Monday, August 20, 2007
God's Warriors
CNN will air a special report for the next 3 nights containing 6 hours of material by Christiane Amanpour about religious fundamentalism. She was on Larry King tonight discussing the project and it does sound interesting. The report will focus on Jewish, Islamic, and Christian fundamentalism and their impact on the world.
Only a small percentage of religious extremists actually become violent, but during the interviews tonight I couldn't help but wonder how much blame should be shouldered by the moderates and progressives in each religion that stand by and watch their faiths high-jacked by extremists. For example, should moderate Christians be blamed since they insist on leaving ideas of after-life and judgement in their faith if they realize that those views lead to extremists taking those beliefs too literally? At what point do you realize that certain religious ideas are prone to being used to support violence, racism, exclusion, and sexism and decide to stop spreading those views. How do you "combat" the ignorance of fundamentalists without creating deeper division and becoming a religious warrior yourself?
Emerging Christians often talk about creating a diverse community that embraces all views (even fundamentalists), but I often wonder if that is sustaining the problem. I'm torn about where to draw the line and how to balance the protest of fundamentalism with the desire to create unity and an open inclusive conversation. I'm not really sure about the answer. Maybe this report will shed some light on the problem. I agree with Christine Amanpour when she says the answer is enlightened leadership and it has worked in places like Bosnia and Ireland where there was once little hope for reconciliation.
12 comments:
I know what you mean. I was recently accused by Fundamentalists of causing division in Christianity by my stand to leave the organized church and by being inclusive in my beliefs. The line is thin, often obscured by many opposing ideas.
Dictionary.com defines "diversity" as "...difference, unlikeness, variety, multiformity..." How can you celebrate differences when everyone is the same? It's weird to me how people think throwing all beliefs in a blender and being total inclusivists = "celebrating diversity." Most inclusivists I know mistake "unity" and "uniformity." I rather prefer to relationships that strive to understand multiperspectives. The "answer" is not total inclusivism, but multiperspetival relationships; unity, not uniformity.
Fundamental extremism is dangerous on so many levels. I'm excited about this series because it seems to bring to light the dangers of fundamental extremism on all fronts (i.e. usually all we hear is liberals bashing evangelical Christians or ultra-conservatives bashing Islam, for instance). I enjoyed the program last night and look forward to the next episodes. As you know, Mike, I'm a big fan of "multiperspectives."
The first episode was very good. It made the kind of bold statements that the media has been afraid to make. People like President Carter have taken a great deal of criticism for having the balls to speak prophetically on Jewish fundamentalism. I'm looking forward to tonights episode.
RevRockStar, I agree with your opinion here. I have grown to dislike the idea of blending up faiths into one big mess. I tried to attend a Unitarian Universalist church but I felt like it missed the mark by developing a "least common denominator" type of faith. I prefer a collection of diverse views with mutual respect. Challenging and questioning is still a good idea because it opens communication, increases horizons, and enlightens. We shouldn't be afraid to examine our own traditions and see where our beliefs might be creating an easy path to fundamentalism.
Thanks for the update on your faith journey (i.e. exploring the U.U. church, etc.)
I'm glad you and I agree about these things. My fear is that "fundamental inclusivism" will be a new problem in our generation!
"Lowest common denominator faith" is really lame. A danger in the "uniformity" of that kind of faith is the same evil principles within the "extreme imperialist" mindset- conquer and make everyone the same!
(personally, I kind of vote for the Greek city-state style more than the Roman Empire!)
What constitutes empire is not a particular style of government but a system of values that places its priority on obtaining more and more through the influence of power without regard to the consequences and without attention to those that are left in the wake. Any style of government can fall prey to the values of empire.
I had a similar thought a while ago when I kept on hearing about the American 'genocide' (abortion). I made the argument that if abortion really is genocide, and if violence in extreme cases really is ok (a position I think is dreadfully wrong, but that most conservative Christians seem to hold), then I'm surprised there aren't more abortion-clinic-bombers! The logic of 'Christian' extremists who bomb abortion clinics is the same logic you hear in conservative circles all the time (only most people there are too inconsistent or apathetic to do anything about it).
As far as the whole diversity thing is concerned--yes diversity can be an asset, but only when it is centered. And for Christians, that center must be Christ (and a unified vision of who he was/is)--otherwise you don't really have 'Christianity'.
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Daniel,
You said: "And for Christians, that center must be Christ (and a unified vision of who he was/is)--otherwise you don't really have 'Christianity'"
Does that mean that there can only be one vision of Christ within Christianity? If so then which denominations are "real" Christians and which ones are "not within Christianity"?
Daniel,
People so often compare "abortion clinic bombers" to extreme fundamental Islamic car bombers, etc. One difference is that "abortion clinic bombers" are isolated instances of people being insane and evil- it's not a movement being taught or accepted in any religious circles as being a "pathway to martyrdom." As a follower of Christ and teacher of the Bible, I can tell you that anyone who does that kind of evil is certainly not living the lifestyle of faith/worldview that Jesus taught and Paul encouraged.
Mike,
I think that if we were to see Jesus face-to-face, we'd all be surprised! As humans, each and every one of us are guilty of projecting our cultural expectations and interpretations of Jesus. The best we can do is try to understand who the Bible writers revealed him to be (and there are differing images- Jesus as meek and lowly, Jesus as revolutionary, and Jesus as the coming king of glory- a warrior on a horse!) I'm sure when the time comes, we'll all be set straight. He's in the business of doing that: setting things right.
RevRockStar,
I think it is a big mistake to assume such an arrogant stance that the lunitics who are created by our theology are better than the lunitics that are created by someone else's theology. Our shit stinks just as bad as everybody else's and both groups are making the exact same mistake by assuming that killing can EVER be justified if the cause is blessed by God, necessary in the fight against evil, or labeled THE truth in THE word of God.
When preachers speak publicly about their mission as if it is a war and they use imagery of fighting and being macho. Then they renounce efforts to create peace and justice as being "a gay hippie" then what do you expect to get as a result? The result will be militant minded hate mongers. It won't matter if it is a Muslim imam or Mark Driscol. People are bound to take it literally at some point and develop into a suicide bomber or abortion clinic bomber.
I agree with you that "the best we can do is try to understand who the Bible writers revealed him to be".
However, just because we understand what they meant doesn't mean we should accept it as absolute truth. Sometimes those people were flat wrong. The prohets criticised thier mistakes and so did Jesus. Just because Mohammad or ancient Israel condoned violence doesn't mean we have to also make that mistake. Those ancient writers acturately tell us what THEY thought NOT what is the best answer for us. Otherwise we could declare a nation as "evil and abhorant in God's eyes" and wipe out it's women and children just like the ancient Israelites did or the Jihadists want to do now.
A big part of the problem is the moderate theology that is too easily taken to extreme. If we want to end the extremists we have to be more honest when we critic the mainstream theology. We can't put all the blame on the extremists. After all, they are just taking what we often preach in the pulpits literally.
Lunatics are lunatics no matter what theology they claim. Whether it's blowing yourself up, blowing up someone else, or handing out kool-aid to a bunch of folks- it's all evil. No arrogance on this end- all evil is the same- all sin is sin. I'm not in the business of rating sins on a scale or judging those who tragically follow it to extreme and unfortunate conclusions.
There is a difference between descriptive and prescriptive texts. Descriptive describe an event- perhaps a one time occurrence which may not be a normative instruction (i.e.- Old Testament battles are one time occurrences, not prescriptions to justify present day violence). On the other hand, prescriptive texts are timeless truths that are to be followed today just as they were in the original hearing/writing (i.e. "Love your neighbor as yourself").
With the help of God, anytime I open my mouth to teach the Bible I pray that the distinction is clear; that people will understand the prescriptive timeless commands of God and put them into action.
If a lunatic swore his computer instructed him to do violence, we wouldn't stop the manufacturing of computers, would we? Of course not! We would deal with the isolated incident. In the same way, if a misguided person performs an act of evil under the supposed flag of a religion, philosophy, tradition, or culture, the individual is to be dealt with first, not the religion, philosophy, tradition, or culture.
The difference is when there is mass-propaganda and indoctrination with the end goal of violence (i.e. Iranian children's programs which glorify violent jihad).
The fear of human lunacy mustn't hinder the transmission of the Gospel. My goal in all of life is to teach and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I'm not aware of ANY prescriptive violence in there! Anyone who tells or acts otherwise does not have a good understanding of Scripture or the Gospel. And like with any worldview, a distinction must be made between the true tenets of the faith and the fundamental extremists who seek to hijack it.
Rev,
I agree when you said "If a lunatic swore his computer instructed him to do violence, we wouldn't stop the manufacturing of computers, would we? Of course not!"
But what happens when religious leaders preach in a way that creates an atomsphere of hatred? Even if they create a softer form of "us versus them" mentality that is enough to start the ball rolling.
What if a religious leader tells his or her followers that everyone outside their faith is doomed to hell, has an evil sin nature, is out to get us, and might be possessed by evil spirits? Even if that religious leader didn't directly tell their people to commit acts of violence, they should shoulder some of the blame when animosity builds into hatred and builds into violence. What if on of those followers didn't directly kill people but they become president of the United States and launched a premptive war because of the bad theology they were taught in church?
At what point do you begin to question the theology and worldview of those leaders? When the terms "soldier", "war", "attack", and "defend" are used in sermons then that breeds violence even if it isn't the direct intention.
When it comes to bad theology, one would hope that people would exercise their freedom of thought to make wise decisions. At some point common sense should kick in. Religion and politics have always been difficult waters to maneuver. Most people forget that separation of church and state goes both ways and things get difficult when we begin to talk about legislating religious practices. Our country was founded on the idea of religious freedom for all, in so much as our freedoms do not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, we all have the freedom to worship as we please, disagree on issues (and disagree on blogs!) But when practices begin to infringe on the rights of others (whether by restriction or active assault), there are serious issues to be addressed. And yes, I believe some clean-up needs to be done on various fronts!
Post a Comment