"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

[Pranav]

We are talking about an international phenomenon, it's hard to exclude India from the ambit of discussion.

We have off topic thread for that. Lets stick to Philip's request.

Thanks, ramana

That would break some logical and natural links.

[ramana]

Atri, 1 & 2 are similar to Hitler's drive to re-instate German past and mainitan German identity ispite of Crhsitian identity. He also wanted to fashion new Christianity based on Europe. Nazism was also a new religion.

BTW where did you post your original that you quote above?

never mind:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1134846

[Atri]

Atri, 1 & 2 are similar to Hitler's drive to re-instate German past and mainitan German identity ispite of Crhsitian identity. He also wanted to fashion new Christianity based on Europe. Nazism was also a new religion.

BTW where did you post your original that you quote above?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1134846

Hitler had similar ground conditions, yes. But then there was a huge unemployed young workforce out of job due to depression of 1929. There isn't such scenario today (at least as of yet).

Hitler is representative of a European drive to coagulate into a large monolithic entity of common market. This drive made its presence felt in form of Fredrick the great, holy roman empire, napoleon, European union, roman emperors (from Julius Caesar). Hitler is just one aspect of European centripetal force. Britain and Russia are main adversaries of this common market. They will never allow this to happen.

While world will make sure that the drive does not manifest itself as barbarically as Hitler, one cannot be sure when chips are down. Europe was colonizer when Hitler rose. There was generation who believed in using oppression to maintain power as legitimate method. today, such generation is by and large, absent.

This action is more about anger stemming from factors 3 and 4. 1 and 2 are ideological and quite distant reasons. While they are very powerful, I do not think whether breivik himself appreciates them as the fundamentally acting subtle factors which have shaped his mind in his formative years when he learnt Scandic history.

[brihaspati]

Atri,
excellent analysis! But what if the state is not actually "God" but the "father"?

If state played the role of "God", the state and God would play interchangeable and melded imagined role. Then failure of the state would be taken as the failure of "God" and a large part of society would then have to turn away from "God" too.

The way Gods were represented in pre-Christian Scandic lore - would have multiplicities of gods and would see the ruling order as a constant scene of tussle between "good" and "evil" gods, and even the "good" ones having flaws. But the humans would never dare to intervene and fight or resist the "gods". Moreover the pre-Christian gods were often mischievous and their rampages were often at the cost of humans.

Hence if the Norse were looking for and expecting kindness and consideration from the state-God, it is the post Christian "God" in imagery. But even there, unconditional submission to that post-Christian "god" would be the norm - and negativities would still have to be seen as due to sins and faults of the humans and not "God's".

Your post reminds me of an old thought of mine where I found close parallels between the role the Nordic states played in terms of bringing up children and the family, with the role that a traditional father was supposed to play. Thus in many senses the social welfare system took up the place of the father in Nordic families, and displaced the men from this role. It supported and in a sense encouraged the growth of single-parent mom-only units.

Each new generation thus in this sense, was both the child with an absentee father who paid for his/her upkeep from out-of-sight and without the emotional bond, as well as in particular for the boy growing into a man - the absentee father himself.

The psychological effects would be disastrous in the long run and for the society over several generational iterations. There would be increasing destructiveness - and an anger at the absentee father, a lack of emotional identification with that absentee father, rage at self and the father, even a murderous hatred that is directed both at the father and self.

The search for a new "Christian" identity would be a search for the missing emotional connection and bond with the father - and more prominent in the men. The "fundamentalism" would then be a more intensive and possibly violent manifestation of this.

[ramana]

Odin?

[svinayak]

Your post reminds me of an old thought of mine where I found close parallels between the role the Nordic states played in terms of bringing up children and the family, with the role that a traditional father was supposed to play. Thus in many senses the social welfare system took up the place of the father in Nordic families, and displaced the men from this role. It supported and in a sense encouraged the growth of single-parent mom-only units.

Each new generation thus in this sense, was both the child with an absentee father who paid for his/her upkeep from out-of-sight and without the emotional bond, as well as in particular for the boy growing into a man - the absentee father himself.

