14. Fundamentalisme
Sekere kerke, gelowe en opvattings word soms as fundamentalisties beskryf. Wat beteken dit en waar lê die probleem?
Fundamentalisme is nie ‘n selfstandinge ideologie nie, eerder ‘n ingesteldheid oor die interpretasie van beginsels en reëls. Die term word dikwels gebruik om godsdienstiges (enige geloof) te etiketteer wanneer hulle ‘n rigiede, ongenuanseerde en letterlike interpretasie van hulle geloofsbronne nastreef. Die term word ook gebruik om die rigiede aanhang van ander dogmas en ideologieë te beskryf.
‘n Bietjie anders gestel: ‘n (Geloofs)beginsel word bv. in isolasie geïnterpreteer en daaromheen ontwikkel dan reëls en formaliteite wat self beginsels word, wat letterlik nagestreef word en die risiko inhou dat die werklike saak waaroor dit gaan afgeskeep kan word. Bysaak word verhef tot hoofsaak of daaraan gelykgestel. Perspektief verdwyn. Fundamentalisme was deur die jare ‘n groot bron van tweespalt in gemeenskappe en kerke.
Geloof en kerk word vanuit sommige ongeloofskringe per definisie as fundamentalisties beskou, onder andere op grond van wat hulle noem die gelowiges se “verdoemenis van almal wat nie soos hulle glo nie”.
Jesus het die sakrament van die nagmaal ingestel deur kort voor sy kruisiging saam met sy dissipels in ‘n bovertrek aan die tafel te sit en die pasga te vier. Die gebruik in daardie tyd was dat die brood aan tafel gebreek word en dat wyn om die beurt uit ‘n beker gedrink word. Jesus het na die wyn verwys as sy bloed en na die brood as sy liggaam en die opdrag gegee dat daar voortaan wyn gedrink en brood geëet moet word tot sy gedagtenis.
Die essensie van die nagmaal gaan om die eet van die brood en die drink van die wyn ter nagedagtenis aan die kruisiging. Dit gaan nie om die bovertrek, die tafel of die tipe houer waarin die brood of die wyn is nie. Tradisie en gebruike deur die eeue het egter die plek (tafel) en die wyse waarop die wyn gedrink word (uit dieselfde beker of uit ‘n beker) ‘n eie waarde gegee en ‘n essensiële deel van die nagmaalviering gemaak. ‘n Benadering wat ‘n tyd lank taamlik roeringe in die kerk veroorsaak het.
‘n Ander voorbeeld gaan oor kleredrag. Die beginsel van respek en toewyding wanneer ons in die naam van die Here vergader is uitgebrei en spesifieke kleredragreëls het ontstaan. Vyftig jaar gelede was ‘n baadjie en das “verpligte” kerkdrag vir mans. Ook by kerkraadsvergaderings is pakke klere gedra. Vrouens het hoede, rokke en sykouse aangetrek kerk toe - langbroeke was taboe. Kinders het selfs kerkklere aangehad by die jaarlikse katkisasie-piekniek. Kulturele gebruike rondom die begrippe netjies en gepas is dus self verhef tot beginsels, ook nadat die kulturele gebruike verander het.
Om oor na te dink: Het styl en gebruike dan geen waarde in die kerk nie? Wat is die kruks van die saak? Sê die klemverskuiwing vanaf wettiese reëls en gebruike (Ou Testament) na die liefdesgebod (Nuwe Testament) dalk vir ons iets in hierdie verband?
14. Fundamentalism
Certain churches, faiths, and views are sometimes described as fundamentalist. What does this mean and where does the problem lie?
Fundamentalism is not an independent ideology, but rather a disposition concerning the interpretation of principles and rules. The term is often used to label religious people (of any faith) when they pursue a rigid, unqualified, and literal interpretation of their sources of faith. The term is also used to describe the rigid adherence to other dogmas and ideologies.
Put slightly differently: a (faith) principle is, for example, interpreted in isolation and around it rules and formalities develop that themselves become principles, which are pursued literally and carry the risk that the real matter at hand can be neglected. Secondary matters are elevated to primary matters or equated with them. Perspective disappears. Fundamentalism has over the years been a major source of division in communities and churches.
Faith and church are by definition regarded as fundamentalist from some unbelieving circles, based among other things on what they call the believers’ “condemnation of everyone who does not believe as they do.”
Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by sitting at the table with his disciples in an upper room shortly before his crucifixion and celebrating the Passover. The custom at that time was to break bread at the table and to drink wine in turn from a cup. Jesus referred to the wine as his blood and to the bread as his body and gave the instruction that henceforth wine should be drunk and bread eaten in his remembrance.
The essence of the Lord’s Supper concerns the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine in remembrance of the crucifixion. It is not about the upper room, the table, or the type of vessel in which the bread or wine is placed. Tradition and customs through the centuries, however, gave the place (table) and the manner in which the wine is drunk (from the same cup or from a cup) its own value and made it an essential part of the communion celebration. An approach that for a time caused considerable upheaval in the church.
Another example concerns dress code. The principle of respect and dedication when we gather in the name of the Lord was expanded and specific dress code rules arose. Fifty years ago a jacket and tie were “compulsory” church attire for men. Suits were also worn at church council meetings. Women wore hats, dresses, and stockings to church — trousers were taboo. Children even wore church clothes to the annual catechism picnic. Cultural customs surrounding the concepts of neat and appropriate were thus themselves elevated to principles, even after the cultural customs had changed.
Something to reflect on: Do style and customs then have no value in the church? What is the crux of the matter? Does the shift in emphasis from legalistic rules and customs (Old Testament) to the commandment of love (New Testament) perhaps tell us something in this regard?