Well, as I usually do when I try to be brief (a very rare event!), I stepped in it again and managed to set off some warning bells for some people when I posted about the teacher who was arrested in the Sudan for naming a teddy bear “Mohammed.” Actually, nobody accused me of hatred, but that just looked more provocative in the title.
First, let me confess that I do not have much sympathy for fundamentalism and the attitudes that seem to drive it. You will probably feel that as I post. The idea of a fixed understanding of the truth to which we must cling bluntly just seems silly to me. As I observe the world, while I still believe there are things that are true and things that are not, I believe that our understanding of these must constantly change as long as we remain imperfect. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I haven’t yet attained perfection, and using my best rose-colored glasses, I can’t yet foresee the time when I will be perfect. So yes, fundamentalism is, from the start, not my cup of tea.
So fundamentalism, as such, is something that I do oppose, whether it is Christian fundamentalism, Muslim fundamentalism, or any other variety. But there is a difference between opposition to something, and believing that it is essentially violent or at least physically dangerous. There are more characteristics than just doctrines that go into that additional problem. In addition, I would note that just what makes one a “fundamentalist” differs by faith. That’s why I will point to a different line at the end of this post.
As I said in the previous posts, I think the most dangerous variety of fundamentalism is currently most commonly manifested by fundamentalist Muslims. The violent reaction to the publication of cartoons of Mohammed, and the recent “teddy bear” arrest indicate a high level of willingness to engage in violence over opinions. That willingness to engage in violence over one’s beliefs is the key characteristic that must be added to fundamentalism before I become seriously concerned.
Thus John Calvin in Geneva steps across a line when he burns Servetus at the stake for his beliefs. Of course, we should give poor Calvin due consideration based on the social structure and beliefs of his era, where such a thing was more common, yet I would note that a reformation that corrected any number of alleged theological errors somehow failed to correct what seems to me the greatest error of all–the notion that we can torture and kill other people over their beliefs and words. But one thing at a time, I guess.
Similarly, groups in the United States that use the word “Christian,” however far they may vary from what I would regard as Christian, do advocate violence in the name of Jesus. Fortunately for us here, their numbers are small. I do not worry on a day by day basis that there will be a terrorist attack by Christian fundamentalists, or even that there will be one by splinter groups calling themselves Christians. The event is simply too rare.
Further, I see a big difference between traditional Christian fundamentalism–belief in the “fundamentals”–and the violent splinter groups. They may both accept the major fundamentals, but the difference is in their extreme us vs. them attitude combined with a willingness to engage in violence over what one believes and expresses.
I hate to use slippery slope arguments, because they can be used on just about anyone. Even a nice, center of the road position has a slippery slope on either side. But I think a slippery slope warning is in order. If one indulges oneself in an us vs. them paradigm, one is in danger at some point of becoming violent and dangerous. The problem is with “at some point.” All of us have some “us vs. them” factors in our lives. Why do I belong to a particular church congregation? Surely there are things there that I like more than those in another nearby congregation. It’s a bit of us vs. them.
If I start wanting to tear down the other church’s signs, yell at them out the car window, or otherwise harass them, then I am crossing a dangerous line. It’s easy to become more and more hostile as we remain separate because we simply don’t know one another well enough. Then there is the problem of repeated division. As we become so certain that our opinions are right and will never need correction, we become less willing to fellowship with people who differ from our position.
Within a few mile radius of my own house I can identify at least three major divisions of Baptists. I don’t mean denominations, but rather movements. There are Southern Baptists, in this area a very substantial number. (For what it’s worth, I don’t call them fundamentalists, but evangelicals.) Then there are independent Baptists, who quite generally regard the Southern Baptists as too liberal. Then there is the home church of Peter Ruckman, KJV-Only writer, who regards all of the above as way off the liberal edge of the map.
How far off the map does someone need to be before we get concerned? Well, within reason, I think we can express concern about any beliefs we regard as incorrect. As long as we are willing to hear other points of view and to be corrected as necessary, this is just part of life. I’m human enough that I will express myself with greater and greater vigor as I perceive someone to differ from my own position.
The line that must not be crossed, in my view, is the one where I allow violence over opinions held and somehow expressed. (It’s a separate subject, but I believe that any violence that is not strictly defensive is to be rejected, and even some defensive violence.) No matter how someone insults my faith, I do not have the right to respond with violence.
Right now, this violence is coming largely from the Muslim world, but that is not an eternal verity. Christians are not immune. We become incensed when people speak against Jesus or the Bible. I have heard such speech referred to as persecution with people calling for Christians to prepare to defend themselves. If such defense is to be done also with peaceful expression, that’s no problem, but in many cases I know that is not the case.
And I do not mean only unofficial violence. Violence engaged in against others because of their opinions is even more dangerous when done as official policy. Who sets the boundaries?
Again, lest I be misunderstood, I do not mean any of this to say that we cannot respond to terrorism. But it does mean that we must not engage in a war against Islam. For the most part, despite my profound objections to some of our actions overseas, I don’t see us engaging, at least intentionally, in such a war. I do, however, see quite a lot of sentiment here for it.
Finally, while I do not accept the idea that violence always begets violence, i.e. I do believe that there are times when the use of violence is required, I do believe that any time one engages in violence beyond the provocation, becomes the first to resort to violence, or uses violence when other options are open, one will only produce more violence. It is that boundary between between having strong beliefs, and having beliefs so strong that one can do violence because of them that is where I see the danger.
Hatred? I hope not! But strong opposition, and a willingness to respond vigorously–absolutely.
