THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND FUNDAMENTALISM
Fundamentalism grew out of seeds that were sown during the period know as “The Enlightenment” and the worldview that followed. “The philosophical and theological understanding that came out the Enlightenment was human centered, rationalistic, naturalistic and anti-authority… God had become superfluous because the world can exist and function without him
”. This worldview led to arrogance on the part of the people holding it; they believed that people who lived before their period were intellectually inferior because they believed in God rather than the supremacy of human reason
. There is an idea that the people who lived approximately 2000 years ago were simple and would easily accept anything they were told. However, this is not a conclusion that can be drawn unless the modern reader is credulous with a different bias.
One of the outcomes of this approach was in the way that people approached the Bible. They believed that the Bible was just another ancient text that had to be studied according to its form, without any consideration of Divine involvement.
”
MODERNITY
The philosophy we now know as modernity grew out of the enlightenment. “Modernity is simply the sense or idea that the present is discontinuous with the past; that through a process of social and cultural change (either through improvement, that is, progress, or through decline) life in the present is fundamentally different from life in the past. This sense of idea as a world view contrasts with what I will call tradition, which is simply the sense that the present is continuous with the past, that the present in some way repeats that forms, behavior and events of the past
.
The modern world is faced with the fact that there may not be any continuity with the past. Under these circumstances what happens to any traditional understanding of life? This is very important for people with any religious beliefs. If the religion is based on history, that is, a belief that events in the past now affect the way things happen in the present then they will have no reason to continue their beliefs. If we are divorced from our traditions then what happens to our world view that is based on the events that we believe occurred in the past? If there is no continuity with the past then what happens to the future? Will the future be discontinuous with the present or will there be some continuity? Can people move forward into the future with any sense of confidence if there is no continuity?
BOUNDLESS CONFIDENCE
It seems as though many people have boundless confidence in the future as there is now a large market in cryonics
. Many people believe that they can preserve their bodies at extremely low temperatures until science has advanced sufficiently to cure the disease that now ravage their bodies. Imagine a Jew living in Germany in the 1920s being preserved using cryonics only to find that they have been awakened in the 1940s to be placed in a death camp. These issues have led to a “crisis of modernity”
where there is a belief that change cannot be controlled and the alternatives we face cannot be managed. Life is rushing headlong into an unknown future that we should fear. It is no longer possible to move forward with secure goals and objectives as these can easily be hijacked by the discontinuity between the present and future in the same way as there is a discontinuity between the present and the past. This experience is now known as “post-modern”
.
CRISIS
Modernity has led to a crisis in confidence among young people today as they don’t know how to cope with the prospects for the changes that they face without any foundation to fall back on. If there is no continuity with the past then what strategies can we use to face the future without relying on our experience? The alternatives we face become daunting and it is easier to hide away, intellectually, from the future and anchor ourselves in a past that is comfortable and manageable. An abstract world is too hard to deal with so we cannot deal with the issues in a discrete and organized way because nothing is discrete and organized. It is better for a person to have something they can manage rather than something that is too hard to deal with. The criteria used to measure acceptable and not acceptable are based on correct or incorrect thinking rather than attributes that can be quantified.
FUNDAMENTALISM
This is where Fundamentalism enters the picture. “The word fundamentalist was first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws, Baptist editor of the Watchman-Examiner, to identify someone who stood for the historic doctrines of the Christian faith in contrast to modern religious liberals who rejected doctrines such as the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ and the genuineness of miracles.
“Marsden defines fundamentalism as: ‘1. an evangelical Protestant; 2. an anti-modernist, meaning that one subscribes to the fundamentals of traditional supernaturalistic biblical Christianity; and 3, militant in their antimodernism or in opposition to certain aspects of secularization. A fundamentalist, then, is a militantly, anti-modernistic evangelical.’
”
“Christian Fundamentalists are those people who hold to the five fundamentals of the faith that were adopted by the Presbyterian Church in the USA in 1910. These five fundamentals are: the inspiration of the Scripture; the substitutionary atonement of Christ; the miracles of Christ; the bodily resurrection of Christ: and the virgin birth of Christ.
”
The “Scopes Monkey Trial” of 1925 was evidence of the battle between the modernist and the fundamentalist in the USA
. In this case the foundations of fundamentalism were under challenge even though the case was fought in court; the court was asked to determine which group would win the political battle for supremacy. The final outcome of this case was victory for the modernist.
