Post by Rev. Jim Cunningham on Nov 19, 2008 2:06:34 GMT -5
From: JayDWhite (Original Message) Sent: 12/30/2003 3:05 PM
I make no qualms over this issue, I am a Liberal and have long had a profound distaste for Fundamentalism. What bothers me is, why?
In my earlier spiritual days I was a Fundamentalist, believing strongly that what I was told by my Church Elders and Minister about what the Bible taught was absolute, and from God. Thankfully that phase of my spirituality was short-lived, lasting just a little over six years. What was my downfall? Was it that I began reading other literature? Listening to “other” spiritual leaders? No, it was reading the Bible, from cover to cover, and actively ignoring my previous indoctrination. In approaching the Bible in this way I discovered that much of that indoctrination was false, and most actually against what God intended.
I know there will be many readers here that will claim that I approached the Bible with a “corrupt” mind and that I sought justification for my “lifestyle”. But they will be false claims. At the time I approached the Bible I did so as a profound believer and my “lifestyle”, as it is today, is that of the “norm”. I had no corruption to cloud my sight, I needed no justification to accomplish. What I needed was to know God's desire for me and others. Frankly I still do, I still seek.
I have, since my “fall” from Fundamentalism, had a profound distaste for anything Fundamentalist in nature. I acknowledge this distaste but was uncomfortable to the extreme. I detest prejudice, and for those that know me that is not without cause, and so having this “prejudice” against Fundamentalism was very unsettling. Although I have not found a reason to abandon this prejudice, I have found something that may lessen my distaste.
In the January issue of “UUWORLD”, a magazine for Unitarian-Universalists, an interesting article appeared, “The Fundamentalist Agenda” by Rev Dr. Davidson Loehr { www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html }. Since it is online I will not detail the whole and only paraphrase.
This article opens with a quote of H. L. Mencken's definition of Fundamentalism, “A terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun”. Although humorous it is not that point of the article. What is, is an attempt to analyze what Fundamentalism is, why it is still here, and the need for it.
“Need” for Fundamentalism? This too caught me by surprise, I had long believed that man would be far better off if Fundamentalism was killed, and buried. But I was wrong and there is a need. Fundamentalism is rooted not in ancient religious rites/beliefs but in the natural, animalistic, need to protect the tribe, the “in-group”. Fundamentalism is “absolutely natural, ancient and powerful”, as Dr. Loehr states.
Dr. Loehr states that Fundamentalism, by whatever religion, is the same. All Fundamentalists hold five basic tenets: 1) Insistent that their rule must be made to apply to all people, and to all areas of life. That there can be no separation of Church and State, or of public and private areas of life. The rigid rules of God/Allah, or whatever god you have, must become the law of the land. Make no mistake, all Fundamentalist firmly believe that they, and they alone, are the holders of the “Truth”; 2) Men are on top. They set the boundaries, define the norm, and enforce them. 3) Since there is one “right” picture of the world, dictating the roles of men, women, and children, it must be communicated to successive generation. Thus “They” must be in control of education, either directly by having “their” instructors teach or indirectly by control of textbooks and teaching styles; 4) Spurn the modern and wish to return to some nostalgic golden age; And lastly, 5) Deny history and the affect culture has on everything it touches. These are basic to all Fundamentalism movements, although the phasing may be different. Each of these tenets channelizes the world into a narrow, and shallow, stream. By holding to these the Fundamentalist appear to be shallow and superficial.
I do not reject these “just because” they are Fundamentalist in nature but because each has serious flaws. They paint a picture that is false in origin, and impossible to achieve. They do, however, attempt to protect the in-group. This, above anything else, is very necessary.
With this “praise” of Fundamentalism am I ready to abandon my Liberal beliefs and position and return to the fold? Not hardly! Society becomes a better place for all when the boundaries of the ‘in-group” are expanded to include more people. Liberalism helps do just that. In recent history the “in-group” as expanded to include women, with the granting of voting rights, and later non-whites, via Civil Rights. With each expansion the Fundamentalist eventually expanded their “protections” to the new in-group. True not necessarily without complaint but expand they did.
Fundamentalism is a needful thing but it must be tempered and that tempering is accomplished by Liberalism.
Jay
I make no qualms over this issue, I am a Liberal and have long had a profound distaste for Fundamentalism. What bothers me is, why?
In my earlier spiritual days I was a Fundamentalist, believing strongly that what I was told by my Church Elders and Minister about what the Bible taught was absolute, and from God. Thankfully that phase of my spirituality was short-lived, lasting just a little over six years. What was my downfall? Was it that I began reading other literature? Listening to “other” spiritual leaders? No, it was reading the Bible, from cover to cover, and actively ignoring my previous indoctrination. In approaching the Bible in this way I discovered that much of that indoctrination was false, and most actually against what God intended.
I know there will be many readers here that will claim that I approached the Bible with a “corrupt” mind and that I sought justification for my “lifestyle”. But they will be false claims. At the time I approached the Bible I did so as a profound believer and my “lifestyle”, as it is today, is that of the “norm”. I had no corruption to cloud my sight, I needed no justification to accomplish. What I needed was to know God's desire for me and others. Frankly I still do, I still seek.
I have, since my “fall” from Fundamentalism, had a profound distaste for anything Fundamentalist in nature. I acknowledge this distaste but was uncomfortable to the extreme. I detest prejudice, and for those that know me that is not without cause, and so having this “prejudice” against Fundamentalism was very unsettling. Although I have not found a reason to abandon this prejudice, I have found something that may lessen my distaste.
In the January issue of “UUWORLD”, a magazine for Unitarian-Universalists, an interesting article appeared, “The Fundamentalist Agenda” by Rev Dr. Davidson Loehr { www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html }. Since it is online I will not detail the whole and only paraphrase.
This article opens with a quote of H. L. Mencken's definition of Fundamentalism, “A terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun”. Although humorous it is not that point of the article. What is, is an attempt to analyze what Fundamentalism is, why it is still here, and the need for it.
“Need” for Fundamentalism? This too caught me by surprise, I had long believed that man would be far better off if Fundamentalism was killed, and buried. But I was wrong and there is a need. Fundamentalism is rooted not in ancient religious rites/beliefs but in the natural, animalistic, need to protect the tribe, the “in-group”. Fundamentalism is “absolutely natural, ancient and powerful”, as Dr. Loehr states.
Dr. Loehr states that Fundamentalism, by whatever religion, is the same. All Fundamentalists hold five basic tenets: 1) Insistent that their rule must be made to apply to all people, and to all areas of life. That there can be no separation of Church and State, or of public and private areas of life. The rigid rules of God/Allah, or whatever god you have, must become the law of the land. Make no mistake, all Fundamentalist firmly believe that they, and they alone, are the holders of the “Truth”; 2) Men are on top. They set the boundaries, define the norm, and enforce them. 3) Since there is one “right” picture of the world, dictating the roles of men, women, and children, it must be communicated to successive generation. Thus “They” must be in control of education, either directly by having “their” instructors teach or indirectly by control of textbooks and teaching styles; 4) Spurn the modern and wish to return to some nostalgic golden age; And lastly, 5) Deny history and the affect culture has on everything it touches. These are basic to all Fundamentalism movements, although the phasing may be different. Each of these tenets channelizes the world into a narrow, and shallow, stream. By holding to these the Fundamentalist appear to be shallow and superficial.
I do not reject these “just because” they are Fundamentalist in nature but because each has serious flaws. They paint a picture that is false in origin, and impossible to achieve. They do, however, attempt to protect the in-group. This, above anything else, is very necessary.
With this “praise” of Fundamentalism am I ready to abandon my Liberal beliefs and position and return to the fold? Not hardly! Society becomes a better place for all when the boundaries of the ‘in-group” are expanded to include more people. Liberalism helps do just that. In recent history the “in-group” as expanded to include women, with the granting of voting rights, and later non-whites, via Civil Rights. With each expansion the Fundamentalist eventually expanded their “protections” to the new in-group. True not necessarily without complaint but expand they did.
Fundamentalism is a needful thing but it must be tempered and that tempering is accomplished by Liberalism.
Jay