QuakerInfo.com Forum

[thanhkim]

Dear people.

I do not check here as often as maybe I should. You all have great discussions. But I wanted to bounce an idea off of you.

I am taking historiography this fall. I was hoping I could bounce an idea of mine off of you and see if you think it is something that I could do, and if you have suggestions for research I could look into.

I have been reading lately on my own about the Second Great Awakening, particularly Mormonism. I feel that the instability of the country at the time, regarding the changes with the Market Revolution as well as the actual changes that took place with the American Revolution contributed greatly towards people seeking fundamentalism, in particular being vulnerable to charismatic, authoritarian leaders. Also, there was a huge surge and adherence to apocolyptic expolanations and millenialism. I wonder if you could read the abstract to this article:

http://scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;322/5898/115

I was wondering if it would be possible to do a historiography that looks at these movements and research that I would find along with this article. I am not sure which focus to take, whether to look at Mormonism alone since it was so far-fetched and also created a closed community, or to look at the adherence to apocalypic things or rather to just look at the adherence to charismatic authoritarian leaders. But my primary application would be that when such changes take place in society, particularly with how democracy has been instituted in Iraq, we will see a rise in fundamentalism.

Do you think this is even feasable at the undergraduate level, and if so, do you have any suggestions for me? I do not know much about historiography. I see that a lot of people approach papers in this subject by comparing and contrasting two approaches to a historical event. But the professor of this course told me we can do a historiography of our own. I do not know if I would have access to the information I would need or even what information to look into. I also think it would be important to be able to analyze the growth of fundamentalism in Iraq since our invasion.

Thank you.

[michaeldavidjay]

Interesting project, but in the context of religious history, avoid the word fundementalism. The term is an anachronism in the period you are speaking of, and has changed popular meaning within my own lifetime. (fundementalist Islam seems an oxymoron)
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

[thanhkim]

I wonder if you can explain what you mean better?

[Kiahanie]

Welcome back, thanhkim. You always show up carrying interesting questions.

"Fundamentalism" back then meant a return to "original Christianity" in doctrine and institutional structure. I don't understand the reference to Islam

I am concerned that your thesis may not represent the breadth and fullness of the Second Great Awakening: "I feel that the instability of the country at the time, regarding the changes with the Market Revolution as well as the actual changes that took place with the American Revolution contributed greatly towards people seeking fundamentalism, in particular being vulnerable to charismatic, authoritarian leaders. Also, there was a huge surge and adherence to apocolyptic expolanations and millenialism."

I think there is little doubt that economic and political upheaval, and the concurrent shifts in the relationships between individuals and society, often (inevitably?) result in new cultural and religious attempts to place those changes in a larger context. While authoritarian leaders may take advantage of that upwelling, the broader social and religious motion has many other aspects.

For instance, the period that saw the birth of Quakers was a period of social and economic change in England. That period saw the rise of many movements that rejected ecclesiastical and secular authority, were heavily egalitarian and often utopian, often charismatically led, sometimes authoritarian.

A similar dynamic and response was in play during the SGA. The religious ferment resulted in many different forms, from the Campbellites to Mormons, agrarian communism, other experiments in spiritual communal living, the Oneida experiment, etc. SGA even heavily impacted American Quakerism. One common characteristic of these responses is often the desire to establish an original or purer form of Christianity (or other belief). The Ghost Dance cult of the Native Americans could be seen as another example of religious and cultural response to changing economic and social conditions.

The post Civil War social and economic changes gave rise to the Klan and related organizations, but those changes were also accompanied by the Women's Suffrage and Temperance movements. Currently, the most disturbing aspect of reaction to contemporary changes is the growth of extreme right-wing groups. They preach racial purity, the return of some mythic Anglo-Saxon culture, and often advocate a warrior cult. OTOH, progressive evangelicalism is growing, too. (cf. Jim Wallis' "Sojourners".)

