11.18.09
Why Fundamentalism Will Fail
I was just skimming Harvard Magazine (via Newsweek) when I came across the citation for the recent Boston Globe article by Harvey Cox, Hollis Research Professor of Divinity at Harvard University, which is the title of this post (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/08/why_fundamentalism_will_fail/?page=1). According to Cox, one reason fundamentalism (of both religious and political stripes) will fail is that it is inherently fractious. Cox provides examples from the 19th century up through our contemporary period in support of this conclusion.
Citing the examples of Thomas Merton, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and the Dalai Lama, Cox says,
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 is a timely observation—and bit of wisdom, I would venture—discovered coincidentally at the same time the Believers & Doubters group is studying The Case for God by Karen Armstrong. We recoil from a stultifying orthodoxy in our particular Christian communion, yet are equally put off by what some see as “cafeteria style” religion. In this regard, Cox notes that a trend in North and South America away from “organized religion” into Pentecostalism and to more generalized spirituality has dangers of its own:
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.
This observation of Cox’ reminds me of the article by the late Jaroslav Pelikan titled, “The Will to Believe and the Need for Creed” (http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/pelikan/pelikan-willtobelieve.shtml). Pelikan quotes the late Professor Lionel Trilling of Columbia University as follows:
It is probably true that when dogmatic principle in religion is slighted, religion goes along for a while on generalized emotion and ethical intention—’morality touched by emotion’—and then loses the force of its impulse, even the essence of its being.
One does not have to subscribe to the need for creeds to support the sentiment expressed by Trilling. It could apply equally to doctrines of the church, without which we’re subject to “emotion.” A problem is posed for the believer, however, when the church fails to rethink its belief in the light of science or new understanding of scripture. What’s a believer to do when the church’s view on an issue conflicts with the scientific evidence and no issue of ethics or morality arises from a belief in the particular scientific information?
chris said,
December 12, 2009 at 8:25 am
This may come off sounding like a statement of hubris, but my faith formation is not subjected to evolving scientific discovery with the tortuous journey that subjects one to with its twists and turns.
I do not consider myself a fundamentalist, but would prefer to wear that label than become a member of the religious cafeteria.
see study below.
http://www.bestwayout.com/if/
chris said,
December 12, 2009 at 8:44 am
Link I meant to share
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=490#1
Karl said,
December 19, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Chris, I wouldn’t call it hubris. However, I don’t see it in quite the binary terms you do: fundamentalism or cafeteria. As I see it, the contrast/alternative is between faith and fundamentalism. In my conception, fundamentalism is a stance, a mindset that forgets that “spiritual things are spiritually discerned.” A fundamentalist stance rules out the likelihood that my understanding can change within the context of an ongoing conversation within my faith community and as moved/informed by the Holy Spirit. We “see through a glass darkly,” the Apostle Paul reminds us. Fundamentalism in my conception says “truth” is fixed and unchangeable; it precludes the notion of “present truth” which was the animating motive force in early Adventism. Had this not been the case, our forebears would not have reconsidered their understanding of scripture regarding the second coming following the events of 1844.
chris said,
December 20, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Hey Karl,
Thanks for your insight. I do agree in the evolution of truth as it is very clear from scripture and from our Adventist heritage. The issue for me is the essential or core of the faith is considered debatable.
What gives me heartburn is that what I consider settled truth, such as the divinity of Jesus is considered a debatable item within Christendom.
This has major consequence. Emmanuel becomes meaningless, the cruxification loses its saving power, and as the apostle Paul stated in 1 Cor. 15, our faith is in vain.
if Jesus is reduced to just another religious leader like Buddha or Mohamed then Christianity has lost its power.
Paul or any of Christian fore-bearers did not see the essentials of the faith debatable. Are we more enlightened that we can reconsider these?
Karl said,
December 24, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Chris,
Like you I am discomfited, unsettled perhaps, when I come across notions that contradict or appear alien to the Christian orthodoxies that I’ve grown up with, such as the nature of Christ being divinity clothed in humanity. To paraphrase a line/thought in Rabbi Sacks’ essay, “I am thankful to God for believers or those sympathetic questionners of settled dogma because, I’d like to believe, they prompt not unbelief but a reawakening: to reaffirmation of faith, humility and further study.” I was born an Adventist Christian but I now choose to be one. I choose to relate to my ongoing exposure to theories with which I’m previously unfamiliar as part of my maturation process.
One result of conversations such as this is that I frequently turn to the writings of authors/scholars whom I trust to help me wrestle with the “new” information. So it is in this spirit that I’ve turned to the textbook authored by Richard Rice titled, The Reign of God: An Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-day Adventist Perspective. I have begun reading the chapter, The Doctrine of Christ. I haven’t finished my reading and reflection on the chapter, however. So, I suppose I might have more to say on the matter when I do.
I would also commend Fritz Guy’s, Thinking Theologically, to you. Not the kind of book one skips through uncomprehendingly, it provides a model that the serious Christian might find indispensable when trying to wrestle with unorthodox, heterodox or other notions that conflict with one’s current theological understanding, in the spirit of “present truth.”