Is it possible that at least part of the answers we seek lie NOT in the management of our individual religious beliefs but in the elimination of religion altogether? No easy task by any stretch of the imagination. But for the fundamentalist their religion has become their idol. Their belief system replaces their faith. Two quotes from Anne Lamott I can never resist:

“The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.”

“You can safely assume you’ve created a God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do.”

It seems to me that Jesus spent a great deal of time coaching the religious leaders to abandon their religious practices and beliefs. In exchange, I think we find that grace, peace, hope, and love we all crave. 

My difficulty with the idea of a God without religion is that it’s never been modeled for me. I can only speculate about what that kind of thing looks like. I suspect that’s what keeps the majority of us from thinking far enough outside the box to consider it feasible. I know it is a mountain that I have yet to figure out how to move. But then again, isn’t that what mystery is all about? Discovery of the unknown?

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. it is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”

~ Albert Einstein

[...] WHO DISAGREE WITH US ARE “EXTREMISTS”: “The Growing Impossibility of Interfaith Dialogue.” Those at the gathering represented the voices of moderation from these various religious traditions [...]

What is especially important is addressing the question of how religion can be enforced through political means and what can be done to create a political environment that, on the one hand, acknowledges the role of religion in society, while on the other hand does not impose one religion on the populace at the expense of all others.

I think that the history of the United States as well as nearly every other nation reveals that a political environment which acknowledges the role of religion in society also looks to impose religion on society. They seem extremely difficult to separate.

My suggestion is that we look to remove government from all non-violent and voluntary adult behaviors. Hopefully this will help to restore a sense of respect for others in people because they will no longer have the billy club of government to stop behavior that offends their sensibilities. People will hopefully learn to like, or at least better tolerate, the different value judgments and meanings other people have in life. Government has a tendency to distort the connection between action and consequence on behalf of the decision-makers or voters (the best example, of course, is war). People who would never dream of standing with a gun on the courthouse steps to prevent a man from marrying another man will enthusiastically vote for the police force to do this. It never feels like force when you’re one of millions casting one small vote to criminalize behavior, but it sure does when you’re part of the group having their behavior criminalized.

very good article… thanks makes me think about not even the extremes but mainline versus mega churches. In my mainline church we see the growth of the mega churches around us and wonder what we can do different to compete with out losing our values.  We don’t often think about the why….

You state that:

“It should be obvious to those of us who are Christians that the reality is that attendance and membership for mainline churches is in rapid decline, whereas fundamentalist churches are growing in size and significance.”

I’m curious how you define and differentiate a “fundamentalist chuch” from a “mainline church”.  I’d also be interested to hear what segments of Christianity today you believe fall within the following statement in your article:  “fundamentalist extremists who will settle for nothing less than the annihilation of those whom they believe to be competitors in the marketplace of religious ideas and forms of worship.” 

One small observation – in the U.S. our power is spread out over the federal, state and local governments,  thousands of corporate power structures and special interest groups. In the Arab world, which has provided some fundamentalist violence (but not all) power is very limited by comparison. They have a theocratic government and oil. They could use some diversification, economically. I would suggest that sharing the power with a greater number of people is helpful in reducing rash, violent decision making. 

I’d also be interested to hear what segments of Christianity today you believe fall within the following statement in your article:  “fundamentalist extremists who will settle for nothing less than the annihilation of those whom they believe to be competitors in the marketplace of religious ideas and forms of worship.”

That’s a good question. I gave Tony the benefit of the doubt and ultimately assumed “annihilation” simply refers to wanting to rid offending ideas from the marketplace of ideas, rather than wanting to annihilate the people who hold these beliefs. I think a clarification from him would go a long way in encouraging respectful dialogue.

Hi Tony, 

Thanks for the article.  You always challenge me.  I appreciate that.

Personally, I would not give to much credence to the quote by Edmund Burke.  The quote itself seems somewhat flawed.

Not to be down on quotes, but isn’t it funny how we have become “quote aholics”.  Books of quotes, web sites of quotes, quotes by subject, quotes by authors, etc.  Quotes tickle our flesh.  If our ears like what they hear, we get warm fuzzies, or indignant or a multitude of other emotions.

Like practically everything, there are simple answers.  Listen to God…..then you will not have to listen to people.

take care, Jim

Perhaps one of the best ways to foster communication with those in the Christian community who disagree with you is to stop attacking them with the labels of extremism and fundamentalism. As a member of a church and denomination that you would undoubtedly call extremist and fundamental, it is disappointing and somewhat mind-boggling that you would in the same breath talk about ehancing communication while at the same time throwing up natural barriers to communication in the form of unjust labels. Most “extremists and fundamentalists” in the Church are not out to “annihilate” other forms of worship. Instead, we hold to a high view of Scripture and, rather than conforming to the secular culture of radical and undifferentiated pluralism, we seek to uphold a worldview in which truth as respected as such, built on the foundation that Jesus is the way, truth, and life, and that none can come to the Father except through him. Indeed, it could be said that those who take pains to proclaim the truth over the Gospel over seeking common ground care more about others than those who dilute the Gospel to make it palatable to others, because the Father is certainly not going to dilute his hatred of the natural human condition of sin.

At the risk of sounding like one of those “nasty” extremists mentioned in this article, maybe we should first define what constitutes a “fundamentalist extremist?” If it is someone who is willing to die for what he/she believes in; if it is someone willing to stand up against corruption within a faith; if it is someone who isn’t afraid to speak out or speak up about what that individual believes to be true…then that would make Jesus Christ an “extreme fundamentalist.” No where in any of the Gospels can I find a single example of Jesus willing to compromise on what He believed or stood for. And He didn’t say “I am the way, the truth and the life”out of speaking moderately. Yes, I believe we can have cross-faith conversation, but not until every faith recognizes and publicly proclaims each faith has an inherent right to exist as it sees fit…..and that includes the freedom to proselytize across faith boundaries. Every Christian-based nation I know of allows people to choose which faith they prefer and to live as they would live in that faith……until Muslim countries allow such religious freedom, we are only spinning out wheels in trying to have meaningful, open and honest dialogue.Sorry, Tony, but you missed the boat on this one.

Zach, I think you hit it well.

One thing that I am glad about this site is that Tony or whomever, is open enough to take the hits and the kudos.  What I mean is there is an open dialog available rather than hiding behind the walls.

On the other hand, I doubt the openness does much good.

Changing directions, I would like to give a plug for a free market economist that I think makes some real sense.  Here are several short videos.

http://barryasmus.com/videos.php

here here

Why are you looking for suggestions when you have the scripture? (The red-lettered one’s are especially helpful in knowing how we should live and treat one another.)
 
While you’re at it, you may also want to check out the Constitution of the United States of America. It does a wonderful job of “acknowledging the role of religion in our society while on the other hand not imposing one religion on the populace at the expense of the others.

Rather than blaming on others like Muslims, I think there are enough things in our own  faith circles to deal with.  I agree that Jesus’ truth claim was nothing soft or moderate, but his gesture was gentle and non-violent.  Looking at our Christian history, I think we have done a lot of violence – calling it “biblical” – to Muslims, women, slaves, Native Americans, colonialistic mission work…etc.  I think by “moderate” voice, there is a humble overtone.  “Evangelistic” message is not the one transmits by power-balance, but full of grace and irresistible.

I believe that the “extreme fundamentalist” in the NT would likely to be the zealots.  Jesus certainly wasn’t a zealot, but from Nazareth – not seen as the one of religiously/culturally/morally respected.

Did he blame on muslims?
Wasn’t he blaming muslim countries?
And have muslim countries been too restrictive in how the treat others?

This may be easier said than done, but it is my belief that the best way to make peace with religious extremists, including terrorists, is to engage in peaceful dialog with them. Get to know them, show that we care, and build relationships. All people are relational and need human interaction. It is worth noting that one of Jesus’ disciples was an extremist. Simon the Zealot was a Jewish fundamentalist bent on liberating Israel from the Roman occupation. Zealots were known to be violent, committing acts similar to what terrorists do today. Ironically, Jesus never condemned Simon or his group of bandits. Instead, He loved him, cared for him, taught him, and allowed him into his closest network of friends. I wish more of our politicians and religious leaders would engage in peaceful dialog with those we deem our enemies. This world would be a much more peaceful place if we did.