Anyway, I think my point is that the religious and cultural response to economic and social change is multifaceted, and to describe any such period as characterized by authoritarian fundamentalism is to miss the richness human response and adaptation to change.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[michaeldavidjay]

And that 'original Christianity' was original to J. Calvin... it was, at first, a Presbyterian reaction to protestant liberalism.... it is mostly an early 20th century movement... with roots in the late 19th century. Most fundamentalist were hostile to wider Christianity -- and insist that the majority of Christianity is 'not Christian.' -- they were deliberately offensive when they speak of Roman Catholics.

The views of fundamentalism can be found in the creed produced at the Niagara Bible Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Bible_Conference, and in a series of papers published as [i]The fundementals[/i
http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/volume1.php

--

Modern use of this term is nothing more or less than a comparison of other groups to these... neo-Puritans. If you apply to the 18th century, it is anachronistic, if you apply it to Islam, you insult the Muslim... the term is rather problematic in general.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

[thanhkim]

I see. I guess I do need to be careful.

I find it very interesting though the SGA... it almost was a sort of nationalism, where people did not have a national identity. They used language of the Declaration of Independence and rhetoric of the revolution to talk about Christianity.

I also find it interesting how Americans at that time felt that America was I guess a new reformation... how the idea that the American Indians were descendents of Israel, this an idea that was widespread beyond Mormonism.

[thanhkim]

Guys... this is part of a literature review on Islamic terrorism... and I honestly see this description in many American Christian ideas, especially the Tea Party Movement.

I want to do some reading/research into how they may be connected, I mean the similarities. I honestly think that there are some common factors to both groups. The Tea Party Movement uses force within its means (the political process) and terrorists use force within their means.

The thinking of _________________ is rigid, primitive, and unsophisticated. They over-simplify complex issues and their thinking is extreme. The choice is limited to right or wrong or dividing the world into
good and evil; exploitive rich and exploited poor. Their analytical thinking is not developed.... Their thinking is built on rejection of the views of others; they possess the absolute right and the opposite view is heretic and apostasy. Also, their ideas are the right way for all ages and under all circumstances. The actions of ___________________ organizations are based on a subjective interpretation of the world rather than objective reality. They like to enforce their political views on others and whoever disagrees with them becomes an infidel. They like to convince their audience to see the world as they do. They are utopian in their thinking. They are looking for a nearperfect future.

[Diane]

I think the meaning associated today with 'fundamentalist' is that the person in question believes whatver he/she is told by an Authority, without giving the matter deeper consideration, questioning, or pausing to refer to the Spirit within.

Within the vast accumulation of groups who take the Judeo-Christian writings as their Scriptures, some are really fundamentalists in that sense, but I should hope the majority are not.

History shows us that fundamentalism is always aimed at political dominance, rather than as a means for personal spiritual advancement.

I feel that a person whose only justification for their actions is a passage from a book - no matter what the book - is hardly open to the leadings of the spirit: they are, as it were spiritually deaf.

If one does not listen, one cannot move forward, because the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.

An obvious example of how fundamentalism keeps us from moving forward as fellow humans is the issue of slavery, which "The Book" in Christianity, Judaism and Islam may be supposed to support, since they contain passages which might be quoted in justification.

In the Spirit, though, we believe slavery to be wrong.

Just so in Islam, as among those professing Christianity.

There are some Muslims who have little to their religion save the Book and their teachers who tell them what it means to be properly obedient to the religion. Of the same kind are the fundamentalists in America.

The extremist-fundamentalists of Islam are - as I understand it - a group called the Wahabis, who have been a trouble among Muslims for many centuries, but who have only fairly recently had their doctrine actively spread outside a small region within the Arabian peninsula.

It dismays me that any Friend should suppose the words Muslim and terrorist synonymous.
_________________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Kiahanie]

Welcome back, Diane. It's been a while. Good to hear your voice again.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi