Fundamentalism isn’t too violent, it isn’t violent enough
The title for this post comes from the title of one of the talks I have been giving on the ‘Lessons’ tour. The main gist of the argument lies in exploring how the fundamentalism we witness at work today is, at its core, a movement that conserves and preserves the status quo. Its violence at the subjective level (e.g. defending the evils of misogyny, homophobia, unjust conflicts and self-interested foreign policy) is the direct outworking of its ultimate impotence when it comes to instigating real change.
Take the example of so many wars today. Amidst all their violence they are more often than not fought in order to preserve the way things are, to protect people in power, or to accumulate more resources. Thus their horrific violence at the subjective level hides the fact that they preserve the deeper objective violence of the system itself. The bloodshed thus helps to maintain the injustice that currently exists, ensuring that structures of oppression remain unchallenged.
In the same way fundamentalism, while violent at a surface level (at the level of everyday life) is simply a mask that hides the fact that it does not rock the very foundations of worldly power. Its frantic posturing and aggression is ultimately in the service of those with power, money, and voice. In this way their various highly funded projects designed to change society actually ensure that nothing of any significance really changes (those who are oppressed continue to be oppressed, the rich continue to get richer, the poor continue to get poorer).
Let us not then attack such a position for being too violent (apart from anything else, this is what such a movement thrives on; seeing itself as the church militant), rather we must pull back the curtain and show the impotent wizard for who it really is.
In contrast to fundamentalism it is people like Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King who, in their pacifism, are truly violent (who are the true church militant). In their non-participation and uncompromising actions they lived out an alternative vision of how the world could work, directly challenging the foundations of worldy power. In their seductive vision of an alternative world and their unrelenting quest to pursue it they ruptured the systems of power that surrounded them and thus expressed the true violence of Christianity. A violence that shifts the underground by allowing the outsider to be heard.
Thus, the next time we hear of some blustering speaker attempt to bolster their support by making themselves sound like the follower of a cage-fighting, bodybuilding Jesus, we should avoid the trap of arguing that their image of Jesus is too violent and instead show how it isn’t nearly violent enough. Drawing out how, amidst all their seeming machismo they are little more than a timid sheep in wolves clothing.
Tags: Fundamentalism, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Peter Rollins, violence, Zizek
February 10th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I don’t think I know anyone who self identifies as a fundamentalist, do you?
I’m truly lost on the concept of the “true church militant.” MLK did clearly instigate violence by challenging the racist systems and being willing to absorb abuse without hitting back. Shane Claiborne is using creative events to instigate change in thinking, behavior, faith.
If anyone needs a visual for the cage-fighting Jesus: http://myskitch.com/bruce.a.arnold/jesus___jeezus-20071108-162920.jpg
February 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Hey Susan. Like you I do not know anyone who would self-identity in that way and I am sure there is a very insignificant number who would. Although I wasn’t making that point in the post. Very few people self-identify as racists but they do exist. I was rather making the point that fundamentalism (which I would argue exists) is an impotent movement.
In terms of the historical and theological term ‘church militant’ I was saying that MLK is an example of what that really means. Hope that clarifies the post.
thanks
February 10th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Pete, I’d like to take another shot of this potent cocktail. Let us continue to denounce fundamentalism for its impotence. I think we should broadly identify that a large part of the evangelical movement in the US would fall under this umbrella and identify it as such. I pray that as we do so, it isn’t only by our loud words but mainly by the power of what we do that this insecurity and impotence is exposed. I’d like to think that as this line of thinking develops there will be concrete expression of violence that alters the base and changes the dimensions of the questions we are able to ask and opens up possibilities for radical answers. Of course there must be some theoretical base – there can’t be immediate action – but at some point, and this is what excites me, I hope that the revolutionary moment will be recaptured and delivered.
-Colin
February 10th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Great visual, Susan.
No one you know identifies as a fundamentalist today because the moniker has lost significant symbolic capital [something which provides honor, prestige, influence, recognition, can be exchanged for money, etc.] since the term has also been applied equally to Muslims. In strict cultural marketplace terms, Muslims have little symbolic capital in American life and their association with the term has ‘devalued’ it.
There are some, however, who will engage in strategic linguistics (or, provocatively, engage in collective memory formation)–like Peter–and either reclaim (conservatives) or re-evaluate the term (’violent Linguistics’). Conservatives who do so will almost always conduct their reclamation by renouncing Muslims in the process–field evidence of the phenomenon I have just described to you–while also updating it to account for any cultural struggles since the early 20th century that they deem to be of prime significance.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Colin – you are on to something. Check out the book “The Family” by Jeff Sharlet. It uncovers a form of stealth fundamentalism that doesn’t bear the earmarks of its more populist cousin. Jeff is one of the most astute religious journalists working today and he connected many of the dots, thus creating a picture that many of us knew existed but had only seen bits and pieces before.
To this dynamic, I would add academia and what I term “comfy churches” – undergirding the performances of the professors/pastors is a very conformist ideology that might not be explicit at first because everyone is enjoying the spiritual buzz. But pull back the veneer and a clear authoritarianism undergirds the power structure behind said institution. Just ask any professor or pastor what happened when they dared to buck the system. That’s why I’m attracted to what’s happening on the fringes – seems that’s where the real transformation happens.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Yes! Jesus said that loving one another would be a sign to the world for the truth and love of Christ. The more we pull closer to one another & to the ugly and hungry……we become mighty weapons in the hand of God.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Nice! Using Zizek on the Mark Driscolls of the world.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:40 am
“Thus, the next time we hear of some blustering speaker attempt to bolster their support by making themselves sound like the follower of a cage-fighting, bodybuilding Jesus, we should avoid the trap of arguing that their image of Jesus is too violent and instead show how it isn’t nearly violent enough. Drawing out how, amidst all their seeming machismo they are little more than a timid sheep in wolves clothing.”
Was that a Mark Driscoll reference perchance?
February 11th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Oh, Dan got there before me…
February 11th, 2009 at 7:57 am
[...] (my loss!) but I’ve been following his blog, and this week he has some reflection on why fundamentalism isn’t too violent, it isn’t violent enough, that are really worth [...]
February 11th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Driscoll? Never even heard of him
February 11th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Peter,
I found your blogpage from a link from another. YOu have great stuff here.
I’d like to add your page to my RSS, XML or Atom Feeds, but I see on your page here that you have no icon to enable me to do so.
Do you think you can sign up for a Feed Reader?
Blessings,
~Amy
Walking In The Spirit
http://amyiswalkinginthespirit.blogspot.com
February 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Here’s an interesting interview with Alan Jacobs, a professor at Wheaton and and someone who has written a lot on evangelical issues. No doubt he’s more conservative theologically than many in the emerging conversation, but he is worth listening to, I think.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/jacobs.html
February 11th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“In their seductive vision of an alternative world and their unrelenting quest to pursue it they ruptured the systems of power that surrounded them and thus expressed the true violence of Christianity. A violence that shifts the underground by allowing the outsider to be heard.”
The more i study and try to understand Jesus, the less i see the possibility that any coercive force can be used in a Christian context that does not legitimize and happen with the marginalized and forgotten of any and all systems. Overall though, i think the problem with contemporary fundamentalism especially in the US is a belief in the ability to trap christianity in amber and point to a certain belief and interpretation. Doesn’t this basis of a firm doctrine leads to the distracting attacks on not the systems of power itself but instead on those who oppose their particular viewpoint?
thanks for the food for thought
February 11th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I completely agree with you, Colin, that “…it isn’t only by our loud words but mainly by the power of what we do that this insecurity and impotence is exposed.” I don’t think that we need to wait for this line of thinking to develop before we contribute our own concrete expressions of violence to alter the base. Our acts of (non)violence, the action of each of us today in whatever context we find ourselves, are how the line of thinking will develop and the base be altered. The revolutionary moment is now.
Becky, you might be talking about fundamentalist pastors and professors – I don’t really know them and can’t speak there. I do know mainline and evangelical professors and pastors that are insurgents, passionate and as patient as they can reach to be, bearing plenty of scorn as they carve through oppressive ideologies as steadily and slowly as water. Hope those working such good on the fringes will remember them. I think we need both.
