|
Debate on fundamentals
One
Man's Web > Debate Debate on fundamentals
-----Original Message-----
From: D.......
Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2001 6:37 AM
To: Jan Thomas
Cc: ......
Subject: reply
It is obvious that you have little understanding what
"fundamentalism" is other than something you abhor. You go to great
lengths to put it down. There is little evidence of research. You come to quick
conclusions. There are many of us who do not use the term fundamentalism, but
prefer to be called traditionalists or conservatives. If you call yourself
open-minded or liberal, then you must accept different forms of theology, and
not only what you personally believe in. To be truly diverse, we must be open to
many viewpoints and not accept some and put down the rest. Too much of the
church is based on assumptions not based on anything. Some time ago, we had
differences around the area of family violence. I would much rather follow the
beliefs of those who have taken the time to look up research in this area
instead of following the notions of "violence towards women". These
things are far different when true research is used instead of following the
notion that radical feminists would have us believe. You wanted a reply, so here
it is.
[from] D......
Dear D......,
I am sorry I do not know what part of the site you were reading as I have not
yet been able to code the reply links to indicate the page people have responded
to. I can only suggest you go to fundamentalism.html
which is a researched and documented essay if you think there is no evidence of
research on my part. I could also suggest you read at length such texts to see
some of the heresy that is Fundamentalism.
Alves R. Protestantism and Repression (SCM 1985) ,
Barr J. Fundamentalism (SCM 1978),
Barr J. Escaping From Fundamentalism (SCM 1984),
Barr J. Explorations in Theology 7 (SCM 1980)
Having come out of
Fundamentalism, and as a pastor in a church where Fundamentalism is often a
problem, I think I am aware of its nature.
You say "are many of us who do not use the term fundamentalism, but prefer
to be called traditionalists or conservatives. " I would wonder with
Shakespeare(?) if often a "rose by any other name smells the same." I
used to be keen to make a distinction between my 'evangelicalism' and the
fundamentalists, but in the end decided that in fact my presuppositions were the
same as fundamentalism! The link above outlines this similarity of
presuppositions I discovered within myself. This may well not be the case for
you; however, I find that where I need to draw the distinction between myself
and some position I am misunderstood to hold, there are sometimes uncomfortable
similarities. The door is open for you to make neat reply about the similarities
you see between me and others here! :-)
You say "If you call yourself open-minded or liberal, then you must accept
different forms of theology, and not only what you personally believe in."
How is it that conservative theology uses this as a defence for its own views,
but does not want to allow those of us who are liberal to speak, or to criticise
it!
You say also, "To be truly diverse.... and not accept some and put down the
rest." You have said nothing about what pages you were reading, and offered
no rebuttals, but simply attacked the site. With respect, I find in discussions
with conservative theology that this kind of statement means conservatives can
say what they like and liberals should remain silent. This may not be underlying
your letter, and I apologise if you feel unjustly interpreted here. However, in
a long series of arguments I observed on another list, it was interesting to
note how often the conservative side called for tolerance of their views, could
not accept criticism and would not accept that more liberal views were also
acceptable. The liberal side at least began by stating their experience and
opinions as just one side of the argument. Why is it that countless
theologically conservative sites can say quite harsh things about we liberals,
but there is such strong reaction when the liberals state their position?
Regarding family violence you say you "would much rather follow the beliefs
of those who have taken the time to look up research in this area instead of
following the notions of "violence towards women." and "These
things are far different when true research is used instead of following the
notion that radical feminists would have us believe." Would it be more
honest to say that you feel research that differs from your point of view is by
definition incorrect and invalid and not "true" research. I am well
aware that some so called feminist research is invalid, as is some pro-male
research. That does not mean it is wrong by definition.
By the way, in the area of our site called Conversations there is deliberately
not a research, chapter, page and verse approach. It is trying to reproduce some
of the 'round a coffee' discussions of a group of people. As you know, in that
situation, people are simply talking and exploring, not having an academic
footnoted debate.
Grace and Peace,
Jan Thomas
This was the reply Jan
received:
I would like to
say that I would hope what I say not be taken personally. I am reacting to your
using "fundamentalism" in a pejorative sense, meant to put down and
demean. I also note much generalizations. Reading a few books,
some quoted by your does not make one an expert in this field. Are these
books free from bias and conflicts of interest? There is a great difference
between "fundamentalism" and conservatism. These are words that have
many meanings and the subject is anything but simple. In the area that I live
there are many people from Holland who are of the Reformed faith.
They are
excellent scholars and have founded many Universities and colleges. One of them
is Hope College in Holland Michigan in the US. They would reject simplistic
erroneous views traditional Christianity. They would be very critical of people
who are very dismissive of evangelical Christianity because for the wrong
reasons. They would also be critical of people who stupidly conjure up reasons
to put it down. Bishop James Shelby Spong wrote a book entitled "Rescuing
the Bible from Fundamentalists". Now it is known in it's truer meaning as
"Rescuing the Bible from Bishop Spong. Bishop Spong is a retired Anglican
Bishop from New Jersey. He is active in "Jesus Seminars" which have
many problems and can easily be proven erroneous. From an objective viewpoint,
not only is so called liberalism a problem but also so called feminist theology
which is so strongly tied up with it. Problems
centre around
worship of the goddess, and worship of Sophia. Many of the women in these
movements are man-haters. Men are made to feel left out of it. Christianity
becomes "feminised".
From another
viewpoint, I admire your views on fatherhood. I strongly support fathers rights.
In contemporary feminism, many divorced and separated women seek to gain custody
and balk at their children seeing their father. Of course courts will set up
very high support payments, but access
by fathers is
often overlooked. The minister of Justice in Canada is balking at putting into
effect the law that says children have a right to see and visit their father.
Similar to
fathers rights, I support strongly the concept that children need both parents.
Too many liberals support same sex marriages where a child is denied right to a
parent, mainly a father. They forget that a mother cannot be a father and
vice-versa. I also support marriages where couples try to work out problems and
don't seek a divorce. Of course there are exceptions where abuse exists. I don't
know the situation in Australia, but in North America we have a divorce culture.
Dr. Judith Wallerstein from the
University of
California recently wrote a book know as "The Unexpected Legacy of
Divorce". Children often have little say in these matters. Children are
often neglected and are supposed to eventually recover which they do not. I
strongly think we go to divorce way too fast without trying to work out the
problems in marriages. Regarding research by women as opposed to research by
men, there is no such thing. Either impeccable research methods are used with
proper research designs or the research is
bogus. Bogus
research so prominent in radical feminist research is being discovered more and
more.
Men's Business Mud
Map Theology Studies Conversations
Thinking Where I Live
Sermons Mark Politics
Words Computing Jan's
Links Fundamentalism
Sexuality
in the Uniting Church Replies,
Responses, Debate Latest
Pages
© Jan Thomas
|