Progressivist vs. Fundamentalist Conscience

How does Prescott justify doing the same judging that he condemns fundamentalists for?

I don't see Dr. Prescott as judging so much as making pointed observations in this article. Nowhere does Dr. Prescott state as fact "Fundamentalists are not Christians", nor does he say "Fudamentalists are going to burn in hell". Fundamentalists are notorious for doing precisely this sort of thing all the time (and I do mean ALL the time). Additionally, Dr. Prescott is not actively seeking to limit the rights of fundamentalists because he disapproves of them, whereas one of the key characteristics of the fundamentalist movement in the U.S. has been to seek to either limit or infringe upon the rights of other Americans whose sexual orientation, politics, or religious affiliation (among other things) they disagree with. THAT certainly is judging, and is the hallmark of tyranny. If one then points out that a group is being tyrannical or prejudiced, is that in fact judgemental or is it merely observing and stating the obvious? Was it "judgemental" for the critics of The Third Reich to speak out against the Nazis? They also believed that their prejudices and limiting of others' rights was ordained by God (and also waged a campaign against homosexuals and "deviants", called for Germany to return to its roots as a "Christian nation", despised "intellectuals and liberals", had strict laws prohibiting the desecration of the Nazi flag, and advocated pious public displays of nationalism-- does THAT sound familiar?) . So it's a matter of perspective I suppose, but I certainly do not see anything that Dr. Prescott has written as being "judgemental", merely "observational".

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Bruce,
Well done piece. I think the whole fundamentalist way of thinking can be summed up in the phrase,"Slay them all! God will know his own." as proclaimed by Arnold Amaury, one of the leaders of the Albigensian Crusade on July 22nd, 1209 at the siege of Beziers, France. When Amaury and his people were through, twenty thousand men, women, and children lay dead and the town of Beziers was a blazing ruin.

Damien,

If Prescott, and you other liberals, aren't judging, then "making observations" is all I, and other Bible believers are doing.

Gary,

The difference being of course that we Liberals/Progressives aren't actively seeking to limit or infringe on the rights of those with whom we disagree. You believe, for instance, that because, according to your "version" of Christianity, homosexuality in itself is morally reprehensible, that the rights of homosexuals should be limited (and many fundamentalists advocate total elimination of their rights and even imprisonment-- I am not saying YOU advocate that, but many "fundies" do). Fundamentalists also advocate limiting a woman's right to choose, and ignoring the rights of non-Christians or non-religious people to not be insulted with fundamentalist displays of false piety in public places, as well as limiting the rights of how an American either chooses to show respect OR lack of respect for a flag. That is to name but a very few.For me what fundamentalist "christians" represent is such an affront to God (with their whole agenda of greed, intolerance, war-mongering, polarization, and idolatry) that, were I of the same mind-set, I would be calling for THEIR rights to be limited. But I am not, and do not advocate such actions. Were I to do so I would indeed be "judging". There lies the difference.

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Gary,

Since Brother Damien has pretty well defined what fundamentalism means to him, how about you define what liberal means to you.

Damien,

You constantly accuse (judge) believers of trying to deny people their rights. But you have to know what rights are.

God never grants anyone the right to sin. He often allows people to sin without any immediate action on His part. But that does not mean that God approves or forgets about it.

The civil government, being under the authority of God, lacks the authority to grant rights to do things that God has said are sinful. Granted, the government sometimes does it anyway, but it has no authority to do so.

Are you saying we have the right to commit sin?

Gary do not mistake telling the truth as judging if you let some one lie and you don't corect them that is a sin. It is the same as saying that lie is true