The fundamentalists were determined to win in the long run and this battle has affected politics in the United States for a long time. Some people believe that the right wing Christian fundamentalist still hold greater than proportional sway in United States politics today
. We could say that this approach to fundamentalism is internally inconsistent with fundamentalist beliefs. The Apostle Paul in Romans 13 told the Christians in Rome that they were to obey the government rather than use political methodology to change it. Is Romans 13 part of the inspired Scripture or not? An example of the fundamentalist working hard to change the world politically is found in the Moral Majority Coalition
.
I BELIEVE THEREFORE YOU MUST
The fundamentalist is convinced of the correctness of his position and has developed an attitude of “I believe therefore you must”. This attitude can be found in the bombing of abortion clinics by people who are theologically opposed to abortion.
. Violence seems to be the only way for these people to pursue their agenda when the political process fails. Christian fundamentalists have relied on the Old Testament more than the New Testament to justify their approach to violence and political domination. This was particularly true in the seventies when the liberal world view was more prominent than it is today.
The term fundamentalism has taken a broader meaning in recent times. It is not just a group of right wing, conservative Christians but any person of a religious persuasion who is willing to use violence to pursue their religious goals. “Fundamentalism is variously described by various authors, but to me it really boils down to a rather simple test: In my view, a fundamentalist religion is a religion, any religion, that when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.
“Fundamentalist religions make this choice because they uniformly place a high priority on doctrinal conformity, with such force that it takes higher priority than love, compassion and service.
”
HINDU FUNDAMENTALISM
In 1948 Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in India and the entire nation went into mourning as their beloved leader was now dead. He had managed to achieve his great goal of freedom for India from the yoke of British colonial rule but he was not able to enjoy the fruit of his labors for very long. Independence was achieved at midnight on 14 August 1947 but he was dead on 30 January 1948. Gandhi’s assassin was a right wing Hindu nationalist, Nathuram Godse, who blamed Gandhi for dividing India and giving part of the sacred Hindu land to the Muslims of Pakistan
. By the above definition this was a terrorist act of a fundamentalist Hindu.
CRISIS
The problems associated with the conflict between tradition and modernism was expressed more widely with the advent of widespread access to public media. People were made more aware of the problems that exist between the generations when they were able to see these things publicly displayed on television. This began to be apparent in the sixties when protest movements were televised and the issues openly discussed.
At the same time a spiritual hunger developed among a generation that had grown up in a world where human reason was the ultimate arbiter of knowledge and wisdom. There were no absolutes only relatives; as discussed earlier there was a crisis in confidence when people could not move forward securely because they were not certain that there was any continuity between the present and the future.
The Apostle Paul had something to say about this as well. “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things… Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 1:21-23, 25
. When people grow up in a world where God has been decreed as obsolete they start to look for something spiritual to replace God. If there is no Creator then the people worship the things that the Creator has made so that they can satisfy this hunger.
ANIMISM
The Theosophical University Press defines animism in the following way: “The name given by anthropologists to the attribution of life or mind to inanimate objects, such as trees, mountains, rivers, or images. This belief of the ancients and of many existing peoples was recognition of the universal sentience of nature.
” Ancient animists worshipped creation and creatures.
NEO-ANIMISM
One of the consequences of a world without God and devoid of a spiritual dimension has been the development of neo animism. The tinyvital.com blog
says that the modern environmental movement has the fundamental characteristics of animist religion. The comment at the end of that blog states:
“This is the most overlooked fact about the environmental movement. There are 2 theories of environmentalism: deep ecology (DE) and shallow ecology (SE). About 99% of the people on earth are SE. They want clean air to breath and clean water to drink. It’s hard to argue with that. On the other hand, DE want clean air and water, too, but not for people to breath or drink. They want it for the sake of the environment itself. This is an important distinction, and is the basis of their religion. It’s interesting, too that the theme of your website is ‘useful fools’. If you examine the power structure of the environmental movement, the foot soldiers are SE, whereas the leaders are DE. Conservatives and libertarians tend to dismiss DE as kooks. We need to get serious and pay a lot more attention to this.”
FUNDAMENTALIST NEO-ANIMISM
The world has come full circle since the time of the Enlightenment. We have removed religion from our thinking only to replace it by a new religion that is defined as not being a religion at all; the religion of neo-animism. There are also fundamentalist neo-animists. “Animal Liberation believes all animals (yes humans are animals too) have a right to live how they would normally choose without other species intervention. Just like slaves, women and other minorities in society have been able to challenge views on how they should be treated and what their rights should be, Animal Liberation wants to challenge society on its views of all non-human animals. The way we do this is through educational campaigns, public events and using the media to get our message across.
” While the aims are honorable the philosophy is definitely animistic.
