(A reflection drawn from the readings: Jeremiah 33:14-16; Luke 21:25-28;34-36)

(A short break from my series- I felt like writing about Advent-each week during this season I will spend some time reflectong on Advent and Christmas).

Next Sunday, Advent begins and if there is one season I enjoy more than any other it is the season of advent which to me – means hope. It is also a season of memories. Advent is a time of reflection. Think about it-in this season more than any other, we open up the photo albums and remember past holiday memories. Well, in the same way during advent we are encouraged to look back into the past -in the scriptures –in salvation history and remember a promise and of course, the fulfillment of that promise when two thousand years ago God visited earth in a special way through the person of Jesus Christ. Christians, of course look to the promises of the Hebrew Bible of a Messiah who would come and we see these promises fulfilled in Jesus. So memories of what we could call a collective spiritual past are a continual spiritual blessing and build our faith. During Advent we as Christians reflect on these memories in our liturgy and our readings.

During Advent we are also encouraged to look ahead into the future with a hope – a solemn solid hope of His Second Coming, The Advent season calls us to believe and live that connection between the promise and fulfillment of the First Coming and the promise and soon fulfillment of the Second Coming. Now, I do not believe it is imminent but neither do I believe it is make believe.

In the context of this promise of His Second Coming, Jesus reminds us of the trap of being caught off guard when he comes by the “drowsiness of the heart.”  There are three symptoms of this common ailment: a lifestyle dominated by drunkenness, overindulgence and being overly anxious about everyday life. Jesus is warning us that these three things can cause our hearts to become indifferent to spiritual realities and draw us away from faith in God.  If we are honest with ourselves, this season can be a burden instead of a blessing; a pain rather than a joy; a nightmare of activity rather than a solemn occasion of reflective spirituality– of drawing nearer to the Spirit of Christ.

Dear God, Help us during this season to spend quiet times with you and not get caught up in the trap – any trap that would cause us to pull away from you.  Help us to see more clearly the spiritual realities that seem to be so close to us in this season.  Amen.

 

I was talking about defining fundamentalism and had come to the third introductory premise- and it is simply NOT ALL FUNDAMENTALIST ARE BIGOTS.  Yet the moment I say that- I have a problem- because there is a need to define the word BIGOT.  Some of you might argue that point and say- “we all know what a bigot is.”  Well, I would be interested in hearing from you on this matter-

PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS BLOG!!! I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

Do we really know what a bigot is? Or are we just thinking of the extreme examples?             Fred Phelps?          KKK?              Christian Identity?

The 2001 Webster’s Dictionary defines a bigot as   “a person who is utterly intolerant of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from their own”

The 1828 Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defined it as: “a person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual.”

Personally, I am partial to Allport’s definition found in his classic book “The Nature of Prejudice” as a person who is excessively prejudiced and thinks ill of others without sufficient warrant.”  Allport gives a final definition- prejudice – an aversive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to that group (Allport, p7).

I should mention that I was only recently introduced to this book in 2010- although the first edition came out in 1954.  I continue to use it as a source whenever I talk about bigotry and prejudice which I am finding is quite common among “Church going “ people (not just fundamentalists)  and studies are continually to prove that to be true, sad to say. (Now, I must be-careful of not generalizing- not all “Church-going” people are bigots- but as I said- studies have shown that church going people are prone to bigotry!)

Allport goes on to discuss how people respond to groups based how they feel about them and the more the intense feeling or attitude, the more hostile their actions may be.

So if I may summarize- using Allport as a basis – a Fundamentalist becomes a bigot when he acts on his belief that he alone possesses absolute truth and speaks evil and discriminates against those who he prejudges as not fitting into the “godly camp”…. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Let me close out this session with one more interesting point from Allport:- he goes on to talk about five degrees of prejudicial actions- progressive actions – one leads to the next level. (I use myself as an example)

1. Speaking out against this group. (As a preacher, I spoke against homosexuals every chance I got. And it was not good talk. I wrote against homosexuals. )
2. Secondly, there is avoidance. (My feelings of disgust towards homosexuals were such that I avoided contact with them.)
3. Thirdly, there is the action of discrimination.  (As a preacher, I took action – leading others through speaking and voting to exclude homosexuals from not only the right to marry but also ordination- becoming ministers,   and to exclude them from membership in Churches.)
4. Fourthly there is physical attack and violence.
5. Fifthly, extermination.

I must tell you how after reflecting on this- I feel terrible.  I do not know if I can express my regret…my sorrow at how I spoke and acted. I only pray that God and people that I have treated so badly- so evil- will forgive me.  Here my wife would remind me- as she has done so- “Look –you have come full circle.” Yes, I once spoke evil of homosexuals. I once avoided homosexuals. I once discriminated against homosexuals. But now, I speak well of homosexuals. I have contact with homosexuals and now I speak for the rights of homosexuals to full membership in Church- to be ordained and marry.

Allport goes on to explain the deadly progression and how easy it is to transition from one step to the next:

“While many people would never move from antilocution to avoidance; or from avoiding to active discrimination, or higher on the scale, still it is true that activity on one level makes transition to a more intense level easier. It was Hitler’s antilocution that led Germans to avoid their Jewish neighbors. This preparation made it easier to enact the Nurnberg laws of discrimination which, in turn, made the subsequent burning of synagogues and street attacks upon Jews seem natural. The final step in the macabre progression was the ovens in Auschwitz. “

The point is – it is a slippery slope from talking evil about a certain group of people to acting on the talk…My mother told me- “if you can’t say anything nice or good about someone- than don’t say anything.”  It’s good advice!

(Recommend: The Nature of Prejudice  Gordon Allport 1954)

I would certainly your thoughts- comments – positive or negative regarding this blog entry.

 

Please feel free to share using the comment….

 

 

I have been discussing Protestant Fundamentalism and in the first two parts in going over some beginning concepts I explained how Fundamentalism is not that simple to define. And there were several reasons I gave for that concept: one, while easily recognized by extremes, it is more than just a mode of interpretation of the Bible. Those definitions are too simplistic- fundamentalism is a complex religious cultural movement that must be studied in its historical setting. That final thought brought me to the final reason why Fundamentalism is not simple to define because ffundamentalism is rooted in basically several streams of Christian tradition and this religious tradition controls its interpretation of the Bible.  Fundamentalism is American as Apple pie- and rooted in two religious streams- the evangelical revivals of the 18^th century and the 19^th century Protestant reaction to modern liberalism.

FUNDAMENTALISM- NOT MONOLITHIC OR UNIFORM (something to thank God for).

Another beginning concept that must be understood about fundamentalism is that it is not monolithic and uniform. And what I mean by that is-Fundamentalists are not all the same. This is something we can be thankful for because if Fundamentalists ever became uniform- in beliefs and attitudes- there would literally be hell to pay here in America! I mean that! If the Baptist side of Fundamentalism ever united with the Theocratic dominion side of fundamentalism- that would be a powerful voting bloc and could change the face of this nation; a face that most Americans would not like to see. But right now-the Fundamentalist paranoia and separatist mentality keeps these two apart. Thank God!

The fact is -all fundamentalist are not the same!  Some fundamentalists take an extreme position of staying out of politics (a Gospel only approach) while other fundamentalists view politics as a part of their mandate to have dominion over the earth (a Gospel plus ruling approach).

Because it is not monolithic and uniform, Fundamentalism is difficult to define.

Next time, I will discuss the principle of – NOT ALL FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE BIGOTS– and just WHAT IS A BIGOT.

Remember we were discussing how Protestant Fundamentalism is not that easy to define and one of the reasons is because it is rooted in two streams or traditions of Christianity. (Remember when I use the term fundamentalism- I am speaking of Protestant Fundamentalism)

Here I am indebted to the writings of James Barr which I only recently (2005) began to study. He has written extensively on Fundamentalism.  He argues that the “core of Fundamentalism resides not in the Bible but in a particular kind of religion and it is the powerful hold of this religion that supplies the dynamic for the zeal and the cohesive force of the Fundamental movement”.

(If you are interested in reading more on this- I recommend: Fundamentalism by James Barr (1977 published by Westminster Press).

          To really understand Fundamentalism- one must look to history!

By the way, one of the foremost journalist of the time- H.L. Mencken once wrote “heave an egg out a Pullman window and you will hit a Fundamentalist almost anywhere in the United States today.” He said that in 1920 and I believe it is more so today in 2012. He also had a very interesting and somewhat humorous definition of fundamentalists: as having a” terrible pervasive fear that someone-somewhere is having fun!”  (I like that!)

Barr’s thesis is Fundamentalism is rooted in basically several streams of Christian tradition and this religious tradition controls its interpretation of the Bible.  Fundamentalism is American as Apple pie- and rooted in two religious streams- the evangelical revivals of the 18^th century and the 19^th century Protestant reaction to modern liberalism. The Evangelical revivals of the 18^th century here in America were oriented to the personal conversion experience in direct opposition  to the church; the church was seen as dead and false and not capable of producing a conversion  which  explains to some degree the Fundamentalist’s attitude of being anti-church. Itinerant preachers came rolling through communities emphasizing the need to “believe in Jesus” and “not trust in one’s own works.”  This trusting in one’s own works was seen as the worst of sins; the church and religious works were considered barriers to conversion.

The second stream of tradition that Fundamentalism is rooted in is the American Protestant’s reaction to liberalism.  This reaction to liberalism began not in the Bible belt as most people would think. No, not in Red Oak, Iowa or Tulsa, Oklahoma (God’s country)- are you ready?  Where else,  but in Southern California. I know I found it hard to believe myself.  Two brothers – the Stewarts began passing out free pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals. Their concern was what they saw as the erosion of the basics of what they saw as the Christian faith- they were concerned about new approaches to understanding the Bible known as Biblical Criticism and the new approach to understanding the origin of the universe- evolution. They vehemently opposed these two approaches.  Fundamentalism – because of a paranoid fixation with holding correct theological dogma –developed a very separatist mindset opposing any compromise with liberalism. Liberalism was seen as a demonic conspiracy in which the only weapon that could possibly hold this enemy in check was the Bible that was seen as inerrant.

That is origin of Fundamentalism in America!

One interesting story – when I interviewed for my first Pastorate,  the Board grilled me for several hours asking me if I believed in the fundamentals of the faith : The five fundamentals:

Did I believe the Bible to be the inerrant inspired Word of God?

Did I believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ?

Did I believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ?

Did I believe that Jesus paid the price for our sins on the cross, died and rose from the dead?

Did I believe in the imminent second Coming of Jesus Christ?

 

At the time of the interview my answer was a sound yes to all five. By the end of my Pastorate (five years later)- I held to two of the five and now some 17 years later- I have discovered that the questions do not have an-  all black and white answer!

Next time: I will continue with the next concept in defining Fundamentalism- Fundamentalism is not monolithic and uniform.