Define "Fundamentalism"
Greg Mansur
--
Greg Mansur
man...@netins.net
Greg Mansur
but to other things that are "man-made?" What are some of those issues that
churches get into trouble with?
--
Greg Mansur
man...@netins.net
Knoll777 wrote in message <19990310120419...@ngol02.aol.com>...
>In article <7c53o0$2ri$1...@ins8.netins.net>, "Greg Mansur"
<man...@netins.net>
>writes:
>
>>What I am trying to get at is why is there a need to "recover" from
>>fundamentalism? While this definition is accurate, this is certainly not
>>why people need to "recover" from fundamentalism, is it? What is it about
>>fundamentalism that is turning people off? As a self-professed
>>fundamentalist, I see nothing wrong with the definiton you supplied here.
>>Obviously people have a certain connotation associated with fundamentalism
>>and that is what I am seeking on this newsgroup.
>>
>>--
>>Greg Mansur
>
>3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles
>
>This definition is what gets a lot of fundamental churches in trouble.
Often
>times the churches ideology and principles take authority over the Word of
God.
>This often leads to people who seem to be in good churches, abusing others
of
>faith that question the scriptural authority of their opinion.
>
>People who are in the system are not aware of the abuse they perpetuate on
>others and have a tendency to view those who object to certain views as
trouble
>makers.
>
>Bernie
Knoll777
20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of
the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal
historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such
doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical
resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the second
coming
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles
Greg Mansur
fundamentalism? While this definition is accurate, this is certainly not
why people need to "recover" from fundamentalism, is it? What is it about
fundamentalism that is turning people off? As a self-professed
fundamentalist, I see nothing wrong with the definiton you supplied here.
Obviously people have a certain connotation associated with fundamentalism
and that is what I am seeking on this newsgroup.
--
Greg Mansur
man...@netins.net
Knoll777 wrote in message <19990309221630...@ngol07.aol.com>...
DKingEd
>fundamentalism?
Good question. As I said in an earlier post, fundamentalism, while
considered doctrinally orthodox for the most part, actually behaves like a
cult. Many fundamentalist churches encourage total isolation. All your
friends are fundie, and if any family members aren't you keep your distance
from them. You read "Christian" novels, listen to "Christian" music, attend
"Christian" schools and often vacation at "Christian" theme parks. I've even
seen cases of special yellow pages directories being prepared so you can be
sure your plumber is a "Christian." Escaping from an isolated subculture like
that often requires a lot of support.
Also, being raised in the fundamentalist subculture often creates some
unique psychological problems. After all, if you've been taught from early
childhood that the creator of the universe is a judgemental legalist who sees
everything, knows everything, is absolutely inescapable and will zap you good
for not following the rules, you pick up a somewhat skewed view of life. And
if you're taught this cruel legalist actually loves you and is the very epitome
and definition of love, then you have a difficult time relating to other
people. You never know what love is.
Granted, there are cold, legalistic homes outside of fundamentalism, but
there are a higher percentage of them inside fundamentalism. And most cold,
legalist parents don't teach you that the basic metaphysical underpinning of
the universe is just like they are.
In short, fundamentalism screws up your head in particularly nasty ways
that are most easily understood by others who have been there. And that's why
this group is here.
Hope this helps,
David King
Knoll777
>What I am trying to get at is why is there a need to "recover" from
>fundamentalism? While this definition is accurate, this is certainly not
>why people need to "recover" from fundamentalism, is it? What is it about
>fundamentalism that is turning people off? As a self-professed
>fundamentalist, I see nothing wrong with the definiton you supplied here.
>Obviously people have a certain connotation associated with fundamentalism
>and that is what I am seeking on this newsgroup.
>
>--
>Greg Mansur
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles
This definition is what gets a lot of fundamental churches in trouble. Often
briand1
Greg Mansur wrote:
> What I am trying to get at is why is there a need to "recover" from
> fundamentalism? While this definition is accurate, this is certainly not
> why people need to "recover" from fundamentalism, is it? What is it about
> fundamentalism that is turning people off? As a self-professed
> fundamentalist, I see nothing wrong with the definiton you supplied here.
> Obviously people have a certain connotation associated with fundamentalism and
> that is what I am seeking on this newsgroup.
>
Because these groups spiritually rape those that belong to them and teach them
to hate God, neighbor, and all other religions. They use very simplistic and to
a point moronic logic to get their points across. They use tactics of
intimidation, indoctrination, manipulation, and if they could physical methods
to protect their power. My main reason is that they wanted me to Hate Jesus and
I just could not do that.
I know that was not their desire, but it was sure the effect. Even after some 7
or so years I still am messed up. I know this is weak but I have to be honest
with myself. I was taught to be sick is a sin, to need help is a lie and to be
abused as a child was something a man should never let happen to him. Go figure
how that works. I never will understand the level of anger that I saw at the
group I was with. Everyone was wrong, except the leaders. There is no
accountability and know real care for the flock just damage control.
It is sad that many thousands if not millions of people have been shipwrecked
for the purpose of winning. That is my answer to the question you asked I hope
it helps.
As always I wish all peace Brian
Knoll777
writes:
>So the problem apparently is not strict adherence to Biblical principles,
>but to other things that are "man-made?" What are some of those issues that
>churches get into trouble with?
>
>--
>Greg Mansur
>man...@netins.net
The first characteristic of an abusive religious system is what we call power
posturing. Power-postering simply means that leaders spend a lot of time
focused on their own authority and reminding others of it. This leads to a
situation where power is postured and authority legislated. The Church usually
becomes preoccupied with performance of their members. Submission and
obedience is usually pushed in peoples faces in a subtle way. Sometimes in a
not so subtle way, which carries a threat with it. If you don't do this or
that, then this is going to happen, or you are out of "God's will." Then you
can't talk about it. Why, because then the real problem would be exposed. If
you talk about a problem out loud you become the problem. You must be silenced
or eliminated. Churches in this situation don't like to deal with and expose
there problems, because they would have to change. It is easier to be silent
and move on with the status quo, or the legalistic program of the day, week or
month. For them the individual who speaks out is made to feel the problem and
unwanted.
Bernie
Richard A. Fuhler
Knoll777 wrote:
>
> 1. A movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the
> 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of
> the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal
> historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such
> doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical
> resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the second
> coming
> 2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
> 3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles
> Random house compact unabridged dictionary
>
I've been watching all of the responses to this post. It seems to me that what
is being talked about here is spiritual abuse, not fundamentalism per se. Although
prevalent in Fundamentalist churches, spiritual abuse can be found in any denomination,
movement, sect, cult, or fellowship. Spiritual abuse is terrible when it's used and
when it's passed on to other members of the family of the people being abused. It also
tends to be based in legalism and performance. It perverts the true definition of
authority.
And it requires people to buy-in to a false belief system that they're not allowed to
question (otherwise, they will lose their salvation or whatever word the authoritarian
has invented). And worst of all, it taints any honest relationship with our Creator
(Higher Power, God, whatever word you're more comfortable with). It trivializes God's love
and turns what happened at the cross into just one more interesting story of little
consequence. Recovery from spiritual abuse is a very painful and is a time consuming
process
as it destroys our ability to trust anyone -- even God (since He is so mean and judgmental
you know!).
To achieve Spiritual Abuse, a person (the abuser) must take a basic message of the Bible
(like God has had a redemptive plan for His people from the start and has done everything
to ensure that His people would have eternal salvation) and must add "I think" or "I
feel the Bible says" in such away that the graceful and loving message portrayed in
the Bible (both old and new testaments) gets turned into some kind of performance based
system. The person must manipulate the congregation or individual by berating them,
threatening their salvation, threatening their church standing, or whatever other means
he can to beat the people into submission. The people are told that they must try harder,
do more, pray more, read more, listen more, give up more, ad infinitium. And to make
matters worse, any person who questions these kind of statements is told that they are
acting like a cult, or worse, he is completely missing the message of the Bible. In some
cases, the abuser states that what they are teaching is God inspired (even though none
others have validated what the abuser has stated). All in all, the abuser is dehumanizing
the abused person (It is the only way that the abuser can continue on abusing, he must
turn the person into an object with no human attributes).
There is hope for the abused person however. Therapy. Prayer. A change in church. Talking
with others who have suffered from abuse.
Sorry for running on so long here....
DKingEd
I'll grant you that what we're talking about is spiritual abuse, and that
spiritual abuse happens in other denominations and movements besides
fundamentalism. But I'd still maintain that the beliefs that make up
fundamentalism lead naturally to the kind of spiritual abuse we've
experienced. Specifically:
>[Spiritual abuse] also
>tends to be based in legalism and performance.
Fundamentalism, with its insistence on the literal inerrancy of the Bible as
an absolute authority, is almost legalistic by definition. After all, why have
an absolute authority if you can't derive "principles of living" from it? (Of
course, the fundamentalists would never call them rules, since that would sound
legalistic.) The legalism doesn't happen in spite of the belief in
infalibility, it's a natural consequence of infallibility.
>And it requires people to buy-in to a false belief system that they're not
>allowed to
>question (otherwise, they will lose their salvation or whatever word the
>authoritarian
>has invented).
Many of the doctrines taught within fundamentalism, from six-day creation
to the interpretations of last-days prophesies, are so out of touch with the
reality of the evidence that the only way people can accept them is on
authority. I used to work in a geology lab, where I spent many long days
examining delicate paterns in the chemistry of ancient sea shells that told a
detailed and consistent story of global climate change. Creationist science
has never even heard of this massive body of evidence, let alone tried to
explain it. (If you're interested, e-mail me for details.) Any decent
freshman-level introduction to geology would demolish creationism, and even a
cursory reading of church history would undermine claims of infallibility. I
can only see one way intelligent adults could believe in these things--by
taking them on faith from the authorities (i.e., don't look at the evidence
yourself) and ignoring anyone who disagrees. Again, this kind of break with
reality creates a perfect climate for spiritual abuse.
>And worst of all, it taints any honest relationship with our Creator
>(Higher Power, God, whatever word you're more comfortable with). It
>trivializes God's love
>and turns what happened at the cross into just one more interesting story of
>little
>consequence.
I absolutely agree that it taints an honest relationship with God, though I
don't see how it robs the story of the cross of its consequence. From what I
can tell, it robs the story of the RESURRECTION of its consequence. Again, if
you're interested in details, e-mail me. I don't have time now to repeat my
views of substutionary atonement
I do have to get back to work, but one final comment on your description
of how spiritual abuse comes about. As I said earlier, my experience was with
having been raised in fundamentalism, and it was very different from what you
describe. Granted, I was threatened with abandonment if I didn't follow the
rules, but it wasn't done by any particular authority figure. I saw any number
of pastors come and go, and some of them weren't exactly authority figures,
believe me. It was done through the medium of an entire subculture that
believed in a particular kind of God--the kind that couldn't love us until he
had tortured his own Son to death.
That subculture is not an offshoot of fundamentalism, it IS
fundamentalism. The problems it creates arise directly from its core doctrines
of Biblical infallibility and substutionary atonement. Other cults may affect
people in similar ways, and I suppose there are some fundamentalists who
escaped the worst of the problems because their parents really loved them
despite the doctrines.
But I look at the real, genuine fundamentalist leaders, the ones who are
doing fundamentalism most consistently and who are admired by most
fundamentalists. And I see Jerry Falwell saying the Antichrist is alive today
and is a Jewish man (not to mention the Teletubbies flap). Or Pat Robertson
saying that God sent hurricanes to Florida to punish Disney World for pro-gay
policies. Or James Dobson suggesting the most effective ways to hurt your
children without doing permanent damage. Or Operation Rescue members refusing
to condem the man who assassinated the doctor in Buffalo. Sometimes I'm
tempted to laugh at them, but then I see the absolute lack of compassion, the
judgementalism and self-righteousness behind all of this, and I've got to
wonder where it comes from?
If a movement produces a wide range of nationally recognized leaders like
this, aren't you even tempted to look to the movement itself for the source of
the problem?
Take care,
David King
KelticZima
fundamentalist groups.
I think it was orginially about fundamentalist christianity but we would not
limit it to that.
I myself am recovering from a very twisted and sad worldview/belief system that
came out of the bible church.
though I am doing alot better in recent years, it was hard going for along
time...
Peter Zimmerman
***************************************
The "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" provide accurate
information on various religions, and expose groundless religious
hatred. Web site http://www.religioustolerance.org
KelticZima
Fundamentalisms and Society : Reclaming the Sciences, the Family,and Education
(The Fundamentalism Project)
by Martin E. Marty (Editor), R. Scott Appleby (Editor), Scott R. Appleby
(Editor)
also Bruce Bawer, "Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity,"
Crown Publ. (1997). It can be ordered from Amazon Books at
http://www.amazon.com
**
for me, fundamentalim is a religion of reaction.
it is the church of law rather than the church of love.
when somones dogmas are more important to them than people.
what is more important? that you believe jesus was resurrected or that you love
people.
to me, a fundamentalist is one without real love love is always second to
doctrine.
a conservative would be one to whom love matters but dogma is almost as
important or equal..
a moderate is one to whom dogma is secondary to love
and a liberal is one to whom dogma does not matter...
KelticZima
>
>times the churches ideology and principles take authority over the Word of
>God.
no one takes every verse literally.
for example, most end times theologies make half of revelations symbolic and
the other half literal..
the process is simple.
if the bible is inerrant, then is your interpretation inerrant?
if you claim/act as if you "biblical" doctrine is inerrant, your doctrine
becomes god.
which is why I see the religious right as "bible-worshippers" not
christ-followers.
I do meet members of the religious right who seem to love and care. BUT THEY
ARE VERY VERY VERY RARE.
CoilClean
>What I am trying to get at is why is there a need to "recover" from
>fundamentalism?
We need to recover TO fundamentalism, Brother!
CoilClean
>ARE VERY VERY VERY RARE.
>
If we didn't care, would we really devote our time to this cause? Remember, the
liberal churches have the money. We don't, so there goes the money theory.
KelticZima
purpose..
you are what is called a "troll" in comupter terms, mr coilclean...
I grew up fundi and got SAVED. I was a miniseter..and will be again in about 3
years.
but it was liberal christians who loved me and helped me reconnect to god when
I has suffered abuse from fundies.
for my story on abuse"
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s101663/stories/deeppain.htm
KelticZima
chris was also an "army guy" and a very conservative christian..but a caring
person.
we have different theologies but are brothers in life and in faith...
go away mean mp,
you remind me of pain...