Follower vs. Fundamentalist: There IS a difference

[Swordlady]

16 Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?
17 Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?
18 It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.

Ecclesiastes 7:16-18, NIV

I used to belong to an ultra-conservative sect of a nondenominational Christian church (I'll leave the name off for now). This particular family of churches prided itself in following the bible "better" than everyone else, and its leader taught us that we were "God's Modern Day Movement". Everyone else NOT a part of this church were "lost" and "going to hell" - even those in other Christian churches. It wasn't enough to be a "good person". Things had to be done *our* way to ensure a ticket to heaven.

Looking back in my experiences in that church (I joined in March 1991 and left in September 2003), I'm convinced that there is a distinct danger in religious fundamentalism. That bible passage I quoted advises to "avoid all extremes". It is good to live righteously, but not to the point were one becomes overly self-righteous - looking down on everyone else. I think that many Christians (not just from my old church) often take this extreme. To the point where EVERYONE except them is wrong.

We've seen evidence of this kind of religious fundamentalism throughout history, like the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. Or even in how the Native Americans were forced out of their land. All in the name of God.

I still consider myself to be a follower of Christ. But I don't necessarily believe that my beliefs are the end-all and be-all. I've been the "fundamentalist Christian", trying to foist my beliefs on others - and often failing miserably. Forcing others to believe the way I do simply does not work! People need to be free to make their own life choices. It's like trying to force someone to be your friend. That relationship isn't going to happen if the other person simply does not want it. Not even Jesus himself forced people to follow him!

Those are just a few of my thoughts. Comments?

Edited to add: And I just realized that I posted this thread on the wrong forum. Mods, please feel free to move it...

 

[mantis]

IMHO (sorry if it offends anyone)

well most if not all religions believe only they qualify to enter heaven or deserve the reward, which makes sense. Because if this religion cannot guarantee you the prize (of any kind) why follow it? and if any religion can guarantee the prize along with yours then who's the valid one between them?

the last thing i want to comment on is 'fundamentalism'. Why is fundamentalism such a bad word? comparing things to the origin doesnt necessarily mean rigidity. but it definitely means validity.

The word fundamentalism refers to those who always stick with the "fundamentals" or things. If you learn math you will always use the fundamentals all along. There's nothing wrong with sticking to the fundamentals, or the basics. In fact, i think fundamentalism is a way to break the rigidity of so many churches. One of the biggest problems with churches is their different interpretations of the holy books without referring or validating against the fundamentals. For example when the natives were wiped it was said to be a war in the name of God. But if those fighters validated this idea against the original fundamentals they would have figured that it's against the fundamentals, and against the religion and its basics.

My claim is fundamentalism is not the problem. The problem is people interpreting the teachings of a religion to suit their interests. Another side of the problem is the followers ignorance of the "fundamentals". It is easy to manipulate those people and take advantage of them, all in the name of religion.

(btw, i mention the word churches meaning any religious institution and not necessarily christian ones)
Respects to all!

 

[Kacey]

I agree somewhat with Mantis, and disagree somewhat... every religious institution believes it knows the truth that is somehow withheld from others - without that belief, why would there be differences? If you start with the truty, then your followers have no reason to leave - but history is full of religious schisms caused by a difference of belief between the leaders of a particular sect and its followers. Where I have difficult is with those who believe that anyone who does not share those beliefs is, as Swordlady said, damned to eternal perdition, or some similarly horrible fate. Being Jewish, this particular potential has been expressed to me more than, perhaps, members of most Christian demoninations in the US have seen - because I do not believe in Christ as the Messiah, according to many people, I am just screwed, with no hope of anything but perpetual Hell for all eternity... for a difference in belief. I find that wrong, and I have difficulty with any religion (or other belief system) that says that anyone who disagrees is wrong and will suffer eternally for it.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I belong to Church of God (Cleveland), a pentecostal church and what has struck me is the pastor's belief that all Christian churches are good; we're just different.

Pastor, himself, is fundemental and the church doctrine is also fundemental, believing in the accuracy of the bible, word for word. As for me, my faith is not quite that specific. My bible-beating moments are limited to describing what Christ and/or God have done in my life and not spouting dogma.

