FundyNutter

Contentious is not a very pretty word. And it is not a very flattering descriptive when used by the boy you are madly mad for and hope to marry some day. And for some of us, who are read up on our Proverbs, it brings to mind a drippy faucet and husbands sleeping out on the roof of the house to get away from you.

And yet, no one seems to disagree that I am kind of, sort of, well… contentious. Shhh, don’t say it so loudly. I don’t want anyone in the blogosphere to know that… yet.

But this is how it happened. I felt, in an internet conversation, as though some hard-core Christians types weren’t being given the same liberties that other people groups, or groups of people with a shared paradigm would be given.

I thought, “Hey! If I said that about the Unitarian Church I would be pummeled over the head with a dead fish!”

I thought, these are reasonable, liberal minded, gracious and intelligent ladies. If I just quickly explain in no-uncertain-terms that they are really wrong to limit the freedom of thought/choice/speech to people based on their religion, they will totally get it and say “Oh Traci! We get it now! Thanks for that!”

But. Well. I guess people don’t like no-uncertain-terms and contentious-ish conversing. We do love each other, at that internet hangout where the misunderstanding occurred, so no harm done. But I would like to attempt to re-state my case; I’d like to see if I could make it make a little more sense.

Premise 1: Fundamentalist Christians are a people group.
Premise 2: People groups differ in paradigm, one from the other
Premise 3: Paradigms are made up of internal information, or “stuff”
Premise 4: Paradigms determine decision making
Premise 5: People groups have rights
Premise 6: Decision making is a right

Ergo

Fundamentalist Christians have the right to make their decisions based on the stuff that forms their paradigm, i.e. the Bible.

Specifically, those hard-core fundies who decide that they will avoid Harry Potter because of the witchcraft element have the right to do so. To require them to read the book before they decide if it is right or wrong for them to read it is to negate their right to their world view. The many folks who abstained from the books/movies/merchandising tie-ins did so because their conscience compelled them to. For them, the scriptures that speak about steering clear of witchcraft were more important than what the book may have been allegorical to. To them, God didn’t need an allegory that used forbidden subject matter to increase His Glory.

And how do I feel about it? I abstained from the books because I live in a world filled with real true wicca practice and have a handful of friends who take it seriously. I worked at a pregnancy counseling center, attended a public university and at those places met many other people involved in wicca. I didn’t care if anyone else read Harry Potter, they are kids books for heavens sake. I saw it as a truly personal thing and not a groupthink thing. At that time, I didn’t want to cloud my perception of wicca by getting all involved in an entertainment version of a real religion that is (excuse the political incorrectness) abhorrant to God.

Um. But Traci. I thought you said you love Harry Potter.

Well, then there is that. I, uh, well, you see I graduated and got a different job and the movies looked really cool (I dig fantasy in literature and film) and my dearest (the one who married me even though he pointed out my contentiousness) thought they looked cool. So we watched the movies and really, really, really liked them.

I still believe firmly that people have the right abstain from things their worldview deems forbidden without being considered ignorant. They aren’t ignorant. They are differently informed.

Who needs a dictionary when you can define yourself by another’s insults! It was ten years ago and I stood up in class (dramatic? No, never.) And I said: “You are forgetting about the people in the world who think pornography is wrong because it is the graphic depiction of sex.”

Blank stares. “Heh?” looks.

And then “Who believes that?” The voice was incredulous. The person was another student in my History of Feminism class.

Always with an answer I said: “Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, Christians”

“Oh!” she said, with a sigh of relief. “Fundamentalist groups.”

That’s me. A fundamentalist groupie.

A handful of months ago (how many can you hold in your hand? Less than a handful of m&m’s more than a handful of nails, I guess) another friend was working of clarifying definitions for her dissertation. She used Christian, Pentecostal, and I think I remember her using fundamentalist as synonyms. I would say that Christians include Pentecostals and Pentecostals are among the fundamentalist Christians, while at the same time, according to the fellow student ten years ago, fundamentalist would be anyone adhering strictly to the fundamentals of their religion, so long as it is a religion of conservative values. (Yes, I am inferring that last part.)

So, I think I fit the category of fundamentalist as a part of the larger Christian Church, and fundamentalist as a part of the conservative world which holds to a religion with reactionary views. (You know, reactionary. As in wanting to turn back the political clock to a different era. Not reacts loudly to stimulus.)

But why, oh why am I a nutter, in the classical sense?

Well, one day about twelve years ago, I was minding my own business making photocopies at the local print shop where I worked. A seemingly homeless man of questionable stability paid for his photocopies and told me all about how he had to hurry and mail them to the Mayor’s office before it was too late. Then he told me all about his theory of how the Native American’s got to the continent. And I said: “I knew it! I knew I was right about that!”

Yup, the nice, brilliant, under-resourced, probably under-medicated, man confirmed me in the firm belief of one of my pet theories. When you need the homeless and unstable to back you up because no one else will. Well then. It must be time to get a blog.

I would like to know when developing the ability to say “no” became a Christian Virtue. I am pretty sure I remember a selfless Christ who told us to let people hit us on both sides of the face. And when our coats are stolen we are supposed to give that mean guy our shirts too. And then, while we were yet sinners, He died for us.

But nobody wants to sit in the nursery with my very cute baby? Because they are learning how to say no? And they are really proud of their achievement? Yay! Celebrate! Today I became less like Christ!

And then sometimes I say “Whoooo-wee! I’m exhausted! Why do I keep volunteering for [fill in the blank]?” and they say “because you don’t know how to say no.

Eh? I thought it was because I like to serve and I like to grow and I like to be challenged and I actually like preschool age children.

What I am getting at really is: when I say “Whoooo-wee! I’m exhausted! Why do I keep volunteering for [fill in the blank]?” maybe somebody could respond, “because you are getting more like Christ.”

And when I say: “Hey, would you be willing to volunteer for nursery twice a month this summer?” somebody could say, “I’d love to!”

[while the concept of volunteerism is pretty nutty to the average churchgoer, I promise some real tin-foil-hat nutterness in future posts. Oh, yes. Tin-foil-hat nutty"]