“Fundamentalism” of the Left
May 9, 2012
Comments
I put “fundamentalism” in scare quotes to distinguish its use here from its proper, historical-theological use. It’s proper historical-theological use has to do with the movement of conservative Protestants to oppose theological liberalism in denominations and seminaries (etc.) that arose in the early 20th century and with its various manifestations past and present. In that proper sense, there is NO “fundamentalism of the left.”
However, many people (including yours truly occasionally) use “fundamentalism” to designate a certain mindset and style of argumentation especially within religious circles. That is, it is often used in popular speech (what the Germans call Umgangsprache) to designate an ethos exhibited by individuals or groups. That ethos is usually understood to include a very black-and-white view of complicated issues, a tendency to absolutize doctrinal and moral beliefs most people would consider secondary (at best), and a tendency to use almost any means to oppose, marginalize, silence opponents’ views.
Let me be clear: I do NOT think most “real fundamentalists” (in the historical-theological sense) are “fundamentalists” in the popular ethos sense. Somehow or other, the label was drawn from the historical-theological phenomenon and applied to a certain mentality and pattern of behavior discernible across the spectrum of theological (and sometimes political) views.
I wish there were a different label for mean-spirited religious absolutism. But perhaps one has to go with the flow of language and accept that “fundamentalism” is now widely understood in that sense. That is the sense I mean here when I speak about a “fundamentalism of the left.”
I have been around Christian people and organizations all of my life. I’ve been peripatetic in that regard–having been involved in religious organizations of many different kinds: Pentecostal, charismatic, “mainline” liberal, moderate, fundamentalist, etc. I have observed that some self-identified liberals (theologically, socially, politically) can be just as “fundamentalist” in the popular-ethos sense as extreme conservatives.
One area where this is apparent is the debate over homosexuality among Christians. There are “fundamentalists” on both sides–among those who oppose normalizing of homosexuality (religiously, ethically, socially, politically) and among those who promote it.
I attended a meeting of a professional society of theologians at which the president of the society took opportunity to stand before the diverse members (conservative Protestants, Catholics, liberal Protestants, etc.) to pass around a declaration about homosexuality for signatures. He more than implied that to decline to sign the pro-gay declaration, which would be disseminated in the name of the society, would be the moral equivalent of racism. He knew full well that some present, including most of the Catholics professors of theology, would lose their jobs if they signed the declaration. In my opinion, at that moment, that professional society president was behaving in a fundamentalist manner (in the ethos sense). This is just one example of what I call “fundamentalism of the left.”
Of course, such “fundamentalist” behavior is common among those who oppose homosexuality including equal rights for gay people. But we hear about that all the time.
It is almost impossible to talk or write about homosexuality without being given the “fundamentalist treatment” by people on one or both sides of the issue.
Not long ago I wrote a column advocating civil unions for any two adults. I argued that “marriage,” being a religious institution, should be left to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations. I was vilified by people on both sides of the homosexuality debate. For many gay rights advocates, that’s not enough. For many anti-gay activists that’s too big a concession.
Recently I have been called an “anti-gay activist” for no other reason than that I argued (here) that IF homosexuality is biological/genetic, which I suspect it is, that does not settle the issue of the moral status of homosexual behavior. I used pedophilia as an example of something that MAY BE biological/genetic that nobody would argue is morally right. I most certainly was NOT comparing homosexuality with pedophilia MORALLY. To say that I was is to demonstrate intellectual weakness or dishonesty. I MIGHT be completely in favor of normalizing homosexuality morally, socially and politically AND STILL argue that science cannot settle the issue morally. Nothing I wrote gave any indication of where I stand on the moral status of homosexuality.
And yet, one visitor here posted to his blog that I compared homosexuality with pedophilia. That’s ridiculous. The only comparison I drew was that both MIGHT BE biologically/genetically determined (as predispositions). That says nothing at all, whatsoever, about my moral estimation of them. That was simply and purely description and not at all prescription. The ONLY prescription I was making was against science being viewed as the arbiter of morality.