The psychological effects would be disastrous in the long run and for the society over several generational iterations. There would be increasing destructiveness - and an anger at the absentee father, a lack of emotional identification with that absentee father, rage at self and the father, even a murderous hatred that is directed both at the father and self.

The search for a new "Christian" identity would be a search for the missing emotional connection and bond with the father - and more prominent in the men. The "fundamentalism" would then be a more intensive and possibly violent manifestation of this.

Congratulations. Brilliant BJji' !!

The western social frame work is resembling the one parent and no father family(replaced by state social contract) and they are trying to assert themselves. This could be part of the social experiment being tried to christian societies in Europe to make them more liberal and accommodating to demographic changes in the world.

American society is a special one for social experiment and many groups are involved.

[brihaspati]

Odin?

All three - Thor, Loki and Odin were seen as possibly inconsistent, flawed, and having failed from time to time or mischievous to each other. But their effect on and treatment of humans is mostly mischievous or unreliable. They need blood sacrifice - including human and male animals - but they are not seen as challenge-able by humans. The belief remains under the surface of society - and is probably more persistent at subliminal level within "non-aristocrat" compared to elite. Growth of neo-paganist elements would be a thing to look out for.

[Theo_Fidel]

What explains the Nazi search for a Aryan identity.

They wanted any identity but a plebeian European one. At one point they claimed descent from Tibetans IIRC.

WRT Odin I'm with Bji. The Norse gods were not comfortable family type ones. Probably why it took so long for Norse to get involved in Christianity.

Breivik does not make any moves towards a master race. I don't think Christian fundamentalists do either. As long as we are think along those lines, the Bible does say that angels begot children with women and they were Giants. At various times different European groups have tried to claim this origin for themselves.

[SwamyG]

I crudely drew the below picture sometime back. The thin lines between individual reflects the deteriorating family system; and the thick lines represents the clutch of the State on an individual. When the relationship within a family becomes sufficiently thin, the individuals do not have any support but the State. So instead of multiple relations (lines) between family members, an individual has just ONE line connecting him with the State. My picture only shows two links per individual, in reality there are multiple lines/relations in family. And if this link fails, the individual loses all support structure as he was fully dependent on the State, and trouble erupts in the society.

Maybe some gurus can talk about from where the concept of 'individualism' originated, how it was strengthened by whom and why.

[SwamyG]

On UK riots.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... iots/print

As Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett point out in The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, phenomena usually described as "social problems" (crime, ill-health, imprisonment rates, mental illness) are far more common in unequal societies than ones with better economic distribution and less gap between the richest and the poorest. Decades of individualism, competition and state-encouraged selfishness – combined with a systematic crushing of unions and the ever-increasing criminalisation of dissent – have made Britain one of the most unequal countries in the developed world.

It kind of goes with my above post.

[brihaspati]

In any connected graph - if all nodes connect to a single node over and above being connected to a few others, then depending on mutual dependence - that single master node gains importance above everything. If all needs satisfied through this master node, lateral edges get weakened. But if after that, the single edge connecting to the master node becomes weakened - the individual gets completely cut off.

[ramana]

Can you post that in the Non-Western World view thread, for that sums up the history of the West?

[ramana]

Theo Can you provide some sources for the oppression Viajaynagara Nayaks after Madurai was reconquered in the Distorted History thread?

[Philip]

"Inequality".This is what is bringing down western society/states and beggaring them in the process.A couple of years ago,a well known mag had a feature on how the world's wealth was being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.The graph was almost vertical.When a fraction of a fraction of the world hold disproportionately its wealth,society will explode when the have-nots rebel against the state.The steady decline in the UK of the Middle and Working class at the expense of the rich-just look at the banker's pay-offs and bonuses evn when they led their banks to bankruptcy is apalling.

The second factor is that the mass of untermenschen are given the dole,just as freebies are liberally being doled out in TN,keeping them in their poverty and bread (booze) and circuses (football and telly) available/affordable to them ,"what me worry"? Parental control over their children flies out of the window when the education system for the underpriviliged is the equivalent of a sick joke.Alco-pops and pill-popping are de riguer for teenagers and BNritish teenagers had the worst record in the EU for drink and drugs.The rich and powerful can keep the plums of life for themselves and cocoon and isolate themselves from the masses of ignorants.