A news article from 17 September 2006
refers to threats and abusive phone calls being made to employees at a Greyhound Sanctuary in Manchester, England. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that three animal rights activists were sentenced to prison for conspiring to stalk, harass and intimidate employees of a New Jersey scientific testing firm and companies that do business with that firm
. These acts definitely show signs of fundamentalism by the definition above.
TERRORISM
The next issue that needs to be addressed is that of terrorism. Terrorism is any violent act perpetrated to cause distress in a population. Modern terrorism was invented by the British during the Second World War
. A guerrilla war fought against the enemy within their own territory and large scale bombing of the civilian population was perpetrated. They were at war with the Germans in Fortress Europe and set out to intimidate the civilian population with the purpose of destroying the Germans will to wage war.
Fundamentalism and terrorism go together as terrorism can be used to further the political aims of the fundamentalists. It is easy to wage war on non-combatants, especially if the war is undeclared.
ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM
Fundamentalism also exists in Islam. There are some Muslims who are conservative in their beliefs and refer to certain passages from the Holy Quran that they say gives them a right to wage terrorism on their enemies. In the same way that not all Christians are Fundamentalists not all Muslims are Fundamentalists.
Some Muslims say that the world should be divided into two “zones”: the Land of Peace (Dar al-Islam) and the Land of War (Dar al-Harb)
. The history of the world is seen as an ongoing conflict until the whole world has become the Dar al-Islam and there is no longer any Dar al-Harb. The Quran states: “When we decide to destroy a population, we (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and transgress; so that the word is proved true against them; then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Abraham?
Islamic Law is enforced in the Dar al-Islam and people who are not Muslims become dhimmi, that is, people who are protected by the Muslims but have to pay tribute
.
These people also believe that all Lands belong to Allah
, leading to the conclusion that the Land has to be freed so that it can return to its rightful owner. The world will be at peace when every part of the earth belongs to the Dar al-Islam. Jihad is the fight to bring every land on the earth into the Dar al-Islam. As time goes by the world will slowly but surely move towards the state of total peace.
The fundamentalist Muslim is expected to be involved in Jihad
as a life long occupation so that they can bring the world into the proper state, that is, the Dar a-Islam where Islamic Law is enforced. There are other benefits that flow from this constant state of war and the fact that everything on earth belongs to Allah: the spoils of war (fay) belong to those who have fought the jihad and won
.
The Harbi are the people who live in the Dar al-Harb and do not yet believe in Islam. They have two choices when they are defeated; they can convert to Islam or become dhimmi
. This condition is a direct result of jihad and can be thought of as a treaty of protection for the Harbi. Those who have been conquered can be protected by this treaty and be enslaved or pay the tax.
These fundamentalists believe that the dhimmi have to be humiliated
. The conquerors were not allowed to form friendships with Jews or Christians or listen to their beliefs. Any true believer is obliged to express his hatred for the dhimmi; any respectable Muslim will consider this expression an honorable act. A dhimmi is not allowed to meet a Muslim on the street but has to pass on his left, the unclean side. It is also quite correct to push a dhimmi out of the way and make sure that his humiliation is expressed in the strongest possible terms. Dhimmi had to live in poorer houses than the Muslim and were not live among them in case they caused contamination.
Dhimmi are expected to lower their eyes whenever they meet a Muslim to show their humility and walk quickly past that person. They had to stand in the presence of a Muslim and were not allowed to speak to them unless they were spoken to. A dhimmi is not allowed to defend himself against a Muslim even if they are attacked; the punishment for this could be amputation of the offending limb. As well as being humiliated and degraded the dhimmi is to show gratitude at all time because their lives have been saved under Islamic Law
.
These attitudes are only enforced by the fundamentalist who has the “I believe therefore you must” attitude. We have seen that the terms “fundamentalist” and “terrorism” are not confined to Islam but have been used by different groups at different times to justify their own political agenda.
For the fundamentalist freedom is that state when everyone agrees with my religious agenda. They are willing to pursue their goal of world freedom at great cost to themselves through violence rather than more peaceful ways of proselytization. However, what is freedom for one is a reason for fear for other people. Everyone likes to have choice in what they think and believe and to have this choice removed is a cause for fear.
RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
One of the issues that surfaced in post Christian Europe and other parts of the “First World” is the issue of religious pluralism
. This is the belief that there are many ways to understand God and to come to God. This idea is founded on the concept that God, or the Supreme Being, understands that a person is sincere and will accept them if they sincerely seek him by whatever way they choose as appropriate. Under this belief every religion is equally valid. The fundamentalist, however, does not accept this concept at all; they believe that their way is the only right way and it is their job to make sure that everyone finally comes to their view point or dies in the process. Eventually the entire world will come under their particular creed.