All one has to do to experience the “fundamentalism of the left” is tiptoe into the mine field that is the debate over homosexuality. One cannot even make non-prescriptive claims (such as that science cannot settle the morality of the issue) without risking vilification.
Select Comments
Charles Kinnaird says:
I put “fundamentalism” in scare quotes to distinguish its use here from its proper, historical-theological use. It’s proper historical-theological use has to do with the movement of conservative Protestants to oppose theological liberalism in denominations and seminaries (etc.) that arose in the early 20th century and with its various manifestations past and present. In that proper sense, there is NO “fundamentalism of the left.”
However, many people (including yours truly occasionally) use “fundamentalism” to designate a certain mindset and style of argumentation especially within religious circles. That is, it is often used in popular speech (what the Germans call Umgangsprache) to designate an ethos exhibited by individuals or groups. That ethos is usually understood to include a very black-and-white view of complicated issues, a tendency to absolutize doctrinal and moral beliefs most people would consider secondary (at best), and a tendency to use almost any means to oppose, marginalize, silence opponents’ views.
Let me be clear: I do NOT think most “real fundamentalists” (in the historical-theological sense) are “fundamentalists” in the popular ethos sense. Somehow or other, the label was drawn from the historical-theological phenomenon and applied to a certain mentality and pattern of behavior discernible across the spectrum of theological (and sometimes political) views.
I wish there were a different label for mean-spirited religious absolutism. But perhaps one has to go with the flow of language and accept that “fundamentalism” is now widely understood in that sense. That is the sense I mean here when I speak about a “fundamentalism of the left.”
I have been around Christian people and organizations all of my life. I’ve been peripatetic in that regard–having been involved in religious organizations of many different kinds: Pentecostal, charismatic, “mainline” liberal, moderate, fundamentalist, etc. I have observed that some self-identified liberals (theologically, socially, politically) can be just as “fundamentalist” in the popular-ethos sense as extreme conservatives.
One area where this is apparent is the debate over homosexuality among Christians. There are “fundamentalists” on both sides–among those who oppose normalizing of homosexuality (religiously, ethically, socially, politically) and among those who promote it.
I attended a meeting of a professional society of theologians at which the president of the society took opportunity to stand before the diverse members (conservative Protestants, Catholics, liberal Protestants, etc.) to pass around a declaration about homosexuality for signatures. He more than implied that to decline to sign the pro-gay declaration, which would be disseminated in the name of the society, would be the moral equivalent of racism. He knew full well that some present, including most of the Catholics professors of theology, would lose their jobs if they signed the declaration. In my opinion, at that moment, that professional society president was behaving in a fundamentalist manner (in the ethos sense). This is just one example of what I call “fundamentalism of the left.”
Of course, such “fundamentalist” behavior is common among those who oppose homosexuality including equal rights for gay people. But we hear about that all the time.
It is almost impossible to talk or write about homosexuality without being given the “fundamentalist treatment” by people on one or both sides of the issue.
Not long ago I wrote a column advocating civil unions for any two adults. I argued that “marriage,” being a religious institution, should be left to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations. I was vilified by people on both sides of the homosexuality debate. For many gay rights advocates, that’s not enough. For many anti-gay activists that’s too big a concession.
Recently I have been called an “anti-gay activist” for no other reason than that I argued (here) that IF homosexuality is biological/genetic, which I suspect it is, that does not settle the issue of the moral status of homosexual behavior. I used pedophilia as an example of something that MAY BE biological/genetic that nobody would argue is morally right. I most certainly was NOT comparing homosexuality with pedophilia MORALLY. To say that I was is to demonstrate intellectual weakness or dishonesty. I MIGHT be completely in favor of normalizing homosexuality morally, socially and politically AND STILL argue that science cannot settle the issue morally. Nothing I wrote gave any indication of where I stand on the moral status of homosexuality.
