Miss Havisham

[aspen]

If you have not heard of her, she is a significant character in Charles Dicken's novel, 'Great Expectations'. She is a spinster that lives in a broken down mansion and wears the same wedding dress that she wore at her wedding, 50 years or so, prior to the current date. As the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that she is still waiting for her fiance to arrive to the ceremony - the cake and all the food and decorations are still moldering in the reception room, as she continues to live a paralyzed life.

Frankly, I think it is a great illustration of all forms Fundamentalism. It denies reality AND paralyses all attempts at growth; suffocating the life out of people for the sole purpose of preserving the idealized past. Idealism at the expenses of people - exactly what Christ warned against when He and his disciples were caught by the Pharisees, as they were collecting and eating wheat on the Sabbath.

Chasing the past like a rainbow rather than trusting God that His plan for His church on Earth is going to succeed despite the fact that it is run by sinful people. Fundamentalism promises that the early church is the ideal that we all need to strive for, but it is a fantasy, and worse, it paralyzes all growth because as soon as people attempt to live out the ideals, they fail and have to start over again. If Christianity is not made to be practiced; if it is only valuable when it remains in pristine condition, it is much too fragile for humanity and belongs in a history book or a museum. Honeymoons are only the beginnings of marriage - soon the honeymoon is over and the real relationship begins - you cannot go back. Christianity, like marriage has to be strong enough to be lived by fallen people who sin and introduce corruption. It has to offer the antidote for human failures, without forcing people to start over time and time again.

This is why Christ introduced Love to the Pharisees - Love is the antidote to all man's attempts to exalt the ideal over the individual. Fundamentalism is rooted in the fear of losing the ideal. Faith and love are the antidotes to fear, not vain attempts to capture the idealized past. If you experience God's love, you will have the faith necessary to let go of the fear that roots your vain attempts to cleanse God's church; the desperate longing to stop the clock or turn it back to a time that never really existed.

 

[biggandyy]

You misunderstanding and misstating Fundamentalism is only exceded by the proximity of the closeness this entire thread is to locking right from the get go.

Reconsider your blanket attack on something you appear to have little understanding.

 

[aspen]

You misunderstanding and misstating Fundamentalism is only exceded by the proximity of the closeness this entire thread is to locking right from the get go.

Reconsider your blanket attack on something you appear to have little understanding.

I am not going to fight with you about it, Andy.

 

[Kidron]

Legalism and man made theology is the strength and stranglehold of fundamentalist theology and theocracy.

The POPE on his THRONE would be the ultimate head form of man-made religious theoracy as he is the sole and absolute final authority and dictator and God of his "church".

This should be plain to even one so misguided and shortsighted as you , Aspen.





K
--

 

[aspen]

Catholicism is not immune from Fundamentalism.

 

[HammerStone]

It's oversimplified.

First off - yes I recall Miss Havisham from a number of years ago. One word that comes to mind is stale. I can remember constructing her in my mind - as well as a movie (I believe) that depicted one of her scenes. I'll never forget how sickly and lost of a picture I got from her character. I saw her as basically a living ghost, paralyzed somewhere in between death and life.

Fundamentalism has its dangers, so I'll come out the gate stating that. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist, though I have been accused as such for a time. I think me being accused of fundamentalism is a joke and illustrates the problem with the fundamentalist boogeyman. Eventually that boogeyman morphs from a real person/group to become whomever disagrees with me. But I now digress.

Fundamentalism is a word much akin to liberalism for the other "side" so to speak. Both were, at one time, a positive thing. In the classical sense of the word, we are all liberal. If you believe in a civil authority distinct from a religious one, you are, by classical defintion, indeed a liberal. Fundamentalism might not include everyone, but the concept of fundamentalism is that we adhere to the fundamentals of the faith. To that degree, most of us here would be fundamentalists.

As to fundamentalism within the church as you're talking about it, it is to some degree a reaction. However, where your oversimplification enters is that you maintain it's designed solely with preservation of an idealized past in mind. That is but one aspect of fundamentalism. In fact, fundamentalism is usually also an attempt at a return to the past from the current position - something is viewed as threatening. It's not immutability for immutability's sake, but instead its how its purveyors believe that they retain a linkage to God.

I see it in close comparison with the notion that we are constantly progressive. Again, this just goes in the other direction; going too far right or left places one in a precarious position. Fundamentalism is no more afraid of the future than progressivism is afraid of the past.

If the past assumes place over God, then that's an idol. If love assumes a place over God, then that too is an idol.

I think the overall problem is its become much too focused on us versus them. Even in this thread (and this happens on both "sides"), criticism for brothers and sisters in Christ is manifested simply because of disagreements on how God is worshiped and realized. The implication is that "they" don't get it and have ultimately abandoned true religion.

 

[Foreigner]

I think that those that speak out the most against 'fundamentalism' are the ones who wish to change/minimize something that is defined as a sin, or have the church accept something that has until this time been defined as contrary to Christianity.

As a sidebar, I would point out that biggandy has closed one thread already today and has threatened to close this one, as well.

