[Springfield Reformer]

When I google it, the first thing I get is:

fun·da·men·tal·ism, noun; "a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture."

Yes, that is a very popular view of Christian fundamentalism.  It is also highly misleading.  People once thought all Irish people were alcoholics, too.  Popular misconceptions die hard.   I am sorry you didn't respond to my last post to you.  I believe I understand where you are coming from, and it was my intention to help you see inside our heads a bit, sort of my way of trying to defeat the natural prejudices that lie between our two world views.  Evidently I have failed.  If you respond no further, that is your choice.  But if you are reading this, please consider a few things before closing the door absolutely:

Christian fundamentalism was, at its inception, a healthy reaction to the wholesale rejection of supernaturalism that was going on in Christianity in the wake of Darwin and the Enlightenment.  The focus on literalism was selective. Accepting the Scriptures as true in all facts does not equate to accepting forms of literalism that reject the ordinary use of metaphor or other figurative language.  The problem ran deeper.  The Enlightenment was a door being opened to pseudo-rationally reject all forms of supernaturalism.  The fundamentalists pushed back by arguing from faith that God could and did still interact with the world miraculously.  

For example, when we say Jesus rose from the dead, we really believe that.  It was not figurative because nothing in the ordinary language of the text would lead one to believe the authors were being figurative about that specific thing.  They even had the chance to go all metaphor with the resurrection but chose instead to die for the truth of it rather than recant. 

Likewise with creationism.  We believe God could have created the world in any manner He saw fit, even if human science can only see certain aspects of that world.  Seven days or seven seconds or seven billion years.  None of those are outside the supernatural power of God.  So we elected to believe what God had chosen to reveal to us and use that as the filter on science.  Humanistic empiricism seeks to reverse that process, where whatever we see today, the science fad of the moment, filters God's revelation to us, which we're supposed to take with a grain of salt anyway, because the underlying assumption, per Hume, is that if you can leave out the supernatural to explain anything, you're obligated by Reason to do so.  This is because under the new rules of the Enlightenment, Reason had become God.  That's why they capitalized the "R."  Seriously.

But in all of this, the focus of fundamentalism was not to reject the rich tapestry of layered meaning in the Scriptures, but to reject the Enlightenment's descent into atheism, initially shown by the symptom of systematically rejecting all things supernatural.  This is why we cringe when those with the popular perception of the matter put us in the "strictly literal" category.  That's level of literalism is actually a mental illness.  Truly.  Nobody is an absolute literalist.  It isn't possible without clinical mental defect.  When we hear Jesus say "I am the Door," or "I am the True Vine," we are just like every other normal human being.  We know that's a metaphor.

But the reason we know that is because we have a specific methodology for interpreting texts.  It is the ordinary method ordinary folks use to interpret all texts.  It is called the Historical-Grammatical method.  We simply look at the full historical, cultural, grammatical, semantic context, try to figure out what the original communication meant in its original context, and build our truth system from that. A lot like Constitutional Originalism. Sometimes that produces strictly literal results, such as belief in a literal resurrection.  Sometimes it leads us to find figurative language not intended to be taken literally, such as "I am the Door," "I am the True Vine," "I am the Bread of Life," etc.

So perhaps you see the problem here.  You have used a flimsy, poorly crafted Google definition of a complex and richly textured movement.  What can possibly result from that but disappointment?

There is more that could be said, but I'm going a bit long here.  In any event, it's just true that in these encounters we have a lot of stereotypical images to overcome.  It can be hard.  Grace on all sides, and much patience, would go further, IMHO, than people giving up.  The subject matter is worth the effort.

Peace,

SR

[BeauBo]

You asked so kindly, and I respect your thinking, so I’ll respond.

You don’t assert literal interpretation - others did.

You don’t rely (absolutely, perhaps somewhat) on direct revelation - but others did.

You espouse an Historical-Grammatical method, which is basically what I was advocating. It is essentially the method used by the Catholic Church, which maintains lots of scholars with a long formal vetting process, augmented with lots of prayers for guidance. It is imperfect, as any human system will be, although with with checks and balances built in.

When you rely on such an approach (Historical-Grammatical), different scholars may still reach different conclusions (interpretations). New facts may be discovered, which would alter earlier conclusions. For example, you mentioned Heliocentrism in a earlier post, where thinking changed over time. Some points may simply not be decisively resolvable based on the limited information known.

The bottom line, is that such an approach (Historical-Grammatical) does not provide the absolute inerrancy claimed by the other approaches.

Please note that this is (inherent) imperfection in human understanding, not to accuse imperfection on the part of God.

Without an absolute certainty of divine understanding, I believe it wise to be circumspect about passing judgement on others. That is what I found lacking on this thread, and why I spoke up. The absolute certainty that many seem to claim is expressed as intolerance and bigotry, disrespect and derogation of others - a quickness to declare heresy, akin to takfiri muslim fundamentalists.

So whether folks rely on literal reading, or a priori agreement on a fundamental set of dogmas that they assert to be absolute certain truths (as you propose), or acceptance of absolute rules for interpretation (as do takfiri muslims); by emphasizing the aspect of absolute certainty of understanding, they will naturally engender a higher degree of such intolerant hubris in their followers. That is an inherent downside of Fundamentalism. Not necessarily a fatal flaw, just something to guard against.

Folks have argued that we should discount certain things in the Old Testament, because God can change the terms at different times and different people - yet they deem it out of the realm of possibility that God might provide Mary or a brown scapula to benefit certain people of a certain time.

Devotional and mystical practices are more emotional and experiential, rather than analytical or logical. Yet they can powerfully move some people and benefit them greatly. Throughout history, and around the world, people have engaged in such practices. Some percentage of any population will have a naturally greater attraction to, or talent for such religious experience.

It seems to me that, like muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists tend to take particular exception to much of devotional practice as superstition or magical thinking, while being ambivalent about mystical practice.

Every human, and probably every mammal, has deep feelings and instincts concerning their mother and being mothered. Maternal love has special ability to calm fears and soothe pain. So many people in this world are subjected to horrible pain and terrifying prospects - we are all going to face death and the deaths of our loved ones at some point, and God only knows what other horrors we may experience in this world - there are plenty.

In my experience, some people are naturally attracted to Mary, but many more are helped with Marian practices when crushed with pain (e.g. mourning) or facing great fear (e.g. combat deployments, terminal illness).

Probably the biggest Catholic Marian practice is praying the rosary, which is akin to the “worry” beads which other religions use to count repetitions of prayers or mantras. In Hindu, Buddhist and muslim traditions, such repetition practice is considered particularly suitable for the the same kinds of challenges (pain and fear), as well as for people who are not intellectual by nature or lack high intellectual capability. I don’t know Jewish practices well enough to compare them.

But there is an emotional reaction to dogmatic/intellectual/legalistic attacks on Marian practices, that is not so much due to intellectual disagreement. Marian practices are often associated with very sympathetic situations, such as with people who are dying and in pain.

The Hail Mary (Ave Maria) is traditionally offered at funerals - it includes the request to “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death” So when people attack these practices, the association is with sensitive memories, like saying goodbye to Grandma, where these practices are the main balm that is shared to soothe the pain. It comes off as really harsh, cold hearted - even cruel.