Gary said, "God never grants anyone the right to sin." But human rights are not moral claims before God (except when violated by humans and we cry out to God), but moral claims for minimal moral treatment by other humans, especially governments and other powerful actors. If you allow the government to outlaw, say, extramarital sex because you believe (as do I) that it is sinful, what is to stop that same government from outlawing something else as sinful that you find to be a religious obligation, like witnessing on street corners. (Yes, those same "activist judges" on the Supreme Court acted in the 1940s to protect this right.)
Some conservative Christians believe all alcohol consumption is sinful, which is kind of hard on Jesus at Cana. But even during that very bad idea called Prohibition, Catholics and the Orthodox were allowed to use real wine in the Eucharist because it was part of their religion. Conservative Protestants considered it sinful; Catholics considered substituting something else for wine to be sinful--the government could not take sides! They had to recognize the human rights, in this case religious liberty, of both groups--including the right for each group to think the other was not only wrong, but wrongheaded (and maybe headed to hell).
This phrase, "there is no right to sin" sounds scary to me--not because I want to sin, but because I don't want you or anyone else deciding what sin is and how much I should be punished for it! My spiritual ancestors include those Anabaptists whom both Catholics and Protestants considered to be heretics and worth of death. (Catholics burned us at the stake and Protestants, making fun of our commitment to believers' baptism, drowned us.) So, I get alarm bells when someone says phrases like this. They sound too close to the Medieval slogan of the Inquisition, "Error has no rights." Do we want to go back to the days of the Inquisition? Or of burning midwives as "witches?"

In general, I think folk above may confuse two definitions of "to judge." One means "to evaluate," and the other "to condemn." Christians are warned not about evaluating, but about condemning others because we will be measured by the same yardstick we use. But regardless of who is right about "judging," Gary, your "no one has the right to sin," language has me very glad that you are not in political office and do not know where I live. I would be very afraid that you would decide on your own that, say, my being married to an ordained woman or my drinking beer was sinful and then decide to be the "sword of the Lord" and punish me yourself!
Do I sound extreme? I'm sorry, but your last post has terrified me. If I were to find that you lived near me, I'd swear out a restraining order immediately and, knowing how you feel about gays and lesbians, I have a list of friends whom I would advise to do the same, quickly, as they could be in more danger than me!

Why not do as the Bible reads
Several years ago I heard a Baptist pastor publicly berate a member of his own congregation at a statewide meeting of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. The member, who worked with battered women, had dared to openly disagree with the Southern Baptist Convention’s edict that wives should “graciously submit” to their husbands.
Ephesians 5
25 Husbands, love your wives. Love them just as Christ loved the church. He gave himself up for her. 26 He did it to make her holy. He made her clean by washing her with water and the word. 27 He did it to bring her to himself as a brightly shining church. He wants a church that has no stain or wrinkle or any other flaw. He wants a church that is holy and without blame.
28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives. They should love them as they love their own bodies. Any man who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, people have never hated their own bodies. Instead, they feed and care for their bodies. And that is what Christ does for the church. 30 We are parts of his body.
31 Scripture says, "That's why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The two will become one."—(Genesis 2:24) 32 That is a deep mystery. But I'm talking about Christ and the church.
33 A husband also must love his wife. He must love her just as he loves himself. And a wife must respect her husband.
1 Peter 3
1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Of course Fundamentalists are defective: literarily, historically, socially, personally, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing, more defective than the fundamentalist conscience, devoid of HUBRIS as it is. For a bible thumpin', scripture quotin', proof textin' fundamentalist, I cannot imagine even accidentally how he'd come in contact with it. Hubris takes one beyond the Textus Receptus into the world of early Church History, where fundies do not go. As a matter of their hubris, they make anathema contact with other historical Christians, either Catholic or Protestant, damming all equally with their venom. Mainline (or mainstream) Protestants from whom they might meet this concept are just never within their reach, not that they are interested in anything historical anyway. Nor could they wander into the 20th century's greatest exposition of this concept in Volume I of Reinhold Niebuhr's magnum opus Gifford Lectures of 1939, The Nature & Destiny of Man. Hubris has an especial PRE-condition quality for sin itself which mirrors the sin to be committed even as it is yet to be committed. That "look into the soul quality" before enactment sometimes allows things thought not to be things done, & thus, avoided or rethought. A thought borne of reflection is one forged with conscience, not just of a person but with history itself as the forge. This historical dimension is invaluable if, as Pogo opined, "the enemy is" often "us."

When I was but a lad on the Texas desert at the end of WWII, I attended a preteen camp for parent sponsors & boys at FBC of Freer, TX. At the conclusion to a night's religious service, the expection was that each would either confess faith or rededicate his life. 38 boys in varying order eventually went or were cajoled down front; 1 steadfastly refused, not to be intimidated by any means. It was I, proudly still. I object to such manipulation & assault practices. I certainly had not yet read or met the principle held dear by the Congregationalist Horace Bushnell which affirms that "a child should grow up thinking of himself as Christian and not know himself otherwise." When I did meet it in seminary, I knew I had found a spiritual home just as I had known then that what happened to all those that night was NOT right. Arm-wangling a kid into "accepting" faith leaves much to be desired, and I have liked even less the notion that one needs to perpetually be in a path of "rededication" if in fact his affirmation was real. If I could find that faithless woman who would accept nothing less than my acquiesence to her tainted will that night in 1946, I'd dig her up & glady do violence to her remains, which she still justly deserves. Not unlike the dimensions of Bruce's story, my refusal became filler in a report of that event to the Associational Women's Missionary Union that was the camp's sponsor. To me, it has been, and is, a hallmark of honor, as I ponder the many weaker children over the decades who have fallen victim to such berating.

I have always held a special place in my heart for Hubris qualitatively. I doubt, however, that "arrogance" can possess that 'inside-out' quality of the Hideggarean thing-within-itself [ding an zich] feature which is the domain of hubris. Hubris is indeed a fundamentalist defect of void proportions, but Hubris feeds the 'easy conscience' of modern man almost constantly too. Both modern superficial culture & fundamentalist psyche are to be found equally lacking.

N.B. It's a shame that the links do not work in this presentation, as they did in another format.

Umm, Arden? I don't have my Greek dictionary within easy reach, but isn't HUBRIS "PRIDE?" Are you really trying to say that fundamentalism is devoid of Hubris or did you mispeak?
And I think you meant "Heideggeran," as in pertaining to Martin Heidegger, 20th C. German philosopher who was so influential on mid-century theologies. Right?

Talking about the way Fundamentalists treat people...

I was in a situation where I attended a fundamentalist church (twice) a couple of years ago- while I was out of town. I'd been invited and welcomed to the church, and for a number of reasons decided to attend.

The preacher preached a sermon about a woman he knew. I was extremely uncomfortable with it, because in my opinion, you NEVER use a person (especially living) as a negative example in a sermon- especially if that person is more of a victim than a perpetrator (and that was what it sounded like).

I tried to talk to the preacher after the service, and when I did, he blew up- to the point of yelling (and almost screaming) at me. Later that evening, a couple of the leaders of that church came to me and talked with me- they were concerned about ME and where I "stood with the Lord". I got the strong feeling that *I* had become the subject of that evening's sermon!!!

I also found out that some of the members of that church had taken it upon themselves to make problems for us because I'd dared question the preacher (PRIVATELY) about a practice that I consider SPIRITUAL MURDER!

What was especially interesting was something that one of the leaders said. When I told her that I was uncomfortable and felt that using people as negative examples was wrong, she blurted out "How are we supposed to keep people under control?"

Right: Something to which one has a just or lawful claim. (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Morality is defined by God, not by man. We may be "allowed" to do certain things without interference from civil governments, or even from our neighbors, but that does not necessarily mean we have a right to do it.

Modern man has claimed many things as "rights" that are not rights. Abortion is legal, but not moral. God has not granted a right to abortion, but the government has, and in doing so has exceeded its authority.

My point is that we should not claim something as a "right" unless we have a valid reason for it. And the charge that Bible believers are trying to limit the rights of others is to greatly overstate reality.

Gary,

Do we have the "right" to committ sin? Actually, yes, we do. That is the very essense of "Free Will" and God is the one that granted us that right. And God is the one (and God ALONE) who will judge both the sin and the sinner. ALL of us sin, and even the saintliest people who ever lived have not been free of that particular taint of Humanity.

The question is whether humans have the right to coerce and manipulate authorities in order to have their own concept of sin mirrored in human legislation. Your argument (I think) is that if it is "biblically-based", then "believers" have a right do just that. Unfortunately there are many things which are "biblically-based" which the modern world has either abandoned because they are deemed cruel or because they have become "impractical". We have already discussed how the pro-slavery faction of the 19th Century found ample evidence within the Old Testament to justify continuing slavery, or how The Third Reich used scripture to justify persecution of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals. And I would remind you that while the fundamentalist movement would love to see gay and lesbian people reduced to second-class citizens again, they have shown precious little interest in calling for federal legislation barring heterosexual divorce except in cases of adultery (and yet Jesus said that unless adultery had taken place, people didn't need to be getting divorced). The Bible says nothing about abortion (at least as we know it), and yet a whole movement has been built around biblical injunctions against it which are not actually there (there are references to murdering a child within the womb as an act of violence, but not the procedure/choice of abortion). Most fundamentalists you will find support wholeheartedly a flag ammendment, and yet something can be "desecrated" only if it has been designated as "sacred or holy" (thus a flag ammendment would be, literally, a form of idolatry). We have already discussed the THIRTEEN injunctions against usury found in The Bible (usury referred to as unlawful, a sin, and even an abomination), and yet I don't see the fundamentalists picketing American banks, and this despite the fact that this practice is an actual hardship on tens of millions of God's children, whereas something like homosexuality would be categorized as "sin between consensual individuals" (if one accepts it as sin for the sake of argument) that neither burdens the rest of society or in any way interferes with heterosexual marriage (and I would once again remind you that conservative christians have one of THE highest divorce rates of any U.S. group, so they don't NEED any help in that arena).

The point I am trying to make to you is you can "interpret" all kinds of sins to be worthy of official condemnation, but you have different interpretations, and all manner of "biblical" sin that even fundamentalists would find they themselves are engaging in or supporting, either through their church doctrines or through political movements. When it comes to sin, it really is best to leave it to God to make such judgements. We don't need to see another Holy Inquisition or another Reich. Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to God that which belongs to God, for The Master's Kingdom is not of this world, truly, and all we are called to do in it is to be found within The Gospels, within Matthew 25:32-46, in The Beatitudes, and in the Greatest of the Commandments...to love God with all of our hearts, minds, and souls...but equally to love our neighbor as ourselves...on these two commandments hang all The Law and The Prophets too. The Great Commandment says nothing about playing God with your neighbor by attempting to limit the rights of a neighbor with whom you disagree or disapprove of. Or did I miss something there?

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Gary,
The Nazis fanatically believed that exterminating the Jews, Gypsies, and other "undesirables" was their right as preservers of the Aryan Race. They published many valid reasons as to why this was so. If you wish to see a contemporary example of this kind of thinking then I suggest that you check out the Christian Identity Movement.
BTW, how's the weather up where you are? It's scorching hot down here in Florida.

Damien,

Having the ability to sin is NOT the same as having the right!! If sin was a right, there would be no punishment for it.

I wish you people would stop bringing up the Nazis. They were not Christians, and your trying to make them seem like some sort of fundamentalist Christians is contemptable.

Frank,

It is hot here in North Carolina too. Highs near 90.

Gary,

I agree with you about the Nazis not being Christians. I've studied the Third Reich extensively and to the Nazi Hierarchy religion was just another tool to use to control the population. There is a similarity in mindset between the Nazis and certain religious fundamentalists groups and that is that the end justifies the means. Sadly, this worldview didn't die with them. I see it every day in religion, politics, and business.
North Carolina, huh. You in the mountains or along the coast. It's ironic that it's so hot up there because a lot of us here in the Tampa Bay area go to North Carolina to cool off. So much for that.

Frank,

I do not believe the end justifies the means. The means must be right too.

I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains, near Brevard, NC.

Gary said,
"I wish you people would stop bringing up the Nazis. They were not Christians, and your trying to make them seem like some sort of fundamentalist Christians is contemptable."

As Frank pointed out, the members of the Nazi Party were not Christians or even nominal church members, but simply used religion for their own purposes. However, this analogy is legitimate because so MANY of the German churches (including the very conservative ones) believed that Hitler had been appointed by God to lead Germany and could do no wrong! They hung Swastika flags from the church and from the pulpit. They cooperated fully and enthusiastically with the Nazi movement and preached sermons supporting this as their Christian duty. (The parallels between this and the uncritical hero-worship of American evangelicals for George W. Bush--He Who Must Not Be Questioned Because He Speaks With God--are just too large to be anything but frightening.) Can we claim that NONE of the conservative German Christians who were part of this were in any sense Christian?
Also, as I have mentioned before, after Hitler took over, but before WWII began, many Christians from elsewhere visited Germany and returned to their home countries praising Hitler. In 1935 the Baptist World Congress was held in Berlin. (This is the meeting of Baptists from all over the world that happens every 5 years through the Baptist World Alliance.) The president of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time came back and wrote 6 articles and several sermons saying that Hitler had been misunderstood, that the U.S. would do better to become like Germany, etc. He was impressed with the way Hitler had closed all the brothels and how he was said to neither drink nor smoke. Further, this great American Christian saw nothing wrong with suppressing Judaism or Gypsies (not yet to the point of death, of course), since Hitler was merely being used by God to enforce the rights of the churches against unbelievers.

So, while the members of the Nazi Party then and Neo-Nazi groups now are not Christian nor even pretend to be, the fact that Nazi policies were so widely supported by Christians makes the Nazi horrors VERY relevant to any claims about human rights.

Michael,

I think you have misunderstood Bible believers' views of the President. I have disagreed with Bush on several things, including Iraq (trying to rebuild it and make it into a democracy) and immigration. And I certainly don't think that Bush, or any other elected official, is immune from having his/her actions questioned or disagreed with.

Gary,

I couldn't agree with you more. I believe that if you commit an evil act in the name of good then you have tainted that good. This problem has been mulled over all throughout human history. To me, it's not an easy question to answer but I believe that it is one that we have to keep asking.
Blue Ridge mountains! No wonder you like looking at the stars at night. The view must be spectacular. BTW, I've been to Boone and to Chapel Hill but that's been the extent of my journeying in your neck of the woods.

Nazi Party If they was so non Christian please tell me why Italy and Vatican joined with them, intead of helping Poland

The Vatican's deals with Hitler, a matter of great controversy withing modern Catholicism I understand, were out of self-preservation. Italy's Fascist government shared the general ideology of the Nazis, but minus the intense anti-Semitism. In fact, Mussolini, brutal as he was, resisted sending Italy's Jews to the death camps or any Jews in areas Italy occupied.

But no one said the Italian government of that day or this was Christian. In fact, even before WWII, Italy had become a fairly secular society and are even more so today. Like much of the rest of Europe, church attendance is low and the Vatican and Catholic Church are viewed by many as a part of Italy's proud cultural heritage, like the Roman Empire before that, but no more.

The tiny Protestant and Jewish communities have more commitment in their members than the nominally Catholic majority. There are, of course, many truly dedicated Catholics in Italy, both in WWII and now, but not anywhere close to the commitment of Catholics in, say, the U.S., the Republic of Ireland, or Brazil.

Actually, you guys are partially wrong on this one. Anybody who lives in the rural South knows that the difference between the kkk and the neo-nazi movement is so miniscule as to hardly exist at all. There are plenty of neo-nazis in the klan and the klan has always considered itself to be a Christian organization. Down here, we call them Kristians. Gary knows this.

Kristians is pronounced ku-ristians.

Here wow gold of 1000 power leveling wow gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy gold wow lightninghoof instock Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ...

raujqlwl http://iczxpavc.com psxkuweo yrphfgka coyebskl [URL=http://cswwpzyo.com]uocsncvh[/URL]

vzqjnlnb http://jyhhljob.com htxmvqnz skjtcmra [URL=http://fkmfehci.com]iwrmqvjw[/URL] vvtwjhpv

[URL=http://tjqemgym.com]fhtmvoze[/URL] ddidwtpx tvewuten http://bpmfkcsw.com dfflhxpx eiqqatyo

bqbfehre http://lodfsdqe.com pvwdfeaq jvhdtarx ixtnqfca [URL=http://mlchucja.com]xlbxfljg[/URL]