Why fundamentalism will fail – The Boston Globe
Why fundamentalism will fail – The Boston Globe
Posted using ShareThis
FTA:
IN 1910, A COHORT of ultra-conservative American Protestants drew up a list of non-negotiable beliefs they insisted any genuine Christian must subscribe to. They published these “fundamentals” in a series of widely distributed pamphlets over the next five years. Their catalog featured doctrines such as the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, and his imminent second coming. The cornerstone, though, was a belief in the literal inerrancy of every syllable of the Bible, including in matters of geology, paleontology, and secular history. They called these beliefs fundamentals, and proudly styled themselves “fundamentalists” – true believers who feared that liberal movements like the social gospel and openness to other faiths were eroding the foundation of their religion.
Obviously, such a position is difficult to hold if you look at archaeological, epigraphic and other evidence. These folks painted themselves into a corner. And back in 1910, there wasn’t a lot of archaeology to prove anything one way or another. The so-called “Biblical” archaeologists in the 50′s bent over backwards to “prove” the Bible and but now their efforts can be seen as the failure they were. Archaeology does not prove the Bible. This doesn’t stop apologists from trying, however, or the “politically incorrect” series of books catering to the Far Right.
FTA:
The fading of fundamentalism marks a decisive change in global society. It has already freed Christians, Muslims, and Jews to explore what all three have in common as they now begin to cooperate in confronting nuclear weapons, poverty, and climate change. Thus, when a hundred Muslim scholars invited Christians two years ago to join in a quest for what they called a “Common Word’ on issues of justice, Christians from a wide spectrum of denominations responded favorably. Four important “Common Word” conferences have been held so far, involving hundreds of scholars and religious leaders. The king of Morocco has hosted a series of gatherings for mullahs, rabbis, and Christian clerics.
I think Americans United is more cautious in their approach. They’re not ready to pronounce Fundamentalism dead, or even dying. I think personally I lean more towards the approach of AU, given what I see in the news every day, and the leanings of even the Obama Administration towards the Conservative Christians. These people still have a lot of clout.
FTA:
ANOTHER REASON WHY fundamentalists are faltering today has to do with the world outside. The fundamentalist world view is unbending and monochrome, but today’s world is variable and multi-hued, and the plurality is more and more visible. Thanks to the increase of immigrants from Asia and the Middle East, mosques and pagodas now share streets with churches and synagogues in Europe and America. People of the previous generation could retreat into a culturally isolated community and pull down the shades, but their children live every day with a heightened, web-enhanced awareness of a diverse world.
A agree whole-heartedly with this statement. The reality of the world will eventually overpower a narrow and exclusive viewpoint. That does not mean a narrow, intolerant viewpoint is not a threat and not a danger. After all, it took better than 1500 years to see something like the Enlightenment. The politically incorrect books can claim that the “true” Age of Reason was the Middle Ages, but I think all the tortured Pagans and heretics and Jews and witches and others might have something to say about that.
FTA:
The plethora of emerging new spiritualities has its own problems, of course. They are often intellectually incoherent or melt into a self-centered narcissism. They can become vacuous and faddish. (Madonna and other Hollywood celebrities are now “into Kabala,” the ancient Jewish mystical tradition.) They can become highly individualistic, lacking any vision of social justice. Esoteric and snobbish at times, they often fail to reach the poor and dispossessed people for whom Jesus, the Buddha, and the Jewish prophets had such concern.
I suppose we Pagans get lumped here. And I think “intellectually incoherent” is a term that often applies, even to we new Pagans. Of course, to an extent, this “intellectual incoherence” is inherent in a movement that is by its very nature diverse. Ramsay MacMullen’s “spongy mass” comes to mind. Looking at Paganism as “intellectually incoherent” is to an extent to misunderstand Paganism – ancient or modern.