FREEDOM OR FEAR?
These ideas must lead to conflict. The fundamentalist on one side and perhaps a different kind of fundamentalist on the other are not willing to compromise. Our first instinct when we face conflict is to seek dialogue to find if compromise is possible. When people engage in dialogue they indicate that they are willing to look for some place where both sides can keep the things they count precious while they are willing to give up things that are not so important but may be offensive to the person on the other side of the dialogue. Is dialogue possible with a fundamentalist? What about a person who just wants the freedom to choose what they think themselves; do they have a chance in dialogue with the fundamentalist? Our earlier definition of fundamentalist as someone who chooses doctrinal conformity must rule out dialogue.
For people who are not fundamentalists the question is: freedom or fear? How can we deal with fundamentalism without losing our freedom? If dialogue is out of the question then what can we do? Do we have to resort to the fundamentalist tactic and seek to eliminate them so that we can preserve our own freedom? If we follow this course of action do we become fundamentalists ourselves or are we just defending our freedom? Different people will have to answer this question in different ways.
COMPROMISE?
As a Christian the question for me is how can I, as a Christian, face the fear of fundamentalism without compromising my faith and losing my freedom without becoming a fundamentalist?
Perhaps the first place to look is religious pluralism. If I am willing to become a religious pluralist then I can exist within that context and accept that the fundamentalist can continue with his own religious beliefs and reach God in his own way. Of course the fundamentalist will not become a religious pluralist because he is still caught up in his own agenda. I may be quietly accepting that his way to God is right for him while he takes my life as part of his crusade to obey his God.
There is a large problem that religious pluralists face: if all ways are equally acceptable in coming to God, which God are we coming to? Different religions have a different concept of God. Some people believe that there is one God while others believe that there are many Gods and a third group believes that everything is God. These three things cannot all be true at the same time
.
There are other issues as well: Christians believe in a personal God with whom one can have a personal relationship. Hindus believe that the aim is to become one with God and lose your own individuality
. These concepts are mutually exclusive so which God are we trying to reach? Do we want to express our individuality in a personal relationship with God or do we want to lose our individuality and become an indistinct part of God?
We can further retreat from this idea and say that it is impossible to know God at all so any person’s attempt to define God is as good as any other person’s. If it is impossible to know God then why do we want to reach God? Surely the outcome of this quest is the same anxiety as that faced by the post modernist who has no way of finding continuity between the present and the future.
CAN WE CHOOSE?
What happens when a person chooses a religion? They are involved in an intellectual quest for the truth and they become convinced that their version of the truth is more convincing than any other version of the truth. For the Christian this conviction is an acceptance of the truth of John 3: 16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
”
Is it wrong to be convinced that one belief is preferable to another? If there are obvious contradictions between different world views of God and the universe then how can a person be accused of being discriminatory if they decide to follow one consistent world view rather than trying to satisfy their mind with competing concepts that cannot be reconciled? These days, if a person claims that their religion is right they are often accused of having a closed mind and the racism card is played from time to time as well
. When the democratic process takes place in Australia every person is required to vote. Each person is allowed to make choices as to which candidate they want to represent them in the next parliament. If a person is expected to make a choice in this instance then why are they not allowed to make a choice at the spiritual level as well? Surely each person is allowed to choose what kind of career they will pursue. Different people have different abilities and feel more comfortable in different roles.
INTELLECTUALLY INFERIOR
One of the outcomes of the Enlightenment is the idea that people who choose to believe in a religion are intellectually inferior because they have decided to accept a philosophical construct that is outside themselves rather than just relying on the power of the their own mind. Where has this led the people of the world? Teenage depression has reached the stage where there is great cause for alarm
. Why is this so? Perhaps it is related to the fact that these people have grown up in an environment where they feel that there is no sense of security in the future? Are these people caught in the insecurity of an age where truth is only seen to be relative rather than absolute?
If a person has chosen to be convinced that their religious viewpoint is the correct one then they should be allowed to pursue that without fear or favor; one person should respect the integrity of another person’s faith if he or she doesn’t want to become a fundamentalist. However, some religions include an encouragement to proselytize or evangelize. Is this a legitimate part of pursuing your own religion that you are convinced is correct? If a person wants to proselytize or evangelize do they become a fundamentalist? Definitely not, unless they seek to use force or terror to induce a change in another person’s religious point of view. Is it narrow minded or discriminatory for a person who is persuaded that their religious viewpoint is the best one to tell others about this persuasion?
