ill-legalism Don't be entangled....Gal. 5:1

ill-legalism's

Ad-Mission

Statement

Here at ill-legalism we are intrigued by the responses we have received from both sides of the fundamentalism debate. Proponents of fundamentalism find us offensive, an attack on the church or even on Christianity itself. Others who are comfortable with the term “recovering fundamentalist” feel we have not gone far enough to condemn fundamentalism altogether.

We are concerned about the growing sentiment that fundamentalists represent widespread evil. Historically, the public media have referred to devout Christians of any type with bigoted disrespect. However, those who preach tolerance have been called to account for their intolerance of Christians and Christianity. It is no longer fashionable to bash committed Catholics, mainline Protestants, Mormons, and others. Fundamentalists, by contrast, remain as acceptable targets of attack. It is acceptable in most circles to use them as stereotypical examples of ignorance and intolerance, so much so that many fundamentalists have abandoned the name (and some characteristics) in favor of the term, “evangelical.”

Our concern is that this creates an unnecessary confusion between fundamentalists and evangelical denominations that have never been associated with fundamentalism. By erasing these distinctions, the terms “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” will become synonymous in the populist vernacular. Soon we will see the term “evangelical” replacing “fundamentalist” in general usage among the American public, if it has not already happened.

We often find fundamentalists misrepresented. For example, Cardinal Paul Poupard recently warned about the "dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism." On the contrary, fundamentalism is not disconnected from reason, but embraces the use of reason and much of the scientific method. A strong dependence on reason and deep-seated suspicion or mistrust of mystical and spiritual elements are some of the hallmarks of (non-charismatic) fundamentalism. We are concerned about the misunderstanding of fundamentalism and what that means for fundamentalists.

We want to go a step further…

We want to know fundamentalists/legalists so thoroughly that we come to love them. We want to understand their perspective, their fears, their passions, their ambitions. We often feel content in reaching out to the poor, the handicapped, and others marginalized by society. Yet, are we able, like Jesus, to eat with the Pharisees, to visit the council members by night, to have charitable discussions with them in the agora on thorny theological topics?

Do we understand their need for security, certainty, confidence and comfort, not unlike our own? Do we appreciate how their bifurcated, in/out worldview skews their understanding of the Bible? Do we see how the strengths that make their system so hard, also make it brittle? Do we look for ways to toughen them by helping them become more resilient and less inflexible at the same time?

Do we understand them well enough to know what it is they see in us that causes them concern? Do we know why they pity us, care about us, worry about us? Do we know what risks they see us taking and how they fear for us?

If not, then we don't really know fundamentalists and fundamentalism. We only know the caricature of fundies. We are basically trusting what the press/media has to say about them, not what they have to say about themselves.

We caution readers not to marginalize or demonize fundamentalists. While fundamentalism has some troubling characteristics which we wish to critique and address, it also has characteristics which we can support.