In the mind of the average fundamentalist, America has become unmoored from its bedrock tether. They wax eloquently for that time in human history when life was structured in such a way that everybody knew the rules AND their proper place in life. Yes, a time when life was fixed and rigid.
But there is one teeny tiny problem with this vision: It never really existed!!
Throughout history there have always been different schools of thought jockeying for position. To be certain, in some epochs one or another of these positions held sway, but, as history marched onward, perspectives changed. There have always been rebels and philosophers who have voiced visions different than the ruling powers of their day and many of these "rebellious" perspectives later become incorporated in a later status quo.
Consider three different aspects of today's American fundamentalism: 1) The US was founded as a Christian nation; 2) Fundamentalism reflects the teachings of the early Christian Church; and 3) The idea that marriage is strictly defined in terms of love between a man and a woman.
Most of the chief architects of America's seminal documents were Deists. Deism is antithetical to most fundamentalist beliefs.
Fundamentalist would have you believe that there task is to return the Christian religion to its earliest roots, to practice their religion as the earliest Christians did. What far too many of them fail to acknowledge is that their brand didn't begin to coalesce until the latter half of the 19th century -- 1800 years too late!
Historians and biblical scholars will tell you that there was no definitive Christian religion in the first few centuries after the time of Jesus. There was a multiplicity of schools trying to win adherents and each of these schools emphasized different things. They lobbied each other. They fought with each other and, sometimes, they killed each other over doctrinal differences.
And then there is the issue of marriage. We are told that marriage has always been about the sacred love between one man and one woman. The chief problem with this assertion is that it is categorically untrue!!
As Stephanie Coontz wrote in The Washington Post last week,
In all three instances, what the fundamentalist holds up as a well-defined beacon of the past simply doesn't pass muster. It is nothing more than a false premise invented to provide historical precedence for a lifestyle a contemporary conservative desires today. Really. That's about all there is to it.
But there is one teeny tiny problem with this vision: It never really existed!!
Throughout history there have always been different schools of thought jockeying for position. To be certain, in some epochs one or another of these positions held sway, but, as history marched onward, perspectives changed. There have always been rebels and philosophers who have voiced visions different than the ruling powers of their day and many of these "rebellious" perspectives later become incorporated in a later status quo.
Consider three different aspects of today's American fundamentalism: 1) The US was founded as a Christian nation; 2) Fundamentalism reflects the teachings of the early Christian Church; and 3) The idea that marriage is strictly defined in terms of love between a man and a woman.
Most of the chief architects of America's seminal documents were Deists. Deism is antithetical to most fundamentalist beliefs.
Deism - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.It is a fact, borne out by various letters and correspondence, that Jefferson, Franklin and Adams (to name a few), were opposed to organized religion and thought the nation and world would be far better off if religion didn't exist. Yet, these are the sorts of men today's fundamentalists hold up as the founders of an explicitly evangelical Christian nation. To suggest that such an assertion represents a mighty stretch is a gross understatement!!
Fundamentalist would have you believe that there task is to return the Christian religion to its earliest roots, to practice their religion as the earliest Christians did. What far too many of them fail to acknowledge is that their brand didn't begin to coalesce until the latter half of the 19th century -- 1800 years too late!
Historians and biblical scholars will tell you that there was no definitive Christian religion in the first few centuries after the time of Jesus. There was a multiplicity of schools trying to win adherents and each of these schools emphasized different things. They lobbied each other. They fought with each other and, sometimes, they killed each other over doctrinal differences.
And then there is the issue of marriage. We are told that marriage has always been about the sacred love between one man and one woman. The chief problem with this assertion is that it is categorically untrue!!
As Stephanie Coontz wrote in The Washington Post last week,
For millennia, marriage was about property and power rather than love. Parents arranged their children's unions to expand the family labor force, gain well-connected in-laws and seal business deals. Sometimes, to consolidate inheritances, parents prevented their younger children from marrying at all. For many people, marriage was an unavoidable duty. For others, it was a privilege, not a right. Often, servants, slaves and paupers were forbidden to wed.If you read the Old Testament, it's plainly obvious that marriage came about as a form of an economic arrangement (the dowry) or by means of rape. If a man forced his sexual attention on an unwed maiden and decided to keep her around, guess what? She became his wife! So much for love.
But a little more than two centuries ago, people began to believe that they had a right to choose their partners on the basis of love rather than having their marriages arranged to suit the interests of parents or the state...
In all three instances, what the fundamentalist holds up as a well-defined beacon of the past simply doesn't pass muster. It is nothing more than a false premise invented to provide historical precedence for a lifestyle a contemporary conservative desires today. Really. That's about all there is to it.
"..their brand didn't begin to coalesce until the latter half of the 19th century.."
ReplyDeleteAh, I love the notion of "branding," like a product, with marketing to back it up. Commercial Christianity.