Anti-Fundamentalism: Divisive, Not Exclusionary

Last updated on: June 19, 2017 at 12:57 pm by Guest Contributor

Anti-Fundamentalism: Divisive, Not Exclusionary 2017-06-19T12:57:51-06:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This guest post was written by Alex Camire.

Anti-Fundamentalism-Divisive-Not-Exclusionary-1

I hear people throw the word, “divisive,” around a lot these days.

This person is divisive.

That person is divisive.

Stop being so divisive.

It sounds bad, doesn’t it? It sounds like a bad word that produces discord. In the Christian realm, I often hear a paraphrase of Mark 3:25, “a house divided cannot stand.” The implication being that if you create discord, swim against the current, ruffle too many feathers, etc., you’ll produce some evil in the form of disunity.

When did we decide that division was an intrinsically bad thing and, conversely, that unity was intrinsically good? Sure, the words carry bad and good connotations, but I don’t believe this should be the case.

In the world of partisanship, in-group/out-group social structures, and either/or, all or nothing thinking, it’s difficult to stay centered and very easy to fall into the pit of restrictive dichotomies.

As I continue to reevaluate my faith, I sometimes find that my core values as a Christian are more defined by the things I don’t believe in, rather than by the things I do. I can even look at Christianity itself and, instead of seeing what it can be, I notice the things it shouldn’t.

And so, on the surface, I feel like a contrarian when it comes fundamentalism. I tend to lean the opposite of the conservative evangelical worldview I grew up with. In order to be a part of that group, you had to speak and act a particular way:

You voted Republican, held a firm pro-life stance, and opposed equal rights for LGBT citizens.
You took the Bible literally.
You were more skeptical of scientific claims than religious anecdotes.
You were patriotic and nationalistic, believing America was a “Christian nation” and so we were blessed above all others.
You opposed Islam and supported wars against Muslim nations with little question.
You always took the side of Israel in geopolitical matters, no matter what.
You held a certain image, a degree of piety, so to speak.
And you boycotted or made known your disapproval of any movies, books, businesses, or institutions that went against any of the above.

But the problem is that none of this has any bearing on what it means to have faith in the first place. None of this is helpful when it comes to pursuing God and following after Christ. None of it will help you love your neighbor, and that is our greatest commandment. To the contrary, much of this hinders our ability to love because it’s exclusionary.

I am no Biblical scholar, but shouldn’t loving one’s neighbor be the way in which we interpret everything else, especially if love for our neighbor is the greatest commandment? Shouldn’t finding room at the table for all be our main mission?

And, if not, then please explain to me how a belief in unconditional love and grace for all is more divisive than the exclusionary views of those who place stipulations and limitations on the power of grace and love?

The significance of division and unity are dependent on what one is divided or united over. Jesus, for example, was crucified by a united mob. You don’t read anywhere in the gospels about a member of the crowd standing up and stating, “hey everyone wait; this is wrong; Jesus is innocent!” But if that had happened, would someone else have told that person, “hey, quit being so divisive, we’re united here!”? No. I’d imagine not, but then again, who knows…

I don’t want to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary. That’s not who I am or my motivation. I simply believe that there is room at the table for everyone. And yet, there are some people, particularly prominent religious leaders, who mar the faith that I hold so dear. At times it doesn’t seem worth clinging to the Christian label that’s been hijacked by those who, I believe, don’t properly represent its meaning.

So, I find it necessary to stand against those whose tenets prohibit or hinder others from accessing the table when I believe there is room for all. I will not feel ashamed when called divisive for this. It is unacceptable for people to appoint themselves as gatekeepers to the faith, insisting that their stance is the only correct one. This is fundamentalism at its core, and it’s toxic.

It is better to be divisive and stand on the other side of what is wrong than to stand with someone in a false unity.

Photo via Unsplash.

alex-camire2 About Alex Camire
Alex Camire is a life-long Christian who currently works in behavioral health and case management and is in college pursuing a Masters in Social Work. He enjoys reading and writing on topics related to religion, science, law, and social justice.

Previous Post

June 14, 2017

Faith in the Fog: Science, Atheism and the Search for Proof

Next Post

June 19, 2017 Finding Community in the Image of God

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Reviews Christian History Christian Issues Christian Spirituality Current Events Fundamentalism Islam John Shore LGBT Movie Reviews Poetry Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz