.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Sahlin, Monte
2012
|
Fundamentalism Can Lead to Heresy
Submitted: Sep 1, 2012
By Monte Sahlin
Many Christians tend to believe that if one sticks to the more conservative, fundamental position on any question, that path leads to the correct understanding, interpretation or behavior in God’s eyes. Fundamentalist faith is appealing precisely because it seems to be safe, where more progressive or liberal religion is dangerous because it may lead to things beyond the pale.
Then along comes the strange case of 16 fundamentalist Amish in Ohio currently on trial for violent attacks on Amish neighbors and relatives they consider too liberal. The group formed because “they wanted to lead more conservative lives.” They claim they were motivated by good intentions, that the people they attacked had strayed from the true Amish way and needed to be brought “back into the fold.”
Several attacks were carried out in the fall of 2011 in a rural region around Steubenville, Ohio. In each case men and women, some of them elderly, were held down and their beards or hair cut. This is an act that is deeply offensive to the Amish, who believe that the Bible instructs women to let their hair grow long and men to grow beards and stop shaving once they are married.
The attacks were instigated by Sam Mullet Sr., a self-appointed Amish religious leader. The goal was to send a message to other Amish that they should be ashamed of themselves for not being more deeply serious about their faith. He has described the targets of the attacks as “Amish hypocrites.”
A typical incident, as described in court documents, involved twelve men and women who arrived at the home of farmer and his wife at 10:30 p.m. on September 6. The group dragged the man to a chair and cut his beard down to the skin as he cried and screamed for them to stop. Five of the women grabbed the woman and cut off two feet of her hair as she prayed for God to forgive them. The middle-aged couple had bruises and cuts from the attack.
On October 4 a group of 25 went to the home of a 76-year-old Amish bishop and conducted a similar attack. His “sin” was that he refused to endorse a request by Mullet to shun people who fled his group. In some of these attacks, adult children were sent to attack their own parents.
Defense attorneys for the 16 admit that what happened is “domestic violence.” They argue that it is just “a feud over church discipline,” not religious persecution as the prosecutors charge. In other words, they do not contest the violent behavior that the group is accused of. Remember, this is a group that is trying to more faithful to a religion that has pacifism as one of its core doctrines.
The important lesson for Seventh-day Adventists and other conservative Christians is this: Fundamentalism has led these Amish to transgress a core doctrine in an effort to be more conservative about their faith. Fundamentalism is a distortion of true faith that leads to heresy. In fact, in this case it has led to the violation of many other basic Bible teachings. Being too conservative can lead one to actually be unfaithful to the very thing that one is attempting to be more faithful about.
Members of Mullet’s group have taken the stand and revealed really shocking things about his misguided attempt to purify the Amish. He had adult members spank one another with thick wooden paddles. He confined “sinners” in chicken coops for days at a time. He forced the young wives of some of his members to sleep with him to provide “marriage counseling.” He labeled has heretics anyone who questioned his decisions or pronouncements.
It is easy to think that this could never happen among Adventists. But, then, I have only to mention what happened in Waco. Extremism in the defense of “truth” can lead to vice. It is easy to see how one can become too liberal and lose touch with core doctrines. It may come as a shock to some to discover that it is equally possible to become too conservative and end up in the same place.
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
Now: when have liberals resorted to persecuting other Christians? Their attitude is usually "live and let live" and are far more tolerant than the conservative fundamentalists. When, in history, have liberals resorted to burning people at the stake and punishing in other ways? Intolerance and religion too often go hand in hand.
Hmmm. Sounds like a reminder that it is not the person who is accused of heresy whom we need to fear, but the ones accusing others of heresy or deviation from "truth."
Very good analogy with the Amish. Another recent example is that Imam in Pakistan, who framed a 14-year old Christian girl by tearing out pages of the Koran and scattering them in with other pages of rubbish from the Christian family. But the true irony is the Imam himself is being charged with blasphemy, because in order to frame the Christian girl he himself tore out the pages of the Koran to do so, which in itself is a blasphemy.
Another one of those articles! It seems Atoday is hellbent on damning those it feels are conservative.What is the definition of fundamental? Is it possible to be fundamentally liberal?
The Oxford dictionary defines 'fundamentalist' as 'a person who upholds strictly or literal interpretation of traditional religious beliefs.'
I guess it depends on what means by 'strict' and 'traditional'. I am sure there are certain Christian and Adventist-Christian sub-cultures who have a certain 'tradition', which they adhere to quite strictly. That tradition might be to go to a restaurant for Sabbath lunch every second Sabbath of the month (which in my own Adventist sub-culture would be quite a no-no even for 'liberals').
The Sadducees certainly had a hold bunch of traditions, which they adhered to quite strictly, given they were the priestly elite. However, they were certainly very 'liberal' in the sense that they denied core beliefs, such as the Resurrection.
We had a very interesting discussion in our SS lesson the other week at my 'liberal' Church. Someone made the point that we often mock conservatives for following 'tradition' (such as 3 hymns and a prayer) without realizing we are busy making our own traditions at the same time.
That's your definition of "no-no" as liberal? Oh, my. Where I live and have lived in Southern California, it was a day when many SDAs gathered at a nice restaurant to enjoy a leisurely meal; or there would be a potluck at the church following church.
Now tell me, which is considered "conservative" and which is "liberal" if not confined to geography or local custom?
Cultures are more complex than the stereotypes, and the various sub-cultures within Adventism no different. The danger is we start trying to impose our own cultural values on everyone else as if they are biblical values. I believe Hudson Taylor's battle with English missionaries is case in point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Taylor
I once asked the audience in a Sermon I was taking where in the Bible is the recipe for glutten steaks, or where it says you should wear a suit and tie when Jesus wore a dress? You could say not everyone was well pleased with the message.
There is no reason why fundamentalism has to be associated with conservatives rather than liberals, but it usually is. Some have identified certain scientists as 'liberal fundamentalists', but they are in fact deeply conservative in that they want to preserve a certain way of seeing science against those who want to change that. A 'liberal fundamentalist' is at heart a deeply conservative liberal, frustrated by other liberals who make compromises with 'the enemy'. A useful destinction is to make a two-way axis: consevative - liberal and open minded - closed minded. It is the second axis that defines a fundamentalist. Despite what many think, the majority of SDAs have historically been open-minded whether conservative or liberal. The minority - from both sides - do often make enough noise to drown out the voices of the rest.
Writing about end time events she says:
"And at that time the superficial, CONSERVATIVE class whose influence has steacily retarded the progress of the work will renounce the faith and take their stand with its avowed enemies, toward whom their sympahties have long been tending."
Her definition of conservative is far different from yours. Who are superficial modern day conservatives or liberals? Who are more in good books with adventists "avowed enemies" conservatives or liberals? Who are more likely to renounce their faith conservatives or liberals?
Really, Tapiwa?
Your prescience in so certainly knowing not only what Ellens personal definition is/was/will be-and what she intended to convey-without regard to context-followed by your equally bold assertion you know Donna is using a somehow illicit or inferior definition (because you cannot perhaps permit it to fit in your rigid fundamentalism?) Please tell us what YOUR personal belief of the meaning is-without using your re-interpretation of someone elses words. This may prove most telling, if you care to so dare, although I suspect that the terms are mutually exclusive in your dictionary. Really, who could believe that Ellen-and Donna, and many of the contributors here could honestly think that a conservative is anything but perfect in doctrine, zeal, action, intent?
Again, you take bold license. *DEEP SIGH*.
Again another commenter on Atoday who postures himself as victim, and lashes out.
Indeed, "Hellbent on damning"....I'd suggest you can only recognize something in the other when you have tried to blind yourself to the same foible within. It sems as far as you are concerned, you would damn every non-fundamental conservative who dares disagree with you to hell, and smugly wipe the dust from your church shoes. I really believe Jesus taught us a little different community, but I may be be wrong, especially as I am perceived to be not your brand of conservatism.
The whole conservative vs liberal is a western construct. I do not belong to a particular brand of conservatism. I look at issues on their own merit regardless of who is saying them. I look at context and usage when looking at definitions. Are you suggesting Ellen White was privy to the who whole modern Conservatives vs Liberals construct as we know it today?
Not unsurprising you believe yourself superior to such a contemptible thing as a "western consruct" Tapiwa. Elitism fairly drips from your pen. I'm also quite certain-given your clear bias against the liberals you love to berate-and your posturing as a poor conservative that you wish to posture as if the church proper-and publications such as this one-are your enemy that your disavowal is uterly disengenuous, and you have defacto self-declared belonging to conservatism-despite the sudden duck and cover of a 'certain brand' of it.
Fascinating that you claim self privy to Donna and Ellens personal definitions-and use them to bolster your own flexible reinterpretation-but you neither make your beliefs clear and known nor answer the question-and dare ask a confounding and trick question of whether i believe Ellen (she was a prophet, afterall! ;) might have been privy to a future "western construct". Are you suggesting she did not recognize this, given Donna's appropriate quote?
I will entertain your previous interogatory-and answer that the conservatives sure seem to be the ones who quickly renounce the faith of anyone not deemed by them a conservative-whether of a particular "brand" or not.
Your posts are disappointing to say the least. I do not believe myself superior to anyone and these attacks are testament that you do not have any counter arguments but have resorted to castigating me. You are not even answering the questions I asked you. I never attacked Donna I simply diagreed with the context in which she used the quotation. It seems you have run out of ideas and are attempting character assasination Which Is the irony really " liberals usually claim that conservatives do not have logical arguments and always attack peoples character" By that definition you are basically a stereotypical strawman conservative! LOL.
Elaine once said people should always question the status quo. I am questioning the liberal status quo and you resort to dishonesty and misrepresantation. I am yet to be shown on this site where I am illogical or irrational or inconsistent. It seems you have a lot of double standards.
Let me not let you change distract the conversation. Please answer the question
Was Ellen Whites definition of conservative the same as the one which is used today? This time just try to answer the question without ad hominen attacks!
In the quote above by Ellen White it seems this could be the current tribe of liberals who grew up in the church and left because their ultra conservative upbringing left a sour flavor of tofu on their palate or tramatized due to the lock on the swimming pool gate....
BTW A4H, God neither placed the lock on the pool; man did thatby himself, acting as if he were God, and about that spoiled manna you serve, perhaps you ought serve his people the fresh, and not theoldy day old stuff. That is if you believe Jesus question of Peter has any relevance individually today. Do you love Me, He asked. Then feed my people".
But perhaps its easier to believe in your enemies, and draw your circle smaller than to try love anyone who might not quite buy your pig in a poke. I am neither your, nor Tapiwa's enemy, despite inferences. And perhaps am less progressive-and not afraid to say it!
The article does not critizise conservatives. From the perspective of anyone outside the Amish community, everyone who lives there would qualify as conservative, yet the Amish way of life was not on the receiving end of Montes article. What was critiziced was fundamentalism, and rightly so. Where a conservative would lead his life in accordance with the scriptures (and in the case of Adventists, EGW), and work to persuade others to do the same by example and preaching, a fundamentalist would work to force others to live in accordance with his (the fundamentalists) view of what the scripture teaches and burn the figgurative cross on the lawn of each who fails to do so. Not the same at all.
Isn't it interesting how selective we are about the ways in which we bookmark and highlight events by which we learn/ignore the lessons that life and history would teach us?
Is this really the natural outgrowth of the Amish faith, or simply the pathological manifestation of sincerely practiced piety twisted by a disturbed mind into evil, brutal fanaticism? Ideological communalism, bound together by a charismatic leader, is, it seems to me, more to blame for incidents like this than philosophical beliefs which are defined and located along an ideological fault line. Liberals look very conservative once they gain power, and conservatives have lots of liberal ideas when they are a beleaguered minority.
Blaming conservatism for Sam Mullet is like blaming conservatism for Jared Loughner, or blaming liberalism for Floyd Lee Corkins (Why do most of you have no idea who Floyd Lee Corkins is?) - or even blaming the workplace for people like Nidal Hasan (lol). In fact, since the Amish victims are themselves extremely strict by our standards, perhaps we should simply write them off as natural victims of their own conservatism - a self-inflicted wound on the Amish community.
We could perhaps more profitably and credibly indict gender for incidents like this. After all, isn't it always men who are at the center of these types of incidents. Yes, I think we are ignoring the elephant in the room. Obviously, much work remains to be done in purging masculinity from the hormones and psyches of American males.
Perhaps we would do best to remember the paraphrased words of Solzhenitsyn: "The dividing line between good and evil does not run along political, ideological, or religious fault lines. No, that line line runs through the center of every human heart." This reality should make us very humble about the hidden and dark destinations towards which our most cherished beliefs might lead, given the right catalysts.
I am thankful I beleive in the Lord Jesus Christ My Savior and he loved me enough to die to save me. In His eyes I have no other label other than I am His child and I am of value to Him.
I was trying to interject a bit of humor, very little I admit. If ya'll's spring sprung there would be nothing left. Loosen up and smile just a little, even if it's by yourself in a room with the door closed. Our God is a serious God, but I am confident he has a wonderful sense of humor, in the purest sense. Oh, if we could learn to laugh at ourselves and our mindless chatter on subjects. When it boils down to it, we really don't have a clue. Thankfully, we have Hope, Faith, Love and Assurance God loves each of us were we are at any given moment in our lives. Amen and Amen!
May God richly bless each and everyone of you and keep you alive and well. May we continue to love one another and allow his spirit to reveal his truth to us. After all we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free. So lets keep discussing and reevaluting ourselves and our belief systems to see if we be in the faith.
The reason why I came on this site was to test my belief system and see whether its true and consistent and true. Special shout out to Stephen Fergusson who to me is the most systematic and logical ''liberal'' I have encoutered. Kevin and Nathan are not far behind. To the agnostic and atheists out there happy sabbath oops sorry, happy..............hmmm............... unbelief. Lol
King regards
Tapiwa Mushaninga
because it is their religious belief.
When was the last time he promoted on the WWW the 3 Angels message, the science of the cross of salvation, truth of the state of the dead, the 2nd Advent, the beauty of the Sanctuary Doctrine or the beauty of the Sabbath or joy and blessings in the SOP? Just asking....
This blog is to ask questions and initiate conversations among those who are informed about Adventism and the church today. If they are irrelevant, there is always the delete button for those who find no interest in a particular article. They change regularly and frequently are important to some, but not all visitors.