Mother Teresa and Dr. King and others like them were just the same as the rest of us ordinary people. They saw the same kind of unapproachable, overwhelming problems of injustice that we do. They just let themselves be moved out of their insecurity and impotence to do the little thing before them, and then another, and others noticed and started too, and the world began to change.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Read The Family and you’ll see what I’m referencing – it’s a Stepford Wives Syndrome found in elitist country club-esque enclaves. They despise the more outward acts of populists such as Driscoll though they share many of his views especially as they relate to women and homosexuals. One advantage to a Driscoll type is at least you know up front what you’re getting – these guys are so incredibly nice that it’s very easy to fall under their spell. This is a much more sophisticated form of the love bombing that often transpires at evangelical type gatherings were newcomers are given loads of affection in the beginning and then slowly indoctrinated into the group. These tendencies are cult-like though labeling them a cult would be misleading as they don’t exhibit all the tendencies.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:54 am
I think an Driscoll push back might sound like this:
I am not suprised that a bunch of wimpy intellectualist latte drinking geeks and nerds who inhabit this site and seek to emasculate Jesus into a pink fluffy tree-hugger are having a go at me as I am the number one hate figure for the emergents. No wonder men are leaving the church in droves! A puny wimp like Rollins might threaten me with Zizek but I could whip his ass any day!
Rodney
February 12th, 2009 at 5:30 am
I wandering what “real change” is…what kind of change are you talking about? I do believe that the powers that be, attempt to maintain the status quo, and I imagine all your seemingly subversive talk, actually does nothing but lubricate the status quo, just as any other form of protest or impotent rebellion. There is nothing wrong per se with maintaining the status quo…for, if there happened to be a fairly good system in place that looked after the alienated and normally excluded groups, then, I am sure that you would want the status quo to be maintained. And maybe at this point, there would be a conservative counter movement, to bring back favour for the rich and the industrial.
Swings and roundabouts??
Within all of this, I see the voice of the child, frustrated with the family…with the family system….its constancy, and the loss of an individuals identity in it. All the while, instead of trying to bring about real change in our more immediate lives with ourselves, and with our families…we remove it from those circumstances and transfer it onto the world around us…and lumber the rest of the world with our “real changes”.
There are plenty of people who were impotent to bring about real change in their own lives, who brought about “real change” in their societies. Which has more importance. Do either have significance or importance. Is change any better than not changing?
What exactly are you wanting to change?? What exactly are you discontent with??
February 12th, 2009 at 6:02 am
On a more serious note I have a lot of sympathy with Raindogs point of view which he expresses in a vert articulate fashion:
I was involved in the charismatical renewal movement of the 1970/1980’s – we genuinely believed we were going to restore the purity of the New Teatament church in modern times. It was a time of amazing passion, heady excitment and boundless hope as the movement impacted thousands of people in the UK. however the dark underbelly of excessive authitarian leadeership, fundementalism and human fraility was exposed and the whole thing crumbled into dust leaving many casualties in its wake to this day….
I could rightly be condemned as a middle aged cynic who says ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ when I encounter talk of subversive change. I genuinely appreciate some of the heartwarming grass roots stuff going on in the emerging church scene and wish the whole emergence senario success – all I would say is be careful with the temptation to laspe into too grandiose rhetoric.
Rodney
February 12th, 2009 at 6:05 am
Having a BAD spelling day in last post – I wish I had spellchecked it!
Rodney
February 12th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Pete,
i see your point on fundamentalists being impotent and i agree with you, but are not their very actions of oppressing people and being bigots a violence in and of itself? As a queer woman who has experienced homophobia from the people who call themselves Christians and who i call fundies have done violence against me with their words and actions.
Maybe i am not understanding you clearly enough.
Warm Regards,
EP
February 12th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Hey Existential Punk
Yeah, I don’t want to minimise their subjective violence at all but rather argue that this violence is one that actually manifests their ultimate impotence (kinda like an abusive husband’s violence being one that demonstrates his weakness rather than strength). This is why I connected it with war. War is so horrific, and yet it is often sought as a means of ensuring nothing changes.
