I heard this definition yesterday while listing to Tony Campolo's Podcast "Across the Pond." It's in reference to Islamic Fundamentalism but as Tony pointed out, and I agree, this could be applied to all types of fundamentalism; including Evangelical Fundamentalism.
Islamic Fundamentalism:
"A reactionary non-scientific movement, aimed at returning society to a centuries old set up, defying all material and historical factors. It is an attempt to roll back the wheels of history."
(Aside: The only thing I don't like about this definition is that it presupposes that if we go back in history, culture becomes more moral. But, if you could ask those from yesteryear, they'd look backward for a critique of their "modern" culture too.)
Fundamentalism seeks to provide simple answers to complex questions. It promises to take it's followers back to "the good-old-days" when black was black and white was white (all too often, not as much anymore though, this is/was, unfortunately, in a literal sense). At face value these simple answers appear to be intellectually lacking; however, they do bring comfort to the confused soul. At some point in our lives fundamentalism is the only societal system we understand. Try communicating complex, morally ambiguities, situations to a child and you'll soon resort back to a fundamentalist "that's right" or "that's wrong" (ex: how lying is OK when it's to save someone's feelings but not when it's to save someone from getting into trouble).
As I look back at my teenage fundamentalist years I see how they helped me navigate the temptations of life. I didn't need a discussion on "how far is too far," I needed a guide line to follow. And, if it was up to me, I'd preach one thing and practice another. But, as I got older, this approach did more harm than good. It caused me to define people as good or bad and not consider the complexities of human relationships and the human experience. I couldn't make decisions in grey life because I was always looking for a pole to agree with. And most of life doesn't occur at the poles, it's somewhere closer to the equator; where simple answers cannot fully satisfy complex questions.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Islamic Fundamentalism
Labels:
Christian Thought,
Tidbits from Life
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What if time is circular though? ... as this would in a sense be a fundamental belief, wouldn't it?
I think God is complicated, and religion is just as complicated. The majority of society will end up believing whatever message they hear the most often whether fundamental or it's opposite. So, is it more important to study material or just to introspect? Fundamentalism seems like an external theory for what the objective truth is; almost like a virus. Can introspection overcome this? purhaps, if the introspection is holy spirit focused.
What's new?
Good Thoughts. I like how you ended it with the personal touch: "What's New?" Let me tackle that first.
Not much. Still working at bell and still figuring out this church thing on the side. Looking forward to Christmas and dreading putting the Snow Tires on my car (It's COLD). How about yourself?
As per the fundamentalism thing. Personally I have a fundamental issue with fundamentalism. I'm absolutely against absolutism. Hope you get my drift. I think fundamentalism over simplifies things but at the same time sometimes people don't need a complicated drawn out answer. Thus I think it's works for people in different places in life. When I was younger it saved me from most likely doing things I would regret.
I don't know about fundamentalism, but I'm really starting to think that the idea of having churches divided into various denominations was never a really good one. I recon that fixing the denomination situation would require a tolerance of both the extremely fundamental and non-fundamental. So, I must be with you on the non-fundamentalism then I suppose....
There are always pros and cons to division. The major con, obviously, being division; lack of unity, angst against each other, separateness, etc. Examples like Christians drowning Anabaptists when they first appeared on the scene because they believed in adult baptism. However, dividing into denominations does have some good points to it. In denominations we're not always arguing the same things. The denomination can take a stance on something and then say, "Are you in or out?" If you're in then we can remove all denominational theological lines from our points of argument and focus on other issues. Maybe we can even stop arguing and help those in need. Maybe (though not likely if I'm around. I like to argue).
I see what you are saying. I just had a thought about it though. Which church model is really more able to go out and help people?
maybe we've kind of both talked ourselves in circles here... but whatever...
a) the diverse church that tolerates both fundamental and liberal thinking christians or
b) the church with the party line that says, "Are you in or out?" and proudly holds on to the things that set it apart from the other churches. Is this type of a church really more ready to go out and help people? (I'm oddly arguing here in agreement with your original premise because church b is in a sense fundamental).
I don't know... church and church beliefs get really complicated when you start to try to think and argue about them... we await the return of Eashoa' (Jesus in Aramaic) to set us straight on a lot of things.
Post a Comment