And yet, one visitor here posted to his blog that I compared homosexuality with pedophilia. That’s ridiculous. The only comparison I drew was that both MIGHT BE biologically/genetically determined (as predispositions). That says nothing at all, whatsoever, about my moral estimation of them. That was simply and purely description and not at all prescription. The ONLY prescription I was making was against science being viewed as the arbiter of morality.
All one has to do to experience the “fundamentalism of the left” is tiptoe into the mine field that is the debate over homosexuality. One cannot even make non-prescriptive claims (such as that science cannot settle the morality of the issue) without risking vilification.
Select Comments
Charles Kinnaird says:Roger – you are right about there being “liberal fundamentalists.” These days it takes wisdom and patience to engage in healthy discourse and dialogue. I also agree with the concept of civil unions and marriage for which you were vilified from both sides. In the past I have argued that the court house should only provide a license for civil unions and leave the authority to grant marriage licenses to churches, synagogues, etc. That way, any couple wishing a religious marriage would have to bring a civil union legal document from the court house (as they are now required to bring a marriage license form the court house). That way, any committed couple, gay or straight, could acquire a legal document for their civil union and all the rights that go along with it. The church where the wedding ceremony is being preformed would then grant a marriage license to the couple that had already procured a civil union license. It would also allow any church to refuse to grant a marriage license for those unions it does not want to bless. That way, the law and the government have what they need and the church does not have to compromise its beliefs.
I find it interesting that way back in 2004, both presidential candidates – George W. Bush and John Kerry – publicly advocated very similar positions for the right for civil unions to be granted to gay couples so that they could enjoy the same legal benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. For those who may not remember Bush’s stance on civil unions, go to:
I find it interesting that way back in 2004, both presidential candidates – George W. Bush and John Kerry – publicly advocated very similar positions for the right for civil unions to be granted to gay couples so that they could enjoy the same legal benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. For those who may not remember Bush’s stance on civil unions, go to:
Very interesting! I had forgotten that Bush advocated that. The one area where you and I may disagree is whether churches and synagogues (etc.) need to see a civil union license before performing a marriage ceremony. I don’t think so. The two things should be disengaged entirely. The government should have no say in what persons churches and synagogues (etc.) marry and churches and synagogues (etc.) should not care about the government’s decisions about civil unions.
Daniel W says:
Daniel W says:Perhaps all legal domestic unions between two consenting adults should be called “civil unions” instead of “marriages” at the state and federal levels. What is considered a “marriage” should be left to churches and other religious organizations. Each religious organization should be able to decide which individuals they consider to be married in God’s eyes. Obviously, the state should really have no part in that. On this issue, I prefer the model of some European nations, in which church marriage and state marriages are separate. In France, if an elderly woman would lose her deceased husband’s pension by becoming legally remarried, she can still get remarried before God in a church without going to the courthouse to procure a legal marriage.
rogereolson says:
rogereolson says:I have publicly agreed with that and taken a lot of flack for it–including from baptists who would be horrified if the government started deciding which persons are “really” ordained (which was the case in some European countries until recently). I am completely clueless as to the distinction between ordination and marriage when it comes to church and state. Until a century to two centuries ago marriage was always a religious institution. Government only got into the “business” of issuing marriage licenses for the non-religious and to prevent certain persons from being married. We need to take separation of church and state to the next logical level.
Bev Mitchell says:
Bev Mitchell says:Roger, You remind us, ”Not long ago I wrote a column advocating civil unions for any two adults. I argued that “marriage,” being a religious institution, should be left to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations. I was vilified by people on both sides of the homosexuality debate. For many gay rights advocates, that’s not enough. For many anti-gay activists that’s too big a concession.”
How did I miss this? You make exactly the right point – thanks for having stated it so boldly, and stick to your guns! We Christians rightly celebrate Christian marriage – a marriage before the Judeo-Christian God which seeks the blessing of that same God. How can non-believers honestly celebrate this kind of marriage? Why would they want to? However, and beyond where you may wish to go, if the word ‘marriage’ has become irreversibly universal (religious, civil, Vegas etc.), so be it. An adjective may well be required and ‘Christian marriage’ should do just fine. Perhaps we should make this small change and get over it!
