Inherently Violent

The title page to the 1611 first edition of th...
Image via Wikipedia

It started here. Christian liked the post. Jim wouldn’t. Jason didn’t like Jim’s response.

Let me say it like this. Any interpretative system which denies the text’s liberality is inherently violent.

What Jason is describing, for him, is Fundamentalism. What he is describing for me is the model Christian behavior, but for the life of me, of all the fundamentalists that I’ve seen – except for that dust up about Catholics and heaven – only Jason and one other dear person has ever, of all the fundamentalists that I have known in my life, shown what he is talking about. I cannot really call Jason a Fundamentalist, although his position may be about holding to the fundamentals of the faith – but so is mine and so is Christian’s and so is Jim’s, but we aren’t Fundamentalists. Instead, today’s fundamentalists are inherently violent because their interpretative method is inherently violent. They take the Scriptures and insist that one interpretative method is the only inspired methodology – and it is there. Note for example the trend in current examination of the OT. Does ‘sodomites’ (KJV) really mean homosexuals?

And what if it didn’t? Would fundamentalists (whether you capitalize the f or not) change their position?

Or the matter of Genesis 1? The text – not science – is being shown not to speak to material Creation. What about the backlash by YECers? Their violence to the text amounts to regicide.

What Jason is describing is not Fundamentalism, but Christianity. I do not think Jason and Phelps or Jones are the same. Far, far different, as a matter of fact. And yes, I can hear my Atheist friend saying that what I am saying of Jason is what he says of me and other Christians. You cannot simply capitalize a letter or cast aspersions upon other group similar to your own and expect us to see the difference. True, and maybe so, but the fact remains is that the interpretative method which you choose will eventually shape your Christianity. Further, unless you become louder than those who are so similar to you in doctrine and practice, then you will continue to be confused with them – and if they are considered evil, you will be considered evil.

I don’t think Jason is evil – nor those things which he holds dear.

But, what about your belief system?

Does it do violence to the text? How soon then, will that violence eat at you like a cancer?

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

5 Replies to “Inherently Violent”

  1. Admittedly I agree with both you and Jason on this. I love that he approached Fundamentalism from the traditional sense, describing what it *actually* is instead of how it’s been twisted in modern fundamentalism.

    I think that modern fundamentalism is more akin to strict literalism where the mythos of scripture is cast aside, instead relying on a post-Enlightenment viewpoint based in “exactitude”.

  2. Back’s against the wall with a deadline, so I can’t respond. Stay tuned to my blog and http://re-fundamentals.org for the long haul. Hopefully you’ll see the difference between historic Fundamentalism and Independent Fundamentalist Baptist e-Xtremism.
    By the way, I don’t think YEC is necessarily part and parcel of historic Fundamentalism.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.