Fasting, fervency, and fundamentalism (Part 2 of 2)

 I ended part 1 mentioning that I have recently been confronted by some radical characters here.  It was a somewhat disturbing experience, and one that I am still processing.  One output of my thoughts is a critical bit about how people of various religions (not just the dominant one here) come to hate one another.  The point is not which religion is more prone to create haters, but more simply a challenge for you to consider: am I willing to love rather than hate my enemy?

Although I believe there are many essential fundamentals to my faith that cannot be compromised, I will not associate myself as a fundamentalist of any faith, because I have seen the intolerance that boils out of the fundamentalist mind.  Too many fundamentalists have taken their rigorous study of theology to such an airtight conclusion that if you’re not with them to the jot and tittle, then you’re WRONG.  Once a fundamentalist has labeled someone as WRONG (or whatever label they find appropriate to assign), they will build their case of what they will and will not tolerate from them, with the wrath of god (or God) as their foundation.  Levels of intolerance vary.  Some intolerance is done so that those in the right are not polluted or damaged by the WRONG.  Unfortunately this can become a slippery slope, because those measures of control might not be in the hands of the right, not in the way they wish.  Then the fundamentalist has a choice: to tolerate, or to be more extreme in their intolerance.  Tolerance does not suit a fundamentalist mind well, so more extreme intolerance often wins.  Fast forward to the end of this slippery slope and you end up with an intolerance to let the WRONG live.  Examples?  Various Islamic terrorist organizations will probably be your first suggestions, and I agree.  What about this Christian fellow in Norway recently?  Although the professed religion was different, the same intolerance-to-the-point-of-killing drove him. 

Whether you like my examples or not, you probably want to know my alternate suggestion to fundamentalism.  I don’t have a packaged term for you (and please don’t assign a term like “liberal” to me), but I will say that our desire for others to believe what we believe needs to pause and be checked if they resist our suggestion.  Ask yourself: why do you intend for them to believe what you believe?  Is the benefit for them, or for you only?  If it is for them, and you earnestly wish blessing and hope and life for them, then why would you so quickly give up if they reject or resist you?  If there was value in their life when you thought they might convert, is that value completely lost if they do not?  In my opinion this puts too much trust in our words and ability to communicate them perfectly.  We’re too rushed to bother with letting the Word be incarnate among people that have never heard it.  We’re too fearful that tolerance will lead to us being conquered (even though the best periods of Christian history were when they were NOT in control).  We’re too tempted to boil the whole works of our faith down to some simple litmus test of questions that will determine if I love and protect you or hate and push you away.  The alternative I espouse is to tolerate life.  Recognize each life was created in God’s image, and has a potential to be transformed into His follower at any point (not just when we say they must).  This is not a lame or inept or inactive stance.  On the contrary, tolerance can and should be active.  Celebrate those that accept salvation, weep over those that are still resistant, be the active, intentional example of what you believe, and tolerate life.  Yes, this even includes those scary Mus.lims that all gather and do that intimidating prayer and prostrations thing.

And what will I do about being issued ultimadums by fundamentalists here?  At the moment it’s good food for conversations.  Themes of my rant above will make it back to them through contacts I already have. It’s an interesting thing to converse with people here about the fact that their development, international relations, the demise of their family structure and the state of constant war is largely a product of intolerant religious radicals. To the fundamentalist youth I pointed out the irony that he would prefer to destroy much needed help for his poor people, just because of his religious intolerance.  With one friend I am going to start a review of religious tenets that guide us in serving others, i.e. the needy.  He gets to start with tenets from his book, and when he runs out it will be my turn with my book.

So yes, the challenges I’m getting here will be answered, as long as we feel safe enough to remain here.  I’m quite certain, however, that the issue between the dominant religion here and the rest of the world will not be solved from this end only.  You, yes you back in the west have a role to play.  Think of it- we want them (people here, your enemies) to stop being fundamental and intolerant and hateful, meanwhile we, despite our belief in a God of grace and forgiveness, have a very hard time putting down our defenses and intolerance and disgust for them.  Yes it is difficult, but Christ is the model and the strength that we have.  If we do not use that model and strength, we’re missing our purpose.  And if we cannot grow more tolerant and loving with this strength, how do we expect our enemies to meet our demands, without that strength? 

We can’t be a people that lets the sin of our enemy blind us to our own.  We have to pull the plank out of our own eyes before we can address the speck in anothers’. 

Proverbs 16:7 NRS

When the ways of people please the Lord, he causes even their enemies to be at peace with them.