The simple answer: unadulterated curiosity.
I realize I may have misinterpreted your motives in writing that statement, and I apologize if I did. My past has shaped me, and how I approach my faith. I believe that is true for all of us.
I'm thankful we don't need scholarly backgrounds, and made a similar argument myself in my thread titled "The Best Theologian...Ever!"
Because what we are looking for is relevance, not truth.
We acknowledge that truth is what it is. Everyone is subject to truth, and experiences it in every moment. Truth is not something lost, needing to be found. It is not a secret maintained by one group, but withheld from everyone else. Truth is, and there is nothing that will change that, no matter how we describe it.
Fundamentalism is unwilling, in my experience, to make that distinction between relevance and truth. They are unwilling to identify that they are explaining the truth somewhat differently than others, but the truth will still be what it is regardless of whose explanation proves to be more accurate.
We are all expert critics of other people's explanations of the truth, but rarely do we turn that expertise against ourselves. We refute peer review from our critics, and we seek out people who agree with us. In this way, we miss out on a tremendous amount of opportunities for both relationship and accountability.
The more we promote the relevance of Christian faith, the less we have to defend its accuracy to the truth. Our needs are not structured in such a way that we prioritize accuracy over survival and relationship. Whenever Christians spend so most of their time trying to defend their beliefs as true, they lose relevance to the audience who identifies their highest priorities as survival and relationship.
That is the reason I can shrug and say, "These are my opinions. They may not be accurate." It is because my goal is relevance, and I see relevance as superior to accuracy.I respect your feelings. I am at peace.
In the definition provided by your link, I found a few things about fundamentalism with which I struggle. First, it was a movement that took place in the 20th century, which is a shockingly late development for something that has supposedly been obviously true for nineteen hundred years. Second, it was developed in response to modernism, which was itself a movement with which the Biblical authors had no experience, so projecting a fundamentalist perspective on them seems at the very least irrelevant. Third, the movement assumed the authority to define which beliefs were essential to the Christian faith.
While I am not denying the validity of their movement or their conclusions, I must ask: Who were they, and from what did they derive such authority?
