is, applying the tenets of a tradition faithfully to one's own life and circumstances, is a process of translation. He walks the reader through the process of faithfully translating first some proverbs from various languages (examples that don't carry much theological or political weight), then some scripture passages with more pressing implications, then finally some larger moral mandates that are often points of contention for Christians. Through these examples, he demonstrates that faithfully translating something requires careful negotiation between the language and culture of origin and the language and context one is translating into. He also shows that people of good conscience may not arrive at the exact same translation in all cases.
Hughes is aware that the intricacies of translating a tradition make fundamentalists uncomfortable. They typically insist on word-for-word adherence to the original texts of a tradition, taking issue with the idea that anything about the source material could be unclear. Anyone who has done the work of translating something knows better. A good translation will enrich understanding of the traditional source by seeking a culturally suitable equivalent for words, phrases, or contexts that have no exact parallel. A word-for-word translation in such cases can be insufficient or even lazy, and can actually corrode belief.
Hughes' argument was particularly helpful in debunking the claim that those who reject fundamentalism are relativists. Faithful translators, he argues, work hard to engage with and understand traditional sources; they believe that there is knowledge and guidance to be gained from the core texts, and they cannot "make up" anything they please and claim that it is a good translation. Translation is worthwhile work only if we acknowledge that the essence of a text can be understood by new audiences across languages, cultures, and contexts. That is, one must believe there is a truth to convey and the possibility of that truth being translated so as to be understood.
In fact, Hughes suggests that the fundamentalist may actually be closer to relativism than the translator. He gives the example of a fundamentalist who insists that the Bible be read literally on matters of science, such as the age of the earth or other details of the creation narrative. By refusing to reevaluate his understanding of scripture, the fundamentalist is leaving two "truths" at odds with one another, Biblical truth and scientific truth. A faithful person who engages in the work of translation, however, will allow the consensus of science to guide his reading of scripture, and will accept information about culture, context, and genre to honor both the spiritual message of the creation story and the findings of science, because he knows that there is just one reality in which both sources of knowledge must be reconciled.
I am glad to have read this book; it gave me much food for thought and I was pleasantly surprised to learn quite a bit about Biblical scholarship along the way. I do feel that Hughes left some of my personal issues with fundamentalism specifically in Catholicism unaddressed: his argument focused much on how to engage directly with sources of tradition, which may be due to his position within the Church as a priest and scholar. As a layperson, I often find my grappling with fundamentalism thwarted by imperatives to submit to Church hierarchy and infallibility, and these didn't seem pressing obstacles to Hughes... maybe that's my scrupulosity talking and he trusts his conscience more, or maybe he recognizes himself as part of the active development and teaching of Catholic tradition, and the conflict I feel doesn't occur to him.
Hughes' argument is that faithfulness to a tradition, that is, applying the tenets of a tradition faithfully to one's own life and circumstances, is a process of translation. He walks the reader through the process of faithfully translating first some proverbs from various languages (examples that don't carry much theological or political weight), then some scripture passages with more pressing implications, then finally some larger moral mandates that are often points of contention for Christians. Through these examples, he demonstrates that faithfully translating something requires careful negotiation between the language and culture of origin and the language and context one is translating into. He also shows that people of good conscience may not arrive at the exact same translation in all cases.
Hughes is aware that the intricacies of translating a tradition make fundamentalists uncomfortable. They typically insist on word-for-word adherence to the original texts of a tradition, taking issue with the idea that anything about the source material could be unclear. Anyone who has done the work of translating something knows better. A good translation will enrich understanding of the traditional source by seeking a culturally suitable equivalent for words, phrases, or contexts that have no exact parallel. A word-for-word translation in such cases can be insufficient or even lazy, and can actually corrode belief.
Hughes' argument was particularly helpful in debunking the claim that those who reject fundamentalism are relativists. Faithful translators, he argues, work hard to engage with and understand traditional sources; they believe that there is knowledge and guidance to be gained from the core texts, and they cannot "make up" anything they please and claim that it is a good translation. Translation is worthwhile work only if we acknowledge that the essence of a text can be understood by new audiences across languages, cultures, and contexts. That is, one must believe there is a truth to convey and the possibility of that truth being translated so as to be understood.
In fact, Hughes suggests that the fundamentalist may actually be closer to relativism than the translator. He gives the example of a fundamentalist who insists that the Bible be read literally on matters of science, such as the age of the earth or other details of the creation narrative. By refusing to reevaluate his understanding of scripture, the fundamentalist is leaving two "truths" at odds with one another, Biblical truth and scientific truth. A faithful person who engages in the work of translation, however, will allow the consensus of science to guide his reading of scripture, and will accept information about culture, context, and genre to honor both the spiritual message of the creation story and the findings of science, because he knows that there is just one reality in which both sources of knowledge must be reconciled.
I am glad to have read this book; it gave me much food for thought and I was pleasantly surprised to learn quite a bit about Biblical scholarship along the way. I do feel that Hughes left some of my personal issues with fundamentalism specifically in Catholicism unaddressed: his argument focused much on how to engage directly with sources of tradition, which may be due to his position within the Church as a priest and scholar. As a layperson, I often find my grappling with fundamentalism thwarted by imperatives to submit to Church hierarchy and infallibility, and these didn't seem pressing obstacles to Hughes... maybe that's my scrupulosity talking and he trusts his conscience more, or maybe he recognizes himself as part of the active development and teaching of Catholic tradition, and the conflict I feel doesn't occur to him.
February 6, 2016
I understood it. I think! Maybe a bit repetitive towards the end, but I have attended a workshop by Gerry so I knew a lot of his views and some material already.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews