Loin Girders

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Orion > Orion Magazine > July | August 2005 > David James Duncan > What Fundamentalists Need

My brother sent me an article with the subject line, "Whaddya think of this?" He is a college professor and wonders occasionally about Christianity. I'm sure he was sent this by a friend. Angevoix, what do you think? Some of your and Dan's thoughts are expressed by this author. I'll just see where this one goes. I have definite opinions and responded to his simple question with a pretty long email. I'll share it, but would like your "read" first, if time allows.

24 Comments:

At 3:38 PM, July 06, 2005, voixd'ange said…

Thank you for sharing this with us, Morpheus. Parts of it had me in tears. Although I beleive in the Bible as the unadulterated Word of God, I "resonated" with nearly everything else the writer said. I emailed it to my pastor.
At 3:58 PM, July 06, 2005, Unknown said…

You're welcome, Angevoix. Your comments mean a lot to me. I hope Dan comments, too.
At 10:09 PM, July 06, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

Thanks, Kevin, for pointing it and the author out.

What can I say? He references Mark Twain, the Bible, Jim Wallis and Ambrose Pierce - not to mention Gandhi and M. Theresa - all in one article; you know I'm gonna like it.

While I believe in the Bible as God's Word along with Ange, I'm reminded of Jesus' teaching when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath by "harvesting" wheat to eat: The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.

God's teachings are there to help us, not to beat us in to submission. I think that's part of what this author is saying and I agree.

I've said it before and will again now: I don't mean to be too harsh to those more conservative than I - they've taught me to take the Bible seriously and for this, I'm grateful.

And your thoughts on the essay, brother Kevin?
At 11:12 PM, July 08, 2005, Unknown said…

There is a lot to discuss in this article. I had an immediate negative reaction, I’ll admit. I thought the argument he was using was of the form:
"I see Christianity as x...so I condemn x." I didn’t like what I read. I found it to be a divisive screed.

The fundamentalist he rails against is a straw man, created from popular notions by non-churchgoing people of the ignorant slub that just must judge from the pulpit somewhere in order to bilk the ignorant of their hard-earned dollars. Who would not find this “fundamentalist” distasteful? Who would not flee a church composed of these Pharisees? But I don’t know this church, nor, I’m thinking do you, Angevoix and Dan. You may imagine that such a church exists, or is even common among the red state rabble. But I’ve never been there. You may have read about it. With the possible exception of Ernest Aingely, Benny Hinn and the TV types, where is this church?

With no real church to criticize, he has made one up and roundly condemns it, saying:

The position (of judgemental, fundamentalist religion as he has defined it) is remarkably self-insulating. Possessing little knowledge of or regard for the world's wealth of religious, literary, spiritual and cultural traditions, fundamentalist leaders allow themselves no concept of love or compassion but their own. They can therefore honestly say that it is out of "Christian compassion" and a sort of "tough love" for others that they seek to impose on all others their tendentiously literalized God, Bible and slant.

Do they? This is an assertion without data. My retort is “Prove it.” I have data. My data is my personal participation in worship with small country Methodist churches, downtown AME Zion churches, Pentecostal worship services, Assembly of God groups, para-church worship, ethnic and racially segregated worship, American Indian worship. I’ve been everywhere man. I never met his caricature, but I know lots of unchurched people that believe he has really nailed it. He hasn’t. He doesn’t go to church. He has his experience of evangelism, a word he bends beyond recognition, outside in nature. He’s a pantheist with some knowledge of scripture. His contempt for the church he does not know is unseemly.

All of the people I know who buy his stereotype also own Dan Brown’s best sellers! They unanimously oppose and despise a church that does not exist with a history that never happened. Duncan takes on all the stereotype abuses of the faith, from the Inquisition through the Crusades to the Republicans. What ignorance Christianity has foisted on us! What a force for evil in the world Christians have been! What a repressed, judgemental, corrupt blight on Western Civilization the church is!

This is the tone of his diatribe:

Each of these crusader groups has seen itself as fighting to make its own or some other culture "more Christian" even as it tramples the teachings of Christ into a blood-soaked earth.

He then brings Jim Wallis onstage to criticize the Bush administration’s rhetoric, which uses biblical symbolism and its horribly wrong stewardship of nature. Guilt by association, I guess. After a lot of political sniping, he then indicts all believers of all religions who take their faith and their scripture seriously, using a broad brush criticism to paint them all the color of hate.

Every fundamentalist who believes there is just one Holy Book is ignoring the fact that the Christian Bible, Quran, Torah and Vedas are each considered to be that one Book, and the God of each faith has become the Empowerer of millions of potentially violent literalists. The proponents of all four faiths consider themselves chosen, they're all armed with nuclear weapons, and the zealots of each faith are prepared to kill in defense of their chosenness.

So, David James Duncan has written an essay whose purpose it is to vilify Christians and any religious person on earth who holds closely to his scriptural understanding of life. His writing’s purpose is to vilify a villain of his own construction. He creates a monster and asks you to despise it with him. But ask Mr. Duncan to produce the specimen he dissects. He will not be able to deliver it to you. There have been historical excesses and abuses, but the church he despises exists only in the glare of his righteous distortions.

How did we get to this? Two thousand years of uninterupted attempts to follow Jesus is summarized by lifting out all the negative tableaus of Western Chrisitan history, magnifying them to make a point, then damning the faith of our fathers and his mother’s as a simplistic, neo-con distortion of Jesus' teaching. Really? The Christian people he derides took medicine to every country in the world to set up hospitals to cure the sick, created institutions to feed the hungry, programs to clothe the naked, reforms to free the captives. Slavery was abolished by Christian people, against all societal odds. Child labor laws were established. Libraries were created. Universities founded. All of Western Civilization was built, with its science, its concern for the less fortunate, its caring attitude toward the world and its people.

President Bush, who he derides as the epitome of fundamentalist religious practice has quoted the bible seven times less than his predecessor, according to Lexus Nexus. The last President quoted the bible continually, quoted scripture often, carried a large bible to wave to the crowds on Sundays and spoke at many rallies in churches from the pulpit. Bush has not done this, but he has been accused of it. The previous President was not attacked for what he did because most people knew he didn’t really mean it.

Bush mentioned once in his first campaign that Jesus was his favorite philosopher. His party provides sanctuary to Pro-Life types. He and his family know Evangelical heavy weights, like Billy Graham. The claim that he is a fundamentalist Christian is unproven by anything he has said personally, especially using the broad, damning definition used by Duncan. Why is he getting the focused heat? Because he represents the worldview ascribed to by Christians of the last Century. On the other hand, Duncan, if he is Christian at all, ascribes to the new post-modern gospel according to the Rev. Barry Lynn, the former General Counsel to the ACLU and currently the President of People United for the Separation of Church and State, an organization whose energy and resources are aimed at removing all traces of God and religion from American culture.
At 11:16 PM, July 08, 2005, Unknown said…

I apologize. My Word copy of this post had indented quotes. Blogger lost them when publishing. I'll try to add quotes, but they will seem a little unintegrated into what I wrote.
At 1:36 PM, July 10, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

Kevin,

You are certainly correct that it is a terrible thing to construct strawman arguments. It is wrong to demonize a non-existent enemy so that we hate the actual people who have been thusly demonized.

Which is one reason I'm concerned about our political leadership, which does this frequently and cynically. So, you are correct in your argument, but you need to apply it to those whom you'd support, as well as those you don't.

Having said that, I don't see too much demonization going on in this article. Yes, there is some demonization, but he also speaks a lot of truth. Or prophesizes, as the Old Testament calls it ("Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice; who makes his neighbors work for nothing, and does not give them their wages").

As to what this fella said, where is he casting aspersions that aren't valid? I've certainly been part of churches where the people didn't care to know anything about the rest of the world. They loved the world, to be sure. They wanted to send missionaries around the world to "share God's love." But it was and is a very specific take on God's love that they wish to share.

I'm not saying that any of these churches (and I've been around, too) have mean people that are wanting to do bad things. But their limited reading of God's word and their narrow interpretation of what it means to be a Christian are not necessarily good things, even if their actions are done out of a pure conscience. The road to hell, you know...

So, if you want to cite particular words he uses that are demonizing, I'd be glad to think about it.

