Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00392)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "redrosarian" <redrosarian@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> > So you've met fanatically liberal Theosophists, who ferociously 
> > denounce anyone who doesn't look at HPB the same way they do?
> 
> Why, yes, on this very forum, for example. 

Really? I haven't. If this is a subtle dig at me, or Steve, or 
Brigitte, none of us is a Theosophist. If you're thinking of someone 
else, I can't imagine whom.  

What I'm saying is that 
> it's entirely possible for a liberal to be fanatical in his or her 
> stance, especially when one is guilty of imposing one's will over 
> another. 

There have been no "liberal takeovers" in religious history, in which 
fundamentalists are excluded, lose teaching positions, etc. Whereas 
fundamentalist takeovers and housecleanings are well attested.

So what becomes of a liberal who insists that their 
> perspective is right? 

?? It's not insisting that one's own perspective is right, but 
insisting that anyone who doesn't agree should be silenced or 
ignored, that makes for fanatical extremism. And in spiritual 
organizations, that's fundamentalist territory.

I see liberally-oriented people attacking 
> others and insisting that their point of view is right but for 
whom?  

You seem to be focusing exclusively on Theosophy, whereas I'm talking 
about the struggles within ARE, Baha'i, various Christian groups, 
etc. The dynamic is always that the fundamentalists, openly or 
implicitly, deny the liberals' right to exist within the faith 
community at all. They say "we're the only true [Baha'is, Mormons 
etc.] and those liberals are infidels." Liberals don't take any such 
exclusive stance towards fundamentalists, denying their right to a 
place at the table. You might look at Whitherare for documentation 
of an organization going through a meltdown of fundamentalist 
takeover/liberal protest. It's enlightening and saddening at the 
same time. On the biggest scale, what happened to the Southern 
Baptists in the 80s and 90s is a horrifying example of a fundie 
takeover in which liberals and moderates were forced out.

> It is right for them, maybe not for others. Regardless of whether 
> one can find a fanatic in a liberal or a fundamentalist, the 
> difference that makes them non-fanatical is tolerance.

That's right. And only fundamentalists are so intolerant of others 
in their own faith communities as to deny them the right to belong.
> 
> It is my impression that your definition of a fundamentalist is the 
> same as a narrow-minded fanatic. Am I correct?

Absolutely not! Fundamentalism is a complex of attitudes and 
positions that has been extensively discussed by scholars. For 
example, Martin Marty's multi-volume study of fundamentalisms 
published by the U. of Chicago, or Karen Armstrong's more concise The 
Battle for God. I just posted some information about this recently; 
using fundamentalism in the search will lead you to them. There are 
plenty of narrow-minded fanatics of all stripes. But fundamentalism 
is particular and has clearly defined markers.
> 
> If so, I do not necessarily see it that way all the time. Suppose, 
a 
> person is new to Theosophy but he or she wants to stick with the 
> basics, the fundamentals, ie. The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled 
> and then study Olcutt and Judge. Would you call this person a 
> fundamentalist because he is beginning with Theosophy 101? 
That is 
> an insult.
No! Anyone who studies what s/he chooses and allows others the right 
to do the same is not a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist feels the 
need to harangue others that they ought to pursue the same approach, 
and if they don't they're not genuine [Theosophists, Baha'is, 
whatever.] As for insults, despite what some people seem to 
think, "Fundamentalist" is not mere name calling and is not 
inherently insulting. Some folks are proud to be fundamentalists, 
e.g. the SBC takeover crowd.

> 
> Suppose, a person is well-aquainted with Theosophy but he or she 
has 
> made the free-will choice to stick with the fundamentals. Do you 
> think this individual is automatically classified as a 
> fundamentalist,

No, again, look to the criteria enunciated by such scholars as Marty, 
Armstrong, and Lawrence. Fundamentalism has nothing to do with such 
a situation as you discuss above. No wonder we're talking at cross-
purposes here.  

a title worthy of scorn and harsh criticism?
> 
People have picked up the fact that religious liberals and moderates 
feel scorn for fundamentalism because fundamentalists have wrought 
such havoc in the world. But that doesn't mean the term is 
inherently worthy of scorn; some fundamentalists wear it proudly.

> Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the fundamentalist stance if the 
> objective is to keep the original teachings intact without 
> distortion. 

There are Leadbeaterian fundamentalists as well as Blavatskian. It's 
not about original teachings versus later, but what kind of authority 
is granted to whichever religious texts are considered central. "CWL 
said so, and if you question his reliability you're evil and should 
be ignored" is just as fundamentalist as the same stance vis-a-vis 
HPB.

I appreciate the liberal stance because it encourages us to think 
outside the box and realize that Theosophy is not a static 
> teaching but a dynamic one. The liberal keeps the fundamental on 
his or her toes by making sure Theosophy does not turn into a dogma, 
a dead doctrine. This is a more enlightened approach that a liberal 
> can bring to Theosophy. And tolerance is the key that unites both 
> sides.

I think you're confusing "fundamentalist" with "conservative" here.  
Those you are calling fundamentalists are not necessarily crusading 
to exclude others, or silence other views, or enforce doctrinal 
conformity. They just want to preserve the tradition. That's not 
fundamentalism at all. Fundamentalism aggressively attacks 
modernity, defines science and scholarship as enemies of their brand 
of spirituality, and identifies non-fundamentalist adherents of the 
faith tradition as enemies within.

It's just a tiny minority of Theosophists, although plenty might be 
theological conservatives.
> 
> > But since fundamentalism insists on there being one right
> > interpretation that must be recognized and enforced, no
> > fundamentalist can attain such mental freedom. "We true 
believers"
> > must always reach the same conclusions.
> 
> No argument there but that's when fundamentalism degenerates into 
> fanaticism.

Again, look to definitions and I think you'll find our seeming 
disagreement is based on your not using the term in the commonly 
accepted scholarly sense. Fundamentalism *is* fanatical, inherently.
> 
> 
> Independent thinkers aren't suppose to struggle, are they?

Where did you get that idea? I can't think of a single original, 
independent thinker who hasn't been forced to struggle for a 
hearing.  

Is the 
> struggle based on ego validation as some have alleged? 

Was HPB struggling to be heard over the loud objections of her 
spiritualist or Christian critics, just to validate her ego? Or was 
it because she felt her message contained something of such 
significance that it was worth struggling to get it out?

Or something 
> higher? A spiritual dissatisfaction that there's more to Theosophy 
> than meets the eye. Or something lower, a motive to discredit 
> Blavatsky and all who follow in her footsteps?

Don't know what struggle you're talking about here. Personally, I 
just gave up on trying to remain an active Theosophist, or ever write 
another word about HPB, rather than have to fight for my right to 
belong without harassment and insults. But in ARE I participated in 
a struggle against a takeover that would restrict the contents of the 
library, books, magazines, and conferences to a strictly Christian 
agenda. Not for ego validation; I had nothing personal at stake.  
Not to discredit Jesus or Cayce. Not out of spiritual 
dissatisfaction. Simply out of an appreciation of what ARE had 
traditionally been, a haven for spiritual diversity and free thought, 
and concern at the terrible pain suffered by staff and members 
victimized by the Jesus-fanatics' "housecleaning."

> 
> My all-time favorite quote of HPB's is: "...All original thinkers 
and 
> investigators of the hidden side of nature, were and are, properly, 
> Theosophists ... Be what he may, once that a student abandons the 
old 
> and trodden highway of routine, and enters upon the solitary path 
of 
> independent thought – Godward – he is a Theosophist; an original 
> thinker, a seeker after the eternal truth with 'an inspiration of 
his 
> own' to solve the universal problems..."

Wonderful quote, that.
> 
> For the liberal, independent thinker, this ought to be a piece of 
> cake to think outside the box but for the fundamentalist, 
independent 
> thinker, 

That's a contradiction in terms. I think you mean the independent 
theologically conservative thinker.

it's a challenge not to distort the teaching while being 
> open to new ideas. Still, it's a challenge to think about 
Theosophy 
> in higher and deeper layers for both the liberal and the 
> fundamentalist.
> 
> What does it profit the liberal or the fundamentalist to be stuck 
on 
> the lower mental planes? That's what I meant by mental 
> crystallizations. They've hit the proverbial wall and neither type 
> can go any higher. Fundamentalists aren't the only ones 
susceptible 
> to this mental disease.

It's inherent in religious liberalism that it's open-ended. Why do 
you perceive liberal thinkers to be unable to go higher? Does, for 
example, Karen Armstrong say the same thing over and over in her 
books, or is she always moving forward into new territory? Ditto for 
another liberal Christian writer I like very much, Diana Eck.
> 
Happy weekend,

PJ