The stress of surviving,physical and mental, in such environments leads individuals like Brevik to look for alternatives in religious cults,frat groups and gangs with fascist overtones.It was why Hitler was so popular amongst the German people because he was found most appealing to the German lower middile-class,stuck in the eco woes of the inter-war years.Neo-Nazis and Fundas like Brevik are two sides of the same coin.Jews and Muslims can be two sides of the same coin to such extremist thinking.race alsoplays a major role too.One Indian mag recently had a cover feature on "Aryan studs" in India,in remote hamlets in the Himalayas,supposed to be descendants of Alexander's army,secretly servicing German women who wanted "pure Aryan babies"!

[brihaspati]

The "Aryan studs" story is fabulous. No genetic linkages have been established to Europe. Alexander's army, and Alexander himself in his times were rather "short", and most were not TFTA - because Greeks themselves were not TFTA -far less the macedonians. Most were also bi or gay, including Alex and his close comrades. How do they match up with modern reconstructions of the "Aryan"?

[SwamyG]

Rajiv Malhotra's 'Breaking India' book is a very good read. Lots of material on this subject.

[darshhan]

The day a Christian Tamil can marry a white Missouri Christian will be a day of rejoicing, joined as they will be in their common love for Jesus.

A few decades back the poor christian Tamil would have been lynched for this offence in certain parts of US.So much for Jesus.

[Theo_Fidel]

The lack of a long 'deep' history has always bugged Europeans. This is the reason Lord of the Rings was written for instance to create a deep mythology to suit Europeans. Christian fundamentalists have rallied around LOTR as a Christ based mythology that they can follow. They have then marketed it around the world so now LOTR has become the subconscious deep history of Europe for the world. You know with horses and brave white knights slaughtering the dark evil hordes, etc. Rivendel, Baggins, Aragorn - Good / Saruman, Sauron, Orcs, Nazgul Evil. Not even subtle anymore.

The origin of Modern genetics has made the situation even more fraught. All of us are Africans. That took a long time to digest. Europeans are from Middle East and Central Asia. That took even longer to digest. The result has been a sort of cognitive break down. Recently there have been ever more desperate attempts to find Neanderthal DNA in European blood. Something to root them there long term. The Atlantis myth gave them another straw to cling to. So now Christianity has become a more meaningful part of their 'deep' history.

WRT to the Genetics of 'Aryan' the real story is extremely complex and hard to decipher. It will be a few more years before it is all fleshed out. The modern male Aryan Y-DNA gene is R1a or R1b. R1a is predominantly Eastern Europe & East Germany. R1b is Western Europe. These lines are so dominant that in areas they approach 95% of the population. The Northern Europeans/Scandinavians/Russians belong to a completely different stream. Southern Europeans & Greeks & Southern Italians belong to completely different lines.

The European lines present in India are R1a overwhelmingly and very few R1b. They don't mix. The odd thing is that mutation clocks appear to show that Indian R1a & R1b is far older than the R1a & R1b in Europe or even in the Central Caucuses area. At least 18,000 years in India. Now this doesn't make sense as we are very certain that R1a & R1b originated in central asia due to many other factors, including the relative lack of R1b in India. There are some tribes in North/South India that look SDRE and yet have 50% R1b in their blood. There are Tamil tribal groups with no contact with outsiders that have 60% R1a in their blood. Also the genetic branches above R1a & R1b are often represented only in India. So there is a strong suspicion that those groups at least moved from India to elsewhere. Right now all one can say is stay tuned....

[brihaspati]

^^^Many matches are found across large distances - and not in the intervening geographical spaces. For example one particular marker appears in Kerala, Sindh and western Italy - not anywhere in between - and can be calculated to have evolved at least 17,000 years ago. Each local group shows continuous descent from that time by other markers. Who went where?

The central asian origin theory of the two branches of R1 is just a theory, not entirely undisputed. Moreover there is relatively scarce trace of continuity in between - leading to problems in continuity of overland migration hypothesis. One thing not seriously considered of course is whether people equally traveled as ancient mariners. That would explain a lot of the hop-skip phenomena - and fit in perfectly with distribution patterns at least from India towards Europe.

