Edward Murrow once made a point that dissension does not mean

disloyalty; that when citizens stop speaking out in America, the

American spirit will die. Since hearing this, I have been reflecting much
on how this wisdom permeates not only the spirit of America, the spirit
of democracy, but easily adapts to the spirit of the Christian faith, and
more broadly stillto any journey, relationship, pursuit, or dynamic
expression with human involvement.
How easily we seem to fall into patterns of dogma, static tradition, and
stone cast rules. The concept of fundamentalism, and his myriad
representations, hinges upon a covering over on ignoring a facts, often
or always with a good intentions proudly (if falsely) displayed.
During the hysteria of in the 1950s commonly referred to as the red
scare, Joseph McCarthy, a junior senator of Wisconsin, started a
committee whose sole purpose was to expose and denounce
individuals in the political and entertainment industries who had
Communist sympathies. The principle that was marched under
during this time was a good one: protection of American citizens,
democracy, and freedom. Communism wasat this timeseen as a
violent threat to all of these, and thus a fundamental line was drawn as
to what constituted proper American sympathies and what did not.
Now, with the benefit of 60-odd years of hindsight regarding this
hiccough in American history, we can look back with something akin to
objectivity to examine the red scare posthumously. Having performed
such an autopsy with my students, I have come to the conclusion that
the illness of the movement was not in the motives that were made
public; to protect and preserve ones people and values is neither more
nor less than human nature. Rather, this is perhaps the oldest and
most obvious means of corralling people, and is the source of almost
all effective propaganda in the history of mankind. No, the virus in
McCarthyism was in the lack of facts and lack of transparency
surrounding the facts that would justify the actions of this time in the
attempt to preserve the American people and values. If-for example-it
was factual that everyone denounced and during the red scare was
indeed it communist and (and this is critical) had acted or planned to
act on these sympathies to the endangerment of Americans, and if
these facts were made known clearly to all involved in order to prevent
corruption in the process, then we would be able to say with conviction
that the actions of the senator and the House of Un-American Activities
where necessary and good.
Herein lies the rub. Citizens had no means to see the facts that relate
out against the accused, but were forced instead to accept the word of
those sue supposedly knew better than them with an absence of any

form of the justification other than authority worship, my country and

people were left without a choice, forced to accept the premises andby extension-Conclusions and actions of those in power.
Still, in the case of Sen. McCarthy, this was not defense enough.
Sooner or later someone was bound to find evidence that contradicted
at McCarthys, and this shadow of doubt, if let fester, soon to cast his
entire campaign and you abysmal darkness. The only solution would be
one and which simply questioning or examining the premises and/or
conclusions, simply asking for the facts would need to be suspicious at
best and treasonous at worst. Essentially, People would be moved into
a sort of a blind faith that would enable McCarthy to claim anything
against anyone without fear of retaliation. In short: dissent equaled
disloyalty.
I am convinced that this simple and understated equation is at the
heart of fundamentalism everywhere in all of its forms and it is this
property alone which gives fundamentalism its a fallacious flavor.
While having strong, passionate, and deep convictions is good, holding
them in such a way that challenges become abandonment and
questions become accusations causes a great stagnation and is the
inevitable cause of much unnecessary bloodshed-literal or otherwise.
Why, then, do that we allow for fundamentalism? Why would we allow
McCarthy the power that we did for as long as we dad? Why would
good people in Germany allow themselves to be swayed by the
authority of Hitler the citizens of North Korea by Kim Jong, numerous
racial supremacy groups by their doctrines, and-yes-fundamental
religious people toward their leaders, dogma, doctrine, and in trip it
take ans of holy texts? The comparison of dictators with conservative
Baptist is not intended to compare the atrocities of one with the other,
but the point out simply and frankly that the same means are behind
all whether it is stylin executing opposition or a congregation expelling
a questioner as if they were a hair attack, both utilize the method of
preventing the fox from being questioned, examined, or verified. To
believe that and Mas may not be a communist and to speak up about it
or to question a literal seven days creation both result in and sharp
consequences and fundamental groups. This, as I have mentioned, is
at the heart of fundamentalism. Just like questioning McCarthys fax
would lead your loyalty to America things seriously and critically
questioned, so challenging a point of doctrine will lead to your
faithfulness in Christ himself being questioned.
In these cases, the blurring of Lions goes beyond confusing dissent
with the disloyalty The natural and inevitable progression leaves to a
blurring in the church of doctrine with truth, Beliefs about God with

God himself, belief itself with certainty. In politics, we see a blower in

between issues and the party is self, between agreements with policy
or actions and patriotism, and again between belief and certainty
custom
Live then do we put up with this aspect of fundamentalism? Perhaps
the answer to this must be unique to some extent for each instance in
which it is found. Still, I am of the conviction that there is a pattern.
That if you strip back the layers of fundamentalism wherever at this
characteristic is found, soon or E eventually one can unmask fear.
We know we want the principles that are being promised, and we are
afraid that they cannot be delivered for various reasons, and so by
blind faith we attempt to simply assume the truth and actualization of
our hopes and aspirations, be they political utopia, racial deification, or
unique acceptance through the pearly gates. And hear the greatest
and most dangerous blurring of all occurs: the mistaken of ignorance
for faith.
Because if we cant be safe we can at least make a believe that we are
safe. If we cant be sure, we can at least pretend that we are sure and
if we cant know the absolute absolutely, and can water it down until
we can feel as though we do.
I would like to propose an alternative which preserves the beautiful
passion and dedication of fundamental systems well removing the
better blurs, reclusion, and the aggression of these systems. To
separate the wheat from the chef or to not throw the baby out, as they
say, with the bathwater. I believe that there are very few changes
necessary, though these changes do strike at the charred portions of
the heart of fundamentalism. They are closely related:
1. Enable and encourage questioning. This question is can and
should be used to reinforce beliefs, but may also lead to revision
or reshaping of beliefs as well.
2. Let the truth and defended itself. Anything we tack on to explain
the truth only it removes from its truthfulness. Speak what you
believe to be true, and accept challenges to your understanding
of truth, acknowledging that the truth is more than your
understanding. It is reasonable another person may be
accurately challenging your understanding of the truth, not the
truth itself. If they are attacking the truth itself, then it wont fall,
If theyre attacking an incorrect believe you had, it should fall.
3. Make a point to be humble always. We, none of us, knows
everything. The wiser we are, the more we realize that that is a
good thing.

Above all, we do need to preserve our traditions, but not at the

expense of growth; we need to hold our ground, but not at the expense
of imagination; we need to share our faith, but not at the expense of
listening as others do the same. In this way, we will together keep the
spirits of relationship Journey growth wonder and imagination alive and
well.