The true violence, the pacifist violence of those who stand up against such injustice and who continue to live in the face of it (as if it where not there, even though it is there and demands to be taken seriously) is the true Christlike violence that helps to bring in peace. Often the most courageous thing one can do is to act as if the oppression where not there (like Rosa Parks sitting where she wanted: acting normally in an abnormal environment and thus helping to rupture it).
Thanks
p
February 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
“They despise the more outward acts of populists such as Driscoll though they share many of his views especially as they relate to women and homosexuals. One advantage to a Driscoll type is at least you know up front what you’re getting – these guys are so incredibly nice that it’s very easy to fall under their spell.”
Hmmmm, Rick Warren, anyone?
We seriously need a support group for evangelicals who are pro-gay and pro-woman. I think there are probably 10 of us scattered around North America.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Pete is a “puny wimp”?! Nah, that’s not true.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I love this post.
There really is so much injustice and violence in this world – it constantly threatens to overwhelm me. As an English national I am grieved by the injustices my country committed as it sought to dominate large sections of the world. And we have called ourselves a Christian country! I am disgusted that a nation plundering the earth and its people can have the audacity to claim allegiance to a God who became a materially resource-poor and vulnerable human in pursuit of rectifying human-instigated earthly abhorrences. The activism of Christ, Mother Teresa and MLK et al encompasses a wonderful paradox in that theirs was a truer and more efficacious violence!
February 12th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I believe Peter is absolutely correct. The defense is against real change, because change would alter the current power structure. Nietzsche identified our language is created and implemented so as to have and retain power over others. The church does this a lot especially in todays environment utilizing rhetoric that mobilizes people soliciting emotive reaction against the threat of new ideas. All of the posturing all of the labeling of “liberal” and other terms only seeks to retain the status quo and keep power in the theological language and perspectives that are currently held, seeking to avoid any re-evaluation or new interpretations. I just read an article about the Roman Catholic Church re-introducing indulgences to seek to bolster falling numbers of people utilizing the confessional. Seeking to keep what was, that which is still vital.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html?_r=1&em
MLK and Mother Teresa (as well as people like Ghandi though not from our tradition) refuse to acquiesce which forces a more intense violence (and are often the recipients of such violence). Hey isn’t that what Jesus did to?
February 13th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Hello Pete,
I’m a graduate student at Baylor and have just seen you speak for the second time. (I asked if having full conviction in a grounded mega-narrative eliminates the need for a meta-narrative. – Bald guy, goatee, back of the room)
I am very engaged in the things you’re speaking about. I am a Theatre Artist who has been in a place of doubt for quite some time. And in the last few years I’ve received more than a few judging glances when I tell people I wish Church were more like Theatre. So your ideas about Theo-Drama truly fascinate me. I have this secret desire to start doing public explorations of faith in a very theatrical way. Like “Improv Everywhere” meets Augusto Boal and Thomas Merton.
Thanks for your work and for coming to Baylor twice (God knows how that happened).
February 13th, 2009 at 1:52 am
I guess I would need a serious and thorough definition of “fundamentalism”. The word, here in the States, can be both very good and very demonized. It all depends on who is using it, and the audience to whom it is being spoken. There is a fundamentalism which stands for believing God, through Jesus, spoken very thoroughly and intelligibly. It believes that God is supernaturel as revealed in Scripture. It believes that God has spoken a discernable moral code that is of a lasting and eternal nature.
There is also a “fundamentalism” that means those who perhaps abuse religion and others to serve themselves.
The term is tricky. You will see it used by those who are on the far left to accuse those Christians they don’t like (and believe me, we are accused. Comes with the territory of following the Lord). It that manner, it is a word employed by the “intellectual Pharisees” (for that wicked prideful type also exist) . Then again, it might refer to those who are without compassion or grace towards others and are quick to judge.
One needs not only thorough definition concerning fundamentalism, but also spiritual discernment in these matters.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Is there not a danger that we begin to label fundamentalist anything and everything we disagree with, or on the other hand using the term fundamentalist to talk about a particular way someone holds to some particular beliefs.
Part of me wonders whether some of us are talking more about radicals, and others more about conservatives
February 13th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Also like matt i wonder that we may need to distinguish between why people hold the convictions they do.
Is there a diffenrence between those who are motivated by fear to believe and behave in certain ways and those who are moticated by a genuine desire to be faithfull to their traditions, scripture and God.
February 13th, 2009 at 10:23 am
We might even say fundamentalism isn’t fundamental enough – if it hangs too much with beliefs, accusation, judgment and does not go all the way through to the spiritual reality of a faith that can only be love (sorry, no exceptions).
I am inspired to go further and say that the higher criticism isn’t high enough if it doesn’t find its way back through all the questionable texts to the living, post-resurrection Christ.
And it’s not that postmodernism is too radical, but that it isn’t radical enough if it doesn’t get past the pride of “scientific” modernism and turn its suspicion upon the old false metaphysics which attempts to import the principles of empirical science into the moral and religious spheres.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I burnt my tongue on cooked broccoli last night.
Sorry….felt like being deliberately facetious for the hell of it
(Please don’t bar me from the blog!)
February 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
In response to “Reader”, I would agree. All things must resolve in charity (1 Timothy 1:5, 1 Corinthians 13, et al). However, we must remember that the reality or ontology of agape is found and rooted in the Scripture. We (us fallen creatures) do not define what love is; God does. God is by nature holy, and we are by nature not holy. So, God, through the Scripture defines what charity is. First we love Him, his truth, his word. This encompasses a lot. It is neither the property of the intellectual academic, nor the churchman, nor the theologian. It belongs, in first instance, to God. So, looking to his written word in fear and trembling, may we learn what God teaches fully and thoroughly about charity. God teaches us first to love his word and standard. Then we love others. If that order is reversed, you will see great distortions of God’s standard. How do we know? Well, we are all sinful people by nature. Of course we will distort “love” if we don’t go to God first.
May God give us wisdom, holy fear…and yes, true charity.
February 13th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Matt, that is one huge “However” you tacked on to your agreement there.
Sorry, prior to your post I don’t recall anyone locating “the reality or ontology of agape” in Scripture. Now I’m nervous you’re going to tell me it’s Tillich
February 14th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Roberta Bondi translates a beautiful story from one of the Desert Fathers, Dorotheus of Gaza (5th C.) in To Love as God Loves (if memory serves).
Dorotheus describes the world as a wheel, with G-d at the center, the hub. Each of our lives is described as a spoke on that wheel during which we may move closer or further from the center. Dorotheus, in his faithful wisdom, points out that as each spoke / life moves closer to the G-d / center, it necessarily moves closer to every other spoke / life.
We can’t move closer to G-d, we can’t love G-d more, without loving each other more. And we can’t love each other better without moving closer to G-d. Elegant! Feels true to me, to my reading of Scripture. Thanks Dorotheus!
Matt, I respectfully disagree: we do not first love G-d, then others. G-d first loves us, enabling us to love G-d and others.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Susan, you are correct. It all begins with God. “For from Him and to Him and through Him are all things. To Him be the glory…” (Romans 11).
Strictly speaking, the ontology is found in God, Himself. I would say as far as us understanding that, we must read the Scripture.
Tillich? Yikes…I will take a pass on that one.
Matt
February 14th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
[...] Fundamentalism isn’t too violent, it isn’t violent enough. [...]
February 15th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Technically, if you’re going to be a true fundamentalist with regards to the New Testament:
1. You can’t fight or harm anyone.
2. You can’t get divorced unless there is unfaithfullness.
3. You must sell all you have and give to the poor.
How many of those labeled “Christian Fundamentalist” live up to these standards? Hell, Southern Baptists have one of the highest divorce rates in the USA. I’m not judging them, because I fail to live up to many of Jesus’ teachings myself. But nonetheless these teachings are explicitly outlined in the NT. So perhaps the word “fundamentalist” is useful only in describing a right-wing political movement rather than a theological context.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:13 am
sounds like you’ve been reading zizek
February 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Actually, a working definition of “fundamentalism” would be very helpful. Are we able to get to definitions, expansive and yet defining, on anything these days? Hope so.
Anyway, does anyone have a working, unbiased, insightful and yet beneficial definition of this term. I am willing to throw the flag on anything too biased against conservative positions. I believe in the atmosphere of this blog such is needed. However, does anyone want to step up with an informed definition of “fundamentalism”?
As our gracious blog host, Peter, would tell us, coming from his discipline; We really must define our terms.
Thank you,
Matt
February 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The peaceable kingdom can indeed look violent to those desperately colluding with the old world of political power and military might.
So I take your point Peter, and don’t object to the linguistic twist on the word violence as a kind of Flannery O’Connor prophetic uttering. But in the end, I’ll want to keep the word violence to mean violence, as contrasted to peace, pacifism or active non-violence. Violence is always about scapegoating, it shrouds itself in a myth of redemption, it offers only surrogate peace, it is manipulative in that it justifies itself in the blame-worthiness of the victim, it is generative in that it invites retaliation, it is self propagating, and it is the thing that lies at the base of culture and religion, and the very thing that Christ exposed in us.
(A link of you’re intersted, Christians for Active Nonviolence, http://www.cforan.org)
February 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Matt, assuming you are not trying to hijack this thread for missional purposes, you must be asking for a more thorough definition of that impotent, unchristian, and merely obstructionist type of traditionalist that Pete featured in his original post.
Am I right?
Actually, I think stephen t berg (just above) gets the ball rolling nicely.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Reader,
Actually, I was looking for a greater definition as stated in my other posts (see above two posts). The term is “fundamentalism”. Both a good term and yet negative (again, please see above).
February 16th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I appreciate the provocative and unapologetically confrontational nature of Peter’s original post! As with others who replied, I immediately recognized the clearest example of who who the author was referring to in his critique of preachers who defend the idea of “a cage-fighting, bodybuilding Jesus” [ie. Mark Driscoll, whose podcast I enjoy despite significant doctrinal and ideological disagreement]…
Rollins direct refutation of such poorly crafted theological posturing is a beautiful thing that I hope we can see more of in the future. Too many times I hear the neo-Reformed Piper disciples use truly toxic rhetoric to characterize the ideas of people like Peter Rollins, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell [ex. Driscoll says that McLaren's writing sets out ideas that are "heretical" and "destructive to the church."] I have been waiting for some of the accused, or perhaps their capable surrogates, to offer this type of rebuttal against the rampant straw man depictions of postmodern and emergent theological ideas being peddled in some corners of the church (ex. Why We’re Not Emergent by DeYoung & Cluck and Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church by D.A. Carson are some of the worst to be released in recent years].
More of us must be willing to clearly articulate and defend a genuine postmodern/emergent theology against the misrepresentations of our ideas by those in the conservative/evangelical/Reformed/fundamentalist camp that has risen up in recent years. The common progressive tendency is to search for the good in an opponent’s arguments and attempt to build a consensus on whatever points of agreement can be found. Unfortunately, the argument with Driscoll and the like are rarely made in good faith and often shift abruptly to a false categorization or misrepresentation of the true nature of the disagreement.
Can anyone actually point to a single example of even the most passionate emergent progressive drawing a theological caricature of Jesus of Nazareth that would bear any resemblance to the effete embarrassment described above? NO! This is a make-believe sketch of emergent theology that has been created by its enemies despite bearing ZERO likeness to reality and it’s time more people of good faith began to characterize these arguments as such.
Perhaps the “Great Rebuttal” to this wave of false witnesses can begin in earnest. Thanks Peter!
- S.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Dan Buck,
I too like the concept of theo-drama. I reckon that ‘church as theatre’, out on the streets, is the way to go. More than that: life as performance art, 24-7. Means that the christian becomes a director of public stories, stories in which he or she also participates – a story-maker. I’m reading Robert McKee (amongst others) on the nuts and bolts of Story: I reckon the film and theatrical industries have much to teach us about performance which we can reverse engineer into the means for living vibrant and exciting lives. Particular excited by the way that story arcs and other structures can form organic boundaries providing groups of people in performance together with a kind of generative discipline/ morality.
Can I tie this back into Pete’s post? I wonder if stories are by their very nature non-violent? In the sense that they are complete, and therefore do not spill out where they are not wanted. Everyone loves a story. Only once, therefore, it is smuggled into the heart of a community, to become loved and cherished, is it, from the outside, unpacked, allowing its revolutionary force to change things from within. Fundamentalists don’t have stories: they have principals. Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King and Jesus, however, became living stories. It wasn’t that they told stories, so much that they allowed themselves to be the stories that other people were free to tell.
