1.
Who runs LeavingFundamentalism.org?
2. Is LeavingFundamentalism.org a Christian site?
3. What is fundamentalism, anyway?
4. Are evangelicalism, conservatism and fundamentalism the same
thing?
5. If not all conservatives are fundamentalists, why
does the LF banner associate the two?
6. What's your problem with truth-claims? Aren't YOU
making truth-claims, too?
7. Isn't this really just about being resentful and
bitter about what fundamentalists have done to you?
8. As a liberal
Christian, aren't you just picking and choosing what to believe?
1.
Who runs LeavingFundamentalism.org?
LeavingFundamentalism.org is the brainchild of
David L Rattigan, who edits
and maintains the site, as well as contributing the majority of the
content. It's hoped that a variety of writers will be involved as the
site expands and develops.
2. Is LeavingFundamentalism.org a Christian site?
Yes and
no. Yes, the editor remains a Christian, although a theological liberal
rather than conservative or fundamentalist. Many of the articles will
draw on Christian ideas and understanding. On the other hand, you do not
have to remain a Christian in order to benefit from
LeavingFundamentalism.org. Insisting that others follow our beliefs and
religious practices is the very thing from which we escaped by leaving
fundamentalism, and so the overall purpose of this site is to allow
freedom for people to make up their own mind, precisely what
fundamentalism seeks to prevent. Personally, I am glad to help anyone
make the transition out of damaging forms of Christianity whether they
choose to remain within a Christian tradition, practice another faith,
or even leave behind theism (belief in God) altogether.
3. What is fundamentalism, anyway?
Aha, the
million-dollar question! There are so many different answers to this.
From a historical point-of-view, Fundamentalism was a 19th-century
conservative Protestant movement characterized by its opposition to
theological liberalism and its insistence on certain doctrines such as
the inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth and the literal, physical
Resurrection of Christ as essentials of true Christianity.
Nowadays
the meaning is so wide, it is frequently heard in reference to any
religious group characterized by the belief that their religion alone is
true, and a corresponding narrowmindedness and intolerance of other
people's religious practices and beliefs. In the media, for example,
it's not uncommon to hear mention of 'Islamic fundamentalists'.
On this
site, by 'fundamentalism', we are referring to certain conservative
Christian churches and religious groups, usually evangelical,
charismatic or Pentecostal, who have the following features in common:
- An
insistence that their brand of religion uniquely represents "true
Christianity";
-
Intolerance of and hostility towards views outside the accepted
teachings of their church or group;
-
Exclusion, whether actively or verbally, of people whose
'lifestyles' are deemed immoral or sinful, e.g. gays and lesbians,
cohabiting couples or divorcees;
- A
zeal for evangelism and conversion using methods and techniques that
frequently border on psychological, emotional and spiritual
manipulation and abuse;
- A
radical distrust of the secular world, often manifest in
anti-intellectualism, and exalting the 'spiritual' and the 'Word of
God' over reason or logic.
Because
these fundamentalist groups are largely conservative, Protestant and
evangelical, their distinct theological beliefs often centre around the
following:
- The
Bible is the Word of God, without error, and is the only
authoritative guide to morality and belief;
-
Their interpretation of the Bible is the 'clear meaning';
-
Only by being 'born again' (converted) can one be truly saved and be
guaranteed heaven;
-
Those not born again will face punishment, e.g. hell.
In sum,
fundamentalist Christianity encourages a very black-and-white view of
the world, where everyone is 'in' or 'out', 'saved' or 'unsaved', and
where belief and behaviour is cut-and-dry -- 'The Bible says it, I
believe it, that settles it!'
4. Are evangelicalism, conservatism and fundamentalism the same
thing?
Not
strictly speaking. Despite the fact that the media tends to give a
disproportionate amount of attention to those evangelicals and
conservatives who are
highly fundamentalist -- James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson,
for -- evangelicalism is actually a fairly broad category in
Christianity, whose boundaries stretch beyond hardcore fundamentalism
and the Religious Right. Not all evangelicals are aggressively
evangelistic, intolerant and anti-intellectual in quite the way
described in FAQ 3. Many evangelicals
practice a far more inclusive and broadminded faith than those who are
strictly fundamentalist, and for that reason we would have to say that
while all fundamentalists are evangelicals, not all evangelicals are
fundamentalists.
On the
other hand, one characteristic of almost all forms of evangelicalism is
the belief, to one degree or another, that Christianity uniquely holds
the truth. To the extent that this belief encourages intolerance,
narrowmindedness and hostility towards other faiths and experiences, it
can be problematic, even if it would be unfair to identify it with
unequivocally with full-blown fundamentalism.
5. If not all conservatives are fundamentalists, why
does the LF banner associate the two?
There is
a good deal of overlap between evangelicalism, conservatism and
fundamentalism, as I explained in FAQ 4, and that
will always make their definitions and usage something of a minefield.
Part of my aim for this site is to help people make a smooth transition
onto the next stage of their journey, whether remaining within or moving
on from Christianity. While not all conservative Christianity shares the
brazenly spiritually abusive and controlling characteristics of
fundamentalism, it nevertheless makes truth claims about the nature of
God, Jesus and faith, as well as the consequences of forsaking them,
that can be difficult to leave behind.
6. What's your problem with truth-claims? Aren't YOU
making truth-claims, too?
Of
course I am. There are two important differences, however.
First,
religious and theological truth-claims are not of the same nature as
truth-claims about, say, science or history or my account of what I had
for lunch yesterday. (Sushi, actually, and very tasty it was, too.) The
truth-claims I make here are in that second category. They are claims
that are open to being thrashed out, tested, verified, debated and
evaluated. Unless you can show me some way I can be as certain about,
say, the Trinity, as I can about the fact I ate Sushi yesterday
afternoon, I'll continue to argue that these are two distinct categories
of truth-claims.
Second,
when I DO make truth-claims in the first category
(religious/theological), I am open and honest about their tentative,
provisional and subjective nature. I'm not insisting that my claims are
uniquely true, that the rest of the world have an obligation to accept
my interpretation, or that there will be divine consequences (i.e.
punishment) for those reject them. This is the polar opposite of the
approach taken by fundamentalists.
7. Isn't this really just about being resentful and
bitter about what fundamentalists have done to you?
This
website does not exist as a way of getting revenge on fundamentalists,
or even a way of targeting fundamentalists in order to tear down their
beliefs or faith. On the one hand, fundamentalists have a right to
believe what they like, even if you or I find it silly and ridiculous.
On the other, misguided or mistaken beliefs frequently breed dangerous,
destructive and abusive practices, and the result is hurt and wounded
people. Our intent here is to help those wounded people find a way out
of controlling religious systems when they're finding it hard to get out
on their own, or difficult to deal with the emotional baggage of having
left. It's not about wallowing in bitterness over past experiences, but
reaching out to others who need a helping hand towards freedom to be who
they want to be and to live the life they want to have, something they
were often denied in their religious past.
8. As a liberal Christian, aren't you just picking
and choosing what to believe?
In a
manner of speaking, yes. However, the insinuation behind that phrase
"just picking and choosing" is that there's something arbitrary and
capricious about it, that it's somehow wrong and, moreover, that there
actually exists a person or group of persons somewhere in the universe
who DON'T pick and choose what to believe.
Truth
is, even "Bible-believing" fundamentalists have made a choice about what
to believe and what not to believe, despite their tendency to portray
their faith to others as a decision simply to believe whatever God says
without question. Even fundamentalists pick and choose.
First,
they have decided that they aren't going to believe the Qu'ran, the
Vedas or the Book of Mormon. While a fundamentalist might ask a liberal
how they can reject one part of the Bible and accept another, the
liberal can equally ask why they've thrown out the Qu'ran or the Book of
Mormon. (Answer: They pick and choose.)
Second,
Protestants historically have made decisions to reject parts of the
Bible. The Apocrypha, which Roman Catholics accept, is rejected by the
Protestant Church, despite its historic acceptance and the fact it is
quoted on a par with the rest of the Old Testament by the New Testament
writers. Of course, there are many more open-minded Protestants who
accept the Apocrypha as worthy and useful Christian literature, capable
of providing inspiration and guidance, but deny that it is the inerrant
Word of God. Isn't it ironic, however, that this is precisely the
approach most liberals take to the Bible as a whole, yet when they do
it, they are accused of arbitrarily picking and choosing according to
their own whims?
Third,
fundamentalists are just as guilty as anyone else for picking and
choosing which parts of the Bible itself, which they claim to believe in
its entirety, they will accept. In reality, while fundamentalists will
happily quote Leviticus in order to harangue and persecute homosexuals,
they rarely throw scriptures at those guilty of wearing two types of
wool in the same garment. While the verses guaranteeing eternal
damnation are enthusiastically quoted, anything that suggests the
possibility of ALL people being saved will be conveniently reinterpreted
or ignored. And while they'll insist that some bit of the Psalms proves
that God made a scientific statement that the world was round long
before scientists ever got in on the act, when the same part of the
Bible suggests the earth is flat, it's "just poetic".
Picking
and choosing in and of itself is not a crime. We ALL have to do it. It's
called weighing things up and making the decision we think is right.
Ultimately, it's called life.