And just a reminder to avoid strawman arguments: Duncan is NOT "vilifying christians" as you asserted. He's chastising a certain type of religious folk for not holding to Jesus' example and teachings. As he probably ought if he is correct.
At 5:00 PM, July 10, 2005, voixd'ange said…

I loved the article. Of course I didn't agree with all of it... but I still felt he had some very valid points...
I really didn't take it as being an attack on Christianity...but rather an appeal to fundamentalist to be more open. Do you think that your political differences might color how you read the article?

Coming from the Bible belt I would have to agree with this quote:
The position (of judgemental, fundamentalist religion as he has defined it) is remarkably self-insulating.... they seek to impose on all others their tendentiously literalized God, Bible and slant.My mother told me that if I had prayed I would have voted Republican!!! And my sister who is seeking to become a "Christian" counselor has not spoken to me since she imposed her politcal views on me and I had the nerve to politely disagree...I mean come on here...How narrow can you be?

Honestly, I think its an unfair assesment that Bill Clinton really didn't mean it when he spoke about spiritual issues... granted he did have his moral dilemas...but so did King David whom God said was a man after His own heart. I saw an interview of the personal assistants of the last four presidents. Only Bill Clinton took a Bible everywhere he went. I find it very disturbing that Bush does not. I have never known anyone who is truly serious about being a disciple of Christ to go anywhere overnight without their Bible...
You stated:
Bush mentioned once in his first campaign that Jesus was his favorite philosopher.
Philosopher? My Messiah? A Philospher? No. He was the Word made flesh, the Bread came down from heaven, the Holy Lamb of God... a philospher? Oh no no no no. Philosophy did not hold Jesus to the cross.
I'm kind of surprised that you mentioned Billy Graham as knowing Bush...Are you unaware of the Clintons being his guest at the opening of his last evangelistic campaign? He said that after the last time he had heard Clinton speak he told him that he wondered if he hadn't missed his true calling. He said Bill should go out and evangelize and leave Hilary to run the country... it was seen as a major endorsement for her.
And here is a quote from Billy, although albeit an old one:
"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."
Billy Graham
Parade (1981)
From what I understand his views have not changed.
What I find very disappointing is an attitude by some that people cannot be Democrats because of their spiritual convictions, rather than in spite of them. As if one party has the monopoly on morality... many times to be honest, I feel Democrats have an even stronger sense of morality because their view of morality is more than two issues...abortion and gay rights. What about poverty? What about education? What about the ever swelling prison population? What about drugs, guns and war? Aren't these moral issues as well? What about capital punishment? Where are the pro - lifers on that one? And yes... isn't ecology and good stewardship of our planet a moral issue? Most of the Democrats I know are so because of their very deep convictions over these issues...not because they are callous anti-God people who want to wipe church off the face of the earth.
As I stated before...of course I don't agree with everything the article stated...but I agreed with much of it, and was truly blessed by it.
At 6:17 PM, July 10, 2005, Constantine said…

Angevoix said,
"I have never known anyone who is truly serious about being a disciple of Christ to go anywhere overnight without their Bible..."

Ouch. Given this standard, you would think very poorly of me Angevoix.
At 7:05 PM, July 10, 2005, voixd'ange said…

Sorry C. I'm not saying it is a criteria...but it just seems really odd to me that he NEVER takes it!
At 7:35 AM, July 11, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

Thy Word have I hid in my heart. I left it out of the suitcase, though.
At 9:32 AM, July 11, 2005, Constantine said…

That's quite good Salty one. A little humorous too.

I too, Angevoix, think it a tad strange that a Fundie like W. doesn't carry around his marching orders. I guess he doesn't like to read much.
At 10:14 AM, July 11, 2005, Unknown said…

Dan,
You say our political leadership uses straw men frequently and cynically, but you don't give an example. Is this a straw man????

You said,
"I've certainly been part of churches where the people didn't care to know anything about the rest of the world. They loved the world, to be sure. They wanted to send missionaries around the world to "share God's love." But it was and is a very specific take on God's love that they wish to share."

I've met people like this, in church even, but have not found it to be the salient characteristic. Remember, Duncan is indicting the church for this as if it were rampant and thoroughly true in the church. It isn't in mine and it isn't in any church I have attended and it isn't in any parachurch organization I have attended. So, where is it?

Although missionary programs are usually quite specific in what they want to do, I don't find them to be distortions of God's love, maybe just fragmentary.

