|
Tuesday, 03 October 2006 17:59 |
 | | Carl S. Milsted, Jr. |
In reading this newspaper over the past year or so, I have come across many articles critical of "fundamentalism." Fundamentalists have been described as hateful, uncaring, inflexible, right wing, conservative, violent and/or unspiritual. As a Christian who is more fundamentalist than most, I take some exception to these characterizations.
Yes, there are many fundamentalist Christians who meet some of the above descriptions to varying degrees; however, these are not the defining characteristics of Christian fundamentalism. Oft times, these characteristics are more associated with people better described as traditionalists, not fundamentalists.
Fundamentalism,
in the original sense of the word, is often opposed to traditionalism.
Fundamentalism is reactionary, not conservative; it is a call to reject
both questionable new doctrines and accumulated traditions in favor of
a faithful interpretation of the original text. When the original text
in question is the Christian Bible, the resulting moral views are not
exactly right wing.
True, the Bible
does espouse some very conservative views; it is very intolerant of
idol worshipping, homosexuality, adultery and channeling spirits. The
Old Testament is big on the death penalty, extending it even to those
who merely light a fire on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36). And the
military tactics applied in the conquest of the Holy Land make George
Bush look like a pacifist.
But note that
such enforcement of the Law was limited to the Holy Land. There was no
call in the Old Testament for the Hebrews to sweep across the world
destroying idols and other abominations. The Holy Land was an example
for the rest of the world, which could choose to emulate its ways or
not.
This pattern
continues into the New Testament, with the holy nation being replaced
by holy people.
Jesus called upon his followers to spread the word
across the world, while at the same time calling for his followers to
be forgiving and non-violent. Forcible conversion to Christianity is a
later tradition, one that should be rejected by a true fundamentalist.
The same goes for enforcing Christian standards of
behavior on
non-Christians (see 1 Corinthians 5-6).
But even if we restrict our study to the Old Testament, we can find many ideas which qualify as liberal and/or libertarian.
Under the
original system set up by Moses, there was to be no police force or
standing army. Such matters were community affairs like in the wildest
parts of the American Wild West. The closest things to taxation were
the tithes that were mainly for supporting the priesthood and for
religious celebrations. From what I can tell, paying tithes was a
mostly voluntary act; the only enforcement provision I could find was
peer pressure.
Yet despite the
lack of what most conservatives would consider the "necessary parts of
government," there was an extensive welfare system! The poor were
allowed to pick food by hand from other peopleës fields (Deuteronomy
23:24-25), and to use tools after the harvest (Leviticus 19:9-10,
Deuteronomy 24:19-22). The rich were forbidden from buying up large
estates; they could only buy leaseholds. Every 50 years, farmland
reverted back to the original families (Leviticus 25). Furthermore, the
wealthy were expected to grant zero-interest loans to those in need
(Deuteronomy 15:1-18).
In many areas,
law enforcement was more lenient than today. There were no jails.
Property criminals who provided adequate compensation were let off
without further punishment (Exodus 22:1-9). Those who could not repay
had to be servants for a time (Exodus 22:3, Exodus 21:2), but they were
to be well-treated (Leviticus 25:40), not to be separated from their
families (Exodus 21:3) and given startup capital (including wine!) upon
release (Deuteronomy 14:12-14).
Speaking of
wine, calls for complete abstention from alcohol are a later,
post-Biblical, tradition. The Bible has many passages celebrating the
virtues of alcoholic beverages ÇƒÓ and good food (see Deuteronomy
14:22-26). It is the excessive consumption of such (and gluttony) that
is condemned. Prohibition is a recent tradition. And unless getting
stoned and watching "Gilliganës Island" constitutes witchcraft, the War
on Drugs is also a violation of fundamentalist Christian principles.
One can even
make a case against anti-prostitution laws on fundamentalist Christian
grounds. Under Old Testament Law, a woman with other means of support ǃÓ
a married woman, a girl still living with parents (Deuteronomy
22:13-21), or the daughter of a priest (Leviticus 21:9) ÇƒÏ was forbidden
upon pain of death to play the harlot. There was no blanket probation
on harlotry, however. It is worth noting that Solomonës first recorded
action upon receiving wisdom was to adjudicate a dispute between two
harlots; he did not have them punished for harlotry (1 Kings 3:16-28).
One can even
make a Biblical case against factory farming (Deuteronomy 25:4 and
Exodus 20:10) and genetically modified foods (Deuteronomy 22:9-11).
So, whenever you
are troubled by right-wing Christian fundamentalists, keep in mind that
the problem could be that the objects of your ire are not
fundamentalist enough.
ï
Carl S. Milsted Jr. is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Buncombe County.
|