We have had spirited discussions on topics much more controversial than this one and the one he closed earlier this morning.

If Hammerstone has not seen fit to close off discussion on more controversial topics in the past, I am not sure why biggandy is feeling the need to close down discussion on these.




.

 

[biggandyy]

This one has become very enjoyable... plus, I don't have thread locking privs in this forum

 

[Foreigner]

Silly me. Where would I have gotten that idea....

You misunderstanding and misstating Fundamentalism is only exceded by the proximity of the closeness this entire thread is to locking right from the get go.

Or perhaps it was the lock thread where the very last post was you saying:
"This heresy was condemned way back in the year 529 by the The Canons of the Council of Orange. Threads that are obvious heresies are locked."






.

 

[Strat]

All the OP is doing is once again showing his contempt for the word of God and those who follow it.

 

[aspen]

Hammerstone said:

It's oversimplified.

I agree. Most OPs on message boards are oversimplified - it is the nature of the medium. I think all we can do is post a starting place and invite others to expand the ideas.

First off - yes I recall Miss Havisham from a number of years ago. One word that comes to mind is stale. I can remember constructing her in my mind - as well as a movie (I believe) that depicted one of her scenes. I'll never forget how sickly and lost of a picture I got from her character. I saw her as basically a living ghost, paralyzed somewhere in between death and life.

Indeed. I see the same ghost in the faces of children memorizing the Koran in Islamic Fundamentalist schools, as they rock back and forth, chanting the words they are not required to understand.

Fundamentalism has its dangers, so I'll come out the gate stating that. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist, though I have been accused as such for a time. I think me being accused of fundamentalism is a joke and illustrates the problem with the fundamentalist boogeyman. Eventually that boogeyman morphs from a real person/group to become whomever disagrees with me. But I now digress.

I agree that people use the label to condemn people. I do not believe that most people are true Fundamentalists - believing in the fundamentals of the faith means being orthodox - I value orthodoxy. Being a Fundamentalist goes much farther - 1. It idealizes the past, and tries to recapture it. 2. It demonizes change by reframing it as an attack on truth. 3. It reduces orthodoxy to the barest form. The resulting dogma is the equivalent of cliff notes.

As to fundamentalism within the church as you're talking about it, it is to some degree a reaction. However, where your oversimplification enters is that you maintain it's designed solely with preservation of an idealized past in mind. That is but one aspect of fundamentalism. In fact, fundamentalism is usually also an attempt at a return to the past from the current position - something is viewed as threatening. It's not immutability for immutability's sake, but instead its how its purveyors believe that they retain a linkage to God.

Agreed.

I see it in close comparison with the notion that we are constantly progressive. Again, this just goes in the other direction; going too far right or left places one in a precarious position. Fundamentalism is no more afraid of the future than progressivism is afraid of the past.

Yes - Lewis was right about Progressives - they are vulnerable to chronological snobbery. The fact is, I am in agreement with the Vatican on the dangers of Modernism.


If the past assumes place over God, then that's an idol. If love assumes a place over God, then that too is an idol.

Hmm...I agree with the first part. As far as love being an idol.....I think self-love is certainly an idol and for me, it is the definition of sin; but outward love? towards God and others seems to be what we were created to do and is merely an expression, rather than an object of worship.

I think the overall problem is its become much too focused on us versus them. Even in this thread (and this happens on both "sides"), criticism for brothers and sisters in Christ is manifested simply because of disagreements on how God is worshiped and realized. The implication is that "they" don't get it and have ultimately abandoned true religion.

I agree that I have certainly presented one side of an issue - my justification for doing so is to promote conversation and encourage Christians to think about ideas that they may have thought about years ago and never considered again. The side of the issue I presented is not represented on this board, nor is it comfortable, as you can see by several of the responses from people who have posted. I enjoy looking at issues from different angles and questioning my own predetermined answers. I think we become better Christians when we can take a new look at old ideas - it promotes perspective taking skills which leads to sympathy / empathy / love / unconditional love / forgiveness.

One of the main reasons I like this community so much is that it allows people to discuss different ideas without threat of locking threads or banning members. I hope this will not change.

I think that those that speak out the most against 'fundamentalism' are the ones who wish to change/minimize something that is defined as a sin, or have the church accept something that has until this time been defined as contrary to Christianity.

As a sidebar, I would point out that biggandy has closed one thread already today and has threatened to close this one, as well.

We have had spirited discussions on topics much more controversial than this one and the one he closed earlier this morning.

If Hammerstone has not seen fit to close off discussion on more controversial topics in the past, I am not sure why biggandy is feeling the need to close down discussion on these.

For me, my biggest fears concerning Fundamentalism are:

1. the fervor of the followers

2. the anti-intellectual aspects - valuing memorization over new ideas / shutting down the voice of the opposition (through violence or rhetoric). BTW, I am not claiming that Fundamentalists are stupid, nor am I saying that they are the only group that have anti-intellectual components.

3. the dualism - everything that is not a fundamental idea is wrong and promoted by the many enemies of the group.