As for my way is the right way...well, that's even farther from the church (really, I go for the music). It seems to me that creatures in a finite existance cannot, by nature, define a creature living an infinite existance; therefor, I think everyone's perception of Diety is going to be wrong to some extent. Conversely, they are all right, to some extent, too. I just decided to go with what I felt true in my life and Christianity, both in church and in day-to-day, satisfies my search.

 

[Phadrus00]

mantis,

I see the point you are trying to make but I think there is a very distinct difference in how "the fundamentals" are interpreted by a "fundamentalist" religious sect. Here is a litle blurb from Wikipedia (The whole article is here ):

"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.
This formation of a separate identity is deemed necessary on account of a perception that the religious community has surrendered its ability to define itself in religious terms. The "fundamentals" of the religion have been jettisoned by neglect, lost through compromise and inattention, so that the general religious community's explanation of itself appears to the separatist to be in terms that are completely alien and fundamentally hostile to the religion itself. Fundamentalist movements are therefore founded upon the same religious principles as the larger group, but the fundamentalists more self-consciously attempt to build an entire approach to the modern world based on strict fidelity to those principles, to preserve a distinctness both of doctrine and of life.

The essential point is that they have decided to interpret the entire world through the lens of their religious doctrine which causes some rather dangerous and extreme views of things like the denial of evolution or the suppresion of gay rights.

In the Martial Arts, or Math, or Science it's good to go back to fundamentals because those deciplines have built their whole framework on rational, provable theory. In science, we believe that logical argument leads from the basic tenets to all conclusions and there is little or no room for interpretation. Ine the Martial Arts we believe that reinforcing fundamental truths of movement lead to better technique and skill. In either case the result is provable. Does the theory work or can you throw a person more effectively. In both cases you know if you are right or wrong.

Religions don't work that way. They rely on faith and belief and interpreting thier core texts to provide guidance and thier is no way to prove if they are right ot wrong. There is always room for interpretation as evidenced by the various sects within any one religion. On the good side it means we can all find something that feels closely aligned to our own views.. On the bad side it can mean that zealots emerge and feel it their obligation to "cleanse the world" or "save the world", or build a university (ok.. so that was a cheap shot... sorry).

Mm.. the air is a little thin up here on the soap box...perhaps I should decend to base camp...

Love everybody and study Math and Science in school kids... Oh yeah and don't smoke or talk to strangers..

Rob

 

[mantis]

I agree somewhat with Mantis, and disagree somewhat... every religious institution believes it knows the truth that is somehow withheld from others - without that belief, why would there be differences? If you start with the truty, then your followers have no reason to leave - but history is full of religious schisms caused by a difference of belief between the leaders of a particular sect and its followers.

okay you have a point there. Agreed.

So every religion has this idea that others are going to go to hell regardless of how this hell is described. Then what's the solutions to this?
I think the solution has something to do with going back to the original scripts of these religions and see which is valid, or most valid. Again, going back to the fundamentals can help. Unfortunately the original scripts of many religions are now lost, and all we have is newer modified versions.

 

[mantis]

mantis,

I see the point you are trying to make but I think there is a very distinct difference in how "the fundamentals" are interpreted by a "fundamentalist" religious sect. Here is a litle blurb from Wikipedia (The whole article is here ):



The essential point is that they have decided to interpret the entire world through the lens of their religious doctrine which causes some rather dangerous and extreme views of things like the denial of evolution or the suppresion of gay rights.

In the Martial Arts, or Math, or Science it's good to go back to fundamentals because those deciplines have built their whole framework on rational, provable theory. In science, we believe that logical argument leads from the basic tenets to all conclusions and there is little or no room for interpretation. Ine the Martial Arts we believe that reinforcing fundamental truths of movement lead to better technique and skill. In either case the result is provable. Does the theory work or can you throw a person more effectively. In both cases you know if you are right or wrong.

Religions don't work that way. They rely on faith and belief and interpreting thier core texts to provide guidance and thier is no way to prove if they are right ot wrong. There is always room for interpretation as evidenced by the various sects within any one religion. On the good side it means we can all find something that feels closely aligned to our own views.. On the bad side it can mean that zealots emerge and feel it their obligation to "cleanse the world" or "save the world", or build a university (ok.. so that was a cheap shot... sorry).

Mm.. the air is a little thin up here on the soap box...perhaps I should decend to base camp...

Love everybody and study Math and Science in school kids... Oh yeah and don't smoke or talk to strangers..

Rob

Hmm... okay. point taken again.

Let me take the discussion from another angle.
Let's say your religion is XXX. XXX says if you do not believe then you will be going to hell.
If you are a sincere person you would probably let me know that I am going to hell according to your faith simply because you do not wish I go to hell. Otherwise you probably are not sincere to me. Especially if you tell me that i am not going to hell.

Take the example of the interfaith people. They all believe the others are going to hell but when they meet face to face they hide that belief. They lecture each other as being 'believers'. I consider that to be rather hypocratic.

On the other hand if you tell me you're considered an extremist, and it is actually pretty bad of you to tell someone they're going to hell.

How should you deal with this? I think that's a tough question.

 

[Jenna]

I still consider myself to be a follower of Christ. But I don't necessarily believe that my beliefs are the end-all and be-all. I've been the "fundamentalist Christian", trying to foist my beliefs on others - and often failing miserably. Forcing others to believe the way I do simply does not work! People need to be free to make their own life choices. It's like trying to force someone to be your friend. That relationship isn't going to happen if the other person simply does not want it. Not even Jesus himself forced people to follow him!

Hey SL, my good friend
I agree completely with your view. Like Egg above I am from a fairly modern, though in belief archaic, evangelical Pentecostal church which unfortunately collapsed under the heavy weight of two competitive sets of egos and religious-political viewpoints. And this happened in a church! I can hardly believe it did happen.

I think there is a level of snobbery in organised religion arising from being saved versus those who are lost and that is generally unspoken though I think the teachings in church sometimes encourage this snobbery and sometimes it is easy as a christian to hold this aloof view of ourselves.

Personally and because of my feeling that so much religion is a sham, I am no longer of any particular religious conviction and I daresay I am a bad case of what used to be referred to as a "backslider" but I think for anyone proclaiming ANY religious faith, acknowledging this snobbery would go a way to eradicating fundamentalism.

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Swordlady]

These are some good responses so far. I've been rethinking many of my beliefs and views about Christianity and religion in general. All my life, I've been taught that *my* faith was THE "only way" to salvation - whether I was in the Catholic church, or in the International Churches of Christ (ICOC).

To give you a little more background on the ICOC: It is essentially another offshoot (there are many) from what is now known as the Mainline Churches of Christ. What spurred the growth of the ICOC was that its leader, Kip, was disgruntled with the "lukewarmness" in the Mainline churches, and was determined to start a new "movement" - consisting solely of "sold-out disciples" committed to his cause. Kip's mission? To "evangelize the world in one generation", as per Jesus' Great Commission to his Apostles (Matthew 28:18-20). Sounds all well and good on paper, doesn't it? BUT...Kip took that one scripture from the bible - and made it the ICOC's mantra. THAT was the one driving force in that church. Recruit, recruit, recruit. We were right, and everyone else was wrong. Any other "real" Christians in other churches would naturally want to join us, according to Kip. We were - in his mind - "God's Modern Day Movement", and the direct descendant of the 1st century Christian church.

*That* one teaching alone turned us off from many other churches - especially the Mainline churches, who totally disowned us. Kip even sent ICOC-trained ministers to "reconstruct" Mainline churches to fit *his* idea of what a church should be. Pretty much akin to a hostile takeover. Many of our student groups were kicked out of several college campuses across the country, because of our aggressive proselytization and our overall disrespect of campus policies. Any disagreement with our methods was construed as "persecution", and justified in our minds that we were doing "the right thing".

On the surface, we appeared to be a loving family of believers who cared about each other. We especially wanted to pour on the love to first-time visitors, to convince them that we were "different" from every other church out there. Dig a little deeper, and you find that the love was often shallow and conditional. There was a false sense of intimacy that occured from being forced to share intimate details of your life with total strangers. If you didn't play by the rules, you were relegated to the lowest rung in the "church hierarchy" and constantly beat upon. If a visitor didn't complete the studies required to become a member, s/he was often dropped like a hot potato, since we were to "wipe the dust off our feet" and move on to a new person. Disagreements with leadership were not tolerated. The strongest critics were often booted out of the church, and "marked" (i.e., the members were forbidden to talk to them).

There was a lot more going on behind the scenes. Severe abuse of power from the top leadership was one of them. Rank-and-file members constantly getting berated and lambasted for not "producing" enough, and bullied into giving more money they can afford to give. "Tithing" was also very important in the ICOC; it was often preached that the "state of your heart" dictated how much you "gave" to the church (it was a flat 10% of one's gross income, though we were exhorted to give more).

This is just a quick background of where I am coming from. THIS is the kind of religious fundamentalism I now want to avoid at all costs. Yes, it started off with us wanting to go back to the bible and "restoring" the spirit of the 1st century church (which I even admit has been lost). BUT...we did so in a way were we condemned everyone else who wasn't with us to hell. WE made ourselves out to be God, and placed ourselves in his judgment seat.

I hope all of this makes sense.

 

[heretic888]

From http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=494366#post494366:

In today's religiously polarized world, I thought this would be an interesting topic to bring to The Study....

In 1981, psychologist Dr. James Fowler published a book entitled Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. While there is still some debate about the validity of his Faith Development Theory (FDT) among the psychological community, empirical research has generally supported Dr. Fowler's ideas and it has demonstrated success in psychotherapuetic applications. In essence, FTD concerns the development of an individual's "faith" over the course of his or her lifetime through a series of six invariant, sequential, hierarchical stages (comparable to the cognitive development theory of Jean Piaget, the moral development theory of Lawrence Kohlberg, or the ego development theory of Jane Loevinger).

"Faith", in this context, is not necessarily religious in content (although it often is), but concerns how an individual makes sense of life and where he or she places a concern for ultimacy (whatever that may be). Fowler's "faith" is similar in many respects to the "existential intelligence" that Dr. Howard Gardner has suggested in his recent update to Multiple Intelligences Theory.

The following is a brief summarization of Fowler's stages of faith:

1) Intuitive-Projective Faith: Typical of children between 2 and 7 years of age; characterized by emotional narcissism and a domination by one's impulses; fantasy and reality are poorly distinguished; one's faith is a projection of oneself and one's intuitions; drawn to imaginative stories involving fantastical beings.

2) Mythic-Literal Faith: Typical of children between 7 to 12 years of age; sees the world in a very orderly and dependable way; able to reason inductively and deductively; can begin to take the perspectives of others; has a very literal outlook and interprets reality in a very literal way; adopts a reciprocal view of morality ("eye for an eye", reward & punishment).

3) Synthetic-Conventional Faith: Typically found at age 12 and beyond; individual defines oneself on the basis of his or her relationships with others (parents, peers, teachers, etc.); a strongly sociocentric outlook on life; individual identifies exclusively with one group as opposed to others; adopts the morals and norms of the in-group; this is the "unexamined" faith.

4) Individuative-Reflective Faith: Typically found in the early 20's and beyond; one begins to move beyond the group identity and adopt individual views; a "de-mythologizing" stage of faith; translates the symbols and images of one's tradition into personal concepts and ideas; beginning of post-conventional morality.

5) Conjunctive Faith: Typically found at midlife and beyond; begin to distinguish between what is true and what one believes; realizes the stories, symbols, and teachings of one's tradition are inherently partial and incomplete; seeks truth/wisdom from a multitude of sources (i.e., other traditions) in order to complement and/or correct one's own; characterized by a "radical openness" to other viewpoints, acceptance of pluralistic views, and use of paradox for understanding; deepening of post-conventional morality.

6) Universalizing Faith: Extremely rare; concepts of "relevent irrelevance" and "decentration of self" become important; have a detached but passionate view of life; identify with the whole of humanity, regardless of tradition or in-group; selfless compassion for all others; characterized by a unitive experience with being.

Laterz.

 

[Kacey]

The following is a brief summarization of Fowler's stages of faith:

1) Intuitive-Projective Faith: Typical of children between 2 and 7 years of age; characterized by emotional narcissism and a domination by one's impulses; fantasy and reality are poorly distinguished; one's faith is a projection of oneself and one's intuitions; drawn to imaginative stories involving fantastical beings.

2) Mythic-Literal Faith: Typical of children between 7 to 12 years of age; sees the world in a very orderly and dependable way; able to reason inductively and deductively; can begin to take the perspectives of others; has a very literal outlook and interprets reality in a very literal way; adopts a reciprocal view of morality ("eye for an eye", reward & punishment).

3) Synthetic-Conventional Faith: Typically found at age 12 and beyond; individual defines oneself on the basis of his or her relationships with others (parents, peers, teachers, etc.); a strongly sociocentric outlook on life; individual identifies exclusively with one group as opposed to others; adopts the morals and norms of the in-group; this is the "unexamined" faith.

4) Individuative-Reflective Faith: Typically found in the early 20's and beyond; one begins to move beyond the group identity and adopt individual views; a "de-mythologizing" stage of faith; translates the symbols and images of one's tradition into personal concepts and ideas; beginning of post-conventional morality.

5) Conjunctive Faith: Typically found at midlife and beyond; begin to distinguish between what is true and what one believes; realizes the stories, symbols, and teachings of one's tradition are inherently partial and incomplete; seeks truth/wisdom from a multitude of sources (i.e., other traditions) in order to complement and/or correct one's own; characterized by a "radical openness" to other viewpoints, acceptance of pluralistic views, and use of paradox for understanding; deepening of post-conventional morality.

6) Universalizing Faith: Extremely rare; concepts of "relevent irrelevance" and "decentration of self" become important; have a detached but passionate view of life; identify with the whole of humanity, regardless of tradition or in-group; selfless compassion for all others; characterized by a unitive experience with being.

Laterz.

Those are quite interesting... and seem to very closely related to Kohlberg's moral stages (which would rather make sense, that religious values/interpretations are related to morality):

Pre-Conventional

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self (egocentric).
In stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism. Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position, right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." In stage two concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect. Lacking a perspective of society in the pre-conventional level, this should not be confused with social contract (stage five), as all actions are performed to serve one's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the perspective of the world is often seen as morally relative.
Conventional

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Persons who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to societal views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development.
In Stage three, the self enters society by filling social roles. Individuals are receptive of approval or disapproval from other people as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be a good boy or good girl to live up to these expectations, having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude and the 'golden rule'. Desire to maintain rules and authority exists only to further support these stereotypical social roles. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; 'they mean well...'. In Stage four, it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a big factor in this stage as it separates the good from the bad.
Post-Conventional

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, consists of stages five and six of moral development. Realization that individuals are separate entities from society now becomes salient. One's own perspective should be viewed before the society's is considered. (It is due to this 'nature of self before others' that the post-conventional level, especially stage six, is sometimes mistaken for pre-conventional behaviors.)
In Stage five, individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values, and it is paramount that they be respected and honored impartially. Issues that are not regarded as relative like life and choice should never be withheld or inhibited. In fact, no single choice is considered correct or absolute – 'who are you to judge if they are or not'? Along a similar vein, laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid dictums. Those that do not promote general social welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is attained through majority decision, and inevitably compromise. In this way democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning. In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are met categorically in an absolute way rather than hypothetically in a conditional way. This can be done by imagining what one would do being in anyone's shoes, who imagined what anyone would do thinking the same (see John Rawls's 'veil of ignorance'). The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; one acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal or previously agreed upon. While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

 

[heretic888]

Those are quite interesting... and seem to very closely related to Kohlberg's moral stages (which would rather make sense, that religious values/interpretations are related to morality)....

Yep. As I said before, there are some pretty interesting correlations between Piaget's cognitive stages, Kohlberg's moral stages, Loevinger's ego stages, and Fowler's faith stages.

Laterz.