|
Post by tapati on Oct 21, 2009 4:26:49 GMT -5
Vyckie, I would suggest that fundamentalism is perhaps a symptom or a coping mechanism for those with mental illness, and that in other cases, the fundamentalist lifestyle can cause a person to experience a severe, reactive depression, especially when one feels backed into a corner with no other options. I suspect that you experienced the latter when things seemed to be falling apart yet, still believing, you saw no other option for your life. The mainstream world had been presented as terrifying--and your childhood seemed to confirm that. It was almost rational for you to think that way about mainstream life, given what you and Sandy had experienced in childhood. Only your letters with your uncle gave you any indication that there were good people out in mainstream society.
We have had a number of discussions on Gaudiya Repercussions about why we saw a number of Hare Krishna devotees displaying serious symptoms of mental illness. We concluded that aside from some of the crazy-making catch 22 situations devotees encountered when dealing with authorities who cared little for their welfare, that could perhaps cause depression or other illness, the extremely structured nature of temple life attracted those who felt too vulnerable in the outside world and felt contained or safe with the structure in the temple.
For others, like me, it was a developmental phase in reaction to my chaotic childhood. The structure and clean environment was very attractive and of course it helped me escape from my home earlier than I otherwise could have. There were less healthy routes I could have taken--run away to a big city and be sexually exploited, end up on drugs, give in to one of the older men who had approached me for sex and end up pregnant even earlier, and so on.
One could point to belief in irrational things such as religious myths as evidence of insanity, but then one would have to include even moderate members of any faith.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 21, 2009 8:11:57 GMT -5
In my experience as a Christian schooler with some friends who loved Francis Schaeffer- I don't believe that any of us as teenagers really knew the extent of his involvement in patriarchy and the Religious Right...The friends who really liked him saw themselves as minor rebels. They didn't want to rebel against Christianity, which they believed in, and Schaeffer-ism seemed like a way to rebel WITHIN Christianity. Admiring Francis Schaeffer made them seem different without being heretical. They framed themselves as the new intellectuals of Christianity. Very hipster. Do you have any idea how this mythology around him is sustained among so many young people? I mean... It's not as if he was ever a *stealth* member of the religious right. Nor is it difficult to find out what he actually believed. One can find any number of videos simply by looking him up on youtube. He was very straightforward about his involvement--so much so that his published works suggest that it's sometimes necessary to bomb abortion clinics. Everything I know about Francis Schaeffer seems not at all rebellious, and yet... In death, he somehow amassed this huge hipster following. I know that Calvinism has always situated itself as the "intellectual" movement within Christianity, but it seems to me that it wouldn't take much outside research or reading for these folks to figure out what they're getting into. It just seems...intellectually lazy to me. And one could say a lot of snide things about "hipster rebellion" among the white middle classes--and not wind up terribly surprised that a right wing reactionary found his way into their lexicon, but... Still, it seems ridiculous to me. Where is the harmless, hippie commune dwelling "rebel" of the mythology? It seems to me to be based on some fabrication... But whose? Who created it? Who thought, "Hey, let's bring Francis Schaeffer into the emergent church movement and turn all the hipsters on to him! I mean, most of 'em have never even *heard* of RJ Rushdoony, so it'll be a piece of cake."
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 21, 2009 10:01:47 GMT -5
I think Tapati's response makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Oct 21, 2009 10:18:39 GMT -5
The problem with fundamentalism-as-mental-illness is it assumes that it crops up independently in individuals. Fundamentalism is a mental system that ensnares individuals in a common net. May I suggest that fundamentalism is a meme. And memes have their own--as yet not fully understood--evolutionary system of reproducing. If any one is interested, Danial Dennett's book Breaking The Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon explores the way religious ideas, as memes, flourish and are passed on. Very evocative read!
