Photo: mugley
Has Fundamentalism taken over Christianity, or is this just something that the mainstream media would like us to believe?
Time for some controversial religious and political talk from the left:
Frank Schaeffer is a reformed fundamentalist Christian who still considers himself a Christian today. But when it comes to a poll stating that 35% of people in New Jersey believe that Obama may be the Antichrist (the numbers look a bit lower here), he notes “that within our culture, we have a subculture which is literally a 5th column of insanity…can Christianity be rescued from Christians?”
He also believes that as a former life-long Republican, the party must not continue to “cater to the village idiot” (in his words, fundamentalist Christians).
I get where Schaeffer’s anger, his inflammatory speech, and his reactions are coming from. I can’t watch news on TV for fear of a Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly popping into view and just pissing me off from the first moment they open their mouth. After seeming to bridge some of our differences in the US with Obama’s sweep in the elections, it now feels as if America has become more fractionalized, and fundamentalist on several fronts, than ever before.
At least if you look at corporate media and polling.
Reality Or Reactionary?
Nosing around the internet, I came across such sites as catholicanarchy.org, written by a doctoral student in theology, Michael J. Iafrate. He covers issues from a religious perspective that are close to my own heart, like the unconscionable reality that corporations get away with everything because they are considered a “person” in the eyes of the law.
And what about the activist church/organization Los Angeles Catholic Worker? To them:
If we too desire to become citizens of His Kingdom, then we must live our lives in proximity to and in solidarity with those who are at the margins of our society…[we] regularly offers prophetic witness in opposition to war-making and injustice.
I can certainly get on board with that perspective. Plus, there’s the Christians for Peace in El Salvador, a faith-based organization that bridges the poor communities in El Salvador with ones in the US, and “is politically non-partisan, committed to nonviolence and supportive of the faith journeys of one another.”
Photo: gnuckx cc0
There is no doubt in my mind that there are Fundamentalist Christians who believe Obama is the Antichrist, that all women should stay in the kitchen, and that people like me are going straight to hell really, really soon.
There always have been fringes of every belief and religion, and there always will be.
Yet, is the loud, Fundamentalist Christian sector really becoming the majority, or is that what mainstream media would like us to believe? Is this viewpoint necessary to keep the news sector churning, and to keep us in fear, whether on the left or the right?
It is worth taking a look at the people who surround you, the continued growth of Christian organizations who are social-justice, food-justice, and eco-justice oriented, and getting news from mainstream media in little sound bites instead of heaping spoonfuls before you come to a conclusion.
And, by the way, I’m not a Christian, Fundamentalist or otherwise, if you have yet to guess.
Do you think that Fundamentalist Christians are really taking over the religion, or is it a media ploy? Share your thoughts below.
About the Author
More By This Author
- 'Fare Thee Well': A Mindful Approach to Saying Goodbye (5 comments)
- Does Rise in Hate Groups Spell Trouble for Travelers? (6 comments)
- 6 Inspiring TED Talks About Happiness and Belief (1 comments)
Related Posts
33 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
I don’t know if such extreme fundamentalists are becoming more mainstream, or just louder and crazier, or just something controversial for the media to cover when it’s a slow news day. I would LIKE to think that they are the fringe, not the mainstream. I would like to say they are the tiniest majority. I sure hope so. I have many Christian friends and many non-Christian friends, and thank god that none of my Christian friends or family are nut-job fundamentalists like these. I hope they are not mainstream or becoming anywhere near it – and yet still, this country is way too Christian-ized with religion being forced down our throats and mixed in with our politics WAY, WAY, WAY too much for my comfort or liking. Live and let live people!!!
↵ -
Curious… what does the photo of the Palestinian girl have to do with this article? Just seems out of place.
↵ -
I knew someone would call me on that! Good chance to explain–I used it as both a notation of social-justice activism within the religious sector and also the fact that Christianity often discusses holding the “keys” to kingdom:
“The crossed keys recall Peter’s confession and our Lord’s gift to him of the keys of the kingdom. See Matt. 16:18,19.” http://www.gocek.org/christiansymbols/?search=apostle
↵ -
Can any of us?
↵ -
I was raised in this evangelical environment and have seen these things all my life. I don’t agree with many of the “crazy” beliefs of my upbringing, but I still respect the people and their right to believe them. However, I am not sure where the middle line is between following a set of beliefs fully and not really believing them at all. If someone grasps the views of any religion, they are then motivated to continue to take in all that religion has to offer. Anything else would not truly be considered belief (according to their religious doctrines). So the natural end for the Christian and other religions is to become more and more closed off to other views and place your own views on a pedestal for all to try to emulate. Wrong or right, this is the nature of organized religion. It will continue like this as long as people with different views believe that they alone hold the “truth” to life and their beliefs are the only legitimate ones. We can’t be surprised when followers follow blindly, as this is what they are taught. Belief in any religion is by faith, since no one religion can be ultimately proved or disproved factual. Complete faith and obedience to something makes for fundamentalism. We just don’t like it as much when it is not what we also believe.
↵ -
I knew it was more than just a fringe when three leading presidential candidates raised their hands when asked if they did not believe in evolution.
For some of these people “helping your fellow man” = socialism, but Noah’s Ark is historical record. Oddly, there seems to be a tendency to miss the core message from the book they read so often.
It’s like putting race results from “The Tortoise and the Hare” on the sports page.
↵ -
First and foremost im hoping i read the last comment wrong because there is most certainly no ACTUAL evidence of noahs ark anywhere. MAYBE a rather large boat but none large enough for the kind of thing we read about in the bible.
What I was thinking was is it possible to have mainstream religion without its fundamentalists? Then also when you think about it do the fundamentalists really take it to far? Their simply following what they read in their holy books. What seperates a fundamentaist from a MAINSTREAM christian anyway? If anything i think mainstream enables the fundamentalists to exist. If there was no mainstream christianity then yes, the guy on the street corner spitting at you and screaming about the rapture would surely be put away in the nut house or atleast be asked to go home. But because we have the mainstream people actually believe enough of what he is spitting to allow him to keep doing it. Just my thoughts though
↵ -
I think it’s definitely the case of the vocal minority. Hasn’t the course of history been written by the vocal minority?
↵ -
Good point, Carlo.
↵ -
making reference to a muppet movie really shows your level of intellect.
↵ -
Smart people aren’t allowed to enjoy a muppet movie every now and then?
↵ -
They can enjoy them, but they must never talk about it. It risks upsetting people who measure intellect by evolving beyond shift keys.
↵ -
Poe has the right idea – when an individual has ridiculous ideas about reality we call it insanity, when a group of people do they same we label it religion. Fundamentalism is the natural progression of religion. The danger is thinking that people who follow these religious texts so literally are unstable and a deviation from the norm. Wrong.
“…most Christians want it both ways. They want to be able to proudly declare they are believers in the Bible and yet simply ignore those parts they find too difficult or too inconvenient to believe.”
The mainstream of religious people are the danger in providing a glimpse of sanity in what should be considered utter nonsense. You think fundamentalists are too extreme, not indicative of the beliefs of their respective religions? Wrong.
The issue isn’t whether Christianity can be “saved” from fundamentalists, but whether it’s worth saving. The answer is no. As a sidenote, I’m sick of all Christians, fundamentalists and otherwise, using the argument that the US was founded as a Christian nation. We weren’t. The United States was founded as a religious country, to be sure, but more religious freedom than strictly Christian. Einsteinian religion, I believe (even though he wouldn’t exist for another 150 years).
Anyway, I’ve been reading way too many texts on religion lately now that I’m cut off from the Internet most days… see where it leads me?
↵ -
@Turner
Agreed. We weren’t founded as a “christian nation” but some of the people to come here were pilgrims seeking religious freedom to practice Christianity.However, discounting Christianity, organized religion, or their members as brainwashed intolerant buffoons altogether as some atheists advocate also astounds me not only as a broad generalization, but also ironically intolerant.
I think the large majority of “christians” are generally good people who care immensely about this world. I just got back from a church service where the members had donated over 11 million dollars to poverty/aids relief from a recent campaign. Other Christian organizations such as World Vision, Compassion Intl have done tons of good work for the poor through child sponsorship programs.
I’m not a big fan of religion in politics, but I think its the nature of the medium. People who are loud and have fringe viewpoints criticizing the presidnet will draw a lot more airtime than the young college student who quietly sponsors a child every month.
↵ -
Yes, but you’re mistaking their actions as “Christian”. People are good because they are good, not because they’re religious.
↵ -
What about the people that are not “good” then?
Or what about the people that were not “good”, but then because of their faith, become “good.”