Theo-ji, you will surely understand that the problems you mention about the north-souuth pockets of R1B and R1A markers of India appearing in far ends - are solved if we accept a dual land-sea based migration. In that case CA is just one of the motels on a land highway - with the brave and desperate taking to the waves across the coastal IOR, Red Sea, a short trek through the swamps or lower delta of ancient Nile [which might have flowed further west through the Sahara into the middle Med] to land up in northern shores of the Med - fast enough. On the water there would be less tribes to fight through on the way.

[Arjun]

A call for all fundamentalists (especially American Evangelical Christian fundamentalists) to come out of the closet

The specific term "fundamentalism" was born out of a movement within American Christianity in the early 1900's. In that sense "fundamentalism" is a relatively new and exclusively American idea. Case in point, until 1950 there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary. However, the motivating principle of fundamentalism—zealous adherence to a socially narrow and morally exclusive set of basic principles—belongs to all of humankind and has been around since the beginning of recorded history. It is that sense of fundamentalism, not simply the term's historical origin, that has become the ubiquitous pejorative of the early 21st century.


When it comes to deciding which definition of fundamentalism to use I've noticed a great number of American Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't hesitate to apply the pejorative in reference to radical "fundamentalist" groups within Islam but then distance themselves from the same term by citing, "Oh no, I'm not a fundamentalist (switching to the more limited and now out-dated definition). I'm an Evangelical." This is an inequitable playing of both sides since most American Evangelicals "zealously adhere to a socially narrow and morally exclusive set of basic principles."


How is it then that "they" (the Muslims operating clearly outside of God's will, for which they will ultimately be judged by the true God) are fundamentalists and "we" (true believers who hold to the one true faith and worship the true God who will ultimately judge all non-believers) are not? Clearly, this is a cheat.


The fact that American fundamentalism has not been called to put all it's cards on the table and play fair has obscured the social conflict that seems to be destined to define the early 21st century—the victory or villainy of fundamentalism.


There are clearly two fundamentalist conflicts raging in the West. One is a war between fundamentalists—exclusivist Evangelical dogma v. exclusivist Islamic dogma. The other is between fundamentalism in general and the rest of an evolving society at large. That these are separate conflicts is largely obscured when American Evangelicals claim to want to bring an end to "radical fundamentalism," a claim that is patently untrue. What they hope to bring an end to is anyone else's fundamentalism—a clearly fundamentalist perspective in itself.


The second conflict—that the two warring fundamentalist groups seem too occupied with hatred and fear to see—is that the rest of the world is growing weary of fundamentalism, any fundamentalism, period. What this means in the end is that fundamentalism will either triumph as a social standard or it will be rejected en masse. Should it be the latter—and I hope it is—it means that regardless of which fundamentalist kid wins this current fight out on the playground, they are both going to end up in the principal's office.


Can you hear this Christian America? Regardless of what short-term military or political victories you might obtain, you are losing social clout with every passing day.


Far more importantly, in terms of personal spiritual development, it would behoove us all to examine our deepest convictions—and the actions and attitudes associated with them—to discover just how "fundamentally" we hold to them and how much "us/them" we ourselves are nurturing in the world.


This is the real struggle, the true angst of the current conflict. For it poses a challenge to the "righteousness" of my own beliefs. Some of us need to stop hiding behind the red herring of "missional" or "evangelical" and come out of the fundamentalist closet. We need to consider whether Love is real and is really enough. Whether our so-called "personal relationship with God" is actually producing for us an internally sufficient sense of identity and value or, if we need to continue clinging to dogmas that externalize our value by comparing "us" to "them"—the heart and soul of fundamentalism.


Here's a personal spiritual value question: Would you continue to feel special if everyone, including those who hold to radically different religious views, gets into heaven? Have no doubt, these are the culture-shaping questions of our time.


We all sense that there is something deeply flawed with fundamentalism (yes, even Christian fundamentalists do, which is why one does all one can to avoid the label). What we haven't all sensed is how much fundamentalism lives within.


We need to. Soon. For whether or not you've bombed an abortion clinic or flown a plane into a skyscraper, if your world-view is about "us" and "them" then most likely your life is not part of the solution but rather, fuel for the problem.

[Arjun]

Statistics pertaining to the prevalence of evangelistic beliefs in the US population: Evangelical Christians

Barna's statistics actually shows only 9% of the US population defined as 'evangelical' based on what they truly believe in...this is a much lower estimate than several other studies and estimates conducted across the US, that put the total percentage of evangelical denominations at closer to 30- 40% of the US population. This seems to be due to the other specific 'conditions' that Barna placed in the definition - ie that the evangelicals should, in addition to being 'born again' should believe in each of the following:

1. Assert that their faith is very important in their life today
2. Believe that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians
3. Believe that Satan exists
4. Believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works
5. Believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
6. Accept that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches
7. Describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

Clearly this 9% reflects the highly-proselytizing, completely literalist type of Christians - effectively the most problematic part of the community. I would assume that the percentage of evangelicals in the 'third world' and India would be north of 40 - 50%, since organized, large-scale proselytizing is largely from the 'problematic' denominations, which then combines with the zeal of the 'neo-convert'.

[svenkat]

Just feel frustrated that 'some' can see only one side of the coin.

Deleted.

[ramana]

Guys how did this thread turn to discussing India, Hinduism and Vijayanagar kingdom? Are the Kakatiyas going to come also?

How about sticking to topic?

[abhischekcc]

Can we discuss Xtian fundamentalism in India in this thread?

[ramana]

NO.

[abhischekcc]

Should I open another thread for it then?

[ramana]

Off topic is there.

[chetak]

Should I open another thread for it then?

Dusting off the old soosai vest, are we?

[RajeshA]

Can we discuss Xtian fundamentalism in India in this thread?

See if the thread "Cultural Protectionism - Global & Indian Trends" can be any good for you! Haven't found the time to post much there still!

You may have to formulate your posts according to the mission statement of the thread though!

[brihaspati]

some of the trajectories of modern X-tian fundamentalism in the west:

Most modern fundamentalist ideological strands in X-tian west trace their roots to Dispensationalism. This started from a small British sect, referred to as the Plymouth Brethren, formed in Ireland and England during the 1820's and originally led by John Nelson Darby. These were dissenters from supposedly "the dead hand of tradition and legalism in the Church of England", the Brethren admitted any professing Christian to their informal weekly communion services, refused to acknowledge or create any special "caste" of clergy, conducted their meetings without order of service in order to "allow the Holy Spirit to lead their worship", and in everything attempted to recreate the New Testament pattern of church government and worship.[W. Blair Neatby, The History of the Plymouth Brethren (London, 1901); and W. G. Turner, John Nelson Darby (London, 1944).]

Dispensationalism is division of history into periods of time, usually seven "dispensations". The Scofield Reference Bible, the most influential text of dispensationalism in America, lists them as Innocence (the Garden of Eden), Conscience (Adam to Noah), Human Government (Noah to Abraham), Promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), Grace (Christ through the present to the judgment of the world), and the Kingdom or Millennium. The underlying theory is that God judged man not on an absolute and unchanging standard but according to ground rules especially devised for each dispensation. For example, under the dispensation of Grace, men are required to repent and turn in faith to Christ, while under Moses they were commandedto obey the law.

Here the Israelites by birth and the spiritual community of the Church is sharply distinguished. The one is entered by natural birth, the other by conversion- the "new/second/re birth." Both have promises and prophecies given to them which must
be distinguished and separated. In the millennium, the Church will reign as the "bride of Christ," while Israel will be restored to its ancestral land and inherit the earthly kingdom forecast by the prophets. This particular aspect leads to support for so-called Zionism.

Toward a Historical Interpretation of the origins of fundamentalism. Ernest R. Sandeen. Church History. Vol 36, (1) 1967 :

The dispensationalist accepted an intensely pessimistic view of the world's future combined with a hope in God's imminent and direct intervention in his own life. God has established covenants which have always been broken by virtually all those involved in them. God has waited, restraining judgment, but eventually punished the disobedient while saving out of the destruction a little band, a remnant of just men such as Noah, Joshua, or Ezra. This pattern of past events was projected into the future through the interpretation of prophecy. Dispensationalists became prophets themselves, predicting the speedy end of their own era in an act of God's cataclysmic judgment. They looked for a literal, imminent second coming of Christ as the next event before God judged the world and brought in the next dispensation, the millennium, and, therefore, referred to their eschatology as pre-millennialism.

In their view the religious leadership has always been the chief center of apostasy (as in the case of Israel and the golden calf) while the righteous remnant has been neglected, overlooked and even despised. In nineteenth-century America as in Europe, the apostates were quickly identified as liberal theologians. Thus a doctrine of the Church emerged from a philosophy of history: The church was made up of God's elect who were always only a handful, seldom if ever the possessors of power. The true church could not possibly be identified with any of the large denominations, which were riddled with heresy, but could only be formed by individual Christians who could expect to be saved from the impending destruction.

this leads to

As has been intimated, the interpretation of biblical prophecy played a large role in dispensationalism. A glance at the history of other nineteenth century religious groups-Millerites, Irvingites, Mormons, Campbellites,or Shakers-would show them to be concerned with prophetic interpretation as well. Millennial expectations are woven into the fabric of early nineteenth century life in both Eu- rope and America.13 One factor which differentiates the dispensa- tionalists is their concern for biblical literalism. To speak of a concern for biblical literalism may seem redundant in the context of the evangelical tradition in which dependence upon scripture alone had become a shibboleth. But care must be taken to differentiate between the common evangelical belief in biblical inspiration, the effect of which was to distinguish the Bible from other books, and the principles of hermeneutics which guide the interpretation of the Bible itself. Literalism, in the early nineteenth century, usually refers quite specifically to the interpretation of prophecy and contrasts with the figurative or symbolic manner of interpretation. This literalistic approach puzzled many scholars although they themselves might not have any doubts concerning the inspiration of the scriptures.
[....]
It is not difficult to see how some of the characteristic doctrines of dispensationalism arose from this hermeneutic. The second coming of Christ, the restoration of the Jews to the land of Israel, the Great Tribulation, and the 1000 years of peace and justice-dispensationalists believed these prophecies would be fulfilled quite as literally as Christ had fulfilled prophecy during his first advent. When the verbal inspiration of the Bible became a matter of theological dispute later in the century, the dispensationalists were able to win many converts to their cause by arguing that only dispensationalismreally took the Bible seriously. Dispensational theology was based upon hermeneutical principles which required, in fact presupposed, a frozen biblical text in which every word was supported by the same weight of divine authority.

Dispensationalism was being preached in US and Canada as early as the 1840's, John Nelson Darby himself travelled to North America on seven occasions from 1862 through 1877, frequently traveling around the continent for as long as a year. During this sixteen-year period (1862-1877), Darby resided in North America at least forty percent of the time. The great bulk of his time was spent working in large cities, mostly on the eastern sea- board. During his last trip to the U.S., Darby ministered for at least 15 months in Boston and New York City. Darby did not preach to the non-Christians, but primarily to the more committed Christians, particularly to the clergy. He accepted invitations to speak in the pulpit, but seemed to prefer meeting during week-day mornings for informal discussions and Bible readings.

As is observed in the quoted passages, "literalism" actually has its roots in an older "literalism" that emphasized the supremacy of the Biblical text as the source and repository of all future interpretations for anything of concern. The very legitimacy of the text leads to the tactic of dissent being expressed as an even harder "interpretation" which shows the pre-existing authority as having "deviated" and the new "order" as onlee trying to correct the deviation. Since they are not attacking the text - the existing authorities cannot invoke the textual authority and bring charges of "heresy". This is the unidirectional tendency in textual religions - and leads to ever increasing shriller cries of "we are the purer" interpreter of the "revelation", and the previous leadership is corrupt and "deviant".

Many converts to dispensationalism were won during these years, but few of these would take the step of leaving their denominations. According to Darby, this was the main aim of his teaching. He once wrote, ". . . our real work ... is to get Christians clear practically of a great corrupt baptized body. . . .". But most converts to. dis- pensational theology refused to abandon their denominations and pastoral posts. Darby complained in one of his letters, . . . "There is a great effort to keep souls in the various systems while taking advantage of the light which brethren have and preaching their doctrines. They do not even conceal it. One of the most active who has visited Europe told ministers that they could not keep up with the brethren unless they read their books, but he was doing everything he could to prevent souls leaving their various systems called churches." Thus the instrument of propagation for the dispensational system in the U. S. became the clergy and religious periodicals of American denominations and voluntary societies, who, without announcing their conversion to anything new or different, began to influence the evangelical churches.

This again shows the competitive factional infighting to gain following and dominate the "structure" that sustains "fundamentalism".

To what kind of Christians did dispensationalism appeal?-particularly the Calvinists. Most of the converts seem to be Presbyterians or Calvinistic Baptists. Very few Methodists were ever caught up in dispensationalism, nor were many U. S. Episcopalians, although many British and Canadian Anglicans became converts. The Presbyterian and Baptist denominations were the two most involved in the Fundamentalist controversy in the 1920's.

[svinayak]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... is/243616/

Is Rick Perry as Christian as He Thinks He Is?
AUG 15 2011, 2:19 PM ET553
The Texas governor is running an openly religious campaign, but does he overlook the parts of the Bible that do not support his political beliefs?



America is a religious nation. Polls may differ, but most find that over 80 percent of Americans say they believe in God. Fifty percent also say they go to church on Sunday, while only half of those actually do. I guess this shows that we want to look better than we actually are, at least to the public -- if not to God, who presumably knows what we're really up to.

Most political candidates also profess their belief in God. At the same time, they rarely make a big deal of their devotion. They've probably read Matthew 6:1, which warns, "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who just announced he's running for president, has taken a different tack. A week before announcing his candidacy, he led a prayer meeting for evangelical Christians in Houston. The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit trying to stop him from participating in this rally, arguing that he was violating the First Amendment by using his position, stationery, and website to promote the event. The court dismissed the complaint, saying that the plaintiff didn't show sufficient harm to merit the injunction.

I disagree with the court's ruling. I think the governor misused his office to promote a particular religion. That might have been clearer to the judge if Perry had organized a rally in support of Islam rather than Christianity. There's no difference as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

In any case, Gov. Perry's decision to make his Christian faith a central part of his political identity opens him up to questions not usually asked of presidential candidates.

The press has traditionally been unwilling to question politicians about their religion. But in Perry's case, Christianity is front and center on his platform. I hope David Gregory will ask him some of the following questions when he next appears on Meet the Press, and that other members of the media won't shy away from them either.

First, are Rick Perry's political positions in line with Christ's teachings?

I see a fundamental inconsistency between Perry's concerted opposition to government social programs and his promotion of himself as a Christian politician. When asked about the impact of Texas's low-tax, low-service policies on the poor, he suggested that people who wanted more government services could find them in New York or California.

Christ teaches us to feed the hungry and care for the sick, not to abandon them. Perhaps Gov. Perry hasn't read that part of the Bible where Christ admonishes us to care for "the least among us."

It's more likely that he knows that passage but reads it in a particular light. When I wrote Failing America's Faithful, I interviewed Rick Warren, the evangelical Christian minister and author, about his bestselling book, The Purpose Driven Life. Rick very kindly welcomed me to Saddleback, the church he had founded more than 30 years before. He and his wife were gracious to me. I was impressed by the thoughtfulness with which he reached out to his congregation, and his sensitivity to their needs and wants.

I had read his book, and coming from a different Christian tradition, I was struck by how much it focused on getting you to feel good about yourself rather than caring about your neighbor, which Christ had said was the greatest commandment.

[Arjun]

India protestors push for change

This pea-brain links Anna Hazare's movement to presumed Gospel success in India !!

There are some parallels with the Arab Spring, but Stravers thinks that India's diversity will take it a different direction. "There have been non-violent protests, demonstrations at government buildings. I think this is actually good news. I attribute this, partly at least, to the success that the Gospel has had in the last 10 to 15 years in India."

Stravers explains that the Gospel message runs counter to the message of the Hindu caste. As a result, the Church is growing faster than those in power are comfortable with. A Hindu nationalist movement is becoming more vocal as they see the power base shifting away from the docile Dalits. Today, Christians are finding themselves in new places of influence in society. Their worldview shapes their actions, and that brings hope. Stravers says, "When people get hope, that's when the protests start."

Since India is not supposed to be part of the scope of this thread, my reason for posting this is only to emphasize the absolute inseparability of politics and spirituality in Christianity. Separation of church and state in Western nations has been implemented from the POV of the state - but not from the POV of the church. In other words, it is verboten for the state to mix religion with politics, but not for the Church to mix politics with religion.... Any attempt at reforming Christianity has to start with the premise of defanging this political component.

Any replies to this post - please reply only on the aspect of Church / State relationship in Christianity...and not to the India-specific comments of the preacher.

[Philip]

VICTORY HAS A HUNDRED FATHERS AND DEFEAT IS AN ORPHAN -Said JFK, but coined by Mussolini's son-in-law of Mussolini, Count Caleazzo Ciano ."La victoria trova cento padri, e nessuno vuole riconoscere l'insuccesso."

We now have the hilarious spectacle of even EJs wanting to ride on the AH bandwagon,let's not be too harsh on them.After all ,right across the country AH "fan clubs" in the form of anti-corruption movements are springing up.I know in one at least,some utterly disreputable elements are trying to occupy leading positions!

When Christ was tried by Pilate,Pilate asked him that famous Q,"what is the truth?".We can ask today yet again the same Q,"what is Christianity (today)?"
It means quite different things to different entities,especially in the west.As Ramanna said some time ago,these days its not so much about "saving souls" but legitimising conquest.

[abhischekcc]

Politics and religion are inseparable in any monotheistic religion - that's what monotheism is all about. It is a continuation of the Mesopotamian socio-political structure that existed during the city state phase many millenia ago, in which the chief priest was also the chief administrator. (Brahmin and Kshatriya power are combined in one person)

[Theo_Fidel]

Politics and Religion has never been separable for any religious stream. It is up to the state to keep it self free of religious contamination.

[Philip]

How does one then describe Buddhism...as taught by the Buddha? In Lanka is has been hijacked by several state players,but the essence of the religion is not "political".Similarly how do you explain some Indian religious entities like the Bramha Kumaris,etc.? They have no politics.Religion and politics CAN be kept aside if the followers so wish.It can be done with Christianity.As some have pointed out a "pseudo-secular" PC (politically concious) wave has swept many western states where the once religious backbone of the nation is being emptied of its content and the mere shell of a "Christian" state remains which can be filled up with a variety of power-hungry alternatives.Britain's war in LIbya is an example.The French at least have kept separate religion and the state through their laws.No one can accuse them of hypocrisy!

[Arjun]

Politics and Religion has never been separable for any religious stream. It is up to the state to keep it self free of religious contamination.

Hindu clergy / priestly class as also Hindu temples are typically apolitical. There is no platform provided for preaching / sermons as is customary in churches & mosques - so there is not even any means for conveying political messages. Hinduism has never focused on organizing externally, which is typically what leads to political tendencies.

On the other hand, political views expressed by Cardinals, Bishops and assorted others that have the backing of the 'Church' establishment behind them & in many cases use Church premises for airing their political views- is a very commonplace affair.

Hinduism cannot be bracketed with the more overtly political religions.

[RajeshA]

"La victoria trova cento padri, e nessuno vuole riconoscere l'insuccesso."

"La vittoria trova cento padri, e nessuno vuole riconoscere l'insuccesso."

[abhischekcc]

Islam and Xnity have political goals of conquering other religions.

Hinduism (and Judaism) do not have the goal conquering other religions, only of protecting their own turf - this is not a political goal.

Islam/Xnity want to transform the world to bring it under the control of their priest class. That is not true for the older religions.

[RamaY]

Then the next question is can all these religions be equal and deserve equal treatment as some people define (sic) secularism?