Posted by john on April 09, 2002 at 11:43:58:
In Reply to: more on xian fundamentalism posted by giveawayboy on April 09, 2002 at 08:16:31:
: : Well, I didn't really have anything to add to Bill's post. I usually think of it in the terms of the Fundamentalist movement as Bill suggested. Even though this doesn't really reflect the actual meaning of the word. Plus for anyone who doesn't know, Fundamentalists, in my book, aren't really evil per se, but this brand of Christianity tends to draw out all the would-be fascist, tell-me-what-to-think, intolerant, justify-my-agenda-as-a-Divine-calling types. Not to mention that many people i have met that ascribe to these ideas are just ignornant of the real facts, even those plainly stated in the Bible. This is because they choose not to think through things on their own, but just accept what sounds authoritative. You can most often spot these folks by looking for the person who HAS to argue a religious viewpoint you've heard on TV, but can't defend it against even the slightest intelligent questioning. If this is offensive to anyone, good. But of course I am not without fault. I just beleive we have a duty to search our own hearts and seek wise council on things, Christianity is not a political device.
:
: I think fundamentalism, at least in the Christian sense of those who believe in 'the fundamentals' of our faith, is a kneejerk reaction to modernism, which seeks to turn our religion into a ghost. Christ gave us a mystical body, the Church, not a ghost. The Holy Spirit is a Ghost, the Church is a body. Modernism abstracted everything it could. It tried to abstract Christ. The Fundamentalists saw that tendency as bad and sought to stand against it. They are to be commended for rediscovering part of what the Church originally had. However, I still believe they have only a partial view of it. There is a fullness to truth which they seem to suggest, but functionally deny, since they still remain a pocket in the modern age, with little or no connection to anything beyond the 1800s. There is a whole life of the church they still are not connected to.
:
: Later, Bill
Well said! But I think both modernism and fundamentalism are outdated concepts now. I sometimes look ahead and try to see what this age will be called. I see that we are clearly post-post modern. I see a sort of rennaissance beginning maybe, a rediscovery of majik and spirit and a growing presence of concern for place. This is evidenced in the rise of pagan religions again after centuries of persecution, as well as more open mysticism in churches. Also in the wake of the late 20th century environmental movement, we're starting to see less crusading and more grassroots, decentralizing efforts, taking power out of "bigger & better" universal management and focusing on the neighborhood, the microenvironment, and the watershed. These things combined could give rise to a very interesting future, especially if the impending societal crash is not forestalled.