↵ -
They don’t become good because of faith, but from their decision to change their life. God has nothing to do with that.
↵ -
What if they change their life because of God. If the impetus in their change of life is God, then I would say he has very much to do with that.
↵ -
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
↵ -
That’s a valid point, but I don’t see how it has anything to do with my point at all.
↵ -
Well, your question isn’t exactly valid either, because you’re assuming people change as a result of religion. You’re arguing that religion is a force of good in the world? Why? Are you saying people actually change, or just change their behavior, because they now fear the judgment of God?
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”
- EinsteinIn terms of morality, the Bible and Koran are terrible guidelines for people to follow; you have to pick and choose which lessons are considered “right” and which are “wrong”, implying that the reader has a sense of morality to begin with (e.g. according to Lot, you should send out your daughters to be raped rather than sending out a MALE messenger of god).
People change as a result of wanting to change; religion is just a catalyst, one that easily be replaced by any number of organizations that do not believe in a higher power. You’re saying that if religion didn’t exist, those people wouldn’t have found a way to help fight poverty and AIDS? That’s ridiculous. There’s a Darwinian advantage to doing good, based on the time we lived in smaller communities where altruism was more advantageous to survival. The rule of thumb still applies today, even though the behavior isn’t really “necessary”.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people going good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”
↵ -
Turner. I never said your point wasn’t valid, I actually acknowledged that it IS valid, it just didn’t have anything to do with my previous point.
As to all my other points, none of them will be valid to you because you’re unwilling to accept the hypothesis that God exists. I’m not saying you actually have to believe it, but I’m operating on the assumption that he does. All my arguments begin with that. If you can’t allow me to begin a hypothesis with that, then none of my other points will make sense. Whether or not God exists is a separate debate…however, I’m postulating that he does and there my argument is:
IF he does exist, and IF he does affect people’s lives for GOOD, then he DOES have very much to do with life change.As for your other arguments, I would argue that you’re actually pretty familiar with Christian materials, history and doctrine, but you just understand them poorly (as do many Christians themselves).
You asked:
“You’re arguing that religion is a force of good in the world? Why? Are you saying people actually change, or just change their behavior, because they now fear the judgment of God?”
I AM postulating that Christianity can be a force for good in the world, and I’m arguing that because I have SEEN it be a force for good. I agree with your Einstein quote on people changing because of fear. If that’s the reason for change, then Christianity is nothing more than an angry man cracking a whip at his indentured servants.As for the Bible, yes, it does provide guidelines for morality, but not every line in it is a mandate to live one way or another. The Bible more than anything is a STORY about how humans are humans and SCREW UP over and over and over again AND how GOD still chooses to love and REDEEM each and everyone of us if we let him.
Your example of Lot is an example of taking things out of context. The Bible doesn’t present that story as a example to live your lives by. In fact if you read the passage, its pretty obvious that Lot is in the wrong. Its also worth noting Lot isn’t necessarily one of the characters in the Bible that always gets it right. However, if you read the rest of the story, in spite of his failures, God still was merciful on him and his family. Its completely unfair for you to take one specific example taken out of context and extrapolate that to not only the rest of the BIBLE but the KORAN as well. (I’m going to venture a guess that you don’t like organized religion). Your hostility towards any sort of religion impedes on your credibility. While its not necessary to agree with your debate opponent on all accounts, you do need to accept when they have valid points, otherwise you just sound angry. I could bring you testimonials from people who say Jesus changed their lives but you’ll discount them as normal humanistic behavior. I don’t believe Ghandi’s Hindu beliefs are the way to live, but I don’t deny Ghandi did some great things and that was in part due to his faith.
You said:
“You’re saying that if religion didn’t exist, those people wouldn’t have found a way to help fight poverty and AIDS? That’s ridiculous.”I’m saying that without their relationship with God, many of those people wouldn’t have given a rip about people in another country who will never intersect with their lives. That’s not to say they don’t have the capability to do so, its just that naturally humans are selfish. I don’t buy your Darwinian argument. If that’s true, then why are so many children selfish? If it was simply a natural trait, children should be born looking out for others. Instead, we have to be taught concepts like “sharing” “playing nice” and “saying sorry.” I’m not saying people who aren’t religious have no capability for doing good, I am saying that the goodness perpetrated and capable of being perpetrated on the scale that is done so by the church is unequaled by other organizations (Yes, I know how arrogant that sounds). You look at some of the things that people like Mother Theresa did and there’s no way you can just dismiss as a simple Darwinian advantage that is left over but not necessary.
