Are Fundamentalists fearful?

38 Responses to "Are Fundamentalists fearful?"

• Comment by: Karen

  1 10/14/06 6:05 PM | Comment Link |

  Some background information on the reactionary nature and early history of fundamentalism. Note that “fundamentalism” as described here relates specifically to Christianity:

  Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the United States during and immediately after the First World War in order to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and to defend it militantly against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other isms regarded as harmful to American Christianity.

  Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. This usage derives from a late 19th and early 20th century transdenominational Protestant movement that opposed the accommodation of Christian doctrine to modern scientific theory and philosophy. With some differences among themselves, fundamentalists insist on belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus Christ, the vicarious and atoning character of his death, his bodily resurrection, and his second coming as the irreducible minimum of authentic Christianity. This minimum was reflected in such early declarations as the 14 point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878 and the 5 point statement of the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910.

  Two immediate doctrinal sources for fundamentalist thought were Millenarianism and biblical inerrancy. Millenarianism, belief in the physical return of Christ to establish a 1,000 year earthly reign of blessedness, was a doctrine prevalent in English speaking Protestantism by the 1870s. At the same time, powerful conservative forces led by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield opposed the growing use of literary and historical criticism in biblical studies, defending biblical inspiration and the inerrant authority of the Bible.

  The name fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to designate those “doing battle royal for the Fundamentals.” Also figuring in the name was The Fundamentals, a 12 volume collection of essays written in the period 1910 – 15 by 64 British and American scholars and preachers. Three million copies of these volumes and the founding of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association in 1919 gave sharp identity to fundamentalism as it moved into the 1920s. Leadership moved across the years from such men as A T Pierson, A J Gordon, and C I Scofield to A C Dixon and Reuben Torrey, William Jennings Bryan, and J Gresham Machen.

  Links:

  http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/fundamen.htm

  A critical view of fundamentalism:

  A major problem with fundamentalism is that fundamentalists believe they know Gods will for mankind. Fundamentalists believe that they know the truth, that their understanding is 100% accurate and there can be no questioning it and no compromise. Their position is “utterly non-negotiable.” They believe they know what is right, wrong, moral, and immoral.

  http://www.newreformation.org/fundamentalism.htm

  Here’s an excerpt from a book about the topic:

  Lawrence argues that fundamentalism is a specific kind of religious ideology. It is antimodern, but not antimodernist. In other words, it rejects the philosophical rationalism and individualism that accompany modernity, but it takes full advantage of certain technological advances that also characterize the modern age. The most consistent denominator is opposition to Enlightenment values. Lawrence believes that fundamentalism is a world-wide phenomena and that it must be compared in various contexts before it can be understood or explained with any clarity.

  Lawrence ends his general discussion by listing five “family resemblances” common to fundamentalism. 1) Fundamentalists are advocates of a minority viewpoint. They see themselves as a righteous remnant. Even when they are numerically a majority, they perceive themselves as a minority. 2) They are oppositional and confrontational towards both secularists and “wayward” religious followers. 3) They are secondary level male elites led invariably by charismatic males. 4) Fundamentalists generate their own technical vocabulary. 5) Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological precursor.

  Book referenced is by Bruce Lawrence and entitled, “Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age.” I also highly recommend, for anyone interested in this topic, Bruce Bawer’s “Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity.”

  Those within fundamentalism may not acknowledge the origins of the movement, though it is well-documented historically:

  Of course, Fundamentalist writers insist that Fundamentalism is nothing but a continuation of Christian orthodoxy. According to this theory, Fundamentalism flourished for three centuries after Christ, went underground for twelve hundred years, surfaced again with the Reformation, took its knocks from various sources, and was alternately prominent or diminished in its influence and visibility. In short, according to its partisans, Fundamentalism always has been the Christian remnant, the faithful who remain after the rest of Christianity (if it can even be granted the title) has fallen into apostasy.

  Until almost 100 years ago, Fundamentalism as we know it was not a separate movement within Protestantism, and the word itself was virtually unknown. Those people who today would be called Fundamentalists were formerly either Baptists, Presbyterians, or members of some other specific sect. But in the last decade of the nineteenth-century, issues came to the fore that made them start to withdraw from mainline Protestantism.

  The issues were: the Social Gospel, a liberalizing and secularizing trend within Protestantism that tried to weaken the Christian message, making it a merely social and political agenda; the embrace of Darwinism, which seemed to call into question the reliability of Scripture; and the higher criticism of the Bible that originated in Germany.

  http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalism.asp

  In terms of fundamentalism as an all-encompassing religious movement, there have been many studies linking the similar aspects of fundamentalism across the major religions: Hindu, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc. The largest one was called The Fundamentalism Project, and was directed and edited by Martin Marty and Scott Appleby:

  The American Academy of Arts and Sciences funded a multiyear project that brought scholars from around the world together to study Fundamentalism. Ultimately they produced 5 volumes containing almost 8,000 pages of material. Admitting some difficulty with the term, the project opts to use it anyway for a variety of reasons. Essentially, they argue that it is commonly accepted, here to stay, and the best term anyone can come up with for this phenomena. The last chapter of volume 1, Fundamentalisms Observed, discusses the “family resemblances” found in the various chapters.

  These family resemblances include:

  1. religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity;
  2. fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified;
  3. it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence’s point about language — outsiders cannot understand it);
  4. fundamentalists envision themselves as part of a cosmic struggle;
  5. they seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in light of this cosmic struggle;
  6. they demonize their opposition and are reactionary;
  7. fundamentalists are selective in what parts of their tradition and heritage they stress;
  8. they are led by males;
  9. they envy modernist cultural hegemony and try to overturn the distribution of power.

  Here’s an interesting article I posted on the DB exploring (from a decidedly critical viewpoint) the psychology of fundamentalism (again this refers to the general religious phenomenon, not specifically the Christian iteration):

  http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2005/sep05/perspective.html

  In terms of my own background, I wrote a rather lengthy post recently on the DB that should help:

  http://off-the-map.org/ebayatheist/viewtopic.php?t=440

• Comment by: Benjamin Ady

  2 10/14/06 6:06 PM | Comment Link |

  Just a couple things. I look forward to Karen’s response, because I’ve done a tiny bit of research on the history of fundamentalism, and also found it fascinating, and look forward to learning more. I also had the experience that Karen did of being on the inside for a long time and NEVER learning anything about the history of the movement while on the inside.
  Also wanted to point out that capital F Fear (to differentiate from the “normal” fear to which JG referrred) is hardly an exclusive possession of the fundamentalist movement–indeed, it is my opinion that it runs right through all of humanity and is one of the things that is worst about us and is one of the motivating factors behind a lot of our worst actions as a species. I certainly know I struggle with it.
  One further thing. JG said “You stated as fact rather than belief …”. This doesn’t seem like a very useful or constructive dichotomy to me. I mean one can regress with this–JG could have prefaced his statement with “I believe (you stated etc.)” What are facts? Hopefully we are taking what people say here as representing their beliefs without them having to say so, and not assuming they are making some kind of claim to possession of some kind of objective truth unless they explicitly make such a claim. Hope that makes sense.

• Comment by: Benjamin Ady

  3 10/14/06 6:08 PM | Comment Link |

  oops–sorry, made use of male pronoun before knowing whether JG is a proper antecedent for such a pronoun. My bad. Sorry.

• Comment by: David H

  4 10/14/06 9:59 PM | Comment Link |

  Fear is a chief motivator for humanity. Psycholgists, anthropologists and a host of other scientists believe that it is so basic that aspects of response to it are hard-wired into the human nervous system.

  When we experience excessive stress—whether from internal worry or external circumstance—a bodily reaction is triggered, called the “fight or flight” response. Originally discovered by the great Harvard physiologist Walter Cannon, this response is hard-wired into our brains and represents a genetic wisdom designed to protect us from bodily harm. This response actually corresponds to an area of our brain called the hypothalamus, which—when stimulated—initiates a sequence of nerve cell firing and chemical release that prepares our body for running or fighting.
  …
  When our fight or flight system is activated, we tend to perceive everything in our environment as a possible threat to our survival. By its very nature, the fight or flight system bypasses our rational mind—where our more well thought out beliefs exist—and moves us into “attack” mode. This state of alert causes us to perceive almost everything in our world as a possible threat to our survival. As such, we tend to see everyone and everything as a possible enemy.

  Neil F. Neimark, M.D. at http://www.TheBodySoulConnection.com

  It is natural to be afraid and, whether you believe the above or not, it is pretty hard to resist the instinct to fight or flee from whatever has triggered a fear response. The issue for Christians, however, is supposed to be that they don’t have to give into to that “natural” instinct. Jesus said we are to be free of fear. And if you believe in the resurrection, then there really isn’t anything in this world that can be an eternal threat.

  So why do many Christians, not just fundy’s, let fear play a role in their decision making process?

• Comment by: Helen

  5 10/15/06 3:14 AM | Comment Link |

  David H wrote:
  

  The issue for Christians, however, is supposed to be that they don’t have to give into to that “natural” instinct. Jesus said we are to be free of fear. And if you believe in the resurrection, then there really isn’t anything in this world that can be an eternal threat.

  So why do many Christians, not just fundy’s, let fear play a role in their decision making process?

  Thanks David – this is exactly what I’ve often wondered. Since it is also my experience that Christians often do let fear play a role in their decision making process.

  I think the evangelical Christian answer is “We’re still human; we still struggle with sin”.

  What annoys me is that that becomes an excuse for anything. So, if a Christian behaves exactly like a person who isn’t a Christian (except for outward superficialities), the evangelical Christian explanation is “the Christian is still struggling with sin”. Whereas a more simple explanation is that – there is no difference.