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Oct 21, 2009 10:25:48 GMT -5
As to wondering why Francis’ word is in with X-tian Hipsters - apparently they are unaware of the history of his influence, thus perpetuating the ‘normalizing’ of a worldview that requires women to give up their very corporal lives for the promise of Perfect Salvation. I'm just curious, and perhaps Vyckie, who has read some of the elder Schaeffer's work can clarify this, but in reading Crazy For God, I got the impression that the elder Schaefer's work has taken on a life of its own, and would no longer be recognized by Francis hisself (sort of like the old saw the Karl Marx once said: "I am not a Marxist"). Even if that is true, however, it underscores Sea's point I think. The young people reading Francis' earlier works need to also learn how badly those works were distorted by religious charlatans to suit their petty personal objectives. edited to add: I see that km has a pretty good working knowledge of Francis' work as well. Perhaps in my ignorance of that work I've sugar coated it.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Oct 21, 2009 11:07:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 21, 2009 17:13:48 GMT -5
Do you have any idea how this mythology around him is sustained among so many young people? I mean... It's not as if he was ever a *stealth* member of the religious right. Nor is it difficult to find out what he actually believed. One can find any number of videos simply by looking him up on youtube. He was very straightforward about his involvement--so much so that his published works suggest that it's sometimes necessary to bomb abortion clinics. Everything I know about Francis Schaeffer seems not at all rebellious, and yet... In death, he somehow amassed this huge hipster following. I know that Calvinism has always situated itself as the "intellectual" movement within Christianity, but it seems to me that it wouldn't take much outside research or reading for these folks to figure out what they're getting into. It just seems...intellectually lazy to me. You seem to think that if the kids who admire him knew about his involvement with the Religious Right and Rushdoony, that it would turn them off to Schaeffer, but I think that you underestimate where they're coming from. While the idea of the hipster may indicate someone more modern who has more information, this is still someone who's deeply, deeply engulfed in Christianity/fundamentalism. Someone who wants to seem "different" WITHIN Christianity, not someone who has any interest in examining it objectively. When I and my classmates watched the Schaeffer videos, I wasn't allowed to have any non-Christian friends. Most people didn't have internet access yet. My mother even censored the library books that I checked out. The Religious Right was applauded, anti-choice murderers were just "misguided" and although he would not have been an admired figure at my Baptist school, a lot of Rushdoony's beliefs wouldn't have really raised many eyebrows. After all, we were a feeder school for Bob Jones- where at that time, interracial dating was forbidden. So the ability to get and process unbiased information was hard.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 21, 2009 18:23:41 GMT -5
When I and my classmates watched the Schaeffer videos, I wasn't allowed to have any non-Christian friends. Most people didn't have internet access yet. My mother even censored the library books that I checked out. The Religious Right was applauded, anti-choice murderers were just "misguided" and although he would not have been an admired figure at my Baptist school, a lot of Rushdoony's beliefs wouldn't have really raised many eyebrows. After all, we were a feeder school for Bob Jones- where at that time, interracial dating was forbidden. So the ability to get and process unbiased information was hard. This makes sense in your context. I guess the kinds of people I find who are intrigued by him nowadays are fairly liberal hipster individuals. Mostly, I'm thinking about my sister and her friends, but bear with me... I don't mean they're hardcore leftists by any means, but certainly at least voted-for-Obama liberals. Not people who are enamored of anti-choice rhetoric. If they're homophobes, they're not out about it and have never suggested as much around me. They don't talk about submission, but they do go to an evangelical church. It just seems like they don't *know* that Schaeffer had these views or connections. And when I try to talk to them about it, they're like, "But L'Abri was so...PEACEFUL." My father was a seminary student around Schaeffer's time. He's no longer an evangelical, but he says now that he knew about the patriarchal views, but that the bits about bombing abortions clinics/violence/theocracy were not included in