This conversation is getting way too long and detailed for a comment thread. If you want to continue discussing specific examples or theologies, email or message me, but I don’t think it needs to continue here.
↵ -
See the documentary Jesus Camp. That’ll scare the pants off you and give you more to think about regarding this interesting subject!
↵ -
I saw the trailer for it! It scared the crap out of me!
↵ -
Yeah, I saw it, N. Very scary.
JR:
Interesting… I don’t remember categorically denying that hypothesis. I should point out I’m not an atheist; there’s a difference between that and rejecting established religions. I understand your points your points just fine; they just lack any foundation.
“Your example of Lot is an example of taking things out of context. The Bible doesn’t present that story as a example to live your lives by.”
Unfortunately for the world, fundamentalists have a funny way of deciding what examples in the Bible they should live by. An education Christian (almost an oxymoron) has a hard enough time keeping his or her faith based on the contradictions in these “stories”. If they were simply stories of some modern author, say, then there would be no problem… but when people take these texts to be “sacred”, to be the “literal word of God”, then it becomes rather difficult for them to pick and choose which guidelines they want to follow, and which ones society has deemed they cannot follow, at least openly (should we stone unbelievers? Deuteronomy 13:7)
There’s no hostility on my part; I’m writing this argument perfectly at ease and only pointing out flaws for which the devout apparently have a gap in their reasoning. I accept that good people do good things; the fact that they may happen to be Christian is completely incidental. I’m sorry if you can’t see that as truth.
“I’m saying that without their relationship with God, many of those people wouldn’t have given a rip about people in another country who will never intersect with their lives.”
I’m afraid that’s completely false as well. If we look at history, most western influences on “virgin” cultures were missionaries seeking to convert the heathens. How considerate. Nowadays, Christians could just as easily ignore other countries without any violations of faith; the fact that some of them are good enough to give their time, energy, and money to strangers is again, incidental. I suppose your corollary to this would be that atheists are more likely to not “give a rip about people in another country”?
“That’s not to say they don’t have the capability to do so, its just that naturally humans are selfish. I don’t buy your Darwinian argument. If that’s true, then why are so many children selfish?”
You’re using children as an argument for adult behavior? That’s hilarious. I’m not a supporter of “the naturalist fallacy”: that humans, if left to their own devices, would be at people with one another in nature. Hardly. We can certainly be vicious, downright evil creatures if left unchecked. But look at it on a smaller scale; imagine a group of 20 or so people outside the controls society has placed on the rest of us. Do you think the men would instinctively rape the women, kill all rivals, and commit no good deeds whatsoever? On the contrary, people would keep each other in check, good behavior would be seen as a desirable trait (fulfilling promises, paying debts, etc), and bad behavior would just as likely be punished as it would in society as a whole.
By the way, do you support indoctrinating children? Or letting them make up their own minds?
Nah, comments are fine; someone else might be following.
↵ -
Turner-
I’m not trying to get into an argument with you. I never said atheists were bad people and why would I support indoctrinating children? Why do you even have to ask that question? If you really want to discuss this, then message me and we can talk, ok?↵ -
Indoctrinating children was a separate question. No need for email; comments work fine.
↵ -
Attention all Christians: you have a right to believe whatever you want as long as it is socially acceptable and that you also believe equally in all other religions and that you allow society to teach your children opposing beliefs. Also you may not adhere to all of your doctrine as some of it may be offense someone else. You will be admired as tolerant if you can successfully combine, eastern philosophies, while performing the sign of the cross, saying amen, bowing to mecca 5 times a day, mediating during a yoga session, while denying the existence of God to your drinking buddies. Please refrain from using words like: Jesus Christ, Saved, or Born-Again.
Turner,
I find it hilarious that you pick random tidbits from the Old Testament when you have very little understanding of scripture. Rules that we don’t understand are part of the Law. God gave the Law to Moses, knowing it could never be followed, to show us our sin. If you continue through the New Testament you will see that since we realize we can never be perfect we can never go to Heaven. This is where Jesus comes in, to pay for our sins. I bet can pick apart just about anyones religion by taking small parts of a complete doctrine out of context.As for saving Christianity…I believe it is the Fundamentalists who are the pillar of our society. Its a disease of our generation to want to water down and compromise our beliefs so that we don’t have to ever face any tough questions or worry about offending anyone. If you say this country wasn’t founded on Biblical principles you most certainly have no credibility to stand on and I suggest you read some history and quotes from our Founders especially George Washington.
