So I found myself looking at something from an unfamiliar perspective the other night. A friend and I went and took in Ryan Paulson‘s show, Pentecostal Wisconsin, which I mentioned last week. Ryan’s blogrolled me too now btw, under the category of “religion.” The other blogs he links are humour and politics so I guess the bulk of my posts don’t fit either of those categories.
The show was part of a series at Crescent Fort Rouge United Church, and was followed by a panel discussing the question, “Given the reality of fundamentalism, is good religion possible?â€? Well, it turns out the answer was largely assumed — as one person said, “We’re doing it here, aren’t we? Having a dialogue?” General agreement, but the panel also covered several areas which made for good discussion, and I was glad we were able to hang around for the whole event.
One of the final few questions from the floor, and I wish I could recall the exact verbage… but in essence the question was how to talk to a fundamentalist. Now, it’s worth saying that the term fundamentalist wasn’t clearly defined in the context of the discussion, and I would generally say that the assumption of who was a “fundamentalist” would have been farther to the left than your average evangelical would have placed it. Generally, I think there’s a large number of evangelicals who are right-wing, but not like those people who are farther right, the “fundamentalists.” At least, that’s what they’d say. The folks in this crowd were largely moderates, and were wondering how they could hold a dialogue with people well off to the right, the fundamentalists. Just how could they go about reaching out to them?
I would have seen myself as coming from a fundamentalist background when I was younger, but I’d have said I came out of that and then became a nondenominational charismatic or neo-Pentecostal before leaving that for post-charismaticism or wherever I am now. As it happens, in this context Pentecostals were fairly clearly identified as fundamentalists…. and in the context of the discussion, they fit the bill.
And here’s where the surreal part comes in. This group was entertaining the idea of outreach or in some fashion, evangelism of fundamentalists. See? I’d never stood on that side of the evangelistic question. But it made sense…. these people had something to say that the fundamentalists need to hear. They need to be told to chill out and don’t be afraid to talk to people. Even people who don’t think the same way as them.
The answer is sad though. Personally, I was stumped. I’ve seen the world through fundamentalist eyes, and I still couldn’t come up with a good way of starting a dialogue. I do know that from that side of the fence there’s a desire to talk… but only to present a viewpoint and seek agreement with their version of the subject at hand. Yes, they want to talk, if they can convert. There isn’t really an openness to dialogue.
Of course I’m talking about Christian fundamentalists here, but they aren’t the only religious fundamentalists to which this applies. So I had the good fortune to see the world from a whole different angle, and it was just a little surreal… and I confess, I liked it. But I was a little surprised at what I found from that vantage point… finally, the realization of something that to many other people should have been patently obvious all along.
Update: Ryan Paulson has posted his thoughts about the event.
I think this applies to fundamentalists of all stripes; they have but one reason for conversation, that of conversaion to their point of view. Like you, I still can’t figure out how to talk to evangelicals and I came out of that milieu. I lived there for fourteen years. Perhaps I know the arguments too well. And then too, it feels as tho I’m banging my head against a brick wall … a fruitless, pointless and painful enterprise. Then I remember that a true conversation requires two sets of listening ears.
As one of the organizers of the Intersections series at Crescent Fort Rouge United Church and of this show, Pentecostal Wisconsin, I was very pleased by Ryan’s performance and of the ways in which the panel discussion following it got right into the issues. I sensed in the audience from the beginning and right through to the end a “connectedness” with what was happening – people were “engaged” in mind and heart with what was going on. Part of that, I think, came from Ryan’s play an his performance of it – honest, frank, genuine. Part of it came, I think, from the fact that Ryan’s “struggle” is, to some degree, everyone’s struggle. How do we put this all this together? What do we do with those pieces that just don’t fit with who we are ? The members of the panel reflected a rich pattern of spiritualities. Yet, no one claimed that his or her particular path was the “right” one for everyone else too. Each one had respect for where the other was, As Ryan implied in his comments … that was or is good religion. The question about how can we enter meaningful dialogue with “fundamentalists” is a haunting one.
Our purpose in running this series “Intersections: The Arts – Spiritualities – Contemporary Living” was not to say that we are better than other churches . Rather, it was, in part at last, to use an art form such as this play to present us with an issue and then to invite people from the community to come and engage with us in some first steps in the discussion. Friday night, those first steps were taken…we need to continue the discussion. At Crescent Fort Rouge we do not have the all the answers – thanks to Ryan and all who were there, panelists and audience for assisting us on our journies.
It was good that Ryan did not modify or soften his play for the setting. In the days since the play I have heard nothing but praise and good words about the evening. Friday evening at the break right after the play and again at the end following the panel and audience participation, a woman fromour congregation who, though not conservative theologically, would be considered as among the more “traditional” folk among us spoke to me words of strong affirmation for what was happening. “This is great.”, she said “This is very significant, very moving, truly spiritual.”
So how do we continue the dialogue ? Where do we go from here ? Thanks, Brother Maynard for your excellent comments.