what most people were reading. You talked about noticing a difference in degree between evangelical and extremist fundie groups, and I'm not sure I completely agree... I'm not a Christian either, but most of the people I know who go to these evangelical churches will say, "I don't agree with everything that they teach. I just go because I like the people there" or "I'm not on board with everything. I just like the style of music that they use." It seems to me that *some* people (And I was never one of them.) are able to engage with this kind of stuff and just...leave the unhealthy stuff at the door. People who end up most comfortable in QF environments seem not to be comfortable with this kind of church environment. As a non-churchgoing person, I myself could not flourish within any environment that upheld patriarchy, however gently. But... Maybe some people can do it.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Oct 21, 2009 20:45:06 GMT -5
KM, my parents are like the people you described in your last paragraph. They're towards the liberal end of evangelicalism--anti-gay, but egalitarian gender-wise, and would've voted for Obama over Bush if they were in the States. Their church believes in male headship, though it also pays at least considerable lip service to the idea that a man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. I brought them to that church when I was 14-15, and I was actually a lot more affected by the conservative ideas--first, the highly conservative youth group influenced me in very negative ways, and later I just couldn't stand being around the church's conservative ideas anymore. But my parents are still there, even though they're discontented enough with the Focus on the Family curricula the church has been using lately that they've written to the pastor about it. (Their letter argues that the central political principle of the Bible is care for the poor and oppressed, not minimal government. I am proud . )
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 21, 2009 21:32:14 GMT -5
kisekileia: My mother and my sister are kinda like what I described in my last paragraph, so I can relate. On one hand, it makes me absolutely furious to think about them putting any money into the offering and *knowing* that that money probably contributes to the anti-gay evangelical Christian machine (I mean, are they *sure* their churches didn't provide money for "yes on Prop 8"??). On the other, they do seem *not* to be as badly affected by evangelicalism as I was. I'm a pretty literal person, and for me, *any* evangelicalism led straight into QF territory. I don't get it, and I do wish they'd examine it more (especially wrt the matter of offering money), but... Well, I don't think it's been as dangerous for them as it was for me.
|
|
|
Post by theothermother on Oct 22, 2009 18:06:03 GMT -5
Religious fanaticism draws the mentally ill, and, in some cases, the implementation of its doctrine will cause mental illness. It's not invalid, at all, to associate fundamentalism with poor mental health.
Girls like Angel and myself never had chance to choose, at least as children raised in fundamentalist home schooling. I know many more girls than Angel who tried to take their life or had eating disorders. Honestly, as a girl in radical evangelical culture, there is little that you can control. Think about it - there is no privacy, your every move is watched (especially with lots of kids in 3 bed, 2 bath house!), you are a constant caretaker, there are all these rules that you must follow, and, bingo, patrio-dad gets to make up new rules from day to day, so you just never know what it going to happen. Very little security in spite of the constant reinforcement of the faith and the certainty of fundamentalist doctrine. They only thing a teen girl in this case can control is whether she lives, dies, or what she eats. Not much else. Even your clothes and hair are regulated! Is it a wonder some girls go crazy? To a degree, this extends to mom, too. The main difference is mom may have chosen the lifestyle as an adult.
|
|
|
Post by lorell on Oct 22, 2009 20:20:01 GMT -5
I think part of the problem with the term "mental illness" may be the 50s snake pit taint it still carries for many of us.
I see fundamentalism as more akin to an addictive behavior. In my church the pastor speaks of drug addicts trying to fill a Jesus shaped hole in their soul. Because they're using drugs, of course they're still miserable. But just switch to the Jesus drug and all is well. Like methadone for heroin, or heroin for morphine. But with Jesus you can embrace the addiction, push others to get addicted, credit all your actions on the addiction, blame all your faults on not getting enough of your drug or the wrong kind of drug. Pin other people's faults and unhappiness on their non-addiction.
But instead of the shame and guilt attached to drug addiction, you can be proud of the addiction to Jesus. You can suck up that drug until it kills you, and people will call you a saint.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 23, 2009 7:31:14 GMT -5
You said it, Sister Lorell! The opiate of the masses...(I rather doubt I'm the first to invoke Mr. Marx's query here )
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 23, 2009 14:55:18 GMT -5
This makes sense in your context. I guess the kinds of people I find who are intrigued by him nowadays are fairly liberal hipster individuals. Mostly, I'm thinking about my sister and her friends, but bear with me... I don't mean they're hardcore leftists by any means, but certainly at least voted-for-Obama liberals. Not people who are enamored of anti-choice rhetoric. If they're homophobes, they're not out about it and have never suggested as much around me. They don't talk about submission, but they do go to an evangelical church. It just seems like they don't *know* that Schaeffer had these views or connections. And when I try to talk to them about it, they're like, "But L'Abri was so...PEACEFUL." My father was a seminary student around Schaeffer's time. He's no longer an evangelical, but he says now that he knew about the patriarchal views, but that the bits about bombing abortions clinics/violence/theocracy were not included in what most people were reading. You talked about noticing a difference in degree between evangelical and extremist fundie groups, and I'm not sure I completely agree... I'm not a Christian either, but most of the people I know who go to these evangelical churches will say, "I don't agree with everything that they teach. I just go because I like the people there" or "I'm not on board with everything. I just like the style of music that they use." It seems to me that *some* people (And I was never one of them.) are able to engage with this kind of stuff and just...leave the unhealthy stuff at the door. People who end up most comfortable in QF environments seem not to be comfortable with this kind of church environment. As a non-churchgoing person, I myself could not flourish within any environment that upheld patriarchy, however gently. But... Maybe some people can do it. I guess that even among evangelical-liberal Christians, there's an element of trust for other Christians. I do think it's lazy of them if you're trying to talk to them and they don't want to hear about it. However, unless they already have distrust for their church, an endorsement by the church is like a shortcut to fully researching another Christian. Like if I recommended some articles by a feminist to you, you might not feel like you had to do a big background check on that person if you felt that you trusted me and that we shared the same beliefs. This and the other comments on evangelical churches are what I meant by legitimizing watered-down patriarchy. A lot of these people may have egalitarian marriages themselves and not give a lot of thought to the nuances of the church teaching or believe that they can be a member without endorsing all church teachings... but their participation in a church that endorses "male headship" (anti-gay, anti-choice, etc.) is helping to keep patriarchy alive, IMO. I don't outright condemn anyone for being part of these churches, as there are many reasons for being a church member; but I do think that passive promotion of patriarchy is the end result. Now that I think about it, it goes hand in hand with the admiration of Francis Schaeffer. If it's ok to go to a church that teaches male headship because you "don't agree with everything they teach", what's the real difference in supporting someone because you like SOME of his teachings?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 23, 2009 15:37:11 GMT -5
... but their participation in a church that endorses "male headship" (anti-gay, anti-choice, etc.) is helping to keep patriarchy alive, IMO. Unless, of course, we are working carefully but tenaciously to change it from within. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Oct 23, 2009 19:37:57 GMT -5
I don't see what ANYONE's sex life [straight gay or otherwise] needs to be discussed before middle school either. Some kids have two Moms or two Dads--so what? Some live with their Great Aunt or a former step-parent. Big deal! lol [Oh what a big deal for some!!!]. Actually, that doesn't have anything to do with teaching about sexuality and everything to do with the fact that children very easily and quickly group themselves into "us" and "them", where "them" is everybody sufficiently different. Because of that, it's important to teach kids VERY early on, and in very specific terms (as opposed to the generic "we're all equal") that people being different just means that they are different, not that they are worse; and that there really isn't a "us" and a "them", because we're all different in some way or other. The following article deals specifically with racism, but it applies just the same to having a non-traditional family (single-parent, gay parents, being raised by a non-parent, etc.); it even applies to gender and the fact that just because some kids are boys, and some kids are girls, doesn't make the kids from the group you DON'T belong to "bad kids": www.newsweek.com/id/214989
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 23, 2009 20:49:30 GMT -5
... but their participation in a church that endorses "male headship" (anti-gay, anti-choice, etc.) is helping to keep patriarchy alive, IMO. Unless, of course, we are working carefully but tenaciously to change it from within. Not necessarily. If working carefully but tenaciously to change it from within still keeps that church alive and producing more patriarchs for longer than walking out and practicing one's own honest beliefs somewhere else would, then atheist in the BB's point still stands.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 23, 2009 21:56:58 GMT -5
But what if a particular chuch is not "producing patriarchs," but is filled with people (and leadership) who are moving gradually out of the patriarchal traditions of their particular denomination? If a word I can speak in the right place, at the right time, is helping with that change, I'm not going to abandon these kind, loving, sincere people, who are as much help to me in other areas as I am trying to be to them in this one. They're people, not nameless representatives of a particular ideology. On another note-- as far as religion being an "opiate," consider this post on religious addition from a Christian website on spiritual abuse: www.spiritualabuse.com/?page_id=46I think it's a valid point to make that just because some religious behaviors are destructive, this does not necessarily support the conclusion that all religion is. If that were the case, it would also be logical to say that because some people have food addictions that are damaging to them, food itself is to be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 23, 2009 22:24:05 GMT -5
But what if a particular chuch is not "producing patriarchs," but is filled with people (and leadership) who are moving gradually out of the patriarchal traditions of their particular denomination? If a word I can speak in the right place, at the right time, is helping with that change, I'm not going to abandon these kind, loving, sincere people, who are as much help to me in other areas as I am trying to be to them in this one. They're people, not nameless representatives of a particular ideology. We're all people, not nameless representatives of a particular ideology, even Quiverful folks and other patriarchy supporters. As for your what if, you don't really offer enough information to answer the question you pose. So in the absence of data to contradict it, I agree with atheist in the BB's point that "participation in a church that endorses "male headship" (anti-gay, anti-choice, etc.) is helping to keep patriarchy alive".
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 23, 2009 23:03:47 GMT -5
I think you're being very black-and-white (and condemning) about something that just isn't that simple. But since I'm angry now, I'll sign off until I cool down.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 23, 2009 23:30:28 GMT -5
Please don't be angry or upset. Positions like your are why I don't believe in handing out blanket condemnations- if there's a place that an individual feels they can effect a positive change, that's a personal decision.
I was responding to km - she mentioned people who think they're "leaving the unhealthy at the door" - this indicates to me that they believe that they can ignore or avoid injustices as long as they don't feel that these injustices are personally affecting their marriage or family. It's been my experience that there are many more people who say "Isn't the music great- let's just all be Christians together without letting these little quibbles separate us" than those who say "I recognize that there are traces of patriarchy in the church/denomination and am actively working to eliminate it". I'm unequivocal in my belief that the first group of people semi-unknowningly help to legitimize patriarchy. It's not my place to judge the second type of person.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 23, 2009 23:48:04 GMT -5
Please don't be angry or upset. Positions like your are why I don't believe in handing out blanket condemnations- if there's a place that an individual feels they can effect a positive change, that's a personal decision. I was responding to km - she mentioned people who think they're "leaving the unhealthy at the door" - this indicates to me that they believe that they can ignore or avoid injustices as long as they don't feel that these injustices are personally affecting their marriage or family. It's been my experience that there are many more people who say "Isn't the music great- let's just all be Christians together without letting these little quibbles separate us" than those who say "I recognize that there are traces of patriarchy in the church/denomination and am actively working to eliminate it". I'm unequivocal in my belief that the first group of people semi-unknowningly help to legitimize patriarchy. It's not my place to judge the second type of person. I don't think there is any reason to judge the second type of person, or the first type of person, for that matter. There is a reason to want to judge the effectiveness of a course of action, though, both in absolute terms - is the action getting you closer to your stated goals - and in relative terms - would a different course of action get you to your stated goals faster?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 24, 2009 0:37:16 GMT -5
Please don't be angry or upset. Positions like your are why I don't believe in handing out blanket condemnations- if there's a place that an individual feels they can effect a positive change, that's a personal decision. I was responding to km - she mentioned people who think they're "leaving the unhealthy at the door" - this indicates to me that they believe that they can ignore or avoid injustices as long as they don't feel that these injustices are personally affecting their marriage or family. It's been my experience that there are many more people who say "Isn't the music great- let's just all be Christians together without letting these little quibbles separate us" than those who say "I recognize that there are traces of patriarchy in the church/denomination and am actively working to eliminate it". I'm unequivocal in my belief that the first group of people semi-unknowningly help to legitimize patriarchy. It's not my place to judge the second type of person. I don't think there is any reason to judge the second type of person, or the first type of person, for that matter. There is a reason to want to judge the effectiveness of a course of action, though, both in absolute terms - is the action getting you closer to your stated goals - and in relative terms - would a different course of action get you to your stated goals faster? Thank you, Atheist in the BB and Coleslaw. I would say, in answer to the question about the course of action, that yes-- the action (staying in a church where they are listening to my ideas and even being swayed by them) is getting us all, as a church, closer to where I believe we're supposed to be: a place of true equality. And a different course of action-- say, actively condemning them for the patriarchal practices I still see in evidence and separating myself from them-- would in this situation definitely work against that goal.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Oct 24, 2009 0:42:23 GMT -5
But what if a particular chuch is not "producing patriarchs," but is filled with people (and leadership) who are moving gradually out of the patriarchal traditions of their particular denomination? If a word I can speak in the right place, at the right time, is helping with that change, I'm not going to abandon these kind, loving, sincere people, who are as much help to me in other areas as I am trying to be to them in this one. They're people, not nameless representatives of a particular ideology. We're all people, not nameless representatives of a particular ideology, even Quiverful folks and other patriarchy supporters. As for your what if, you don't really offer enough information to answer the question you pose. So in the absence of data to contradict it, I agree with atheist in the BB's point that "participation in a church that endorses "male headship" (anti-gay, anti-choice, etc.) is helping to keep patriarchy alive". It's too familiar ground I'm afraid.. I refused to participate in a lot of things that kept the liberal and/or pagan agenda alive when I was a fundamentalist. I don't really want to go that way again in reaction to patriarchy. The church I loosely associate myself with is a mixed bag, plenty of things I could walk out over and plenty I could get on board with. In my fundy days I would have walked out over their liberal ways.. now that I'm a liberal (in the christian sense) myself I don't wish to walk out over their fundy ways. I speak my mind. I try and be gracious in response to the fundys because, well, it's pretty arrogant not to be when I've been there myself. Not easy though, I'm a loud mouth. I am careful where my money goes and choose to only give to collections that go to charitable endeavors. I try and remember that everyone is on their own path and to find connections with people even if their ideology is anathema to me. This is good for me and is its own kind of healing for the fundamentalist mind set I once embraced.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Oct 24, 2009 1:43:04 GMT -5
And quiverfull children most certainly do NOT freely choose the lifestyle, it is thrust upon them. Why do you say this? Of course children don't choose the lifestyle! Neither do children of atheists, workaholics, drug abusers, prostitutes, alcoholics, etc. This statement sounds kind of "inflammatory" but it is a general fact of life that children don't choose their own lifestyle. The ones that do often fail to thrive (usually called neglect). Someone needs to care for them and give them guidance til they are ready to go it alone. That is what parents are for! Each of you reading this, if you are a parent worth the name, you don't give your children all the choices in the world. You don't say to your child, "Oh, if you want to obey me, go ahead, but if you don't want to, that's okay too", or "I don't care if you don't want to brush your teeth--it's okay with me--don't then--after all, they are your teeth." Or do you?
|
|