  It was noticing things such as, evangelical Christians seem to be just as fear-based as people who aren’t Christians (or maybe more so in some cases because the Christians are afraid of not getting God’s will correct) – which led me to seriously doubt that the Holy Spirit is a real and powerful agent acting exclusively in evangelical Christians’ lives to make them different from other people. Because I didn’t see the difference.

• Comment by: Helen

  6 10/15/06 3:22 AM | Comment Link |

  Karen, thanks for providing all those sources and links.

  Benjamin, check above yours for Karen’s response. (You didn’t overlook it yesterday – it wasn’t there; it showed up late because Word Press was waiting for confirmation that a comment with that many links in wasn’t spam!)

• Comment by: Rachel

  7 10/15/06 11:55 AM | Comment Link |

  Hopefully we are taking what people say here as representing their beliefs without them having to say so, and not assuming they are making some kind of claim to possession of some kind of objective truth unless they explicitly make such a claim.

  Thank you for making that point, Ben. I think we are all participating here because we have a willingness and a desire to dialogue with people of different beliefs and experiences. And I agree that we don’t want an atmosphere where people must weaken and qualify every statement they make for fear of being perceived as dogmatic and confrontational. In my opinion, that is. :-)

• Comment by: Rachel

  8 10/15/06 12:16 PM | Comment Link |

  Those within fundamentalism may not acknowledge the origins of the movement, though it is well-documented historically.

  Karen, that statement is certainly consistent with my own experience and observation of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists rarely teach adherents about the history of their beliefs and rarely acknowledge other schools of thought within the same faith tradition.

  For example, the eschatalogical (the study of “last things”) viewpoint I was taught growing up was futurist, pre-millenial, pre-tribulational, dispensationalism. (I can see peoples’ eyes glazing over now.) This was not described as one understanding among many, but as the only “Biblical” way to understand the book of Revelation and other prophecies in Scripture. And it was taught as if it had been the consistent understanding of the “true church” for the last 2000 years.

  Only as an adult did I learn that the futurist view is only one of four major interpretive views of eschatology. And I learned that under the heading of “futurist”, there are many subgroups – postmillenial, amillennial and on and on. I also learned that the eschatology I had been taught was NOT the prevailing view throughout Christian history but originated in the mid-1800s with an obscure Plymouth Brethren preacher named John Darby.

  Imagine my shock when I realized that virtually ALL the Bible teaching I had received was filtered through the lens of Darbyite “dispensationalism” – a system that had only been around for the last 150 years of Christianity! In all those years, I had never even heard the name John Darby and I had never once heard a pastor even acknowledge the existence of those other intepretive viewpoints. Such is fundamentalism.

• Comment by: Rachel

  9 10/15/06 12:22 PM | Comment Link |

  BTW, the futurist, pre-millenial, pre-tribulational, dispensational understanding of prophecy is the one represented in the popular “Left Behind” books. It has NOT been the dominant understanding throughout Christian history.

• Comment by: JG

  10 10/15/06 3:34 PM | Comment Link |

  Karen,

  Thanks for your reply and for the links. Have had quick look and so far as I can tell (eg by doing a word search) can’t find any reference to “fear” other than the odd reference to “God to be feared” – am I missing something?

  I have been criticised for saying:

  You state as a fact rather than as a belief that:

  the history of fundamentalist is reactionary and based on fear.

  Could you therefore clarify whether you regarded your statement as a fact or merely a belief? If you were intending to state it as a belief rather than a fact then I apologise but the way it came across to me was as a statement of fact which you had authority to make based on both your 30 years membership and your research. You came across as assuring Mike that you did know what you were talking about.

  I am still unclear as to whom you apply the term “fundamentalist” and over whether your personal experience extends to more than just one church.

  I am always wary of blanket comments being made about large groups of people. People are different and we should not pigeon hole people or make assumptions about them based on the nature of the group we believe they belong to.

  We should also be wary about statements about what motivates other people or causes them to act as they do. People are complicated beings and I think it is a mistake to assume that we understand how and why someone else operates as they do.

  If we are talking about fear we need to define what we mean by fear. You can disagree with something without fearing it. My understanding is that phobia is related to fear. So someone who is homophobic or Islamphobic FEARS gays/muslims. In practice, the terms are used generally about anyone who says anything that is perceived as negative towards gays or muslims. To me, it makes a nonsense of language. Would it serve any purpose to say that anyone who is not 100% enthusiastic about Christianity or Christians is “Christianphobic”?

  I can’t comment on churches in USA but like Mike O have to say, what you say has been your experience has not been my experience here in the UK in a range of different churches, far from it. Have never studied it but I have the impression that there are considerable differences between the USA and UK. For example I understand that:

  1 In the USA you have separation of state and religion.

  2 In the USA you have a much higher church attendance.

  3 In practice, the UK is a far more secular society than the USA. I doubt if any Christian in the UK could lead such a sheltered life as you describe, blissful unaware of differing views etc “on the outside” and have been concerned about any church groups that do exhibit any signs of wanting to build walls between themselves and the community in which they live.

