When some faction says they, and they alone, are the Real, True Christians, you shouldn’t take their word for it
When some faction says they, and they alone, are the Real, True Christians, you shouldnt take their word for it ,by Fred Clark, slacktivist :
Graeme Woods Atlantic essay, What ISIS Really Wants is getting a lot of deserved attention. Wood makes a strong, convincing case that the groups religious perspective and religious self-concept is the key to understanding its motives and therefore essential for any strategy to oppose it. Its a fascinating, insightful, informative article. Go read it . (And then, when youre done, read Adam Silvermans supplemental essay at Balloon Juice , which adds to and clarifies Woods main point.)
But while Wood is, I think, enormously helpful for understanding the religious nature of ISIS, hes also misled and misleading when it comes to understanding the religious nature of religion. Wood and Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, on whom he leans heavily, both seem to be working from a couple of flawed assumptions about religious faith assumptions that we can visualize in graphic form.
Heres adiagram of one of these flawed assumptions, a graph Ive posted a fewtimes before:
This framework, Ive written before , is an efficient machine for manufacturing stupid and a retrovirus of the brain that ensures those infected by it will never allow themselves to learn anything, ever.This is the essence of a great deal of fundamentalist propaganda. Its not at all surprising that self-proclaimed conservative fundies would find it useful to promote this self-serving framework, but its always surprising when others uncritically accept it at face value.
This model is the self-aggrandizing mythology undergirding what I sometimes call Real, True Christianity. I was forced to adoptthat phrase while working my way through the Left Behind novels. Those books are set in a post-Rapture world after Jesus semi-returns to snatch away all Christians, taking them back to Heaven in the twinkling of an eye. But Tim LaHaye and his co-author Jerry Jenkins want to be clear that not everyone who claims to be a Christian will be taken away in the Rapture. Nor even will everyone who thinks theyre a Christian. Only the genuine Christians the Real, True Christians will be taken.
Thus the Left Behind books, like all Rapture talk, become an exercise in separating and distinguishing Real True Christians from all of the inauthentic posers, apostates and backsliders, and from all of those who have been deceived by one of the many false strains of Christianity. Separating the wheat from the weeds is a major theme of those books (despite Jesus having said, explicitly, that this is not our job ).
The compulsion to elevate oneself as the righteous remnant, and to draw boundaries between Real True Believers and everyone else, is the hallmark of a particular strain of fundamentalist religion. It is a mark of religion that, I think, has replacedthe cardinal virtue with the cardinal sin substituting pride for love. That pride drives the obsessive need to constantly make and enforce distinctions between Us, the righteous few, and Them, the apostate hordes falsely claiming the name of our religion as they trundle down the broad path toward destruction.
Graeme Wood (and Adam Silverman) are particularly insightful in illustrating how this kind of righteous-remnant fundie ideology drives the leaders of ISIS, who regard themselves as holding a near-exclusive claim to being Real, True Muslims. Wood and Silverman both argue, convincingly, that this strain of religious belief has a tendency to implode, to consume itself as it draws ever-tighter boundaries between the righteous and the unrighteous in a legalistic game of musical chairs.
Heres how Silverman predicts this will play out for ISIS:
When you take this reality of everyone measuring everyone elses prayer mat to ensure it is the appropriate size, because everyone is an arbiter of what it really means to be Muslim and you combine it with the millenialistic/apocalyptic component, then for all its strength ISIS becomes quite weak. Baghdadi will eventually fail to do something that someone thinks he should do or he will do something someone thinks he should not do. Sooner or later someone will publicly charge him with failing to promote the good and forbid the evil and there will be a schism. Woods recounts that this has already happened within ISIS when he covers the break between al Maqdisi and ISIS. ISIS will eventually be at war with itself. When this happens the Sunni Muslims in Iraq, but I would also think in Syria and in other places, will stop being supportive. This is because ISIS will no longer be controlling the chaos, instead it will be part of its creation.
This kind of separatist/exclusivist, prideful fundamentalism will always be schismatic. Thats its nature . Thats true whether were talking about Real True Christians or Real True Muslims.Their entire self-concept is driven by the need to confirm their own authenticity by condemning the inauthenticity of others or, rather, by accusing others of inauthenticity and seeking or inventing new ways to support that accusation. And they can never stop doing that.
