There is a lot of heated rhetoric about fundamentalism. We know we're against it, and we may even have been 'burned' by it in the past... but do we understand it?Then there's the sick irony of Christian fundamentalists engaging in a frenzy of verbal lapidation when it comes to Islam.
If you want to move beyond the usual game of "ain't it awful" and understand some of the issues involved in the various forms of fundamentalism, you could do worse than track down a copy of the eminently readable Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction by Malise Ruthven, just one of many titles in Oxford's simply brilliant 'Short Introduction' series.
If you just want a spleen-venting 'feel good' tirade, Ruthven isn't your man. In this slim volume he pushes us well up the learning curve. At the end you might not feel any more kindly toward the phenomena - I know I didn't - but you will have a deeper grasp of what motivates otherwise rational people to embrace these dire views.
You might think recommending a book on fundamentalism to a group of largely ex-fundamentalist readers is a bit like teaching your Granny to suck eggs; after all, many of us have seen the beast from the inside. But sometimes folk can be too close to something like this, or too emotionally involved, to see what would otherwise be blindingly obvious.
Ruthven covers Protestant fundamentalism well, but takes a broader brush, including related tendencies in other religions. I picked up a lot of incidental information, for example, on Islam.
And, wouldn't you know it, Fundamentalism is available free on ISSUU. If you've got an iPad or tablet, the app is well worth downloading.
Fundamentalism is a propagandistic term. It generally encompasses anyone who has a deep commitment to some belief that the user of the term does not like. We all have a belief profile and we are pretty fundamentalist about it. The opposite of fundamentalism is not believing in the "right things" but having no beliefs at all. While having no beliefs at all may cause us to revert to a hominid level existence, it is better than all the wars that result from people who follow the methodology of "my way or the highway." Implementing belief is not something that humans do not do well especially in a world where good and evil are so intimately entangled.
ReplyDelete-- Neotherm
-- Neo
Neo said: "Fundamentalism is a propagandistic term."
DeleteIt has become a propagandistic term, but its derivation is from "foundation," which is the first principles or basis of things. Without understanding of first principles, one's knowledge of anything is not only incomplete, it is built on a foundation of sand!
Sadly, this was the case with many who were members of WCG. They never truly understood the first principles of the doctrines Christ. The words of the Chosen Vessel are these: "Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God..(Hebs.6:1).
So because of this failure, when Tkach came along with his heretical reforms, the foundation of upon which their "understanding" was built collapsed. They have since tried to do what the Apostle enjoined them not to do, when he says: "not laying again the foundation of repentance." It is impossible to lay any other foundation than that which was laid by the Apostles of Christ(Eph.2:20).
No wonder people don't understand the insanity of terrorism!
What do you think those "dead works" were, Tom? According to Gal. 2:16, it's the works of the law. You know, those days you keep, those food laws you keep...yep, works of the law (Gal. 3:10) (Rom. 3:28). And that Armstrong foundation you worship, British/Israelism, has been proved wrong by the science of genetics - so, where is your "foundation"?
DeleteI wanted to read Ruthven's work before I joined the conversation. Thanks Gavin for the link and the suggestion. My thoughts:
Deletehttp://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/10/fundamentalists.html
In my experience, I don't recommend the above linked godcannotbecontained blog. It heavily censors attempts at discussion/debate in order to further its apparent mission of evangelizing fundamentalist Christianity.
DeleteSince Minimalist began responding to some of the posts at my "God Cannot Be Contained" blog back in September, I have published twenty-seven of his/her comments (and most of them contradicted or disagreed with what I had written). During that same period, I have chosen not to publish four or five of his/her comments that contained what I considered to be extremely derogatory, offensive or venomous rhetoric (it is my intention to publish this collection of posts/comments at the end of the year in a book for my children and grandchildren, and I didn't want anything that was too outlandish to appear in the finished product). I like discussion - I enjoy reading and hearing different opinions (I almost always learn something from them). Moreover, discussion is my mission - I have no interest in evangelizing anyone, defending any religion or developing a following for myself. If that were my objective, I think that I could have made much better choices regarding content, presentation and subjects addressed in my sermons, articles, posts and other writings! Hence, in reading the above recommendation, I have to ask: Who's trying to censor who?
DeleteWhat a Copout that is: Only your family get to see all the posts?
DeleteInstead of just pushing opinions, have the guts to share posts that might embarrass some of your assumptions.
When one personalizes and uses intemperate language in a debate, the only person who is generally embarrassed is the person engaging in such behavior. You have made some good points in some of your comments, and they were published. Nevertheless, I detect a personal animus in some of your posts. I respect the conclusions that you have reached in your quest, but you have indicated on numerous occasions that this feeling is not reciprocated. Are you threatened by the fact that a thinking person could reach conclusions that differ from your own? As a former Worldwide Church of God Fundamentalist, I maintain that it is possible to emerge from that experience as something other than an atheist, agnostic or non-Christian (but I certainly understand, and have not condemned, those who have adopted one of those viewpoints).
DeleteThis sub thread is now closed.
DeleteBook worked on my desktop w/o needing an app. Lots of info!
ReplyDeleteChristianity still dangerous in America ; Europe is done with it!
Christianity is dangerous??!! Wow! Christianity is the only thing preventing the complete collapse of civilization....
ReplyDeleteAnd your proof of that is....
DeleteLarry asserts "Christianity is the only thing preventing the complete collapse of civilization". Wow! Do you really believe that?
DeleteLarry, Christianity has fought the advance of civilization throughout history and it continues to fight it today. It is anti-democracy, anti-education and anti-science. Civilization developed to its modern state in spite of Christianity. If it were up to Christianity, we'd all be medieval serfs. Christianity doesn't teach governance of the people, by the people and for the people ... it teaches "obey your master".
It's no accident that the most advanced societies today are the least religious.
Christian beliefs do cause some people to restrain themselves from doing bad or evil things. Generally speaking, in a yin and yang world of good and evil, Christians have generally attempted to align themselves with good. There have been some widely acknowledged and obvious exceptions.
DeleteWhat I wonder, is if Christianity ever disappears, will logic, reason, and understanding replace it, or will something evil move into the vacuum which has been left? While it is true that agnosticism and atheism are growing, there are some less than desirable religions which are growing at a faster pace. And, some of them are based on conquest.
BB
Bob, I think the answer is "both". Both nonreligious people and other religions would move in to fill the void. Of course, Christianity will never totally disappear. No religion ever does. Just look at the ancient religions in the Middle East like the Tazikis and the Zorastrians where a remnant persists to this day. But, remnant aside, if we wish to know what will happen when Christianity is reduced to insignificance, Europe could be a good indicator.
DeleteIn much of Europe, especially in the more advanced countries, Christianity has been greatly reduced. These countries are not without problems; however, they lead the world in many measures of quality of life. They rate at the top of the list regarding health care, life span, reported satisfaction with life, vacation time, incomes, infant mortality, humane treatment of prisoners, etc. Of course, this is probably not totally due to their lack of religion but there does seem to be some correlation.
Although many here in the U.S. take an arrogant "we're the best" attitude, the truth is the U.S. is generally in the range of 15th to 20th place on most of these factors. In other words, the U.S. is ahead of most of the underdeveloped countries of the world, but we're at or near the bottom of the list among the OECD countries in almost every quality-of-life rating. Many of these shortcomings can be directly related to America's religious extremism: senators and congressman are routinely elected on religion-driven factors such as favoring the death penalty, gun ownership, bans on certain health care practices, cuts in aid to the poor etc.
Ruthven has a broad knowledge of world situation, but has fascination with the American scene, and why not, it's fascinating.
ReplyDelete