Sorry, but I would respectfully disagree. Jesus WAS perceived as a zealot….a religious zealot, not a political zealot such as Simon Zelotes was. That’s partly why Jesus was singled out for death…because He refused to compromise with the religious leaders of His time….and He refused to compromise with those within His faith who wanted compromise with the ruling government……and He further refused to compromise with those pagans/non-believers outside His faith circle. And please tell me, what is “moderate” abot calling someone “You snakes; you vipers” and accusing others of religious hypocrisy? The problem within our faith circle is that we have so sanitized and white-washed Jesus’ message that we fail to see He was correct when He said He came to bring not just love and mercy but also a sword. In our Christian faith circles, we have become so enamored of one aspect of Jesus’ message and nature that we neglect to recognize His total nature. Have we as humans made mistakes? Certainly….and we continue to learn from those mistakes. But that also means we do not live in the past and we work towards a better future……without compromising the basic message.

I’m thinking of admonitions like that of the Apostle Paul:   “Let  your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand.”  Seems to me that in the public arena, this is often not what Christians are famous for, or seemingly want to be famous for, despite this apostolic admonition and many others like it. 
I don’t mind being an extremist in support of gentleness, love, peace… y’know, all that fruity stuff… not to mention radical nonviolence, the willingness to heed the words in red, take up the cross, but not as an emblem of battle as Constantine did, but as advocating a personal willingness to die rather than inflict death on others.  It’s not quite accurate to say that Jesus refused to use political means to achieve His ends…. but he certainly refused to establish for himself a political power base.  Can we be that extreme?

How are we to control what we are famous for?
Isn’t that often just pushed by the media?

I’m glad that you are talking about this.  I have to agree with Zach below: liberal/progressive Christians need to reach out to pray and dialogue with (rather than disdaining) more conservative Christians and stop puffing up our elitist chests about how enlightened we are (not that Tony is doing this – but I’ve seen it).  How do you get conservative Christians to DO “interfaith”?  Since so many of us are conservative turned progressive Christians it should be obvious to us.

Plan an interfaith event that would APPEAL to more conservative Christians!  1. set an agenda that would appeal to conservative Christians (ie. NOT social justice, NOT the environment, NOT women’s rights, NOT achieving multicultural harmony)    a. “evangelical reciprocity” ALLOW the evangelical Christian to share the good news as he/she perceives it as long as he/she is willing to listen to the religious other do the same.    b. Don’t impose a bunch of “dialogue guidelines” that keep people from stepping on each others toes. This is not to say “no guidelines” at all.     c. allow them to ask questions and explain what confuses or offends them
  2. These could be smaller events that allow more “get to know each other” time 
  3. Identify local conservative Christian leaders for invitation/participation
    a. Maybe ask them to host.
    b. Then see if they would be interested in involving their congregations

Will this work for the the Lord’s Resistance Army? Probably not, but I think it COULD work for a lot of our brothers and sisters if we can lay down our agendas to become bridge-builders so our “old friends” can get to know our “new friends” on their own terms.

Perhaps eliminating extremism is almost as difficult as eliminating sin itself.
However maybe modern communication technologies that promote the opportunity for all to explore their owm and others values, beliefs and thinking may be a part of the solution.

Perhaps eliminating extremism is almost as difficult as eliminating sin itself.
However maybe modern communication technologies that promote the opportunity for all to explore their owm and others values, beliefs and thinking may be a part of the solution.

In fact, Jesus did change his mind when the woman said even dogs get scraps that fall on the floor. Before that, he said he was only sent to Israel.

Part of the problem is that these groups are not strictly “religious.” They are political, and care little about the subtlties of Jesus or anyone else. They simply want to win and take the wealth of others. They cannot be convinced, because they are talking about completely different things.
However, as one great writer said, a disease often hits a fever before dying out, and that is what is happening with fundamentalists. Many people are joining, but many more athiests are created in response to their foolishness, and this kind of religion is doomed. People will get tired of their simplistic solutions, and that kind of religion will die out. Just give it time.
Unfortunately, some good people will be hurt in the meantime.