What is the opposite of fundamentalist?
Submitted by Forgiven on 2002-06-9 09:22:00, Sunday
|
After our recent flame war elsewhere, and its overspill here, this is a question I want to raise. There is a very cynical definition that suggests that being a fundamentalist is about believing things other than the prevailing orthodoxy of the world to the extent of living differently as a result. Thus the 911 hijackers and the Palestinian bombers believe that they have been striking a blow for Islam and would go straight to paradise. Whereas on the whole the modern church tends not to actually expect its members to live significantly differently from the way of the world. Therefore the moment we raise the possibility that we should as a result of our beliefs, we are dismissed as 'fundamentalists'. In my own case being 'blessed(?)' with an Age of Attraction that is above the age of consent in my jurisdiction, I could go out and find myself a cute 16 y.o. That I don't is primarily driven by my belief that it would be wrong before God. Does that make me a fundamentalist? Another way of looking at it is that being a fundamentalist is to claim that things are objectively the case; that God has a clear view on an issue that can be known, is really true and perhaps is best for society as well. Note that this does embrace secular fundamentalism with its beliefs about the proper role of the church in society and school, where the US constitution at times plays the role of the holy scriptures! I guess my question is aimed at AI - what does he see as a legitimate role for the church if he regards my position is wholly unacceptable? On what grounds does he reject it? Can the church ever speak to the society it is in to challenge it (e.g. slavery?). |
Follow ups: