|
Wednesday, 30 November 2005 09:04 |
| Marc Mullinax
|
?®Pray thee, has it occurred to you that you might be wrong??∆
??Oliver Cromwell
?ÿ
MARS HILL ?±?± Asheville sports two kinds of fundamentalists, united in one key aspect: Their operational attitude of being ?±?± in the final analysis ?±?± is correct. One set is proud of its fundamentalism; the other is largely ignorant of its close-minded ways, and would gasp aghast at the disturbing charge that they??re ?®fundamentalists.?∆
To this latter group who feels it??s above the politics of separation and exclusion that fundamentalism seems to
require, ?®fundamentalist?∆ is an epithet.
This latter group usually calls itself proud names, such as Modernist and Postmodernist. It is usually populated with white liberals who have unconsciously embraced the ideas of rationalism and the ideals of reason. I know of what I speak, for I can often be included in this census.
I??m reminded of my own tendencies toward fundamentalism when I see the
bumper stickers on cars driven by those who engage in a 24/7 argument
with the politics of the right and Republicans. Usually I nod an
?®Amen!?∆
and thank God that Asheville has such folks.
However, when doing so, I participate in a kind of philistine
fundamentalism. ?®Yeah! Take that!?∆ I pray. For without accountability
to a single person on the right, I share an attitude of intolerance
among the very folks least suspected of it: liberals. Examples:
Stickers with a Darwin fish instead of a Jesus fish, or that say, ?®The
Christian Right is neither,?∆ or with derogatory messages toward elected
leaders, (?®F?∆ instead of ?®W?∆ the president). These belie a key aspect
of fundamentalism: suspicion and intolerance of the other.
This ad hominem ailment is common to any position-holder on the
political, religious or social spectrum. And I am chief of sinners here.
The reason why liberals are susceptible to fundamentalism is not their
doctrine. Instead, their views are rooted in their sharing a key
attitude all fundies have: ?®My way is the correct one, more correct
than thou. And if you??ll just see the correctness of my ways (that is,
?¥You change, I??m already OK??), then the world will spin more smoothly.?∆
It??s an attitude held by some in the feminist, environmentalist, anti-Bush and peace crowds.
I??ve been party to many liberal-fundamentalist conversations in which
the liberal true believers bash the conservative, pro-war, pro-Bush
true believers. Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee have a conversation, and
guess what? There was no conversation, but two monologues. In neither
conversation does the other receive the same humanity, grace or
allowance as either side would choose for itself.
We liberals are usually proud of our abilities to deconstruct or
de-mystify just about any set of ideas. Usually we perform this
de-mythologization to sacred texts and sacred cows, and we??re proud to
be able to separate out historical fact from hysterical superstition.
But what we miss out on is the same thing right-wing fundamentalists
miss: the mystery of depth encounters. It??s as if we call the
whitecaps the ocean, with no regard for the depths. And that is exactly
what we charge ?®the other?∆ with.
As the early Christian, St. Paul, puts it so well: Even though I may
have all powers of language, thought and understanding, without love, I
am nothing.
The problem with fundamentalists is that they have only one window out
of which to look at this world. When someone builds a structure outside
that window, they have no view left.
Ideology is a narrow ledge on which to base one??s life, or take a stand. Fundamentalism is fundamental spiritual shallowness.
I leave the reader to decide if she/he is one, and close with Oliver
Cromwell, who asks, ?®Pray thee, has it occurred to you that you might
be wrong??∆
?ÿ
Dr.
Marc S. Mullinax, chairman of the philosophy and religion departments
at Mars Hill College, can be reached at mmullinax-at-mhc.edu.
|