I do think he is condemning Christians of a type, which he has created, and in doing so, without softening, he is deriding Christianity itself. That was my difficulty. You could say the The Last Temptation of Christ was not damaging to the church in that it shows Jesus to be a good man, but what it did in portraying him thus is remove all divinity from him.

Angevoix,

Political glasses? Yes, I do. I walk around in a political world and a spiritual world. They impinge on each other some. I try to filter when possible.

You are right, I was hard on Clinton. Only God knows what is in his heart? His unrepentant lying for personal protection was un-Presidential and I lost faith in him as a man. As far as carrying a bible with me everywhere...I do, but I know good Christians, Constantine among them, who are obsessed by Christ. If they are carrying something else, it is always Christ that is the center of their thoughts. Anyway, the early Christians didn't carry the bible around either, and they did OK.

As far as the philosopher remark. He was asked who his favorite philosopher was. If he had been asked who His Lord and Savior was, he would have said Jesus, too. He's a legit Christian man. In his own words on the same occasion he said, "He changed my heart." Can't beat that.

I don't have any problem with Democrats being Christians, including Billy Graham. He glows in the dark. He just took George for a walk one time in Kennebunkport which George has talked about. I'm sure he has taken nearly every President for a "walk".

"What about poverty? What about education? What about the ever swelling prison population? What about drugs, guns and war? Aren't these moral issues as well? What about capital punishment? Where are the pro - lifers on that one? And yes... isn't ecology and good stewardship of our planet a moral issue?"

No question these are great issues. They aren't Democrat issues, though. Do you think Republicans don't care about poverty, education, ecology, prison populations, etc. Of course they do. They just have different ways to "solve" them. So, your politics is coloring your view a little here, too.

The real hard fact is that neither political party has the solution to the political ills of our time. That is not their job. Jesus Christ is the solution and the church is the agent of change that must step up to do its job. We can't delegate it to the political parties. They will make it all about power.
At 11:01 AM, July 11, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

Kevin said to Dan:
You say our political leadership uses straw men frequently and cynically, but you don't give an example. Is this a straw man?

No. It's not. I just thought it went without saying. But here is an example. Bush has said often:

There are people/terrorists who hate freedom.

The implication is that there are terrorists out there who hate freedom and want to take ours from us. Yuck. We don't want that! Let's stop the terrorists.

But, they don't hate freedom. They may hate our way of life or fear the threat we represent but they don't hate freedom. A strawman.

More?

Bush has also said:
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Well, I don't want to be a terrorist, so I guess I'd better be with the US and Bush. Right? Wrong. Strawman.

Shall I continue?
At 11:50 AM, July 11, 2005, voixd'ange said…

"No question these are great issues. They aren't Democrat issues, though. Do you think Republicans don't care about poverty, education, ecology, prison populations, etc. Of course they do." They just have different ways to "solve" them.

This is my point exactly...which is why I find it troubling that one party is seen as the one party for Christians... I'm not saying everyone feels that way, but many do...I've heard it said from pulpits and from individuals... What kind of day and age are we living in when the validity of a Christian's faith is measured and defined by a politcal party!?!
But I do have my doubts about the concern of those in power for the plight of the poor. When Dr. King was assasinated he was preparing to do a poor people's march on D.C.
After what he had accomplished with Civil Rights, I think he just made a few too many of the rich a powerful a tad bit too nervous... And I know this is the view of his family as well.

"The real hard fact is that neither political party has the solution to the political ills of our time. That is not their job. Jesus Christ is the solution and the church is the agent of change that must step up to do its job. We can't delegate it to the political parties. They will make it all about power. "
I agree wholeheartedly...Which is also why I feel that while our legislation should be morally sound, we can't legislate morality. Jesus never imposed Himself on anyone, He just presented the divine choice.
At 12:39 PM, July 11, 2005, Unknown said…

No, those are good.

The first is a simplification. It is sloganeering. It is true that the contrast between Fundamentalist Islam and western style democracy is between freedom and despotism. However, that slogan leaves out lots of legitimate reasons that the Jihadists have for not liking us that are not about our freedom, but about our moral license and cultural filth, our way of life as an open sewer bringing pornography, gay rights, abortion and other morally distasteful things through introduction of books, music and movies. They really see these things as morally simple and corrupting influences. Their positions are not nuanced.

The second example poses a difficulty in deciding what exactly "with us" means. This statement was issued as a warning to those who would conceal, cooperate or harbor terrorism or terrorists, as I remember. It is saying that there are two sides to this war. Choose which side you are supporting and know that we don't consider armed resistance the only way to support our enemy.

I think that you are taking it personally, Danny, which gives you no place to be a pacifist. I believe that this is extending the meaning of his words too far. They weren's said for that purpose and they don't really speak to all the complexity that they could.

So, I think "strawmen" are not involved in your examples. A strawman is the invention of an enemy or a contrary position out of whole cloth without much regard for the truth of it. There is some slight truth to the simplicity of fundamentalist Christians when they are characterized as evil, red neck bigots, I'll grant. But you know Kentucky people. They aren't evil, they are just simple.
At 12:43 PM, July 11, 2005, Unknown said…

Exactly, Angevoix. So, Christianity which leads to theocracy, which is what is feared by some, is NOT CHRISTIANITY.

James Earl Raye was not a rich guy, nor did he represent them. He was a racist cracker with something to prove. MLK's family has said some very strange things in the last few years about who killed MLK. They see a conspiracy which doesn't have significant evidence...yet. We'll see.
At 2:58 PM, July 11, 2005, Anonymous said…

I tend to trust the King family because of their relationship with my pastor and our church. They have been incredibly supportive of our pastor and church...so I am admittedly and unashamedly biased.
At 3:01 PM, July 11, 2005, voixd'ange said…

Okay, so I don't know why my last comment posted as anonymous...but it was mine....angevoix.
At 3:40 PM, July 11, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

You say simplification, I say strawman.

dictionary.com
"An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated."

Calling "them" terrorists, saying they hate or fear our freedom, suggesting to countries that don't support Bush are supporting terrorists, all sound like they're rhetorical devices set up so as to be easily defeated. Strawman arguments.

Your simple-minded Kentuckian friend.
At 4:06 PM, July 11, 2005, Unknown said…

Angevoix,

I'm just a little shy when it comes to conspiracy theories, no matter the source. The Kings are probably wonderful people. They come from great stock.
At 5:13 PM, July 11, 2005, voixd'ange said…

Honestly, I am too, but it has taken me nearly all of my 41 years to learn that the human capacity for willful evil acts can far exceed my expectations and/or imagination. I think the inability or reluctance to beleive the worst of people reflects positively on the person who is disinclined to do so. Its hard for people with a tender conscience to beleive the extremities to which those without conscience will go. We tend to think that things that are unthinkable for us are unthinkable for others as well... unfortunately this is not the case. It is estimated that 1 out of every 25 people are without conscience, and are in fact sociopaths...I think I have met some of them....
At 6:39 PM, July 11, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

Not joining in any other conspiracy theories just now, but King was increasingly unpopular in DC because of his strong stand against warmaking in general and the Viet Nam War in particular.

Another reason why some of us find Bush going to visit King's cemetery on King's birthday last year was especially irritating. Just as Jesus say in the Bible: You honor the dead prophets and saints once they're longdead, but when they're here, you'll have nothing to do with them.
Jesus' words continue to ring true.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'...You snakes!"
At 9:19 AM, July 12, 2005, Unknown said…

I think that MLK, like Mother Theresa, is an icon. We all love them for what they have done and who they are. It is no dishonor to their memory that we didn't agree with every position they took on all subjects. It just shows that we are human. There isn't just one way to be human. The conversation between Jesus and the good thief on the cross is instructive and so compassionate. Jesus knew the sins of these two. One recognized who he was, which is a great argument for "election" if I ever saw one. (the one without conscience, no doubt, Angevoix.) MLK showed us the meaning of peaceful protest. His powerful testimony is proof of the strength of Christ's message.

Incidently, Dan. I decided this morning that I no longer support the death penalty. In fact I oppose it. I was a reluctant supporter anyway. Nice to get off the fence.
At 11:54 AM, July 13, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

I'm glad you've changed your position on the death penalty.

As to your comment, "It is no dishonor to their memory that we didn't agree with every position they took on all subjects."...

Perhaps.

But why, then, does Jesus blast the pharisees and others so viciously hard (you hypocrites! You snakes! etc) for honoring the memory of the prophets that their actual and spiritual ancestors killed?

Loin Girders

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

24 Comments:

Previous Posts