Many say it is wrong to expose children to Creation as a credible way the world began. But non stop people want to flaunt the homosexual, materialistic, corporate, athiestic, and anti-nationalistic agendas in my children’s faces all day long. But to write an article about the failing of any of those philosophies would require a backbone.
Yes, there are a few(highly publicized) people who hate in the name of Christianity. As with any culture, there are bad apples. It seems that Christians are easier to pick on than any other. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is.
Interesting that this was written by someone who is a “certified Nutrition Educator and holds a MA in Holistic Health Education.” Where was your degree in Sociology? Psychology? Theology?
“And, by the way, I’m not a Christian, Fundamentalist or otherwise, if you have yet to guess.”- Then don’t be offended when people think your going to hell.(Its not because we hate you.)
Bilbo
↵ -
Bilbo, I think I can speak for everyone who commented when I say thank you for proving the point of this article. Here are some like-minded individuals whom you might enjoy having over for tea:
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
↵ -
Good tactic Turner!
I was just trying to give some perspective. And you seemed to miss the whole point. I was trying to say that most people want a free society, just as long as somebody elses Ideas aren’t included. I never said I would support stopping the transmission of anyones ideas; just don’t assume i want to be subject to them and then those same people want to stop the transmission of my beliefs. Labeling people “the american taliban” is just a strategy to shut down a discussion you feel inadequate to hold on to a position.
By the way, most of those men on that list have extremely different belief systems from which they stem. The only true value they all hold in common is that the media labels them “conservative.” I suggest you go over to the middle east for a few days and try debating a taliban member. Then come home and try to debate a true and faithful Christian. After that you will have a valid argument.
↵ -
So I can assume you’ve done those things, as you’re advocating I should as well? I’m afraid your original argument is the most hilarious of them all:
“If you say this country wasn’t founded on Biblical principles you most certainly have no credibility to stand on and I suggest you read some history and quotes from our Founders especially George Washington.”
I would suggest the same from you; our country was founded on religious freedom principles, not Christianity and not found in any one holy book. So I’m afraid your credibility is lost. My apologies.
“I find it hilarious that you pick random tidbits from the Old Testament when you have very little understanding of scripture.”
Who does, pray tell? It’s hard to be an expert in something no one has any real understanding of, yourself included.
↵ -
I am positive that we will never agree on this issue, but I came upon this article and it really struck a nerve and I thought I would chime in. Maybe I could give a different perspective on things. Lets see if I can make one last attempt without sounding so aggressive.
Most non-Christians and many mainstream Christians see only the small side of what is called “Fundamentalists”. When you see people on the news screaming at people on the streets because of their lifestyles and hate groups using the Bible to give reason for their rage, these people are a small minority.
I am a fundamentalist. I try to live within the guidelines provided by the Word of God daily, even though I fail daily; because there is none righteous. Fundamental means basic, meaning we take the Bible for what it says and don’t mix other doctrines that aren’t found in the Book. I would never push my beliefs on you or anyone else. I believe in building a solid testimony to show people the right way to live by example. Yes, the Old Testament had laws like stoning adulterers and sorts of other stuff that people point to to say we are hateful, but that was the covenant with Jewish of that time. But when Christ came we recieved a new coventant for everyone, Love Everyone. Not just your friends and family, but even your enemies.
The reason I feel compelled to even comment on this is because it seems many people including this columnist misunderstand christianity. I feel in all areas of my life this society is becoming less tolerant every day of people that want to pick up their cross daily. Ask yourself this; Why is there an article written about saving Christianity from fundamentals, when the author makes it clear she isn’t a christian and doesn’t care for the religion at all? You people want tolerance, but only tolerance of the beliefs you have. I don’t care if this whole society wants to destroy itself, but soon it will come to the point where people will want to pull my kids away from me for reading the Bible to them. Articles like this only make this more likely.
I have been on the opposite side of the spectrum before. Not too long ago I would have agreed totally with you. Some things in my life led me to the understanding I have now. No, I wasn’t brainwashed or forced to believe in any way. But since I turned my life over to Christ the world looks a lot different.
I just wanted to give a different perspective on this matter. Hope there is no hard feelings.
↵
