In his excellent essay, “This Is a Religious War“, Andrew Sullivan argues that it must be acknowledged that religion is responsible in some way for the events of 9/11, and that we must try to figure out how and why. He continues:
The first mistake is surely to condescend to fundamentalism. We may disagree with it, but it has attracted millions of adherents for centuries, and for a good reason. It elevates and comforts. It provides a sense of meaning and direction to those lost in a disorienting world. The blind recourse to texts embraced as literal truth, the injunction to follow the commandments of God before anything else, the subjugation of reason and judgment and even conscience to the dictates of dogma: these can be exhilarating and transformative. They have led human beings to perform extraordinary acts of both good and evil. And they have an internal logic to them. If you believe that there is an eternal afterlife and that endless indescribable torture awaits those who disobey God’s law, then it requires no huge stretch of imagination to make sure that you not only conform to each diktat but that you also encourage and, if necessary, coerce others to do the same. The logic behind this is impeccable.
You see, this is what I was addressing in yesterday’s post. Even though Sullivan is not a fundamentalist, he is able to articulate in a fair manner the fundamentalist’s position. He doesn’t agree with the fundamentalist. But he understands that from within the logic of fundamentalism, the fundamentalist’s ideas, attitudes and actions make complete sense.
If you like what nakedpastor has to say, your support is appreciated.
artist. cartoonist. teacher.
You see, this is what I was addressing in yesterday’s post. Even though Sullivan is not a fundamentalist, he is able to articulate in a fair manner the fundamentalist’s position. He doesn’t agree with the fundamentalist. But he understands that from within the logic of fundamentalism, the fundamentalist’s ideas, attitudes and actions make complete sense.
——But I surely do NOT see empathy with in what he says. In fact, he is describing fundamentalism [though certainly not completely], but things will start to break down when he starts to relate it to a phelps, jim jones, koresh, etc. That is, real acts of fundamentalism that he adhores.
Articulating someones postion does not equal empathy.
fishon: but sullivan’s essay is addressing the Islamic fundamentalists who brought down the towers.
Islamic fundamentalism and christian fundamentalism ultimately amount to the same thing.
I agree dorsey
hardly. one is about THE Savior, the other is about a fraud.
David, if you really believe Islamic fundamentalism and christian fundamentalism ultimately amount to the same thing, I understand why you stopped being a pastor of a local church.
I never would have thought the two fundamentalisms were the same. I still don’t think they are. Radical Islamist fundamentalists destroy buildings and murder people. But I guess Christian fundamentalism does tend to destroy intellectual potential and murder human personality. So are they the same thing?
“I still don’t think they are. Radical Islamist fundamentalists destroy buildings and murder people” (Darrin)
Dorsey is right – they both arrive at similar conclusions at how to solve ‘some’ problems.
Did anyone here know that since 1977 there has been 150,000+ violent acts committed against abortions doctors and clinics? Those ain’t Muslims doing this internal terrorism.
So when looked at closely, yes Christian fundamentalism does also end up in extremes – namely in the case of abortion (and those that disagree with them).
This is not to say every fundamentalist is this way, but that also goes for Islam as well.
I still think tacit approval for such areas is tantamount to taking part.
RECLAIMING NOT by Doug Sloan
http://dmergent.org/2010/07/29/reclaiming-not/
- – - – - – - – - -
What is not the Good News:
Committing acts of war, violence, brutality, coercion, intimidation, discrimination, or exclusion in the name of faith or religion or scripture or Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed or Allah or God or in the name of any entity divine or mortal.
Viewing a faithful life as being in a war or a combat operation or viewing the faithful life as requiring a warrior mentality or viewing faith as a weapon or a shield.
Claiming a specific faith as a national or cultural identity or the practice of that faith as an act of patriotism, citizenship, or civic duty.
Compelling or attempting to compel others – as individuals or as community – to celebrate, observe, or respect religious holidays in accordance with religious or nationalistic or populist or commercially specified behavior.
Claiming a literal or singular or absolute or sole authoritative interpretation of scripture.
Using scripture as justification or empowerment or authorization:
- to commit or to incite murder or violence or physical assault or property damage
- to commit or to incite verbal abuse or the use of demeaning labels or ostracism or shunning
- to commit or to incite intimidation that threatens to use any of these acts
- to control or to attempt to control the lives, behavior, and choices of others.
Responding to theological differences:
- with the commission or incitement of murder or violence or physical assault or property damage
- with the commission or incitement of verbal abuse or the use of demeaning labels or ostracism or shunning
- with intimidation by threatening to use any of these acts.
Standing on a city street or in the middle of a college campus and shouting at people about the supposed errors of their supposed sinful lives.
Practicing discrimination or exclusion or an “us/them” and “here/there” world view instead of an “us/here” world view.
Advocating a patriarchal, matriarchal, racial, ethnic, caste-based, tribal/family-based, or political/citizenship/empire-based social order as the will of God.
Requiring belief in a torturous execution as an atoning sacrifice.
Preaching eternal damnation and preaching that eternal damnation can be avoided only by conversion to or by the acceptance of a rigid pre-ordained belief system or membership in a particular faith, sect, denomination, or congregation.
Preaching that post-mortal existence is a reward for or a consequence of how mortal life is lived, that post-mortal existence is based on conditions instead of grace.
Claiming knowledge of the details or the nature of a post-mortal existence.
Preaching that the Kingdom of God is a future existence or a future apocalyptic event instead of a present reality and a way of living now.
Being focused on or concerned with a post-mortal existence to the exclusion or diminishment of life here and now – especially when it eliminates or diminishes or opposes the active and involved faithful service to and with others – for example: to feed, quench, clothe, heal, welcome, and visit in prison.
Preaching that how and what we believe is more important than how we live individually and as community and in relationship with each other.
Viewing the ascension to free will or the acquisition of free will as a sinful act that eternally separates from God all people for all generations instead of being viewed as a parable of success for both the people and God.
Viewing free will as strictly an earth-based and a human trait.
Requiring belief in the convoluted theology of a divine trinity.
Having to view Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed or any person as God or equivalent to God.
Having to view the Cross or the Bible or the Qur’an or any text or any object or any symbol or any person as being worthy of worship or worshipful reverence.
Requiring belief in ascensions, post-death appearances, physical resurrections, virgin births, divine interventions, or any so-called “miraculous” occurrence.
No matter how reassuring it is made to sound, proclaiming that a disaster or a death or an injury or an illness or a harmful loss is the will of God.
Societyvs::Did anyone here know that since 1977 there has been 150,000+ violent acts committed against abortions doctors and clinics?
—-Did you know that since 1973 over 50 MILLION babies in the womb has had ‘violent acts committed against them?
Hum, 150,000 verses 50,000,000.
Societyvs::I still think tacit approval for such areas is tantamount to taking part.
—-Yep, all those liberal Christians and their denominations take part with their ‘tacit approval’ in the ‘violent act’ of abortion. —Wow, societyvs, You have a statement I can agree with. Oh wait, I bet you didn’t mean it that way!
Sullivan later in the essay says about Christian fundamentalism: “… we should be amazed not that violence has occurred– but that it hasn’t occurred more often.”
I think Ingersoll was close – “Strange but true: those who have loved God most have loved men least“.
As for “those liberal Christians” and abortions:
43% are Protestants
27% are Catholics
13% are self-described “Born Again” or Evangelical Christians
(Alan Guttmacher Institute and Physicians for Reproductive Choice, “An Overview of Abortion in the United States,” 2003 and 2008)
43% are Protestants
27% are Catholics
13% are self-described “Born Again” or Evangelical Christians
(Alan Guttmacher Institute and Physicians for Reproductive Choice, “An Overview of Abortion in the United States,” 2003 and 2008)
——yep, my point exactly.
nakedpastor
July 29, 2010 | 7:55 pm
Sullivan later in the essay says about Christian fundamentalism: “… we should be amazed not that violence has occurred– but that it hasn’t occurred more often.”
Hum, that seems to speak very well of the vast majority of Christian fundies.
I completely disagree with the idea of “religion” playing any role in 9/11. It was not religion, it was fundamentalism. Is fundamentalism religion? Is religion fundamentalism? Fundamentalism manifests itself in many forms, or it uses many “vessels”.
I have to think of the dictatorship in Burma – what was striking for me when I was there is that there is no real ideology behind it (unlike say, North Korea), it is based on nothing else but the hunger for power. And when examining any other dictatorship, you soon realize, that the ideology is simply an “excuse”, or a vessel. The same applies for fundamentalism – it’s a force that can, and will exist without any religion or ideology behind it.
Also, it is more than obvious that the 9/11 attack had massive political motives behind it. It was not an act by “misled but devout muslims”. It was done by people who are after power. IMO it is very naive to think that there was/is any religious motive behind any of this.
Interesting kelseyud. Good points. But if a Christian blows up an abortion clinic, isn’t their religious beliefs driving (influencing) their fundamentalism? If so, wouldn’t that go against the last sentence in your statement?
Andrew Sullivan said it well but I don’t think that he is only referring to “the Islamic fundamentalists who brought down the towers” here. Fundamentalism, he points out, has inspired people to do extraordinary acts of good and evil. Not every fundamentalist uses fundamentalism as an excuse to do evil (but I would add that those fundamentalists who do evil things, use fundamentalism as a means to convince themselves they are doing good).
I know exactly what Andrew is talking about when he says: “The blind recourse to texts embraced as literal truth, the injunction to follow the commandments of God before anything else, the subjugation of reason and judgment and even conscience to the dictates of dogma: these can be exhilarating and transformative.” Now I don’t like his use of the term “The blind”…that is not very empathetic. Maybe “the lost” or “the searching” would be better. But I love him pointing out how “exhilarating and transformative” fundamentalism is.