In the final analysis, every person is free to choose their own attitude. If it is okay for the political branch of the neo-animists to form a political party and use the political process to pursue their religious goals then why is it not proper for a the political branch of Christian denominations to do the same?
If a person is Christian and they have made the intellectual commitment to follow the beliefs that are taught in the Bible they will understand the importance of submitting to government authorities
. This New Testament approach discourages the Christian from using violence to force change on the population from without.
SALT AND LIGHT
What steps should a Christian take in this environment? Is it proper for us to engage to fundamentalist in dialogue or should we attempt to force them to change their view point and become fundamentalists ourselves?
Christ explained to his followers that they are to be salt and light in the world
. What are the roles of salt and light in the world? In the Sermon on the Mount Christ spoke about a Christian’s character; this should be foundation of every Christian’s behavior
. Salt was used to preserve meat in the days before refrigeration so a person who acts as salt is to display a character that will slow down the process of moral decay in the world around them. Light refers to the Christian’s reputation in the outside world that points those around us to God
.
Our role, as Christians, in a world that is increasing becoming uncertain and insecure is to provide a sense of certainty and security that can only be based on our own sure conviction of the truth of our beliefs.
The writer of 1 John wrote: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” (1 John 4:18)
. In a world where fear is confused with religion because the fundamentalist has taken over the agenda and is using terror to pursue his objectives the Christian is called upon to be a source of love. As we pursue our goal of love we will be salt and light in the community and offer certainty and security. The role of the Christian is to effect change from within and not change from without, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
1 McCready Douglas He Came Down From Heaven, Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2005, 20.
2 McCready, He Came Down From Heaven, 23, 46
3 McCready, He Came Down From Heaven, 23, 46
4 Hooker, Richard http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/MODERN.HTM, .
5 Badger, W Scott http://transhumanist.com/volume3/badger.htm
6 http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/MODERN.HTM, .
7 http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/MODERN.HTM,
8 Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press. 1997, c1989, 613
9 Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology. 613
10 Lindner, Douglas http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scopes/scopes.htm
11 Scherer, Glenn http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/
12 Falwell, Jerry http://www.moralmajority.us/ .
13 Robinson, BA http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm .
14 Bidstrup, Scott http://www.bidstrup.com/religion.htm, .
15 "The Assassination of Gandhi, 1948," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2005). .
16 The Holy Bible, Cambridge University Press.
17 Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary 1999, http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/am-ani.htm, .
18 http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000009.html .
19 http://www.animal-lib.org.au/ .
20 ITV News, http://www.itv.com/news/index_06904ba16c9633b12bec2981f1f994f2.html
21 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/BAGO3L4KB21.DTL
22 Stevenson, William A Man Called Intrepid, The Secret War, Book Club Associates, 1976, pages 91, 116, 125, 207.
23 Trifkovic, Serge The Sword of the Prophet, Islam, history, theology, impact on the world, Regina: Regina Orthodox Press Inc, 2002
24 Usuf Ali, A An English Interpretation of the Holy Qur’an (with full Arabic Text), Lahore: Sh Muhammad Ashraf, 1934, 1938, Surah 17: 16, 17.
25 Ye’or, Bat Islam and Dhimmitude, Where Civilizations Collide, Cranbury, Associated University Presses, 2002, 41,
26 Ye’or, Bat Islam and Dhimmitude, Where Civilizations Collide, 38.
27 For the Muslim Fundamentalist Jihad is a state of warfare. For other Muslims is the internal struggle between good and evil.
28 Ye’or, Bat Islam and Dhimmitude, Where Civilizations Collide, 59.
29 Ye’or, Bat Islam and Dhimmitude, Where Civilizations Collide, 41.
30 Ye’or, Bat Islam and Dhimmitude, Where Civilizations Collide, 99.
31 Ye’or, Bat Islam and Dhimmitude, Where Civilizations Collide, 103, 104.
32 Samples, Kenneth, R http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0074a.html .
33 Samples, Kenneth, R http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0074a.html
34McDowell, Josh, Stewart, Don Handbook of Today’s Religions, San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers Inc, 1983 page 292.
35 The Holy Bible, Cambridge University Press
36 Kennedy, Stephanie http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1250433.htm, 24 November 2004, .
37 http://www.about-teen-depression.com/depression-statistics.html, .
38 Matt 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; Rom 13: 1, 2.
39 Matt 5: 13, 14.
40 Wiersbe, W. W. Wiersbe's expository outlines on the New Testament, Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books. 1997, 27.
41 Wiersbe, W. W. Wiersbe's expository outlines on the New Testament, 29
42 The Holy Bible, Cambridge University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment