We are all fundamentalists at some time or another over certain issues. It is just the intensity of fundamentalism that varies. So, if I was a fundamentalist (not the extremist kind), how would I want a non-fundamentalist to converse with me?
- You must realize from the beginning that I don’t require scientific proof to believe something is true.
- Respect me me a person. I am not stupid. You can disagree with my ideas, but don’t think I’m an idiot.
- I will try to be gracious, even in my inflexible insistence upon certain truths.
- I would appreciate finding areas we can agree on before we debate things we disagree on.
- If we do disagree on what I think is a foundational issue (what I would call a fundamental truth), I will still try to be gracious even though I think you are gravely and perhaps even foolishly mistaken.
- If you try to change my mind on a fundamental issue, it would be dishonest of me and naïve of you not to expect emotions to become involved in the discussion.
- Even though I may vehemently disagree with one of your fundamental truths and even consider it foolish, I will not hate you for it.
- Even if I believe you are going to Hell, I will not treat you as an inferior person. My beliefs are mine. They are not your problem to try to fix.
- Some of my beliefs are offensive to you. I understand that. But you need to understand that I could find some of your beliefs offensive to me.
- Compassion would demand of me that I desire you to believe as I do.
The cartoon today was inspired by some thoughts I’ve been having about the “other”. I’ve been thinking about this mainly because of the discussions we’ve been having here about fundamentalism. In spite of some skepticism concerning my sincerity in saying that we all have elements of fundamentalism at some time or another over some issue or another, I still would assert this point. I think we can agree that we are all narcissistic to a greater or lesser degree. The same goes for the fundamentalist mindset.
But how can we believe something to be true and still hear the other who’s opinion differs? When we look at the other, do we only see how the other is similar to us and is therefore attractive, or how the other differs and is therefore undesirable? Can we even perceive the other beyond these categories of similarity and difference? For only then are they truly other. Can we even recognize the truly other without our categories? Or, as if like a monster in our nightmare, are we afraid of something we do not recognize and reject the other altogether? Are we able to behold the wonder, the terrible beauty, the sacred in the wholly other? Can we love and respect this? Only then might we learn to commune with this other.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
I don’t at this time want to divulge all the abuses that has happened to me in the church from the hands of its leaders and members. For many reasons. One is that those experiences carry a significance for me that is sacred. To tell you about them diminishes their gravity. Perhaps one day. But another reason is that I don’t know how to do it in ways that wouldn’t inflict the same harm upon the perpetrators. They are still within the church, the same universal tribe I am still a part of, and to broadcast my experiences could become a form of vengeance I am not willing to exact. Perhaps one day, when all the poison has been lanced, I will be able to tell you my stories completely free of malice.
So on the one hand I am vague. I don’t name names unless I am sure I am not harming someone, even if you might think they deserve it. Because I have experienced it in full measure first hand, I am extremely sensitive to abuse within religious structures and organizations. This is why, on the other hand, I am considered ruthless in my critique of the principalities and the powers. Because they can be abusive in such subtle, illusive and even unconscious ways, I seem unforgiving in my analysis of the church, religion and spirituality. I and my family have been tortured by very well-meaning and sincere Christians who still don’t comprehend the wounds they have inflicted. But it is because I believe in people, their well-being, rights and freedoms that I do what I do.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
I created this chart today to help me get a better grasp on the essentials of fundamentalism. I don’t believe fundamentalism is reserved for the religious right or extremists. I believe it is a mindset that manifests itself in all kinds of positions. I am interested in how dialog and peace can occur between all parties, including fundamentalists. I hope this chart helps us to see that we are all fundamentalists when it comes to certain issues, and depending on the circumstances. I’m suggesting that we all can find ourselves somewhere on this chart. Please keep in mind that all these categories are not necessarily religious. Pardon the visual quality of the chart. It’s the best I can do for now.
Chris Hedges expresses his opinion on fundamentalism in his book I Don’t Believe in Atheists:
The blustering televangelists, and the atheists who rant about the evils of religion, are little more than carnival barkers. They are in show business, and those in show business know complexity does not sell. They trade clichés and insults like cartoon characters. They don masks. One wears the mask of religion, the other wears the mask of science. They banter back and forth in predictable sound bites. They promise, like all advertisers, simple and seductive dreams. This debate engages two bizarre subsets who are well suited to the television culture because of the crudeness of their arguments. One distorts the scientific theory of evolution to explain the behavior and rules for complex social, economic and political systems. The other insists that the six-day story of creation in Genesis is fact and Jesus will descend format the sky to create the kingdom of God on Earth. These antagonists each claim to have discovered an absolute truth. They trade absurdity for absurdity. They show that the danger is not religion or science. The danger is fundamentalism.
My question, and I think the urgent question is: How can fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists dialog? Harvey Cox, in his newest book The Future of Faith, suggests that the most important isn’t interfaith but intrafaith dialog, especially between the fundamentalist wing and the rest. It is the fundamentalist mindset that is his newest concern:
Of course in conversations between people from differing traditions, for example, between Christians and Buddhists, differences always come up. Indeed, that is one purpose of the conversation. But the differences seem to be at a safe remove, since the participants are not a part of the “family”. The can be registered and dismissed as “interesting”. This is not the case, however, with the discrepancies that inevitably arise when those in the interfaith wing of a religion try to converse on a serious level with those from the circle-the-wagons wing of the same affiliation. In these encounters, things get tense, tempers often flare, and people sometimes stomp out of the room. More seems to be at stake. Many people try and then just give up. But quitting merely propels the whole interfaith enterprise toward a dead end. It creates the unpleasant prospect of a future in which, while open-minded members in each religion enjoy cozy colloquies with each other, the ultraconservative wing in each becomes more isolated and truculent.
It has become apparent to me over the last few years of writing this blog that the critical conversation is between the fundamentalists and the rest. It is the fundamentalist mindset that presents the greatest challenge, in my opinion, to open dialog between all parties. Like Cox experienced and observes, as well as Hedges, and just as we do here at nakedpastor, if we all just agreed with each other, what’s the good in that? But when we enter into the foray of disagreement, that’s where the real possibilities lie. I believe it is urgent that we explore ways of dialoging. Love necessitates it.
(The title is inspired from Bruce Cockburn’s song, “Lovers in a Dangerous Time”).
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
Jesus was in the garden facing torture and death. He asked God to let the cup pass from him. But he finally conceded that it was not what he willed, but what God wills. What his vocation cost him seemed more than he could bear. I identify with that. The extent of my struggle fades in comparison. But I understand what it means to do something difficult reluctantly, to do what I must rather than what I prefer. Especially when things don’t make sense.
I struggle with my call to pastor. I find it very difficult, not because I don’t love the people or the church, but because it hurts. There have been a couple of times in my life when a prophecy has come to pass for me. Once in a blue moon there has been confidence that things made sense. But almost all the time I walk in darkness. Only my next step is illuminated, and that only sometimes, and pale. I can’t find meaning.
I was talking with a friend today who had moved here with his family to be a part of our community. Just after they arrived and made friends, we went through a crisis at the church and much of what they came for disintegrated before their eyes. This has happened so many times and applies to so many people I love. When people move here to be a part of our church, I want them to be happy. I want things to go according to their hopes. I need to provide them meaning, especially when things get rough. But I can’t. I can only love them. I can care. I can be tender. I can be there. That’s all.
The main theme in Job is meaning. He was offensively transparent in his insistence that there was no meaning in his suffering. His friends claimed to have meaning. Who did God exonerate in the end? The one who was blind to meaning. And the ones who claimed to have meaning repented. I can’t find meaning for myself, for my friends or for my community. But, like Job, I have to trust that God has the meaning. The meaning is God’s. Occasionally, like once or twice in a lifetime, we get glimpses of meaning. But in the end we must simply trust that the story we are in is written with a compassionate hand. And all we can do in the midst of this is love one another. That is the best meaning I can give. For now.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
Lisa and I spend the last weekend with a great bunch of younger people. Well, generally they are younger. There were some older ones there too. And I would put myself in the older group. It was an entirely refreshing time for me. Also disturbing.
It was refreshing for me because they are a curious collection of people. Nobody necessarily agreed with anything I had to say. That wasn’t the point. The point was for me to come and share what I had discovered with them. In turn, they shared their discoveries with me. No conclusions or comparisons had to be drawn. Even though their spirit is deep and rich, it seemed free of negative religious spirit. When I shared with them an explanation of the z-theory (type z-theory in the subject box of nakedpastor to learn more), it was refreshing for me to see interest in their eyes instead of the usual glazing over or anger or indifference. The discussions were lively, courageous and edifying. When we were nearing the end I had the impression that what had happened that weekend was like two subversive underground collectives meeting covertly. It was an affirmative time for me.
It was disturbing because I realized that these guys and I share the same DNA. I saw that my critique of the church is justified. There are vast numbers of people like them, like me, who desire community that respects and embraces a spiritual component but entirely free of manipulation, control, exploitation, expectations and confined thought and belief. I returned more commitment to authentic community free of all these things. I realized on my drive home that this means commitment to receiving more maltreatment, but I’ll deal with that.
The photo is of the group on Saturday morning working together on one canvas. The themes we worked on were journey, sacred, truth and reverence.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
This is a picture of the wine and cheese party that John and Judith Brennan held at their house last night. We took a while just getting to know each other. Then suddenly the conversation around nakedpastor, community and the z-theory started. What a lively discussion! I thoroughly enjoyed interacting with these people who aren’t afraid to think outside the prescribed box. I was a little anxious about talking about the z-theory because I’d only written about it so far. But it was fine. We went late into the night. This morning we are heading to an art studio to do something. I’m not quite sure yet. A surprise.
Lisa and I are driving to Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia. There is a young artistic/ surfing/ spiritual community on the eastern shore looking out over the Atlantic Ocean on one of the nicest beaches for surfing up this way. We are friends with the ones who oversee it and host it at their house, Judith and John Brannen. They’ve asked us to come and hang out with them for the weekend. We are having a wine and cheese party tonight, an arts session tomorrow morning, then a dinner tomorrow night. They’ve asked that I come and talk about my z-theory (type “z-theory” into my search box on nakedpastor and all 17 entries will come up if you want to catch up). I’m excited about it because this community has a reputation for being very curious, fun, intellectual, and deeply committed to the value of questioning.
It’s interesting: these past couple of weeks I’ve talked to several “believers” who are keeping up appearances, but who are actually closet skeptics, closet liberals, closet agnostics, closet atheists, closet whatever. My question is, “Why don’t we just come out of our closets?” There is a lot of fear of persecution, rejection and ridicule from the outside. But there is also the terror of what being honest about our doubts and questions will mean to our own spiritual, intellectual and emotional stability. I think we should all find the courage to question. It is easier with support, which is why I encourage this kind of community. But if we have to do it alone, it’s better to be honest than live a borrowed life.
I’m looking forward to talking with a bunch of younger people eager to explore. I’m expecting to be personally challenged myself. I’m a little nervous about articulating the z-theory clearly. Why? Because my years of searching, culminating in the waterfall dream, was a mystical experience for me, a vision of sorts, that completely altered my mind. How does one communicate such things? I’ll keep you posted.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
When a seed is planted in the appropriate soil, it is planted in a rich composite of properties such as organic elements, minerals, rock and clay particles, acids, water, etc. We can enrich the soil with compost, manure and fertilizers.
Seeds are carriers of information. When we say a seed has a certain DNA, we are saying that it contains certain information. This certain information somehow directs its environment to form the corresponding plant.
We are like plants in soil. As human beings, we are of one kind of seed. So we have a certain DNA that has directed our differing environments to form each of us. Even though we are the generally the same, our differing environments have contributed to some level of uniqueness among us. But are we truly unique? Truly individual?
The main obstacle to freedom is ignorance of oneself and our environment. It is also the main obstacle to individuality. If I am governed only by the opinions and models that I obtain from my surrounding culture then I am not really an individual. Instead, I would only be a particular manifestation of the collective consciousness of humanity. I might have special characteristics, but these are all drawn from the reservoir of human thoughts and feelings. In fact, the Greek root of the word “idiosyncrasy” means “private mixture”. Quantum physicist David Bohm says,
A genuine individual could only be one who was actually free from ignorance of his or her attachment to the collective unconscious. Individuality and true freedom go together and ignorance (or lack of awareness) is the principal enemy of both.
I am not my upbringing. I am not my education. I am not my religion. I am not my job. I am not what people expect of me. I am not public opinion. This could be so. And for so many people it is because this is the easy way. But in order to be really liberated and therefore truly an individual, I must know the truth about my attachments, and being aware of them, be truly free.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