This is the defining characteristic of Real True Christians and of Real True Muslims and of Real True believers in any other religion or arena even of Real TrueHarry Potter Fans. Their particularism matters far more than whatever particulars they may choose to emphasize at any given time. What matters is the pride that they can manufacture by distinguishing themselves from others.
Real True Christians do not base their identity ontheir devotion to the Bible or to the Creeds, but on finding ways to elevate themselves above other Christians they can denounce as false, apostate, liberal and inauthentic. Real True Muslims do not base their identity on their devotion to the Koran or to the pillars of their faith, but on finding ways to elevate themselves above other Muslims they can denounce as kuffar .
What this means for the rest of us is that we cannot hope to learn anything about the substance, character or meaning of any religion, belief system, or fandom, by looking to those who proclaim themselves the Real True believers. They may be the ones talking the loudest about authentic Christianity/Islam/fandom, but they are bound to be the least reliable examples of what such authentic belief might entail.
by Fred Clark, slacktivist
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
Christ's message was characterized by inclusion. The Good Samaritan. The Centurion's ill servant. The adulterous woman. Christ welcomed everyone, and excluded no one.
Excluding others is about the only way to exclude oneself from Christ.
Loving everyone got himself murdered at the age of 33. I'm glad I didn't follow in his footsteps.
Do you have anything relevant to the seed?
If you read the book you'll see that that was the plan.
Call yourself what you will, my only issue with it is when you talk it but don't walk it. And as religions evolve, which they do (check your sects) the tenets are discussed, questioned and often re-applied to fit the time.
Belief and faith have a place in civilized society, but when presented in dogmatic fashion, people tend to get fucked over if not murdered.
Do you have anything relevant to the seed?
I believe you nailed it! (No pun intended)
Robert,
When you post something like this, I never know whether you are oblivious or disingenuous. If you have never heard a phrase akin to "Oh, they aren't real Christians because yada-yada"... then you have not been listening. ... Which, in your case, is quite possible...
You do realize, Robert... that there is nothing in the seed concerning either Islam or the government?
The seed has nothing to do with either? Your brain is frying, Robert!
That's a misrepresentation; what you conveniently regard as "condemnation of Christians," is more often and more likely condemnation of Christians, (Jews, Muslims, etc.), of RELIGIONISTS WHO TALK-THE-TALK, but, when in a position to WALK-THE-WALK, they fail to do so, rather, they make bullshit excuses OFTEN HYPOCRITICALLY "JUSTIFYING" THEIR FAILURE CITING RELIGIOUS TENETS.
I often wonder what happens to those who claim to have the only ticket to heaven... I mean, when they die, do they go to a special heaven, with only the members of their group? (Hal, my apologies, but I think you're going to be there too...)
I think it could be quite the eye-opening experience for them to learn that there are all kinds of beliefs in heaven-- I just hope I get to see all that Karma in action.
You have a serious reading-comprehension problem, Robert. Please re-read, with the understanding that the term "Real True Whatsis" is sarcastic.
The topic here is neither Christianity nor Islam. It is "gatekeeping".
Yeeeeesh!!
bf...
I despair... Please see previous Reply to Robert , who also has a reading-comprehension problem...
* * * sigh * * *
Heaven... Hell... whatever...
I very much doubt that our afterlife, if any, will look much like clouds or flames...
Perhaps because there is none?
Robert, Robert, Robert... "real true" is a topic in every religion, and has been since the second shaman argued with the first. Gatekeeping is present in every religion.
Gatekeeping is a particularly egregious error in Christians because inclusion is an essential part of Christ's message. That is Clark's subject, here. If you would like to write an article about gatekeeping among Muslims, please do! It's a different subject...
Oh that's not my idea of heaven at all!
But yes, there was once a Twilight Zone episode where Beethoven went to hell, and was put in a room with country music fans...
I'll see if I can find the book to read, Hal-- and don't worry, I don't think you'll be tortured for eternity in a place with no swearing, mind-altering drugs, etc. I think that heaven is peace and love. Period. What makes you happy? That's what heaven is going to be... And nothing hurts. To me, anyway.
I have to agree with Bob here about real/true. It is true in almost most Abrahamic religions. The issue is that the bible/Koran is used as a rule book. The only problem, is that many of the rules are a bit antiquated or obtuse and so interpretation is required. So while yes the Koran has a lot of quotes that seem radical... have you ever read Leviticus?
Leviticus20:9
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
The major difference between the most Christians and Jews is that they no longer practice these lines (although many will shun), but extremist Muslims will.
Bob,
I don't think that Robert is being obtuse. Those Muslims who chose to follow the most extreme version of the Koran are being Muslim. To say it isn't true Islam isn't true. The Koran does make these directions and they are adhering to the most tightly interpreted versions. And while there are extreme versions of both Christianity and Judaism, I haven't heard of mass slaughters these days, even though it is in our texts.
What is missing from this discussion is that there was a time during Salahdin, that Islam was far more enlightened than Christianity. Something went sideways from there.
Robert,
Mac does have an encyclopedic knowledge of both testaments, and while you might complain, when he reminds us of that, you can't produce the information as well as Mac. So mocking his knowledge isn't adding to the discussion, and I think you do have actual points that are valid.
Hal,
Are you saying that Job is in the New Testament? This is news to me.
Have I misunderstood you?
Agreed Flame.
Agreed; I cite those tenets that are utilitarian and humanistic and which offer rebuttal or chiding, not in a religious/religionist, doctrinal nor dogmatic way, rather in a common sense, "Golden Rule," "if-the-shoe-fits-wear-it-way.
And when you get on my case for citing the wisdom rather than the dogma, I explain this to you each time, not because I think you don't know better, rather to show you that I won't be worn down by your tactics.
There is great wisdom to be found in scripture; there is also fantasy and bullshit and fear-mongering, those used by power brokers to bastardize the belief in God to lucrative, pass-the-donation-plates-and-pay-your-membership-dues-or-roast-in-hell businesses, into holy wars and hate fests -- foisting all manner of crap to con and scare those who don't want to acknowledge that REALITY is an insecure place in which they must live.
And these charlatans ply the insecure with the promise of eternal reward or the threat of eternal damnation ever reminding the flocks of the contingencies pro and con for not taking "the word" literally.
And as much as I deem you a pain in the ass, I also deem you more than intelligent enough to know why I quote what I quote when I quote it.
Robert G, if you have the winning argument, you don't need to wrap it in a personal attack that only calls attention to the possibility that you don't believe your own bullshit.
Sorry, still no FR.
Couldn't agree more, flame.
I am going to have to disagree. First, I don't ever recall Mac ever saying what his faith is or isn't. What he gives is his interpretation on scripture. In that way, don't we all? (Hal excluded, LOL). I doubt he copies and pastes, since that would require him to have the knowledge of finding the applicable scripture, which would require knowing it. Most of us, could maybe remember bits and pieces the book of Genesis.. but not much more.
I can't speak to that... only Mac can.
As for religious scholars, I took many semesters of comparative religion when I did my undergrad. I found my professors very enlightening... so much so, that I kind of lost the faith a bit. Actual scholars know all religions and in that way, they are wealth of information and navigation, in a world where religion is a big part of everyday life.
That naively and myopically attempts to discredit every scholarly effort ever undertaken! If anything, an OBJECTIVE CRITICISM/STUDY OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, HISTORY AND DOGMA IS MORE LIKELY TO COME FROM WITHOUT RATHER THAN WITHIN.
To you it may be "self-righteous" when someone calls out bullshit or rudeness or a personal attack and cites an historical or scriptural reference-precedent repudiation of the same order but it's actually the opposite. Crediting a thought to its originator rather than to one's self is hardly being self-righteous.
You already stated your opinion about that it's still inaccurate.
And of course, you're the "pro" who is erudite enough to spot the "amateurs"?
Once again, I don't claim to be a professional or even a scholar with regard to religion ONE MORE TIME I KNOW A HYPOCRITE WHEN I SPOT ONE, THAT IS, ONE WHO TALKS "GOD" BUT VOTES, THINKS AND LIVES SELF-SERVITUDE, AND WHO IS OFTEN BIGOTED, ETHNOCENTRIC AND MEAN-SPIRITED.
But I'll give you a kind self-righteous response to those who cannot deal with dissent regarding one of their ideas even when the dissent is on-target
Matthew 7:6
Disagree with me all you like, but disagree with what I specifically state, rebut it with like specificity and not whether you think I'm qualified to to state it. Attack the message if you have a viable attack but stop attacking the messenger.
Wow I've heard a lot of thunderous generalizations over the years, but this is just about the top! You wouldn't be confounding Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church, by any chance? And you wouldn't have stopped history in 1514,by any chance?
Bumper-sticker "thinking"...
Gosh, Robert!
You are SUCH a clever wordsmith! I'm sure that everyone is gasping in wonder at your brilliance!
* * * yawn * * *
Somewhere in Leviticus there is a prescription against tatoos...
Robert,
Although I have "known" you for quite a long time, I don't know you, really... so I have no idea if your idea of college is that from experience or just from what you think.
When I went to university, "ComparativeReligion" wasn't anyone pushing theirfaith on me or selling it to themselves. And while my professors were very open about what their faith was as part of "full disclosure".
Political Science was never discussed. That was a whole different course.
Since I have kids in college now, I can tell you without a doubt that this is still the way things are.
Do you realize how "superior" you are behaving, Robert?
Cool !!
I guess that makes two of us...
Robert,
Not sure where you got that idea. Flame is just pointing out that very few people actually follow what Jesus preached. If they did, it would be a better place, no?
Robert and Perrie,
WHY IN GOD'S NAME are you talking about the government and the President? Why not wander off into the Buddhists of Myanmar or Rastafarians?
If your intention was to exemplify a gatekeeper... you've succeeded...
Sarcasm reigns.
You may be right to a degree, but objectively calling out that which is or appears to be "bullshit" has value you do it constantly often when something isn't at all bullshit but when you can't viably rebut it
No! But you should ask him why HIS RELIGION TELLS HIM IT IS! And you should report to the world where, when and by whom it is perpetrated, and, that is sanctioned and mandated by extremists who use "God" as a bullshit rationale!
If you and I and objective scholars don't challenge such atrocities the "believers" will live in their fantasy-world echo chamber unchallenged and cite the absence of condemnation as "tacit approval."
We call it the study of:
Deviant Behavior --actions or behaviors that violate social norms
Fanaticism
Criminology
History
The Holocaust, etc.
War Crimes
Ohooo... I didn't realize that this was a novel. I thought you meant Job from the bible. Funny premise though.
His moniker is quite accurate ...
First, I wasn't talking about the president, Robert was.
Second to recognize something isn't being a gatekeeper. If I said that all Muslims don't live up to my expectations of good people, as in by what my faith (or lack there of) prescribes) that would me being a gatekeeper. To recognize that some are piss poor at being good people (which is what the Koran does say to be), is no different than saying that some of my students are not performing up to their potential. It is a truth and I see no reason to pretty it up.
Some things have a value beyond dollars, which is why when you take a major, they make you take courses that are not within your major. I still got my degree in accounting/economics.
And comparative religion isn't a science... it's information, by which I can actually evaluate things for myself like this topic.
Wow... Irony. Always entertaining.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Have you started to speak in tongues, Robert? I have not a clue as to your point.
It gets eaten anyway, "You are what you do and eat"
No matter how badly we might wish to follow Christ, we cannot transform ourselves by sheer force of our will. The force destroys (eats) the lamb.
It is more along the lines that each tempers the other by equal force, eating all the lambs in the middle
As far as off planet dweebs, "I'm not I'm on Planet X looking for a dweeb who wears green fatigues" --Col. Jonathan "Jack" O'Neil (Kurt Russell in the movie "Stargate")
That is as close as you can get to speaking tongues today Perrie.
But since the seed is about gatekeeping...
But an astute person such as yourself should realize that I never cite those tenets to proselytise or promote religion, rather, I do so as a way of showing how religionists and those who pander to religionists, fail, and hypocritically so, to "walk-the-walk" while jibber-jabbering lip service to the hosanna frauds.
Metaphorically, the tactic (and it is a tactic) is called "Beating Someone With His Own Stick," meaning
Beyond that, quoting a piece of wisdom or anything appropo in the course of discussion is fair game regardless of who or what is being quoted.
To someone like yourself who holds a reverence for quips and snark, I can understand why quotesthat are more well-conceived put you off. The Pee Wee Herman response crumbles in the presence of actual and fair criticism.
Beating the crap out of someone by using his own stick is satisfying knocking the shit out of him with a feather is even more satisfying.
Sorry, still no FR.
And isn't that so un-Christian of me.
Horse's asses, when upwind from the horse's nose, can cause that to happen.
Particularly when they are walking around in circles..
Libraries must drive you bananas so much copied, pasted, printed and bound information.
'Course, bumper stickers are way more concise.
My dream scenario is to debate you before a group of neutral third parties.
The track only begins to twist when it pulls into your depot.
Sorry; still no FR.
But I digress.
This is absurdist humor.
Involuntary, of course...