Skip to comments.The many forms of fundamentalism
Posted on 03/19/2007 8:28:03 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
NEARLY A decade and a half ago, this condemnation of fundamentalism was issued: "The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life . . . instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. . . . Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations." This robust denunciation came from the Vatican, in a 1993 document entitled "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church."
The phenomenon of "fundamentalism" has made an extraordinary impact on the world. But what is it? The scholar Gabriel A. Almond defines fundamentalism as "religious militance by which self-styled 'true-believers' attempt to arrest the erosion of religious identity, fortify the borders of the religious community, and create viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviors." Some fundamentalists pursue openly political agendas (Northern Ireland, Israel, Iran). Some are apolitical (Latin American Pentecostalism). In war zones (Sudan, Afghanistan, Palestine, Sri Lanka), fundamentalism is energizing conflict. Most notably, the warring groups in Iraq have jelled around fundamentalist religion.
These varied manifestations resist being defined with one word, which is why it is better, as Almond suggests, to speak of "fundamentalisms." But they all have something in common, and as the Vatican critique of biblical fundamentalism suggests, it is dangerous. The impulse may begin with good intentions, the wish to affirm basic values and sources of meaning that seemed threatened....
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The term [Fundamentalism] was born when conservative Protestants in early-20th-century America committed themselves to defend the five "fundamentals" of their faith -- the inerrancy of the Bible, virgin birth and deity of Jesus, doctrine of atonement, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and His imminent return.
Everyone always wants to lay blame somewhere other than in the hearts of men -- with their sin nature. But the reality is, man's heart is evil and he can take even truths from God, chop or twist them, and use them like the Devil. But just because you use it with evil intent doesn't mean the source is evil. The key is in the practicing of the truth and allowing it to change your heart. Some don't. They end up loving their sinful selves too much. But all who ignore and suppress the truth don't even have hope. Like the writer of this article.
The most recent case in point is Pope Benedict's "Apostolic Exhortation," issued last week. What begins as a contemplative appreciation of the Eucharist ends up as a manifesto designed to keep many Catholics from receiving Communion at Mass. The ticket to Communion is an uncritical acceptance of what the pope calls, in a striking echo, "fundamental values," which include defense of human life "from conception to natural death." The key declaration is that "these values are not negotiable."
And there we have this turn into a typical Boston Globe article.
The various fundamentalisms are all concerned with "fortifying borders," and that is a purpose of today's Vatican. The pope's exhortation concludes by referring to the Catholic people as the "flock" entrusted to bishops. Sheep stay inside the fence. But what happens when Catholics stop thinking of themselves as sheep?
Just another rant.
How did the Bible authorities get past the discovery of the New World?
The Boston Globe is owned by the NYT, not that it really matters. It was just as liberal prior to the acquisition.
Ahhh - spoken like a true acolyte of the "one faith".
They did? Where did you read this?
This is something I stumbled aross just yesterday in Gunnar Thompson's latest. It might be of interest, I thought, and maybe somebody on FR knows about it and can elucidate.
LOL - wasting bandwidth??
I'll take a stab at understanding what you're trying to say.
I think you would agree that one's acceptance of an idea in no way impugns the veracity of the idea itself - agreed?
If the bible then, doesn't mention north America - why exactly would that reflect unfavorably on the bible?
What's this 'one faith' thing? Is it a reference to finding Christians already practicing in America by the time Columbus got there?
Uh - Hello?? I'm over here (post #10).
I am not interested in that. I want to know more about this 'one faith' thing. What is that about?
Wow - you're not interested in discussing your own point??
Well - ok.
(you remember when you made references to bandwidth and ad hominem? I think this is a textbook case of what is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip")
No. I am interested in your ad hominen. What is this 'one faith' thing?
LOL - why then are you on this thread?
(it wasn't just to post an ad hominem, waste bandwidth, and then disappear - was it? 8^)
What is this 'one faith' thing?
That you are unwilling to answer that call is less than admirable.
To think that you can bully your way into getting your answer - is laughable.
I cannot respond since I do not know what this 'one faith' thing is. This is not a debate, and not even a discussion.
And yet you did respond:
Regardless, how did they do it? Don't waste bandwidth with ad hominem. A lot of people dropped out then, 500 years ago, because they felt America, North and America, South were continents of earth not mentioned. We should not gloss over this.
To which I responded in post #10.