  4 In relation to Eliz’a class, I am not aware of any Lutheran churches here in the UK although I assume there must be a few.

  I would also say there is a degree of prejudice in the UK in relation to Americans eg the comment “It could only happen in America”. As a youngster, my only real experience of “Americans” was limited to contact with American tourists and the occasional TV programme.

  At 17 I had the opportunity to spend 3 weeks in New England – it should have been the World Scout Jamboree in Iran but the revolution put pay to that! Stayed with two ordinary families while I was there and met lots of others and was really impressed by their friendliness and hospitality. Very different from the typical stereotype of American tourists. And of course, it works with other way eg the English stereotype in American programmes and films.

  We need to get away from stereotyping, pigeon holing etc etc.

• Comment by: Helen

  11 10/15/06 4:07 PM | Comment Link |

  JG wrote:
  

  My understanding is that phobia is related to fear. So someone who is homophobic or Islamphobic FEARS gays/muslims. In practice, the terms are used generally about anyone who says anything that is perceived as negative towards gays or muslims.

  But that’s stereotyping the way people use the term ‘homophobic’, isn’t it, JG? ;-)

  In my experience not everyone labels people who say negative things about gay people as homophobic.

  On the other hand, again in my experience, dislike often has a component of fear in it.

  So it would sometimes be correct to say that a person who is saying negative things about gay people is homophobic.

• Comment by: jim

  12 10/15/06 4:15 PM | Comment Link |

  1. religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity;
  2. fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified;
  3. it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence’s point about language — outsiders cannot understand it);
  4. fundamentalists envision themselves as part of a cosmic struggle;
  5. they seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in light of this cosmic struggle;
  6. they demonize their opposition and are reactionary;
  7. fundamentalists are selective in what parts of their tradition and heritage they stress;
  8. they are led by males;
  9. they envy modernist cultural hegemony and try to overturn the distribution of power.

  This is very helpful. I have begun to think about “fundamentalism” as a widespread movement based on these values and crossing religions and non religious social groups as well.

  In marketing they say “perception is reality” so for my money I dont care much what the “correct/right or official” definition of fundamentalism is- it really only matters what it “means on the street”.And IMO with that as our measurement we would have to admit that ALL fundamentalists now have a seriously steep hill to climb if they ever hope to redeem the word.

  You can mostly thank Islamic militants for this although Evangelicals have provided more than enough fodder for their ideological enemies to skewer them with.

  I have been shopping an idea around to some of my friends who think that THE main problem today is FUNDAMENTALISM ( an opinion I also hold) or at least one of the top two.

  Lets start a “People Against Fundamentalism” movement. The only criteria is that you have to be able to identify fundamentalism in your own group before being allowed to critique someone elses.

  That way Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jewish and whoever could band together to protest fundamentalism for each other.

• Comment by: Benjamin Ady

  13 10/15/06 5:45 PM | Comment Link |

  Jim,

  Thought we had such a movement–the emergent church. But then I noticed the criteria. oh well. (smiling)

  Also, to the blog in general, I want to explicity opt out of the antecedent for “we” in all statements which contain “should” “ought”, “need to”, “would be behooved to”, “find it imperative to” etc.–ie “We should also be wary…”. I have taken steps to ban these types of words (should, ought, etc.) from my personal vocabulary and refuse to assent to them being used to refer to me. All this in my ongoing quest to stop beating myself to a pulp with my own nasty oughty-should hammer.

• Comment by: Rachel

  14 10/15/06 6:48 PM | Comment Link |

  I have taken steps to ban these types of words (should, ought, etc.) from my personal vocabulary and refuse to assent to them being used to refer to me. All this in my ongoing quest to stop beating myself to a pulp with my own nasty oughty-should hammer.

  I love it, Ben! I need to retire my own oughty-should hammer. As Jim would say, “Do what’s doable. That’s all you’re really going to do anyhow.”

  And let’s face it – none of us can be totally objective about anything. We all see things through the lens of our own experience. All the more reason to engage in dialogue like this one and look through someone else’s lens for a change!

• Comment by: Mike O

  15 10/16/06 2:49 AM | Comment Link |

  1. religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity;
  2. fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified;
  3. it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence’s point about language — outsiders cannot understand it);
  4. fundamentalists envision themselves as part of a cosmic struggle;
  5. they seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in light of this cosmic struggle;
  6. they demonize their opposition and are reactionary;
  7. fundamentalists are selective in what parts of their tradition and heritage they stress;
  8. they are led by males;
  9. they envy modernist cultural hegemony and try to overturn the distribution of power.

  I’ve been chewing on how fundamentalist I am, and on this list, I would say 1 (except for the word idealism, 2, 3 (to a point), 4 and 8 pertain to me. For me, I would say that religious interpretation is my basis for personal and communal identity, not idealism.

• Comment by: Rachel

  16 10/17/06 4:43 PM | Comment Link |

  Mike, I’m curious about why you identified with #8 “they are led by males.” I know that your wife is a pastor and that you are very proud of her. So clearly you support women in positions of ministry and leadership. Do you identify with #8 as your experience in the fundamentalist church or as your own personal belief?

• Comment by: Mike O

  17 10/18/06 1:02 PM | Comment Link |

  Yes, curious isn’t it? Boy, this is a hard one to explain in writing! How do I say any of this without sounding sexist?

  [deep breath]

  OK, here goes. It just feels wrong to me to have a female Sr. Pastor. I can’t explain it better than that. I just think God ordained it that way. That is not to say that women shouldn’t be in ministry … the very qualities that are lacking in the church today, love, joy, compassion, etc. are not exactly the male stereotype. Do you know what I mean? We NEED women in ministry. And churches that prohibit that, I think, are in error. But somehow, at least for a church, having a female Sr. Pastor just doesn’t feel right to me.

  You’re right, my wife is a pastor. She is a great leader and is a big part of the success of our church. But she’s not on top of the totem pole … she’s an associate pastor. For some reason, if she were, I think I would (in Christianese) “have some growing to do in that area.” :)

• Comment by: Karen

  18 10/19/06 12:46 PM | Comment Link |

  Rachel wrote:

  Imagine my shock when I realized that virtually ALL the Bible teaching I had received was filtered through the lens of Darbyite “dispensationalism” – a system that had only been around for the last 150 years of Christianity! In all those years, I had never even heard the name John Darby and I had never once heard a pastor even acknowledge the existence of those other intepretive viewpoints. Such is fundamentalism.

  Rachel, I had exactly the same experience you did! A friend recommended Bawer’s book, so I picked it up at the library and started reading it one night (some years ago) after dinner. I was so riveted, I didn’t put the book down until I’d finished it (about 2 a.m)! It went through all these things (like Darby) that I had never, ever heard about after an entire lifetime in fundamentalist churches. I couldn’t put it down.

  It was riveting, but also a saddening and almost “horrifying” experience for me. It felt like I’d been in a club for years but had never been taken through the “secret door” where all this information was. The most humiliating thing was that this was an open secret – available to anyone who took the time to research, but my pastors and teachers had never pointed it out to me. :-(

• Comment by: Karen

  19 10/19/06 12:59 PM | Comment Link |

  JG wrote:

  Could you therefore clarify whether you regarded your statement as a fact or merely a belief? If you were intending to state it as a belief rather than a fact then I apologise but the way it came across to me was as a statement of fact which you had authority to make based on both your 30 years membership and your research. You came across as assuring Mike that you did know what you were talking about.

  JG, the fundamentalist Christian movement was explicitly founded as a reaction to social and religious and scientific trends (as outlined in the articles I cited) that were perceived as threatening. Things that are threatening make people fearful. Fundamentalists basically turned the clock backward in many ways, shutting out or denying modern ways to view the world (science) and to view the past (higher criticism). When people want to retreat into an earlier ‘safer’ mindset or time, it’s generally because they are afraid of the present and the future.

  The 19th millenialist movement was very much based on fear – that Jesus was returning to earth at any moment and those who didn’t toe the line (or belong to the proper sect) would be left behind. This is the foundation for the Rapture Ready movement we still have today.

  A characteristic of fundamentalists is that even when they are in the majority, they see themselves as a minority or small “remnant” of the faithful that needs to defend itself against scary intrusions – from Satan, Satanists, “the world,” other religions, ‘cults’ and myriad other trends and people that are perceived as threatening. We see this in a huge way in the U.S. right now, but it may be very unfamiliar for you because there is a big difference between the U.S. and the U.K. when it comes to religion and its influence over politics and society.

  I am still unclear as to whom you apply the term “fundamentalist” and over whether your personal experience extends to more than just one church.

  JG, I don’t have time to go through all my background at this point. It’s been a bear of a week, which is why I’m so late in replying (sorry about that!). Suffice it to say that over 30 years, I was sprinkled as a Presbyterian, immersed in the ocean by Greg Laurie of Calvary Chapel, attended Free Methodist, EV Free, Nazarene, Vineyard and several independent churches (all in Southern California). All of them fit the descriptions of fundamentalist that I listed, above.

  I think the main thing that separates fundamentalists from “liberal” religious belief systems is the adherence to a literal interpretation of a sacred text that is believed to be inerrent and inspired by god.

• Comment by: Karen

  20 10/19/06 1:02 PM | Comment Link |

  Jim wrote:

  I have been shopping an idea around to some of my friends who think that THE main problem today is FUNDAMENTALISM ( an opinion I also hold) or at least one of the top two.

  Lets start a “People Against Fundamentalism” movement. The only criteria is that you have to be able to identify fundamentalism in your own group before being allowed to critique someone elses.

  That way Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jewish and whoever could band together to protest fundamentalism for each other.

  Sign me up, Jim! I totally agree with you. I see this weird insistence on “purity” in atheistic circles, too, and it really annoys me. It has to be an evolutionary trait, since it seems to go across so many boundaries.

  There are so many things we all could be doing with our lives – why waste time trying to disqualify people who basically agree with you and share your values?! I don’t get the impulse.

• Comment by: Rachel

  21 10/20/06 5:08 PM | Comment Link |

  It was riveting, but also a saddening and almost “horrifying” experience for me. It felt like I’d been in a club for years but had never been taken through the “secret door” where all this information was. The most humiliating thing was that this was an open secret – available to anyone who took the time to research, but my pastors and teachers had never pointed it out to me. :-(

  I totally understand the feeling, Karen. Personally the whole experience has been very disillusioning and confusing but also very liberating. Jesus has always been real to me and I knew I wanted Jesus but I no longer wanted a lot of the Christian crap that had been packaged as part of my faith. Through this process of changing understanding, my faith has been liberated from a lot of the junk I didn’t want – fundamentalism, intolerance, conservative politics, sexism, etc. I’ve discovered a diversity and richness in the Christian tradition I didn’t know existed.

  For me, what has emerged is a faith that is more real and beautiful but a lot less rigid and dogmatic and secure. There have been times (and probably still will be) when I feel that I’m losing my faith all together. So I certainly can understand those who become completely disillusioned with faith and choose to walk away completely. But, corny as it sounds, I truly can not imagine my life without following the Way of Jesus.

• Comment by: Rachel

  22 10/20/06 5:13 PM | Comment Link |

  One thing that I was surprised to discover after growing up in pro-American, pro-war, “wrap your Bible in the flag” churches was that Christians were almost universally pacifists for the first 300 years of the church. Not only did the church fathers teach that war and the death penalty were wrong, many taught that to even serve in the military was a sin! Hmmmm…why wasn’t I taught this stuff in church?

• Comment by: Karen

  23 10/21/06 9:06 AM | Comment Link |

  Rachel:

  I totally understand the feeling, Karen. Personally the whole experience has been very disillusioning and confusing but also very liberating. Jesus has always been real to me and I knew I wanted Jesus but I no longer wanted a lot of the Christian crap that had been packaged as part of my faith. Through this process of changing understanding, my faith has been liberated from a lot of the junk I didn’t want – fundamentalism, intolerance, conservative politics, sexism, etc. I’ve discovered a diversity and richness in the Christian tradition I didn’t know existed.

  That’s great, Rachel. There is definitely a huge sense of liberation through the process, I agree with you.

  For me, what has emerged is a faith that is more real and beautiful but a lot less rigid and dogmatic and secure. There have been times (and probably still will be) when I feel that I’m losing my faith all together. So I certainly can understand those who become completely disillusioned with faith and choose to walk away completely. But, corny as it sounds, I truly can not imagine my life without following the Way of Jesus.

  I don’t think it’s corny at all. I’m very glad you’ve found a place where you can be comfortable – that’s really what counts in the end. ;-)

  In my case, the experience of breaking free of fundamentalism (that’s really what it felt like – breaking out of a cramped, dark box) did leave me disillusioned with Christianity and religion in general. Particularly bad was the b.s. I got through End Times theology (it’s not good to be told, at age 16, that your life is going to end at any moment :-( )

  But ultimately, I don’t think that’s what caused me to “walk away” from religious belief entirely. It’s hard to explain, but you might relate: I’ve always been a natural skeptic. I just kept the “religion” part of my brain off-limits from skeptical scrutiny.

  Once I opened up the floodgates and started examining Christianity, and then other religions, and then the idea of the supernatural in general, from a skeptical viewpoint – it was only a matter of time, I think, before I couldn’t see evidence for any of it.

  Then, I tried slowly shedding the practice of religion and then, gradually, the beliefs I’d held. I found that I honestly didn’t miss it – and that was key. I could get all the “good stuff” (relationships, intellectual stimulation, feeling of community, ways to be useful and help others) elsewhere and leave behind all the negatives (guilt, obligation, prejudice) behind. So far, it works for me. :-)

• Comment by: Rachel

  24 10/21/06 11:47 AM | Comment Link |

  Particularly bad was the b.s. I got through End Times theology (it’s not good to be told, at age 16, that your life is going to end at any moment :-( )

  I know what you mean, Karen! I remember going to the gymnasium at church and watching this awful movie called “Thief in the Night” when I was around 10 years old. It was about the Tribulation and it scared the crap out of me. The part I remember the most was the guillotine for executing Christians who would not take the mark of the beast and this woman screaming as they dragged her toward it. Who would show that kind of stuff to kids? Sick, sick. I’m sure if I saw it now, I would think it was a badly acted, silly movie. But at the time I was seriously tramatized.

• Comment by: Rachel

  25 10/21/06 12:03 PM | Comment Link |

  It’s hard to explain, but you might relate: I’ve always been a natural skeptic.

  Yes, I do relate, Karen. I’ve always been a natural skeptic as well. And a natural optimist at the same time, which kind of makes for a weird combination. Anyhow, being a constant questioner means that my faith experience can be a bit tormented at times. But I don’t know any other way to be.

  I remember a few years back reading Brian McLaren’s chapter on Doubt in “Adventures in Missing the Point.” I cried reading it because I felt so validated and comforted by what he had to say – basically that doubt is healthy and normal and part of the faith journey. It was so great to hear that from someone who is a Christian. I kept thinking “if only I had had this to read years ago when I felt so crazy and alone.”

  Then, I tried slowly shedding the practice of religion and then, gradually, the beliefs I’d held. I found that I honestly didn’t miss it – and that was key.

  For me, I truly would miss my faith more deeply than I can express. But I sure don’t miss a lot of the crap I’ve been able to leave behind! And I can understand why some people decide to leave religion all together.

  It always seems strange to me when older or more conservative Christians act so alarmed about younger “emerging” types like me becoming so “liberal” (whatever that means). As disillusioned and angry as some of us have been, I would think they would just be happy that we are still Christian!

• Comment by: Karen

  26 10/21/06 2:22 PM | Comment Link |

  Rachel:
  

  I know what you mean, Karen! I remember going to the gymnasium at church and watching this awful movie called “Thief in the Night” when I was around 10 years old. It was about the Tribulation and it scared the crap out of me. The part I remember the most was the guillotine for executing Christians who would not take the mark of the beast and this woman screaming as they dragged her toward it. Who would show that kind of stuff to kids? Sick, sick. I’m sure if I saw it now, I would think it was a badly acted, silly movie. But at the time I was seriously tramatized.

  OH yeah … I know all about that one! :-) I think that movie (and apparently there were a couple similar ones that made the rounds that I never saw, though I did see Thief) probably did as much psychological damage as anything else in Christianity in the past 50 years. That may sound silly, but I can’t tell you how many former fundamentalists in my online support group introduce themselves by relating the TERROR they experienced watching that movie in church when they were kids. And then the bulk of the group start nodding our virtual heads and giving out virtual hugs, because we know what they mean. It’s a very, very common experience in that group for people to say they had years of insecurity and nightmares from those films.

  Thinking back on it now, I don’t understand why parents let their kids see that stuff. I saw it as a high school student, so I wasn’t as traumatized as I might have been and my mom didn’t even know it was being shown that night. Yet even though the quality was closer to Reefer Madness than to Passion of the Christ ;-), it was just as chilling and inappropriate for children.

• Comment by: Karen

  27 10/21/06 2:37 PM | Comment Link |

  Rachel:

  Yes, I do relate, Karen. I’ve always been a natural skeptic as well. And a natural optimist at the same time, which kind of makes for a weird combination.

  No kidding! I’m an optimist also (sometimes to a fault). And yes, it is a weird combination, and probably accounts for a big part of why deep down I never felt like I fit in at fundamentalist churches (my politics being the other big part). I was inwardly prone to question the blanket statements that were made without any supporting facts, so I had to keep quashing that tendency. And then people were always looking at me quizzically because I was optimistic and tended to scoff at the pessimistic conspiracy theory du jour that everyone else was scared to death about. ;-)

  No wonder I felt like a fish out of water all those years. I don’t know how I lasted so long, really. A testament to my ability to repress the discomfort, I guess.

  I remember a few years back reading Brian McLaren’s chapter on Doubt in “Adventures in Missing the Point.” I cried reading it because I felt so validated and comforted by what he had to say – basically that doubt is healthy and normal and part of the faith journey. It was so great to hear that from someone who is a Christian. I kept thinking “if only I had had this to read years ago when I felt so crazy and alone.”

  That sounds great to be validated in that way. I always felt terrible about having doubts because they were NOT allowed and were taken to mean something was wrong “in your walk” if you had them. I remember vividly praying against Satan to make them go away, which did work for a while.

  It always seems strange to me when older or more conservative Christians act so alarmed about younger “emerging” types like me becoming so “liberal” (whatever that means). As disillusioned and angry as some of us have been, I would think they would just be happy that we are still Christian!

  Indeed. That’s a very good point. But I think it’s one that totally escapes most of them.

• Comment by: Rachel

  28 10/21/06 2:53 PM | Comment Link |

  It’s a very, very common experience in that group for people to say they had years of insecurity and nightmares from those films.

  Yes, I have a couple of friends who I did not meet until years later who also have bad memories of seeing “Thief in the Night” as kids. One of them had nightmares for a long time afterward.

• Comment by: jim

  29 10/22/06 6:04 AM | Comment Link |

  fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.

• Comment by: Rachel

  30 10/22/06 8:21 AM | Comment Link |

  OK, here goes. It just feels wrong to me to have a female Sr. Pastor. I can’t explain it better than that. I just think God ordained it that way. That is not to say that women shouldn’t be in ministry … the very qualities that are lacking in the church today, love, joy, compassion, etc. are not exactly the male stereotype. Do you know what I mean? We NEED women in ministry. And churches that prohibit that, I think, are in error. But somehow, at least for a church, having a female Sr. Pastor just doesn’t feel right to me.

  Mike, I will pray that the Lord will speak to your heart and reveal to you the truth about this matter.

  (he-he) OK, using good old Christianese was an underhanded tactic. ;-) Seriously Mike, I do disagree but I totally respect your position and I know that it is based on your genuine understanding of Scripture and not on any disrespect for women. I really appreciate the way you support your wife in her calling to ministry.

  But if you should happen to want to examine this issue from another perspective from a group that shares your high regard for Scripture, you might check out Christians for Biblical Equality.

  Note to Helen: I need a lesson in how to insert a link into a post. When I tried before, it just ended up a mess. Thanks!

• Comment by: Julie Marie

  31 10/22/06 8:55 AM | Comment Link |

  Rachel and Karen,

  OH my! I am grateful I was never exposed to Thief. How absolutely manipulative, exploitative, and controlling. Its shocking and maddening. The thought of anyone putting fear like that into children is appalling.

• Comment by: Helen

  32 10/22/06 9:03 AM | Comment Link |

  Rachel, the easiest way to insert a link is

  1) type the text that’s going to be a link
  2) highlight that text with your mouse
  3) click ‘link’
  4) put the URL in the box that pops up and click ‘ok’

  Here’s a link for Christians for Biblical Equality – I think that’s probably what you wanted to link to.

• Comment by: Helen

  33 10/22/06 9:06 AM | Comment Link |

  Jim wrote:
  

  fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.

  Jim, is this in your Jesus movie?

• Comment by: Helen

  34 10/22/06 9:16 AM | Comment Link |

  Karen wrote:
  

  I remember a few years back reading Brian McLaren’s chapter on Doubt in “Adventures in Missing the Point.” I cried reading it because I felt so validated and comforted by what he had to say – basically that doubt is healthy and normal and part of the faith journey. It was so great to hear that from someone who is a Christian. I kept thinking “if only I had had this to read years ago when I felt so crazy and alone.”

  Wow – awesome! I’m glad you found something so helpful, even if that did happen later than you would have wished.

  I’m guessing that the people who denounce Brian as having ‘wrong theology’ don’t care that he’s helped people like you (because that means he’s helped you further along your errant path away from the ‘true faith’, I suppose…)

  Jim said to me one time that if Brian McLaren had known more about atheists when he wrote A Generous Orthodoxy he would have probably included a chapter about them. I liked that thought.

• Comment by: Karen

  35 10/22/06 11:20 PM | Comment Link |

  Julie:

  OH my! I am grateful I was never exposed to Thief. How absolutely manipulative, exploitative, and controlling. Its shocking and maddening. The thought of anyone putting fear like that into children is appalling.

  I agree. I guess the motivation is something like “whatever gets them into heaven is okay, even if it scares them silly.”

  It’s probably the same impulse that moves some parents to take their children through those “Hell Houses,” which I’m positive are much scarier and far, far more graphic than Thief In the Night. It’s really sad. I’m sure sensitive kids must have nightmares galore after those things. :-(

• Comment by: Karen

  36 10/22/06 11:23 PM | Comment Link |

  Helen,

  Just wanted to point out that the quote above about the McLaren book was from Rachel, not me. The quotes got flip-flopped in my post, above. (That’s one reason I like the DB format – you can “preview” first.)

  I haven’t read anything by McLaren, and had only vaguely heard about him before coming to this group. He must’ve come onto the Christian scene just as I was exiting.

• Comment by: RBH

  37 10/26/06 9:07 PM | Comment Link |

  In her report of the Creation/Evolution class, Eliza wrote
  

  I truly had not realized how deeply threatening some Christians find the idea of evolution.

  More than two years ago I wrote of that fear on Panda’s Thumb. The core of my post was this:
  

  I am beginning to understand that the core motivation driving the supporters of such proposals [to teach ID creationism in schools] is fear. Not fear for themselves — they are too strong in their faith to be corrupted by evolutionary science. It is fear for their children and in particular, fear for their children’s souls. There is a genuine belief that accepting an evolutionary view of biological phenomena is a giant step on the road to atheism, and in learning evolutionary theory their children are in peril of losing salvation. Given the beliefs they hold, this is not a silly fear. From their perspective, atheism is a deadly threat, and evolution is a door through which that threat can enter to corrupt one’s child. No amount of scientific research, no citations of scientific studies, no detailed criticism of the Wellsian trash science offered in “teach the controversy” proposals, speaks to those fears. If one genuinely fears that learning evolution will corrupt one’s children and damn them for eternity, scientific reasoning is wholly irrelevant.

• Comment by: Meg

  38 11/3/06 12:43 AM | Comment Link |

  wow!that is a terrifying paradigm to live in! rbh, your panda’s thumb post is helpful for me in understanding my mother-in-law, who is distressed that i’m sending her grandchildren to public school. i’ve had to struggle a bit from having a black and white perspective on other issues. it is such a relief to learn that god is fine with a myriad different ideas, disagreement and the lovely embracing of gray…