Why We Need Fundamentalists (or Orthodoxy)
September 17th 2007 13:35
Admittedly, I only really threw fundamentalists into the title to get attention. I'm a middle child (thrid of six) so hopefully, you can sympathise with me on this one.
I know in my last post I espoused the virtues of free thinking and the ability to make a choice for yourself. But however liberating and wonderfully free that thinking was, it needs to be balanced. And the only way it can balance is paradox. Free thinking, chaotic rationale are only possible because of the fundamentalist thinking of others. CS Lewis once said that the spontaneous springs out of routine. And this is true.
I think that Winston will agree with me, that most scientific breakthroughs were done by those that actually understood some of the science in the first place. Einstein could only argue with Newton, because he understood what he said and how it worked. Aquinas could only truly clarify theology by having it taught to him. Chesterton's own orthodoxy he found from other men that had gone before him. I would find it impossible to believe that any of these three men would declare that the discoveries that they made they made on their own. Perhaps the man that strutted so close to heresy and yet redefined orthodoxy, was Martin Luther. Luther's convictions came from an old orthodoxy, and rose against a new one.
The greatest strength of Orthodoxy is however, something that Winston mentioned in the comment that he made in the previous post. That science is different to religion because it relied on peer review. I won't point out where religion is similar (I think I did that already) but I will point out that the funny thing about orthodoxy, is that it does at the very least give your own heresy something to be built on. These truths that we may not always like but apply, were quite often the extension of a mind that had come from the same place that yours did. Ignorance and realisation.
But without this rigid adherence to an ordered truth, we could have no spontaneous truth either. These firebrands of doctrine that refuse to be moved, have already found a place to stand and a lever that is unbreakable. They have pushed the universe, and seen it move for them.
JZ
I know in my last post I espoused the virtues of free thinking and the ability to make a choice for yourself. But however liberating and wonderfully free that thinking was, it needs to be balanced. And the only way it can balance is paradox. Free thinking, chaotic rationale are only possible because of the fundamentalist thinking of others. CS Lewis once said that the spontaneous springs out of routine. And this is true.
I think that Winston will agree with me, that most scientific breakthroughs were done by those that actually understood some of the science in the first place. Einstein could only argue with Newton, because he understood what he said and how it worked. Aquinas could only truly clarify theology by having it taught to him. Chesterton's own orthodoxy he found from other men that had gone before him. I would find it impossible to believe that any of these three men would declare that the discoveries that they made they made on their own. Perhaps the man that strutted so close to heresy and yet redefined orthodoxy, was Martin Luther. Luther's convictions came from an old orthodoxy, and rose against a new one.
The greatest strength of Orthodoxy is however, something that Winston mentioned in the comment that he made in the previous post. That science is different to religion because it relied on peer review. I won't point out where religion is similar (I think I did that already) but I will point out that the funny thing about orthodoxy, is that it does at the very least give your own heresy something to be built on. These truths that we may not always like but apply, were quite often the extension of a mind that had come from the same place that yours did. Ignorance and realisation.
But without this rigid adherence to an ordered truth, we could have no spontaneous truth either. These firebrands of doctrine that refuse to be moved, have already found a place to stand and a lever that is unbreakable. They have pushed the universe, and seen it move for them.
JZ
| 53 |
| Vote |
Comment by Big Cat
Chatterpillar
Aren't fundamentalists even more dependent on peer support than the scientific community - hooked totally into saying the same things as their peers, repeating their leaders?
Certainly that was my experience. I was a fundamental Christian, charismatic leaning, all through the '90s. No longer so and looking back, I see it gave me a life formula where I made others responsible for me. All thought came pre-packaged via a charismatic senior pastor. No question time after his sermons.
It's not like what I'm exposed to now, where there's no pastor at all. All the church members do the speaking, me included, all researching the truth then bringing forth their portions - relating actual experiences.
It's as Paul advised in 1 Cor 14 during Acts era churches. All must prophesy. Oxford Dictionary exposes that prophesy isn't just about the future but about now too. Church lost this power of the all-spoken word after the Roman Empire made Christianity official. Since when priests, and now protestant preachers and pastors too, continue to monopolise the prophesying to themselves only.
In a church where everyone brings a word in turn, it's as good as an internet forum. Actually better. Because real people are talking reality.
Comment by JoshZ
before I answer your comment, I want to re-write the post.
I'm not happy with it and I want to give my best.
See you soon though,
JZ
Comment by JoshZ
hopefully, that answers a question or two.
JZ