I know this will sound like giving in to many. However, we already have all kinds of marriages that make no reference whatever to religion of any kind, let alone The Christian kind. There appears to be little outcry about calling them marriages. How, logically, does the gay issue make any difference. Why fuss now after the horse is well out of the barn and headed for the next county?
rogereolson says:
How did I miss this? You make exactly the right point – thanks for having stated it so boldly, and stick to your guns! We Christians rightly celebrate Christian marriage – a marriage before the Judeo-Christian God which seeks the blessing of that same God. How can non-believers honestly celebrate this kind of marriage? Why would they want to? However, and beyond where you may wish to go, if the word ‘marriage’ has become irreversibly universal (religious, civil, Vegas etc.), so be it. An adjective may well be required and ‘Christian marriage’ should do just fine. Perhaps we should make this small change and get over it!
I know this will sound like giving in to many. However, we already have all kinds of marriages that make no reference whatever to religion of any kind, let alone The Christian kind. There appears to be little outcry about calling them marriages. How, logically, does the gay issue make any difference. Why fuss now after the horse is well out of the barn and headed for the next county?
rogereolson says:I would prefer to call what the government licenses “civil unions.” I am often inclined to stick to the original meanings of words when it’s too late. 
I suspect we agree on the basic issue. I blogged about it way back near the beginning of this blog and I wrote a column about it in the local newspaper. I received harsh e-mails criticizing me for my suggestion. Even some baptists still want our governments deciding about Christian marriage. My question to them is why they don’t want our governments deciding about valid ordinations, baptisms, etc. “Marriage” is a sacrament (in the broadest sense), not a civil institution. In my opinion, churches and synagogues (etc.) should decide whom to marry without government interference or even knowledge. If the couple wants the protection of a civil union, they can add that.
Bev Mitchell says:
I suspect we agree on the basic issue. I blogged about it way back near the beginning of this blog and I wrote a column about it in the local newspaper. I received harsh e-mails criticizing me for my suggestion. Even some baptists still want our governments deciding about Christian marriage. My question to them is why they don’t want our governments deciding about valid ordinations, baptisms, etc. “Marriage” is a sacrament (in the broadest sense), not a civil institution. In my opinion, churches and synagogues (etc.) should decide whom to marry without government interference or even knowledge. If the couple wants the protection of a civil union, they can add that.Bev Mitchell says:Roger, Yes, we do fundamentally agree. We also share the tendency, even strong desire, to insist on keeping the meaning of a word after the majority have arrived at a quite different meaning, or worse, many meanings. It reminds me of a book I used to own, but can no longer find, entitled “Good English, and Other Lost Causes”. And yes, marriage is a sacrament – that is, what we do, what we say and what we mean, as believers before the Lord are indeed sacramental. The word ‘marriage’ used to summarize these sacramental acts nicely. I am simply concerned that it no longer does – indeed, as you say, it has been stolen from the faithful. But, the theft occurred many moons ago, and, I think, largely without complaint from the ‘owners’.
It would be wonderful if the state would keep its hands off of the Church’s sacraments. But do we also want people of other faiths, with other sacraments to leave our Christian word alone? Is it indeed a solely a Christian word? Is it reasonable to complain loudly now, especially based on one issue that has so many confusing overtones? Is it reasonable to re-claim sole ownership, after all these decades of neglect?
I’m mostly full of questions today, it seems, but here is another that you are far better equipped to answer than many. While marriage is clearly a sacrament for Christians, what is it considered to be, by Muslims for Muslims, by Buddhists for Buddhists, Jews for Jews etc.?
rogereolson says:
It would be wonderful if the state would keep its hands off of the Church’s sacraments. But do we also want people of other faiths, with other sacraments to leave our Christian word alone? Is it indeed a solely a Christian word? Is it reasonable to complain loudly now, especially based on one issue that has so many confusing overtones? Is it reasonable to re-claim sole ownership, after all these decades of neglect?