Idle thoughts…
February 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I like Clive James’ definition of totalitarianism (for which, perhaps, read fundamentalism) as a ‘premature synthesis’. Great, literate and compassionate man who also happens to be a fine comic.
Premature synthesis being a rush to close down ‘the story’ before it has fully worked itself out… The kind of voice that says, ‘Hey guys, I know the ending. What do you mean, you’re only halfway through? The butler did it! Let’s march as quick as we can through the words and you’ll find I’m right. Better still, just trust me. Tear the rest of the pages out. Pretend they don’t exist. Hey, we could get a good bonfire going here. What say we use the bonfire to … I dunno… ‘persuade’ the author to write something else with a few less words, where it’s clear I’m the hero from the start…’
February 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
[...] quote is from Peter Rollins who will be in Hollywood speaking on his Evandalism tour March 1 and 2. In the post he discusses the subjective violence of Fundamentalism, which covertly seeks to cover up a maintenance of the [...]
February 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Steve,
i think the point of peters post is to present the idea that because of the trojan horse-esque effect of stories and parables, they are far more violent than fundeamentalism. The transformational nature of the stories (lives) and parables of jesus, MLK, mother theresa and others challenge the very structures we think in and the options we see presented before us, which eventually leads to a confrontation with the powers spoken against. In this way, i don’t think that stories only go where they are welcome, if we are living 24/7 theodrama as you present, the cry in the wilderness will be heard because it combines with those of the oppressed and downtrodden.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
if only i were so violent as to massacre my self – that would be following jesus.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:23 am
Pete,
This is one of those posts that I thought to myself, “Wow…why haven’t I ever heard it expressed that way?” I’m often confronted with a fundamentalism that emphasizes less of an uncompromising stance but rather a more compromising stance. They often claim to be uncompromising. They do not conform to the world, but, in fact, they do. They hold to “fundamentals,” which is more like holding on to a comfortable life rather than something that pushes against the common, natural reaction and expression to things in the world. As you mentioned, if fundamentalists were uncompromising, they would look more like Mother Teresa and Dr. King, instead of looking like good politicians.
Evan
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
Collin, respectfully, I think I disagree – stories are always welcome: the meanings behind them might challenge, but the one thing someone who is challenged cannot say is that he or she hasn’t enjoyed the story in the first place. That’s precisely why they have the punch they have. There’s no get-out clause once the Trojan Horse is unpacked.
It’ll be interesting to see whether Slumdog Millionaires, for example, great film as it is, results in change in the Mumbai slums.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 am
[...] Rollins findet, dass Fundamentalisten nicht gewaltsam genug sind. Hinter der aggressiven Gebärde bleibt nur allzu oft alles beim Alten: Das Denken in [...]
February 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Great day at the office!
Spent time at Darlington’s Northern Screen-Writers Conference, The Story Engine, where I rehearsed the ideas about story I’ve touched on above to fellow delegates, to universal exclamations of ‘I get where you’re coming from’ and ‘that’s a wild thing to do!’.
Church has so much to learn from storytellers in every medium. So much. So, so much.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Some friends wrote a very well related article the other day:
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=54194404623&h=37mb2&u=aAs4E
July 9th, 2009 at 7:03 am
[...] What can I say. I want to communicate what a great time I had at Poets, Prophets and Preachers and how grateful I am to Rob Bell for not only inviting me to speak but standing side by side with me on the stage in an act of solidarity. In the battle for what Christianity will look like in our current epoch Rob Bell is an important figure and one who I hope we heed. For, as I hinted at in one of my talks, some of the alternatives are frightening in their impotent violence. [...]
September 24th, 2009 at 5:05 am
[...] These issues, as they infiltrate society, play out in real ways (either positive or negative) and are bigger than our like or dislike of each other. Of course I view what fundamentalists actually think to be important to be generally ridiculous: the truth of their claim is to be found in its form, not its content. As I have argued elsewhere, their seemingly potency is anything but. [...]