The interesting thing about this last bit is that “folk religion” – which is archaeologist William G. Dever’s term for “Pagan” religions, is by its very nature a religion of the poor and dispossessed – it is the religion of the people, not the religion that is “supposed” to be but the religion that “is” – ethnic religion. Religion that deals with the needs and concerns of the average person, men and women both – not just the patriarchal religion that is imposed from above by books and prophets. I think it is important that modern Pagans not lose sight of this affiliation. Our religions are peoples’ religion and not the ramblings of ivory tower intellectuals philosophizing about the nature of reality. Even the philosophers of the ancient world understood the importance of the traditional cults.
The author concludes with a hopeful note, and I hope he is right, and I hope we do not suffer another 1500 year interregnum before seeing his vision:
Future historians may look back on the 20th century as a time when something called “fundamentalism” interrupted, but only briefly, the age-old human search for a way to live in the face of mystery, and to envision what Martin Luther King called a “beloved community.”
Hrafnkell Haraldsson is the author of A Heathen’s Day, which since 2005 has addressed the life and thoughts of a modern day Heathen. He is also the founder of the Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) which is dedicated to the study and support of Paganism as ethnic religion and writes for PoliticusUSA (www.politicususa.com) 
Thanks for posting this. Prof. Cox is always worth listening to. Religious conservatives can't stand him, of course, because his ideas are seen as a threat to the status quo, but his thoughts have proven remarkably prescient.
Perhaps the most positive paragraphs of this essay, which I'll take the liberty of quoting, are:
Fundamentalism is defined by its one-way-only exclusivism. But today spiritually inclined people view the once-high walls between religious traditions as porous. They borrow freely. Synagogues and churches incorporate Asian meditation practices into their services. Instead of a single churchly allegiance, people now assemble “repertories” of elements from a number of sources. They may attend Mass, take a yoga class, and keep a Buddhist devotional book on their bedside table. Clerics often denounce this as “cafeteria style” religion, but the current of religious history is flowing against them.
Father Thomas Merton, the leading Catholic contemplative writer of the 20th century, died while staying at a Buddhist monastery in Bangkok. Martin Luther King attributed his commitment to non-violence to Gandhi, who in turn said he learned it from Jesus and Tolstoy. The Dalai Lama has written a reverent biography of Jesus. For none of these profoundly religious men did the appreciation of other faiths weaken their anchoring in their own. In fact each said that it enhanced it.
This, to my knowledge, is the experience of an increasing number of Christians. The old exclusivism–not only of the fundamentalists, but of all denominations–is crumbling like the Berlin wall. Those who insist on clinging to the old orthodoxies are finding themselves increasingly isolated in echo chambers with the angry and like-minded, talking only to themselves.
More below.
I don't believe, of course, that the Christian fundamentalists (largely) in the U.S., the Muslim fundamentalists (largely) in the Middle East, or their Jewish counterparts (largely) in Israel, will fade away quietly. In the U.S., for instance, we are now seeing the sometimes violent reaction of people who had come very close to seizing absolute power being suddenly deprived of it. I have read somewhere that the Secret Service has disclosed that threats against the President have increased 400% this year as compared with last. Not all of this can be attributed to religious fanaticism, of course, but it certainly rears its ugly head. Nevertheless, I am optimistic enough to believe that people of good will, working for the common good, will ultimately prevail. The alternative is simply too bleak to contemplate.
It was a very good article, and very welcome at this particular point in time. I've said here before that what we are seeing are the forces of Reaction at work. As you say, Makarios, they came close and now see it slipping away. But of course, the Yahwists were a minority in ancient Israel and the Christians were a minority in ancient Rome, but they were both ruthless and aggressive and prevailed, and I believe they can do so again unless we resist. Like you, I believe if we do so we will prevail. As you say, the alternative is too bleak to consider. Standing up to them, and to their lies and propaganda, are a duty each of us have.
May I recommend Karen Armstrong's book "The War for God"? It is a treatise – and a very readable one on the fundamentalist movements of the big three faiths – People of the Book – Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
She step by step breaks down historically just how the movements evolved and arose.
It's an amazing book. I read it a matter of days before the 9/11 attack, and it gave me an intellectual basis to survive the emotional horror of that day.
Thank you, Cameron. I haven't read her book but I've seen it referenced. I will add it to my "must read" list!