I believe that in the end, fundamentalism is indeed a selfish act. It feels good, it makes us feel right, it elevates us above the “infidel” or the “lost soul”. We’re the chosen, the elect…we thank God that we are not still like “them” and we are even humbled that God would reveal this “truth” to us and not to others. And, above all, it gives us meaning (logic if you will) in a crazy world. Ultimately I discovered that I ended up in fundamentalism because I was running away from something(s) more than I was running to God. Now when I meet a fundamentalist/Biblical literalist or converse with them I wonder what it is they are running from. But the thing about that is, if God truly is our Father, then it should be ok to run to Him to get away from something that haunts us or that we don’t like. But the problem is some of us don’t leave, even after God has moved on. It’s like we moved back in with our parents and we’re still there at 40. It’s time to face reality and figure things out for ourselves…think for ourselves, study widely, embrace uncertainty and doubt. No truly loving father would condemn his child for doing such things.
I know plenty of folks in Christian fundamentalism and they don’t feel the need to dominate the world, kill abortion doctors, coerce everyone, start a religious war, or commit terrorist acts. In fact, some are very selfless and loving.
I don’t enjoy their us/them mentality.
Diving deep with abandon into a certain god will have outcomes. I just depends on what that god is all about and how you perceive him. He could be the most loving god ever, but if you see him as violent and rigid, it’s going to come out in your actions.
Kelseyud, how can fundamentalism exist independent of religion and/or ideology. Power of one group over another is an ideology. You can’t be fundamental over nothing. The terrorists of 9/11 were Islamic fundamentalists…and that’s not naive, that’s fact.
But I agree that it’s not religion that’s the problem…it’s fundamentalism. Religion, faith, spirituality of any sort is not bad or harmful in and of itself…it’s fundamentalism.
“Did you know that since 1973 over 50 MILLION babies in the womb has had ‘violent acts committed against them?” (fishon)
I did know that and I don’t agree with abortion (which is my personal stance). However, I also don’t agree with many of the situations that put women into making that decision…which for them is always a tough one. I also don’t think outlawing abortion would make the situation better – but much worse.
“Yep, all those liberal Christians and their denominations take part with their ‘tacit approval’ in the ‘violent act’ of abortion” (fishon)
Correct, and they should – a woman does have a right to choose as much as we men may not understand that.
“a woman does have a right to choose as much as we men may not understand that.”
As if women have exclusive access to moral paths that would be wrong for a man to take. If it’s right, it’s not because a woman *chooses* it.
“As if women have exclusive access to moral paths that would be wrong for a man to take. If it’s right, it’s not because a woman *chooses* it.” (Daniel)
I am not sure it is about right so much as it is about their choice in the matter.
However, consider war for a few seconds – a male dominated game. How come we have the right to kill others in the name of our country? What makes that different than abortion – as far as ‘choice’ goes?
I am merely reflecting the landscape of humanity here. Men have had the ‘choice’ to kill for decades – justifiably via war. Why is it abortion cannot be considered justifiable in many situations?
That all being said, again I am not in favor of abortion – I don’t it’s ideal. But I will bet most women don’t think that either (even the one’s who have had one). But it happens. I think we seriously, as Christians, need to consider all the factors that go into a woman making this hard and painful decision. Christianity has a tendency to make issues ‘black and white’ – and they just are not that simple.
Sorry about the tangent NP, maybe this would be a good topic to discuss and here from a variety of sources on – men and women. (Although this topic is clearly related to Christian fundamentalism – our skelton in the closet).
Are we really saying that all fundamentalism is bad? Can someone define what fundamentalism is?
Daniel, the original fundamentalism was a reaction to the liberal theology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and consisted in the 5 fundamentals as mentioned in the Wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God’s grace and through human faith
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus
* The authenticity of Christ’s miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming), e.g. healing, deliverance, and second coming
To me these read more like a mainstream evangelical position now. To be fair I would hesitate over pre-millenialism, and I would want to be sure what was meant by inerrancy because I think that is where the modern divergence comes from.
But I don’t find anything in them that suggests to me a need for an ungracious attitude towards people who believe differently from me, and that ungraciousness seems to me the big difference with what many people understand fundamentalism to mean nowadays.
I think modern (Christian) fundamentalism is a catch-all term now used to describe religiously inspired nationalism, anti-abortion, anti-gay, young-earth creationism [...] i.e. often things that lead to ungracious attitudes towards others. Once we are able to define people as outside of God’s grace, it is very much easier to justify practising what we believe to be God’s judgment on them.
So when we are casting around terms like ‘inerrancy’ and ‘fundamentalism’ I think we need to be careful because they do mean different things to different people.