I’m mostly full of questions today, it seems, but here is another that you are far better equipped to answer than many. While marriage is clearly a sacrament for Christians, what is it considered to be, by Muslims for Muslims, by Buddhists for Buddhists, Jews for Jews etc.?
rogereolson says:To the best of my knowledge all religions have some form of what we call marriage. I have no objection to them performing those ceremonies and observing those institutions. Christians will call ours marriage whatever they call theirs.
Government should offer any two people the opportunity of civil union for specific legal purposes–sharing of property, having the right to visit the other one in hospital and (as assigned by his or her partner) make life and death decisions for him or her, etc., etc. All the rights and privileges of what the government now calls “marriage” would go to civil unions but without any of the religious connotations and without any implications for sex.
Laws against abuse would stand. (For example, adults would not be allowed to enter into civil unions with minors. Parents would still have special rights over their children, etc.) However, any two consenting adults could form a civil union solely (in the government’s eyes) for financial purposes and for purposes of decision making. Everything gay people want when they demand the right to marry would be given them in civil unions. They could call their civil union “marriage” or whatever they want to call it. The government would only issue a civil union license which would permit them to file income tax returns jointly, own property jointly, inherit common property without taxation, etc.
Churches and other religious organizations would decide without government interference who is married (or whatever they call their arrangement that we call a sacrament). For example, a church might decide it will not recognize gay civil unions as true marriages or it might require a civil union license to marry people (or not), etc., etc. A gay couple can become married by finding a church that will perform that ceremony and declare them married (which would only be valid for churches that recognize it as valid). Or they can simply have a civil union and call it marriage, but they could not expect everyone to recognize their civil union as marriage. The two are entirely separate arrangements–one civil and one religious.
Steve Dal says:
Government should offer any two people the opportunity of civil union for specific legal purposes–sharing of property, having the right to visit the other one in hospital and (as assigned by his or her partner) make life and death decisions for him or her, etc., etc. All the rights and privileges of what the government now calls “marriage” would go to civil unions but without any of the religious connotations and without any implications for sex.
Laws against abuse would stand. (For example, adults would not be allowed to enter into civil unions with minors. Parents would still have special rights over their children, etc.) However, any two consenting adults could form a civil union solely (in the government’s eyes) for financial purposes and for purposes of decision making. Everything gay people want when they demand the right to marry would be given them in civil unions. They could call their civil union “marriage” or whatever they want to call it. The government would only issue a civil union license which would permit them to file income tax returns jointly, own property jointly, inherit common property without taxation, etc.
Churches and other religious organizations would decide without government interference who is married (or whatever they call their arrangement that we call a sacrament). For example, a church might decide it will not recognize gay civil unions as true marriages or it might require a civil union license to marry people (or not), etc., etc. A gay couple can become married by finding a church that will perform that ceremony and declare them married (which would only be valid for churches that recognize it as valid). Or they can simply have a civil union and call it marriage, but they could not expect everyone to recognize their civil union as marriage. The two are entirely separate arrangements–one civil and one religious.
Steve Dal says:Roger, You simply cannot raise any gay issue now without being seen as an ‘anti-gay activist’. The end. Its past discussion now and rational debate over the various aspects of the issue. Even in the ‘church’.
rogereolson says:
rogereolson says:Or, I might add, without being seen as a “gay activist” or “pro-gay.” As with abortion, the middle ground is missing and even vilified when you try to work it out.
Rick Frueh says:
Rick Frueh says:For every verse about the sin of homosexual behavior there are twenty about greed and hedonism. The only reason I am against abortion or believe homosexual behavior is sinful is because I was born again. I do find it quite curious that a church full of divorce and adultery finds those sins redemptive-ready, while gay sin provides a wonderful platform to trot out our pristine Biblical credentials. (sarcasm alert) Since I endorse orthodox divorce between a man and a woman, and orthodox adultery between a man and a woman. Perhaps a constitutional amendment supporting that?
rogereolson says:
rogereolson says: